How atheists"debate" religion

No, they are not. Quantities assigned to physical objects are still abstract. Not only do the quantities bear no physical properties, but they are not independent of your perception. Hence, they are not objective.

And you've undermined your argument. You say you don't have to use numbers and then proceed to provide examples which use numbers.

No they are not. The objective and the observable are logically contradictory. The objective necessitates that interaction with it excludes the bias of one's mind, perception, and experience. Consensus does not provide a remedy to this, but instead creates a composite of biases.

Non sequitur. I never characterized nor would I ever characterize mathematical arithmetic as "arbitrary" and "whimsical."

What is the mass, volume, and chemical composition of the number, two?

This was literally, the first thing I said to you…

If it were an honest rebuttal I would not need to use the phrase “so that you can claim”. It is once again, the entire point.

I would later of close go down the path of explaining why this matters in a practical sense, but that was before I realized what I was dealing with.

Provide one example of a statement that is true independent of gnosis.

I have no intention of extending our discussion any further, so enjoy the rest of your day, sir.

Let me address the entirety of your argument in one go, disjointed scattershot rebuttals that do not tie things back to a central premise or point drive arguments off the rails by introducing exponential numbers of points as the replies proceed.

Of course physical quantity is objective:

You have five fingers on one hand: the word/number is a description of a physical state - one that can be objectively determined independently by all observers. The state is objectively distinct from having 4,3,2 or 1 finger. 

So in this respect physical quantity refers to the objective differences between distinct objective physical states - and is thus objective.

If numbers and physical quantities weren’t objective, then we could change the logic of maths change numbers arbitrarily on a whim if we do chose (this is exactly what you’re argument implies and, even were it not - would be a straw man not a non-sequitur FYI). 

As I said, the only way to do that would be to untether maths from the objective thing it references.

For example; I can arbitrarily decide that 11 now means 5: and vice versa, but that simply changes the physical reference of the symbols; and no amount of numeric adjustment or redefinition would cause you to grow or lose fingers.

I can also convey the new meaning of 11 to someone else; because it is objectively reference to something outside my mind; and has that to validate any maths I use.

As these are objective, I could say 1 + 11 = 6; if you knew the physical quantities I was referring to; you could derive that relationship by placing stones - because it’s based on the real world. If you said green + purple = orange - that’s unanchored in the real world; and while I could learn the asserted logic from you, unless it’s tied back to something physical - it’s subjective: the association between operands is in your hand, and not derivable from reality.

It’s that anchoring, and the derivation from external things that allows you to determine that if is objective: “not dependent on the mind for existence; actual”.

As I showed, by placing stones, you can demonstrate the relationship between 1, 5 and 6 using the real world; but cannot do so with your example of colour. That demonstrates the difference between an objective and subjective conclusion. 

I explained this by showing you need not use numbers, but can use physical objects in their place - I will note you did not challenge this; but instead implied that because I didn’t do so in the following sentence, I can’t. 

That’s a particularly poor argument; as if let’s you suggest I can’t represent 2 or 6 with physical items without actually explicitly stating it and looking silly if I did (number of feet, number of protons in a carbon atom.)

The real issue objection appears as if it’s just asinine word play. Language is often abstract and arbitrary - and its as if you’re confusing the arbitrary nature with the things it represents being subjective too. 

Based on what you implied in your very first reply on this thread, what you’re trying to show is:

P1: Science is only valid if it depends on objective information.
P2:science doesn’t not depend on objective information.
C: science is invalid.

But you seem to be equivocating the definition of objective between P1, and P2.


I find this is a common argumentative tactic: to bury a fallacy deep in layers of abstraction in order to obfuscate where it is.


So to prevent equivocation; I can be more explicit, by clarifying exactly what objective means in P1 based upon why an objective basis makes science valid: what about objective things is it that drives the validity of science.


So let’s skip explicit definitions and approach the issue functionally.

We all have to start with two basic assumptions - that we’re all experiencing the same reality and that reasoning about that reality is valid.

This is to say that we’re both here talking to each other and basic stuff like true != false. Without making those two assumptions, there is no basis to have a conversation about anything; so they’re pretty fair.


Making these assumptions : To determine what is true - to make true claims about realty, we need the ability to correctly analyze reality as it is, without error.

If our inputs and quality of processing has errors - we cannot rely on the output to be true.

So to get at the truth, we have to ensure that we have removed error from our inputs and processing.

Because we can only calibrate ourselves using ourselves - we can’t really ever determine what is true, we can only tell what is true having nominally ruled out specific errors. 

The more errors you can rule out, the more confident that your output is true.

This brings us back to science - and “objectivity” that we’re talking about.

Science of all forms is at its simplest a way we have figured out for eliminating as many errors as we can from our thinking and our interpretation of reality to derive an accurate description of reality.

The inputs have to come from reality, the output has to be consistent with the inputs and itself. If a measurement contradicts the output, or there is an inconsistency; we can presume an error has occurred and needs to be tracked down. The error may be solved, or may cause the output to be discarded.

We apply Occam’s razor - limiting assumptions in order to minimize points of failure and number of places we could be wrong (more assumptions - more potential of being wrong)

We experiment - we use the output to predict inputs we haven’t seen, and to confirm inputs match what is expected. This is probably the most important - an explanation may require additional things to be true or false; if we find this is truly the case it’s more likely to be because the explanation is accurate rather than coincidentally correct.

If we cannot find and way to check whether the output is true or false; we discard it - as we can’t tell whether it is in error or not.

We can even validate whether the process works; the process allows us to exploit the world; split the atom, cure illness, etc; that our descriptions of the world lead to practical application raise confidence in the accuracy of those descriptions. Why should a pressurized water reactor work so consistently if the description of the physics is incorrect?

But, a big element of where we remove error; is by using objective information; or to be more specific - information that can be independently derived and validated from external things, without depending on our mind.

People lie, people are mistaken, people are deluded, mislead, etc - the source of input data cannot come from someone’s mind and be assumed to be without error. If we cannot tie inputs to reality, it cannot be expected that the output reflects reality. Is the observation real, a fluke, or a delusion: the best way to have confidence in that is to have multiple people observing it; or agree on what is being observed.

We have to agree on meaning - what is a meter, what is a second, a gram, what is 5: (which is the error in your last argument, I can no more tell you how much 5 weighs than I can tell you how many meters a second is; they’re  all descriptions of different things).

As long as anchored together the real world; even if it’s literally a yard stick in a vault that people use to cordon are ans bade a distance - it’s still objective as it can be tied to something physical: unlike, say, how long is a piece of string.


If we’re all looking at the same thing, measuring the same aspect of reality, and removing our preference, feelings, and opinions and baselines to what we observe, we are minimizing our brains as a source of individual input error.


It is in this vein, that your objections, as the tie back to science,maths and objective processes is largely irrelevant.

As long as things are anchored in something physically measurable, can be agreed by al observers, and all relationships are derivable at their base from physical measurements (as most maths is) - that’s the part of objective facts that make science valid.

So in this respect, even though you’re clearly wrong in your interpretation of what is objective and not; even were we to accept your implicit interpretation, it doesn’t even matter; as all the things we’re talking about clearly meet the functional requirements to minimize error and improve confidence in conclusions by removing our brain as an input - the reason these things are used to produce valid results.


Incidentally, though it’s another conversation: it’s what makes theism so bad - the lack of any significant error correction and unchallengeable data - meaning that if you’re wrong - you cannot self correct and not be wrong any more.

Quantities are not states of matter. The concept of describing the flesh which protrudes from your limbs as "five" fingers or "five toes" is an abstract.

If it is indeed "objectively determined independently by all observers" then how is it rationalized? How does one control for that which is independent if it's in fact independent?

Once again, quantities are not physical states. If you intend on levying a contention, then answer my previous question: what is the mass, volume, and chemical composition of the number, two? Or any number for that matter?

The standard can be changed if a consistent logic is sustained. That does not make it arbitrary; that does not make it whimsical.

First, a non-sequitur is a faulty conclusion derived from a misinterpretation or misrepresentation of a premise. A strawman argument is a claim of refutation by misrepresenting one's opponent's argument. So for your information, it is in fact a non sequitur.

How are you able to control for your experience outside of your mind?

You are only interchanging the names and symbols of the numbers. That does not inform your point on objectivity.

The perception of which is informed by the bias of one's experience.

The real world is informed by the bias of one's mind.

Once again, and this is the crux of our discussion: how does one control for one's mind as it concerns the presumption of the "external"? Can you shut your mind off and still perceive, experience, learn and observe? If you assume, yes, then explain how.

You have demonstrating nothing other than your abstracts and how perceive them being fixed. That is not objectivity.

Yes, I've challenged this by asking you to provide the physical properties (i.e. mass, volume, and chemical compositions) of said numbers, particularly the number two. You have yet to do this. You can choose any number you want.

Identify and explicitly state the fallacy deep in layers of abstraction which obfuscates.

How does any of this reside outside of the bias of one's mind, including one's notion of reality?

Consensus = consensus. Consensus =/= objectivity.

No, I'm not. All you've conveyed is your evaluation of your perception (i.e. subjective.) Hence, you've informed my point.

Wow... I usually just answer that I am unconvinced by myths... who called you a murderer for having unsupported beliefs? I could talk to them if you like. Try to explain the difference between being gullible and being a murderer. Totally different issues for sure.

And still.

Just stand and stare at the night sky.

In wonderment.