Forums

Reasons for Joy; In Gentleness, and Respect.

Profile of mikebundrant

Show Posts

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - mikebundrant

1
Moral Argument / Re: Spinning on my subjectivity
« on: October 12, 2012, 02:42:20 am »
Yes, I suppose that must be true. We can experience objective realities. I still hold that our perception of objective realities is influenced by our subjective perceptual filters. So, getting to the truth can be quite a process of experimentation.

I feel like there is another level to this, but I can't find the words. Some objective realities are more obvious than others, like 2+2=4. Or are all objective realities so self-evident? Something like that...

2
Moral Argument / Re: Spinning on my subjectivity
« on: October 11, 2012, 07:07:33 pm »
Thanks - yes, I think I slipped into redundancy on #5, so now would simple delete it. #4 carries that one.

So:

1. My experience of the world is subjective, even though the world exists objectively.
2. My experience of values is subjective, even though they (seem to) exist objectively - independent of my knowledge of or adherence to them.
3. If I were to die, to me the world and everything associated with it would cease to exist, but the actual world would not cease to exist.
4. Therefore, even though I can only experience the world and values subjectively, they do exist objectively.
5. My interpretation may be way off - but that has nothing to do with the objective nature of objective things.
6. However, I can never really know if my interpretation is accurate because I cannot escape my subjective frame of reference.
7. So, I am stuck experimenting for the rest of my life.

3
Leibnizian Cosmological Argument / Re: Cause/Effect Prior to Big Bang
« on: October 11, 2012, 03:29:12 pm »
I don't know why I would assume metaphysical laws might not apply outside of a universe in which they do apply. At best, I feel like flipping a coin, which leaves me agnostic on this one.

I'd much prefer a different position than agnosticism, but can't get there!

Does the fact that a universe with our physical and metaphysical laws came into existence necessarily say anything about a state of non-existence that came before (according to our understanding of time)?

Thanks for your thoughts!

4
Leibnizian Cosmological Argument / Cause/Effect Prior to Big Bang
« on: October 10, 2012, 09:51:41 pm »
Intelligent Design: Science has amassed a ton of evidence that suggests the universe had an absolute beginning. There are huge scientific and philosophical problems with any universe posited to be eternal, with no beginning or end. A big bang happened a finite time ago (13 billion years) and the universe has been expanding since. Before the universe began, there was nothing. We all know that something cannot come from nothing. So, a divine intelligence - that is necessarily outside of space and time, all laws and all else that came into being at the moment of the big bang - must have brought it into being and fine tuned it so that life as we know it could exist.

Atheist: Yes- the universe had an absolute beginning before which there was nothing. Given there was nothing, the natural laws of cause and effect do not apply in this context. You cannot logically assume cause and effect applies to a context that is outside of all physical and metaphysical laws. Therefore, you cannot invoke cause and effect to explain it. In fact, we cannot invoke anything to explain it, since anything we might invoke would necessarily be a property of our universe and not a property of anything outside of or before our universe. This leaves us with agnosticism as the only possible position.

I'd prefer to believe the intelligent design argument, but the problem with it as stated by the atheist is hanging me up. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

5
Moral Argument / Spinning on my subjectivity
« on: October 10, 2012, 09:40:53 pm »
This is my first post for what that is worth.

Tell me if my logic is sound (to you):

1. My experience of the world is subjective, even though the world exists objectively.
2. My experience of values is subjective, even though they (seem to) exist objectively - independent of my knowledge of or adherence to them.
3. If I were to die, to me the world and everything associated with it would cease to exist, but the actual world would not cease to exist.
4. Therefore, even though I can only experience the world and values subjectively, they do exist objectively.
5. Further, I cannot ever know anything objectively. I can only subjectively interpret the objective things I encounter.
6. My interpretation may be way off - but that has nothing to do with the objective nature of objective things.
7. However, I can never really know if my interpretation is accurate because I cannot escape my subjective frame of reference.
8. So, I am stuck experimenting for the rest of my life.

Sound reasonable? Thanks!

Pages : [1]