Total posts: 14,582
-->
@PGA2.0
It is just an example that the truth is very narrow, whether quantitatively or qualitatively.
Mathematical "truth" is TAUTOLOGICAL.
This tautological function is only possible because mathematics is based on rigorously defined explicit primary AXIOMS.
Mathematical "truth" is QUANTITATIVE.
You can't just say "quantitatively or qualitatively" and pretend they're not OPPOSITE (mutually exclusive) CONCEPTS.
Created:
-->
@Username
A true nihilist would never speak to anyone.I don't think that's true.
What possible motive would a nihilist have for speaking to someone?
Created:
-->
@Username
Keep noticing this broader pattern of coincidence. . . theists always seem to turn to nihilists in a world without the existence of God. Why's it always them?
A true nihilist would never speak to anyone.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
The Ten Commandments is the blueprint that morality is framed from. From those principles we derive morality. Four deal with God, six deal with humanity. The 613 Mosaic Commandments are derivatives of these. Our moral systems incorporate many of these principles.
Which one of these explains how long copyright protections should last?
Created:
-->
@simplybeourselves
(P1) To have Libertarian FW one has to originate oneself(P2) One can't originate oneself.(C1) Therefore, one can't have Libertarian FW.
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Even choosing NOT to be a slave to our desires, to not fulfill them.
How is this even conceivable unless you DESIRE to deny yourself short-term satisfaction (in exchange for the promise of increased future satisfaction).
Isn't that just DESIRE prioritization?
Can you (freely) choose to NOT desire a "good" life and eternal salvation?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
The problem with denial of free will from an orthodox perspective is that it is in effect blaming God for everything.
BINGO.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
free will is a fact
A fact must be empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary (everything else is OPINION).
Please demonstrate the logical necessity of free-will (with a syllogism).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
How do you explain ships disappearing over the horizon?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Which country has perfectly moral laws?
Which country do you personally believe has the "best" most moral laws?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
You might find this interesting,
Apparently 59% of atheists subscribe to "moral realism".
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The Standard Argument Against Free Will (TSAAFW)
An intentional (willed, goal oriented) action cannot be "free" (AND) a free action (indistinguishable from random) cannot be intentional (willed, goal oriented).
We "feel free" when we can fulfil our desires, but we do not intentionally choose our desires (we are slaves to our impulses).
"Free Will" is merely an emotion, not a logically coherent FACT.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
God made marriage a union between two people for life so that any children would be grounded with both a male and female influence in their lives every day.
Why does God kill off one parent and leave the other to raise their children alone?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Again, what is ideal, the best?
I'M BEGGING YOU TO TELL ME.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
IT's almost as if this grand designer with an all time plan had no real clue this would all happen!
That seems to be a reasonable conclusion.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
...then the choice was not a good one from the standpoint of our survival.
Do you know that heart disease is the #1 killer of humans worldwide?
Do you know that refined sugar is the #1 contributor to heart disease?
So, "from the standpoint of our survival", SUGAR = EVIL
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
That is why God has given us a standard that we may know the difference, so we don't get hurt.
Why did God make so many painful and dangerous things?
This seems like a major design flaw.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Isolation and alienation from God caused each to seek their own ideas of what it means to be good.
And we'll never be able to know the "truth" until we are re-united with God in heaven.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Words in context have specific meaning and words refer to specific things.
NOPE.
"Dog" is an ontological category that is wholly shaped by your personal experience.
A specific "dog" at a specific time and a specific place (for example, your neighbor's dog) is a specific thing (quite possibly, an empirically demonstrable fact).
Presumably some sort of generally domesticated lupine related mammal (but also quite possibly a bearded-dragon named "dog").
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
WORDS ARE UNDEFINED VARIABLES.Then how can we communicate?
Through a very careful process of verification.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Are you the only "true Christian" on planet earth?You are mocking me. See if what I say is consistent with Scripture. Anything you have an issue with we can discuss by going to the verse and passage and even comparing it to similar verses and passages.
That sounds a lot like a "YES" to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
"What we have now, is a completely neurotic population, completely obsessed with security, safety, and crime."
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
In other words, (IFF) a human makes a robot (AND) that robot commits a crime or an error (THEN) the crime or error of the robot is REALLY simply a second-order HUMAN ERRORThat assumes that God programmed Adam to commit a crime. If he was not programmed to commit a crime, how could he do so? Rather he was given free will.
How do you create a robot with "freewill"?
i hesitate to make broad statements here, but some seem to be suggesting that nobody is arguing that a human decision is free from all previous influences. i think this is a fair statement. the best attempts at explaining free-will seem to suggest that there is some kind of influence-gap. that is to say, it has been suggested that a human decision is influenced up to some unknown point less than 100% and then there is some i-gap of unspecified quantity and free-will lives there spreading magic fairy dust, however small or improbable that i-gap might be. i have never heard anyone propose a way to measure this i-gap in order to perhaps somehow gauge how much free-will someone might have, or to figure out if children have it, and if not, when do they get it? the i-gap sounds to me more like an ignorance-of-influence gap (this would also seem like the compatibilist's opinion). if this is the case we should be able to dial up free-will by dialing up ignorance.
the main problems i see with this proposal are as follows:
1) there is no way to measure the influence-gap. it is in all likelihood merely a knowledge-of-influence-gap or lack-of-precision-gap.
2) even if the influence-gap is considered to be a real thing, wouldn't that gap simply increase the value of the other influences? how could the influence gap possibly be considered an influence? it's a gap that is by definition non-influential.
3) let's consider based on at least a small shred of logic, what could be in that pesky i-gap that might actually be an influence. well, whatever is in that i-gap can't be influenced since it is inside something defined as an influence-gap. so maybe there's an uninfluenced-influence in that i-gap; we could call it something mysterious like, an uncaused-cause, or maybe a first-cause, or better yet ex-nihilo. could that uncaused-cause be influenced or originated by anything at all? no, of course not because it's in the i-gap and it is defined as being uncaused. so could a human take credit for a decision or action that emerged from the i-gap? how could they possibly take credit or be responsible for something they had no conceivable control over? anything emerging from the i-gap would be indistinguishable from a random event. and randomness is incompatible with choice.
4) but what if it's the essence of "me" that is in the i-gap. are you kidding me?! i don't care if it's your grandmother, your dead child, or your ever lovin' god. if you put them in the i-gap they are at-best indistinguishable from random noise and at worst non-existent.
5) what if the gap is not an influence-gap but instead a black box? if the gap is not an influence-gap, there is no place for mr. free-will to spread his magic fairy dust because the gap instantly fills with influence and is then no longer properly described as a gap. additionally if the output of the i-gap is non-random, that is to say it emits some identifiable pattern, then whatever is happening in the i-gap must have some way of knowing what the hell is going on outside of the i-gap and this knowledge is definitely influencing its output thereby introducing influence into the i-gap which would then promptly disappear in a cute little puff of logic.
i think it's important to fully comprehend this influence-gap. imagine, if you will, that i am constructing a human being. when the recipe calls for me to add "a dash of free-will" i can't just add any old thing, willy nilly; i have to first construct a proper influence-gap to protect my human from the evil determinism. this would be some container that is impervious to all conceivable influence. i probably have a sound-proof, shock-proof, opaque, air-tight, empathy-proof, magic-proof, momentum-proof, time-proof capsule of some sort just laying around my house, i'll just set that to the side for now. ok, adding an empty box to the mix isn't going to do anything of course so we have to put something in it. since whatever is in this i-gap is supposed to advise me on important moral decisions my selection is of critical importance. well, the most intelligent and moral person i know of is my friend george, so since i don't seem to have a better option, i throw george in the i-capsule and seal him in tight. now days, weeks, and months have gone by and i've pretty much forgotten about george until one afternoon i am confronted with an intractable dilemma. i am faced with a decision with staggeringly profound moral implications and i must make a decision immediately. what do i do? well this sounds like a case for the magnificent george! so i locate my everything-proof capsule on which i have scrawled the descriptive term "i-gap" with my handy wax pencil, and i ask my question. i exhaustively explain all of the known factors leading up to and logical implications of this monumental decision to george, my moral, spiritual and financial advisor, and then i wait for an answer, any answer at all. nothing happens. things are getting desperate, so i beg george to give me an answer, to point me in the right direction. nothing happens. i light some candles and wave a magic wand over the i-gap, but still i can't divine any response from george. i realize there is a problem with the i-gap's design. so i quickly scour my garage for spare parts and retrofit a one way intercom system onto the i-gap so i can hear what george has to say. mind you he still can't hear anything or in any way perceive anything that i have to say, thus preserving the integrity of the influence-gap, but now he can speak directly to me, thus becoming an uncaused-cause. of course george has causes, he was born and raised and had both happy and sad experiences, but i'll just ignore all that for now. george is pretty much an uncaused-cause now that he is housed in the exclusive and luxurious, new and improved i-gap. so i ask george again to answer my plea for guidance. nothing happens. every once in a while george does actually say something but it's usually along the lines of "let me out of this f#cking box you god#amned muth#rf#cking muth#rf#cker!" heh, that george is such a kidder!
obviously george is constrained by the parameters of his confinement and is therefore incapable of offering any advice that would be requested from him.
the same would be true if you put jesus, or krishna, or a unicorn, or any conceivable entity or event in the modified i-gap.
ipso-facto, no free-will.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
He did not screw up. He made a being who was capable of choosing to love Him. God knew what that being would choose (since He knows all things), yet He allowed Adam the choice. God had a plan to [re]deem humanity even though sin caused the rift. That plan was put in effect before the creation of the universe.Love is not 'love' unless it is freely given.
LOVE ME (OR SUFFER ETERNITY IN THE FIRES OF HELL).
This seems slightly coercive.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
He was influenced by two initial agents (God and Satan)Hold up. Full stop.Who made "Satan"?God.
So, when you say "God and Satan" you really just mean "God and God".
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
I shouldn't have to "believe" anything.
If you can demonstrate the logical necessity (and specific formula) of a universal, unchanging, "objective" moral code, then, like a mathematical solution, it would become irrefutable. Just type out the code. Just the PRIMARY AXIOMS.
No faith would be required.
(IFF) you have a strong survival instinct (AND) hope for a better future (THEN) you will do anything in your power to protect yourself (AND) you will do anything in your power to protect your family and loved ones (as it serves priority #1) (AND) you will do anything in your power to protect your property (as it serves priorities #1 and #2) (AND) if you are convinced that priorities #1, #2, and #3 are secure, ONLY THEN are you capable of truly free COOPERATION with others (otherwise you are COERCED).
Created:
-->
@Username
I shouldn't have to "believe" anything.
If you can demonstrate the logical necessity (and specific formula) of a universal, unchanging, "objective" moral code, then, like a mathematical solution, it would become irrefutable. Just type out the code. Just the PRIMARY AXIOMS.
No faith would be required.
(IFF) you have a strong survival instinct (AND) hope for a better future (THEN) you will do anything in your power to protect yourself (AND) you will do anything in your power to protect your family and loved ones (as it serves priority #1) (AND) you will do anything in your power to protect your property (as it serves priorities #1 and #2) (AND) if you are convinced that priorities #1, #2, and #3 are secure, ONLY THEN are you capable of truly free COOPERATION with others (otherwise you are COERCED).
Created:
-->
@AddledBrain
I appreciate your thoughtful analysis of the conundrum, but have you considered how we could handle the 10% (33 million out of 330 million)?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
So, how do you propose we resolve disputes between "true believers"?Doing your best to prove your point through the Scriptures.
And then just start your own Church flavor (abandon your original Church)?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
But you have failed to demonstrate a single solitary unchanging, universal moral axiom.What would you be willing to believe?
I shouldn't have to "believe" anything.
If you can demonstrate the logical necessity (and specific formula) of a universal, unchanging, "objective" moral code, then, like a mathematical solution, it would become irrefutable. Just type out the code. Just the PRIMARY AXIOMS.
No faith would be required.
(IFF) you have a strong survival instinct (AND) hope for a better future (THEN) you will do anything in your power to protect yourself (AND) you will do anything in your power to protect your family and loved ones (as it serves priority #1) (AND) you will do anything in your power to protect your property (as it serves priorities #1 and #2) (AND) if you are convinced that priorities #1, #2, and #3 are secure, ONLY THEN are you capable of truly free COOPERATION with others (otherwise you are COERCED).
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Is it okay that you want something that does not belong to you and you are willing to do whatever it takes to obtain that something?Isn't that what you call "ambition"?No, greed. Do you think greed is good?
Are you kidding me?
What if the thing they want is "a better relationship with Jesus"? Or something like, "inner peace"? Or perhaps they want to restore a broken relationship?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
No, that is called using your well-earned money to buy something for sale that no one yet owns.
When someone is coerced into selling something they own, even if they receive some sort of payment, I still consider it theft.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
What if someone defames your character and says things that are untrue of you to others.You can say whatever you wish.That is not my point. Do you think it is right?I think you will probably agree with the biblical view that it is wrong.
Strangely enough I believe in freedom of speech.
I don't believe it's universally immoral to say things.
I also don't think it's universally immoral to think things.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
(IFF) you are relying on a formalized social contract (and public ritual) in order to maintain a sense of security in your personal relationships (THEN) you are missing the point of human interactionSo it is okay if someone you love is secretly having sex with someone else and lying to you about it and does not care if your feelings are hurt? That is a good thing for you?
Betrayal of any kind is emotionally painful.
However, that betrayal is a private matter between the two (or more) people involved.
I can see no reason for anyone else (including god($)) to have any strong opinions on the matter (much less prescribe any sort of mandatory "punishment").
Created:
-->
@Marko
.....all this while never having spoken to a true atheist.
There's the problem.
You cannot define your opponent's (true) beliefs.
Have you ever spoken to a BLM protestor?
Have you ever spoken to a MAGA hatter?
Have you ever spoken to an SJW?
It is FUNDAMENTAL to let people SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.
When someone starts trying to tell me "what I really think" I try to remind them that they CAN'T speak for me (this should be obvious).
Defining your opponent's position is the very definition of a STRAWMAN.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Asserting sovereignty over MY OWN PHYSICAL BODY is an appeal to LOGOS.
Please challenge my axioms and or point out a specific logical error and or provide a counter-factual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
That is what I have told you all along. You have been told to turn to a chapter and verse. Had it read to you. Then had it explained to you and in your own words you have simply " passed it on", without question. and you are still being trained that way aren't you Reverend
Are you familiar with the concept of "chauffer knowledge" - - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBaMNsniPRs&list=UUozuo4pmK_2P6LqfYyt4qPg&index=5
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Isn't it just simply a case of who you prefer to listen to and who you would rather ignore?
Sample-bias strikes again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
It would be like me pretending to be a scientist simply because I read a few textbooks - and could do a few tricks. But go ahead and give him his cudos.
Interestingly there is no governing body with the exclusive authority to bestow the title of "scientist".
To qualify as a "scientist" you simply call yourself a "scientist".
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I've learned from the dictionary that morality is a framework of social edicts based on fundamental principles. And directly related to this, I discovered that principles must be true. And following only the dictionary definitions again, I discovered that truth requires facts. Therefore, "morality" must be based on facts. And I've been searching ever since then, trying to get someone to tell me exactly which facts "morality" is supposedly based on. Apparently nobody knows.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
People differ from rats in many ways, but the study supports a growing body of evidence that there’s an evolutionary basis for helpful behavior, independent of culture or upbringing, .
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Because we are subjective beings who are influenced by so many things and have so many beliefs, sometimes misconceptions in one area lead to greater misconceptions.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, there really and truly is an "objective" moral standard.
And let's say, for the sake of argument, this "objective" moral standard is written in some sort of code in like a really really really old book.
And let's just say, for the sake of argument, that you have the one true understanding of this "objective" moral code.
You figured it out.
Now, if you're the only one who knows the one-true-unchanging-universal-perfect-moral-code, how do you convince other Christians that you're right and they're wrong?
Like the Calvinists. Or perhaps the Amish. How did they misunderstand everything in the Bible so badly for so many years?
How do you convince them that you're the only one who knows the "true-truth"?
AND, iff you're unable to convince them, how can you distinguish your "true-truth" from what they're going to call it, "your personal opinion"?
You can't simply slap a label of "objectivity" on your OPINION and then crow about how "objective" it is. It just makes you sound like you're trying to trick everyone (all the other true-Christians).
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Magnetic north leads you in the right direction, the general direction.
So, we agree that a "fixed reference point" is not a prerequisite.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I point you to the standard, Jesus Christ - true north;
Do you really and truly strive to "love thine enemy" as Jesus instructed?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
A multitude of errors usually conceals the truth. Truth is exacting. 1+1=2.
You're conflating FACT and OPINION.
Mathematics =/= MEANINGFULNESS
You can never use an "IS" (fact) to substantiate an "OUGHT" (moral commandment).
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
...speaks to our hearts and minds...
Your heart and your mind VALIDATE your version of "truth".
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Are all Christians who disagree with you less moral and or less intelligent than you?It is not me who is important; it is what the Word of God actually says.
You say that, and so does every other Christian.
How do you know which Christian is correct?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
And you won't be convinced if you do not first believe He exists.
It is impossible to believe something without first being CONVINCED.
Step 1: CONVINCE ME.
Step 2: NOW I BELIEVE YOU.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Because it has what is necessary for making sense of morality. I can point to Someone necessary for morality outside my subjectiveness in that such a necessary Person would know all things, thus being objective. Subjectivity and subjective people are limited in knowledge.On top of that, I believe I can give reasoned evidence of why this ontological Being is the biblical God that exceeds the reasoned evidence of your idea of God. So, the proof is in us laying down our ideas of God as to which is more reasonable. When two opposing ideas of the same thing (God) are held logically, one has to be false.
Please show me some sort of chart I can refer to so I can know for certain if I am doing anything morally wrong.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
If we are all arbiters and say the opposite of the other, logically, we can't both be right since we are stating contradictory things.
Which country has perfectly moral laws?
Created: