Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
"You do realize that those two ice cream sandwiches are comprised of billions of molecules that are not in the same position right?"
Is that what I experience? No. They are two objects that are absolutely identical to every sense I employ, they are the SAME.
"Further more those two sandwiches take up different points in space making them no where near absolutely the same."
Once again, irrelevant, we experience them being the same. They do not have to be absolutely the same, because that goes BEYOND our ability to perceive, they only need be identical for use to conceptualize sameness. We have a concept of sameness, which is quite good enough, because we DON'T create quantum tunneling objects by conceptualizing sameness.
"They may be similar, but only in appearance. When you actually think about it, they are very very different."
Only in a subjective realm beyond our perceptions, in the experience of our perceptions, they remain identical.
""Our subjective minds can't define two things as absolutely the same.""
Our minds don't define absolutes into existence in the first place, so this is a weird piece of fluff destined to be consigned to the waste bin. We don't experience objects absolutely, we experience them perceptually, so experiencing objects that appear identical to YOU is good enough to conceptualize sameness.
"You just claimed above that your mind can define things as absolutely the same, are you trying to confuse me or are you just contradicting yourself without realizing it?"
Nope, you confused yourself, as usual.
"Think again, your certainty of your existence being absolute is actually a subjective absolute. Only YOU can be certain of your own absolute existence, which mean it's a subjective absolute because I can't be certain that you exist, but I believe that you exist because I believe in absolutes."
I'm rubber, your glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you. That is basically what you said here, and remains irrelevant. Something can either be absolute, or it isn't absolute, it cannot be both simultaneously.
"Was that objective truth there before you realized it?"
Probably, but there is a difference between something being "true" and something being "certain". There are probably libraries worth of information that is objectively true that we cannot be absolutely certain of. Hence, in the end, it isn't absolute to us.
"If yes then how is that objective truth not absolute?"
Because an absolute is something we are absolutely certain of with no doubt, and "truths" are not.
"If no then it would require your existence first before an objective truth can even exist."
Existence would seem to be a prerequisite to apprehending truth, wouldn't it? Objective reality might exist without me, but ALL statements of truth relating to me or my existence would seem to require a consciousness with which to apprehend it. You are still conflating truth and reality, they are NOT the same.
"Right, you can't be absolutely certain that I exist and so you choose to believe that my existence is not absolute."
Redundant. This is no different from you saying: ""Right, you can't be absolutely certain that I'm not Haitian and so you choose to believe that me being Haitian isn't certain."
All I can reasonably say is, duh...
"Or you just accept the fact that you can't be certain of my absolute existence and therefore you can't be sure if I even exist or not."
True. I cannot be absolutely sure that you exist, I can only hold levels of conviction in the claim, I can never be absolutely certain of it.
"Either of those beliefs tend to make me think that your really uncertain about whether or not anything exists, besides yourself."
Welcome to the problem of Hard Solipsism. Everybody is raving mad here, philosophy is a bitch, please enjoy your stay!
"I choose to believe that your existence is absolute, so take that!"
You chose to be subjectively certain that my existence is absolutely certain? Okay, but that is bad epistemology.
"I believe you when you say you can be absolutely certain that you exist because I can be absolutely certain of my existence as well and so it would makes sense that you can do the same. What your saying is that you can't believe that I can be absolutely certain of my own existence because if you said this then you would have to believe in other absolutes other than your own existence."
The key word here is BELIEVE, I can believe you exist without being absolutely certain of it. I can, and routinely DO, act on beliefs devoid of certainty. I am just no disingenuous enough to claim absolute certainty when I don't have it.
"Hold the phone! Are you trying to tell me I can't believe in absolutes other than my own absolute existence? So you're telling me I shouldn't believe that you can actually be absolutely certain of your own existence? Wouldn't you want me to believe you when you say you can be absolutely certain of your own existence. If I didn't believe you, whats to stop me from completely disrespecting you to the point of making you feel horrible or worse? My point is that I do believe you're absolutely certain of your own existence and so I choose to treat you like I would want to be treated. It's called empathy."
I never said you couldn't BELIEVE it, I said you couldn't KNOW it ABSOLUTELY, quit trying to confuse yourself and me.
"As I've stated from the beginning our subjective minds can't comprehend absolutes beyond our own absolute certainty of our own existence, therefore any other absolutes other than ourselves, must either be believed in or not believed in. I've never claimed to be absolutely certain that other people exist, I only choose to believe that they do because I can see, touch, feel, smell and hear them. Here again your claiming to fully comprehend the fact that other people are NOT absolute, when you've already stated the only absolute you can be certain of is your own existence, yet another contradiction on your part. Start using the word believe more and I think you'll start to realize your own contradictions more."
I didn't contradict myself, you did. You freely admit that you are not absolutely certain of the things you are attempting to term "absolutes", but that is a contradiction on its face, as absolute certainty is what you would need to define them as absolute in the first place. This means they are BELIEFS, not ABSOLUTES, and pretending the two are on in the same is false by your own admission.
"Nowhere in my statement did I claim absolutes were beliefs. I'm simply claiming we must either believe or not believe in absolutes beyond our own absolute certainty of our own existence."
Actually, you have, multiple times. You even somewhat allude to "believing in absolutes" here. What are they, beliefs, or absolutes? We do not have to believe in absolutes, we need only believe in our experiences, we believe in subjective ideas not absolutes.
"Right, and I choose to believe that you do exist, because I believe there is an absolutely knowledgeable entity that created you."
I believe you exist too, I won't claim your parents were "absolutely knowledgeable", but I believe in them as well.
"Except when you say "beliefs aren't absolute", you're claiming to be able to comprehend this absolute. I believe that beliefs are absolute because I believe it does matter what we believe in end when we die, but this is just my belief."
You are literally stating that you subjectively believe that your subjective beliefs are absolute certainties, I realize that you don't get how strange and contradictory that IS, but it would make most apologists blush with embarrassment.
"This is another fundamental difference between our beliefs. I believe it does absolutely matter what we believe in life."
That wasn't the actual context of what I said, so I don't think this requires a response. You can have your statement of belief unmolested.
"Again, I've never said absolutes are beliefs, why are you inferring that I've said this when I haven't?"
"I believe that beliefs are absolute." - Chriliman - This Post.
"So where does belief begin and end for you? Do you believe in anything?"
Yes, I just don't claim that they are absolute knowledge, which is something you have done with some regularity.
"If your existence is the only thing you can be absolutely certain of then it would seem you can only believe in yourself. This seems like a selfish way of thinking."
Oh, I can believe in other people, I just can't be absolutely certain of them. You have BELIEF and KNOWLEDGE confused now.
"Our subjective minds can only reach a degree of objectivity, we can't reach absolute objectivity. So if you believe these things are objective and all the sudden your subjective mind goes away, well that means they must be absolutely objective to still exist without your subjective mind to realize the certain degree of objectivity."
Nope, as absolute adds nothing to the belief. I can believe that things exist without me, without being absolutely certain of it, things do not have to be absolutes to believe in them.
"Yes I choose to believe that X is objective to a degree because I can't comprehend absolute objectivity. But if my mind were to go away then X would still be absolutely objective, since my mind isn't there to realize that certain degree of objectivity."
Again, you are misusing absolute. The word "absolute" denotes certainty, not dependence, so the way you used it here is rather ironic. If it did deal with dependence, as you imply in this gabled reply, then half of what you wrote would be redundant drivel. Seeing this, anyone who reads this won't be able to understand what the hell you are trying to say. Are you saying your belief in an objective X makes it absolutely certain? Are you saying that your belief that X exists without you makes it absolutely certain? What, exactly, are you even getting at here?
"We can't comprehend absolute objectivity and so we must choose to believe in it or not believe in it. We can comprehend objectivity, but only to a certain degree."
Yep, and things we aren't absolutely certain of CANNOT be absolute by definition, meaning beliefs are subjective and also not absolute. This means we can believe in this whole universe AND other people without ever necessarily believing in any absolutes.
"Once again, irrelevant, we experience them being the same. They do not have to be absolutely the same, because that goes BEYOND our ability to perceive, they only need be identical for use to conceptualize sameness. We have a concept of sameness, which is quite good enough, because we DON'T create quantum tunneling objects by conceptualizing sameness."
So how is quantum physics possible? No one knows yet, accept when you think of an absolute mind creating the universe with no reference to time and space, it solves the phenomena we see in quantum physics. Do I need to explain how this is possible again?
"Our minds don't define absolutes into existence in the first place, so this is a weird piece of fluff destined to be consigned to the waste bin. We don't experience objects absolutely, we experience them perceptually, so experiencing objects that appear identical to YOU is good enough to conceptualize sameness."
Right, I believe absolutes can exist even without our minds there to think about them. I know our minds can comprehend sameness, I'm talking about absolute sameness.
""Think again, your certainty of your existence being absolute is actually a subjective absolute. Only YOU can be certain of your own absolute existence, which mean it's a subjective absolute because I can't be certain that you exist, but I believe that you exist because I believe in absolutes.""
"I'm rubber, your glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you. That is basically what you said here, and remains irrelevant. Something can either be absolute, or it isn't absolute, it cannot be both simultaneously."
Again, you're inferring that I said things can be both absolute and not absolute at the same time, I've never said this! Your making up things to make your case seem better.
"You chose to be subjectively certain that my existence is absolutely certain? Okay, but that is bad epistemology."
How is that bad epistemology? I observe you typing messages on this forum, I can see that you have an ability similar to mine to form coherent thoughts and type them out. I'm justified in believing that you actually exist and would continue to exist even if my mind goes away. Therefore, my belief that you absolutely exist is not bad epistemology.
"The key word here is BELIEVE, I can believe you exist without being absolutely certain of it. I can, and routinely DO, act on beliefs devoid of certainty. I am just no disingenuous enough to claim absolute certainty when I don't have it."
So you just admitted to believing that I exist right? Now the key question is do you believe I would still exist even if your mind goes away? If you believe I would still exist, then you believe my existence must be an absolute. If you believe I would cease to exist when your mind goes away then your thinking becomes irrational. When you say absolutes can only exist when you're absolutely "certain" of something, your immediately saying a mind is required to be certain. I'm saying what if there is no mind to be certain of anything, would the universe still be there? If you believe it would still be there without any of our minds, then it is absolute. If not then yes it does require our minds to be certain it's there, in order for it be considered absolute, but this seems irrational, because I don't believe the universe requires our minds in order to absolutely exist.
"You are literally stating that you subjectively believe that your subjective beliefs are absolute certainties, I realize that you don't get how strange and contradictory that IS, but it would make most apologists blush with embarrassment."
You don't have to say subjective belief, belief is subjective, so you can just say belief. It's no different to say my existence is an absolute certainty, but only to me. The beliefs I hold are absolute certainties, but only to me. They are only subjective absolutes because they can change, but when I believe something at any moment, I'm absolutely certain of that belief, otherwise I wouldn't believe it. So no, not actually contradictory.
""So where does belief begin and end for you? Do you believe in anything?""
"Yes, I just don't claim that they are absolute knowledge, which is something you have done with some regularity."
Again, I've never claimed my beliefs are absolute knowledge, I believe only God can be absolutely knowledgeable.
"Nope, as absolute adds nothing to the belief. I can believe that things exist without me, without being absolutely certain of it, things do not have to be absolutes to believe in them."
I think you mean beliefs add nothing to absolutes. If you don't exist then you can't be absolutely certain of anything anyway. If you're going to say you don't exist then you no longer can be absolutely certain of anything, if something is absolute it must exist even without your existence. If your mind is the only thing that exists then yes nothing can be absolute except for your own absolute certainty of your own existence.
"Again, you are misusing absolute. The word "absolute" denotes certainty, not dependence, so the way you used it here is rather ironic. If it did deal with dependence, as you imply in this gabled reply, then half of what you wrote would be redundant drivel. Seeing this, anyone who reads this won't be able to understand what the hell you are trying to say. Are you saying your belief in an objective X makes it absolutely certain? Are you saying that your belief that X exists without you makes it absolutely certain? What, exactly, are you even getting at here?"
You're not being opened minded enough to realize that when you say the word "absolute" denotes certainty your mediately saying a mind must exist to be certain of that absolute. This is true, but your ignoring the idea of a mind not existing at all and this is what I'm talking about. What would exist if a mind wasn't there to be certain of anything. We can imagine that things will still exist even without a mind there to realize there existence, these things that would exist without minds to realize them would be absolute and not dependent on a subjective mind.
"Yep, and things we aren't absolutely certain of CANNOT be absolute by definition, meaning beliefs are subjective and also not absolute. This means we can believe in this whole universe AND other people without ever necessarily believing in any absolutes."
Just because you're not absolutely certain that mars existed before you existed doesn't mean you should believe that it didn't exist before you existed. If mars didn't exist before you existed then mars requires your mind in order to exist. If mars did exist before you existed then mars existence would be an absolute and not dependent on your subjective mind to exist. How does this not makes sense? You'll probably figure out a way to confuse the issue again.
Chriliman - "it solves the phenomena we see in quantum physics"
since when do you solve phenomena?
You're really good at throwing tiny wrenches. All I'm saying is that science is currently baffled by what we're discovering at the quantum level. It seems physically impossible, so they've come up with all kinds of unprovable theories to explain it, except for the very possible idea of God, which just so happens to explain it beautifully. Some of the unprovable theories are multiple universes or even super small strings that make up 11 dimensions to even the idea of objects that are so small that they envelope the entire universe and collide into one another creating new universes. Sure the idea of God is not provable either, but considering the idea has been around much longer and it can still explain what science has most recently discovered tells me something about the credibility of God, but not just any God the one True God. I firmly believe that we humans are actually become intelligent enough to figure out that there must be a God and the sooner you realize this the better off you'll be. But believe what you want to believe and I'll do the same, it's just that my belief can explain a lot about this existence we all find ourselves in.
Chriliman - "they've come up with all kinds of unprovable theories to explain it"
No scientific theory has ever been proven, or will ever be proven. That isn't how it works, but thanks for playing.
"So how is quantum physics possible?"
All that it takes for quantum physics to be possible is the existence of quantum particles and fields,
"No one knows yet, accept when you think of an absolute mind creating the universe with no reference to time and space, it solves the phenomena we see in quantum physics."
Not really, it provides no real technical answers and begs about a hundred different questions in the process. You, essentially, have chosen to solve a mystery with an even bigger and more elaborate mystery. The difference is that while the original mystery had actual science and observation behind it, your new mystery has absolutely nothing to support it other than assertions that it fixes problems, but no legitimate models or evidence that it would or even could do any such thing.
"Do I need to explain how this is possible again?"
Not really, no matter how many times you seek to explain it, you always miss the important things you would need to provide to make it any kind of actual viable model or useful answer. Your explanation essentially boils down to you postulating an omnipresent consciousness with no valid reason or evidence, postulating it solves spooky action without providing any real mechanisms or equations that are actually necessary to solve it, and pretending you have solved one of the biggest questions in modern physics. There is a reason I am not taking you seriously, and a reason you aren't holding a Nobel Prize right now, and neither of those reasons have anything to do with what you are postulating but rather how you are attempting to support it.
"Right, I believe absolutes can exist even without our minds there to think about them."
Not the point. The point is that concepts like "absolute" sameness denote things that are identical to us, whether they are or not in actuality is irrelevant, we do conceive of things being EXACTLY the same though they aren't.
"I know our minds can comprehend sameness, I'm talking about absolute sameness."
You are basically saying that even though we can comprehend dog, or cold, or dark, we can't possibly comprehend "absolute" dog, cold, or dark. Sometimes concepts we perceive are as total as they need be already, and adding absolute to them doesn't actually mean anything at all, which makes a lot of what you say sophistry. Now if we were talking about absolute comprehension, that would be different, but we are talking about subjective comprehension. If we subjectively comprehend things as exactly the same, or exactly a dog, they are already about as absolute in conceptualization as they need be for subjectivity.
"Again, you're inferring that I said things can be both absolute and not absolute at the same time, I've never said this! Your making up things to make your case seem better."
You literally stated that something could be subjective, and yet absolute at the same time. We have already established that subjective things are not absolutely certain, so they cannot be absolute, yet here you go trying to conflate them into SUPER DUPER FUZZY LOGIC so you can insert more absolutes somewhere.
"How is that bad epistemology?"
Because you are choosing to be CERTAIN of things you aren't CERTAIN of.
"I observe you typing messages on this forum, I can see that you have an ability similar to mine to form coherent thoughts and type them out. I'm justified in believing that you actually exist and would continue to exist even if my mind goes away."
While I would agree belief is justified, certainty isn't, just belief.
"Therefore, my belief that you absolutely exist is not bad epistemology."
Believing in absolutes is a problem though, believing in a certainty is rather odd, because if it were certain you need not believe in it at all.
"So you just admitted to believing that I exist right?"
Yep, but it is not an absolute.
"Now the key question is do you believe I would still exist even if your mind goes away?"
Yep, but it is still not an absolute.
"If you believe I would still exist, then you believe my existence must be an absolute."
I believe your existence is OBJECTIVE not ABSOLUTE. OBJECTIVE =/= ABSOLUTE
"If you believe I would cease to exist when your mind goes away then your thinking becomes irrational."
I don't actually believe that, but if I did, we would NEVER actually be able to prove I was wrong to me. My mind would have to cease to exist to prove it, which would prevent me from ever actually KNOWING I was wrong, which means it isn't actually an absolute.
"When you say absolutes can only exist when you're absolutely "certain" of something, your immediately saying a mind is required to be certain."
Yep, because that is what an absolute is, something that is certain beyond ALL doubt. This is what we spoke of at the outset, what you keep redefining as it suits you, and the entire reason you are getting so confused.
"I'm saying what if there is no mind to be certain of anything, would the universe still be there?"
I believe there would, but I don't KNOW there would, it isn't either a certainty or an absolute.
"If you believe it would still be there without any of our minds, then it is absolute."
Nope, objective again, you keep getting the two of these horribly confused for some reason.
"If not then yes it does require our minds to be certain it's there, in order for it be considered absolute, but this seems irrational, because I don't believe the universe requires our minds in order to absolutely exist."
Once again:
Subjectivity/Objectivity - Dependence on the mind.
Absolute - Necessarily true, Certain.
"You don't have to say subjective belief, belief is subjective, so you can just say belief."
Good.
"It's no different to say my existence is an absolute certainty, but only to me."
Nope. Because your existence is both necessarily true and certain, because in order for you to even say anything at all to yourself, your existence is actually REQUIRED.
"The beliefs I hold are absolute certainties, but only to me."
*triple facepalm*
"They are only subjective absolutes because they can change, but when I believe something at any moment, I'm absolutely certain of that belief, otherwise I wouldn't believe it."
There is so much wrong here, I can't even...
You just accidentally the whole argument!
"So no, not actually contradictory."
It is literally stating that even things are or could be dependent on your mind, are still absolutes, bravo.
I am going to just stop here, you are still conflating things and confusing them terribly, making the argument horribly painful because we keep having to go over the EXACT same ground over, and over, and over...
"You literally stated that something could be subjective, and yet absolute at the same time."
Subjective is the opposite of absolute. If something is subjectively absolute it immediately becomes subjective and therefore is not absolute.
"We have already established that subjective things are not absolutely certain"
I thought you said you were absolutely certain of your own existence? You did say this correct? So your using your subjective mind to determine that your existence is absolute. In other words it's a subjective absolute.
", so they cannot be absolute, yet here you go trying to conflate them into SUPER DUPER FUZZY LOGIC so you can insert more absolutes somewhere."
Right, our minds can never achieve absolute certainty of anything except for our own existence. This is what I've been saying the whole time. We can't be absolutely certain that mars exists, but we can believe it exists even when we're not thinking about it. And we can believe it existed in objective reality before we existed in objective reality.
"Believing in absolutes is a problem though, believing in a certainty is rather odd, because if it were certain you need not believe in it at all."
Huh? Believing in absolutes is not a problem, it's just believing that mars existed in objective reality even before I existed in objective reality. Mars existence in objective reality is an absolute, it's existence is not dependent on my mind. Certainty, is something the mind is certain of, which immediately makes it subjective. I'm talking about absolutes, which the mind can't comprehend. You can say that you're absolutely certain that you exist, but this statement is subjective.
"Yep, but it is still not an absolute"
Stop saying this because you can't comprehend absolutes. Instead, say you believe it's not absolute.
"I believe your existence is OBJECTIVE not ABSOLUTE. OBJECTIVE =/= ABSOLUTE"
Our minds can't achieve absolute objectivity. So are you saying my existence is absolutely objective or subjectively objective? You have to pick one or the other because if you just say objective, well our minds can't comprehend absolute objectivity but we can comprehend objectivity to a degree, but that degree of objectivity we comprehend is still subjective. If my existence is subjectively objective to you then how can you say you believe I exist? If you believe I exist then you must believe my existence is absolutely objective.
""If you believe I would cease to exist when your mind goes away then your thinking becomes irrational.""
"I don't actually believe that, but if I did, we would NEVER actually be able to prove I was wrong to me. My mind would have to cease to exist to prove it, which would prevent me from ever actually KNOWING I was wrong, which means it isn't actually an absolute."
If you actually believed this and your mind ceased to exist then everything would cease to exist because everything was dependent on your mind to exist in the first place. I'm glad you don't believe this though, but saying you don't believe it means your also saying you believe your mind isn't the only thing that exists. In saying this you must realize other minds exist as well independent of your own mind. In saying this you must realize those other minds don't depend on your subjective mind to exist and what is the opposite of subjective? Absolute! So there is the answer, if you don't believe everything is dependent on your mind to exist then you must believe in absolutes. If you don't believe in absolutes, then everything that exists depends on your subjective mind to exist.
""If you believe it would still be there without any of our minds, then it is absolute.""
"Nope, objective again, you keep getting the two of these horribly confused for some reason."
Wrong again, our minds can't comprehend absolute objectivity. Objectivity is either absolute or subjective. Science hasn't achieved absolute objectivity and they never will. I believe we can only know absolute objectivity when we die and our consciousness is taken out of our bodies, I believe this is the only way to know absolute objectivity, but I believe only an absolute conscious mind can realize absolute objectivity, I don't believe when we die we become absolutely conscious I believe we are still subjectively conscious, but we then live in the absolute reality realized by an absolute conscious mind (God) that has defeated evil, but this is probably getting a little to deep for you at this point.
""It's no different to say my existence is an absolute certainty, but only to me.""
"Nope. Because your existence is both necessarily true and certain, because in order for you to even say anything at all to yourself, your existence is actually REQUIRED."
Right, how is this any different from what I said? Besides you were the one who claimed your absolutely certain of your own existence. I just happened to also be absolutely certain my own existence as well.
""The beliefs I hold are absolute certainties, but only to me.""
"*triple facepalm*"
Don't hurt yourself! I am certain of my beliefs, otherwise I wouldn't believe them, one thing that is coupled with belief is doubt, but when you have no doubt then you are absolutely certain. I'm not sure why you triple facepalmed over this.
""They are only subjective absolutes because they can change, but when I believe something at any moment, I'm absolutely certain of that belief, otherwise I wouldn't believe it.""
"There is so much wrong here, I can't even..."
"You just accidentally the whole argument!"
Actually, I've done no such thing.
"I am going to just stop here, you are still conflating things and confusing them terribly, making the argument horribly painful because we keep having to go over the EXACT same ground over, and over, and over..."
Convenient place to stop, considering the question I posed that caused you to stop and hopefully think a little.
"Subjective is the opposite of absolute. If something is subjectively absolute it immediately becomes subjective and therefore is not absolute."
Thank you, just thank you, you have just done all of my work for me and destroyed the better part of a week of your own rambling. You are simply priceless, please, do keep up the good work.
""Subjective is the opposite of absolute. If something is subjectively absolute it immediately becomes subjective and therefore is not absolute.""
"Thank you, just thank you, you have just done all of my work for me and destroyed the better part of a week of your own rambling. You are simply priceless, please, do keep up the good work."
You continue to miss the point. We are all subjective and so cannot comprehend absolutes. We can only be absolutely certain of our own existence, which by definition is subjective. All we can really do is believe in absolutes or not believe in absolutes. If we believe in absolutes then we can believe that mars existed in objective reality before we existed in objective reality. If we don't believe in absolutes then we can't believe mars existed in objective reality before we existed in objective reality, but this thinking is irrational. Again, if this doesn't make sense then you're simply in denial and the best way to get out of denial is to admit you are in denial. Honestly, it will be difficult, but I have faith you can do it and I'm being completely honest when I say I hope you will.
"You continue to miss the point."
Actually, it appears to me that YOU are missing the point, and others appear to agree with me.
"We are all subjective and so cannot comprehend absolutes."
Well, know absolutes would be a better term. I have no idea what an 8-dimensional figure would actually look like, but thanks to our faculty of imagination, I can comprehend the idea of one regardless. Much with absolutes, I may not be able to KNOW of any absolutes beyond my own existence, but I can entertain the notion and comprehend its implications, it appears to be a faculty some humans are born with.
"We can only be absolutely certain of our own existence, which by definition is subjective."
If a subjective cannot be an absolute, then an absolute cannot be subjective, so you are simply spouting garbage. If we can be absolutely certain of our own existence, it stops being subjective by definition, discarding your protest in the wastebin where it rightfully belongs.
"All we can really do is believe in absolutes or not believe in absolutes."
Let me parse this a bit for others entertainment. You are literally stating that we should believe we have absolute certainty, when belief is decidedly not absolute certainty, so the mere act of calling it a belief is proving that it isn't actually an absolute. I realize that you don't seem to get how psychotic this sounds, but you should at least be able to understand how contradictory and oxymoronic it sounds.
"If we believe in absolutes then we can believe that mars existed in objective reality before we existed in objective reality."
I can do that without believing I have absolute certainty about anything outside of my own existence, so a belief in absolutes is unnecessary to believe in an external objective reality.
"If we don't believe in absolutes then we can't believe mars existed in objective reality before we existed in objective reality, but this thinking is irrational."
Only because you seem to think believing something is external or independent of us somehow makes it an absolute certainty, once you remove that blatantly erroneous assertion, your argument fails in its entirety.
"Again, if this doesn't make sense then you're simply in denial and the best way to get out of denial is to admit you are in denial."
Translation: If you don't agree with me, you are simply in denial, even IF I am wrong.
Answer: No, I don't agree with you BECAUSE you are wrong.
"Honestly, it will be difficult, but I have faith you can do it and I'm being completely honest when I say I hope you will."
Sorry, I don't agree with you about absolute certainty being necessary for belief, or belief creating reasonable absolute certainty. You will simply have to sell this vacuous assertion at another door. you could make a whole gig out of it, a door-to-door vacuous argument salesman. Whoops, we already have that, we call them Jehovah's Witnesses and apologists, sorry about that.
"Well, know absolutes would be a better term. I have no idea what an 8-dimensional figure would actually look like, but thanks to our faculty of imagination, I can comprehend the idea of one regardless. Much with absolutes, I may not be able to KNOW of any absolutes beyond my own existence, but I can entertain the notion and comprehend its implications"
I'm glad you've finally realized you can entertain the implications of absolutes because I've already stated this towards the beginning, go read for yourself if you need proof. I would argue that comprehension must come before knowledge, but that knowledge can lead to better comprehension and thus more knowledge.
"it appears to be a faculty some humans are born with."
The question is was the idea of absolutes there before anyone was born? If it was there before us then it would make sense that we can entertain the implications of it, but if it wasn't there before us then how did we ever come to be absolutely certain of our own existence?
"If a subjective cannot be an absolute, then an absolute cannot be subjective, so you are simply spouting garbage. If we can be absolutely certain of our own existence, it stops being subjective by definition, discarding your protest in the wastebin where it rightfully belongs."
"If a subjective cannot be an absolute, then an absolute cannot be subjective"
Actually, I believe an absolute can become subjective and that absolute was God who became subjective Jesus and sacrificed himself for all of us. An absolute conscious mind became a human subjective mind in order to experience life as we do with all of our temptations and this man was Jesus who lived a perfect righteous life worthy to be a sacrifice for all man kind. Compassion in its purest form, simply beautiful.
"If we can be absolutely certain of our own existence, it stops being subjective by definition,"
Nope, still subjective because only YOU can be absolutely certain of YOUR existence.
"Let me parse this a bit for others entertainment. You are literally stating that we should believe we have absolute certainty, when belief is decidedly not absolute certainty, so the mere act of calling it a belief is proving that it isn't actually an absolute. I realize that you don't seem to get how psychotic this sounds, but you should at least be able to understand how contradictory and oxymoronic it sounds."
Now you need to stop saying absolute certainty is equal to absolute. They are not equal but are actually opposite! Absolute certainty is subjective because it requires a mind to be absolutely certain. Absolute certainty equals subjectivity which is the opposite of absolute, this statement is not a belief, but is actual fact, look it up for yourself.
"I can do that without believing I have absolute certainty about anything outside of my own existence, so a belief in absolutes is unnecessary to believe in an external objective reality."
You can never have absolute certainty about anything outside of your own existence, which is why you must believe it's there even if your existence goes away. It's not just objective if its there when your existence goes away it must becomes absolutely objective because as I've stated before objective things are either absolute or subjective because our minds only comprehend a degree of objectivity, which means the degree thats left that we can't comprehend is absolute.
"Only because you seem to think believing something is external or independent of us somehow makes it an absolute certainty, once you remove that blatantly erroneous assertion, your argument fails in its entirety."
Again, I've never said this, you continue to miss quote me. I have said believing something is external or independent of our minds means that something is absolute (NOT absolutely certain because absolute certainty is subjective)
"Sorry, I don't agree with you about absolute certainty being necessary for belief, or belief creating reasonable absolute certainty."
Let me ask you this, when you're asleep can you be absolutely certain that you exist? If you can't be absolutely certain that you exist when you're asleep then you become uncertain or simply unable to be absolutely certain. So if your not capable of being absolutely certain of your existence 40% of the time then you actually can't claim that your existence is an absolute certainty because in order for your existence to be absolutely certain it must be absolutely certain 100% of the time. I think this shows that we can only be certain that we exist simply because absolutes can't contradict. I literally just thought of this so I'm open to input.
"I'm glad you've finally realized you can entertain the implications of absolutes because I've already stated this towards the beginning, go read for yourself if you need proof."
I can can entertain the implications of something being absolute, without it being necessary for that thing to be absolute, nor believe that it is absolute. This makes your argument about as solid as jello, considering it hinges on the premise that one must believe in the absolutes to even entertain the notion of external existence. You, once again, have destroyed your own argument.
"The question is was the idea of absolutes there before anyone was born?"
Nope. The "idea of absolutes" requires a mind to have the idea, no mind, no idea.
"If it was there before us then it would make sense that we can entertain the implications of it, but if it wasn't there before us then how did we ever come to be absolutely certain of our own existence?"
We experience it, directly. It is the singular experience that self-validates.
"Actually, I believe an absolute can become subjective..."
Then your belief would appear to be incorrect by definition.
"...and that absolute was God who became subjective Jesus and sacrificed himself for all of us. An absolute conscious mind became a human subjective mind in order to experience life as we do with all of our temptations and this man was Jesus who lived a perfect righteous life worthy to be a sacrifice for all man kind. Compassion in its purest form, simply beautiful."
Really? I thought we were dealing with logic here, I didn't know we were including creative fiction too.
"Nope, still subjective because only YOU can be absolutely certain of YOUR existence."
The moment you can be ABSOLUTELY certain, it ceases to be subjective by definition, for it becomes an objective fact.
"Now you need to stop saying absolute certainty is equal to absolute."
No I don't, for that is what absolute means.
"They are not equal but are actually opposite!"
If you have to make a word its own antonym for your argument to work, it should tell you something about your argument.
"Absolute certainty is subjective because it requires a mind to be absolutely certain. Absolute certainty equals subjectivity which is the opposite of absolute, this statement is not a belief, but is actual fact, look it up for yourself."
Nope. You seem to have this all backasswards, YOU have to be absolutely certain of something for it to fit in the category of absolute, if not, it isn't absolute by any measure.
"It's not just objective if its there when your existence goes away..."
Actually, that is the entire implication of concept of objectivity, so your argument is false on its face.
"Again, I've never said this, you continue to miss quote me. I have said believing something is external or independent of our minds means that something is absolute (NOT absolutely certain because absolute certainty is subjective)"
No, it means it is objective. You can keep trying to swap these terms out, but they are separate philosophical concepts, so you only prove your own ignorance when you do so.
"Let me ask you this, when you're asleep can you be absolutely certain that you exist?"
Am I experiencing something? Yes. Do I HAVE to exist to experience anything at all? Yes
Damn, that was easy.
"We experience it, directly. It is the singular experience that self-validates."
right "self-validates" meaning each of us self-validates our own existence. So even when I'm absolutely certain of something that absolute certainty is confined to my subjective mind, making it a subjective absolute.
"The moment you can be ABSOLUTELY certain, it ceases to be subjective by definition, for it becomes an objective fact."
The only way this would actually be true is if you were absolutely certain of something and I could look inside your brain and say "Yep, its true see right there is his absolute certainty". We all know this is impossible for us to do, or someone would have done this by now. I do believe an absolute consciousness can see truth/lie within a subjective mind, thus holding us accountable to our actions and thoughts.
"Nope. You seem to have this all backasswards, YOU have to be absolutely certain of something for it to fit in the category of absolute, if not, it isn't absolute by any measure."
I'm not absolutely certain of your existence, yet you claim to be absolutely certain of your existence. So according to your statement above, since I can't be absolutely certain of your existence then you can't absolutely exist. Hmm something doesn't seem right about that because you clearly seem to exist.
"Actually, that is the entire implication of concept of objectivity, so your argument is false on its face."
Objectivity is the perception of objects, like the keyboard your using to type. The problem is your filtering this objectivity through your senses, thus hindering your ability to some degree to actually be absolutely certain that that objectivity is actually real. Since you can't be absolutely certain of that objective reality, then you're experiencing that objective reality subjectively. If your subjective mind goes away that objective reality would still exist and would not change. In other words objective reality is unchanging because it doesn't depend on your subjective mind. If objective reality is unchanging it must be absolute. I don't mean unchanging in that things don't change I mean unchanging in that it doesn't matter if there is a subjective mind there to realize it or not, objective reality will continue to be objective and never stop being objective, therefore being absolute.
"Am I experiencing something? Yes. Do I HAVE to exist to experience anything at all? Yes"
You can honestly say you experience your deep sleep? Being in deep sleep means your unconscious and so don't experience anything, which is why time goes by so fast. Have you ever went to sleep and it felt like you just closed your eyes, but then you wake up and all the sudden it's hours later? These moments are breaks in your absolute certainty of your existence, meaning you actually can't be absolutely certain you exist because absolutes are unchanging and you just went from being absolutely certain that you're awake to asleep and unable to be absolutely certain that your awake.
This shows one can only be certain of their own existence. I believe this idea of absolute certainty in our own subjective minds is just an illusion. I don't think we can be absolutely certain of anything, which is why we must believe, there is no other option. You can believe you're absolutely certain that you exist, but that doesn't change the fact that when you're in deep sleep or unconscious you can't be absolutely certain of your existence. This again points to the idea that absolute certainty can only be realized by an absolute conscious mind.
@Chriliman
Since the word "absolutes" can mean objective absolutes or subjective absolutes, but objective absolutes can't really be comprehended due to our subjective minds and subjective absolutes can be comprehended, at least in our subjective reality, I absolutely subject you with a real objection to your counterproductive use of the word "absolutes" in such a subjective manner, without defining if it's objective or subjective: "Believing in absolutes is not a problem".
Ugh, now I feel absolutely dizzy, purely subjectively of course.
You claim that "Subjective is the opposite of absolute" and thereby create a false dichotomy. The opposite of "subjective" is "objective" or "real". The opposite of "absolute" is "bounded", "conditional" or "incomplete".
Your random spitting of the words absolute, objective, subjective and reality in different forms and combinations is nothing more than an exercise in rhetorics. Unfortunately, even if you are right, all you have is an unverifiable philosophy, containing unjustified claims and personal opinions.
This is what happens when you start with the answer you want, then begin searching for the correct conclusions to fit that answer. I think you should try starting in the other end, and see what the answer becomes.
You shoot yourself in the foot, with great accuracy I might add, and destroy all your credibility when writing statements such as:
"I am certain of my beliefs, otherwise I wouldn't believe them, one thing that is coupled with belief is doubt, but when you have no doubt then you are absolutely certain."
"...if this doesn't make sense then you're simply in denial..." (Note: Super ironic coming from a theist :)
You really should start reading your own posts, critically.
See, an absolute consciousness is an unverifiable, immeasurable anomaly of Chriliman's mind. If Chriliman couldn't conceive of the 'absolute consciousness', the concept could not verifiably be said to exist.
Ergo, 'God' is really a projection of Chriliman's own consciousness. 'God' only matters because Chriliman says it does, and furthermore, this is the ONLY measure by which it could be safely said that 'God' actually exists - as an extension of a persons mind.
Conclusion: The religious think they are god, despite evidence to the contrary.
Bull's eye!
Yep, and this is why god always seems to have the same exact opinions/'moral views' as the believer describing them. What are the chances? Apparently 100% when they are in fact the same person...
Maybe that moral code started with God and He is seeking us in order to impart that moral code in us so we can live blessed purposeful lives.
"See, an absolute consciousness is an unverifiable, immeasurable anomaly of Chriliman's mind. If Chriliman couldn't conceive of the 'absolute consciousness', the concept could not verifiably be said to exist."
This is exactly right, you must believe in God first and when you do begin to believe you will start to realize something about yourself. You'll begin to be more aware of right and wrong and become more aware of evil in the world and in yourself. Our evil nature resists God's Truth. When you realize what God has done for you by sacrifice himself for you, you will begin to see that He has a purpose for you and He's now capable of using you to fulfill His perfect will of redemption for all of us. If you get to this point all you want is to follow God's will and all your sinful temptations will fall away.
"Ergo, 'God' is really a projection of Chriliman's own consciousness. 'God' only matters because Chriliman says it does, and furthermore, this is the ONLY measure by which it could be safely said that 'God' actually exists - as an extension of a persons mind."
God is real, but I understand this is my belief. You believe that your mind has created everything you see as subjective reality, we've gone over this many times. You must believe this if you don't believe in absolutes. I could easily say that subjective reality only matters because Mitch says it does, and furthermore, this is the ONLY measure by which it could be safely said that subjective reality exists - as an extension of Mitch's mind.\
"Conclusion: The religious think they are god, despite evidence to the contrary."
You clearly don't understand my beliefs, I've never claimed to be god. I don't have absolute consciousness!
"I could easily say that subjective reality only matters because Mitch says it does, and furthermore, this is the ONLY measure by which it could be safely said that subjective reality exists - as an extension of Mitch's mind.\"
No you couldn't actually, because anything I subjectively experience, you can as well. Therefore, you can verify my subjective claims yourself.
"God", however, only observably exists to me as Chriliman, who is saying god exists. I cannot measure your god, but through you. To me, you and your god, are one person. And I can measure, test, and verify.
Chriliman, it is unbecoming of you to think that you are "god".
If you were being fair, you'd - at best - claim you could subjectively never know.
"No you couldn't actually, because anything I subjectively experience, you can as well. Therefore, you can verify my subjective claims yourself."
False, I could never experience your subjective reality, I would actually have to be you in order to truly do this. If you were color blind I could never experience the world as you do since I'm not color blind. (I'm not saying your color blind)
We can experience a similar objective reality, which we can observe and measure, but we are still limited to our subjective minds when interacting with objective reality, meaning we can never truly know objective reality because we are stuck inside our minds. However, if that objective reality doesn't depend on our minds to exist then when our minds go away that objective reality will still be there and never not be there, making it absolute.
""God", however, only observably exists to me as Chriliman, who is saying god exists. I cannot measure your god, but through you. To me, you and your god, are one person. And I can measure, test, and verify."
Are you saying you can measure, test, and verify my existence? If so then you must "believe" I would exist even if you weren't thinking about me or even if you were unconscious, right? If I continue to exist even without your mind to realize me then the fact that I exist is unchanging or absolute. In other words I do absolutely exist and you also absolutely exist because our collective existences is not depended on each of our minds. Meaning there must be absolutes beyond our own minds, it just requires belief. But it also requires belief to think there are not absolutes beyond our own minds. Do you understand this thought process?
"Chriliman, it is unbecoming of you to think that you are "god"."
Mitch, it is unbecoming of you to think that I think I'm "god". Especially since I've never claimed this, you seem to be the only one claiming this.
"But it also requires belief to think there are no absolutes beyond our own minds."
And?
Actually, I think I agree with nearly everything you've said:
- we cannot expeirence reality exactly the same
- we can be usefully certain that reality will remain beyond our ability to interact with it as we currently do
- you and i can both verifiably be said to exist
But then you come to the last bit: "Meaning there must be absolutes beyond our own minds, it just requires belief."
Or in other words, you're saying "All I have to do is assume something is real - (or absolute, if you like) - without any evidence available for me to observe that it does." This is the definition of faith, and you are here again right: there is no verifiable, absolute evidence of "god."
There could be evidence, however, that Chiriliman is "god", and that Chriliman needs "god". Now, if you really want to know the reason "god" exists, ask yourself what you need "god" for. Therein is the answer. You created your subjective god for your own needs.
You are - very much - your god. Quite literally.
"Or in other words, you're saying "All I have to do is assume something is real - (or absolute, if you like) - without any evidence available for me to observe that it does." This is the definition of faith, and you are here again right: there is no verifiable, absolute evidence of "god.""
Don't use the word "assume" us the word "believe" and here's why:
Lets use an example: Lets say you were walking along and all the sudden an anvil fell on your head and knocked you out. When you finally come to you see the anvil on the ground beside you. Would you still assume(not be certain) that the anvil hit your head and knocked you out and then while you were unconscious would you still assume the anvil continued to fall to the ground without you being aware of it.
It safe to say you wouldn't assume this happened but would rather believe with certainty it happened because you can see the anvil did fall the rest of the way down even though you were unconscious when it hit the ground. You can believe with certainty that it fell and knocked you out and continued to fall and hit the ground.
You wouldn't say "Well I assume it fell and hit my head and knocked me out and I assume it continued to fall and hit the ground, while I was knocked out." See what I'm trying to say? Assuming reality exists beyond our minds is like saying your uncertain reality exists when your not there to perceive it. It makes more sense to say you believe with certainty reality exists beyond your mind because things happen even if your not their to perceive them.
Lets both work on a shared set of underlying beliefs and the underlying belief is that objective reality is absolute and not dependent on our minds to exist, then we can get somewhere.
Chriliman - "So Nyarlathotep, which is it for you? Do you believe absolute truth exists or doesn't exist?"
There are things I'm absolutely sure of. That is as far as I'm willing to go as you have managed to muddy the waters quite a bit.
----
Chriliman - "I'm suggesting absolute truth does exist and that our consciousness does realize what we perceive, but only because an absolute consciousness realized absolute truth first"
You can repeat that until you are blue in the face, it isn't going to convince anyone. Your conclusion has no teeth as I explained before.
"There are things I'm absolutely sure of. That is as far as I'm willing to go as you have managed to muddy the waters quite a bit."
This is just what I explained to Travis, we can be absolutely certain of things, but that doesn't mean those things we are absolutely certain of are actually absolute because it required our subjective mind to be absolutely certain of the thing, therefore it's a subjective absolute, which can change, therefore it isn't absolute. For something to be absolute it must not be dependent on a subjective mind to exist.
Remember when I told you:
Nyarlathotep - "You formulate a set of premises that you hope y̲o̲u̲ ̲c̲a̲n̲ ̲g̲e̲t̲ ̲p̲e̲o̲p̲l̲e̲ ̲t̲o̲ ̲a̲g̲r̲e̲e̲ ̲w̲i̲t̲h̲, then using those you draw a non-controversial conclusions from them."
Now let's look at what you just did:
Chriliman - "I can show how it's not possible for absolute evil to exist. An absolute conscious mind has always existed and will always exist and the first creatures it created were immortal beings called Angels... "
Let's put that in more formal form:
BP1) An absolute conscious mind has always existed.
BP2) An absolute conscious mind will always exist.
BP3) The first creatures it created were immortal beings called Angels.
BP...) ...
BC1) Therefore: Absolute evil can never exist.
Notice what you did: You loading up a bunch of crazy into your premises, so now almost no one is going to accept them. So you will never convince anyone with this argument. This is not how it is done...
Chriliman - "You can't deny this all makes sense, its just starts with a belief that absolute truth must exist. "
Oh no Chriliman, it does not just start with "absolute truth must exist", your argument depends on a whole grip of premises that we are not going to accept (a handful of which I pointed out above). Remember: The truth of a conclusion depends on EVERY premise being true, not just the first one!
"Oh no Chriliman, it does not just start with "absolute truth must exist", your argument depends on a whole grip of premises that we are not going to accept (a handful of which I pointed out above). Remember: The truth of a conclusion depends on EVERY premise being true, not just the first one!"
We can agree that we as subjective beings cannot comprehend absolutes, correct? And this certainty we have that we can't comprehend absolutes does not lead to the fact that absolutes do not exist, correct? So you must either "believe" they exist or "believe" they don't exist. The only other option is to simply not care either way and I don't care to speak with a person who doesn't care about this subject.
I've already stated what I believe would be true if absolute truth does not exist, let me repeat.
If absolute truth does not exist, then we humans will continue into eternity trying to understand why we are subjective beings. As well as trying to understand why we can't truly know objective reality because of the barrier of our subjective minds. If this is true, then you could easily conclude that our consciousness has created everything we see and it would be even easier to believe that when we die we do actually cease to exist. However, I believe the full extent of this thought has been described in the "Last question" by Isaac Asimov. I suggest you read it and see what happens at the end. Still begs the question how it all started and I believe this idea of an absolute consciousness answers that question beautifully.
So i take it you are not going to be address the very specific problems with your arguments I pointed out?
Nyarlathoslap, hooah!
I have addressed it by simply stating that the lack of evidence for absolutes does not mean absolutes do not exist. The lack of evidence means one must either believe absolutes exist or believe they don't exist. I've fully stated what I believe would be true if absolutes do not exist and the conclusion is that our consciousness creates everything we see including the observation that the universe has a beginning. This thinking seems completely wrong, which is why I believe absolutes do exist because the result seems to make much more sense.
Pages