Absolute Morality

Originally posted by Halitose
[/b]A strong atheist (like me) does not necessarily have solid proof that God does not exist. We merely believe that he doesn't. I also believe that proof in the real world (outside of mathematics) does not exist.

This obfuscation again?! Your horse has been flogged to dust, and yet you ride on! Your epistemology is in a bigger mess than Micha ...[text shortened]... ng%20atheism
** http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Aristotle/AristotelianLogic.html[/b]

I think you're confusing belief with knowledge. We can have beliefs which are unjustified and believe strongly in them with no supporting evidence, this doesn't mean that we have knowledge of something. If he claimed he had knowledge of god's non-existence I would agree with you, but there's a difference in believing god doesn't exist and knowing he doesn't exist. I agree that the strong atheist's position is more open to attack, but I think you're misrepresenting his position.

Originally posted by Starrman
I think you're confusing belief with knowledge. We can have beliefs which are unjustified and believe strongly in them with no supporting evidence, this doesn't mean that we have knowledge of something. If he claimed he had knowledge of god's non-existence I would agree with you, but there's a difference in believing god doesn't exist and knowing he doesn' ...[text shortened]... eist's position is more open to attack, but I think you're misrepresenting his position.

IMO, belief should stem from knowledge. In whitehead's case, his belief seems mostly arbitrary, hence my lambasting of his epistemology.

What I would agree with is a thorough consideration of arguments for and against a certain proposition and then choosing the most compelling side. Using strawmen such as, "why don't you also believe in fairies and Santa??" just doesn't cut it for me.

Originally posted by Halitose
IMO, belief should stem from knowledge. In whitehead's case, his belief seems mostly arbitrary, hence my lambasting of his epistemology.

What I would agree with is a thorough consideration of arguments for and against a certain proposition and then choosing the most compelling side. Using strawmen such as, "why don't you also believe in fairies and Santa??" just doesn't cut it for me.

I think that's epistemologically flawed, any claim to knowledge should be based (for simplicity's sake) on something along the lines of justified true belief:

S believes P
S is justified in believing P
P is true
__________________________
S has knowledge of P

If we turn that on its head as you are suggesting, a claim to belief would look like this:

S has knowledge of P
S is justified in knowing P
P is true
__________________________
S believes P

What justification can S give for knowing P if, since P is also true and he has knowledge of P that justification is inately present? This begs the question and S believing P as a result is obsolete. Also, how did S come to know anything in the first place?

Originally posted by Halitose
First you claim that you believe that proof in the real world (excluding math) does not exist (aside: as a statement of propositional truth, this is self-defeating -- since how do you prove that proof doesn't exist?). The question arises: how else then do you arrive at such a conclusion? By arbitrary force of will? Flip a coin? Decide that you're in that mood, therefore you don't believe objective proof exists?

In my understanding, and I don't have time to go into details right now, proof in mathematics is basically when you take a logical framework with specific rules, you make some basic definitions and axioms and then based on those prove that a theory you have is logically correct or implied by the axioms.
In the real world there are no axiom to base a proof on and therefore you cannot apply mathematical logic. At best you can assume that certain 'facts' are true and make logical proofs on that, but that does not prove that the result is a real world fact as your initial assumptions are not proven.
By your own argument "to know something is true requires infinite knowledge", "Infinite knowledge is impossible" hence proofs are impossible. Except for the above proof!

Then you claim to be a "strong atheist", which requires a firm belief that deities don't exist*. This is not merely an agnostic or weak-atheist position where you find the evidence insufficient to merit a belief, but an affirmation of a universal negative**.
Agreed.

Let me use my "little green men" analogy again, since my previous use of it was lost on you:

Let's say I assert that there are little green men somewhere in the universe. For you to assert to the contrary, you will need to have examined every nook and cranny; every planet and galaxy; every moon and comet. Not only that, but you'd have to examine them all at the same time, since the little green men could have moved from one location to the other if you examine them sequentially. So… for you to reasonably believe that no little green men exist anywhere the universe, you will need to be omniscient.
Here is where you are making your error. There is a significant difference between 'reasonably believe' and 'absolute proof' or 'solid undeniable evidence'.
It is reasonable to believe that Santa Claus does not exist. Even you must agree on that one. Does that mean you are omniscient? Or does it only work for little green men?

"Ah", you say, "I can believe in whatever I want without infinite knowledge". This brings me to the point of your epistemology; how then do you derive your beliefs? A reasonable person would take the position of agnosticism on any given proposition where they have insufficient proof to merit a position for, or against it.
Insufficient evidence not insufficient proof.
Proofs are either valid or not, the do not come in sufficiency packages.
Are claiming one of the following:
1. You have proof that God exists.
2. You remain agnostic.
3. You are not a reasonable person.

Can you prove that you exist or are you agnostic about it?

You however, don't believe in proof -- except math, of course -- but somehow have taken to strong atheism. Again, I have to question your methodology. On the one hand you assert no proof is possible, but then on the other hand you take a position which assumes objective propositional truth. This is absurd. Based on your epistemology, your position of strong atheism is irrational, meaningless, useless, unmerited -- and priceless.
I disagree.

P.S. Taken from a purely logical POV, strong atheism is a universal negation and assumes omniscience
No it does not.

Originally posted by Starrman
I think that's epistemologically flawed, any claim to knowledge should be based (for simplicity's sake) on something along the lines of justified true belief:

S believes P
S is justified in believing P
P is true
__________________________
S has knowledge of P

If we turn that on its head as you are suggesting, a claim to belief would look like t ...[text shortened]... elieving P as a result is obsolete. Also, how did S come to know anything in the first place?

I think you misunderstood me. I do not dispute that philosophically Knowledge is "what is both true and believed". However, I didn't use "knowledge" in the sense of justified true belief, but rather as a "justifier" within the greater sense of epistemic Knowledge.

Let's take your example:

S believes P
S is justified in believing P
P is true
__________________________
S has knowledge of P

For example, suppose S believes it is raining outside (P).
For S to be justified in believing P they should be able to verify whether it is raining outside. This would require a "justifier" such as looking out the window to observe the rain falling, etc.

Only then would S have Knowledge of P.

Usually, however, one would first notice peripheral evidence (hear rain drops falling on the roof), then posit a belief ("wow!" it's raining!"😉, then justify it (look through the window to verify whether the sound was caused by falling rain). Only then could it be considered justified true belief, or Knowledge.

That is what I meant when I said that "belief stems from knowledge" -- the underlying evidence that sparks a belief (there is the case where one belief is based on another). A rational being does not randomly and arbitrarily believe in P -- there is usually an evidential catalyst in the periphery.

Originally posted by Halitose
That is what I meant when I said that "belief stems from knowledge" -- the underlying evidence that sparks a belief (there is the case where one belief is based on another). A rational being does not randomly and arbitrarily believe in P -- there is usually an evidential catalyst in the periphery.

'Scuse me for butting in...I know how to tie my shoelaces. Is that a different sort of knowledge to knowing that it's raining outside?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
'Scuse me for butting in...I know how to tie my shoelaces. Is that a different sort of knowledge to knowing that it's raining outside?

It is. The first is procedural knowledge, the second is propositional knowledge. They each have a different philosophical basis.

Originally posted by Halitose
I think you misunderstood me. I do not dispute that philosophically Knowledge is "what is both true and believed". However, I didn't use "knowledge" in the sense of justified true belief, but rather as a "justifier" within the greater sense of epistemic Knowledge.

Let's take your example:

S believes P
S is justified in believing P
P ...[text shortened]... rarily believe in P -- there is usually an evidential catalyst in the periphery.

What you are doing is attributing the stimulus of belief to the word knowledge and that's a mistake. You cannot call knowledge a justifier, I think you need to choose another word for fear of muddying your argument.

Originally posted by Starrman
It is. The first is procedural knowledge, the second is propositional knowledge. They each have a different philosophical basis.

You can pretty much live your life without propositional knowledge, can't you?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
'Scuse me for butting in...I know how to tie my shoelaces. Is that a different sort of knowledge to knowing that it's raining outside?

Yes. I believe propositional knowledge is different to theoretical knowledge; i.e. "knowing-that" as opposed to "know-how". For example, you may know that 2 + 2 = 4, compared to knowing how to add two numbers.

Originally posted by Starrman
What you are doing is attributing the stimulus of belief to the word knowledge and that's a mistake. You cannot call knowledge a justifier, I think you need to choose another word for fear of muddying your argument.

Fair enough. I'll try and find a more appropriate term.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You can pretty much live your life without propositional knowledge, can't you?

Provided you don't want to use conscious thought or communication. Propositional knowledge is necessary for everything from the nature of identity to everyday subject/predicate language.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I would say it is an unchanging moral framework based upon an unchanging point of reference.

In the case of the theist, God alone is the only absolute unchanging point of reference, by which all other things can be measured.

I'm sorry; I must have missed the absolute moral framework outline. What I would like you to try to do is give me a list of, no, not even a list, please can you give me just ONE absolute moral rule?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
I'm sorry; I must have missed the absolute moral framework outline. What I would like you to try to do is give me a list of, no, not even a list, please can you give me just ONE absolute moral rule?

The point I am trying to make is that if you don't have an absolute unchanging point of reference, by which to differentiate between right and wrong, it means that you cannot have an absolute moral standard, and for that matter morality will simply be a matter of personal preference to the individual.

Since the atheist does not have an absolute moral reference point, adultery for example could easily be excused.

Originally posted by dj2becker
The point I am trying to make is that if you don't have an absolute unchanging point of reference, by which to differentiate between right and wrong, it means that you cannot have an absolute moral standard, and for that matter morality will simply be a matter of personal preference to the individual.

Since the atheist does not have an absolute moral reference point, adultery for example could easily be excused.

Despite the fact that your premises are flawed, I can't be bothered to go over this for the umpteenth time with you.

Instead I'll ask you again, since you seem to have missed it the first time; do you consider the blatant and murderous god of the OT to be the same moral being in the NT?