The way of an Agnostic vs. The well trodden path of Religions

QFT!

I'm amazed how certain people cannot comprehend the point being made:

- Truths which actually are true.
- Truths which are socially agreed to be true.

End of story.

I really don't know how more simple that point can be made.

 

300,000 km/sec is not a “truth status” it is an empirical value.

Well I went through the process already. So it is true by definition via the human framework I went through – a super simple math framework/ number system.

A priori - An a priori truth is one that can be arrived at without any observations of the world. A priori reasoning relies only on logical connections between ideas.

As long as you understand the meaning of the numbers and symbols involved, you know that the claim is true.

The numbers and symbols are part of a framework we both use and accept.

I know you have not been really listening to me. But I’ll say it again. Just because I think that something is a fact or objective I still see it under the category of relative truth.
NOT subjective or your “subjective truth”.

It’s getting a bit tiresome.. true yes but I was arguing against your “objective truth” remember?

It is NOT without mental interference. All you did was assign the values to external objects. 2+2=4 is a human creation. I went through it, I even asked you to show me “2” without human or mental interference and you haven’t done it yet. Also How is addition not mental interference?

 

Post to Topher continued.

Lol…. I know, trust me.
Ok.
Not to exist as objects but to be “4” yes.. To answer your question.

Maybe I am or maybe your are ?

Explain again to me exactly what you mean by truth status. I take it be if something is deemed true or false – that is its truth status.

I agree. And not for the first time. Can we maybe get past treating me like an imbecile?

Well just a minute ago you said “physical reality” and now you’ve switched to “objective truth”. Is there no difference to you?

That might explain these difficulties we are having in communication.

Yes.

Right. But like I have said the issue is NOT existence. IS IT??
Quote:
The fact the concepts of numbers, sums, two, four, plus and equals do not objectively exist is irrelevant.

It is relevent if you are claiming “truth status” is “independent from minds”.
But it's nice you agree with me that existence is not the issue..

[sigh]

If truth is a concept, let’s just say that is irrelevant and be done with it shall we?

So these objects becoming “2” in the first place had nothing at all to do with “you”.
And please “some relation” – that relation happened by a freak accident of nature I suppose!

Personally i have found that minds count or add things up.

I’m lost for words..

LOL..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrastein
Objective statements are statements that make/need no reference to a subject in order to be true/false or to make sense. Such as, light travels at 300,000 km/sec. The speed of electromagnetic energy in a vacuum has no relationship to a subject or subjects. The weight of a rock, the number of stars in a galaxy, the sum of 2 and 2, all of these things have truth values that needn't a subject for reference.

Subjective statements necessarily require a subject. Pizza is good, Bach sounds beautiful, sour kraut is gross, the Mona Lisa is inspiring, killing is bad, broken legs suck, etc. All of these statements must necessarily refer to a subject or subjects, either explicitly or tacitly, to have any meaning or truth value. They cannot be true or false, much less sensical, without reference to a subject. [/quote]




In the second paragraph he defines subjective the way I have – “a matter of opinion”. I notice he didn’t make any reference to “subjective truth”. But yes I agree they are subjective statements.

In the first whilst they do not reference subjects in the statements doesn’t mean their “truth status” is “independent from minds”. I also note he didn’t define “objective truth" the way you have or even used the term.

The statement is one thing. It’s truth status or value is another. I don’t have any problem with what was written or how it was written. He is saying the objective statement are devoid of opinion – not that their truth status is”independent from mind”.

I did say be careful with that, in a nice way. If all you meant was objectivite statements (not your definition of "objective truth") was devoid of opinion… well hello, welcome, and thankyou for coming..

ok dude.

Yes it's my fault for causing problems.

I will accept that the truth status of your second category allows for any one of the following - false, maybe, we don't know yet, pigs might fly..

oh and "there are fairies at the bottom of my garden."

 

Strafio my reply to you seemed to get lost in the maelstorm of this thread.

As per the simple questions I now do BJJ, I still long to do Thai Boxing but the class that I was at wasn't the kind of thing I was looking for and I'm actually much happier at the BJJ class. That's been for about a year and a half now too so your behind the times .

Now as per your maths questions...

I think they 'represent' objective truths in the way Topher and WingyPhilosoph have expressed i.e. "While mathematics has been developed by humans, it would still be objective since the truth status of mathematical sums/formulas do not rest with humans.... the sum "2+2=4" is truth whether there are humans or not". I agree with this. I don't think the sum would be expressed or understood without humans but the basic truth it is communicating would still apply. Just as humans describing the sun accurately does not mean they are the creators of the sun or that it wouldn't be true if they didn't describe it as such with language.

You are correct in your proposed explanation. I don't know a heap about mathematics but I have some idea that mathematicians are frequently debating over solutions to very complex mathematical problems. This I assumed was analogous to the kind of debates that go on in science i.e. everyone is trying to work out what is 'objectively true' but they are only working from the best evidence available so undoubtedly with new evidence the consensus truths need to be revised. I may be mistaken in how mathematicians actually do what they do because I really have very little familarity with the topic so I'm willing to listen to a better informed opinion.

Anyway, in summary... yes I think maths deals with objective truths in a similiar way to science.

Oh and lastly the 'first post I read' link was a link to that small post quoted at the top... what did you mean to link to?

 

It is true without anyone classifying it as being true.

Concepts such as number are completely irrelevant. Two objects and two objects totals four objects, and this does not require the concepts of numbers, just like pain does not require a concept to be assigned to it for pain to exist.

This is a bit rich coming from you since we've already explained that the concepts of numbers is irrelevant and yet here you are STILL bringing them up.

So you believe the four objects do not exist as four objects without humans minds?

Only the concept/symbols of numbers are a human creation.

The fact we use such concepts to describe the number of objects in question is 100% irrelevant. It does not mean the objects themselves do not exists. 2+2=4 is true by virtue of four objects existing in some relationship to each other, regardless of whether the concepts themselves exist.

It looks like you simply ignored or failed to understand my explanation of extra-mental truths: yes, the concept of '2' does not exist extra-mentally, but two objects CAN and DO exist. The potential lack of a numerical concept to describe is irrelevant.

I never said the concept of addition was not a mental interference, I said the concept was irrelevant.

Again... '4' is just a abstract concept used to describe a collection of objects. Even if the concept did not exist it would not mean the four objects don't. They exist as four objects by the virtue of their existence regardless of whether the concept exists.

It's the basic law of identity... to exist is to exist as something, to have positive attributes. Once we say something exists as are distinguishing it from other things, it exists as a singular object. It does not require a abstract number for this.

Sometimes I have to wonder whether you even think about what you write before you do so. Why on earth would I be confusing a truths status with an expression of that truth when I am the person making the very distinction!!! :bang:

It mean whether something is 'true' or 'false'.

If something is true, then it has the truth status 'true'.
If something is false, then it has the truth status 'false'.

So then please stop bringing abstract and subjective concepts into a discussion on objects truth.

A statement is true if it corresponds to physical reality. In other words: it is a truth that can be derived by whether it corresponds to physical reality NOT by whether a human subjective classifies it as being true.

The statement "light travels at 300,000 km/sec" is objectively true because light actually does travel at that speed in physical reality.

 

The objects exists numerically by virtue of their existence!

A single object (the Earth) is representative of '1' by virtue of its existence.

Another single object (the Moon) is representative of '1' by virtue of its existence.

Both these objects together are representative of '2' by virtue of both their existence.

This is true regardless of whether there is such as thing as the abstract concepts of '1' and '2'.

Yes, it is irrelevant, since we're not talking about abstract concepts, we're talking about the objects themselves!

No. Well, 'I' assign the abstract number of '2', but if no humans existed, both these objects would still exist together, they would still have the same relationship even it there was no concept to describe them.

It's still a relation.

That is how I am describing it. If something is a matter of opinion then it means 'dependent on minds'... it means dependent on a subject (a person) to give their opinion on the matter. And this is exactly what Socrastein says: "All of these statements must necessarily refer to a subject or subjects, either explicitly or tacitly, to have any meaning or truth value. They cannot be true or false, much less sensical, without reference to a subject."

Read it again!

"They cannot be true or false, much less sensical, without reference to a subject."

He is saying subject statements are only true or false once a subject (person) classifies it as such. This means 'subjectively true' or 'subjectively false'.

Yes, it does. That is EXACTLY what Soc is saying!

"Objective statements are statements that make/need no reference to a subject in order to be true/false or to make sense."

In other words, they don't need minds/humans to classify them as being true or false or meaningful, a.k.a they are independent of mind.

Yes, he has. He said objectively true statements are statements that do not need reference to a subject (person), a.k.a they are independent of mind.

The you clearly misunderstand.

If the truth of an objective statement is devoid of opinion then it is BY DEFINITION independent of mind.

If the truth of a subjective statement relies on opinion the it is BY DEFINITION dependent on mind.

 

Yeah. Topher had a good way of putting it.
Seeing as you agree with my description of mathematics, what I was saying possibly wasn't as controversial as you both thought.
Now what I'll do is take parts of my description of mathematics and show how this relates to our talk of systems.

My description of mathematics consisted of two systems.
There was the system of First Order Logic which was a system of rules including how to evaluate a proposition true or false.
Secondly, there was the system of axioms - the basic propositions of mathematics that all true mathematical statements logically follow them.
Truth in mathematics is defined by what logically follows from this system of axioms.
First order logic is the system that determines "what logically follows" from propositions such as the axioms of arithmetic.

That's the way that the truth of mathematics could be said to be completely dependent on a system.

So let's expand this from 'sum' to 'system'.
You could say that the system of rules is potentially out there, whether humans have develloped and practiced this system or not.
So the system is independent of a particular opinion or mind.
That's where it's objectivity is.

Given that someone is abiding by this system, i.e. using truth as this system defines it, then the truth will be objectively determined by this system.
However, this is only if the person is abiding by this system.
That's why I said earlier in the thread "Truth is relative to the system"
Hopefully now I put it this way, it doesn't seem so controversial.
I'm simply saying "2+2=4" if, and only if, you're talking about Mathematics.

If you accept "Truth is relative to the system" in this context then I'll try and prove the claim of mine that was a bit more controversial.
Topher's proposition "God is beyond all understanding" logically entails strong atheism - i.e. certainty that God cannot exist.

To be honest, I was probably being a bit pedantic.
In reality, mathematics like other areas of knowledge, will grow and devellop like science does.
Where problems are unsolved there's room for different hypothesis/conjecture.
Where a theorem is proven, in mathematics it's proven 100% wheras science 'just' has an incredibly high probability.
A bit pedantic, especially as good science is as good as 100% for all practical purposes and mathematics has an uncertainty in the form of human error...

Try this one.
If it doesn't take you to the philosophy forum... well, that's where it's meant to be taking you.
If my linkage fails again I'll just have to leave it to your investigative skills to work out which topic I meant.

 

Strafio,

I think I have an argument to persuade to you why the objective/subjective distinction that CKava and myself are working from is more important and useful, or at least superior, than focusing at the level of 'systems' as per you position.

While you can say mathematical truths primarily pertain only to the system of mathematics, that is not the most important classification.

The point under contention is this: do mathematical truths rests with humans to assign the truth status? I content that they do not. I would say such truths would exists regardless of human or mental existence. I'm sure you would agree with this.

We are simply saying some truths are not dependent on humans (i.e. objective truths) and other truths are dependent on humans (i.e. subjective/social truths). This is a clear, concise, and useful distinction on the nature of truth, and where the classification of truth should lie.

Now, if you so well choose I'm sure you could designate 'systems' within objective truths and 'systems' within subjective/social truths, however this does not alter the core distinctions that we are making between objective and subjective truths.

If I understand you correctly you are saying all truth would be relative as a consequence of the existence of these systems (i.e. truth is relative to the system), however I think this is born of a misunderstanding of the nature of objectivity and subjectivity. Regardless of these 'systems', objectivity and subjectivity would supersede them, since these systems would essentially become sub-classifications within subjectivity and/or objectivity (e.g. systems within objectivity and/or systems within subjectivity). Furthermore, I think it would eliminate or diminish the importance of the objective/subjective distinction we are making and would therefore be an impractical approach to truth. It seems that you are assessing truth from the level of these systems (hence you conclusion that truth is relative) whereas me and CK are assessing truth from the more pragmatic distinction of objectivity and subjectivity.

More on this below.

I think you have this backwards - it seems you are defining objectivity within a system rather than defining the system within objectivity or subjectivity. This is a misuse of how the term objective is generally used, and as I said above it would eliminate/diminish the the far more important objective/subjective distinction.

Right, and we are saying this truth is objective (i.e. the truth does not rest with humans). The fact it only applies to mathematics is irrelevant and certainly does not make the truth relative. It simply means it is a 'mathematical objective truth' rather than, say, a 'biological objective truth' - but it's still objective! Hopefully this highlights my point about 'systems' being properly classified 'within' the distinction of objectivity/subjectivity.

For example:

- a mathematical objective truth
- a biological objective truth

Here we can say biology is a system and mathematics is also a system, and that a biological truth only (or at least primarily) pertains to biology and a mathematical truth only (or at least primarily) pertains to mathematics, but, BOTH are objective in that neither truth requires a reference to humans in order to be true, and thus the more important, or at least superior classification is objectivity.

Can you at least see now why objectivity and subjectivity are a far more important, pragmatic and superior focus when determining truth? I can even see, and agree, to the point of 'systems' as a sub-categorisation within objectivity (i.e. a 'system' of maths, a 'system' of biology, etc) and subjectivity (i.e. a 'system' of emotion, a 'system' of aesthetics, etc), however I would disagree with these systems being the primary focus on which we determine truth, as objectivity/subjectivity is far more useful: when we are socially interacting we apply social (subjective) truths, and when we intend to make claims about matters of fact, the way the world is, then we turn to objective truth. We all do this everyday. Calling all truths relative however bears no resemblance to how we behave and use truth in our daily lives, and it diminishes the actual way we tacitly or explicitly understand and apply truth (i.e. we all know, either explicitly or tacitly, that claims about reality/science are or should be objective, whereas claims about emotion are or should be subjective).

So to conclude, you can still keep your notion of 'systems' but I would recommend they not be the primary means of classification of truth, for the reasons I've outlined. If you agree with that then I think our primary disagreement would be over.

Incoherence does NOT lead to non-existence, it only leads to non-cognitivism. Once you claim something is incoherent you can no longer say anything about it, and that includes whether it exists or not. Our inability to know anything about this entity is not a justification for saying it does not exist, we can only conclude that we cannot speak of this entity, which entails non-cognitivism, and nothing more.

I don't think you can claim something is incoherent and the go on to assert it does not exist (strong atheism) since to claim something does not exist implies that there is something meaningful about the entity whose existence is in question, that you know what you are denying. So incoherence leads to non-cognitivism which in turn leads to weak/agnostic atheism.

 

Okay... so it's not that you disagree with what I've said about Mathematical truth being determined by a system of rules, it's just you think that looking at it in terms of objective/subjective.

I perhaps didn't make myself clear but I never contended this throughout the entire topic.
I thought you put it nicely when you said:
"While mathematics has been developed by humans, it would still be objective since the truth status of mathematical sums/formulas do not rest with humans.... the sum "2+2=4" is truth whether there are humans or not"

So Mathematics is a social construct because it was developed by humans.
However, the truth depends on the system of rules and is determined by these rules independently or what any person or group of person thinks.

You kind of lost me here as I didn't really understand what you mean by this.
But when I read the following paragraph, I think I understood...

Actually, I think I might understand what you mean now.
You say that rather than objective being classified within a system, you mean that a system itself can be classified as objective or subjective.

So you're saying that a system is objective or subjective depending on it's rules for determining truth.
With mathematics, you have the rules of logic and the rule "Proposition P is true iff it logically follows from the Axioms"
With a social social you might have rules like "and if the circle of elders agree" or "if the king gives his blessing" or "if the people feel it to be true" and in those systems, judgement would depend on the judgements of people rather than something independent of human judgement.

So a system has objective truth iff its rules of evaluation make no requirement of human judgement.
Otherwise it is subjective or inter-subjective.
If you agree with this then we've both been trying to say the same thing throughout the entire topic but have disagreed purely because we misunderstood how each other was saying it!
Philosophers, eh? :bang:

I think that the objective/subjective distinction serves a purpose as a rough guide, makes a good rule of thumb. Perhaps this is why you find it so pragmatic.
The thing is, like most rules of thumb, it might work most of the time but other times it can fail and cause confusion if held on to too strongly.
A bit like Newtonian mechanics is good enough for most of us, but we have to accept that in certain situations these rules will break down.
I see 'systems' as 'general relativity' to 'objectivity/subjectivity' as 'Newtonian mechanics'.
Breaking it down into systems brings the more complex, but more accurate picture, that ultimately determines where the 'objectivity/subjectivity' distinction works and where it doesn't, the same way general relativity determines where Newtonian mechanics apply and where they don't.

As for what you say about objective/subjective being pragmatically useful, it's similar how I don't think I'll ever need to learn more than Newtonian mechanics.

Unless you can successfully argue that coherence is necessary for existence.
Well, coherence is necessary for stated existence...
I'll put forward some arguments once we're settled over this objectivity dispute.

 

Right, truth status rests on the system/ rules (developed by humans) to be objective - devoid of opinion.

Nothing to do with observing the external world..

2+2=4 is true without observing the outside world and correlating "the system" to it?

We don't need the objects for it to be true or to make it true.. we don't require observing the outside world to formulate number values, counting and addition.

We don’t have to count or add up oranges to know 2+2=4. We can do it all in our heads.

We just need to understand the concepts – number values, function and meaning of the symbols.

I've described it as A priori, which I think holds up to scrutiny.

Therefore the truth status of 2+2=4 would be independent of the outside world even!

And no where near describable as "independent of minds" ("objective truth")

You can't go on to say the system exists outside of the mind or is seperate else, where is it seperate, where do you find it like that in the universe without correlation?

Sure once you have the system - opinion is out of the equation. But that's it.

 

Could it be that all 4 of us finally agree?
Would that be the end to the MAP Religion forum as we know it?

Stay tuned...

 

Well... Indeed, I have an idea to illustrate how the speed of light could be shown to be relative...

That should go down with a splash ... all the way to the bottom of the oceon

 

Test

 

I think our misunderstanding comes down to our use of the term 'relative'...

It seems that you were using 'relative' more like 'applies to', i.e. mathematics is one system and mathematical truths therefore apply to (are relative to) only that system. These mathematical truths can still be objective under your usage.

I (and CKava) was using 'relative' more like 'contingent' or 'dependent', to mean that the truth was not objectively true, but was rather contingent/dependent on something else (humans) in order to be true. Under my usage relative was not compatible with objective.

So if I understand you correctly, by relative you mean applies to the system as apposed to our use of the term meaning dependent to minds/humans.

I think acknowledging systems and then saying therefore truth is relative (to these system), while true under a certain use of the term relative, is confusing as when people tend to talk about truth being relative they tend to mean it in contradistinction to truth being objective.

Right. Thus it would be more correct to say mathematical truths are objective, rather than social, even though the system of maths is a social system.

Bingo!

Essentially I think we have two fundamental categories--objective and subjective--and every proposition/truth statement will fit under one of them. For example: "Lights travels at 300,000 km/sec" is first and foremost an objective statement/truth, and it applies to the system of science, and can further apply to the system of physics

Yes.

I think the objective/subjective categorization supersedes these systems since these systems are themselves classified as objective or subjective.

 

Yep!

You are focusing on the distinction of the systems and that gave CK and myself the impression that you were denying the objective/subjective distinction of truths, or rather defining them as relative, which made no sense to how we were using the term.

We were focusing on the objective/subjective distinction and that gave you the impression that we were saying that there was no boundaries or systems - that certain things (such as 2+2=4) didn't apply to certain subjects only (such as mathematics).

:bang:

Not sure that you mean here. Objectivity and subjectivity are a means of categorization, a label, much in the same way as 'male' or 'female'. It's used to identify whether something requires a reference to a subject (a person) in order to be true or meaningful. Something must be objective or subjective, there is no third option, it either requires reference to a subject or it doesn't.

You can break it down it to systems/sub categories, but they are all still objective.

We are talking about the nature of truth, which is not specific, it's a broad topic, and I think the objective truth/subjective truth distinction is the most appropriate perspective to take on the matter.

No, you have to demonstrate that incoherence necessarily leads to non-existence. The problem is once you say something in incoherent, you can not longer say anything else about it, which stops you right in your tracks! We can't say it exists and we can't say it does not exist... we can't say ANYTHING about it at all. Once you begin to speak about this entity you assume there is something coherent and meaningful about it.

I'm not saying coherence is necessary for existence, I'm saying coherent is necessary for understanding and knowledge. I think something may exist, but still be incoherent to us, either currently or inherently. There maybe things in the universe which are utterly incoherent to us at the moment, but are still real. There may also be things which are utterly incoherent to us and will always be incoherent to us.

 

Oh don't worry I don't think thats happening yet. I can't be sure because it could be as Topher says due to using objective in a different way but from reading cloudhandz most recent posts I got the distinct impression he doesn't agree with an objective/subjective seperation in the sense myself and Topher have been promoting.

 

Lol! I meant 'you' as in 'one'... as in this case me...

I know you're not - that's my position!

Anyway, just to get your position clear, our premise is God is necessarily incoherent.
That means it cannot be a concept within any system of understanding.
Not within maths, not within biology, etc...
I have to argue that strong atheism logically follows.


The Argument - "God Exists" cannot be true.
Remember how atheism is simply not-theism.
That means it can be "There is no God" or "There might be God but I don't believe"
So long as it's not "I belief in God" then it's atheism.
Non-existence is a similarly negatively defined concept.
So long as it isn't the case that God exists then that's fine.
So as long as I show that "God exists" cannot possibly true then "God doesn't exist" is the only conclusion.

Argument 1 - Only meaningful propositions can be true.
For a proposition to be true it first has to be meaningful.
If "God" isn't defined within a system of understanding then "God exists" can't be meaningful.
If the proposition "God exists" isn't meaningful it clearly cannot be evaluated as true.
If "God exists" cannot be true then the negation of it must be true - that is, there is no way that God can exist.

Argument 2 - Existence is a concept with specific rules
That is, there are rules for correctly applying the concept of existence.
There are different rules depending on whether you are talking within the context of mathematics or the context of the physical world but whatever system/context you are working by, the rules will apply.

The common use of existence is in the context of the physical world.
I exist. You exist. Mountains also do but unicorns don't.
If the theist doesn't mean existence as in this context then they need to define existence as within another, and show the relevance of this other context with it's concept of existence.
If they want to use existence as it's normally used then it has to follow the normal rules.

So what are the rules for applying existence?
It seems to me that it needs to be applied to a defined physical concept with the usual physical properties.
E.g. "Does 'hello' exist?"
If by 'hello' you mean the sound of "Hello" then yes, you've defined a physical object.
If not, what can you even mean?

I'll leave that with you before we start counter arguments.

 

Yes, so it was rather bizarre to ask me to "successfully argue that coherence is necessary for existence."

But you cannot do this.

The fact that something isn't meaningful to us only means it it beyond our comprehension, not that it doesn't exist.

As I said before, this may be a practical argument for non-existence, but it is not a metaphysical one.

Right. And it cannot be evaluated as untrue either.

This is a non-sequitur.

First you say: "cannot be evaluated as true."
Then you say: "cannot be true"

Our inability to confirm whether something is true does not lead to "cannot be true".

Right. But I'm NOT applying the concept of existence or non-existence. I'm specifically saying we cannot do this, much like the via negative theologians, who say 'beyond existence' (i.e. they hold you cannot apply the concept of existence to god).

I would love to see them define existence outside of naturalism, without stealing the concept.

Which is precisely why we cannot apply the concept of existence to god/the supernatural.

 

You seem to have skipped a major premise of mine:
The same as atheism is any belief that isn't theism, non-existence is anything that isn't God existing.
Since "God exists" cannot be true, that means God cannot exist.
God can only exist if the proposition "God exists" can potentially be true.
If it's not meaningful it cannot possibly be true.
So saying that God is necessarily incoherent logically entails strong atheism.

 

The problems here were apparent in the rest of your post, which I dealt with.

Right. The problem, and my point, is you cannot say god does not exist to begin with!

In pragmatical terms I don't think any god exists, I think there is an argument for that, but metaphysically I cannot say whether a god exists or not.

This begs the question. You're assuming your conclusion.

"God cannot exist
Therefore, god doesn't exist."

And as I've said, the fact it is not meaningful to us does NOT lead to non-existence, it leads to non-cognitivism.

There is no logical step between "not meaningful or incoherent" and "therefore does not exist". It's a non-sequitur.

No, it doesn't.

You're simply begging the question and then asserting that begged question as an argument!