Forum talk:What If They're Right?

I want to address the question and the forum comments. The question is: What if they are right? First the question is subjective, but not by any means making it irrelevant like some questions. Right and wrong are points of view, therefore subjective; relating to how one sees their own human experience, and to be redundant, from their own eyes. It is either correct or incorrect; ex: a square peg not fitting a round hole. It is a relevant question because right and wrong is subjective and all humans are by nature subjective. Though subjectivity maybe correct in assumption, it is not correct for factual purposes, hence court room type argumentation. Subjectivity can rely heavily on inference. Inference meaning that one draws from their surroundings to create a factual world, so to speak. Fact differing from inference being, fact is what only the human experiencing something from one or more of he/she's five senses from their body, everything else being inferred.

As for the beginning argument, the first sentence is interesting to me because of the surprise of not finding any phrase that matched what was typed. I'm not sure why the question or phrase would come up on this site or any site that has a focus or agenda. It is simply not the nature of websites that follow a particular thought. Then the next sentence/question is obviously rhetorical, meaning it is a question asked because the person asking already has an answer. In debate, this type of question would not be allowed I think, although, maybe it would. But it is the next sentences which give it away. It starts with another question, leaving the first to stick in one's mind followed by another question that is also rhetorical. Then the latter are the answers to the whole thought that was created by the first two questions.

So this leaves me with a thought: What type of argument is this? It seems a little like the 'Slippery Slope' argument that dictates that because of one occurrence, then by all means, it can only lead to another occurrence. ex: kissing leads to pregnancy. But that is not correct, doesn't quite fit the theme, so then my mind changes to something more that seems to fit. After all, my square peg can only fit a square hole. So maybe 'straw man' or 'begging the question' is closer, or maybe another view could be 'creating a false dilemma'. To be clear, it is not the questions that are necessarily the point, they only begin the picture forming in one's head to bring thoughts to a point. It is the answering of the questions that have the information needed to decide what argument type. So that is my three suggestions to the argument, thought I have not answered the question. My further conclusion is that the argument poised by the question is bunk.

The second part is the retort to the first. It is honestly a beginning of a weak argument. Although the point is made clear. "If they are right, then we are right." What an interesting statement. Never have been sure how to explain the assumptions in that statement, but it is filled with many. The funny part is the 'right and wrong' aspect as the first. Communication is at the beginning of breakdown :( So to help figure this out, I, the critical reader has to throw out that statement and look at the rest of the substance.

The second sentence is unfortunately unneeded as well, it has emotion behind it, which can lead all humans astray in argument. Though it can be harvested if controlled and help focus argumentation. What is supposed to be inferred , since no human on this planet at this moment had actually witnessed any given event suggested that happened, and therefore can not be verified. The funniest part about this particular argument is the circular logic that is being started. The only thing either arguer could even begin to suggest is "If and only if, this happened in this way, could/would it be...". But that is very formal argument.

I do like the Keynes quote, having studied his economics, and it most definitely serves its purpose to promote one's own thoughts. As for bringing in Pascals's Wager, that was a good intro to true Christian philosophy. In the encounters I have had with religious and non-religious folk alike, it is a rare occurrence to have Pascal's argument come up. I honestly think that is one of a few truly descent arguments, though it has its own holes, that come from religious philosophy.

As for Occam's Razor, I think it is not an argument that is even close to this one. One would have to prove that this is a simple matter to any given human. I am not old, but not young either. In my life and all of my friends, from military to civilian, from one country to the next, have I every come across someone that has ever suggested that someone's life is so simple and that right and wrong for that matter is only black and white.

So my conclusion is that neither argument answers the question posed. "What if they are right?" To answer the question from a point of view, would be to say, 'and what if they are?'. What then? Does the 'winner' jump up and down and so on and so forth? I would hope not, but only because communication is what the ultimate goal for either side of the issue becomes.

I will say that there are some undertones in this argument that would need to be addressed. One is the human psyche and what happens when spirituality gets changed in more or less in a slight amount of time. From my studies, it is supposed that a human would lose their mind if their deity were known not to exist in to short of time. But I must forewarn I mean deity very loosely, for I actually do think that religious folk have pointed out their own behavior in those that are not religious. So I mean 'deity' as in what is held to be most 'holy/cherished' by any given human. With that defintion, it helps me grasp the argument from a larger perspective. So with that said, any given human that loses their deity in too short of time, for that particular individual, which could vary depending on the individual nature of the human brain, would not fare so well psychologically.

With that said, I start to conclude that these sects of philosophies will have a hard time expressing themselves outside their social gatherings. Seems like it would be that way I think. As for the answer to such questions as 'What if they are right?' is about as useful of a question as 'Who am I?'. It is a question that has no answer; the answer can only be formed over time and only then can it be looked back up on. And ultimately, being subjective, it will only be answered by the individual, although many or few individuals might agree. ^{— Unsigned, by: DeanCorso11 / talk / contribs}