From Atheist To Catholic

[Ash Wednesday]

[Hassan]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1811770' date='Mar 19 2009, 03:38 PM']First of all, you should not be so hasty. Your initial question clearly implies that I have insisted upon my own religion when in fact I did not. Either quote my insistence on Catholicism in the post you are pointing to or apologize for your misrepresentation of my argument. Thanks.[/quote]


Don't be a Drama Queen. Thanks.

You did not say "a God" but "God". When individuals speak of believing in God or any real reference to God who are they speaking of? Would your comment be even almost coherant applied to anything one could label as "God" if they so chose? If I decided that I believed in the God Chad, he does nothing but lay around watching Jerry Springer in another dimension and has absolutly no impact on this universe in any way would your comment make sense?

I assumed that when you said "God" you were refering to a general idea of a being, whom your worship, but applicable to a marginally larger conceptualizations of this being. If this was totally off the mark I will apologize, if not then I feel no need to apologize for misrepresenting your argument.


[quote]The only objection to cogito ergo sum is a variation on the so-called Skeptical Hypothesis; yes, of course Descartes' assertion here is not provable to the extent of empirical certainty, which is exactly the point. A practical life is impossible - or at least extraordinarily difficult - to live with intellectual honesty when one considers oneself a mere BIV. Thus cogito ergo sum is a presumption treated necessarily as fact.[/quote]

I don't know what the skeptical hypothesis is.

An individual could question the deductive validity of the argument (as there is none), that it is unabashedly question begging, that the "I" is a unity (as Hume points out), or even the fact that Descartes very notion of "I" is really no longer applicable (See Searle's criticism of Descartes "Immaterial" substance as no longer applicable) to think of only a few problems with it. It is a vague assertion and really nothing more.


[quote]My syllogistic formatting of my argument:

I.
A. Both reality and truth are defined by that of the universe which exists independently of any consciousness in the universe
B. For that of the universe to exist independently of any consciousness in the universe is for that of the universe to exist “objectively”
C. Therefore, both reality and truth are defined by that of the universe which exists objectively

This first syllogism merely serves to offer a logical proof for the common definition of “objectivity”. Screwing around with the terms laid out for objectivity is utterly fruitless and immediately renders any subsequent critical thought process superfluous. That truth is defined by that which correlates with reality is an absolutely necessary presumption; an agreed upon given by every dictionary, to say nothing of commonsense.[/quote]

what do you mean by "reality" and "truth" and how do you make distinctions between them. What do you mean by "of the Universe"


[quote]II.
A. Both reality and truth are defined by that of the universe which exists objectively
B. According to atheism, neither meaning nor value exist objectively
C. Therefore, according to atheism, there exists neither meaning nor value that is real or true.


This second syllogism presumes a necessary and universally accepted stance of atheism; that, since consciousness is required for things to be labeled “meaningful” or “valuable” and there is no eternal consciousness, then meaning and value are purely and strictly subjective – that is, although seeming to be “real” and “true”, the concepts of meaning and value are actually a convincing illusion of evolution and will cease to exist upon the inevitable and unavoidable death of the last consciousness.[/quote]


Firstly there are no universally accecpted stances of atheism other than the most obvious.

What do you mean by "meaning" and "value" and how do they not exist in an atheistic world view?

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1812670' date='Mar 20 2009, 09:59 PM']I assumed that when you said "God" you were refering to a general idea of a being, whom your worship, [b]but applicable to a marginally larger conceptualizations[/b] of this being. If this was totally off the mark I will apologize, if not then I feel no need to apologize for misrepresenting your argument.[/quote]

If you acknowledge that you knew that "God" was meant in the general sense rather than the specifically Catholic God, then you also admit you were deliberately misleading (dishonest) to imply that I was referring specifically to Catholicism in the argument.

[quote]I don't know what the skeptical hypothesis is.

An individual could question the deductive validity of the argument (as there is none), that it is unabashedly question begging, that the "I" is a unity (as Hume points out), or even the fact that Descartes very notion of "I" is really no longer applicable (See Searle's criticism of Descartes "Immaterial" substance as no longer applicable) to think of only a few problems with it. It is a vague assertion and really nothing more.[/quote]

[url="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/brain-vat/"]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/brain-vat/[/url]

[quote]what do you mean by "reality" and "truth" and how do you make distinctions between them. What do you mean by "of the Universe"[/quote]

Although atheists inevitably are forced to come up with an abstract distinction between the two, I am not. Reality and truth are paired together (much like meaning and value) for that purpose. I go by commonsense, which every dictionary I have ever seen agrees with. Reality and truth correspond to one another to the extent that the terms are virtually synonymous. You've implicitly acknowledged that, which is very good.

[quote]Firstly there are no universally accecpted stances of atheism other than the most obvious.[/quote]

True. And the most obvious is exactly what is meant by the phrase "according to atheism" in every syllogism. If it makes you feel more comfortable, you may therefore substitute the phrase you find troubling for "lacking the belief in God".

[quote]What do you mean by "meaning" and "value" and how do they not exist in an atheistic world view?[/quote]

Please re-read the syllogisms. The argument focuses on the existence of [i]objective [/i]meaning and value. That is, that meaning and value are not merely subjective illusions caused by a particular state of a meaningless evolution.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1813203' date='Mar 21 2009, 08:30 AM']If you acknowledge that you knew that "God" was meant in the general sense rather than the specifically Catholic God, then you also admit you were deliberately misleading (dishonest) to imply that I was referring specifically to Catholicism in the argument.[/quote]

Alright



[quote][url="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/brain-vat/"]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/brain-vat/[/url][/quote]

Descartes cogito was an attempted refutation of the skeptical hypothesis, I fail to see how that is an objection to it or the points I mentioned.



[quote]Although atheists inevitably are forced to come up with an abstract distinction between the two, I am not. Reality and truth are paired together (much like meaning and value) for that purpose. I go by commonsense, which every dictionary I have ever seen agrees with. Reality and truth correspond to one another to the extent that the terms are virtually synonymous. You've implicitly acknowledged that, which is very good.[/quote]


You made a distinction between the two I did no. I am asking what you mean by the terms and why you make a distinction between the two.



[quote]True. And the most obvious is exactly what is meant by the phrase "according to atheism" in every syllogism. If it makes you feel more comfortable, you may therefore substitute the phrase you find troubling for "lacking the belief in God".[/quote]


The most obvious I was refering to was an absence of theistic belief. Other than that there is no universalism


[quote]Please re-read the syllogisms. The argument focuses on the existence of [i]objective [/i]meaning and value. That is, that meaning and value are not merely subjective illusions caused by a particular state of a meaningless evolution.[/quote]

And I am asking what you mean by those terms.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1813540' date='Mar 21 2009, 08:44 PM']Alright[/quote]

If then you admit to deliberate deception, yet refuse to apologize, why should I spend my time on your posts?

[quote]Descartes cogito was an attempted refutation of the skeptical hypothesis, I fail to see how that is an objection to it or the points I mentioned.[/quote]

The link explained the skeptical hypothesis and the BIV-scenario. As I said, Descartes' idea cannot be proven, but is certainly presumed nevertheless. This should not be dragged out; questioning the validity of the existence of one's own thoughts is fruitless and absurd.

[quote]You made a distinction between the two I did no. I am asking what you mean by the terms and why you make a distinction between the two.
...
And I am asking what you mean by those terms [meaning and value].[/quote]

As I said (again), reality and truth are interchangeable terms, yet used in different ways by some (e.g., reality is what is, while truth is our perceptions of what is), and are thus listed together for that purpose, much like the terms "meaning" and "value". Something is valuable inasmuch as it is meaningful and vice versa. Meaning and value are [i]qualitative judgments [/i]made by a consciousness.

[quote]The most obvious I was refering to was an absence of theistic belief. Other than that there is no universalism[/quote]

And (yet again) I repeat that the absence of the belief in God is the very "universal" that I am referencing in each syllogism; hence, my previous recommendation that you replace the phrase you find troubling with the substitution "lacking the belief in God".

[Hassan]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1813552' date='Mar 21 2009, 10:27 PM']If then you admit to deliberate deception, yet refuse to apologize, why should I spend my time on your posts?[/quote]

I said alright, that is yes, you are correct. I felt it was fair use at the time, I am incorrect.

If it will allow us to move on, I apologize for misrepresenting your "argument".



[quote]The link explained the skeptical hypothesis and the BIV-scenario. As I said, Descartes' idea cannot be proven, but is certainly presumed nevertheless. This should not be dragged out; questioning the validity of the existence of one's own thoughts is fruitless and absurd.[/quote]

And I have pointed out that what Descartes meant by "I" is no longer coherent. The same with Hume's objection.



[quote]As I said (again), reality and truth are interchangeable terms, yet used in different ways by some (e.g., reality is what is, while truth is our perceptions of what is), and are thus listed together for that purpose, much like the terms "meaning" and "value". Something is valuable inasmuch as it is meaningful and vice versa. Meaning and value are [i]qualitative judgments [/i]made by a consciousness.[/quote]


Fine



[quote]And (yet again) I repeat that the absence of the belief in God is the very "universal" that I am referencing in each syllogism; hence, my previous recommendation that you replace the phrase you find troubling with the substitution "lacking the belief in God".[/quote]


You claimed that a number of things, extending beyond an isolated rejection of theism, are the universal assertion of atheism. This is absurd. The larger problem, is what you mean by "meaning" and "value"

Edited March 22, 2009 by Hassan

[Ziggamafu]

If it helps you, forget Descartes'; leave it at the fact that you presume your own existence (in practice if not in advertence) as "fact" even though your own existence cannot be empirically verified - that is the parallel that I am drawing with the God. God is presumed in practice, even if not in advertence, which is what the syllogisms demonstrate.

I have already explained "meaning" and "value" as qualitative judgments of a consciousness.

My proven assertions demonstrate a number of things that logically follow the lack of a belief in God (hence the use of the phrase, "according to atheism..."). These are logical proofs built upon nothing other than atheism itself. Do you know how logic works? The syllogisms build off of one another.

Atheists are intellectually dishonest and the arguments of atheists are hypocritical. That is a logical fact, as proven by my argument. For the atheist lacks a belief in God - thus lacking a source and standard of objective meaning and value - yet inevitably, by the demands of practicality, engages in various disciplines with public passion, thereby presuming a value that is real and true - [i]objective [/i]- and stretches beyond the subjective confines of a mere evolutionary illusion.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1813941' date='Mar 22 2009, 10:02 AM']If it helps you, forget Descartes'; leave it at the fact that you presume your own existence (in practice if not in advertence) as "fact" even though your own existence cannot be empirically verified - that is the parallel that I am drawing with the God. God is presumed in practice, even if not in advertence, which is what the syllogisms demonstrate.[/quote]

I don't know what you mean by my "existence" or why it cannot be empirically verified.

[quote]I have already explained "meaning" and "value" as qualitative judgments of a consciousness.[/quote]

Alright. I suspect you will have to revise this later on but for now, fine.

[quote]My proven assertions demonstrate a number of things that logically follow the lack of a belief in God (hence the use of the phrase, "according to atheism..."). These are logical proofs built upon nothing other than atheism itself. Do you know how logic works? The syllogisms build off of one another.[/quote]

You have not proven anything as of yet. I assure you I know how logic works, I have never seen a modern logic text seriously cover the syllogistic system you are using or any modern logicians use them (In fact I have not seen such a use since I had to do a paper on Al Ghazali's philosophy) but I am willing to assume that, stripping away the considerable verbiage they could be translated into an acceptable logical syntax and be taken as deductively valid. The problem isn’t (necessarily) your logic but your assertions, a number of which are highly contestable.

[quote]Atheists are intellectually dishonest and the arguments of atheists are hypocritical. That is a logical fact, as proven by my argument.[/quote]
You may wish to be more humble about the strength of your argument.

[quote]For the atheist lacks a belief in God - thus lacking a source and standard of objective meaning and value - yet inevitably, by the demands of practicality, engages in various disciplines with public passion, thereby presuming a value that is real and true - [i]objective [/i]- and stretches beyond the subjective confines of a mere evolutionary illusion.[/quote]


Let's look at a few of the soft spots of your argument.

I am still not clear what you mean by "by that of the universe which exists independently of any consciousness in the universe"

I understand you wish to establish a definition of objectivity not dependent on consciousness but what you mean when you claim that this is that by which "reality and truth" are "defined" is vague, as is what you mean by saying that they are defined by that (?) "of the universe" which exists independently of consciousness.

You assert that by "meaning and value" you mean a qualitative judgment of the consciousness (why you added that qualification I do not know, as though there were some sort of qualitative judgment which is not conscious?) and that "according to atheism" (which again, is a meaningless phrase, I will assume you mean something more accurate like according to post enlightenment western materialism) neither meaning nor value exist objectively. Yet this is simply false. Qualitative judgments of course exist objectively. It is an objective fact that conscious agents do make qualitative judgments.

Let's pause there for a moment. I think that, by your definitions, your argument fails at the second syllogism. At least that is it's most obvious failing (at that point) setting aside more technical critiques.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1815977' date='Mar 24 2009, 11:26 PM']I don't know what you mean by my "existence" or why it cannot be empirically verified.[/quote]

You cannot put your own consciousness under a microscope. You cannot prove that you are not a brain in a vat. Your own existence is an unverifiable presumption; you could be an npc in an advanced mmo and you would have no way of knowing.


[quote]You have not proven anything as of yet...The problem isn’t (necessarily) your logic but your assertions, a number of which are highly contestable.[/quote]

The assertions necessarily follow each other, so the first two syllogisms are, as far as I can tell, the only two with premises you can question.

[quote]You may wish to be more humble about the strength of your argument.[/quote]

I'm being deliberately provocative.

[quote]I am still not clear what you mean by "by that of the universe which exists independently of any consciousness in the universe"

I understand you wish to establish a definition of objectivity not dependent on consciousness but what you mean when you claim that this is that by which "reality and truth" are "defined" is vague, as is what you mean by saying that they are defined by that (?) "of the universe" which exists independently of consciousness.[/quote]

In other words, anything which owes its existence to a consciousness within the universe is strictly subjective; it has no objective reality relative to the universe. I word this in such a way that avoids begging the question in regards to God's own mind and the universe that sprang from it.

[quote]You assert that by "meaning and value" you mean a qualitative judgment of the consciousness (why you added that qualification I do not know, as though there were some sort of qualitative judgment which is not conscious?) and that "according to atheism" (which again, is a meaningless phrase, I will assume you mean something more accurate like according to post enlightenment western materialism) neither meaning nor value exist objectively. Yet this is simply false. Qualitative judgments of course exist objectively. It is an objective fact that conscious agents do make qualitative judgments.[/quote]

I told you that "according to atheism" could be replaced with "lacking the belief in God". That qualitative judgments are made does not mean that the qualities judged are objective. The act of judging is objective; the qualities discerned (that is, the very things that motivate the judgment in the first place) are subjective. When I say "theism is better than atheism", the fact that I made a statement is objective but the process of the judgment (that is, the discernment of qualities) is subjective. In other words, lacking the belief in God, "qualities" (read: meaning and value) do not have objective existence. "Qualities" only began to exist subjectively with the first consciousness and "qualities" will cease to exist subjectively upon the death of the last consciousness; they have no objective existence. In absence of any consciousnesses to discern it, radio waves carrying the sounds of Mozart will be no more "music" than the sounds of an asteroid colliding with a moon; both will merely be noise. If God exists, however, then meaning / value is objective since an eternal consciousness is the source and standard.

[quote]Let's pause there for a moment. I think that, by your definitions, your argument fails at the second syllogism. At least that is it's most obvious failing (at that point) setting aside more technical critiques.[/quote]

You're going to have to do better than that.

[kafka]

Here is my independent musings. I am not a logician. I've read your posts Hassan and Ziggamafu with reservations and critically, disagreeing with you both. I really dont know if this here is relevant but I will post it anyway:


I know therefore I am &
I am therefore I know are mutually exclusive and both valid within the totality of finite human nature.
They are a circle dependent on one another since man is soul-body-spirit. Man is not a monad (angel), and man is not an animal.
Man knows in the totality of his existance including the spiritual and the physical. Man cannot be reduced merely to his transcendant musings nor to his historical concrete actuality. His knowledge cannot be reduced merely to the empirical nor merely to the metaphysical. Merely a priori or merely a posteriori.

The same is true of this God we talk about Whose knowledge of; cannot be reduced to syllogisms nor reduced to natural science. Our experience of God cannot be reduced to the deepest part of us namely our personhood or subjectiveness which is the ultimate principle of our being residing of the human soul, nor can he be reduced to the experiential animal sense-element which completes us. Both have a role to play and are in a sense equally important in our experience of God. We cannot know God unless we were established by Him in history, just as we cannot truly know Him unless He moved us in our souls by His grace. This mutual exclusivity is ultimately a mystery. Man is a mystery since he is modified and subsumed by His source who is God.

Grace residing in the depths of our soul does not exist without a historical grounding. Nor does grace touch us if it were not for God touching our soul directly independent of physicality. Let the influence of Plato's extreme dualism upon Church theologians/philosophers: die.

To reduce the experience of God to one or the other is shortsighted. If one would reduce the experience of God in an extreme way to one or the other, then Jesus Christ would make no sense. Then the sacraments would make no sense. Sacred Scripture would make no sense.

This said there is an order in human nature, namely the soul is greater than the body, and spiritual things are greater than physical things as Paul expounded on in Corinthians. Yet to reduce man to one or the other is a rejection of one's own human existance.

Edited March 27, 2009 by kafka

[kafka]

just want to add here, that my thoughts above are very incomplete, and are presupposed that the one reading is basically a Christian or seeking God.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1816876' date='Mar 26 2009, 09:19 AM']You cannot put your own consciousness under a microscope.[/quote]

That does not mean it is not an empirical phenomena which has the potential to be studied and examined like any other. I follow Searle's biological naturalism so I doubt we are going to agree on this point. I'd recommend this discussion be put on hold or moved to another thread but if you wish to challenge it I will defend Searle's position.

[quote]You cannot prove that you are not a brain in a vat. Your own existence is an unverifiable presumption; you could be an npc in an advanced mmo and you would have no way of knowing.[/quote]


There is no logical reason personal existence cannot be demonstrated and the question of epistemological solipsism is another matter. They could be linked to an extent, thinking of Heidegger I suppose.




[quote]The assertions necessarily follow each other, so the first two syllogisms are, as far as I can tell, the only two with premises you can question.[/quote]


lol, I am granting for the sake of argument that the arguments follow simply because I am quite sure the argument is weak enough that it fails even assuming, a highly doubtful assumption, that the arguments are valid and frankly I do not feel like investing the time to examine the logical syntax in detail. I am by no means an expert on syllogisms. As I said it is a highly outdated system, Aristotle's logic has serious logical flaws as seen in modern quantifier logic, and I have not studied it since I had to look into Al Ghazali's philosophy. With the qualification in mind I will note that I believe that Aristotelian syllogisms operate with relatively simply propositions of strict subject predicate form. I am fairly confident that you have applied to this archaic system numerous assertions which are far to technical to be handled by the apparatus of Aristotelian logic. You wish to use an Aristotelian format because it is simple I suppose and you don't need to supply proofs to demonstrate the validity of your argument but do not seem able to stick to propositions appropriate for the Aristotelian logical apparatus.



[quote]I'm being deliberately provocative.[/quote]


Unfortunately without grounds.

[Hassan]

[quote]In other words, anything which owes its existence to a consciousness within the universe is strictly subjective; it has no objective reality relative to the universe. I word this in such a way that avoids begging the question in regards to God's own mind and the universe that sprang from it.[/quote]

There are plenty of things which "owe" their existence to a conscious agent and derivatively consciousness but which are objective. The computer you are typing on being a prime example.



[quote]I told you that "according to atheism" could be replaced with "lacking the belief in God".[/quote]


Whatever synonyms you use it will not help.

[quote]That qualitative judgments are made does not mean that the qualities judged are objective.[/quote]

I don't know what you mean by this. What "qualities"? I think you are a bit confused about what qualitative mental states are but that is just a suspicion.

[quote]The act of judging is objective; the qualities discerned (that is, the very things that motivate the judgment in the first place) are subjective.[/quote]
alright

[quote]When I say "theism is better than atheism", the fact that I made a statement is objective but the process of the judgment (that is, the discernment of qualities) is subjective.[/quote]

It is subjective in a sense, but not in the sense that the conscious judgment is not objective.


[quote]In other words, lacking the belief in God, "qualities" (read: meaning and value) do not have objective existenc[/quote]

Wait right here. Now you are defining "meaning and value" as "qualities"?

You originally defined "meaning and value" as "meaning and value are qualitative judgments made by consciousness" now meaning and value are simply "qualities" what in the world you mean by that I do not know. If you mean "qualities" in the traditional philosophical sense than this is quite distinct from meaning and value, they are nothing an atheistic world view would not permit, and your argument (why not) falls apart. If you do not mean qualities in the traditional sense you need to be clear what you mean by it.









[quote]You're going to have to do better than that.[/quote]


lol.

[Hassan]

bump for rexi.

[ardillacid]

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='26 March 2009 - 10:19 AM' timestamp='1238077143' post='1816876']
Your own existence is an unverifiable presumption; you could be an npc in an advanced mmo and you would have no way of knowing.

[/quote]
That would be amazing!

[KnightofChrist]

One day we'll be read a story of how Hassan and Bonkers both when "From Atheist to Catholic"

Oh what a day that will be!

[Resurrexi]

'Cause we're young,
and we're broke,
and I can't find my coat.