Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
we do have micro-infinite subdivision of macro-finite Universe.
Yeah, I tend to side with Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck on this one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods.
What would you call someone who simply refused to call themselves a "THEIST"?
literally, "NOT-a-THEIST".
Regardless of whether or not god($) are considered "real", I'm "NOT-a-THEIST" (I don't follow the teachings of any particular god$).
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
A being is necessary for ought, and a necessary being for fixing that ought as a moral right. Or wrong. You are not that being. Why should I believe what you are selling? It does not exist.
Look,
I'm perfectly willing to accept your AXIOM of "YHWH".
What I'm asking for is HOW I CAN KNOW WHAT IS "RIGHT" AND "WRONG" ("OBJECTIVELY").
The "ten commandments" + "love thy neighbor" leaves a lot to the imagination.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
An ought can only come from a personal, intelligent, mindful being.
Like NANABOZHO.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Those are some of the base assumptions that this worldview make, and I wonder if any god could actually fulfill these and make them not assumptions while also existing.
Try this,
What does the world look like (from an individual's perspective) WITH god($)? = "use your brain to figure out what to do"
What does the world look like (from and individual's perspective) WITHOUT god($)? = "use your brain to figure out what to do"
A world WITH god($) is FUNCTIONALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE from a world WITHOUT god($), THEREFORE, god($) can be eliminated as a logically inconsequential variable.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I agree with a lot, but the best way to put Occam's Razor is, "Do not needlessly multiply entities" or put in a more useful framing, "One should prefer the explanation with the least amount of assumptions."
My favorite practical example of Occam's Razor in a modern scientific context is "superstringtheory".
"Superstringtheory" is not technically "wrong" it's just ridiculously complicated and is unable to make any NEW (testable) predictions and therefore does not have any detectable superior UTILITY over the existing "standardmodel".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
Nah, to be an atheist you have to disbelieve or lack belief in the existence of a god or gods. Can't believe in the existence of something you believe to be real. They may reject the concept of god, they may hate the concept of god and they may take the position that if a god existed they'd refuse to worship, but if they don't believe then they're not atheist.
Please present your personally preferred definition of "ATHEIST".
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
The onus is for both the atheist and the theist to present their case. Here is a reminder of the thread's theme - Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?OP: "This topic is mostly aimed at or addressing SkepticalOne (but other atheists may join in by defending their belief as reasonable as opposed to Christianity or the biblical God). I am looking for his justification for his belief, myself thinking what he believes is unreasonably based...By default, one who claims to be an atheist would look for explanations that exclude God or gods."
Atheist: All mammals first defend themselves, then defend their families, then defend their property. This is the natural and obvious basis of ethics & morality.
Theist: My personally preferred version of a magic sky-daddy says you're wrong and that makes it "objectively" "true".
Atheist: So what's this godly moral code, specifically?
Theist: Well, you know, like, the ten commandments and love your neighbor and stuff.
Atheist: So it's perfectly ok for parents to beat their children and slaughter (not neighbor) foreigners?
Theist: Of course not!!
Atheist: I think your godly moral code needs more detail. It covers some basics, but relies too much on interpretation for behaviors not specifically mentioned.
Atheist: For example, when does your godly moral code indicate that it's morally justified to attack a foreign country with deadly force? That would seem to be a big one.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
We were derived from the ought, a necessary mindful being - that simple (Occam's Razor). We don't have to go through all kinds of complicated explanations of how things happened.
Occam’s Razor (or Ockham’s Razor, also known as the Principle of Parsimony) is the idea that more straightforward explanations are, in general, better. That is, if you have two possible theories that fit all available evidence, the best theory is the one with fewer moving parts.
It’s important to emphasize the part about fitting all available evidence. Sometimes, the simplest explanation is very wrong because it fails to account for all the evidence! In this case, Occam’s Razor does not apply. [***]
It’s important to emphasize the part about fitting all available evidence. Sometimes, the simplest explanation is very wrong because it fails to account for all the evidence! In this case, Occam’s Razor does not apply. [***]
FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN A COP FINDS A DEAD BODY NEXT TO A WALLET, THE SIMPLEST EXPLANATION IS THAT THE OWNER OF THE WALLET IS THE KILLER.
THIS MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY BE THE CASE (IT COULD BE A FRAME-UP).
YOU CAN'T JUST USE "OCKHAM'S RAZOR" AS AN EXCUSE TO JUMP-TO-CONCLUSIONS.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
You say one thing but have no footing to prove it true. Why SHOULD I believe what you have to say?
You say one thing but have no footing to prove it true. Why SHOULD I believe what you have to say?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Is being free your moral preference?
Individual freedom is impossible without the individual ability to freely generate their own food, clothing and shelter.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
Now the Bible only rarely condones slavery and the slavery it does condone isn't that bad. *sigh of relief*
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
Is Social Media and their companies majorly at fault for mental problems of teenage users?
Teenagers never never ever ever had any problems before computers were invented.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
Is the gender wage gap a myth?
What's much more important than a "wage gap" is the speculation about the CAUSES of such a "wage gap" and the speculation about the PROPOSED "SOLUTIONS" to such a "wage gap".
The quantifiability of a "wage gap" does not automatically force everyone onto the same-page.
For example, since men are more vulnerable to the Dunning-Kruger Effect, are men more likely to be OVERPAID and women are simply less likely to be OVERPAID?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
Which movie is better in terms of character and plot, Ratatouille or Toy Story?
This one's obvious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Yes, it matters. If you acknowledge evidence from just five senses, you're unnecessarily limiting potential knowledge of truth.
Zoiks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Also virtural particles are mostly mathematics, not direcly observed quanta.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
...such as the fact that geocentrism is wrong, wrong, always was wrong, is wrong, ever will be wrong.
So, how does your personally preferred definition of FACT prevent "geocentrism" style mistakes from happening now and into the future?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
humans have observed the creation of energy { fermionic matter and bosonic forces }
Can you say for certain that "quantum foam" is "created" or even "new"? Or is it perhaps simply "redistributed"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
I think writing arguments in debates tend to foster defeatism because I think I won't be writing out of a need to understand complex ideas, I will be writing out of a need to win debates.
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Did "YHWH" anticipate Abraham's "misunderstanding"?
In other words, did "YHWH" intentionally mislead Abraham?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Did "YHWH" lie when they told some guy they wanted him to take his son to the top of a hill and kill them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@ethang5
All true. But you are assuming that everyone considers a much more honest discussion and exploration of opposing ideas to be paramount. You assume this because you are logical and therefore think others on a debate site would be too.
The worst criticism of "debate" and "arguing" in general is that it's simply formalized ridicule.
This site isn't that way. What most want here are ELO's and bragging rights. You would think the mids could let you (or someone interested) create a parallel debate system as you suggest, but if that system succeeded, it would necessarily destroy the old rigged system, exactly what they do not want. So rationalizations will be found for why it isn't feasible/possible/practical/necessary.
Well, @DebateArt.com said they'd consider adding the option for "self-moderated-debate" (next to "judicial decision") if there was enough "community interest".
Would what you suggest increase your participation in debates?
Yes, I believe it would.
ALSO,
More contests. People love tournaments. People love it when they know that their debate will be read by at least a minimum of 5 people.
Also, do as much as possible to focus some positive attention on the new accounts (especially in the first 90 days).
We want to hear your insane theories (hypotheses) and just plain crazy ideas (just avoid the ad hominem attacks please, no name-calling).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
I suppose my debates bore me because they don't contribute to my search for knowledge.
What is it you think you should know? What do you want to know?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.
A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound. [**]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I think the ontological argument for god is a good example. I think it's logically sound, but it doesn't make gods existence a fact by any means
Do you perhaps mean "logically valid" and not "logically sound"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I think the ontological argument for bigfootlochnessspacealiens is a good example. I think it's logically sound, but it doesn't make bigfootlochnessspacealiens existence a fact by any means
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
This is factual, But it is completely unknown how or which photons will reflect.
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I'm not sure I agree that something that is logically necessary is a fact. Could you perhaps elaborate
Your grandmother had at least one genetic mother and at least one genetic father. This is a FACT.
This FACT is NOT (necessarily) empirically demonstrable, but it is LOGICALLY-NECESSARY.
Created:
-->
@MgtowDemon
Are you perhaps familiar with the Jensen (button) box? [**]I honestly wasn't. I'm surprised that reaction time correlates with intelligence so highly.
It makes me wonder why every single school child isn't tested with the Jensen (button) box.
It seems to be the most "unbiased" of all known "standardized" "tests".
Perhaps it would put too many people out-of-a-job?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
...there are some actions God cannot do, ie, morally bad actions, like lie.
In 1 Kings 22:23 God's "lying spirits" are put into people's mouths, causing them to lie. This is a double deception: firstly, God is causing (additional) non-truths to prosper. But more than that, God is lying to us, the reader by pretending (through the use of "lying spirits") to be innocent of the lies. The same occurs in 2 Chronicles 18:22 and Ezekiel 14:9. In Jeremiah 20:7 God lies to one person and in Jeremiah 4:10 it lies to a whole community. And finally from the New Testament, God is still at it in 2 Thessalonians 2:11, "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie". Some of those verses are cases where God is punishing/effecting false prophets and the unfaithful, but, the fact remains that in all those cases, God itself is preventing truth from being known - or - more succinctly - God lies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Does your suspicion fall mostly on the winning debater, the voters, the mods, or the system?
When people exploit a game, it's a design flaw (systemic).
I propose a parallel system of self-moderated-debate.
I believe the only measure of an argument should be your ability to convince an opponent.
By removing the "audience" from the equation, you automatically get a much more honest discussion and exploration of opposing ideas. It would also save a lot of time for the moderators sifting through long and detailed "reasons for vote". I'm sure a lot of "self-moderated" debates would end in a tie, but I don't see that as a "problem".
At the end of each debate, each participant would get 1 point for participation and have the option of awarding up to 3 additional points to their opponent. These points would simply accumulate over time and would count towards a debater's "Civil Debate" tally. Alternatively you might consider splitting their score into three parts ("1/1/1") where the first number is the number of "Civil Debates" they've participated in, the second number is the number of points they've received from other players and the third number is the number of points they've granted to their opponents.
This system ("1/1/1") would allow you to know, at a glance, how experienced they are in this particular debate format, how convincing they are generally considered by their opponents, and how receptive and or generous they are (making them a more attractive opponent). [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I’ll ask again. Can you please give me an example of a fact which consists of unknowns?
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Though we have the ability to assume that there are unknown facts.
Nobody is suggesting otherwise.
There may be any number of "undiscovered facts".
But we can't declare any SPECIFIC CLAIM "is a fact" UNTIL IT IS SHOWN TO BE either empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Your argument of logical necessity is merely a convenient personal limitation to prevent the personal stretch of what you do not believe because you cannot empirically demonstrate what you do not believe.
I didn't invent the concept of logical-necessity.
Please attempt to address the arguments themselves and avoid ad hominem attacks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
There are facts not yet in evidence among things which are unknown.
Nobody is suggesting otherwise.
There may be any number of "undiscovered facts".
But we can't declare any SPECIFIC CLAIM "is a fact" UNTIL IT IS SHOWN TO BE either empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Merely by my reference to geo- and heliocentrism, you are shown two cases of unknowns that were intuitive once known; intuitively false.Would you have considered them to be factual without evidence? Or do you actually need data backing a claim to come anywhere near approaching a fact?
Good point.
It seems that @fauxlaw is actually suggesting that the COMMON definition of FACT is "not rigorous enough".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
I am talked about the true god who is the christian god and I do not prefer no definition because the Bible is the definition of what is the true god.
Do you believe the christian god is an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Creator (O3C)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Except whenever we are talking of an agent,
Please present your personally preferred definition of "agent".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
...and if we just have spinoza's god be the universe, then we already have a name for that, the universe.
Is it perhaps conceivable that a particular individual might be simultaneously a mother, a grandmother, and a daughter and a wife all exactly at the same time?
Is it perhaps conceivable that different people might have different words for the exact same concept?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
My point is that this mind hasn't been demonstrated to exist, there is no evidence that supports that claim,
The point of Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata is that the entire presentation is just a CONDITIONAL STATEMENT that can be solved with LOGIC.
It certainly doesn't "demand empirical demonstration" and isn't logically-necessary, so certainly doesn't qualify as FACT (and as an explicitly conditional statement, it doesn't pretend to be a FACT).
However,
It is the very definition of logically coherent and therefore cannot be categorically ruled out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Spinoza's god isn't one, at least not how god is defined, and if you were to warp it how you want, then it would especially not be true.
Please present your personally preferred definition of "god".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
...depending on how you define objective.
What is your personally preferred definition of "objective" (as it relates to the scientific method)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
And no it isn't objective in that regard, but in others, it is, such as, "true without minds" etcetera,
What the heck do you mean when you say, "true without minds"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
"Morally correct behavior and attitudes."
This seems impractically vague.
It also leads to some obviously problematic circular reasoning.
(sammy) What is "moral"?
(sid) "Moral" is behavior based on "principle".
(sammy) What is "principle"?
(sid) "Principle" is "morally correct behavior and attitudes".
(sammy) So, "moral" is "morally correct behavior and attitudes"?
(sid) Yep.
(sammy) Ok, so, how do you know, in practical, real-world terms, exactly what "morally correct behavior and attitudes" entails?
(sid) Please refer to my definition of "principle". [**]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
#22: Aristotle's Modes of Persuasion are cooperative, not combative. See #23.
Have you ever forgotten anything?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
#21: So, your disbelief in God is only because you cannot, by empiric proof, tell us where He is? See #22.
I certainly believe a logically coherent "god" is possible (Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata).
Just not a logically-necessary (or empirically demonstrable) FACT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
So, ok, let's add "mind" to the definition of O3C god (O3CM).
That doesn't change any of Spinoza's logic.
(IFF) O3CM created everything ("no-thing" "exists" "outside" of O3CM) (THEN) everything MUST necessarily be bits-of-O3CM ("god") (THEREFORE) all events MUST necessarily be the fully intentional will of (O3CM) "god"
This is TAUTOLOGICAL.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Once our brain has a new version of a story, it forgets and erases the former versions. Even the most sophisticated MRI brain scans can't distinguish between truth and fiction when people believe what they're saying. [**]
Created: