Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Underlying Philosophy
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 137 of 577 (555358)
04-13-2010 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by sac51495
04-13-2010 8:43 AM


Re: I
Hello Sac, I hope you don't mind me interjecting, but I found your questions interesting.
sac51495 writes:
So what I am saying is that God gave to us the ability to reason and make sense of the world around us, and my question to an atheist would be, from where did we get the ability to reason if there is no god to give us this ability?
What I would say is where is your proof that god gave us this ability (don't say the bible, we'll get into a circular arguemnt then). As for how I think we got our ability to reason? Our brains.
Here's a random question. If you say that it is best for things to be proven via the scientific method, then the that raises the question: was the scientific method proven correct via the scientific method?
The scientific method is proven by experience. You've got a computer, don't you? If the scientific method wouldn't work, we wouldn't have that. Nor would we have landed on the moon. That's what the scientific method has done for us so far.
And in conclusion, I need to ask a very important question to clear up some more misconceptions between us. Are you neutral in your beliefs, or were you at any point completely neutral in your worldview (pertaining particularly to the question, is there a god?)?
To phrase it more clearly, when it comes to the subject of whether or not there is a god, would you define yourself as neutral, or bias?
I would describe myself as neutral. The reason I don't believe a god exists is because I haven't seen any evidence for him. As soon I have convincing evidence, I'd belief he exists. If I would worship him is an entirely independant question, however.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by sac51495, posted 04-13-2010 8:43 AM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by sac51495, posted 04-13-2010 9:26 AM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 141 of 577 (555376)
04-13-2010 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by sac51495
04-13-2010 9:26 AM


Re: I
sac51495 writes:
Huntard,
Certainly not, and in fact, I'm glad you did because you actually answered some of the question I raised.
Ok, glad I could be of service.
It's a hard pill to swallow, but the fact must be faced that if I were to do anything less than fully adhering to the Bible, I would be committing a flagrant inconsistency with my beliefs.
I understand your position, but certainly, you don't adhere to the bible in all things? There's some pretty bad stuff in there (stoning your kids if they're disobedient, or stoning people who work on the sabbath, for example). Surely, you don;t follow everything in the bible to the letter?
And further, I see nothing circular in saying that God created us in His own image, and that we thereby have the ability to reason in the correct way.
No, that's not circular. I was referring to the instance you would cite the bible as evidence for your belief that god gave us this ability. I would counter with, How do you know the bible is true then? Your reply would then either have to be: "I just believe it is!", which doesn't sound very convincing to me. Or it would be something like "It's the word of god!" which is circular. I.e.: The bible is true because it's the word of god, we know it's the word of god because it says so in the bible. That's what I was getting at.
So now, because the scientific method has been as you say "proven", does this mean that we cannot form another model by which to interpret evidence, or has the scientific method set itself up as the authority in that area, despite the fact that the scientific method does not have a truly good way of validating itself.
We quite possibly could. I wonder why we should though, this one has proven to be very succesful. If you can come up with a more succesful one (I.e. working to get us warp drive within the next few decades), I'd be all for it. Untill then, I'm sticking with what we've got and has proven itself to work.
Let me explain this in more detail. You say the scientific method was proven to be correct by experience, i.e., the idea was formed, it worked in several different scenarios, and it thereby worked itself into becoming a sort of "scientific law". But this process follows the scientific method itself. In other words, the scientific method validates itself by following its own rules. This is like a schoolyard bully, who can only win games by playing by his own rules.
Well, yes, but what other rules are you aware of then? Why should we discard something that has helped us humans so well in the past? If there's a better method to be demonstrated, go ahead, present it, and I'll happily embrace it. As for now, since I know of no such method, and the scientific one has worked so well, why should we discard it?
None of this is to say that I discard the scientific method as trash. However, I do believe that it should not be set up as the absolute authority in determining truth.
Ok, no discarding then. What other method do you have that has proven itself reliable?
Does this mean that from the outset you were neither an atheist nor a theist?
What's the "outset" here? When I was born, I didn't belief in and gods, so that must mean I'm atheist then (but then again, so is everybody). During my growing up, I went to catholic school, and was baptized and all that shit. I believed in Jesus and god to some extent (more like a person who had nice ideas and stuff, and for god as the creator of the universe, but more in a deist kind of way), so that wold make me a theist. At the age of 12 or so, i decided I cared about my beleifs and if they were true or not. From then on I took the position "I don't know" as a starting point. Looked for evidence for all my beliefs. Those that didn;t have any supporting evidence for them were "discarded" (I didn't belief the statement "bigfoot exists" was true for example, something I had done before this). Of course this process takes years, since there are a lot of beliefs a person can hold. And that's basically how I examine everything else I hear now. Is there evidence for it? And if so, what does it say? If there's no evidence for a clima, I act as though it's not true. Why should I? There's nothing to show it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by sac51495, posted 04-13-2010 9:26 AM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by RAZD, posted 04-13-2010 9:12 PM Huntard has replied
 Message 152 by sac51495, posted 04-14-2010 8:54 AM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 150 of 577 (555504)
04-14-2010 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by RAZD
04-13-2010 9:12 PM


Re: I
RAZS writes:
Amusing eh?
Indeed.I missed that, thanks for pointing it out. I should work on those critical reading skills.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by RAZD, posted 04-13-2010 9:12 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 153 of 577 (555579)
04-14-2010 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by sac51495
04-14-2010 8:54 AM


Re: I
sac51495 writes:
First of all, I would like you to cite passage of scripture that support these statements. I am certainly not denying that they are in the Bible, but I would like to ensure that you know what you're talking about.
Ok. I will put them up here this evening (my time), can't look them up right now.
{ABE}: As promised here they are:
Stoning kids from Deuteronomy 21:18-21
quote:
[18] If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
[19] Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
[20] And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
[21] And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
And killing people that work on the Sabbath from Exodus 31:12-15
quote:
[12] And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
[13] Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.
[14] Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
[15] Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
To answer the question, in short, you have to understand the covenants of God with man before you can understand the laws of Israel. If you would like for me to explain this in further detail, I can.
I would, thanks in advance.
There are several arguments I can raise here. Atheists often say that they do not believe that there is no god, but rather they lack a belief in god. They say that they simply find a belief in god inadequate to describe the world around us. My primary argument here is that atheism itself is highly inadequate to describe the world around us.
You're absolutely correct. Atheism doesn't explain the world around us. How could it, it's not an explanation for anything, it's a label for someone who doesn't believe in god.
Another argument that can be raised, is that the Christian worldview is the only worldview that can truly verify the existence of anything.
What? I call bullcrap on this one. Why should other worldviews not be sufficent to explain the world around us? Hell, even last thurdayism can do that. It's a completely useless explanation, but it's an explanation nonetheless.
The existence of the universe cannot verify the existence of the universe.
Wait... So the fact there is a universe cannot be said to be support for there being a universe? I don;t understand.
But if this universe was created by and eternal, Supreme being, we do have an explanation for the existence of all things.
Hey! That's what Islam says. Guess you better convert! And we have an explanation for the existence of things now as well.
Does God verify Himself then? The answer here is difficult, because as I have said before, it is difficult to describe God with one of the cognitive faculties He has given us (reasoning). But ultimately, something that is eternal cannot verify itself in the sense that we think of it, because it has no beginning or end. This concept (of no beginning or end) is very hard for humans to understand, since we are mortal, so understanding God himself is, in a way, impossible.
That sounds rather agnostic to me.
To make the point, God can be eternal, but matter cannot.
And you know this how? The matter part that is.
Something must be eternal for all things to exist (if there is not something that is eternal, how did anything come to be?...
Ok. How about, energy, in one form or another?
did "something" come from "nothing"?
No.
Once again, I see no alternative but the Bible.
The Quran. The Torah. Countless other mystical writings. Or, and this one's the kicker, science!
And further, once you come to a true understanding of the Bible, God can continue to verify himself in your life over and over again.
Aha! The old "you have to believe it first and then you'll get the evidence"?
This does not serve to convert us however (not necessarily, but it could), but to strengthen our conversion. Since you do not believe, you have not seen the working of God that I have seen, and this (the things which I have seen) are one of the biggest verifications of my faith in Christ (and this is quite far from a blind faith).
Confirmation bias then? Not very convincing to me.
And I would further argue that you yourself do depend on a god (for if you didn't, how would you know anything), but verbally, you deny it.
What? How can I know something without a god? Oh I don't know, by reading a book for instance? And please don't say "but without god you wouldn;t be able to understand the book!", that's not an answer. Seriously, you have a weird logic surrounding you, it seems.
It isn't that God is hiding from you, your just ignoring his presence.
I've looked for him, you know. He didn't show himself then either.
As to your history of your religious beliefs, you didn't quite answer the question (I should have worded it differently). Let me rephrase the question.
When you were coming to the conclusion you were in the latter half of your history, were you making these conclusion from the stand point that (a) - there is a god (b) - there is no god (c) - neutral?
C neutral. I still am. I still don;t say there is no god, but like anything I don;t have any evidence for, I don't take him into account when leading my life. Just like I don't take bigfoot into account.
I will respond to the scientific method discussion later.
Ok. I look forward to it.
Edited by Huntard, : Bible quotes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by sac51495, posted 04-14-2010 8:54 AM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by sac51495, posted 04-18-2010 4:42 PM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 169 of 577 (556377)
04-19-2010 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by sac51495
04-18-2010 4:42 PM


Re: I
sac51495 writes:
So to sum it up in short form,
1. - Jews live by the Law, and are thus punished by the Law.
2. - Gentiles live without the Law, and are thus punished without the Law.
The covenants I spoke of are basically as follows: God's covenant with the Israelites - which was one in which God laid out his ordinances - and God's covenant with the Church - which is one in which salvation by faith is the focus.
I wonder then why Paul keeps using the law as an authority for moral conduct in his writings to gentile churches. If they don't have to follow that law, why mention it? Then of course we have Jesus himself saying he has not come to do away with the law.
Wouldn't you agree that there are extreme philosophical implications if there is no god?
Extreme? No. There are undoubtedly some philosophical consequences.
There are plenty of implications if there is a god, so likewise, there are plenty of implications if there is no god. In your universe, there is no god...correct?
Wrong. I do not say there is no god, I say that I do not take him into account when making decisions, because there is no evidence for him. Just like I don' t take Santa clause's wihes into account when I make decisions.
espite what a particular human may believe, there either is a god, or there isn't...right?
Correct.
You only say that you do not hold the belief that there is a god. You do not interpret your universe based on the belief that there is a god.
Of course, neither do I "interpret" the universe based on the belief that there are unicorns.
So you and me are interpreting the universe in entirely different ways.
Quite. I want evidence for everything, you apparently just assume something to be true, and then fit everything else into that.
I interpret based on the Bible, while you interpret it based on the belief that...I would say, but no one besides RAZD has told me what belief(s) dictate how they interpret the universe (please tell me what your belief(s) are).
What do you mean by "beliefs" here? I don't "interpret" the universe according to any belief. I hear a claim, and see if that claim has any evidence to back it up. If no evidence is forthcoming, I choose to not belief the claim. If evidence is forthcoming, and it's particularly strong evidence, I choose to "belief" the claim. If the evidence isn't very strong, or there is contradictory evidence, I might adopt a position of "I don't know".
But the point being this: whatever it is you interpret the universe by, it isn't the Bible.
Nope. Nor is it by the Quran, Bagavad Gita, Book of the Dead or any other piece without evidence.
So you and me have different starting points, resulting in different conclusions.
Indeed, I let the evidence dictate my conclusion, you apparently jus assume something to be correct from the start, and everything else is twisted into that assumption.
To sum it up, you don't interpret the universe based on a god, which by definition says that you interpret the universe with NO god.
You could say that, yes. Neither do I interpret it with Allah, or Shiva, o
or Zeus or Osiris.
Do you see the implications here?
Yes. Evidence first, conclusions after. Instead of the other way around.
If there is no god, then there is no afterlife (this is for the simple reason that without a supernatural god, how can something supernatural like this happen?).
Is god the only supernatural entity that can provide an afterlife? How do you know? But I'll grant you for the sake of discussion, that there is no afterlife.
This means that there is no true, lasting reward for anything we do.
So?
So why should we do anything, if it has no merit?
Who says it has no merit? Doing stuff can have plenty of merit. I can help towards building a better society, a better life for all humans. A glorious future for mankind. Is that not merit?
The implications would continue to pile up.
What implications?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by sac51495, posted 04-18-2010 4:42 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by sac51495, posted 04-19-2010 6:59 PM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 183 of 577 (556495)
04-20-2010 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by sac51495
04-19-2010 6:59 PM


Re: I
sac51495 writes:
Huntard writes:
C neutral. I still am.
You also said:
Huntard writes:
I do not take him into account when making decisions
You say you are neutral, and yet you refuse to take him into account when making decisions. This is extremely biased. It wouldn't necessarily bother me if you were biased and would admit it, but what does bother me is that you claim to be neutral, and yet you do not take God into account when making decisions. This is absolutely not neutral.
I say it is. Real neutrality would be taking him into account and yet not taking him into account. That's impossible. What I do, as I explained, is take into account claims for which there is evidence. Would you mind telling me why I should take something into account that has no evidence to support it? Should I take Bigfoot into account when planning a trip to the woods Should I take Santa Clause into account when deciding to be naughty or nice? Should I take wish granting leprechauns and their pots of gold into account when I go to the end of the rainbow? Tell me, should I? The moment I have convincing evidence for either of these things, I'd glkadly take them into account. That's what I mean with neutrality, I'll change in a heartbeat should the evidence compel me to.
And just to prevent an objection, I am not neutral either. I certainly do have my bias's.
I know, you stated so several times. That's very honest of you, thanks.
My claim is that neutrality is impossible.
Well, yes, the way you see neutrality, that is impossible. But, like I said, tht's not how I view neutrality. If I were to reject the notion of god, or Santa Clause or leprechauns when there was evidence for them, then I would call that biased. Changing when the evidence is compelling, is what I cal neutrality.
As I have said before, there are only two choices when making decisions: either you take a god into account, or you don't take a god into account. You have chosen the latter, which is the negative side of the question.
Actually, I'd call that the null position. The position everyone should take as a default. The neutral position, if you will.
Refusing to take a god into account is not neutral, because how could you go further in the negative direction?
But I'm not refusing to take him into account. I would take him into account were there evidence for him.
Not taking a god into account is the furthest you can go in the negative direction, while taking a god into account is the furthest in the positive direction. There is no middle ground here.
Yes. There are only two choices here. But still, I say one should keep the possibility open to change that position, it hould all depend on evidence.
If you ever make a decision or conclusion about anything, you will always either take a god into account, or you won't. To use your example, you either take Santa Claus into account, or you don't.
Yes.
To prevent an objection, if someone claims to have never thought about Santa Claus, they are indeed biased against Santa Claus, because although they don't necessarily notice that they aren't taking Santa Claus into account, they still aren't taking him into account, which is the same thing that the person who has thought about Santa Claus and has decided to not believe in Santa Claus would do. So the person who hasn't though about Santa Claus is just as far in the negative direction as someone who has thought about Santa Claus and decided not to take him into account.
Conclusion - to not take a god into account is as far in the negative direction as is possible.
I'd say it's the positive side, but that's just my gripe. All else you said makes sense. The point remains though. Why should I take something into account for which there is no evidencez
Did I say we make void the Law? Indeed not, because this would contradict the statements of Jesus himself. What did I say? I merely said we do not live under the Law, in that we are not punished in the way that the Law dictates. Indeed, we still follow the dos and don't s of the Law, just not the specific punishments for them, because we do not live by the Law. Just as Paul said, we do not make void the Law, but rather establish it in our lives, because the Law is the commandments of God himself, so why shouldn't we want to follow them?
You don't follow the law. You've said as much when the stoning of kids or killing of people who work on the sabbath concerns. You say Jews are under the law and it's punishments, so would you help stone a jewish child? Would you help kill a jewish man that worked on the sabbath, remmeber, the law commands you do. This way you are not punished by the law, you are however acting according to it, like you just said we all should.
Yet again you have a presupposition; that evidence must be gathered for everything in order for it to be verified.
Well yes, how else would you determine something to be real or not?
As I have said before, I do not discount evidence, but I merely point out your inconsistency of saying that you are neutral, and yet you have a biased presupposition: that evidence determines truth.
Everything I have seen in my life says it does. Do you have an example where evidence for a claim is actually evidence that the claim isn't true?
You will then continue to respond "so you're one of those fool Christians that denounces evidence". I do not discount evidence, but I discount your biased presupposition, not because I am opposed to bias, but because or your claim that you are neutral, and yet you have biased presuppositions.
It's not biased to await some certainty before you make decissions. DO you use a heads/tails coinflip to make decissions, or do you weigh different things in your final decission? Why should we not await evidence to see what we should do?
I see. But from your previous statements, it would seem that you do have a sort of "book" by which you interpret the universe: the "Holy Book of Empirical Data".
It's not a holy book to me, should it be shown that empirical data is worthless in determining truth, I will gladly abandon it for a better method. Have you got such a method? Can you show empirical data is not a good method for obtaining knowledge about the world around us?
Ah, but this is impossible.
Actually, no it sin't. There's a whole sector build around just that principle, it's called science.
Conclusions - however simple they may be - invariably precede evidence, in realms of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics etc. Take, for example, something incredibly simple: a young child may jump in the water off of the diving board, and trust their parent or whoever it may be that they will float back to the top and be okay. They have no real "evidence" for this, so they must first jump in. At this point, once they have jumped in the water, they now have proof that there is nothing to be scared of, and they will proceed to jump into the water without being the least bit scared. This may not be the best example, merely because it is not as fundamental as other assumptions we have made, but it displays the concept of "assumption before concrete evidence"
Actually, they've probably seen other people dive in as well, and they all returned to the surface, so they do have evidence for this claim. Also, they'll know that in the event they won;t get back to the surface, their parents will help them, as they have helped them in many occasions before.
The only point of this example being this: you have made conclusions before you have really good evidence to prove those conclusions, all though you may claim the contrary.
I certainly do. Like the example you give, the child has evidence for his parents claims. The evidence can even be demonstrated to him by his parents.
Note that I did not capitalize "god" in my statement. There is a difference between "God" and "a god"
There is. Still, is "a god" all that can provide an afterlife? How do you know?
But is there any hope whatsoever that this "merit" will last?
Yes. There is always hope. Will will it last? I don;t know, Should that stop me from trying? No.
You can do things to make society better if you wish, but you would be justified in hurting society as much as you wanted to.
No I wouldn't. That would be detrimental to society, and that's not good for the human species, nor for the people araound me that I love.
If there can be no hope that anything will last indefinitely, then why do anything?
Like I said,m there is always hope. The fact that it may not does not mean it is not worth doing. Is the only reason you behave because you want to have a nice after life? If so, than I hope you never lose your faith.
The point is this: why do you punish those who hurt society, if your worldview justifies the actions of the same?
My worldview doesn't justify their actions. Not in the least. Whatever gave you that bizarre idea?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by sac51495, posted 04-19-2010 6:59 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by sac51495, posted 04-24-2010 1:50 AM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 201 of 577 (557273)
04-24-2010 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by sac51495
04-24-2010 1:50 AM


Re: I
sac51495 writes:
Point out if I'm wrong, but it looked like you just said you are neutral, but then immediately following your statement of "I say it is [neutral]", you go on to say that real neutrality is impossible.
I was more like talking out loud what your position was on neutrality. I do not agree with it.
And to respond to all of your bigfoot and Santa Claus metaphors (and to give them this label is too much, as they are all absolutely incomparable to God. Let's please not go about comparing figments of man's imagination to God)
And you know that god isn't a figment of man's imaginatoin because?
if you don't take bigfoot into account, you are indeed biased.
I would say you aren't. And there lies the crux of the matter I guess. You use the words "biased" and "neutral" a bit differently then most people, it seems.
As I have pointed out earlier, to not take a being into account is as far in the negative direction as one can go...how can you go further in the negative direction?
Denying the existence of something when there is evidence for it, I would say.
If you were to take a being into account, this would be as far in the positive direction as is possible.
But without evidence for it, this would be a totally ridiculous thing to do.
Conversely, to not take a being into account is as far in the negative direction as is possibly attainable, for the simple reason that you can't go any farther in the negative direction.
Like I said, I think you can.
So to be neutral is to accept things that are well established?
I would say so, yes. Whereas not accepting those things would be idiotic in the extreme.
So am I neutral in assuming that I will always have a strong attraction to the ground (gravity)?
Yes. Until evidence arises that shows this to be otherwise.
The definition of neutral is: not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy. If I were to insist to you that I have no attraction to the earth, and you were to insist that I am attracted to the earth, you are, by definition, taking a side; the side that the force of gravity exists. So you are therefore, by definition, not neutral with regards to the gravity controversy.
Again, you are apparently using the word "neutral" in a different way from most people. Also, why should neutrality matter so much. Either a claim is true, or it isn't. As long as there is no evidence for the claim being true, why should you accept it as true? If I told you you could cross a big and busy freeway without getting hit by a car, would you believe me?
Curiously, this case involves two sides: one who believes in the existence of something (gravity, caused perhaps by a dynamo), and one who does not accept a belief in something (gravity).
Sorry to ask this but what do you mean by "caused perhaps by a dynamo", this confuses me a bit.
Anyway, on with the topic:
You do not accept the belief in a god, and you say this is neutral. And yet you would say that one who does not accept the belief in gravity is not neutral, for the simple reason that there is compelling evidence for the existence of gravity (or at least a cause of gravity...)
Again this cause thing, what do you mean by this? But yes, basically, you're correct.
So since when does the presence of evidence for or against a belief define whether one of a negative viewpoint with regards to that belief is neutral?
Th "negative viewpoint" as you keep calling it, is always the neutral viewpoint. Once evidence comes into play it would be clear whether or not this viewpoint was the correct viewpoint, and a neutral person would then adjust his stance to what the evidence shows.
So what is going on here is this: you insist that you are neutral in your beliefs, but anyone who follows your lead in being "neutral", and as a result rejects all beliefs (such as the belief in gravity), is not neutral in your view.
I didn't say that. I said one should start with the neutral viewpoint, and when evidence comes into ply, one can adjust his stance on the matter according to the evidence. It's all fine one starts out not believing in gravity, but once one is shown it exists, not accepting that it exists is utterly idiotic. It's like me denying that people can't walk over water. Even when shown time and time again that people who step on water fall into it and subsequently get wet, and even after having done so myself a couple of times, I would still insist that people can walk on water.
So now you get to define who is and isn't neutral. If you interpret the evidence as supporting a particular position, then that position is the neutral one, but any other view is, as defined by you, not neutral. Sounds just a wee bit arbitrary.
But I am not the one determining this. The evidence is.
Please tell me how you could go further in the negative direction.
By not accepting something when there is compelling evidence for it.
Please elaborate a little further on this view, i.e., is evidence your supreme authority with regards to all things?
Yes. Though it might be a bit strong worded, without evidence I belief nothing. It has taken me some years to get to this position though. There were times why i actually believed stuff that didn't have any evidence for it. Like the ridiculous claims of the 9/11 "truthers", there was a time when I bought into that balony. Luckily, I grew a sense just in time, and now I don't.
Just so you will be able to better understand everything else I'm saying about negative and positive views in this message, I'll clear this up. When I say negative view, I mean the belief that holds for the absence or non-existence of something, e.g., with regards to a worldwide flood, an evolutionist would be negative and a creationist would be positive, while with regards to a big bang, an evolutionist would be positive, and a creationist would be negative.
Actually... A person going with what the evidence shows would say the flood is bullshit, while those in denial of it would sya it happened. The same goes for the big bang. Accepting evolution has nothing to do with it. There are people who accept the big bang but don't accept evolution, you know. But ok, point taken.
Once again, the stoning is the punishment of the law, which I do not follow, simply because the Bible says that I am condemned by my conscience.
The law commands you to stone that (Jewish) person, yet you choose not to follow it. Yet in the previous post (Message 173) you said:
sac51495 writes:
...the Law is the commandments of God himself, so why shouldn't we want to follow them?
So, should we or should we not follow the law? Or should we just follow it when we feel like it says the right thing? In which case, why bother with the law at all?
But certainly I would not be a rebellious child, because obviously the Bible says that this is not a good thing.
So, if your parents told you to go out and rob a person, you would do this? Because not doing this would mean you are a "rebellious child".
Once again, I am not attempting to undermine empirical evidence. My point is simple: what is it that has made you assert that evidence will yield correct things? How do know that we are really seeing what we are seeing etc.? How do you know anything?
Experience tells em that evidence leads to the right conclusion. You use the same method every time you stand on a ledge. Do you jump down? Afterall we don't really know that gravity exists right?
If I were an atheist, I honestly wouldn't know what to rely on, because I would have no source for ultimate truth.
Sure you would, it's called evidence.
It may seem as though evidence yields correct things, but can you really know this?
When you show me it doesn't, then I will believe your claim. So, got any evidence that evidence isn't reliable? Oh wait, but then, what makes your evidence reliable?
Why should we await evidence to see what we should do? This question is directed to you as an atheist. My answer should be obvious. So what is your answer? Do you have any really good reason for relying on evidence? Isn't it possible that it is a bunch of gobbledygook?
Everything I know about reality has shown me that evidence is the right way to go. Why should I not follow it then? Even you use it, every day, every time. And again, show me it is gobbledygook and I will be glad to change my position. Until then, I'll stick to what reality has shown me, thank you very much.
To say that science is based on no fundamental assumptions is like saying that when one reads a book, they read it with no fundamental assumptions (they would assume, for instance, that the language within the book can convey a certain meaning to them, and that that meaning will also be conveyed to others who read the book, or they might assume that the book has words in it, rather than a bomb...). Science is based on some very fundamental (and obvious) assumptions. For example: laws that have been observed to be true will remain true, and will not change. When was the last time you saw a scientist say there might be a place where energy was actually converting itself into a more efficient form of energy? The second law of thermodynamics is a rather fundamental assumption, one that without which science would become virtually impossible.
That's not an assumption though, is it. The second law has been shown to be accurate. It isn't just assumed, it has been proven.
The definition of science is: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. This presumes that through observation and experimentation of the world around us, certain knowledge can be obtained, and that that knowledge gained will hold true for all others within the material world. There are many more fundamental assumptions in science.
Ok. Got anything to show this is not the case? You can walk on water? You are not subject to gravity?
And just another problem here: according to the definition of science, science does not account for abstract entities (i.e., non-material entities), such as morals, laws of logic, etc. Just as science cannot explain morals, and doesn't (by definition) attempt to do the same, science can also not explain God, nor should it attempt to. The very definition of science says that the knowledge gained is of relation to the material world, not abstract entities such as morals and laws of logic.
So? Should we therefore discard it? Or simply assume things because "science can't deal wit everything"?
So here is an application: prove to me scientifically that I should not look up where you live and come and kill you. Until you can, there seems to be no good reason (that is, if we adhere to your worldview) for me to not do so.
Again with this worldview. You seem to know more about it than me, who actually holds that worldview. It is not ok for you to come and kill me because this is bad for a stable society, which is the optimal way to make sure the species prospers. Look how far we have gotten as a species, just because we have a stable society. Scientific enough for you? The success of the species is benefited by a stable society, so we should aim to get that society as stable as possible. Happy now?
So what would your reply be if I asked "would it be okay for me to live 100%, completely for my pleasure?".
It would be: "If that doesn't interfere with anyone else's life, go for it".
If living for my pleasure somehow involves hurting society, then I would say this justifies hurting society (from your worldview that is).
How many times do I have to keep telling you this? My worldview doesn't justify hurting society. Will this finally get through to you?
Once again, why should one not hurt society?
Because it is bad for society.
Since when does it matter that you say people shouldn't be hurt?
Since it is bad for society.
Why does it bother you for people to be hurt?
Becasue it is bad for society.
...maybe there's a reason to all this.
Yes. It's bad for society! Got it?
And to respond to a previous objection about an afterlife, my point is just that you worldview does not provide an afterlife.
Yes, which makes this life all the more important.
And besides, from your "scientific" viewpoint, wouldn't it be a supernatural occurrence for a person to exist somewhere other than this material world? This, of course, would require a supernatural being.
Yes. but you said it would take "a god". And still the question remains, how do you know?
One final question. Does your worldview specifically require that I, in my lifetime, do something to help society?
No, simply not hurting it is enough, there are other people to help it go forward if you are not so inclined.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by sac51495, posted 04-24-2010 1:50 AM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by sac51495, posted 04-27-2010 9:19 AM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 212 of 577 (557724)
04-27-2010 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by sac51495
04-27-2010 9:19 AM


Re: I
sac51495 writes:
his has nothing to do with what I said. The point I was trying to make is this: if there were a Santa Claus, and if there were a god, the god must have created Santa Claus, so the two are incomparable.
Oh? Did Zeus create everything? Did Osiris? Did Thor? No they didn't, yet they're still gods. So no, if there was a god he must not have made santa clause. My original point stands, how do you know god is not a figment of the imagination?
{Your WWII analogy}
Doesn't really have anything to do with what we're talking about, does it? We're talking about evidence for claims here, not about what sides people chose in wars. The neutral position to a claim is being always ready to change your stance on it, depending on what the evidence shows.
This was just to prevent the objection you may have had that there is no force of gravity. There isn't really a force of gravity so much as there is a cause for our attraction to the earth, the cause being a dynamo (which would be the liquid at the core of the earth swirling around, causing an electrical current).
Oh dear, it was as I feared, you have no idea what causes gravity, do you? It's not electromagnetism, it's the warping of spacetime by mass. that's what causes gravity. If you don't even know that, makes me wonder what else you're completely wrong about.
So were you at some point neutral on the subject of morals? Was there ever a point in time where you didn't think murder was right or wrong? You've probably always thought that murder is wrong.
No actually, for the first years in my life, I had no oppinion on murder, I didn't even know what murder was.
Now we get into your "it's bad for society" bit. How did you come to the conclusion that something that is "bad for society", is the thing that should be fought against?
Because what is bad for society is bad for the species. And I want our species to have the best possible chance of making it.
Why does it bother you if something is bad for society? Is it because "it's bad for society"?...
No. it's because it's bad for our species.
Furthermore, who says you have the correct view of what is good and what is bad for society. And what determines what is good and bad for society?
That which keeps society stable is good, that which doesn't is bad.
You would say that is bad for society to kill millions of people, right? Well Adolf Hitler thought he was doing society justice by killing millions of Jews. He thought that they were a lower order of humans,...
And he was wrong, look what it did to society, it caused tremendous instability and many people died as a consequence.
...so, from a Darwinian standpoint, they should be eradicated from the earth, so that natural selection can take its course.
No they shouldn't because causing them to go extinct is artifcial selection, not natural selection. So, if Hitler had wanted to let evolution take it's course on the jews, he should've done absolutely nothing, and if they really were inferior, they would've died out anyway. But guess what, they're not inferior, that's why they didn't die out, and that's why Hitler had to take the measures he did, precisely because it doesn't fit a Darwinian perspective.
His logic seems perfectly consistent.
As I have just explained, it wasn't. At least one of his premises was wrong (Jews being inferior).
Why have you decided that killing millions of people is bad for society? Is it because it makes people sad?
It's because it undermines the stability of society.
This raises the question, why does it bother you for people to be sad? Why is it bad for society for people to be sad? Perhaps pain and suffering is the best thing for society.
Really? Would you mind pointing me to a scoiety that has thrived on pain and suffering? Pain and suffering lead to an unstable society, and this will inevitably at one time collapse.
We can decide from this that in your worldview, we cannot know what is good and bad for society.
Again you seem to think that you know what my worldvies says. Yet you are completely wong about what it syas. My worldview can tell you what is good and bad for society. Stability is good, instability is bad.
You may say that it has been proven that pain and suffering is really bad for society. This would be an utter falsehood. Prove to me that it hurt society for Hitler to kill millions of Jews.
Are you blind and deaf? It's called the second world war mate, it's not really been that healthy for society, now has it?
The only sign that it was bad for society was this; it caused people to endure pain and suffering. But once again, why is pain and suffering a "bad" thing?
Because it leads to an unstable society.
And where in the world did the concepts of good and bad things come from anyways? Did they evolve in the same way that animals did, or are they human constructs?
They are human constructs that evolved with us as we gained more brainpower.
So does this mean that all people will draw the same conclusions from the same evidence?
If they are unbiased, yes.
I agree that the evidence is the same for theists and atheists alike, but their interpretations will differ drastically.
That's because theists are biased, they assume their bible is true, when they have no reason to do so, and shoehorn everything into that view. Whereas I look at the evidence, and build from there.
For instance, if you find a fossil buried in rock layers you think "wow, this is a million-year-old artifact"
No I wouldn't. I probably wouldn't even recognise it. But say I did, then I would look in which strata it was found, perhaps do some radiometric dating on it, and then see what those results yield, look if I can determine if it belongs to an already discovered animal of which we know the age it lived in. Only then would I proclaim this to be any sort of age.
while I would think "here's an animal that was probably buried by the Flood".
See, shoehorning it into your bible. You don;t do any tests at all, you just proclaim it as if that makes it true.
Or if you look at the complexity of the human eye, maybe you would think "wow, look what evolution came up with" and I would think "wow, look what God made".
I would think "How did that come about" and then research the subject. Turns out the evolutionary explanation is backed by evidence, while your assertion is, again, shoehorning something into your bible without any research whatsoever.
I look at rock layers and think they were laid down by the flood, while you look at rock layers and think that they are accumulations of dust particles from millions of years ago.
Three strikes, you're out.
No I wouldn't I would first look at the location, see if I can determine what kind of rocks these are, do some radiometric dating, and only then would I proclaim anything about the layers. Maybe something like "These were created by a mudflow last year, the one we caught on tape". While you, again, without any research or interest in the facts whatsoever just shoehorn it into your bible like that makes it true.
But we are both looking at the same rock layer. Same evidence, different conclusions. Why?
Because you are biased and want to fit everything into your bible and I am not and look at the actual evidence.
Because we have different starting points. If I see a rock layer, I try to fit it in my framework of the Bible, and you would try to fit into your framework of "no god".
I explained to you I don't do that. If there were evidence of god making that rock and placing it there, I would say, " hey look! God placed a rock layer here". Since there is absolutely no evidence of god getting involved in creating that rock layer, I leave him out of my explanation, just like I leave out Gavad, great mud god of layers.
And not even all atheists agree on everything they believe about the world.
Of course not, since atheism only means that you do not believe in gods, everything else has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Even two "like-minded" atheists can draw different conclusions from the same evidence.
Only if they're biased, or a t least one of them is.
All this to say that your conclusions are not inevitably the right conclusions.
The evidence supports my conclusions. I wouldn't know how hey could be more right.
You interpret the evidence one way, and you then say that these conclusions must be the correct ones, because you started from a "neutral" standpoint. Once again, just a wee bit arbitrary.
I hope my explanation has made you see that I indeed do start from a neutral standpoint, though I am beginning to doubt that.
I said, we should want to follow the commandments of the Law, but we do not follow the punishments. For example, I would say it is a bad thing to be a rebellious child, although I wouldn't stone my child. Why? I have said over and over again; we aren't under the Law in that we are not governed by it in the way that the Jews were. But if I had been a Jew before the time of Christ, I would have stoned a rebellious child. When Christ came, he fulfilled the law, and also sacrificed himself that our sins might be forgiven. So now we are no longer punished for sins in the same way Jews were. Ultimately, if you want to understand it, just read the Bible. There's a whole lot to know about the subject, and I can't fit it all into this message. But I can guarantee you that it makes sense.
I've read the bible thank you very much. It didn't make much sense, but nevermind that. I am going by your words here. In your first reply you say we're not bound to follow the punishments of the law, I ask you if you would help punish a Jew, as you said they are under the punishments of the law and the law commands they should be punished. Then you say you wouldn't. I ask you why you wouldn't punish a Jew, who should be punished by the law, and the law commands you to punish him. Either you follow the commands of the law or you don't when you start nitpicking which ones you do like and which you don't the entire law becomes useless. Jesus did not come to change the law or to do away with it, he said so himself.
What are you trying to get at? Are you saying its not bad for children to be rebellious?
Depends on the situation. If they refuse to murder someone, I'd call that a pretty damn good time to be rebellious.
But this causes pain and suffering for their parents, and you said that things like this are bad for society, and should not be done.
It causes more pain and suffering if they do follow their parents order. And quite frankly, any parent who orders something like that from a child should not be a parent.
And to answer your question, to rob someone would be to disobey the Law itself. Also, note that the 5th commandment says "Honor your father and mother". There's a lot more to honoring your parents than just obeying what they tell you do.
Irrelevant, this is about obeying your parents when they order you to do something, like the law commands, you should not be rebellious to your father and mother, or you will be stoned. So, would you obey your parents no matter what they ask of you?
Is this always the case?
So far, yes.
Also, your statement presumes that it is possible for evidence to lead to the right conclusions. How do you know that your conclusions are correct? What evidence do you have that your conclusions are right?
Uhm...the evidence itself? If I say "this car is green" and it is, in fact, green, wouldn't you say the evidence that the car is green supports my claim that the car is green?
Further, how do you know that there are right and wrong conclusions? How did you come to the "correct" conclusion that there are right and wrong conclusions? But wait, how can you come to a correct conclusion proving that there are correct conclusions? This is impossible.
No not really. a claim is either true or false, this is simple logic. Now we use the evidence to determine if the claim is either true or false. The claim is "the car is green", so we proceed to,look at the car. We see that the car is, in fact, green. Conclusion, the claim "the car is green" is a correct claim.
Consider the following dialogue. Note that Bob is attempting to start from a neutral standpoint, and then make his conclusions
Jill: I have decided that there is right and wrong.
Bob: I can't decide whether there is right or wrong. Right now I'm weighing the evidence for each side.
Jill: Do you hold the belief that there is right and wrong?
Bob: No, not yet at least.
Jill: Is it possible that you would come to the conclusion that right and wrong exist?
Bob: Yes.
Jill: But if you start from the "neutral" standpoint that right and wrong do not exist, you could never come to this conclusion, because if there is no right and wrong, then there is no sense in trying to make a correct conclusion.
Bob: I guess your right...
Bob's a bit of a thicko, isn't he? It's not nice to use dumb people to demonstrate your point. The neurtal standpoint is that you don't know whether right and wrong exist until you look at the evidence. Now, Like I said, simple logic dictates that something is either right or wrong. There we're done, we've used logic to prove that right and wrong exist.
So Hitler killing millions of Jews under the pretense that they were hurting his society is justified?
No because the premise that they are hurting society is wrong, Godwin.
I dealed with this earlier in my message, but basically, it boils down to this: so what if it's bad for society?
If it's bad for society it's bad for the species.
Where do you come off judging people who do bad things to society if you have no reason for bad things needing to be judged?
Again you'vew got it completely wrong. My view does need them to be judged, they are hurting society and therefore the species.
You will reply again "IT"S JUST BAD FOR SOCIETY!!!". So is this a justification for punishing murderers?
Yes.
What if a murderers society is himself, and imprisoning him hurts his society?
One man is not a society.
Supernatural occurrences require a supernatural entity. Can it be much simpler? Or would you hold that an afterlife is scientifically explainable?
You said it needed "a god", not "a supernatural entity". I challenged this claim, and it seems we are now in agreement that "a god" is not needed for an afterlife, thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by sac51495, posted 04-27-2010 9:19 AM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by sac51495, posted 05-10-2010 8:48 AM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 221 of 577 (559575)
05-10-2010 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by sac51495
05-10-2010 8:48 AM


Re: I
sac51495 writes:
Huntard,
Before I respond to your message, I need to point us back in a more fundamental direction. We have an awful lot of discussions going on in one message, so I'll answer a few of your questions, and then raise just a few of my own at the very end that will be very fundamental questions.
Ok, fair enough, perhpas it will be best to focus a bit more.
If you could understand my thinking, you wouldn't keep giving the same answers for my questions. I ask how you decide what is bad for society, and you say "whatever is bad for the species".
I didn't say that. I said that which destabilizes society is bad for it, because an unstable society is bad for the species.
The focus in this question is on the word "bad", not on your definition of "society". How do you decide what is bad and detrimental to your "society"?
That which destabilizes society is bad, that which doesn't isn't.
If you have some standard by which you can determine good and bad, where did this standard come from?
From me, my experiences, and those of others. So far, everything points to a stable society being good for the species, and an unstable one being bad. I, wanting our species to prosper, have elected to strive for an as stable as possible society.
You said later that "whatever keeps society stable is good". This statement raises yet another question; what defines what it is that keeps society stable? Is it that which is good for society?
Yes.
Besides, I would wager that you hold some views of what is right and wrong that I would disagree with. The most obvious being that you believe there is no god, while I believe God exists.
I don;t believe there is no god, as I told you in one of my first messages. I don't know whether there is a god or not, but until there is evidence a god exists, I choose not to include him in my decision making.
So obviously, different people can come to different conclusions about what is good and bad for society (just try and live with some cannibals for a while).
Yes, there can be only one right choice for any given society though.
You have no explanation for differing views among people of good and bad, while I have a very good explanation for it.
Actually, I do. Different people hold different values, and thus, see different things as preferential. What's your explanation?
And if in your worldview you expect for different people to come to different conclusions, then this creates a myriad of definitions of good and bad worldwide.
Yes.
This destroys the concept of good and bad, because if one person thinks it's good to eat people, and another person thinks it's bad to eat people, then eating people is neither good nor bad.
Wrong, it is bad. Good and bad are simply subjective things. I say what is good and bad in my life and my society. And luckily, most people agree with me. Those that disagree will utimately be shut out of that society, if their views and actions become to disruptive.
Or would you say that your view of cannibalism is correct, and a cannibal's view is wrong?
Yes.
What is the deciding factor in this?
I am.
Is there anything flawed about the logic of a cannibal?
Yes. See how well it goes for the society they are cannibalizing, I don;t think they're to happy about that. Now, if the cannibals stopped eating that other village, perhaps they could trade with them, and get food in that way. Then both villages can thrive beyond what is now possible.
If their ultimate goal is survival, and there is nothing to eat but people, then in their view, the best possible thing they can do for themselves is to devour the closest person to them.
But there's no where on earth where the only thing to eat is people, now is there?
Who says that the cannibal has to have your view of a society as a network of people working together for a common good.
No one. Different people have different views.
Perhaps all society is to a cannibal is himself, and to work for the common good of his "society" would involve the cannibalization of those around him.
Once again, one man is not a society.
I won't quote every part of your message, so I'll just respond in general to the WWII part of it. You say that WWII was bad for society because it was unstable. One question raised is this (which I asked earlier); what defines what is unstable for society?
That which hurts it.
What if Hitler has a different definition than you?
Then he's wrong, demonstrably so. The world was a very nice place to live in during those years, wasn't it?
Or is there only one, absolute definition of stability? If so, from where does this definition arise?
Yes. From the consent of all people.
You have contradicted yourself in an incredible way here with your concept of "whatever is good for society". I will first presume you are a proponent of evolution carried out by natural selection.
You can stop assuming, I am.
"Natural" selection? What? Natural selection is the death of inferior species.
No, it is the extinction of less fit individuals, evolution makes no value judgement.
Is death natural?
Death can occur naturally, yes.
From this (your) standpoint it is. So why is it bad for Hitler to wipe out the Jews
First of all, that isn't natural but artificial. Second, Jews aren't less fit, and certainly not "less valuable".
(and yes the Jews were inferior to Hitler, because Hitler was more "powerful" than them, obviously because he killed them[and don't run away with me saying Jews are inferior, because I don't really think that])?
If you don't subscribe to the argument, then why make it? And what is your obsession with might makes right?
Hitler was carrying out natural selection to the letter.
No he wasn't. Hitler killing the Jews is artificial selection, not natural selection.
In natural selection, one species comes out on top of another because of the use of some trait or ability they have that is superior to the ability of the other species.
Yes, their genes carry traits that are more beneficial to them in their current environment. These genes will then spread, and become more profound in the population at large, until every individual in the population has those traits. If you can't see how this is completely different from what Hitler was doing, you are beyond help.
Suppose this superior trait is the existence of bigger teeth in orangutans (orangutans, by the way, cannibalize each other).
Really? Evidence of that? And so what?
Regardless, carry on:
Then the orangutans with bigger teeth would be more likely to win fights, and thus destroy the small-toothed species of orangutans.
Orang-utans don't fight solely with their teeth. If another mutations pops upthat gives an individual stronger arms, they can dominate the one with stronger teeth, making them the victor. Also, why would an Orang-utans kill every opponent in a fight, they rarely do.
Hitler had an army, the Jews didn't. Hitler used his army to wipe out the Jews who were inferior to him.
The Jews weren't inferior to him, I can't belief you just said that.
There is nothing wrong with this picture here.
Of course there is, it's completely and utterly wrong. You have some twisted views if you think what Hitler did was right.
One question that is raised from this: if natural selection involves the death of species
It doesn't.
then why does the death of humans bother you so much?
That depends on how these deaths occur. Natural death doesn't really bother me one bit. Artificial deaths, that disrupt society, now those bother me.
Is it because "it's bad for the species?
Ultimately, yes.
I hope you see my point.
No, I'm afraid not.
Sometimes (in your worldview), what is "bad" (oh yes, please explain why "bad" is "bad"; and also explain why there is bad at all)
Bad is bad because we chose to call it that. there is bad because we as a society have decided there are somethings we don't like. We chose to call these things "bad".
for one species, may actually be good for a host of other species.
Like?
As I have pointed out before, if one thing is good for someone, and bad for someone else, then that thing can be neither good or bad, because if something is really "good", then it is always good in every situation.
And as I explained to you "good" and "bad" are subjective terms.
Good and bad is not subjective (or would you disagree with this?).
Oh yes, very much so, as you yourself have shown it to be with your examples in this thread. Way to undermine your own argument.
Now I'll ask some more fundamental questions. I need to do this so that I will be able to better understand what you believe.
No problem.
Here are the three basic metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical questions respectively.
What is real?
Reality.
How do we know what is real?
Evidence.
How do we live based on what we know is real?
Uhm...well?
God is real
Evidence please?
Since all that God has created is real, then we can use the filter of "what has God created" to decide what is and isn't real.
So, you know all that god created, and there are things he didn't create that still exist? What a confusing position.
This requires use of our God-given, cognitive faculties to observe the world he has created, and also to interpret it in terms of His Word.
Nonsense. Your sense are enough. They've brought us to the moon, you know. They made the computer you are writing your messages on.
Since God is the creator of all things, then He must also know what is right and wrong.
Why? If I create life in a universe, does that mean I know what is right and wrong for that life?
Therefore, we go no further than the Bible to determine how it is we should live.
Well, back to stoning children it is then.
Obviously, your answers will differ quite a bit from mine, but I am curious to see what your answers will be to these questions.
I kept them brief for you.
Don't think that creationists hold beliefs for which there is no scientific proof.
But they do. The flood is one, the exodus is another, creation itself is perhaps the biggest kicker.
A simple difference in our beliefs is that you believe in the validity of radiometric dating, and I don't.
Which is silly, since it has been proven to work.
But we won't get in to discussing this because it is avoiding the subject at hand.
Agreed.
But the point being this: there are creationist scientists out there, and in fact, there is an incredible amount of evidence in support of the creationist model, which I would readily present on another thread.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, which is why there isn't a single peer-reviewed, published study out there that shows even one of the creationist position to be correct. And don't give me that bullcrap about science "boycotting" creationists.
You need to just admit that at some point along the road, you made some presuppositions.
I decided that evidence is the way to show what is real. And experience has taught me that it is. Hence, it is not a presupposition.
Every time I point out a presupposition that you have made, you just say "oh well here's how I proved this". So I then ask about particular presuppositions of that proof, and then you say "oh well here's how I prove that". Don't you see that this must eventually end somewhere?
Seems you haven't reach that point yet though, does it?
You must have presuppositions, however basic they may be. This is why I asked the three fundamental questions earlier.
But they're not, experience tells me evidence is reliable. This is the same method you use every day in every scenario you'd like to mention. You don't flip a coin to see if you should cross the street or not, no you look if there are cars coming. You don't lay out tarot cards to see if you should drink that bottle of rat poison, no, you read the description. In everything you do in your normal life, you use the same method as I do. And yet somehow, you seem to be saying that this method is not reliable. Very weird.
You always use evidence in support of your claims (once again, don't go saying that I am undermining evidence, this is just an example).
Of course, what else would I use.
Well what evidence do you have that proves that evidence is valid?
Like I said, everything I have thus far seen in my life has shown me that evidence is the way to go. Heck, like I just argued, you think this as well, why else rely on it in your daily life?
None, because this would be circular.
Like I said, my experience (and that of everybody else) tells me that when something is evidenced, it is true. Do you know of something that was evidenced yet wasn't true?
It is a simple presupposition of yours that evidence is valid.
No it isn't. Like I said, Everything I have seen in my life has shown me that evidence is reliable. I haev not once run into a situation where, say, evidence that a car is blue, actually meant that the car was green. Have you?
I do not have any particular problem with this presupposition, but I am just trying to get you to admit that you do have this presupposition (along with many other presuppositions).
It's not a presupposition.
You said later on "I look at the evidence". Once again, there is nothing wrong with doing this, I'm just asking if it is a presupposition of yours that "I can look at the evidence".
If you want to call that a presupposition, go right ahead. Have you got anything to show that I can't look at the evidence?
How do you know that you can look at the evidence?
WEll, I'm loking at it aren't I? Can you show I'm not actually looking at it?
What if all that you see is illusion?
Then it's still all I have to go on. Which makes it irrelevant if it is an illusion or not. If you can show that it's an illusion, my position will change immediately.
What if all is illusion (and an awful lot of people believe this; Hindus)?
Then it would still be irrelevant. Until you can show it actually is an illusion, it's all we have to go on, and so is all that matters.
You can't use evidence to support the claim that there is a reality, because suppose that evidence is just your own illusion?
Then that illusion is my reality. And until someone can show that it actually is an illusion, it is completely irrelevant.
Once again, I'm trying to point you back to the three fundamental questions I asked earlier. We are not having a scientific discussion about the evidence for a given side, but we are searching out the presuppositions of each side (which I am having a hard time weeding out of of you).
I hope my answers cleared it up a bit.
Just to hammer this point home, in response to your green car metaphor, suppose the car is just an illusion? Or suppose that your concept of the color green is illusion? Suppose your thoughts about this car are just an illusion to yourself? Suppose you are an illusion of your own mind? Suppose your concept of evidence is illusion?
Then it's still there, and until it can be demonstrated that it is an illusion, it doesn't matter that it is. If all we have to go on is illusion, that illusion becomes reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by sac51495, posted 05-10-2010 8:48 AM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by sac51495, posted 05-10-2010 6:39 PM Huntard has replied
 Message 223 by sac51495, posted 05-11-2010 12:47 AM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 224 of 577 (559686)
05-11-2010 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by sac51495
05-10-2010 6:39 PM


Re: I
sac51495 writes:
*Coughs*. Later I will respond to the rest of your message, but I couldn't leave this statement un-responded to for very long.
Definition of reality: something that is real. So according to your answer to the question "what is real?", something that is real is...real.
Need I say more?...
Actually yes. You asked me what is real. I told you what is real, that which is real. I really don't know how else I should call everything that is real except with the name we all gave it. Reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by sac51495, posted 05-10-2010 6:39 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by sac51495, posted 05-12-2010 10:40 PM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 225 of 577 (559694)
05-11-2010 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by sac51495
05-11-2010 12:47 AM


Re: I
sac51495 writes:
First, we need to define standard. In philosophy a standard is "a rule or principle that is used as a basis for judgment".
So we see that your standard of morality (which I would consider to be a very low one) is derived from your own experiences, as well as the experiences of others. You further say that this standard is the only correct one.
I never said that. I said there is only one correct one for any given situation. What one considers the correct one depends on one's morality, and notions of good and bad.
This is because - first of all - the very definition of a standard says that a standard is something than can be used to judge things, such as whether certain things are right or wrong. Second of all, you said it yourself (that there is only one right choice). You said there is only one right choice, and the way that you decide which choice is the right one is by the standard of experience (refer back to the two previous quotes).
Yep.
There are a host of things I can point out starting from this view. First of all I'll just ask this: do you define yourself as a pragmatist? Skepticist (later on in the message, you said you just don't know whether there is a god or not)?
Pragmatist, no. I do not hold that an ideology or proposition is true if it works satisfactorily, that says nothing about it being true or not. Newton's laws of gravity work satisfactorily, yet they are wrong.. I do however hold that impractical ideas (i.e. ideas that can't be demonstrated to work in any way whatsoever) need to be discarded. Skeptic? Yes, very much so.
Also, I need to point out the stark contrast in our beliefs. You derive truth from yourself (or your own experiences).
No i don't. I derive truth from the evidence.
I believe "He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." (Col. 1:17). I believe "Good and upright is the LORD;Therefore He teaches sinners in the way." (Psalm 25:8). I believe "God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel." (Romans 2:15). So we see that you derive your truth from yourself; an imperfect and potentially bad person (unless you would say that you were perfect). I derive my truth from God, who is good and upright, and who will judge the hearts of men in a just manner.
Ok. I can't know what's good or bad, is that what you are saying? Should I just stop ignoring my sense of right and wrong? Afterall, how can an imperfect me really know if it's right or worng what I'm doing? Should I start flipping coins to see if I should rape, murder, enslave etc. people? Or should I rely on what my experience has taught me I should do?
I derive my truth from God, who is good and upright, and who will judge the hearts of men in a just manner.
I'm sorry to tell you this but the god of the old testament is far from "good and upright", he commits massive atrocities, killing even innocents in the process. That's not a guy I would derive my morality from.
I have been accused of having my head in a cockpit of lies. So (according to you) it is foolish for me to follow One who I believe to be a perfectly just and upright being, and yet you would be willing to follow one whom you know is imperfect, and potentially very bad (unless, of course, you would claim to be perfect).
Again. Should I trust my morality, or should I just start flipping coins? Also, you merely think god is perfect, and you merely ithink you can derive your morality from hm. In truth, you can't even show he exists.
It appears as though following God (and yes, this is the God of The Bible; note the capital "G") is the only way that brings true morality, peace, and knowledge.
Which is complete bullcrap, as I think I've demonstrated by giving you examples of things I think are bad. I'm willing to venture a bet that you think they are bad as well. Is rape bad? Is murder? Is theft? Is enslavement (something which your god condoned, by the way)?
But then you sing the same song in the umpteenth verse: why did God say to stone rebellious children? Once again, the best way for you to understand this would be to read the Bible. But since I assume you have your heart set against reading it, I will have to read it for you.
I have read the bible, many times. I don't need your interpretation of it, I can read what it says perfectly well myself.
So I'll skip that part.
I can't imagine - even with the most wild contrivances my mind could possibly come up with - how God is possibly unjust.
He kills innocents for one.
I deserve to be stoned for rebellion, and yet, I am not stoned for it, because God in his infinite mercy decided to take the most ratty of scalawags and forgive him of his sins.
No you don't deserve to be stoned for rebellion. As I have pointed out, sometimes rebellion is a good thing. If your parents told you to shoot that man, would you do it or choose to be rebellious? Do you then deserve stoning?
Why is this God unjust to you?
He kills innocents, for one. Condones slavery for another.
He was not only merciful to those living after Him, but He was also merciful to those living before him, enough that He died for all the sins of those who lived before Him (the Jews), and He was even more merciful to reveal his Law to the Israelites at all, so that they could then know what condemnation they would receive for committing sins. Would God have been unjust if He had not given us the Ten Commandments? No, not necessarily, this wouldn't have been unjust.
The ten commandments are a bunch of rules made up by people, who already thought those things were a good idea.
But he was merciful enough to reveal His Law toward us, so that we might be able to avoid the greater condemnation. How is God then unjust to you? What is it about Him that offends you? Is it that He violates your philosophy of self-centerdness, that philosophy which says that you get to determine good and evil, rather than God?
No, it's that he kills innocents, and condones slavery, and tells a rape victim that when she is caught being raped should prepare to have her rapist pay her father and she should then be married to her rapist, and because he wants us to stone children, and he wants us to kill those that work on a particular day. Those are a few reasons why i think your god is unjust.
So what defines a natural death? Is an infection by a pathogen, or a living bacteria causing death, considered natural?
If the person wasn't deliberately infected, yes.
If so, is death caused by a fish natural (what's the difference between a living bacteria and a fish?)?
If the person wasn't fed to the fish, yes. The difference between a fish and a bacteria are numerous. I don't think I have to xplain them to you, now do I?
Is death cause by an alligator natural?
If the person wasn't fed to it, yes.
Is death cause by a human natural?
Nope.
No one says that death caused by another human is natural.
Hey, I didn't either. Makes you wonder how people get to that conclusion, eh?
So is death caused by a bacterium any different?
Yes.
This forces us to conclude that no death is natural.
No it doesn't. What a weird position to take. Death by humans, who have a choice whether or not to kill, is completely different then death by a bacteria, who are simply doing what their single cell bodies need them to do to survive. If you can't see that, you're beyond hope.
I would be hard pressed to find where in my logic I said that might makes right.
Paraphrasing here: "Hitler had a n army, he was stronger, that makes it right for him to kill the Jews". If that isn't might makes right, I don't know what is.
In fact, quite to the contrary, you are a proponent of "might makes right". You say that it is okay for an inferior species to go extinct (and extinction necessarily involves death).
No, I say it is natural for a species that is less fit to go extinct. I never said that species was inferior. That's something you made up.
You avoided my entire argument in your statement by getting technical. Okay, let's say that a species of orangutans arises that has big teeth and strong arms (or whatever else they may need), and as a result, they win their fights with other orangutans, and gradually, the small-toothed, weak-armed species of orangutans go extinct.
They're not a distinct species.
And there you have "natural" selection (or do you think that cannibalization is the natural instinct of orangutans?).
Yes, that is natural selection at work. The Orang-utans traits that are beneficial will spread. What this has to do with cannibalism is beyond me, however.
Notice that I was arguing from Hitler's standpoint, not my own.
Again, if you don't think you're argument makes any sense, why make it?
I don't quite understand why you are now saying that I think that what Hitler did was right (you said this later in the message). I never said this. I said from Hitler's standpoint, the Jews were inferior to him. With that, I will end the deplorable Hitler discussion, as I did with dwise1.
Then again I ask you why you make these arguments if you don't think they're any good?
A couple of times in the message, you said that natural selection doesn't involve the death of species, but the extinction of inferior species.
No I didn't. I said less fit species. I never said they were inferior. Stop putting words in my mouth. Evolution makes no value judgement (for the second time)
But doesn't extinction involve death? How can a species go extinct if it never dies?
I'm sorry, what? Individuals die. Species go extinct.
Let me ask the metaphysical question one more time.
What is real? (the answer of "reality" does not suffice to answer this question).
Of course it does. everything that is real has a word we assigned to it. This word is reality.
To the question "how do we know what is real" you replied "evidence". So is this a presupposition (that evidence is how we know what is real)?
No it is something my experience has shown me (and you by the way) to be the case.
How do we live based on what we know is real?
This is an incredibly basic ethical question that must be answered if you wish to have any morals or ethics whatsoever.
My answer was we live well. As can be seen all around us. I've got quite a comfortable life. And this is because everybody that contributed to it lived based on the idea that reality is real. I don't really understand your question. What has knowing that reality is real, and using evidence (which has been shown time and again to be reliable) to determine this has got anything to do with how one lives his life?
I'm afraid not Buster, because you ain't God.
So ? You said that the reason god knows what is right and wrng for us is because he created us. How do you know that god knows what is right and wrong if that is not the criteria? Do you know everything about him? Have you even shown him to exist at all?
You are avoiding the question. Now - instead of operating under the standard of evidence - you are operating under the standard of experience. So you are begging the question. How do you know that experience is valid? How do you know that our memory is reliable?
It has shown itself to be throughout my life. Can you show that it hasn't?
The point just being this: I think you must presume something with regards to the illusion or non-illusion of the world.
I share my experineces with other people, they agree with me. In fact, I haven't run into a single individual who, when I say: "That car is red" has said to me "No way, that car is green!". From this I let follow that there my senses are giving me reliable information. When I start running into people that consistently say "That car is green" when I say it is red, then I will start doubting my sense. Until then, they seem to be working in accordance to every other individual I have come across.
I have attempted in this message to make the argument somewhat more fundamental, so I want us to focus in on the three fundamental questions I asked. When you respond, you don't have to answer every single rhetorical question I ask, nor do you have to respond to every sentence I write. I primarily want you to answer the three fundamental questions I asked.
Yes, that's perhaps one of my bad habits. But I feel points need to be made very exactly. Else confusion can arise later on about some minor side issues that distract from the topic.
I have answered your questions for you. I don't see any other way to answer them, frankly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by sac51495, posted 05-11-2010 12:47 AM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by sac51495, posted 06-03-2010 7:58 PM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 250 of 577 (560070)
05-13-2010 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by sac51495
05-12-2010 10:40 PM


Re: I
sac51495 writes:
So let's say that I ask you "is a tree real", and you reply "yes". And I then say "why is it real", and you reply, e.g., "because it is material".
In this example, the standard by which you judge the actuality of the tree lies in its materiality.
So, given this, I ask the question "what is real?".
You now need to give an answer such as "all that is material is real", or "all is illusion", or some other such answer that would somehow enlighten me as to what you believe is real.
Ok. That which leaves evidence is real.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by sac51495, posted 05-12-2010 10:40 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by sac51495, posted 05-30-2010 12:11 PM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 273 of 577 (562544)
05-30-2010 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by sac51495
05-30-2010 12:11 PM


Re: I
sac51495 writes:
But this is not an ultimate answer, because it still leaves questions about what evidence is, how it relates to reality, what effect it has on us, etc. Basically, you answered a metaphysical question with something that relates to epistemology. When I answered the question, I said, "God is real". This is a clear, definitive answer that can be used as a starting point for the rest of my thinking. Ultimately, that answer only relates to metaphysics (about the nature of reality), and nothing about how we know what is real. However, your answer related to how we know what is real (epistemology).
The problem is that you have blurred metaphysics and epistemology into one. The two do go hand in hand, but they are separate, because metaphysics must come before epistemology.
So when you answer the question, your answer is limited to metaphysics.
Says you. I gave you my answer, the fact that it doesn't ft in with your mumbo jumbo view of this is not a valid reason to reject it.
You said "God is real", this makes no sense, since you haven't even shown him to be real, you just assume he is. I told you that reality is real, and what reality is is determined by evidence. The fact that this isn't a mumbo jumbo answer does not make it any less valid.
I could give you a mumbo jumbo answer if you would so prefer: "Dertilly is real". So, now what? You haven't learned anything, and this answer makes absolutely no sense, just like your answer "God is real" makes absolutely no sense if you can't show that he is.
So, the answer I will stick with is "reality is real" and evidence shows what reality is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by sac51495, posted 05-30-2010 12:11 PM sac51495 has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 325 of 577 (563240)
06-04-2010 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by sac51495
06-03-2010 7:58 PM


Re: I
Hello sac,
sac51495 writes:
Your notions of morality seem very vague. You said at one point that there is not only one correct standard:
Huntard writes:
I never said that [there is only one correct standard]. I said there is only one correct one for any given situation.
I never said that [there is only one correct standard]. I said there is only one correct one for any given situation.
So in the second case you say that the only standard that can be used in order to determine right and wrong is experience.
Or maybe I misinterpreted something you said. If so, please correct me, and then elaborate a little bit on your views of morals.
I decide what to do on my experiences and the evidence before me. I never said there are absolute morals, stop putting words in my mouth.
Hmmm. A skepticist would be seen as saying "we have no way of knowing anything", or "we cannot define morality", or other such "skeptical" statements.
No they wouldn't. A skeptic would ask for evidence before believing stuff. Get these weird and wrong ideas out of your head.
As far as I have seen, you don't seem to very skeptical though, because you would agree that certain things are absolutely wrong, such as murder.
No I wouldn't.
skeptic would say that "you can't know whether or not murder is wrong. Explain.
No he wouldn't. I say that murder is not absolutely wrong, I can think of situations where I could conceivably be kinda alright with murder.
So in the first case, you said that your truth is derived from "the evidence". The first objection I would have against this is that you cannot provide evidence for support of everything you believe.
Yes I can, or at least logic to back it up. Do you know everything I believe? Guess not, since you;ve made several wrong statements about what you think I believe.
A simple example of this is the laws of logic. You cannot use a logical argument (or logically interpreted evidence) to prove the validity of the laws of logic, without invoking the laws of logic themselves, for if you were to logically interpret evidence that supported the laws of logic, you would be using the laws of logic to interpret the evidence, which isn't allowed (at least, it isn't allowed by you, who say there are no presuppositions).
Whatever are you on about here? Will you stop talking in this mumbo jumbo kind of way?
The second objection is that...you denied it yourself, by saying that you rely on your own personal experience to decide what is the correct thing to do. To say one should do something in a particular situation is a truth claim, so therefore, your relying on experience for truth is inconsistent with your first statement that you only rely on evidence.
No it isn't, for my experience includes all the evidence I have ever seen, and the evidence I have before me.
This itself is a truth claim. So how did you conclude that there is only one correct standard for a given situation? How do you know that there aren't two? Or three? Or is it undefinable? What standard did you use to justify this truth claim (that there is only one correct standard for a given situation)? Or did you presuppose that there is only one correct choice?
I used my experience of the world around me to conclude that. I have never seen a situation where there was more than one optimal solution.
I'm sorry you wasted time telling me this because your statement has no effect on what I believe.
I never espected it to have any result whatsoever, so don;t fret.
Do you even have any idea what I do believe?
Apart from your statements here, no I don't. I'm not in the habit of presuming somethhing about peoples believes, like you are.
I don't think so. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). In other words, "ain't nobody innocent, and that's why 10 out of 10 people die".
What a dumb explanation for death.
So you can just say however much you want that you hate God, but that has no effect on my beliefs whatsoever. Merely making the statement that "God is mean" has no effect on whether or not God is mean. And as I have shown already, God doesn't kill innocents, because nobody is innocent.
Nice cop out. I suggest you gop murder everybody then. Oh wait. no don't, I'm a moral person, who thinks everybody is innocent until proven guilty.
Before I answer, you need to tell me just where you come of saying that there are moral absolutes.
In never said that, stop putting words in my mouth.
So why is rape bad? You would probably say because it's bad for society, or bad for the species, or some other such question-begging statement. Besides question begging, you have no basis for saying that rape is bad for the victim.
It causes them distress and suffering. I can;t believe you have to ask me this.
Suppose the raper gets more enjoyment out of it than the victim got hurt?
What? Then it would still cause distress pain and suffereing to the victim. Where the fuck do you come up with these fuccked up questions man? Get your head checked.
And as I mentioned earlier, to say rape is bad because "it's bad for society/the species" is begging the question. I could then ask "why is it bad for society/the species?".
No it isn;t begging the question. It is bad for the species/society because it causes an unstable society, if even locally, which is not the best environment for the species to thrive.
Or why is stealing bad? Suppose the robber was starving to death, and they would have died had they not stolen food? Wouldn't it have been considered bad for the species if the robber had died?
I would be ok with stealing if that were the case.
One closing question. Are the moral absolutes you mentioned material, or immaterial?
They aren't absolutes.
No. If a parent were to command their child to commit a sin, then certainly it wouldn't be rebellion to disobey the command.
Yes it would be.
This is fairly obvious, and to interpret this out of scripture might actually involve reading between the lines...what a novel concept.
It's not fairly obvious. Disobeying your parents is a rebellion against them, and for rebellion against your parents, you should be stoned, or so the bible says. Hey, it's not my moral standard either.
And also, rebellion involves more than just disobedience to one command. It involves general disrespect for authorities, repeated disobedience, and dishonoring of parents.
Ok, they ask you repeatedly to kill a man.
You also said God condones slavery. First of all...so what?
So what, he asks. Man you've got some fucked up morals.
From your worldview, why is slavery wrong? Second of all, you need to bring the references that you are referring to.
It is bad for society. What the hell are "references that you are referring to"?
Let me rephrase it: what is the nature of reality?
No idea. I don't deal in mumbo jumbo good for nothing but philosophical musings qustion, I deal with reality.
God exists as an immaterial, infinite, eternal, and holy being, who created the universe and all that is therein, including man, whom He created in the image of himself.
Have you got any evidence for that? Thought not.
I gave this answer because it is one of my most fundamental beliefs about reality.
It's also comletely devoid of evidence, and so, quite irrelevant.
Also, the point of my asking this question is not to see who's answer has the most evidence in support of it. I just want you to give me an answer about what you believe.
I believe nothing that has no evidence for it. I deal with reality.
To rephrase the epistemological question: what is the nature of human knowledge?
More mumbo jumbo. No idea. I deal with reality.
So use your answers to these questions to answer the 3rd question which is: what is the nature of good and evil?
Mumbo jumbo all the way. I deal with reality.
So you're appealing to experience to prove that experience is reliable? How can you do this? How do you know that any experiences are reliable? How do you know that your memory is reliable? How do you know that anything which you recall experienced throughout your life is reliable, and that it somehow relates to current events? Your reply cannot be "my experiences have always shown experience to be reliable", because this is circular reasoning, because you first assume that your experiences are reliable, and then conclude that your experiences must be reliable.
I tested my experiences against reality, and found them to be consistent with it. So do you, every day of every week of every month. So I keep wondering why you keep bringin this up, when in your own life, you live it just like I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by sac51495, posted 06-03-2010 7:58 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by sac51495, posted 06-14-2010 6:33 PM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 395 of 577 (565404)
06-16-2010 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by sac51495
06-14-2010 6:33 PM


Re: I
sac51495 writes:
So is something always wrong if it causes any distress, pain or suffering for someone?
It certainly isn't nice. It would depend on the cause for me to ascribe the subjective label "wrong" to it.
Why does it (rape) cause an unstable society? Or to rephrase the question: what is it about rape that causes an unstable society?
I hope you see that you are in an infinite regress.
No I'm not. Rape causes an unstable society because it disrupts society. And a disruptive society isn't a good society for this species to thrive and prosper in.
Okay. Then give me your address and I'll come over and steal some of your money and food because I will starve otherwise...or would this be wrong?
If you really were starving, you wouldn't even have to break into my home, I'd gladly share some of my food with you. But you're not starving, are you?
Your statement means nothing, because you merely made a statement without any proof...
Irony, I love it.
Sorry. I meant the Bible references where God condones slavery.
He doesn't condemn it anywhere, and sets up rules for it. Not actions someone that is against slavery would take.
And yet when I ask you about the nature of reality, you tell me that my question is mumbo jumbo.
It is.
So you are dealing with something (reality) of which' nature you know nothing about...
Yep. I deal with reality via the evidence it leavews behind. That's all that's needed. Mumbo jumbo about "the nature of reality" is completely irrelevant. Even if all this is an illusion, unless we have some way of showing this, it doesn't matter, it's still all we have to go on.
And yet you refuse to tell me what the nature of that reality is...
Because it doesn't matter.
And also (maybe I'm missing something), I don't really know what you mean when you say that you "test your experiences against reality".
I have an experience of something, then I walk into a situation resembling my experience, and act on that experience. It turns out that so far, my experience was correct.
So how in a universe caused by an explosion (the big bang)
The big bang was not an explosion.
would you come up with an orderly universe in which there are certain laws of logic that apply to nature, and in which you have the ability to rely on your memory to determine what you should do in the present, and in which we can observe things around us and make correct conclusions, and in which we have the ability to make correct conclusions at all (what if we all thought that since the solar nebula are blue and red, Thor is going to cause a thunderstorm today...?), and in which we can enjoy ourselves, and in which we can somehow sense beauty, and countless other things. How could all these things come about as the result of an explosion?
I don't know. It is irrelevant. Also, the big bang wasn't an explosion, so it's a nonsensical question pertaining to this universe.
One last question I should ask: why do humans have an aesthetic sense, and animals don't, and how did our aesthetic sense come about as a result of an explosion?
Your evidence that animals don't have an aesthetic sense? And again, since the big bang wasn't an explosion this question is nonsensical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by sac51495, posted 06-14-2010 6:33 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 450 by sac51495, posted 06-28-2010 9:37 PM Huntard has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024