3RU7AL

Don't be ridiculous.  You can't say that every community in America has a majority of reasonable businesses catering to the public in every sector.  Congress still needs to address this issue, adding something to the effect of "sexual orientation" to the civil rights act.

...force people to use their bodies to labor and provide services to those they have religious objections to.

Is a free lance web designer at liberty to turn down a commission from, say, a KKK lodge?

The question is, what is the "Biblical" teaching that makes denial of service mandatory? 

God says to live like he would. 

God doesn't allow gays in heaven. 

Therefore, religious people should have the right to emulate God on minor things like this.

The bill appears to be mischaracterized in the OP, at least from what I have read through section two, where it formalizes a list of well known religious beliefs.

If it is immoral to force a christian to offer goods and services to the lbgtq community then it is immoral to force muslims, buhdists and/or atheists to offer goods and services to the christian community. 

If it is immoral to refuse services to christians based on religious disagreeance then it is immoral to refuse services to the lgbtq community based on religious disagreeance.

If there are 20 businesses for a certain product, about 12 of them would be pro-[black].  A [black] person can simply go towards one of these businesses for trade.

If a gay person doesn't receive service, they can go to another store to get the service they want.  Not all businesses will refuse to serve gay people.

Ok, I take perception to be input, and you take it to be comprehensible input. Is that agreeable? If so, where does that get us. 

Sure, I don't see where that gets you. I am not claiming to comprehend everything, but rather to be affected by everything. 

Science has not explained everything.

I agree, but everything from our perspectives. 

Well, there's one sure-fire way to disprove noumenon.  Omniscience.

I'm assuming it doesn't until given a convincing argument it does, not the other way around. 

Please explain the critical logical error in "cogitoergosum".

To be brief with this, his original reasoning was that (correct me if I'm wrong) je pense donc je suis, makes more sense really as, "je doute donc je suis" One cannot doubt one's own existence because the doubting itself is occurring. But the critique is more with the final phrase than his particular methodology. I am by no means the first with this critique, the "I" problem. Cogito ergo sum or je pense donc je suis or je doute donc je suis, all take as their beginning "I". I think or I doubt, which is like saying, there exists something called I which is doubting therefore I exist. You are assuming the very thing which you set out to prove. In the same sense, when you said:

"Subjective experience could be like an illusion but we still subjectively experience it" or something to that effect, you are taking the existence of "we" as a given. That's my issue with it. 

The Bible, at least to my knowledge, does not say "gay = bad"

Does anyone know what part of "The Bible" makes denial of service to sinners mandatory?

I don't know about this either.

It's the comprehensible part we are stuck on here. Smelling a rose, doesn't require knowing it's a rose.

I don't need to comprehend to perceive. But you could call that comprehensible and/or mentally identified and/or named perceptions. 

I don't know, because again, I cannot articulate it because I don't know how to read a rainstorm and know all of the butterflies responsible. Again, just because I cannot name it, or comprehend it, doesn't mean I should rule it out or say it doesn't exist etc.

In the same way, many rainstorms are really two colliding rainstorms, if you had an experience in the rain on the ground in a way that you didn't know there were two rainstorms, you'd reasonably say "i perceive one rainstorm", when there are two. If you learned that it was two later, you might then say "I perceived two rainstorms" if you identify your perception with what you call it. 

I was under the impression you were asserting that time was a real thing that we measure and not a result of the measurements. 

I mean sure, but if your framework is the practical we are no longer talking about what is true if there is such a thing, only what is useful. I concede noumenon is a useful thing to posit under certain circumstances, doesn't mean it's true. 

If you can't measure the effect, then it is purely hypothetical.

All I assert is measurable (never perfectly of course, as is the case with anything measured since measurement is by definition an approximation) in principle.

Or are you saying I have to have the means to do so? I am not claiming to have any particular perception, just that my perception is in principle more than I can articulate.

There are one or two things which are certain (cogito-ergo-sum/noumenon), and everything else is some matter of degree.

I can't agree with that. Cogito ergo sum is not foolproof. And I still don't see the necessity of noumenon that isn't definitional. 

The line of distinction changes depending on what you need, and that doesn't indicate anything about a supposed absolute truth. 

Sure, "subjective individual experience" might be some sort of "illusion" (Parmenides).  However, we still SUBJECTIVELY experience it (whatever it is).

That assumes cogito ergo sum. A starting place I cant agree with in principle. You started with we. 

Any qualitative statement can be assigned numbers and exhibit the same behavior under manipulation.

But I don't even know what we mean by everything here. Science claims to give explanations to phenomena as we experience it, and there is no reason to assume we have experienced all possible phenomena. So science changes with new phenomena. If people measured only to a certain degree of accuracy, Newton's Laws + Maxwell's equations do explain everything.

It's a matter of what you experience. And if we continually experience more, science cannot say to explain those things we have yet to experience. I don't think it has to do with something fundamentally and intrinsically unknowable. Cuz that's a bold claim too. 

I don't restrict perception to what one may call conscious. A robot, for example, takes in information about its surroundings and acts accordingly, but we don't call them concscious, but except for the fact that we can't communicate, there is no reason to think that it cannot perceive or isn't conscious. (Especially things that aren't hard coded). I am essentially looking for an understanding of perception divorced from consciousness. 

The time corresponds to the events, not the other way of round. Time isn't absolute, it is relative. Just like "inches" don't 'exist" they are just a measurement as a result of things. 

I'm saying that is one way of viewing you. You can define yourself however you please, but I just point out the fact that none of those definitions is absolute. You can go from you don't exist to you are all that exists or you are everything that exists, which are all kind of the same thing, but kind of different in my opinion. 

Whether or not the person in a lab coat could articulate it is unimportant in my opinion to whether the mouse reacts. You seem to be tying it to the ability to discern what is happening. 

Sure there is a practical line, but you seem to be taking that line too seriously or as something absolute. 

In the same way that a leaf is part of a tree, but the leaf is not the whole tree, and one leaf is still distinguishable from another leaf on the same tree.

This is a result of how you have defined a leaf. If someone who had never seen a tree before looked at one, they may not think the leaves are practically separable. 

You're living proof of "subjective experience".  Whether or not you believe it qualifies as "existent" is a purely ontological choice.

Hm...I could also say I am living proof that the earth is flat, I have never felt the curvature of the earth, that doesn't mean it doesn't curve. The flatness of the earth is a function of my point of view and a kind of illusion, so, maybe, the existence of a subjective experience could work in a similar way. There could something more fundamental there. 

I think I see the utility of telling people that they do not know everything. But nothingness is just defined as that which doesn't exist, so of course it doesn't exist by that definition. And if you take a thing to be something that does exist then of course something exists. I do not see how that leads to the impossibility of science explaining everything, because that is a matter of perspective and level of detail.

It doesn't need to inform my decision making on a practical level.

It matters because I prefer to hold as many true beliefs and as few false ones as possible. If evidence weighs in favor of the existence of God then I will hold that belief in the interest of holding as many true beliefs and as few false ones as possible.

Are you asking what are the practical implications of acknowledging that you have the burden of proof or are you asking what are the practical implications of moral realism?

The important part is determining what the best explanation is for the fine-tuned universe. It's highly indicative of intelligent design.

As mentioned earlier, based on standard practices, you have the burden of proof to show why moral non-realism is true. 

Btw, Martin Rees wrote an essay entitled "Fine-tuning, complexity, and life in the universe" in which he details the evidence for fine-tuning.

I'm just gonna go one claim at a time. You generate new claims quicker than I'm making them.An ad populum fallacy is when you believe that a claim is true because most people believe it is. Since pointing out that moral realism is the status quo is not the same thing as believing that moral realism is true because most people believe it is, it's not an populum fallacy. Standard rules of debate set the burden on proof (1) on the person making the claim OR (2) the person arguing against the status quo. Since you fall under camp (2), I'm pointing out that the burden of proof is actually on you to change the prevailing view. I'm not basing my conclusion that moral realism is true on any of this. So, again, it's not an ad populum fallacy. This was me responding to just one of your claims. If I responded to all of them I'd have to write a novel.

Then you need to reread you own statements, again.....#352.....3r7....."You have not established that "finite space-time" is "inside" "any-thing"".......Universe is 3D "anything" and 3D something and your statement above attempts tosuggest mine { above } is incorrect, when it is not. Please try and play fair.Of course it is from our perspective. And our perspective is based on observation that energy cannot be created yet exists. That can only means it is eternally existent.Please try and use some rational, logical common sense on that specific concept.  Can you do that 3r7?Read my lips/text energy { ergo } occupied space, cannot be created{ 1st law  of conservation } yet energy exists ergo if it was not created, and it exists, then it exists eternally. Simple not difficult to grasp, unless you have a ego based mental blockage to relatively simple, rational, logiocal common sense pathways of thought.God I hope as this forum like many is full of them.

No your ego based priorities/drives are not excused.Clarrity and truth by me does not equal any concessions by you or the placing of your ego to the side.  You need to go back #331 and address the comments as stated and not as you repatedly and falsely project them. Thats behavious is evidence your ego is running your show.1} I did not state space-time in #351 yet you keep quoting that way.  This is evidence of your ego before truth issues,2} nowhere have you conceded to my rational, logical common sense conclusion to my IFF statements in several posts now.  Your playing hide and seek game with words liken to cups hiding truths and concepts under some cups and false under others and meaningless statements by you under others.  Sad :--( 3} you certainly appear to  be disputing that we live in a finite, 3D, occupied space Universe.Ive not seen you agree with anything Ive stated and especially not from the get go after #331.You appear to agree to your statements not mine, as stated.What is knowable? Your running a zig-zag of confusing statements to obfuscate ergo protect your ego.

My evidence for moral realism isn't conjecture. Moral realism, I may remind you, is the prevailing moral theory among moral philosophers by a more than 2:1 ratio. It's also the prevailing moral theory among your ordinary people. So before you shout "ad populum" I'm merely pointing out that the status quo is with moral realism, not moral non-realism.

Moral realism has superior explanatory power over moral non-realism empirically, rationally, instinctively, and intuitively.

That's more than enough reason for me to accept moral realism and reject moral non-realism.

The primary reason for believing moral non-realism is because it's the only compatible view atheism has with morality.

Other terrible reasons include the belief that moral disagreement means that there are no moral [LOVE, JOY, FEAR] facts and having no tangible evidence of moral realism must mean that it can't be true.

You have absolutely no way of knowing any of this.

Currently that appears true and Ive never claimed I know, only that I believe that, 

...based on rational, logical common sense.  I'm still waiting for you to place your ego to the side and attempt rational, logical common sense to arrive at a conclusion that adds to or invalidates my conclusions, as stated.

(IFF) there is "space-time" "outside" of our "finite occupied space-time" you have absolutely no way of knowing (IFF) it is "occupied" or not.

You need to reread #331 as state and not as you falsely project my comments 

1} PLease play fair and that begins  by your placing you ego to the side,

2} I state occupied space not your "space-time" ---whatever you may think that may or may not be---,

3} your latter comment above is meaningless becuase,

...3a} if your space-time is same as my occupied space, then your space-time cannot be outside of  an occupied space i.e it is just more of the same and to say outside is meaningless irrational, illogical and lacks any shred of common sense. Do you understand your error?

Please do not play ego based mind games with me. I hoped you would be at least one person on this forum could place aside their ego.  Maybe no one here can do that. Actually I think MagicAintReal conceded my rational, logical common sense conclusions, as presented.

No, it doesn't sound fair, because that's not an accurate representation of my reasoning.

Various lines of evidence support moral realism over moral non-realism.

Therefore, I believe moral realism.

Moral realism logically entails the existence of a theistic God.

By believing moral realism, I acknowledge that this belief logically entails the existence of a theistic God.

 IFF you{ 3Ru7al do not believe we  live inside a 3D Universe...

AND you have not established it is "eternally existent".

I.e. you believe the 1st law of thermodynamics is false.

1} And you have not yet  placed yor ego aside to address the comment as stated with  a specific word you commonly use "IFF".

2} Maybe you dont know what you IFF means. It means that,  If X is true then Y is the only rational, logical common sense conclusion and your ego, will not allow you to concede that conclusion, to "IFF". Please place your ego asided 3Ru7al.

3} We only observe a finite occupied space Universe and,

...3a} we certainly do not observe or have evidence of, a  macro-infinite occupied space Universe.

Because the implications of moral realism require it.

No, I consider myself a theist because I believe moral realism and moral realism entails the existence of a theistic God.

for completeness, they are examples of evidence for joy?

I think evidence has to be evidence for some definite propostion, but 'joy' is not a propostion!

So my own personal experience of joy is direct evidence of what, exactly?  And is it exactly the same thing that someone's smile is evidence for?

When you declare that "occupied space-time" is surrounded by "infinite" "unoccupied space-time" you have zero basis in either science or logic to make such a claim.

1} IFF we live in a finite, occupied space Universe, then the followin two conclusions can only relate to rational, logical common sense.

2} We have that finite space inside, and eternally existent, occupied space Universe

3} we have that non-occupied space outside of our finite, and eternally existent, occupied space Universe,

I cannot have a relationship with a being that I cannot confirm the existence of. The next move, it would seem, is god's (if such a being even exists).

I'm an irreligious theist. I believe that a prime, eternal consciousness created the universe. The universe having an origin from consciousness is the best explanation of what caused the Big Bang, the fine-tunedness of the universe, among other things.

But then, a theist will often think that means I think their god or no god.  

The faith is not rational apprehension, it is experience.

I call this consciousness "God."

Nancy Pelosi has a notorious reputation as a partisan hack.

Nothing can only be nowhere and can only have no size and no shape and exist for no time period.

False.  A "nowhere" { metaphsyical-1 } answer from a somewhere human{ occupied space }. Inside and outside are places and are specific places of reference { relationship } ergo not your false claims of "nowhere".

Being different as a result of some influence is not perception.

i don't see a way of differentiating them unless through consciousness. 

So if my ancestor did something slightly different, I as am would not exist.

This is an interesting, yet untestable hypothesis.

True, it is untestable, because it is counterfactual. But we can say that if the causes and conditions of my existence are different, I would potentially be different. 

The butterfly and the storm can be viewed as one "happening."

Clocks do not measure time, they measure events, like radioactive decay in most modern atomic clocks. There is no "time" to be measured. 

I'm not a big fan of monism at all. It is also arbitrary to say it's all the same thing, but it's a different way of looking at it. 

They don't, but what I did there was a metaphor in the hopes of showing that consciousness is not something that is necessary to explain the world.

Things do necessarily react when they detect stimuli.

I'm talking about the detectable, comprehensible, personal experience of human perception.

This is where we disagree, I am not sure (I don't rule it out) that there is such a thing as individual human subjective experience.

If there is a such a thing then yes, your definition might make sense for perception, but if that sphere of perception interacts with and is related to things outside itself, then I don't see a reason to believe comprehensible perception is at all important to anything if that comprehension is just all part of the mush. 

Make me one with everything, pal.  I get it.  Do you have a preferred term for "the detectable, comprehensible, personal experience of human perception"? 

Not saying you are necessarily one with everything, just that it is equally valid to say that and that you are separate. And I would call that "subjective experience" which I am not sure exists. 

Do you think it would be fair to say that noumenon is what's beyond human comprehension?

Do you mean beyond current human comprehension, or human comprehension in principle or both? And if it is beyond our comprehension, there is no reason to posit its existence. 

Would you call yourself atheist?

What do you mean?

Also, are you religious?

There are some "gods" that seem to be somewhat similar to the noumenon including Ein Sof, the primordial Greek Xaos, and the Tao.

Yeah, but when we say greek gods, we don't usually think first of Chaos. And taoism is complicated lol. I just meant that God with a capital G is just more accessible. Had to choose one, but I don't discriminate.

Anything that is scientifically measurable is phenomenal.

Sure, but we don't measure space, or time, they are (or spacetime if you prefer is) a way of splitting up events. We don't measure time, the measure of a clock is another clock. So time and space aren't phenomenon, but we conventionally create them to make talking about things easier. Lots of physical laws are time invariant. A positron = an electron travelling backwards in time for example. 

My understanding is that Platonic forms are hypothetically "perfect" versions of every-thing we perceive.

The noumenon is not "perfect" and it is also not a "version" of some-thing we perceive.

My understanding of Platonic forms is not that they are "perfect" but ideal in such a way that as soon as something is instantiated it isn't quite right. 

--------------------------------------------------

Ok, so I think I need to clarify perception or sensing. For my purposes the difference is unimportant. But this will be a doozy. I hope it helps you understand what I'm trying to get across. 

The classical five senses are arbitrary. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense

And splitting senses into distinct categories is impossible, and again, arbitrary. I also believe splitting an organism from its environment is also arbitrary, but for now let's say there is an organism. We are looking at it and we want to figure out what it can sense and what it can't.

Can it feel? We would touch it and see if it reacts. Can it smell roses? Put roses near it and see if it reacts. That reaction could be movement or making a noise or brain activity changes. Regardless, the way to ascertain as to whether it can sense is if we observe a change in the organism in response to certain stimuli.

Lets get our oil from Canada.  They have a lot of it.