Actually no. Ideas and concepts are amalgamations of previously known information. The order may be unique, but the ideas and\ or concepts are built off of already known fact. The only thing humans can do is order previously known information in a new way.
Don’t believe me? Try to come up with a completely original thought that is not based on anything that is already known. Just place your completely original in your reply.
Remember, completely original idea or concept.
All youz gotta do is answer my original question 
I reckon you have some short term memory loss, but I will humor you. The question is, is the existence of subjective logic an objective or subjective fact?
Objectively or subjectively speaking?
This one. We both have completely opposing views of religion. Which of us is being rational and logical and which one isn’t? If all rationality and logic is FACT BASED and OBJECTIVE, one of us has to be right and the other is wrong.
All these facts you refer to are processed cognitively thus there will always be an element of subjectivity.
Ask Hegel. I’m sure you are familiar with him.
Hey P, I will get to your question. I haven’t forgotten, I ran out of time on Friday and haven’t been on since.
This is where you are folly. Facts, if they be facts, are independently true whether or not anybody knows it or not. 10,000 it was commonly believed the Earth was flat. It made sense, sure looks flat. An inability to travel very far and know others from other regions reinforced this belief. However, the earth is round, or slightly oblong (due to gravitational stretching). The fact that the Earth is round, existed independently of anybody knowing it to be true.
Another example, the Earth is the third planet from the sun. This was also true 1 billion years ago, before people even existed. And for the Earth to be the third planet from the sun, true whether or not any sentient creatures realize the fact. Further, something else has to be true, math. The Earth cannot be the third planet from the sun, unless 1+1+1=3. If you prefer Roman numerals, than i+i+i=iii, either way math has to be true if the Earth is the third planet from the sun.
So, if the Earth being round, or rather a slightly squished sphere if you want to be technical, and the Earth is the third planet from the sun, what part of those to facts are colored by subjectivity?
Ok P, I will now get down to the business of answering your question. It’s probably not going to turn out like you think. You think I am arguing for something different than I am arguing which is why.
I am not making an argument for religion. Some may be right and others wrong, all may be partially right and partially wrong, or they could all be wrong or all be right. Religion is ultimately based on personal experience. Unfortunately, that’s not probative. For the experiencer, it’s undeniable. Once you have opened that door, you can’t close it. That doesn’t mean you cannot screw it up royally afterwords, it just means that experience there forever, at least 'til you croke.
But I am not making any such claim and in fact the claims I make are not my own at all. They are positions I defend and will do so until my dying day. But they are philosophical claims, not religious claims. And you can hold a theistic position and not be religious, but you cannot be religious and not hold a theistic position, nevertheless, they are still two different things.
The claims I defend arguments are that you can conclude that God exists (or something that is God-like) must exist, for anything else to exist. This mode and method of argumentation dates back to Aristotle, he came up with the initial ‘First Cause’ argument independently of a theistic frame work as he did grow up in a poly-theistic society.
There are many arguments by many philosophers since which in the end are variations, or cleaned up versions of Aristotle’s initial claims. The arguments are dependent on 2 things being true, existence itself (something must exist), and causation (that which is determined to exist was caused by something else existing). Which turns in to a sentence like this, ‘Something(A) exists which was caused to exist’, ‘Something(A) was caused by something(B) which also must exist, to which, something(C) caused something(B) to exist…’ and on and on. This leads to what is called an ‘infinite regress’ which is by default a logical fallacy. Infinite regresses cannot exist. The infinity part isn’t the problem, it’s the ‘regress’ part that must be finite, or necessarily circular. You cannot regress infinitely without referring to its initial conditions once again at some point, and hence circular. The other reason an ‘infinite regress’ is fallacious, is because you cannot reach a conclusion if your argument or claim has an infinite amount of premises; it is then not a logical argument or claim it’s just an infinitely long list. Aristotle’s initial solution was to introduce the infamous ‘Uncaused-cause’ to stop the infinite regress issue. So, in otherwords, for anything to exist at all, there had to be an initial causer, which itself could not be caused. We call this ‘it’ God, Aristotle did not.
And this argument has been honed and perfected as objections to this or that roll in. Objections like, 'What if time does not actually exist?" Well we have an answer for that, it’s called ‘contingency’. ‘That which exists, is made of other stuff that exists’.
Are there objections to these arguments? Sure. None have ever a) been proven themselves or b) are not falsifiable or even knowable, so that if the objection were to be true, you could never know it.
The essential question in this matter is “Why does anything at all exist, instead of nothing?”
The theist has an answer, the atheist does not.
Atheists have often said, why can’t we just say we don’t know? Fair question, save that it is knowable based on the arguments given. But saying ‘We don’t know’ isn’t an atheist statement, it’s an agnostic one. The atheists, to maintain being atheist must necessarily hold the position, that of ‘We don’t know, but we do know it wasn’t God.’
Like I said earlier, these are not my arguments, I didn’t discover or invent any of them. I defend them.
Sometimes, I don’t do the greatest job, I screwed up a defense of something called “PSR” or “Principle of Sufficient Reason” which is a principle initiated by Leibiniz co-founder of Calculus, (in other words a really smart guy). This was 4 years ago. So people have taken to mock me for it, stalking me from thread to thread to get in a jab, but will in no way themselves engage except to levee personal attacks. Like that’s going to stop me. They never figured out that PSR itself is not a defense of God’s existence. It’s a tool in an argument for the Lienizian Cosmological Argument. In other words, an argument with in an argument.
As I see it as, since they actually didn’t know the subject matter themselves, I don’t worry. If all you have is insults, it’s a poor reflection on yourself, not me. But they will come and they will insult me in this very post.
So to answer your question. Do I think theism is a more reasonable position than atheism? Absolutely, 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt. Atheism has no answer to why something, rather than nothing, exists.
This is the point where I encourage you not to take my word for it. Look at the historical work, test the arguments yourself and come to your own conclusion.
I can’t ask Hegel, he’s dead. Like I said, I never said nor doubted but in fact believe subjective logic and reasoning exists and is used all the time.
Like: Should we put a strip club next to a Catholic school for young girls?
That doesn’t make all logic and reasoning subjective. Subjective reasoning is the ugly step child of a priori and a posteriori logic and reasoning.
I hate to ruin a perfectly good block of text, but this is in no way the question I’ve asked multiple times now.
You believe all logic and being ration is fact based and objective. Between the 2 of us, we have completely opposite views on whether or not god exists. IF logic and rationality are purely objective, one of us has to be right. That means one of us is being irrational and illogical with our beliefs.
Which one is being irrational and illogical? Me or you?
Edit: and in what way is one of us being irrational if you’d care to discuss specifics
(PS, using religion was just the easiest example I could think of where we have opposing views, if you’d like a different example let me know)
Hey, I worked hard on that block of text! And I don’t know if you read the whole thing or not, but I did answer your question at the bottom of it. The actual passage you quoted is the answer, I didn’t attach names.
I believe theism is the rational, logically correct position, for reasons stated above and more.
Atheism is irrational.
You cannot logically argue for the existence of nothing, it’s not a falsifiable position in that it actually makes no claim.
So if you claim theism based on the logical conclusion of a priori argumentation, then you hold the rational position.
If you claim atheism, you cannot make a rational argument for it, it’s impossible. You can attempt to refute the theistic arguments, but even if you managed to succeed at one, you have only debunked the argument, you have not proven there is no God.
Gotcha. Have a nice day
One follow up question. Would you agree that every human being who ever believed the Earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the Earth was irrational and illogical? Regardless of whether or not they had the sufficient knowledge to know one way or another?
Ah, now that’s a good question!
Was their belief incorrect, certainly. Were they acting irrationally, no. Based on the limited facts that they had, they came to be best conclusion they could have come to based on such limited information.
Thus is science in general. We try to predict and explain on the facts we have available. If we do not have all the facts we’re likely to be off the mark regarding the explanations we are able to give. That doesn’t make us irrational, just uninformed.
Being irrational would be to draw a conclusion that are contrary to the known facts. If we stretch out and try to make predictions or provide explanations on limited facts, that’s not acting irrationally, it’s being wrong.
It’s not irrational to be wrong, it’s irrational to take known facts and contradict them.
If I were to hazard a guess, I would say about 50% of the scientific conclusions we have come to in the modern age are wrong. That may sound like a bad thing, but it’s not. It’s actually a tremendous improvement.
So, it’s not irrational to be wrong, it’s irrational to be wrong on purpose…
Thanks! I thought so when I asked a couple times upthread as well haha.
How can you say this, yet say that logical/rational = objective/fact based?
Except they didn’t. No facts proves a flat Earth. By definition, no fact could have ever existed that proved a flat Earth as the Earth isn’t flat.
As the existence of God isn’t a fact, how does this statement jive with “atheists are irrational.” Since the existence of God ISN’T a fact, wouldn’t this statement imply that religious people are being irrational?
But what we know is still subjective and that is what we work with.
Atheism is rational because not believing what you can’t prove is rational. It is logical.
Religious belief, which technically should be called faith, is irrational by definition since it is believing what cannot be proven. It is illogical.
That one’s never gonna fly with Pat. Religious people that pride this new age “logic” where they argue the potential existence of A god relies upon seeing atheism as “attempting to prove nothing” instead of “refuting due to lack of proof.”