Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Are you suggesting that each person can interpret it for themselves, personally?No, what I am suggesting is that you will answer for your own personal sins based on whether you have lied, stolen, committed adultery, murdered, coveted, bore false witness, put idols before God and disparaged His name and holiness.
Isn't this a Boolean function? Any sin no matter how slight and you burn in (unverifiable) hell forever and ever?
I'm guessing by that standard, I'm already doomed to maximum punishment, so throwing in a few more violations here and there won't make any difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
What does "The Bible" say is the "objective" non-context sensitive, undeniably right and appropriate punishment for lying?The objective result leads to death as does any sin.
Are you talking about immediate, real-life, scientifically verifiable death, or some metaphysical or spiritual sort of "death"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The immediate or earthly circumstances and punishments may be different, ignored or changed.
So, no "objective" punishments (before death).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Where in "The Bible" is this explained?In many places but the principle is that God allows governments and leaders to curtail injustices and as long as the laws do not go against God's standards we, as Christians, are to accept them.
Are you suggesting that god endorses all governments and their actions are de facto acts of god's will?
Also, how do you know if the laws "do not go against god's standards"?
It sounds like that allows for a wide range of OPINION.
I'm looking for 100% cut-and-dried "objective" no-nonsense FACTS ONLY.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
As for the individual, the following principles apply for the Christian and should apply for everyone, IMO,19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 “But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
So, god alone, without human assistance, enforces the Ten Commandments?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Are you suggesting that each person can interpret it for themselves, personally?The Ten Commandments were/are related to the individual, to my mind.
How is this "objective"?
Isn't this the exact opposite of "objective"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Depended on circumstances???????????????????/Many resulted in the death of the wrongdoer, but such laws were not always strictly enforced and depended on circumstances.
How is this "objective"?
Created:
-->
@Athias
Only that it contains some inescapable, undeniable truth(s).Yes, and because we can "think" and "doubt," we can posit a priori that "the mind is" is a true, right?
We cannot conclude that it is 100% true.
Created:
-->
@Athias
A prescription is a HYPOTHESIS. It's basically a prediction, which isn't "true" in-and-of-itself.Correct. But its truth is consequential: if it it worked, then it's "true;" if it didn't, then it's not.
There is no such thing as a "true" HYPOTHESIS.
HYPOTHESIS is just a synonym for "a guess".
A HYPOTHESIS is not a REAL-TRUE-FACT, it is an OPINION.
We often conflate "accurate/inaccurate-predictions" with "true/false-predictions" but this is a CATEGORY ERROR.
Because there is no way to verify the "truth" (and it can't properly be considered "true" without scientific verification and or logical necessity) of a prediction BEFORE "the actual fact of the event predicted", it is inaccurate to call it a "true-prediction" UNTIL AFTER "THE FACT".
At which point it is no longer an OPINION. At that point, it is a simple statement of FACT.
We often like to say the prediction was "true" the whole time, but this is not the case.
The prediction only became (crossed the line from "prediction" to) a statement of fact, when the actual, scientifically verifiable fact actually happened.
At which point it is no longer an OPINION.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Any statement that is scientifically verifiable (and or logically necessary) is a REAL-TRUE-FACT (Quanta).
An OPINION is, by definition, PRIVATE-PERSONAL-INFORMATION (GNOSIS, Qualia) and is therefore NOT scientifically verifiable (and or logically necessary).
Please challenge my axioms (or definitions) and or point out a specific logical error and or provide a counter-factual.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Not necessarily. I have no way of determining your sincerity and even if I accept your sincerity prima facie, I have no way of determining if and or when you might "change-your-mind" (invalidating your previously stated opinion).That doesn't change the fact that one (or you) can know the opinion of another. Sure, a person can "lie" or be "insincere"; a person can also be forthcoming and sincere. You're hung up on empirical verifying the opinion through your own subjective experience. But under the circumstances where a person who shares an opinion is being sincere, you'd know the opinion. You may not be able to verify the sincerity through experience, but that doesn't change that the person was being sincere.
You also seem to be glossing-over-the-point that even 100% sincere opinions are not REAL-TRUE-FACTS.
If a doctor says, "They'll be back on their feet in a week", that is not a statement of FACT.
It is a FACT (if it is verifiable scientifically) that they "made that statement", but that-does-not-make "the statement" TRUE.
The statement itself is OPINION and will forever be OPINION.
An OPINION can never be simultaneously BOTH an OPINION (AND) a FACT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
These laws work on the biblical principle of lying established in the Ten Commandments.
What does "The Bible" say is the "objective" non-context sensitive, undeniably right and appropriate punishment for lying?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
(3) Can we just fire all police officers and tell safety regulators they can retire? (Y/N)No, they are there for a purpose.
Where in "The Bible" is this explained?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
(2) And the only enforcement mechanism required is "separation from a loving god"? (Y/N)No. That is the long term result.
What's the right-and-proper, "short term" enforceable, real-world penalty for violating each of the Ten Commandments?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
(1) So, in your view, the Ten Commandments is the only law we need? (Y/N)No, what I am suggesting is that the Ten Commandments are the basis for just laws. The principles behind just laws stem from them.
What, in your opinion, are some real-world examples of "just laws" that are "based on" the Ten Commandments?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
What practical, "objective" and universal, non-context-sensitive lesson can I glean from this STORY?That the god of Israel, by his own admission, is a jealous, vengeful god of war that will not tolerate any disobedience or lip, under any circumstances.
Can't god do its own killing? Why would Moses need to command people to kill their neighbors?
Also, what practical, "objective" and universal, non-context-sensitive lesson can I glean from this STORY?
Can we just throw out the entire "Old Testament" and even most of the "New Testament" and just write, "love your neighbor" on the back of a napkin?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
What practical, "objective" and universal, non-context-sensitive lesson can I glean from this STORY?
It sounds a lot like, SHOOT THE PROTESTERS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Jesus summed the ten up in two, love God and love your neighbour. Doing things that are not loving goes against these commandments which form the basis for all other righteous commands. Laws must be just and righteous. They must look out for the best interests of others.
Exodus 32:27
And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Exodus 32:27
And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
What are the ("objective" not-context-sensitive) prescribed penalties for violation of each of the Ten Commandments?The ultimate penalty is separation from a loving God for eternity. Remember, it is God who holds each one of us responsible for failing to live righteously.
(1) So, in your view, the Ten Commandments is the only law we need? (Y/N)
(2) And the only enforcement mechanism required is "separation from a loving god"? (Y/N)
(3) Can we just fire all police officers and tell safety regulators they can retire? (Y/N)
This version of "objective-morality" doesn't seem even slightly practical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
What the Ten Commandments do is they make us aware of our predicament we face in that we do not meet God's righteous standard. It also points us towards Jesus Christ who meets all righteousness on behalf of those who believe.
How do the Ten Commandments inform THE LAW?
What are the ("objective" not-context-sensitive) prescribed penalties for violation of each of the Ten Commandments?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Do you think we should kill everyone who lies?
Do you think we should kill everyone who dishonors their parents?
I'm willing to accept you at your word that these Ten Commandments are "objective morality".
What's the practical up-shot?
Created:
-->
@Athias
Are you asking if "The Mind" verifies itself?Sort of... I'm more so asking: is the Mind self-evident?
"The Mind" is a logical necessity.
It's contingent (IFF) you can doubt (THEN) you can think (THEREFORE) something (non-nothing) must be thinking (we choose to call this source of thinking "The Mind").
We can't actually say anything else about "The Mind". We can't say where it is or what it consists of. All we KNOW is that it "thinks".
Created:
-->
@Athias
A professional opinion, like a legal opinion, is only verifiable in as much as it is written or spoken.So, for example, if a physician were to prescribe a regimen in accordance to his professional opinion that would help one deal with pain management, its being an "opinion" necessarily excludes it from truth?
A professional opinion is not a "fact". A patient may or may not get well or respond positively to prescribed treatment.
A prescription is a HYPOTHESIS. It's basically a prediction, which isn't "true" in-and-of-itself.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Because if I were to tell you of an opinion I hold, you'd know it.
Not necessarily. I have no way of determining your sincerity and even if I accept your sincerity prima facie, I have no way of determining if and or when you might "change-your-mind" (invalidating your previously stated opinion).
I can only know what you report.
Just like someone who publishes a false (unverifiable) story.
The "words-on-the-page" are a "fact" but that doesn't make the content of the-story-itself "factual".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I qualified it with questions you failed to answer:
Agreement =/= "objective"
Agreement = Intersubjective
Do you (personally) think it is wrong to murder?
It depends on the context and the definition of "murder". If you believe it is reasonable to think a person will kill you in your sleep, should you kill them first?
Do you (personally) think it is wrong to lie?
It depends on the context and the definition of "lie". If the Gestapo asks if you are hiding any Jews in your house, should you be perfectly honest?
Do you (personally) think it is wrong to commit adultery on your wife?
It depends on the context and the definition of "adultery". For example, according to "The Bible", marrying a divorcee is adultery.
Who do you know who thinks it is okay to murder, steal, lie, etc,?
Any number of people. In-fact, according to "The Bible", Jacob is rewarded for deceiving (lying to) Isaac. The Israelites are commanded to kill (murder) defenseless civilian women and children. The Israelites are also commanded to steal the land of Canaan.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Not all thoughts are created with equal validity (efficacy).I do not presume to entertain this metric. I merely solicit an answer to whether the posit of the mind's being a logical necessity is necessarily informed by the presupposition of the mind's veracity.
Are you asking if "The Mind" verifies itself?
Created:
-->
@Athias
OPINION must be unverified private information (GNOSIS).(IFF) an OPINION is verified scientifically (THEN) it instantly converts to REAL-TRUE-FACT (and is no longer considered OPINION).What about professional opinions? Doctors' opinions? Are those mutually exclusive from "truth?"
A professional opinion, like a legal opinion, is only verifiable in as much as it is written or spoken.
The "truth-value" (sincerity) of that OPINION is unverified.
It's a REAL-TRUE-FACT that those specific words were submitted as a "professional opinion", but the "truth-value" (sincerity) of those specific words is unverified.
Created:
-->
@Athias
OPINION must be unverified private informationFrom where have you gotten that description?
Logic. An OPINION is something that's exclusively known to the person holding the OPINION.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
DEISM.The fundamental problem with Intelligent Design is that it doesn't answer any questions. It doesn't tell you who the designer was, it doesn't tell you what the designer did to design things, it doesn't tell you what tools the designer used to design things, it doesn't tell you what reason the designer had for designing you, it doesn't tell you what the designer was like, it doesn't tell you what the designers intention for you was. It doesn't really answer any questions at all. It's completely worthless.
Created:
(IFF) there is variation in the interpretation of the holy scriptures (multiple Christian denominations) (THEN) the holy scriptures cannot be the true and plain, infallible, perfect, literal word of an all-wise and all-knowing god.
Nobody disputes the existence of a particular copy of the holy scriptures.
I can present the book and any two people, regardless of their preconceptions, can agree the book exists.
The words are also not in dispute. The words exist. We can agree on the words printed on the page.
I can even generously grant that this book and these words are "the one and only true and infallible word of god".
Great. That's great. We agree on that much. We agree up to that point.
The trick is, that even if we agree on everything up to this point, 100%, we still DON'T agree on the APPLICATION of those words.
How does this perfect book and these perfect words INFORM my daily life?
What PRACTICAL VALUE does this perfect book actually have?
That's the bright line.
That's the line between FACT and OPINION.
That's the line that clearly demarcates Catholic from Episcopal, that specific line is what distinguishes between Baptist and Methodist.
In one part it says, LOVE THINE ENEMY, and in another part it says, KILL ALL ENEMY CIVILIANS INCLUDING CHILDREN AND LIVESTOCK (except for the virgin females of course, give them to the Priests as servants for the rest of their lives).
What MEANING am I supposed to glean from this?
I want what the Christians promise. OBJECTIVE MORALITY. Real-world, unambiguous, yes or no answers that are not context-sensitive.
When god says, "kill the child who curses their parent", THEN KILL THEM.
When god says, "one who marries a divorcee commiteth adultery" and "kill adulterers", THEN KILL THEM.
These are unambiguous statements. We know how the ancient Israelites interpreted these laws. This is not up-for-debate.
SOURCE CONVO
You don't know that.I'm pretty sure I do know that, and you can too, by applying simple logic.
Nobody disputes the existence of a particular copy of the holy scriptures.
I can present the book and any two people, regardless of their preconceptions, can agree the book exists.
The words are also not in dispute. The words exist. We can agree on the words printed on the page.
I can even generously grant that this book and these words are "the one and only true and infallible word of god".
That's the bright line.
That's the line between FACT and OPINION.
That's the line that clearly demarcates Catholic from Episcopal, that specific line is what distinguishes between Baptist and Methodist.
In one part it says, LOVE THINE ENEMY, and in another part it says, KILL ALL ENEMY CIVILIANS INCLUDING CHILDREN AND LIVESTOCK (except for the virgin females of course, give them to the Priests as servants for the rest of their lives).
You are making a claim about something we cannot know. We are using this world's rules to apply to a place we don't even know exists.This is not an intractable problem. These are real-world questions that demand "objective" (not-opinion-based) real-world answers.
I want what the Christians promise. OBJECTIVE MORALITY. Real-world, unambiguous, yes or no answers that are not context-sensitive.
When god says, "kill the child who curses their parent", THEN KILL THEM.
When god says, "one who marries a divorcee commiteth adultery" and "kill adulterers", THEN KILL THEM.
These are unambiguous statements. We know how the ancient Israelites interpreted these laws. This is not up-for-debate.
Created:
-->
@Athias
"The Mind" is a logical necessity because you cannot doubt, or think, without it."The Mind" is a fundamental prerequisite to your experience and comprehension.Exactly. So then, do you not presuppose the veracity of the mind because one can think, doubt, experience and comprehend?
Not all thoughts are created with equal validity (efficacy).
There is a distinct and important difference between REAL-TRUE-FACTS and HALLUCINATION-ILLUSION-OPINION.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Ok, but when your claim is regarding (pure, unverifiable) GNOSIS, it is indistinguishable from OPINION.Private information (GNOSIS) is indistinguishable from OPINION.Opinion and "truth" aren't mutually exclusive.
REAL-TRUE-FACTS (truth) must be scientifically verified.
OPINION must be unverified private information (GNOSIS).
(IFF) an OPINION is verified scientifically (THEN) it instantly converts to REAL-TRUE-FACT (and is no longer considered OPINION).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Where in the Christian bible, does it specify which laws are "objective" and which laws are "subjective"?
The Ten Commandments are universal in that they are included in both Testaments.
Being included in two places doesn't automatically make something "objective".
Where in the Christian bible, does it specify which laws are "objective" and which laws are "subjective"?
Ok, I'll accept your opinion that the "Ten Commandments" are "objective".
What is the "objective" (not context sensitive) punishment for coveting your neighbor's possessions?
What is the "objective" (not context sensitive) punishment for failing to "honor your parents"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Special pleading, No True Scotsman.I would say that the Ten Commandments are universally known to most except for those whose conscience is seared.
Your statement magically disqualifies anyone who might disagree with you.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Attempting to verify someone else's mind is basically a subjective value judgement (Turing-Test/Voight-Kampff).What could you verify independent or isolated from the person's experience?
What can you verify independent of your own experience? No-thing.
The mind is a logical necessity because its veracity is axiomatic, right?
Not exactly. "The Mind" is a logical necessity because you cannot doubt, or think, without it.
"The Mind" is a fundamental prerequisite to your experience and comprehension.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Our posts, emails ergo all communication verifies and is evidence the metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.Is metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts quantised or quantified in some other way than communication of abstract?No.
You might be a sophisticated AI.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Each person can only verify their own mind, through direct experience (private GNOSIS).So then, it is empirically verifiable.
Not exactly. Perhaps I should be more specific and stick to "scientifically verifiable" (independently reproducible).
It may not bear the capacity to be controlled for independent of their own experience, but that doesn't mean it can't be verified.
Ok, but when your claim is regarding (pure, unverifiable) GNOSIS, it is indistinguishable from OPINION.
Its veracity and their direct experience are fundamentally and inextricably tied.
Private information (GNOSIS) is indistinguishable from OPINION.
Created:
-->
@Athias
If concrete is a subcategory of abstract, then what is the (epistemological) significance in creating a stark distinction between the two (i.e. purely abstract and concrete)? Is it not just a value-based judgement?
Scientifically verifiable data (Quanta) is validated by efficacy.
You and I may have completely different ideas about how to build a bridge or a computer or an engine, but if only one of those ideas is based on scientifically verifiable data, then, most likely, only one of them will function as expected.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Where in the Christian bible, does it specify which laws are "objective" and which laws are "subjective"?
Created:
-->
@Athias
The "mind" (much like NOUMENON) is logically necessary.Dubito, ergo, cogito, ergo, SUM.That's not what I asked. I know the mind is logically necessary. Is it empirically verifiable?
The "mind" (much like NOUMENON) is logically necessary, but not empirically verifiable.
Each person can only verify their own mind, through direct experience (private GNOSIS).
Attempting to verify someone else's mind is basically a subjective value judgement (Turing-Test/Voight-Kampff).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Are you suggesting that you agree that this (claiming god spoke to you) should be a capital crime, specifically enforced by one's own parents?What is the context?
Objective morality is universal and absolute and is the opposite of "situational ethics".
Why would you be concerned about context?
What part of god's law says "kill the child if they strike or curse a parent (unless they have proper and appropriate context of course)"?
Context has nothing to do with god's law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Nice.
Your god creates calamity and disaster.
That certainly qualifies as "omnibenevolent".
Created:
-->
@Athias
Not exactly.You're attempting to argue the two (concrete vs abstract) as mutually exclusive,
Concrete is a subcategory of Abstract.
"Purely Abstract" denotes a concept with no Concrete component.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Let me also ask: is the mind empirically verifiable?
The "mind" (much like NOUMENON) is logically necessary.
Dubito, ergo, cogito, ergo, SUM.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Why would you worship such a god that is both evil and good?
Isaiah 45:7 King James Version (KJV)
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I think we can agree that each of us should be polite as a general policy.Should you unjustly treat those who are responsible for your earthly existence and your care with contempt and disrespect, with those who have provided a home for you, providing for your health and safety, food and clothing, as well as guiding you in your moral well-being?
Are you suggesting that you agree that this (claiming god spoke to you) should be a capital crime, specifically enforced by one's own parents?
Created:
-->
@Athias
Coherent abstracts don't EXIST in the exact same sense that rocks and trees EXIST. We often say, "they exist abstractly".Yes but they exist. We can dispute the difference between abstract and reality but the primary point is that they do exist, however you decide to modify the term existence. Now, I would argue that every subjective experience is informed and irremovable from abstractions (e.g. your reference to the staircase and falling to one's death.) The difference between life and death is abstract; the fact that you name that particular matter a staircase is abstract. The differences are informed by meaning, and meaning is fundamentally imaginative/abstract. So stating that BigFoot is abstract, and therefore he doesn't [properly] exist, would be like saying meaning is abstract; therefore it does not properly exist; and if your meaning doesn't exist, your sense or value of difference doesn't exist; and if that doesn't exist then what is it you're perceiving?Empirical verification is no less a subjective experience. And when you reduce the argument to its fundamental premise, it's essentially one of meaning. Empirical verification has meaning, I don't dispute that. You choose a definition which coincides with that meaning.
Can we agree that the "YHWH" does NOT exist in an empirically verifiable or logically necessary CONCRETE way?
Can we agree that the "YHWH" DOES exist in an ABSTRACT and hypothetical way?
Created:
-->
@Athias
What is Mopac's description of God?
"The Ultimate Reality".
Mopac also believes the Christian book is not infallible and shouldn't be read as a literal rule book.
It's more like a super-complicated poem or secret code that facilitates meditation and if you read it unskeptically, it will lead you to a greater understanding of "The Truth".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Thog is beyond your epistemological limits. Are you suggesting that you have no epistemological limits?Thog is unreasonable to believe but you are welcome to believe.
How do you determine what is reasonable to believe?
Created: