"In its utility"? What sort of location is that? I'm asking you where as in a spatial location. — Terrapin Station

In its shape and attributes. You want me to say “in the mind of user” or some-such?

Let's try it this way. The objective "better" in the above is a property of what? That is, where is the property ( "This is better than that") found? — Terrapin Station

I would say in its utility, its value as a hitting nails device.

I don't understand what you're saying re "the same level of justification." — Terrapin Station

That everything is equally justified if they are subjective human constructs, as they all have the same basis of simple subjective preference.
The argument is essentially saying its all opinion and no ones opinion is more or less wrong.
I think that is true sometimes, but some opinions actually are objectively wrong sometimes too.
I do not want to say that objective and subjective is a false dichotomy , but it seems obvious to me that there is some crossover of the two when we consider the value of certain things. The example I like to use is a ruler that measures inches. An inch is a subjective thing, a measure of distance made up by a human mind that doesnt exist objectively. However, once the subjective decision to create the system of measurement and arbitrarily decide what an”inch” is gets done, it is then true that the length in inches of a ruler or whatever object is the same regardless of the subjective preferences of the person measuring. They could say “this isnt 12 inches in length, its 1 foot in length” and they would be right and the matter of which system to use is subjective preference (or what you are taught) but it is also true that the object is 12”, and I think we can say that that is objectively true in the sense that regardless of someones subjective idea of something length. You can always pull out a ruler and confirm its actual, objective length in inches. To make a distinction between objectively being true in reality and objectively being true in the sense I describe above I use the term “objective standard”.

It's not objectively better or worse, but sure, we can define a goal re wanting something to have such and such properties, and then objectively, some things will have those properties, or be closer to having those properties, than other things. That's not objective value. It's just the fact that there are objective properties and we can search for certain properties if we like. — Terrapin Station

Of course it is objectively better or worse, the hammer over the dead fish for hitting nails for example.
It is true that we can search for certain properties we like as you describe, but it is also true that certain properties suit certain tasks better, that they have more value for doing the task. Hence, it depends on what the goal is and what properties best accomplish the goal.

Well, objectively, a hammer can be used to hit nails. So can a lot of other things. It's persons who have preferences about which thing to use, which features to prefer, and so on. — Terrapin Station

A hammer is objectivly better for hitting nails than say, a dead fish. A person may or may not have a preference to use a dead fish to hit nails, but a hammer objectively has more value for hitting nails. (According to your own definition which specifically mentions “utility”)

Well said!

No, you're making the same category error here. There is no objective value. That doesn't mean that there is no subjective value. You simply have to locate the phenomenon in the right place. It's like noting that (barring unusual circumstances etc.) a beer isn't going to get cold by sitting in the microwave, but it will get cold in the refrigerator. You have to locate it in the right place. Value is something that brains do. It's not something that the world outside of brains does. So it's not at all the case that x is just as good as y unconditionally. Things are as good as, or better or worse than other things to someone. — Terrapin Station

Just jumping in here since I find what you said interesting, Though i realise your comment was directed elsewhere.
How exactly do you mean value here? I wouldnt say that a hammer has no objective value as a nail hitting tool, I do not think that is something merely done by the brain. It seems like something that is objectively true, something happening in the world (or about the world and its objects is a better way of putting it) that the mind realises/recognises. Similarly, depending on what the goal is, certain things will be objectively better or worse for achieving that goal. (Objective as inntrue regardless of subjective thoughts on the effectiveness).
I think what some are getting at here is that subjective values all have the same level of justification, based on (from what I can tell) the premiss that all subjective values have the same basis (someone made them up, came to them through culture or preference of some kind).
Do you agree with any of that?

The omniscience of God excludes other actions other than the one that He knows you are going to take. — Abecedarian

I dont think it does, I think that the omniscience only informs. It is knowledge, it can only effect something by being known if it is known by the actor/agent that is making the decisions. Knowledge, regardless of accuracy of the knowledge, possessed by someone other than the agent/actor has no ability to effect the outcome or decision. It is just data, data which indicates certain things, but does not control the outcome as you attest.

I believe that you are mistaking predictions with knowledge of future actions. In your example of the firing squads, you state that you have knowledge that the man will choose the meal and that it is obvious that he would do so. However, this is not representative of knowledge of his choice. You simply would have some knowledge of the person’s possible results and the desires and characteristics of that person. You then are making a prediction about what they will choose. However, no matter how likely your prediction is and regardless if your prediction comes true, it does not constitute of actual knowledge of someone’s choice. Predicting someone’s action, no matter how likely, is not foreknowledge and would not constitute the omniscience that is being referred to. — Abecedarian

Ya see I think god is just a perfect predictor, because he knows all that is, he can infallibly predict someones choice.

First, to clarify. I believe that in your arguments, foreknowledge means: “having true knowledge of a future action, event, outcome. God’s omniscient foreknowledge would be having knowledge of all future events, actions, or outcomes” If this is incorrect, please let me know. — Abecedarian

I think I see where we diverge. I dont think of omniscience as granting foreknowledge directly, I think of omniscience as granting foreknowledge based on infallible knowledge of the present. God would perfectly track the causality, not peek into the future. I think this is clear unless you think omniscience transcends time and space, which I take it you do?

1. When the universe did not exist, nothing existed except for the GCB. — adhomienem

Does the GCB necessarily exist before the universe was created? Why couldnt it have come into existence along with the rest of the universe from some kind of timeless natural event (not a being, so it doesnt contradict the existence of GCB)?

Im not sure I follow...what is the difference between ummutable and a changless state? They seem the same to me, making your argument circular.

Do you believe there is a point at which rhetoric and speech does in fact cause violence, and what sort of evidence wouod satisfy you on this particular of Trumps speech causing violence?

Im with you on this I think, Trump lies and talks alot of shit, but many times when ive fact checked claims made against him it came up short. Why lie about a guy who gives SO much real things to report? Its baffling to me. Do people not realize this empowers Trump? That its something he uses to his own advantage?

You also state that maybe, “you cannot have the good without the right amount of bad.” But if we’re assuming an Greatest Conceivable Being as the one in charge of creating good, I fail to see how the existence of good necessitates the existence of some amount of bad. Take the God we’re assuming— He is Maximally Good without any bad, so clearly bad is not required to exist in order for good to exist. Of course, different rules apply to humankind, because we are not Maximal Beings, but then you wonder why God would even create us at all? If Maximal Good existed before humankind, without any bad, why would God then increase the amount — adhomienem

Greatest conceivable being is not the same as a being of pure good is it?
My point was that there are other possibilities than the conclusions drawn in the OP on the steps made, that I pointed out. I think you are conflating GCB with other god concepts.

Your response to premise 1 misinterprets Yajur’s original claim: He is not stating that the good does truly not outweigh the bad, only that we often lack the ability to see how the good could outweigh the bad. He then reasons from that to premise 2: because we so often cannot see how the good outweighs the bad, it is at least likely that the good does not outweigh the bad in every single instance. This is supported with nearly unlimited antidotal examples of sad events that all center around the same theme: — adhomienem

You have added words to his, “at least” as likely is not the same as being likely. His initial statements are simple and concise, I do not think I have misinterpreted anything.

So my definition of faith is a basis to believe something is true and can not be in conflict with fact or reason.

If you believe something that is conflict with fact or reason - the problem is you - not faith. — Rank Amateur

I do not think you have made headway in your point, except to attempt to define away my objections. You define faith as not in conflict with fact or reason, then declare faith cannot be in conflict with fact or reason. Again, im not saying there is anything wrong with faith, that's another discussion in itself, but only that its pretty clear to me that faith and fact (i didnt really address reason) can indeed conflict.

Let's next say - by faith alone I won't get a vaccination for something. There is very very reasonable evidence that this vaccination is 99% effective in preventing this illness. That just makes me a fool, it is not faith itself that is foolish, and it is not faith that is making me unreasonable. It is my ignoring reason that makes me a fool. — Rank Amateur

This is just a different example, illustrating a different point. I understand that not every example will show a conflict, but some do, and that is enough for your claim to be in error.

Think you are missing my point.

so lets say, i say I believe by faith the world is flat. That just makes me a fool, it does not make faith itself foolish, and it is not the faith making me foolish - it is my ignoring facts that makes me a fool. — Rank Amateur

I feel like I have a good grasp in your point, I just disagree.
Also, I didnt say faith was foolish, you are putting words in my mouth there. All I intend to say is that things believed on faith can conflict with fact or reason.

1. If God has 100% knowledge of our choice, he calculated it from the factors affecting it.
2. Our choice can be pre-calculated in every situation, by the set of factors.
3. You only have one “choice” in every situation (from 2). — Yajur

I dont see how 100% knowledge over any other percentage matters, thats a question of accuracy rather than of the principal of what I said. Foreknowledge does not affect the choice being made excepting when the foreknowledge is one of the factors in the choice. (Like if you were to change your choice between two doors after learning the door you were going to choose was the wrong one).
2...well I think my point still stands. The set of factors are what the decision is based on, and people only make decisions they think are good (even if they admit its not a good decision, they will be thinking of some other good that will come of it ie i will chop off my arm (bad decision) to escape this death trap (good decision). Again, the predictability of the decision doesnt mean a choice isnt being made. It still is, based on the set of factors as you said.
For 3, I think its better phrased as “you only MAKE one decision in every situation” rather than “have”.
I think by stating it the way you did you are treating free will as something that happens in a vacuum, a sort of magical event absent of the set of factors. I think this is an obviously fallacious way of defining free will, a throughback to when religion dictated the terms so to speak.

Any truth believed by reason, can not be in conflict with fact, and any truth believed by faith can not be in conflict with fact or reason. Not sure what that makes me. — Rank Amateur

That seems like a dubious claim. Can I not have good reasoning but arrive at a conclusion that doesnt coincide with facts? For example, if someone did a really good job framing someone for a crime? The evidence and reasoning would not coincide with the fact.
If I believe on faith that someone can heal with thier touch, this will not coincide with the facts. I mean, there could be no god, and my faith in god wouodnt line up with the fact. Couldnt I believe in god because god revealed himself to me, granted me powers and declare me his emissary in earth? Couldnt I believe that with no faith at all in that case ?
It seems to me the 3 things do indeed conflict at times.

Yes, this is an example of circular logic, the conclusion and the premiss are essentially the same. It starts with the premiss god exists, then goes on to offer some steps intended to conclude that belief in material means belief in god cuz...god exists.
Pretty weak argument imo

1. In many sad events, we can’t see what good features outweigh the bad features.

2. Therefore it is likely that there are unjustified sad events : the good features don’t outweigh the bad. (from 1)

3. Therefore it is likely that: If God exists, the. He allows unjustified sad events. (from 2)

4. God would never allow unjustified sad events.

5. Therefore it’s likely that: God does not exist. (from 3 & 4 via MT) — Yajur

I dont think 2 follows from 1. It is just as likely to be a lack of insight as it is the good not outweighing the bad.
3 also does not follow from 2. (and includes an unsupported claim). You havent any reason in your argument that god would be allowing sad events with no justification. It can just as easily be said it serves a greater good, or that you cannot have the good without the right amount if bad. Also, Once again, the problem could be a lack of insight/knowledge.
4 is not a supported claim either, why wouldnt he allow such a thing? He might have a higher priority than leeping sad events to a minimum.
Your conclusion in 5 doesnt work either as far as I can see, even if the rest had no problems, you could still draw the conclusion that god isnt omni-benevolent, or that mankind simply cannot see gods plan.
I think if you want to tighten up your argument you need to make 1 more robust, i think the adjustments to the rest will be easier then. You should only be able to draw one conclusion from the prior step in your argument for it to be strong.

Ok, fair enough.

You do not understand what is meant by GCB. You should read Anslems argument, he goes into more detail than the summary in the OP.

Then don't think of it as an infinite set, think of it as your finite set plus one. Honesty, I don't think you even understand what infinity represents. If GCB is your top rank then mine will always be GCB+1 more rank. — Jeremiah

Its not a finite set if you can always add one more. Again, you are misapplying your math principal here. This isnt about the numbers, it is about the nature of GCB. As part of its definition (the GCB), you cannot add 1 to it, or .01 or so and so integer...or anything at all. It is a being which cannot be added to, a being that which nothing greater can exist. Adding 1 is making it greater. You yourself in your own equation used the > symbol, demonstrating very clearly you do not understand what GCB means.

You arent really talking about a number here, I think you are misapplying the math. GCB cannot be represented by an infinite set, by definition the GCB exists at the very top. It can never be added too as you have done, so your equation doesnt make sense.
I think what you are really arguing is that the GCB is possible in the first place?

I don’t think your equation makes sense. The nature of B precludes the part of your equation that is “B+1”, the “B” in “B+1” could not have been “B” (the B that is the GCB) if you can add to it. It wouldnt be B (GCB).

1. If you have free will to choose, then you must have the possibility to choose each of those options
2. If an omnipotent God knows what you will choose, you would not have the possibility to choose anything else.
3. Therefore, if God knows what you will choose, you would not have the free will to choose (MT 1,2) — Abecedarian

2 simply restates the position my argument is meant to dispel. It still does not follow that gods foreknowledge effects the decision the person is making. You just sort of added another layer and then draw the same conclusion.
You go into greater detail but I think you make a mistake here:

“However, let’s say that you choose B.”

If you choose B, then that would have been the foreknowledge the omniscience granted, not that A would be chosen. You’ve made a logical loop de loop here.
Lets say you are the kind of person who, all things considered equal, seeks to preserve his life rather that end it. Lets say you are given a binary choice between being executed by a firing squad or having a nice meal. I am not omniscient but I know which one you are going to choose. Obviously, the meal. Does that mean you have no choice but to choose the meal? I dont think it does. You have good reasons not to go with the firing squad, and so you do. My foreknowledge doesnt effect your decision, the factors of the choice do.
The only way foreknowledge effects your choice is if You were to be to informed of the foreknowledge, and that would be incorporated into your choice now, though you are still very likely to make the same choice in the example above. If you became aware of what you were going to do, then you might make a different decision, which would be harder for me to predict. Omniscience would get it right though and as the factors of the choice change, so would the foreknowledge.
You cannot bait and switch an omniscient being, their knowledge/foreknowledge adjusts to any changes you make to the equation. This is because the omniscient being has perfect knowledge of the factors of the choice, not because the being has precognitive powers. An important distinction.

I have seen surprisingly few posts on this philosophy to which I adhere which is starting to make me think it might have some gaping logical hole somewhere that I'm not seeing. I am open to having my mind changed in any way (God, inherent meaning in objects, cosmic Consciousness, etc) so present your best arguments against this philosophy.

Quick definition: The belief that an objective value/knowledge/morality is non existent — khaled

The position is as incapable of being attacked as it is incapable of defending itself, and therefore is just as easily dismissed as it is proffered.
You have made a number of conflations, such as arbitrary and not objective meaning the same thing. All in a days work I suppose, living in a realm of zero accountability to the means by which humans can know things as you do.
I mean, what do you expect from the responses? You have framed your request precisely to prevent the response you claim to be looking for, essentially asking “prove it, but do not use any proof”.

My point was that you don’t need intersectionality to accomplish your stated goal.
That intersectionality is certainly being used in nefarious ways by the outrage/victim culture should give the”finesse” proponents of intersectionality like yourself more than sufficient reason to lose the label and even condemn it. If they/you cannot do so, it might be more about trams and identity politics than you cared to admit so far.
Intersectionality is being taught in academia as part of the dogma for this nefarious movement. You look at what happened at Evergreen university, intersectionality was certainly part of the dogma from which that toxic culture (on the part of the “SJW”/feminist/activist students and NOT on the people they were attacking) was birthed.

I always thought the most powerful thing about Pascal's wager was as an argument against agnosticism.

His proposition that we are already embarked on the journey and we must play. The coin will stop spinning and we all must chose heads or tails, not playing is not an option. — Rank Amateur

I never thought about it that way before. It nicely alludes to agnosticism being a variation of atheism rather than the neutral position its often touted as being, which I agree with. If your answer is “I do not know” then you are in the same position as the atheist on whether or not you have an active belief in god.

It's supposed to undermine the idea that people who believe in intersectionality are belligerent and unresponsive to cis white blokes. It's a case of not everyone is like that, and no part of believing in intersectionality commits one to behaving like a close minded ass. People turn to intersectionality precisely to try and avoid being a close minded ass. — fdrake

I dont think it undermines it at all, since as I mentioned this is specifically about a nefarious culture of outrage and victimhood, not about innocent or friendly people you might know.
Also, I dont turn to intersectionality, am I a close minded ass?

I agree entirely! This is precisely why you ask people what they think. That's how we end up noticing social patterns when we're not part of them. Why would you ever think I would disagree with this so much that it's a counterpoint? — fdrake

A result of a sloppy work on my part, I didnt mean “you” you, but rather “you” in general. Poorly worded/phrased sorry. I switched between general use and specific use with no indication.

Intersectionality is nothing more than a call to listen to people's testimony from different backgrounds to learn about those groups. Nothing essential about this call changes when those groups are typical social demographics.

Intersectionality is rooted in noticing that people from different backgrounds tend to have different experiences and think differently.

Put in a bit of effort to listen to people's perspectives, exposing yourself to backgrounds from a different part of the system we're all in and maybe you'll notice structural differences. — fdrake

Two things. First, perhaps a differentiation between intersectionality and weaponized intersectionality. If all you mean is listening/understanding people, then Ill just keep calling that listening/understanding to people and you can call it intersectionality. If the idea is to listen to people based on the immutable characteristics like race or gender then I think its at best naive to the reality of how that is being used as a weapon by the aforementioned victim/outrage movement/culture.
Secon, I think its more accurate to frame it as different people equals different experience. Adding background just leaves the door open fir the above mentioned weaponisation.

The problem with that is that things like race or sexual orientation are not nearly as strong an indicator as the actual individuals traits. You get much more mileage asking about peoples experiences based on their actual experiences rather than the experiences you think (or even they think) they have had based on their race, gender or whatever other immutable trait they might posses.
You say its simple, but that is becuase you have made it that way, you just judge everything through the lense of immutable traits, a label that satisfies some but is not actually all that accurate (only in the most superficial ways). People are much more than these immutable traits, but if one views them as individuals then that will greatly hamper the outrage agenda and virtue signalling VagabondSpectre is talking about here.
Also, your anecdotal experience of how you are treated by certain kinds of people (whom I would just call people, your specificity seems totally irrelevent to me) is not really addressing whats being discussed here.
This is specifically about a movement, one that operates under the guise and as the unsolicited, unelected, and unverified spokespeople of minority groups in service of an outrage or victim culture. The movement is about power and revenge. Power to elevate certain groups above other groups and revenge for percieved slights of the past targeting innocent people today based on purely superficial traits like the color of their skin (white) or their gender (male).
Whether not you yourself are part of this movement or not I do not know, but its out there and its ugly and its precisely the same kind of false justification anti black/proponents of slavery used to dehumanise blacks in the US long ago. It is a rationalisation structure created not in service to anything just or righteous but rather for a dark emotional fulfilment.

Dont feed the Bridge Troll ;)

Ill second andrewk, you are asking real questions. Philosophy isnt just about the catagory of existence, anything is fair game up until (imo) it overlaps with science. Zenos may have been able to create a paradox with his philosophical efforts but needs to quickly step aside when low and behold Achilles wins the race and the turtle turns out to indeed eventually finish the race.

I think that by definition omniscience precludes philisophical skepticism. Its knowledge of all that is, including all the facts, all the answers to all the questions, what is certain, what isnt certain, how everything works, what skepticisms are true or untrue...everything.
He knows he isnt a brain in a vat because he knows everything. Nothing is beyond his knowledge, so if he was a brain in a vat he would know that too.
I don’t think your question is sensical, how does he know? He is omniscient.

Honestly I think people are already waking up to it. The groups themselves are in the minority and people are wising up to the dangers of this sort of toxic virtue signalling, im so tempted to call it a fad and a fading one at that....but....it has infected our academia, it permeates our media intake in subtle and not so subtle ways and although people may have noticed and developed disdain they still dont seem to see the danger.
Your outrage seems entirely justified to me, and theirs certainly does not.

Im not exactly sure what exactly you are offering for discussion here, but your coments seem accurate to me. There is a problem, and its clearly firmly entrenched.
At its base, this seems to stem from scoring social points which is normal in human cultures but there is something darker and more negative about what you are describing isnt there? The social points are being scored in a game of us vs them, rank tribalism. The harder you attack the more virtuous you are and the more points you score. The more points you are trying to score the more you become enslaved to the group think, and dependant on scoring, its cyclical and escalating. These groups will quickly turn on dissenters, because of course they are awarded social points for doing so.