An Argument for the existence of God.

The first premise makes the whole argument an opinion.

The existence of a god does not necessarily lead to the existence of morality. Now, if there is no objective reality that might be a different story. Philosophy alone leads many to the conclusion that there is only a subjective reality. However, some early philosophers like Plato believed that there was a bedrock of reality exceeding the limits of human experience that exist not as an individual being but simply a root of existence that all things stem from.

If they were right then your second premise could be true while your conclusion would be wrong.

 

Plato also believed in the existence of Socrates. IHMO a mythical creature that has never been proved to exist. Plato also was one of the promoters of Logic, something allegedly taught to him and Aristotle by that mythical creature Socrates. So, can this 'Logic' be used in determining anything about 'morality'?

 

1. There is no direct relationship between god and morals
Many people have had many different ideas of god and different morals
People with the same idea of god have different morals
People with no idea of god have morals

2 no proof that objective morals exist

3 no proof here of god
And if it were possible to prove
Then faith in him would be an absurd concept

 

Sure, you have to use logic to make any sort of argument at all. Flawed logic chains don't prove anything though.

The argument that can be stated about morality is that if all interpretations of reality are subjective it does not exist objectively. Because by that conclusion nothing exist objectively.

If however there is a true interpretation of reality then some things are subjective and some things are objective. Morality could exist as a reality in that universe whether it was created by a god or exist as a reflection of objective truths.

 

"Flawed logic chains"? Who is the one who determines whether or not a particular chain of logic is "Flawed"? Me, you, someone else? Perhaps the one who is declaring a chain of logic to be "Flawed" is using an entire system of logic that is 'Flawed'. Mans Logic vs Theologic.

Please name one thing in this so-called reality that does not have to be observed (using the maximum strength of the term observe) through the subjective mind.

Care to elaborate?

We are not speaking of the abstract alternate universe which you are appealing to, but rather, we are speaking of this so-called reality in which we are now communicating.

 

A flawed logic chain is self evident. Its not about one persons opinion-- 1+1=2, one and one are numbers, added together they make 2, So, 3 and three are numbers, ergo three and three added together make 2.

The various elements of the logical argument have to all make sense. The proper value of each element has to be consistent.

If reality is objective it doesn't need observation. Our individual concepts depend on the observations we are capable of, they are not necessarily complete.

My subjective opinion is that durian fruit taste foul. Objectively durian fruit is a food staple in many pacific rim countries. I can give more examples of objective and subjective, but if you don't understand the concept its pointless.

I was speaking of this universe as some might see it. If one chooses to believe that all reality is subjective it doesn't really matter which universe does it?

 

"one and one" are words representing the symbols 1 and 1. Just as the 'words' are symbols representing an idea. 1 + 1 can also equal 11. So you see, your flawed sample of a 'flawed logic chain' can backfire. 1 + 1 can equal 11 because you did not specify that I was required to adhere to a particular mathematical logic. Just like your 3 + 3 = 2.

You mean like in the examples immediately above... ???? "have to all make sense". You did not specify any requirement regarding having 'to make sense'. Even if you had, there is no law that specifies that anyone is required to adhere to any particular set of logic.

If reality is objective and it does not need observation, then the scientists in this world are really wasting their time and the time and tax dollars of may people across the globe. So, if you are not capable of observing how electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom, then you have no means of knowing whether or not such an event is even taking place. You can only speculate and suggest that they are orbiting the nucleus. Because 'observation' is the central element of scientific method or process. The core skill of scientist is to make observation. What you are suggesting ("If reality is objective it doesn't need observation") flies in the face of science because scientists are first and foremost individuals thus meeting the standard you set regarding individual concepts.

You can give all the examples you desire, however you cannot provide any description of anything without first making it subjective before you attempt to give it to me.

Sure it does. Do you have positive knowledge of the existence of another 'universe'? Do you have positive knowledge of the existence of an alternate universe? If you do, then please do present the location of that existing alternate universe or another existing universe.

 

I agree with this statement, because quantum mechanics proves that reality *does* need observation and does not function in the same way it would when not observed.

 

And what do you think observation means in this context, Qchan? Here's a hint, it doesn't mean "humans consciously looking at something with their bare eyes".

 

What I think is irrelevant.

 

It certainly does if you're making a claim based off of what you think. In the context of the truth, however, I agree with you, what you think does appear to be irrelevant.

 

Um, you can't claim that quantum mechanics requires a universal observer. The whole point is that quantum objects behave differently when they are observed than when they aren't. If there were a universal observer, all quantum objects would behave as they would when they were observed . . . meaning we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an observed quantum object and a non-observed quantum objects. If there were a universal observer, all wave functions would already be collapsed.

 

Indeed. What I think is indeed irrelevant when I'm spitting facts.

 

Except what you're spitting facts about is something that it seems you don't understand considering you talk about "observation", again, like it means "humans consciously observing things".

 

I'm not too sure what you're talking about, and I don't think you do either.

 

Qchan, you are way too easily lost. Incorporeal made a statement about the role of observation in science, and he was talking about observation made by scientists. You piggy backed onto that post by making a comment about how our Universe requires observation for wave functions to collapse, or in your words the Universe "does not function in the same way it would when not observed." This seems to be you suggesting that the Universe only exists because of human observation and would not function the same way without it. Is that what you meant?

 

Like I said. Doesn't seem like you know what you're talking about. If you understood quantum mechanics, you'd easily know what I was talking about. No worries. I'll drop it here.

 

Lol, my best friend in college was a quantum physicist, specializing in quantum optics. He and his colleagues always enjoyed a good laugh at what theists claimed quantum mechanics "proved" about their beliefs; even those who were personally theists laughed at these misconceptions.

 

I think you are mixing up our concept of reality and reality itself. If reality is subjective then concept and reality are the same thing. If reality is objective our concept of it has no bearing on it. If you are walking barefoot through a room and do not see a tack on the floor does it exist before or after you step on it? The concept of its existence first appears to you with the sensation of pain from your foot.

To create a concept of reality we need to observe it. If all consciousness ceased there could be no concept of anything. However if we go the whole subjective road we would never need to observe or investigate anything, we could just create it whole cloth by mere speculation or imagination.

 

Please, after microwaving some food that was produced more than 48 hours ago (and yet is still edible thanks to advances in science), use your computer to explain how learning about what is real is a waste of time and tax dollars.

Is a theist really saying you have to see something in order to know it exists? If a corpse is found with a gunshot wound to the head (and no other wounds/illnesses/toxins are present), is it impossible to know that the person was shot unless you watched it occur?

Yes, observation is a key element of the scientific process. But one may base hypotheses on observations. With enough evidence, these hypotheses may be either discarded or supported (and become theories).
Not sure what point you're attempting to make, if any.

 

I do know what you're talking about, which is why I'm asking you to clarify your belief about what a specialized term means in the context of what you're saying. Because from what I'm inferring, you're misrepresenting what the term means.

 

Convince me of something that is real and is not a subjective thing. I will be waiting.

No, that would be more in line with the manner in which non-theists operate. What is 'seeing' but a subjective operation of the mind?

What is a hypotheses other than a bit of 'guesswork'. That is my point.

 

Always with personal attacks.
That must be objective, because it is observed.

 

I have no obligation to "convince" you of anything, and little motivation to do so given your record of cherry-picking and denying evidence.

So you're saying that "seeing" is not evidence because it's subjective operation of the mind... In other words, you toy with semantics in order to establish a poor pretence of justification for rejecting evidence that doesn't support your preconceptions. Discussing anything with you therefore becomes an utter waste of time due to the hypocrisy of your position.

Of course a hypothesis is a guess - based on available data. As more data becomes available, and continues to support the hypothesis, it becomes a "theory". Once a theory is proven, it becomes scientific law. If you're unfamiliar with this process, you might want to avoid any further discussion on the topic of evidence.
Having a problem with "guesswork", when your deistic beliefs are entirely based on guesswork, is an amazing display of hypocrisy.

 

No, you don't have such an obligation ... UNLESS of course you are wanting me to accept what you are asserting is true. So, because you seemingly don't want to see me accept your assertions as true, then you certainly don't have to attempt to compel my mind toward such a destination. What then is the purpose of communicating with me if you are not wanting me to accept your assertions as true?

You mean like the scientists have done with the term "objective reality"? They admit that "objective reality" is based or founded upon certain presumptions. One of which is that "objective reality" exists. The purpose they have established for making such presumptions was to justify the use of a scientific tool called "the scientific method". I am at this point now going to presume that you know that presuming something is accepting it as true or real without evidence? Talk about hypocrisy as you and others like to use the term.

Now comes the problem of "data". What is 'data'? Data is simply information. Information is available from an innumerable sources. Of course, the scientific method, dictates that scientists be biased and prejudicial as to what data they will accept. One such source that is arbitrarily rejected due to prejudice and bias, is the data acquired through intuition. Yet one notable scientist, Einstein, praised the use of intuition. Here is an interesting little article written about 'intuition'. Such controversy in the use of that term is still unresolved.

Data also can relate to 'personal experience' which is one of the attributes of the 'scientific method'. "Personal experience of a human being is the moment-to-moment experience and sensory awareness of internal and external events or a sum of experiences forming an empirical unity such as a period of life."

"Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[SUP][2][/SUP] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory and the testimony of others, ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered secondary, or indirect.[SUP][2]"[/SUP]

"The standard positivist view of empirically acquired information has been that observation, experience, and experiment serve as neutral arbiters between competing theories. However, since the 1960s, a persistent critique most associated with Thomas Kuhn,[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][page needed][/SUP] has argued that these methods are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. Consequently it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data.[SUP][5]"

[/SUP]