Resolved: that Peikoff is wrong about agosticism

[RichardParker]

The arbitrary has no evidence whatsoever in sensory-perceptual evidence. Excluding that, there is some evidence, and the integrated evidence points to one of two conclusions, either it is a fact (true) or it is not a fact (false). But for a proposition to be a truth, it must also be certain, meaning that all evidence points in the direction that the proposition describes a fact.

Yes, I think this puts it very nicely. I think an arbitrary proposition such as "god exists" can be misintegrated as a falsehood in one's consciousness untill such time when one attempts to reduce the concept to sensory-perceptual concretes. The moment one realizes that this cannot be done, one realizes that the proposition was falsely misintigrated with the rest of ones conceptual knowledge, and one understands that the proposition is not a true proposition, but one that is arbitrary that was falsely misintigrated as a truth with the rest of ones conceptual knowledge.

[Inspector]

I think an arbitrary proposition such as "god exists"

And yet again, I must add that "god exists" is not merely arbitrary, but false on its face due to blatant contradictions with known evidence.

[DavidOdden]

I think an arbitrary proposition such as "god exists" can be misintegrated as a falsehood in one's consciousness untill such time when one attempts to reduce the concept to sensory-perceptual concretes. The moment one realizes that this cannot be done, one realizes that the proposition was falsely misintigrated with the rest of ones conceptual knowledge, and one understands that the proposition is not a true proposition, but one that is arbitrary that was falsely misintigrated as a truth with the rest of ones conceptual knowledge.

I would like to know what, in your opinion, is an example of a false proposition, and whether a false proposition can be distinguished from an arbitrary one. If it can be distinguished, what is the basis for distinguishing the false from the arbitrary? I don't just mean only with respect to the god question, but generally.

[RichardParker]

I would like to know what, in your opinion, is an example of a false proposition, and whether a false proposition can be distinguished from an arbitrary one. If it can be distinguished, what is the basis for distinguishing the false from the arbitrary? I don't just mean only with respect to the god question, but generally.

And yet again, I must add that "god exists" is not merely arbitrary, but false on its face due to blatant contradictions with known evidence.

If I say "god exists" and do not point to something in reality to give sensory-perceptual evidence, all you can say is that the proposition is arbitrary, period.

If I say "god exists, and he is omnipotent" then you can say that the proposition is arbitrary and false, since any claim of a thing's omnipotence contradicts everything that is known about reality.

Edited November 21, 2006 by RichardParker

[DavidOdden]

If I say "god exists, and he is omnipotent" then you can say that the proposition is arbitrary and false, since any claim of a thing's omnipotence contradicts everything that is known about reality.

If the proposition is arbitrary, there is no relevant perceptual evidence. That contradicts what is required for saying that a proposition is false, since you must have perceptual evidence to properly grasp an aspect of reality.

[RichardParker]

If the proposition is arbitrary, there is no relevant perceptual evidence. That contradicts what is required for saying that a proposition is false, since you must have perceptual evidence to properly grasp an aspect of reality.

Claiming that a thing exists is pointing to an aspect of reality, period. Without sensory-perceptual evidence, any claim to existence is arbitrary.

There is a fundamental difference between saying a thing exists, and saying a thing exists and the thing is omnipotent.

[Inspector]

(I agree with David's comment, above)

If I say "god exists" and do not point to something in reality to give sensory-perceptual evidence, all you can say is that the proposition is arbitrary, period.

If I say "god exists, and he is omnipotent" then you can say that the proposition is arbitrary and false, since any claim of a thing's omnipotence contradicts everything that is known about reality.

Ah, so you meant the non-omnipotent variety. While implicit in all of my other posts, I will now make it explicit: unless you (anyone) specify non-omnipotence, the default assumption is that "God" referrs to the Christian, omnipotent, God.

Claiming that a thing exists is pointing to an aspect of reality, period. Without sensory-perceptual evidence, any claim to existence is arbitrary.

Right. You said "arbitrary and false." Well, it's not both. His point is that in example #2 (omni-god), there is evidence against it, so it move out of the arbitrary and into the false.

Edited November 21, 2006 by Inspector

[RichardParker]

(I agree with David's comment, above)

Ah, so you meant the non-omnipotent variety. While implicit in all of my other posts, I will now make it explicit: unless you (anyone) specify non-omnipotence, the default assumption is that "God" referrs to the Christian, omnipotent, God.

Right. You said "arbitrary and false." Well, it's not both. His point is that in example #2 (omni-god), there is evidence against it, so it move out of the arbitrary and into the false.

I think you are forgetting Aristotle's conception of god, which, incidently, is the basis for much of the intelligent design argument(s) floating around recently. Furthermore, the statement "god exists and he is omnipotent" is both arbitrary and false.

Edited November 21, 2006 by RichardParker

[DavidOdden]

Claiming that a thing exists is pointing to an aspect of reality, period. Without sensory-perceptual evidence, any claim to existence is arbitrary.

There is a fundamental difference between saying a thing exists, and saying a thing exists and the thing is omnipotent.

I think the omnipotence issue is not the main question. I now think the disagreement stems from different assumptions about context. If Jones makes a perceptually unjustified existence claim, his making of the claim is arbitrary, but I may in fact know the evidence that proves the claim to describe a fact, or to contradict fact. If Jones has the perceptual evidence that proves the claim but simply asserts the proposition without proof (and furthermore refuses to provide the proof), then in the context of his knowledge his claim is true (in fact, it is true), and in the context of my knowledge (since I don't know the evidence that he has), the claim is arbitrary.

In these discussions, I assume that the parties are intelligent enough that they can (eventually) identify the areas where a dispute stems from different knowledge, and that the parties are willing to cooperate in the pursuit of knowledge. If you make a claim without reason and I provide the evidence (which disproves the claim), then you would now have the perceptual evidence even though you did not have it when you uttered the claim. But in the god example, you would have to say that you did not understand the evidence. I'll have to read the relevant part of OPAR to see if Peikoff addresses the distinction between "having the evidence" and "grasping the evidence", i.e. does being an evader have any impact on the difference between making an arbitrary claim and making a false claim.

[Inspector]

Furthermore, the statement "god exists and he is omnipotent" is both arbitrary and false.

A statement cannot be both arbitrary and false. Arbitrary means that it has no evidence one way or another. In order to be false, a statement must have evidence against it, which disqualifies it from the "one way or another" requirement.

[solange]

A statement cannot be both arbitrary and false. Arbitrary means that it has no evidence one way or another. In order to be false, a statement must have evidence against it, which disqualifies it from the "one way or another" requirement.

I think a statement can be both arbitrary and false.

arbitrary

/aarbitrri, -tri/

• adjective 1 based on random choice or personal whim.

It simply means a statement selected through random choice. For instance, if someone asks me which hand has the jelly bean in it and I say "I don't know. Okay, the right one" and it turns out it was the left hand, the statement is false but could be said to be an arbitrary statement because it was selected arbitrarily.

[solange]

The fact is that his view is one of the falsest—and most cowardly—stands there can be.”

The fact is that this statement is one of the strangest---and least objective---statements there can be.

BTW, I have read many excellent discussions by Peikoff about the irrationality of the Christian and Islamic religions. I've missed the discussions about the irrationality of, specifically, Judism. Can someone tell me where I can find those discussions in his writings?

[KendallJ]

Who the heck are you quoting? IF from a previous quote, please use the "Reply button so that the references is linked and we all know what the heck you're talking about.

Who the heck are you quoting? IF from a previous quote, please use the "Reply button so that the references is linked and we all know what the heck you're talking about.

Like this...

[DavidOdden]

I think a statement can be both arbitrary and false.

Please read OPAR, which is what we're discussing, before you shoot off your mouth.

[RichardParker]

I've reviewed OPAR and am now convinced that a statement cannot be both arbitrary and false. An arbitrary statement can be transferred to a cognitive context and proven true or false if one choses, but this is not an epistemological requirement for the rational individual.

Edited November 22, 2006 by RichardParker

[Inspector]

I've reviewed OPAR and am now convinced that a statement cannot be both arbitrary and false. An arbitrary statement can be transferred to a cognitive context and proven true or false if one choses, but this is not an epistemological requirement for the rational individual.

Yes, precisely.

[Inspector]

Who the heck are you quoting? IF from a previous quote, please use the "Reply button so that the references is linked and we all know what the heck you're talking about.

Like this...

Please read OPAR, which is what we're discussing, before you shoot off your mouth.

solange,

Note that both of these are exactly the same as what I requested of you previously. As you can see, it's not just me that you're irritating. (which is something I knew when giving you this advice, initially) Perhaps it would be wise for you to start heeding this advice?

[Seeker]

It's amazing here how the agnostics (or at least those who argue from the point of view) keep proving Peikoff's point.

The supernatural is as arbitrary and invalid a claim as God. Seeker all that you are doing is giving credence to the same arbitrary claim that the original poster does, except whereas he gives standing to the arbitrary claim of God, you give standing to the arbitrary claim of supernatural. Supernatural is as much a non-sequitir as God. This isn't an apples an oranges sort of argument. The existence of nature, disproves the "super"-natural. Nature is all there is.

I think you misunderstood my position - I agree that the supernatural is arbitrary to us. I do not intend to give it standing without seeing evidence. But by "supernatural" I simply mean a frame of reference outside the one in which our sense perception operates. I do not see how that contradicts the existence of our frame of reference, though indeed, we ought to dismiss it from our further consideration of our reality. Still, a brief conjecture may prove illustrative of the central issue in this debate, so here it is.

Using a computer I could create a virtual world within which I would be omnipotent to such virtual objects as I would create within that frame of reference. I could program and create objects with limited artificial intelligence capacity that would enable them to perceive one another within their frame of reference, I could give them options in how to act, including right and wrong choices that would allow them to exist or cease to exist, and allow them a limited form of cognition on that basis. I could act, within that smaller frame of reference (though not in ours), exactly as God (commonly understood) would be supposed to act. The existence of this virtual world would not disprove the existence of ours; the existence of nature in the virtual world would not disprove its supernatural; nor would that world be all that there was. The axioms of existence would not be violated. So I go ahead and do it.

Now let's say that one day I notice the objects communicating in an unusual way. One of them, in a curious act of irrationality (it must be a bug in the program!) has conceived of me, somehow. Not in all my particulars, but that I exist and have a mode of operation that influences its world. It erroneously incorporates this concept into its virtual model. This object refers to me as "God". A second object dismisses that claim as arbitrary, because there is no evidence for it. This object doesn't much care either way what goes on in other worlds, unless and until some relevant evidence is given as to why it should. A third object says to the first two, "you're both wrong. I can show that God does not exist. It would be impossible because all of the evidence within our world supports the claim that God does not exist. It would contradict the axioms of existence for God to exist. Therefore, I know that God does not exist, and if you don't agree with me, you're a coward!"

"Well," replies the first object, "by the terms of our discussion we are discussing the supernatural - that which is beyond our frame of reference. So I fail to see how it could possibly contradict that which we know to be true." "Not only that," replies the second object, "I dismiss both your claims, precisely because they are supernatural. Show me evidence that relates to our context, or don't bother me. You cannot prove the existence of a thing, nor can you disprove it, without perceptual evidence." The third objects replies, "just look around you. That's all the evidence you need to know that God does not exist."

Amused by this, I create an object representing me. This object reveals, in precise, object-oriented terms, what I am, how the computer operates, how I control the virtual world, and so forth. All that is, both within the objects' frame of reference and my world as it pertains to theirs, is now completely presented to them. The first object is thrilled. For the second object, I grant the means of acquiring direct perceptual evidence of my world through a web cam, and it too is thrilled. And all this occured despite the third object, which claimed to know that I couldn't exist.

Edited November 26, 2006 by Seeker

[KendallJ]

Seeker, I think I did understand you correctly, and I stand by my statement.

Your analogy only helps prove this. What is it about cause and effect in the computer world that is different from the cause and effect of your real world? Nothing. Thereby, it would ultimately be unnecessary for you to explain yourself. A being in your computerworld could one day discover you.

"Supernatural" as a higher world where the cause and effect (i.e. "nature") of this world do not exist is not what you posit, and it is false (rather than arbitrary).

To the computer people, you are a really big and very powerful alien. Yes, you even created them. However, you did not create the universe, you are not omnipotent, omniscient and whatever else. You are bounded, so you are not GOD. How does my metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and morality in any way depend on you, and in a belief in you?

This is not "supernatural". It is natural. There is no supernatural. Positing that it is possible, and claims of it as arbitrary as opposed to false is what keeps you agnostic.

Edited November 26, 2006 by KendallJ

[Inspector]

Kendall is precisely right. The "god" that Seeker posited is a NON-supernatural one, that is still bound by the laws of identity. Therefore, this "god" is in the "greek god" category, rather than the "Christian god" category. As I repeatedly said earlier, the former is arbitrary, where the latter is impossible.

[Seeker]

I appreciate your responses. I perhaps wasn't clear enough in describing the virtual world of the computer. The objects that reside therein have "sense perception" within their virtual frame of reference only (until the very end when I undertook a sort of divine revelation). They have no way of ever finding or perceiving me or the computer on their own. Within their limited frame of reference, to them, I am everything that the Christian God supposedly is to us: I am omniscient (I can see and inspect every attribute of every object), I am omnipotent (I can change any object at will), I am eternal (I existed since the program began), I am invisible (since they can't detect me), etc. That is the their knowable universe and their context outside of which would be "supernatural" to them.

Whether the Christian God is defined in such a way as to bear a similar contextual relationship to our knowable universe is certainly debatable, but in my opinion I see no reason why it cannot. It need not be supernatural in every context, but only in the context of man's, to have the powers and abilities commonly ascribed to it by man. Given that understanding, I would like to know how I could know that such a God didn't exist.

Edited November 27, 2006 by Seeker

[Inspector]

I appreciate your responses. I perhaps wasn't clear enough in describing the virtual world of the computer. The objects that reside therein have "sense perception" within their virtual frame of reference ONLY (until the very end when I undertook a sort of divine revelation). They have no way of ever finding or perceiving me or the computer on their own. And within their limited frame of reference, to them, I am everything that the Christian God supposedly is to us: I am omniscient (I can see and inspect every attribute of every object), I am omnipotent (I can change any object at will), I am eternal (I existed since the program began), I am invisible (since they can't detect me), etc. THAT is the their known universe and their context that to go beyond would be "supernatural" to them.

Whether the Christian God is defined in such a way as to bear a similar contextual relationship to our knowable universe is certainly debatable, but in my opinion I see no reason why it cannot. It need not be supernatural in every context, but only in the context of man's, to have the powers and abilities commonly ascribed to it.

Again, I must stress that the "god" of your example is NOT omnipotent in the way that the Christian god (CG) is. He is still limited by causality, and identity, etc, even if he is extremely powerful in the context of the simulation. The reason why it is our position that the CG is impossible is because he goes well beyond merely contradicting newtonian physics and our observation of "the way things work." He actually violates the axioms themselves, and all of our knowledge is based on the validity of those axioms. It is thus impossible for us to have knowledge, and for there to be a CG. So the claim "I know that the Christian god exists" is a contradiction on its face.

Your idea that CG is merely a violation of our observations of physics and the known universe, etc, is a straw man. It goes well beyond that.

[Seeker]

I certainly did not intend to introduce a straw man. I'll admit, theology is not my strong suit. If you wish to posit that the Chrisitian God is one that within his frame of reference both exists and does not exist, created himself, cannot burn himself with a burrito, and other such absurdities, I cannot stop you, but I doubt very much that this is what Christians intend to do. Is that really the best way to treat the Christian notion of God? Certainly it's not necessary to fit the idea I was taught as a child. To me, your version seems like the straw man, dropping the context of man for the express purpose of "disproving" God. I suppose I might need to brush up on my Christian theology though.

Edited November 27, 2006 by Seeker

[Inspector]

I suppose I might need to brush up on my Christian theology though.

I suggest you do so, and also find a dictionary to familiarize yourself with the words "omnipotent" and "omniscient."

I assure you that the way I have characterized the Christian conception of god is no straw man. And furthermore, I would like to add that I did not come up with this line of reasoning on my own; I am paraphrasing the argument presented by Dr. Peikoff, which I understand and agree with.

[Seeker]

Thank you for the clarification. It helps.