More further

More further
"NO YOU!"
religious and physics and logic
thunks and conjections

protip:
all of my posts in this thread are factually correct and entirely right

if you added polytheism you could make that a tetrahedron

Who here /radical centrist/?

Good to be the super smart man who is above it all

Hope we see everyone from last thread here:

there is no such thing in religiosity

>/radical centrist/
define your position

I possess scientific proof that the God of Abraham does exist.

>>All I'm saying is that if you feel the need or motivation to correct my errors, then you accept that there is objective truth and that it is universally peferable over subjective error.
>which is all entirely subjective
>that one feels the need to correct anyone's errors means only that that person felt the need to correct one's errors, nothing more

no, you are contradicting yourself, but I already said why. [...]

Again:

If you correct me on an error that I have made, you are implicitly accepting the fact that it would be better for me to correct my error. Your preference for me to correct my error is not subjective, but objective, and universal.

You don’t say to me: “You should change your opinion to mine because I would prefer it,” but rather: “You should correct your opinion because it is objectively incorrect.” My error does not arise from merely disagreeing with you, but as a result of my deviance from an objective standard of truth. Your argument that I should correct my false opinion rests on the objective value of truth – i.e. that truth is universally preferable to error, and that truth is universally objective.

>you are implicitly accepting the fact that it would be better for me to correct my error.

fanciful assumptions
you can assume anything you want
without a brain scan down to the quantum level you cannot be certain of what i am "accepting" or not

>Your preference for me to correct my error is not subjective

again, all that is object is the relevant matter in my brain that is processing that

>You don’t say to me: “You should change your opinion to mine because I would prefer it,” but rather: “You should correct your opinion because it is objectively incorrect.” My error does not arise from merely disagreeing with you, but as a result of my deviance from an objective standard of truth. Your argument that I should correct my false opinion rests on the objective value of truth – i.e. that truth is universally preferable to error, and that truth is universally objective.

all based on one false assumption:
that anything other than the states of the particles in our brains is objective

that is false, all aside from those particles of matter and energy in our brains, that you directly speak of, is subjective

What the hell are you saying? What is your argument here? (your conclusion?)

Is it that morals don't exist or are irrelevant?
I'm just missing the point f what you're saying

>Is it that morals don't exist or are irrelevant?

all morality is subjective

my point is pointing out the reality that what is "objective" is a MUCH smaller category than almost anyone realized

can you guess what that category encompasses?

*realizes

>inb4 yes, replying 2 times to the same post, I'm a newfag etc

You are trying to bypass my arguments. This argumentation is pure sophism. It means that discussions are useless, that morals don't existm, that nothing matters. It enables to claim all of that while you are still showing preferences, it enables you to detach yourself from the debate. I don't think this is fair desu, it is certainly fruitless and doesn't propel this debate forward.

>>inb4 yes, replying 2 times to the same post, I'm a newfag etc

you should have gathered by now that im far from the sort that engages in such shit flinging

>This argumentation is pure sophism.

wrong
it differentiates objective/subjective

>It means that discussions are useless

any discussions "use" is subjective

>that morals don't existm

they exist solely as neurological matter's states
(only in mind(s))

> that nothing matters.

what "matters" or doesnt is subjective

>It enables to claim all of that while you are still showing preferences

thought i have my own emotions and subjections, they are nothing more than states of the matter in my grey and white matter

> it enables you to detach yourself from the debate

that anyone may think, or not, that they, or anyone else, can or is, doing that is subjective and incidental

>I don't think this is fair desu,

what is fair or not is subjective

>it is certainly fruitless

subjective

>and doesn't propel this debate forward.

subjective

hint: there is a light at the end of this tunnel that you are oblivious too

>all morality is subjective
Yeah I guessed correctly it seems.

Morality is about preferences that can be enforced.
Preferences do exist, and are necessary for life.
Some prefernces can be inflicted unto others by force, thus morality exists.

So is it subjective?

Since we are looking at moral questions, the question ifd not if all people DO x or Y all the time, but whether they SHOULD behave in a certain way in order to achieve a certain goal.

One example:
If you want to live, you SHOULD eat.

This statement is universal and valid.

So we have universal preferences, and they exist (not in physical reality, but like "the scientific method" - as a concept)
All organisms require universally preferred behaviour to live.

Man is a living organism.

Therefore all living men are alive due to the practice of universally preferred behaviour.

Therefore any argument against universally preferable behaviour requires an acceptance and practice of universally preferred behaviour.

Therefore no argument against the existence of universally preferable behaviour can be valid.

Since the scientific method requires empirical corroboration, we must also look to reality to confirm our hypothesis – and here the validity of universally preferable behaviour is fully supported.

>hint: there is a light at the end of this tunnel that you are oblivious too

2+2=4 is a statement of truth, but "mathematics" don't exist in physical reality either. Nevertheless, this statement is universal and objectively true.

so agnostic atheism and theism are the same ?

>Preferences do exist, and are necessary for life.
Some prefernces can be inflicted unto others by force, thus morality exists.

yes it exists, as meta-states in neurological matter

>So is it subjective?

factually and incontrovertibly subjective

>Since we are looking at moral questions, the question ifd not if all people DO x or Y all the time, but whether they SHOULD behave in a certain way in order to achieve a certain goal.

yes.... subjective.... go on

>One example:
>If you want to live, you SHOULD eat.

>This statement is universal and valid.

"should" is a subjection interjected into a matter of physics

"that you must eat to live" is a matter of physics and thus objective

>So we have universal preferences, and they exist (not in physical reality, but like "the scientific method" - as a concept)

yes they exist physically(physics), as meta-states within our neurology

>All organisms require universally preferred behaviour to live.

conflation of the subjective with the objective

>Man is a living organism.

physics, objective, yes

>Therefore all living men are alive due to the practice of universally preferred behaviour.

conflation
all living men are alive due to proper input of matter of oxygen and caloric food intake and certain consistent sensory input to not cause death

>Therefore any argument against universally preferable behaviour requires an acceptance and practice of universally preferred behaviour.

subjective

>Therefore no argument against the existence of universally preferable behaviour can be valid.

false, based on subjectives

>Since the scientific method requires empirical corroboration, we must also look to reality to confirm our hypothesis

also?
they are one and the same
empiricism is nothing except reality

> and here the validity of universally preferable behaviour is fully supported.

you keep injecting that word "preferable"
it is subjective

>2+2=4 is a statement of truth, but "mathematics" don't exist in physical reality either.

it "exists" and meta-states of neurology

or as a model of "computation" of deterministic level of reality, seen or unseen, which we call physics

and even so, it is still entirely perfect in absolute determinism

and therefore objective, eternally and absolute incontrovertible

p.s.
you are starting to get it
you stumbled upon the next part of that very small basket called "objectivity"

>you keep injecting that word "preferable"
>it is subjective

No, it is not. All humans should eat in order to continue living. There are no exceptions. Your statements require inconsistency.

Just saying "subjective" as a response to premises premises of logical argument does not refute the argument. Either contribute by providing an argument, or keep repeating the same meaningless thing over and over again, but I will only respond to the former.

>No, it is not. All humans should eat in order to continue living. There are no exceptions. Your statements require inconsistency.


none of that has anything to do with "preferable"

>Just saying "subjective" as a response to premises premises of logical argument does not refute the argument.

no, youre missing the point:
neither does your conflating it with objectivity make it objective

>Either contribute by providing an argument,

read the posts

>or keep repeating the same meaningless thing over and over again,

that you arent getting it does render it meaningless

>but I will only respond to the former.

i cannot force you to respond, or to not respond, to anything

ok, this requires a response.
2+2=4 is a result of logic. Logic is universal. Logic has been derived by observing the rules of objective reality, which is conistent and -objective- .
All theories must be consistent and objective to be "valid".
Theories exist as meta-states of neurology, or as a model of "computation" of deterministic level of reality, seen or unseen, which we call physics.

I'm copypastaing your statement here because it can be applied to any thought.

further:

>No, it is not. All humans should eat in order to continue living. There are no exceptions. Your statements require inconsistency.

this is a strawman
"preferable" is subjective
and that asserts 4 red herrings that are irrelevant to its factual subjectivity

>should eat
>should

subjective, in all uses and cases, ever

>to continue living

what is necessary for this is an objective matter of physics which only varies according to organism, but objective in all cases, nothing to do with "should" or "preferable"

those 2 subjectives can ONLY apply to subjective outcomes which rest on like subjective words such best, worst, happy, good, thrive, terrible, pathetic, meager, etc etc

>>No, it is not. All humans should eat in order to continue living. There are no exceptions. Your statements require inconsistency.
>none of that has anything to do with "preferable"

of course it does. If you want to acquire data about objective reality, you SHOULD use the scientific method. You can still not give a crap about that and use the Bible if you choose to do so. It is a preference to use the scientific method.

>2+2=4 is a result of logic. Logic is universal. Logic has been derived by observing the rules of objective reality, which is conistent and -objective- .

yes, i said that

>All theories must be consistent and objective to be "valid".

conflation, "objective" conflated with the subjectives "consistent" and "valid"

can you yet name the contents of the category "objectivity" (this is my entire point im driving to but hope you can see without my spelling it out)

...

...

No they still either believe or don't believe God exists but they don't claim to know, whatever that means.

hello
do you have a point?

>whatever that means.

what it means is they acknowledge the fact of those 2 things being non-falsifiable

Dude you keep contradicting yourself over and over again.

>>our preference for me to correct my error is not subjective, but objective, and universal.
>the only thing objective there is the quanta of my neurology's exact states during the cognition of that
>same holds as fact for all of the rest of the assertions of your post
>just change "my neurology"(physical particles and quantum states) for "yours" or "ours"

then later:

>>You are not arguiing with your computer monitor or my brain cells, but with me.
>ok
>though no one suggested any such thing

and

>>You ARE "the quanta of your neurology's exact states during the cognition of that".
>no, that is but a part of my physiology

please pinpoint the contradiction your perceive and i will clear it up

>conflation, "objective" conflated with the subjectives "consistent" and "valid"

Consistency is a property of objective reality, not a subjective.

How are neither positions not falsifiable?

Where does the "doesnt give a rats anus about concepts that cant be tested and measured" fall under?

No, that is blatantly obvious It's getting ridiculous at this point. I'm not interested in post-modernism.

>Consistency is a property of objective reality, not a subjective.

false meaning
conflation of "consistency" with "determinism" and "causality"

consistency is a subjective, cognitive-perception concept

though it really really "feels" like it isnt to the mind untrained in critical thinking, no offense

*that God doesnt exist
*that God exists

can both neither be proven true nor false

>I'm not interested in post-modernism.

incidental and superficial similarity your perceiving, for that is nothing of what im showing you

almost forgot:
just pinpoint the contradiction and i will show you the perfect border between the objective and subjective

from line
>im not interested in...
and next line are for:

That is utter nonsense. This whole discussion began as a debate about ethics, and ended up in non-applicable nihilism.

you cannot define the border between those two since all your thoughts are subjective interpretations of neuron activity. You cannot see across this supposed border.

>That is utter nonsense.

subjective

>This whole discussion began as a debate about ethics,

no, it started on someone claiming peterson had some new proof of god

> and ended up in non-applicable

subjective

>nihilism.

incidental subjective, yes there is of course overlap with that when talking of what is subjective and objective

but the applicability is this:
God, being non-falsifiable, necessitates all such concepts are subjective

now im just illustrating why that is a fact

>you cannot define the border between those two

and yet, i can

>since all your thoughts are subjective interpretations of neuron activity.

no, not interpretations, those thoughts ARE nothing more or less than neuronal activity

>You cannot see across this supposed border.

and yet, i can

>God, being non-falsifiable, necessitates all such concepts are subjective
is that your point? Because morals are vastly different. The actions resulting from decisions based on moral principles are objectively real. I did never claim that morality is a physical object, I did say that it is a concept.
However, behavior is measurable. The claim abvout god is that he created the universe, which requires action. No concept can act.

Thus no valid claim can be made that "a concept (god) can act", but a concept can determine behavior. However, no sane atheist ever claimed that the belief in god has no consequences based on behavior.

>Because morals are vastly different.

subjective
all that is subjective in equal in that it depends entirely on who you ask, and when

>The actions resulting from decisions based on moral principles are objectively real.

again, all that is objective of that matter is quantum states of the brains of those so involved

>However, behavior is measurable.

yes, our bodies and brains are entirely within physics and thus measurable in space and time

>The claim about god is that he created the universe, which requires action. No concept can act.

thats one subjective concept of god
among myriad-myriad-myriad-myriad ad nauseam

you are drifting again, that is all purely subjective sophistry aside from whatever of it you mean to refer to what occurs in the brain

>thats one subjective concept of god
>among myriad-myriad-myriad-myriad ad nauseam

no it's not. God is either a physical object (it exists in objective reality) or it is not. If it is not, it cannot act nor interact. If God is physical, it can be measured and is subject to universal laws of physics.

The rest of your response is just buzzwords.

completely information-free statement.

>no it's not.

yes, it is
concepts:
subjective
reality:
objective
whether he exists or not is immaterial there

>God is either a physical object (it exists in objective reality) or it is not.

true, but unprovable yet (non-falsifiable)

> If it is not, it cannot act nor interact.

if that was true, which cant be proven, then indeed factual

>If God is physical, it can be measured and is subject to universal laws of physics.

of course, that is a given IF he exists AND is physical, but that is not yet proveable/testable, and so, you guessed it, non-falsifiable

UNTIL God can be tested for, there is nothing but concepts thereof

>The rest of your response is just buzzwords.

appeal to the stone fallacy
words have meanings

appeal to the stone and factually wrong

that you dont, or choose to not, comprehend that post has no affect as to facts therein

>concepts:
>subjective

So the scientific method is subjective?
Mathematics is subjective?
Universal lawys of physics are subjective?

Just asking for clarification.

>UNTIL God can be tested for, there is nothing but concepts thereof

Which is funny since God itself is a concept that is inherently consequence-free in every regard. If you claim that god has interacted in the past with our universe, or that he expressed commands regarding human behavior, then you imply that God is a physical object. If you say that God is only a concept, Then this statement has no consequences and can be regarded useless (neutral) for ethics.

Morality is a prescription, it is a concept that exists in order to influence behavior. God is not.

That actually made me giggle, you are really - REALLY full of yourself.

>appeal to the stone fallacy
>words have meanings
oogabooga blimp eats ants in orbit, hand strenghtener?

>Which is funny since God itself is a concept that is inherently consequence-free in every regard.

>consequence free

until such time as it can be tested for
aside from people's self imposed consequences

>If you claim that god has interacted in the past with our universe

well i do, but i am aware that is not proveable

>or that he expressed commands regarding human behavior,

same as last

> then you imply that God is a physical object

same

>If you say that God is only a concept,

i believe he is more, but that is my own personal subjection and many coincidental, and also of course, subjectively share

>Then this statement has no consequences and can be regarded useless (neutral) for ethics.

subjective

>Morality is a prescription,

subjective

> it is a concept that exists in order to influence behavior.

subjective

> God is not.

subjective


>So the scientific method is subjective?

as a concept, yes
as neurological states and physical practice no

>Mathematics is subjective?

objective

>Universal lawys of physics are subjective?

objective

NOW i must say, as to my central overriding point:
you are now way past even WHITE hot, you are GAMMA RAY BURST hot

Gnosticism is a Christian sect. It has nothing to do with agnosticism.

>That actually made me giggle, you are really - REALLY full of yourself.

subjective
fallacious
etc

see the beautiful thing about objectivity, you can get as satiric and sarcastic and angry or flippant as you want, and it cannot change it

FOCUS
you are getting lazy and irritable
no need

subjective

You seem to think that you are the teacher here... that is no basis for discussion.
Either state your point now, or do not; You are not providing any arguments apart from

>God, being non-falsifiable, necessitates all such concepts are subjective

And I replied. Instead of working with my reply, you keep dissecting the whole thing into sentences and words and add "subjective" to it as that word had any meaning in that context.

also:

>>If you claim that god has interacted in the past with our universe
>well i do, but i am aware that is not proveable

So God cannot be the creator of the universe. In that sense, I claim that pink unicorns exist in Wolf359 and you're well aware where this kind of argumentation leads.

>You seem to think that you are the teacher here... that is no basis for discussion.

reality is the teacher here

>Either state your point now, or do not; You are not providing any arguments apart from

*appeal to the stone
*thought terminating cliche
so forth

>and add "subjective" to it as that word had any meaning in that context.

words have meanings
"subjective" has a meaning
when i state that, it reveals to you that the greentext immediately preceeding fits that definition

>So God cannot be the creator of the universe.

subjective
non-falsifiable

>In that sense, I claim that pink unicorns exist in Wolf359 and you're well aware where this kind of argumentation leads.

then why did you even type that?

p.s.

>And I replied. Instead of working with my reply, you keep dissecting the whole thing into sentences

>you keep dissecting the whole thing into sentences

that is "working with your reply"

OKay this is my last post, because you keep repeatnig the same nonsense over and over again.
You can either claim that God can be percieved or that he cannot. The claim that god exists is:

That wich cannot be percieved, MUST exist.

If you say that "That which cannot be percieved MIGHT exist", then who cares. Agnosticism...

So have fun and goodbye, but I do not agree with anything you said. Your only single argument was replied to, I did not recieve a response (other than "you do not understand my response") so I don't see any point in hanging around any longer.

dam didnt notice my digits
if you dont know if got exists what's the difference between believing in god and not believing in god ?

>, because you keep repeatnig the same nonsense over and over again.

>nonsense

subjective
and:
again, words have meanings

>but I do not agree with anything you said.

immaterial
nothing ive stated is not factual

You can either claim that God can be percieved or that he cannot.

both non-falsifiable

>"That which cannot be percieved MIGHT exist",

no
if it can be, then it necessarily exists

>Your only single argument was replied to,

well no
1st they were all arguments
2nd you replied to some, but not all

> did not recieve a response

for almost all, yes

> (other than "you do not understand my response")

that is indeed, a response

> so I don't see any point in hanging around any longer.

indeed, because you didnt pay attention here (last 2 lines hold the entire revelation im trying to show you):

the difference is subjective, as of yet

might be different when Christ arrives for his second time

why are there so many israelis on pol?

who cares?
they are welcome, interesting and engaging input

:)

or at the very least, for some, enraging, which those particular pol users seem to enjoy

i care, they post disproportianately relative to their population in the world, and jews are generally disliked here. seems strange so many israelis would post in a place filled with people that hate them.

pick a side pussy or just kindly neck yourself

and?

>why are there so many israelis on pol?
this was my question, you stupid cunt. if you dont want to answer it fuck off.

what i mean is that isnt the truth value of a statement from a point of view of a person trinaty?
like if i ask you if something exists your answes is either it does, it dosn't or i dont know and all 3 are mutually exclusive .
you cant not know god exists (agnosticism) but also claim he exists (theism) or dosn't exist (atheism).
saying
>i dont know if he exists but he exists
has a certain internal inconsistency

why are there so many strayan's on Sup Forums ?. same thing, there have been many israelis on Sup Forums since its early days because anime\'''otaku culture''' and eventually some start lurking on the differant boards and find themselves on Sup Forums.

>jews are generally disliked here
not really , like no more then any other group that gets roasted on Sup Forums . and even if they are what does that have to do with us ?.
> israelis would post in a place filled with people that hate them.
israelis sure as hell are not disliked on Sup Forums, i mean you get the occasional buttblasted pali but israelis are generally accepted here.

why are you ignoring the overwhelming anti-semitism on here? people might wish australians wouldnt shitpost so much but they recognise us as europeans, meanwhile they want to either expel jews from their countries or exterminate them altogether.

you can't act like inter-country banter is the same as people talking about the jewish question.

>antisemetism
>on Sup Forums
jesus dude you take bants way too seriously

>jew
>jesus dude
>77
i dont know what's going on

>NOW i must say, as to my central overriding point:
>you are now way past even WHITE hot, you are GAMMA RAY BURST hot

I came back because this kept gnawing at me, I have to admit that I'd like to fully understand it. Are you willing?

That's
The
Joke

i guess its a cultural thing . when you're tsayir ('young') AKA new in the IDF its customary for the pazamnicks (the more seniors guys in your unit) to perform some really rough bantz on you. in general the IDF is known for some rough bantz among its soldiers , especially nonPOGs.
i guess we dont take 'antisemetism' on pol too seriously because the way we are treated by our fellow soldiers is way more 'antisemetic' then anything Sup Forums does.
like we had this american kid in my unit that wore a kippah and had an american accent, so when the commanders wer'nt there we called him jewboy and we used to gang up on him in the showers whenever he dropped any of the (liquid) soap. i mean some do frown upon this sort of stuff but there's a reason they did it in almost any army at some point, it filters out the whiny cunts and refines the based dudes.

sounds like you lot have more in common with the palestinians than you realise.