> Do other species have abortions? Just asking, not picking sides.
Some species of monkeys have been known to spontaneously abort when the troop is taken over by different male leaders. Angel sharks often abort when they are captured.
> 'Statements of fact' ('positive' or 'descriptive statements'), based upon reason and physical observation, and which are examined via the empirical method.
> 'Statements of value' ('normative' or 'prescriptive statements'), which encompass ethics and aesthetics, and are studied via axiology.
agreed
but it is a category error to apply the term "objective" to "statements of fact" (QUANTA)
and it is an even more egregious error to apply the term "objective" to "statements of value" (QUALIA)
> Time is inseperateable from the fabric of space. Meaning it is a physical property, but acts on different perceivers differently through their own perception. Hence, both objective (real outside my mind) but subjective on each person.
time is not merely "perceived differently"
speed and gravity slow down time QUANTIFIABLY
a clock at sea-level runs slower than a clock at 40,000 feet
a clock at 40,000 feet runs slower than a clock in orbit
> Regardless of my motive for calculating mathematical equations, irrespective of how hard i press the chalk on the board or beg for a different answer, my answer will remain the same if im doing the maths correctly.
we agree on this point
why you are "doing the maths" is motivated by QUALIA
the specific "doing the maths" is sample biased
and the CONCLUSIONS (not the sums) you draw from "doing the maths" is also pure QUALIA
i'm not suggesting "if you have two oranges and someone takes one orange from you then you don't have one orange left"
that's QUANTA (but not technically "objective")
how you feel about the oranges and how you feel about the person taking one of the oranges is QUALIA
how you feel about things is the only thing that matters
perhaps i'm allergic to oranges and i'm unable to remove the oranges myself for some reason and i'm happy someone removed one of them and i hope they will remove the other one soon
perhaps i'm desperately hungry and i am enraged that someone took one of my oranges and will surely plot revenge
perhaps i didn't even notice that i had acquired two oranges, perhaps along with some number of other items, and thus "losing" one of them has no impact on my state-of-mind
scientific data may be considered "objective" (QUANTA) perhaps, but it is still SAMPLE-BIASED and the result of MOTIVATED-REASONING
there is no such thing as data that is "free-from-bias"
but
even if
we allow the data itself to qualify as "objective" (by twisting the definition a bit)
THE "SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS" are never "objective"
the IMPLICATIONS of a "scientific study" are pure human speculation, colored by QUALIA (which is inarguably subjective)
> where you have to do certain things and you get paradise and if you do not then you get hell
Kumbhipaka (cooked in a pot): A person who cooks beasts and birds alive is cooked alive in boiling oil by Yamadutas here, for as many years as there were hairs on the bodies of their animal victims.[3][4]
> All the million of Gods in Hinduism are worshipped. Worshipped to the point of that they created the person worshipping. This is not right, Hinduism is another matter, a polytheistic religion makes no sense. There can only be 1 creator.
> Hinduism is another matter. Brahman is a God but there are millions of other Gods as well, for different purposes, much like the roman or Greek Gods etc.
not exactly
Brahman is the source
all "other" gods are aspects of Brahman
like the characters you encounter inside your dreams
that if YOU can create seemingly independent creatures in your dreams
then it shouldn't be difficult to imagine that god can do the same thing
in-fact
Brahman is a metaphysical concept of Hinduism referring to the ultimate unchanging reality, that is uncreated, eternal, infinite, transcendent, the cause, the foundation, the source and the goal of all existence.
it is said that the big bang was the beginning of Brahman's dream
> This is just not possible and cannot work. Power is nothing to do with typing. Bad example. Infinite power in other terms means more power than anything else. If something has more power than another thing, that another thing cannot be the most powerful.
OMNIPOTENT = ALL POWER
god retains all power at all times
nothing can move (like the fingernail) without god's will
without god's specific intentional action, everything would instantly vanish
god is not only the sole creator and sole substance of all things, god is also the active sustainer of those things
> Not necessarily. If God has infinite power, He is the only one that has that power. 2 entities cannot have infinite power as one has to have more than the other, basic logic. Now if an entity has infinite power, it has more than anyone else. Thus being the most powerful. Thus if 1 aspect is not the most powerful, then that 1 aspect is God because then there would be something more powerful than that 1 aspect. Again, basic logic
just because a being has a specific ability, does not mean that every part of that being must also have that ability
for example
you can presumably read and type
but that does not mean that you hair can read and type
it does not mean that your feet can read and type
we are like god's fingernails
the fingernails think they are typing, but that's only because they don't understand they are a very small part of a much larger motivation system
the cosmos (and everything within the cosmos) had a "beginning" but the energy that gives substance to the higgs bosons that interact with the quarks and atoms that comprise everything you see and hear and touch and smell, that energy does not have a "beginning"
the shapes have a beginning
the substance of those shapes does not necessarily have a beginning
> We create something's identity based on geometry, for instance if i splash paint of the floor, i recognise the paint is separate from the floor because there's clear boundaries of where the red paint is and where the floor is due to shape and colour distinctness and texture distinctness. Just read my all is one argument. Geometry is an illusion, or simply because distinctness between objects exist doesn't mean they're not one.
another example would be a red ball
would we say "you are holding a hollow sphere of red paint that contains a foam spheroid" ?
or do we (arbitrarily) combine the "two things" and simply identify them as "a red ball"
like, "THBT: PEOPLE CAN DISREGARD ANY AND ALL VOTING RULES INCLUDED IN THE DEBATE DESCRIPTION WITHOUT THEIR VOTES BEING REMOVED BY THE MODERATION TEAM"
> There is no material to make things out of. He created the materiel to make it. It never existed and then it did. Because He is that independent entity that created it.
god made the materiel from the only available resource
dubito ergo cogito ergo sum
you'll notice it's a conditional statement
(IFF) omniscient omnipotent creator = exist (THEN) everything that exists = omniscient omnipotent creator
YOU CAN ONLY BE AN AGNOSTIC IF YOU DON'T HAVE A CLEAR DEFINITION OF WHAT THE HELL A GOD IS SUPPOSED TO BE
REAL-TRUE-FACTS MUST BE EMPIRICALLY VERIFIABLE AND OR LOGICALLY-NECESSARY
"green energy" has failed to reduce reliance on fossil fuels more than 1 percentage point, despite a 2 trillion dollar investment
we are now in a "nuclear only" world
https://youtu.be/tZN7UDAQYeo
rule #1 - never agree to 100% burden-of-proof
> Do other species have abortions? Just asking, not picking sides.
Some species of monkeys have been known to spontaneously abort when the troop is taken over by different male leaders. Angel sharks often abort when they are captured.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2555-science-is-not-objective
> When people describe an intelligent god they generally mean a self aware conscious creator.
let's say you're right, then what ?
how do you get from that to the completely UNRELATED "god's commandments" ?
what is your personally preferred definition of "intelligence" ?
> 'Statements of fact' ('positive' or 'descriptive statements'), based upon reason and physical observation, and which are examined via the empirical method.
> 'Statements of value' ('normative' or 'prescriptive statements'), which encompass ethics and aesthetics, and are studied via axiology.
agreed
but it is a category error to apply the term "objective" to "statements of fact" (QUANTA)
and it is an even more egregious error to apply the term "objective" to "statements of value" (QUALIA)
> Time is inseperateable from the fabric of space. Meaning it is a physical property, but acts on different perceivers differently through their own perception. Hence, both objective (real outside my mind) but subjective on each person.
time is not merely "perceived differently"
speed and gravity slow down time QUANTIFIABLY
a clock at sea-level runs slower than a clock at 40,000 feet
a clock at 40,000 feet runs slower than a clock in orbit
> Time is subjective but objective at the same time, is it not?
einstein made it exceedingly clear that time is ALWAYS relative to the observer
there is no "universal clock"
for example,
you learn about physics and all the mass and velocity and geometry
why ?
to become famous ?
to make money ?
to make your family proud ?
or do you perhaps want to use that knowledge to BUILD SOMETHING ?
perhaps you want to build a missile system
or more likely, part of a missile system
why ?
why do you want to contribute to the construction of weapons-of-mass-destruction ?
is it because you are afraid of something ?
AXIOLOGY = QUALIA
are you familiar with HUME'S GUILLOTINE ?
> Regardless of my motive for calculating mathematical equations, irrespective of how hard i press the chalk on the board or beg for a different answer, my answer will remain the same if im doing the maths correctly.
we agree on this point
why you are "doing the maths" is motivated by QUALIA
the specific "doing the maths" is sample biased
and the CONCLUSIONS (not the sums) you draw from "doing the maths" is also pure QUALIA
everything humans consider "important" is QUALIA
i'm not suggesting "if you have two oranges and someone takes one orange from you then you don't have one orange left"
that's QUANTA (but not technically "objective")
how you feel about the oranges and how you feel about the person taking one of the oranges is QUALIA
how you feel about things is the only thing that matters
perhaps i'm allergic to oranges and i'm unable to remove the oranges myself for some reason and i'm happy someone removed one of them and i hope they will remove the other one soon
perhaps i'm desperately hungry and i am enraged that someone took one of my oranges and will surely plot revenge
perhaps i didn't even notice that i had acquired two oranges, perhaps along with some number of other items, and thus "losing" one of them has no impact on my state-of-mind
scientific data may be considered "objective" (QUANTA) perhaps, but it is still SAMPLE-BIASED and the result of MOTIVATED-REASONING
there is no such thing as data that is "free-from-bias"
but
even if
we allow the data itself to qualify as "objective" (by twisting the definition a bit)
THE "SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS" are never "objective"
the IMPLICATIONS of a "scientific study" are pure human speculation, colored by QUALIA (which is inarguably subjective)
> matter objectively exists
there are two categories
QUANTA (AND) QUALIA
QUANTA is empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary (or what you might call "material reality") = emotionally meaningless
QUALIA is personal, experiential, qualitative, GNOSTIC, unfalsifiable, qualitative = emotionally meaningful
everything humans consider "important" is QUALIA
AXIOLOGY = QUALIA
> In this discussion god simply means a creator.
so, functionally indistinguishable from "the big bang"
how does this inform your idea of "objective morality" ?
please share your personally preferred definition of "god"
> No one can put an estimate on God existing or not existing.
the only thing you have to know is the definition of "god" and the definition of "exist"
> Do you know all the variables when it comes to morality?
the only thing you have to know is the definition of "objective" and the definition of "subjective"
morality is exactly like language (shaped by geography, time, and culture)
which language do you believe is the "objectively correct" language ?
> Morality doesn't have to be universal for it to be objective.
please explain
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2555-science-is-not-objective
perhaps something more like this,
https://youtu.be/IlaNKKHzNKQ
placing all prisoners in hospital beds tends to cut down on riots
https://youtu.be/_flYlbBpSok
if you don't believe in human-rights for all humans, you don't believe in human-rights
what a mess
https://youtu.be/Wh3t49NsWBA
> where you have to do certain things and you get paradise and if you do not then you get hell
Kumbhipaka (cooked in a pot): A person who cooks beasts and birds alive is cooked alive in boiling oil by Yamadutas here, for as many years as there were hairs on the bodies of their animal victims.[3][4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka_(Hinduism)
> All the million of Gods in Hinduism are worshipped. Worshipped to the point of that they created the person worshipping. This is not right, Hinduism is another matter, a polytheistic religion makes no sense. There can only be 1 creator.
there is only one creator in hinduism
and that creator is Brahman
> Hinduism is another matter. Brahman is a God but there are millions of other Gods as well, for different purposes, much like the roman or Greek Gods etc.
not exactly
Brahman is the source
all "other" gods are aspects of Brahman
like the characters you encounter inside your dreams
i'm simply pointing out
that if YOU can create seemingly independent creatures in your dreams
then it shouldn't be difficult to imagine that god can do the same thing
in-fact
Brahman is a metaphysical concept of Hinduism referring to the ultimate unchanging reality, that is uncreated, eternal, infinite, transcendent, the cause, the foundation, the source and the goal of all existence.
it is said that the big bang was the beginning of Brahman's dream
and our universe is Brahman's dream
here's an example of separate without being separate
when you dream
do you encounter other people and or animals in your dream ?
do you consider those people and animals you encounter in your dreams to be your puppets ?
or do you perceive them to be independently-minded creatures ?
> This is just not possible and cannot work. Power is nothing to do with typing. Bad example. Infinite power in other terms means more power than anything else. If something has more power than another thing, that another thing cannot be the most powerful.
OMNIPOTENT = ALL POWER
god retains all power at all times
nothing can move (like the fingernail) without god's will
without god's specific intentional action, everything would instantly vanish
god is not only the sole creator and sole substance of all things, god is also the active sustainer of those things
no event can contradict the will of god
there is no other will
only the will of god
> Not necessarily. If God has infinite power, He is the only one that has that power. 2 entities cannot have infinite power as one has to have more than the other, basic logic. Now if an entity has infinite power, it has more than anyone else. Thus being the most powerful. Thus if 1 aspect is not the most powerful, then that 1 aspect is God because then there would be something more powerful than that 1 aspect. Again, basic logic
just because a being has a specific ability, does not mean that every part of that being must also have that ability
for example
you can presumably read and type
but that does not mean that you hair can read and type
it does not mean that your feet can read and type
we are like god's fingernails
the fingernails think they are typing, but that's only because they don't understand they are a very small part of a much larger motivation system
> It would mean that God had a beginning.
not necessarily
the cosmos (and everything within the cosmos) had a "beginning" but the energy that gives substance to the higgs bosons that interact with the quarks and atoms that comprise everything you see and hear and touch and smell, that energy does not have a "beginning"
the shapes have a beginning
the substance of those shapes does not necessarily have a beginning
> We create something's identity based on geometry, for instance if i splash paint of the floor, i recognise the paint is separate from the floor because there's clear boundaries of where the red paint is and where the floor is due to shape and colour distinctness and texture distinctness. Just read my all is one argument. Geometry is an illusion, or simply because distinctness between objects exist doesn't mean they're not one.
another example would be a red ball
would we say "you are holding a hollow sphere of red paint that contains a foam spheroid" ?
or do we (arbitrarily) combine the "two things" and simply identify them as "a red ball"
> No. He used his will to make the materiel.
(EITHER) god's will is part of god (OR) god's will is part of something else
god's will is the materiel
also, when god took part of itself and made the cosmos, that was not "subtracting" anything from anything
the total substance and power of god remained constant
the same before
and the same after
try again, with a defensible resolution
perhaps something slightly more narrow in scope
like, "THBT: PEOPLE CAN DISREGARD ANY AND ALL VOTING RULES INCLUDED IN THE DEBATE DESCRIPTION WITHOUT THEIR VOTES BEING REMOVED BY THE MODERATION TEAM"
> There is no material to make things out of. He created the materiel to make it. It never existed and then it did. Because He is that independent entity that created it.
god made the materiel from the only available resource
god made the materiel out of god
pieces of god
> What's your POV on Ehyeh's reasoning that God is me and God is everything?
what did god make everything out of ?
before god made everything, what kind of stuff did god see ?
imagine being god
before anything was created
sort of, alone in the non-existent black void
god then decides it wants to make stuff
what does god make everything out of ?
> I do not get this. The universe had a beginning. That is my point
the big bang is still happening
and everything that we experience is part of the big bang
> Most scientists agree on this that 13.4 billion years ago, the big bang occurred etc.
are you part of the big bang ?
> If he made from nothing, all their critiques at atheism are pretty silly if they too believe something can be made from nothing.
"nothing" never has and never will and never can "exist"
and this precludes it from being "made into" anything
> Can a human be a part of God with a humans attributes?
as the sole source of all things
god must necessarily be all things
well, according to spinoza, jesus is part of god, but no more and no less than you or i
> Lack of belief in God and a lack of a positive disbelief in God would also both be considered atheistic.
exactly