I don't have enough faith to be an atheist ch 2

[nogods]

There are no absolute statements.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

Jim

Make one? And then prove it is one?

[spongebob]

Spongebob,

I think Tony is misunderstanding and misapplying Norm Geisler's ridiculous (illogical) "RoadRunner tactic" for dealing with self-refuting statements in the book I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist. But I could be mistaken.

Jim

He's misapplying something, that's for sure.

[spongebob]

There are no absolute statements.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

Jim

Make one? And then prove it is one?

Uh...*scratches head*....

"There are NO absolute statements."

Isn't that an absolute statement?

[Mr. Sluagh]

How about this, Tony:

"It is impossible to prove that there are no absolute truths. However, given that the flawed nature of human perception makes it at least extremely difficult to determine whether a given truth is absolute, it is safest to assume, until further notice, that any given supposed truth is subjective and open to question, because that is the most conservative assumption."

[tonyenglish7]

OK, let's try this again... the statement "All things are subjective" is either an objective statement, or a subjective one. If it is objective, it violoates it's own premise, namely that all things are subjective. But if it is subjective, then it is not actually saying anything. If you said, "some things are subjective" that would not be self refuting. But it uses the word "all" things are subjective. It is an objective statement about all things being subjective. It doesn't matter how many or how few people say it, the meaning stays the same.

It is like saying, "I do not speak a word of English" in English, that would be self refuting. OR, "I am a married bachelor". Or this is a square circle. Or, all things are subjective, opps, the example typically used to teach this point is the actual point we are discussing...

I disagree. I don't see your analogies as consistent. What makes an idea objective is multiple points of view, Tony. If one person says, "All things are subjective", then he could very well be correct. But if two people agree that, "All things are subjective", then a breach of logic has occurred because the two people have just objectively validated an idea. The act of declaring multiple (or all) things to be subjective does not violate any logical rule. I'm simply stating my (subjective) opinion in the matter. In fact, as a single opinion, it's difficult for me to even quantify objectivity. Think of it this way. If you were the only conscious intelligent being in the universe and you declared that, "all things are subjective". Who's going to disagree? From your perspective, everything is subjective.

What you seem to be asserting is that by using the term "all", it is not logically consistent to declare subjectivity. So what's magic about the word "all"? What if I asserted that 99.9% of everything is subjective? That still leaves lots of things that might be objective, but would you consider it logically inconsistent? What number would you consider accurate? 90%? 50%? And where's the dividing line? What's your criteria? And how is a single mind to know the difference between subjective and objective? I just don't see how declaring things to be subjective is an objective statement. I think maybe you are talking about absolutes. If I stated that everything in the universe is absolute, that would likely be logically invalid because I don't have absolute knowledge of everything.

When I assert that I'm being objective about something, it usually means I'm considering the opinions or ideas or experiences of others in my analysis.
I don't think I can truly go outside my own consciousness and experience life, so I know of no way to objectively experience life other than considering the experiences of others. Even if I choose to reject another's experience, I can still be objective in my final analysis because I'm considering the issue from more than one point of view.

ugh... wow, this is interesting.. I guess this is where the term, "words mean things" comes into play. My first response to your above statement is, "are you right about that?" If you say yes, you are making an objective truth claim. And about what? About everything being subjective! Are you objectively right? OR Subjectively?

Now, the fact that one person says something as opposed to two is irrelevant. The statement itself is an objective truth claim, namely, that "all things are subjective!". It doesn't rely on any committee to "validate" the claim, it just is simply an objective truth claim.

Second, I think you are saying actually that it takes two minds to communicate meaning, for which I agree. And in fact, if one person existed and spoke, they would speak meaning and therefore this is evidence for God. It takes two minds to communicate, one to transmit and one to receive. But that is another discussion.

The main issue is clear, the statement, "all things are subjective" is a self refuting statement. The more you argue that I am wrong, the more you prove my point. All you can say is, "I don't feel good about that". But you didn't, you said, as quote, "I disagree". Are you right about that? If so, all things cannot be subjective because you are right about your claim, which makes it objective and therefore wrong. .. ..

[tonyenglish7]

How about this, Tony:

"It is impossible to prove that there are no absolute truths. However, given that the flawed nature of human perception makes it at least extremely difficult to determine whether a given truth is absolute, it is safest to assume, until further notice, that any given supposed truth is subjective and open to question, because that is the most conservative assumption."

Is what you said true? If you say yes, then it is an objective statement. It has more parts but fails under the same cliff. See, this statement is a "supposed" truth claim itself. It therefore is "open to question". What is open to question? The fact that every statement, (which this is), is open to question. It therefore jumps off the same cliff as the more simple, "all statements are subjective".

This being the case, there are at least some statements that are not subjective. For instance, "some truth is knowable". ... ..

[tonyenglish7]

Spongebob,

I think Tony is misunderstanding and misapplying Norm Geisler's ridiculous (illogical) "RoadRunner tactic" for dealing with self-refuting statements in the book I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist. But I could be mistaken.

Jim

He's misapplying something, that's for sure.

Funny, you can ask Emery, I have been making this arguement for years. But it is the so called Road Runner Tactic. Better known as pointing out a self-refuting statment. Please point out what I am misapplying...

[nogods]

Sorry folks, I made an error in posting, see message below.

[nogods]

Make one? And then prove it is one?

Uh...*scratches head*....

"There are NO absolute statements."

Isn't that an absolute statement?

Yes!

I was writing about the statement "All things are subjective." Tony English, by saying this is a contradiction seems to want to limit this claim to mental concepts and thus reject it as a contradiction. He then uses this rejection to reify his conclusion that it is therefore logical to assume that 'objective' (absolute) things exist' If he kept to concepts, then one could talk about the statement "All things are subjective" as being contradictory. But instead he foolishly reifies his claim and concludes it tells us something about the world, that objective (absolute) things exist' and offers the fact that the statement "All things are subjective" is a contradiction, as proof.

If Tony wants to make the opposite claim "Something is objective" then he needs to provide proof, by showing us something objective. He needs to make an objective claim that applies to the world, and not merely to concepts, because what we conceive in our minds does not necessarily tell us anything about ontology.

Tony is mixing categories, he says

"All things are subjective" is either an objective statement, or a subjective one. If it is objective, it violoates it's own premise, namely that all things are subjective.

The statement is not talking about verbal/mental concepts it is making an ontological claim 'All things are subjective,' Tony refutes it by saying the statement (as a mental concept) is self-contradictory. But the sentence is talking about things (ontological) not about mental concepts (metaphysical/epistemoloy).

If Tony wants to prove that all things are not subjective, he cannot do that by playing with the syntax and meaning of the sentence, which is all he has done. He has not, as he seems to believe, provided any ontological arguments to show that objective (absolute) things exist - such as God (which is what he seems to mean by the term 'objective thing')

If Tony wants to prove that that he must provid an objective claim and prove it is a valid ontological claim, and not merely reify a mental concept,which is all he appears to have done in this thread.

[tonyenglish7]

Make one? And then prove it is one?

Uh...*scratches head*....

"There are NO absolute statements."

Isn't that an absolute statement?

Yes!

I was writing about the statement "All things are subjective." Tony English, by saying this is a contradiction seems to want to limit this claim to mental concepts and thus reject it as a contradiction. He then uses this rejection to reify his conclusion that it is therefore logical to assume that 'objective' (absolute) things exist' If he kept to concepts, then one could talk about the statement "All things are subjective" as being contradictory. But instead he foolishly reifies his claim and concludes it tells us something about the world, that objective (absolute) things exist' and offers the fact that the statement "All things are subjective" is a contradiction, as proof.

If Tony wants to make the opposite claim "Something is objective" then he needs to provide proof, by showing us something objective. He needs to make an objective claim that applies to the world, and not merely to concepts, because what we conceive in our minds does not necessarily tell us anything about ontology.

Tony is mixing categories, he says

"All things are subjective" is either an objective statement, or a subjective one. If it is objective, it violoates it's own premise, namely that all things are subjective.

The statement is not talking about verbal/mental concepts it is making an ontological claim 'All things are subjective,' Tony refutes it by saying the statement (as a mental concept) is self-contradictory. But the sentence is talking about things (ontological) not about mental concepts (metaphysical/epistemoloy).

If Tony wants to prove that all things are not subjective, he cannot do that by playing with the syntax and meaning of the sentence, which is all he has done. He has not, as he seems to believe, provided any ontological arguments to show that objective (absolute) things exist - such as God (which is what he seems to mean by the term 'objective thing')

If Tony wants to prove that that he must provid an objective claim and prove it is a valid ontological claim, and not merely reify a mental concept,which is all he appears to have done in this thread.

Are you making a "verbal/mental" claim or an ontological claim?

The sense of the discussion was about statements. So it is better stated, "all statements are subjective" and my argument is valid and refers to the actual discussion.

You could claim, all sentences, all truth claims, all concepts, all metaphysical claims etc... It all is the same. Things i.e. chairs, cars, computers are not typically discussed in this way. We are not discussing the ontological existence of a desk. Nobody is arguing over the idea that all hamburgers are subjective/objective. We are discussing the validity of truth claims, objectivity, precepts and logic.

But boy, you really sounded smart in your post! "Playing with the syntax of the sentence". and "what we conceive in our minds does not necessarily tell us anything about ontology.".. LOL oh, this is killing me right now...

Your defense of a self-refuting statement really made me laugh out loud... too funny.. I really enjoy this board sometimes....

[spongebob]

Funny, you can ask Emery, I have been making this arguement for years. But it is the so called Road Runner Tactic. Better known as pointing out a self-refuting statment. Please point out what I am misapplying...

Tony, it doesn't matter what sort of tactic you use to formulate an argument. If you use the tactic in error, your argument is not valid. You have yet to provide a valid logical proof for your assertion, so I still don't buy it. And, btw, it also doesn't matter how long you've been making an assertion. If you've been making an invalid assertion for a long time, you've just been in error for a long time.

My first response to your above statement is, "are you right about that?" If you say yes, you are making an objective truth claim. And about what? About everything being subjective! Are you objectively right? OR Subjectively?

If you state that "all things are subjective", and I say, yes, I agree, then the statement becomes invalid. If I disagree with you, then the statement remains possibly valid, possibly invalid. This is, again, my counter assertion that multiple points of view can potentially invalidate this statement. At first you rejected my claim that MPOV was necessary, but now you are employing MPOV to try and prove your point. So, it seems that I have made a strong point that you have been unable to refute. From one POV, the statement "all things are subjective" can be a true statement, and thus not self-refuting. By adding another POV, it can be proved invalid. My case seems pretty solid.

You could scale the assertion down a bit and examine it in more detail. What if you placed one person alone in a room. If the person asserted that "everything in this room is subjective", would that also be an objective statement, and thus contradictory? If so, why?

Now, the fact that one person says something as opposed to two is irrelevant. The statement itself is an objective truth claim, namely, that "all things are subjective!". It doesn't rely on any committee to "validate" the claim, it just is simply an objective truth claim.

But why? What is objective about it? And why did you employ MPOV to try and prove your point?

In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings. For instance, it is true always and everywhere that 'in base 10, 2 plus 2 equals 4'. A subjective fact is one that is only true under certain conditions, at certain times, in certain places or for certain people. For instance, 'That painting is beautiful' may be true for someone who likes it, but not for everyone.

This is one explanation for objectivity offered by Wikipedia. Can you apply this definition, or any other definition, in such a way as to build a logical proof that supports your claim? Maybe you're saying this because you consider the statement "all things are subjective" to be a truth. Is that so? If so, then I guess we are in disagreement because I do not agree that all things in the universe are subjective. If this is so,

The main issue is clear, the statement, "all things are subjective" is a self refuting statement.

I disagree and I'm waiting for a logical proof. So far you just keep re-asserting your assertion, which isn't an effective tactic. You've made a few analogies that explain what is meant by "self-refuting", but they are not good comparisons for your assertion.

The more you argue that I am wrong, the more you prove my point.

Not only is that the dumbest thing I've ever heard, it's a pathetic attempt at debate. You expect someone to be convinced by this kind of argument? It's on the level of schoolyard logic; Kindergarten level at that. Please try to be more mature, Tony.

All you can say is, "I don't feel good about that". But you didn't, you said, as quote, "I disagree". Are you right about that? If so, all things cannot be subjective because you are right about your claim, which makes it objective and therefore wrong.

Just repeating yourself again, Tony, and again using my assertion and thus supporting my position. Why do you repeat yourself so much?

[spongebob]

Your defense of a self-refuting statement really made me laugh out loud... too funny.. I really enjoy this board sometimes....

Tony, can you be any more conceited?

[OzAnt]

But what makes it "objective" if only one person asserts it?

Bob, if you ever wind up in front of a magistrate that's determining your guilt or innocence in a civil case, it would be really, really, really prudent NOT to ask them this question.

Ant

[OzAnt]

There are no absolute statements.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

ROFL!

Ant

[tonyenglish7]

Funny, you can ask Emery, I have been making this arguement for years. But it is the so called Road Runner Tactic. Better known as pointing out a self-refuting statment. Please point out what I am misapplying...

Tony, it doesn't matter what sort of tactic you use to formulate an argument. If you use the tactic in error, your argument is not valid. You have yet to provide a valid logical proof for your assertion, so I still don't buy it. And, btw, it also doesn't matter how long you've been making an assertion. If you've been making an invalid assertion for a long time, you've just been in error for a long time.

My first response to your above statement is, "are you right about that?" If you say yes, you are making an objective truth claim. And about what? About everything being subjective! Are you objectively right? OR Subjectively?

If you state that "all things are subjective", and I say, yes, I agree, then the statement becomes invalid. If I disagree with you, then the statement remains possibly valid, possibly invalid. This is, again, my counter assertion that multiple points of view can potentially invalidate this statement. At first you rejected my claim that MPOV was necessary, but now you are employing MPOV to try and prove your point. So, it seems that I have made a strong point that you have been unable to refute. From one POV, the statement "all things are subjective" can be a true statement, and thus not self-refuting. By adding another POV, it can be proved invalid. My case seems pretty solid.

You could scale the assertion down a bit and examine it in more detail. What if you placed one person alone in a room. If the person asserted that "everything in this room is subjective", would that also be an objective statement, and thus contradictory? If so, why?

Now, the fact that one person says something as opposed to two is irrelevant. The statement itself is an objective truth claim, namely, that "all things are subjective!". It doesn't rely on any committee to "validate" the claim, it just is simply an objective truth claim.

But why? What is objective about it? And why did you employ MPOV to try and prove your point?

In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings. For instance, it is true always and everywhere that 'in base 10, 2 plus 2 equals 4'. A subjective fact is one that is only true under certain conditions, at certain times, in certain places or for certain people. For instance, 'That painting is beautiful' may be true for someone who likes it, but not for everyone.

This is one explanation for objectivity offered by Wikipedia. Can you apply this definition, or any other definition, in such a way as to build a logical proof that supports your claim? Maybe you're saying this because you consider the statement "all things are subjective" to be a truth. Is that so? If so, then I guess we are in disagreement because I do not agree that all things in the universe are subjective. If this is so,

The main issue is clear, the statement, "all things are subjective" is a self refuting statement.

I disagree and I'm waiting for a logical proof. So far you just keep re-asserting your assertion, which isn't an effective tactic. You've made a few analogies that explain what is meant by "self-refuting", but they are not good comparisons for your assertion.

The more you argue that I am wrong, the more you prove my point.

Not only is that the dumbest thing I've ever heard, it's a pathetic attempt at debate. You expect someone to be convinced by this kind of argument? It's on the level of schoolyard logic; Kindergarten level at that. Please try to be more mature, Tony.

All you can say is, "I don't feel good about that". But you didn't, you said, as quote, "I disagree". Are you right about that? If so, all things cannot be subjective because you are right about your claim, which makes it objective and therefore wrong.

Just repeating yourself again, Tony, and again using my assertion and thus supporting my position. Why do you repeat yourself so much?

I have to keep proving the same thing until you get it. The statement doesn't say, "from my personal subjective point of view, all my own points of view are subjective." It is saying that all points of view are subjective. You seem to agree with me that this would be self- refuting as you said, "If you state that "all things are subjective", and I say, yes, I agree, then the statement becomes invalid. "
So are we in agreement then that it is self-refuting? So it takes two minds to create a self refuting statement? Do you agree that all statements are self refuting? Yes or no?