Total posts: 1,720
-->
@Intelligence_06
I've never understood what a Kritick is...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
- What's the point of defending my premises here if we are having a debate?? Unless of course you don't wish to debate, which would be a shame.
As I said earlier, I'm still trying to discover what your position is. Its possible I may agree with you in which case there would be nothing to debate.
We can continue with 'what you believe AND why?' as the OP laid out... or not. Its totally your decision, friend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Maybe. Once I know more about what your position is (that's what I'm trying to discover now), we can have a debate.- The resolution would be something like 'the Quran is true' or 'the Quran is a revelation from God' or 'Muhammed is a prophet' or something to that affect.
I guess there's nothing left to discover?
- Indeed, why would I! You can find out in the debate
From here, a debate is looking like a timesink. The questions I'm asking are pretty basic and you're trying to kick the conversation down the road.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Oh, but there are ways. Let us have a formal debate over this. I'll be Pro & you be Con. You can prove me wrong there. What say you?
Maybe. Once I know more about what your position is (that's what I'm trying to discover now), we can have a debate.
In short, the provided syllogism doesn't address what I'm challenging. Regardless, continuing from here or not, I appreciate your efforts.- You are making a lot of assumptions... The syllogism perfectly answers the question, that much is obvious. You are assuming the premises can not be proven! Why would I mention P1 & P2 if they are unprovable!
Indeed. Why would you mention P2, say it is defensible, and not defend it? Unsubstantiated claims have no value.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
What are you going on about? Surely, you're not trying to suggest SCOTUS is absolute and without error? If so, you'd better take a harder look at historical SCOTUS rulings. If not, you have no argument - Supreme Court rulings are not the end of all discussion on a given subject.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Of course establishing P1 & P2 is not evident. To establish P1 we need to prove that the Quran we have today was preserved *verbatim* as it was first taught by the Prophet 14 centuries ago. To establish P2 we have to prove that the Prophet is actually a *true* prophet who indeed received his revelation from God not a false prophet who made up his own "revelation".
Whether the words were preserved perfectly from 14 centuries ago is irrelevant if we can't establish the words were given by a deity. I see no way to establish (P2) Mohammed had anything revealed to him other than the fact he said so, or more precisely, it was written that he said so.
In short, the provided syllogism doesn't address what I'm challenging. Regardless, continuing from here or not, I appreciate your efforts.
Created:
-->
@coal
My apologies, I did misunderstand you.
The words "under God" were, therefore, not meant to (and do not) make theological claims about the particularities of God and/or religion. Rather, it was to make a statement about the relationship between the state and the individual, where the limits of the state's authority over individuals subject to it were limited by something more than just a piece of paper a bunch of people wrote in 1789. It was to reinforce the idea that the source of our rights is grounded in our being; in our nature and in natural law.
This is certainly in-line with my understanding of the founders intent. However, the addition of "under God' is a clumsy way of trying to reinforce this. It suggests the power of the US government might come from a diety rather than from the people. Without a doubt, this is how Christian Nationalists have (wrongly) understood it.
Created:
-->
@coal
Maybe I misunderstood you. Were you saying "God" was not necessarily referring to the Christian god?
Created:
-->
@coal
Cool. I suppose you have no issue with "God damn it", either?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
'Being tolerant of' and 'accepting as an equal' are not the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
I don't feel that answers the question - why should a non-Muslim recognize the Quran as truth?- That's a different question. Answer: because it's the truth, or more precisely, the Quran is revealed by God to Prophet Muhammed.
This translates to 'the Quran is true because the author claimed to speak for God'. ...its 'true because someone said its true'.
Ok. If you say so. ;-)
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
'All ice cream is equally tasty and chocolate is the best'. This is a logically incoherent statement -- Just like 'a government meant to uphold religious freedom can favor one religion over others'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
- That's his choice, wether he wants to pursue Truth or not.
I don't feel that answers the question - why should a non-Muslim recognize the Quran as truth?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Why should a non-Muslim accept the Quran as authoritative here?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
On this matter, SCOTUS overrules your opinion.
SCOTUS certainly does not overule logic. ;-)
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Freedom of religion requires a government to be free of religion.No, wrong interpretation
Its not an interpretation - it is just simple logic. You can't advocate for equality of anything while also favoring one option over others.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
God was no more than a generic reference to a freedom of religion
Freedom of religion requires a government to be free of religion. A reference to a diety, any diety, disallows the option of no diety. Quite simply, "under God" does not represent religious freedom - it can't, and it is beyond absurd to pretend otherwise.
If the pledge offends you by the reference, "under God," don't say it.
I don't - how could I in good conscience say what I don't accept as true? ...and why should I? It is not necessary to believe in a god, much less that our nation is under one, to be an American.
On the other hand, a pledge without the phrase "under God" would include believers and non-believers alike making it more unifying than one with it.
Does the majority get to have its say, too?
If the majority doesn't understand religious freedom and runs roughshod over the first amendment, America will cease to be "America". So, I think a better question should be 'do dogmatists understand what they are advocating'?
Besides that, less than 50% of Americans belong to a church, synagogue, or mosque. The writing is on the wall, my friend. Just know, I will not force you to share my lack of belief in the name of patriotism when the shoe is on the other foot.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
You can say 'under God' is a deistic reference, but in practice, it is understood with religious implications - and I think that is how it was intended.
The fact that dogmatic Christians get bent when a different ( vague) reference is used for a particular God gives away the game. "Allah" does the same work as "God" except, instead of Christian connotations, it has Islamic connotations.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
...not so vague references to the Christian diety in our pledge?My #23 post to Lemming:Oh, how I wish y'all would stop depending on Wiki as a solitary source.
You're dodging of the core question of my post: 32.
Besides that, I think it is fair to say "under God" is commonly understood as a reference to the Christian diety regardless of its original intent.... which, with a charitably broad evaluation, seems meant to reference the Abrahamic god. Look into Rev. George Docherty.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Oh, ok...?
How does quotes from Jefferson (who advocated for a separation between state and religion) and Adams (who oversaw the unanimous ratification of the Treaty of Tripoli - "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion") support not so vague references to the Christian diety in our pledge?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
@Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge:Yes it is - capital "G" god, specifically refers to the gods of the abrahamic religions, don't try to pull that semantic stuff.
fauxlaw:"...the liberties of a nation cannot be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God." - Thomas Jefferson"...our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people and was wholly inadequate for the government of any other."' - John Adams
I'm not following the thought process of this response to Weakeredge.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
The pearl clutching from Conservatives here is delicious. XD
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I nominate Ramshutu should he be willing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Good routine - seems fairly accurate!
Created:
-->
@Wylted
That didn't answer the question.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
A recount is pointless. You need the ballots audited. If you keep recounting the same fraudulent ballots, the numbers will keep coming up the same.
Do you mean "audited" like the multiples times the ballots have already been audited?
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I want you to explain why an if there is no fraud, that they are trying to prevent audits. These audits are harmless if they are innocent
Trying to prevent audits? Even if that were true, they would be trying to stop...what..the 3rd or fourth recount? The first few were just practice runs, eh? ...same with the 50+ meritless challenges in the courts too, eh? Once we get a recount by people who are not biased to reality, we'll finally have a 'legitimate' conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
What's the harm if god [of the Bible] exists, then?
It means a powerful, ignorant, and malicious being who fancies himself righteous and perfect in every way plays hide and seek with humanity and tortures for all eternity those who don't find or pretend to find him.
Besides that...everything would be hunky dory. XD
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
What's the harm in the devil existing, tell me?
The devil is the antihero to Yahweh's antivillian. A conscientious objector cast from heaven and consigned to be the benchmark of evil by the "good guy". If the devil existed, he would be the least of our transcendent problems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
To have friends, one would need to exist.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
No, I’m unable to distinguish a thing if the given state is what makes up that thing, a helicopter is still a helicopter regardless of the fast label you attach to it just as much as a light is still a light regardless of whether or not it’s on or off, however if I were to try and keep up with the pretense that you are correct in regards to morality’s subjective nature then morality can’t be morality without the subjective label attached to it because that’s what makes morality what it is.
The argument you're making would apply to "objective morality" as well - is objective morality distinct from morality? It seems absurd to me that we should think chocolate ice cream is not really ice cream...or that any 'flavor' of morality is not morality. So long as we're referring to principles/rules of humans interacting with others for the benefit of all involved - its morality. For the record, it is subjective. ;-)
Do you have a position on morality or are you just here to nitpick?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Nah, sorry man. I dont know how to play and don't have a lot of consistent time available.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
In fairness to your potential opponent, the proposition should reference widespread fraud - that is what Trump has been claiming.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Because how would you know the actual value if two individuals, groups, cultures, or societies each said the opposite is the right or good?How do you compare two morals as both being the right one?
This has been answered. Any person or group which holds genocide, rape, eating their neighbor, etc. as a moral good is demonstrably wrong. These things are not good for individual humans and, by extension, humanity. This is verified by objective reality. Repeating your questions (as though they weren't answered) makes it seem as though you're not comprehending my answers or simply ignoring them. Feel free to ask sincere questions if need be.
I don't care what you believe - I care what you can demonstrate through argument and evidence. "No other god is logically possible because this one is my favorite" isn't a logical argument or evidence.What I can demonstrate would never be enough for someone who doesn't want to accept the Judeo-Christian position.
This is a unreasonable rationalization, Peter. Why should I, or anyone, want to accept what has not been demonstrated - whether that be objective morality or the deity claimed to be the basis of it? Besides, wanting to believe in the Christian god didn't stop me from finding my reasons for my belief being insufficient.
I did not see anything else in your most recent posts which had not been previously answered or that deserved any more attention. I think it is safe to say, this topic has been well explored and repetition is not going to get us anywhere. Let me know if/when you'd like to have a debate on Slavery in the Bible or anything else.
Created:
Sorry for the delay - I just saw this post.
[a] This answer is so incomplete it is wrong. Its true some god concepts contradict and cannot be true at the same time. [b] However, not all god concepts are mutually exclusive and [c] they could be true at the same time. [d] Additionally, there could be one god ...or no gods. If your reasoning for the existence of the Christian god is 'no other option is logically possible', you're in for a rude awakening, my friend.[a] Are you saying that the 'gods' of the New Age Movement are the same God of Scripture?
No to all.
I believe they are contradictory to the Judeo-Christian God
I don't care what you believe - I care what you can demonstrate through argument and evidence. "No other god is logically possible because this one is my favorite" isn't a logical argument or evidence.
Just working within your paradigm, it could be a deistic god and your god are one and the same...bam - nows there's 2 god concepts that are true at the same time.
Two contrary things cannot logically both be true at the same time.
I agree, but this is not a refutation of my point.
More to the point, which is it? It can only be one or the other. How would you know there is no God?
My position isn't "there is no god". My position is closer to "For what rational reason should I believe that?". Fallacious answers** equate to "none".
**'How would you know there is no god' is shifting the burden.
I recognize my limitations to an extent. That is why I see the necessity in God setting the record straight.
The question was how do you know your belief in god is not a manufactured meaning, and your answer is literally using your belief to prop up your belief. Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps only works in cartoons. XD
Created:
-->@PGA2.0
Objective morality only applies if God exists, and morality is something Amoranemix and Ramshutu believe is relativistic because it is continually "evolving," although Ramshutu tries to mask it as an objective "imperative." That to him seems to only apply to "the group" that adopts some standard of right or wrong, when it is obvious other groups disagree and preach the opposite standard. So, the objectivity is up in the air. The identity is lost when neither group is wrong yet both preach the opposite.
For the record, you're claiming objective morality only applies if God exists while also highlighting evidence against objective morality.
[a]Moral values that are qualitative need a measurement too. [b]There has to be something we compare something else to or against, and in the case of morals, [c] an unchanging standard, something that is real but abstract.[d] If you don't have a real, unchanging "right" or "good" (the standard of comparison), then how can you say this moral value is better than another?
[a] Ok.
[b] Ok.
[c] why must our reference be unchanging?
[d] We don't need a fixed reference - we need a stable reference. That reference can be arbitrary and mutable yet this in no way prevents comparison. The problem you decry is not a real problem.
Why is what you believe truer than what I think?
It's not a matter of belief versus belief as you keep suggesting. It is a matter of belief combined with data demonstrating if that belief is correct. Someone who believes rape, genocide, etc., is a moral good is refuted by evidence to the contrary. So, 'how do we decide who is right' is answered by "facts of reality".
Maybe we can debate slavery in the bible - just a thought.So, my time is not so free at the moment.
No worries. Family comes first. Let me know when you have more time if you're interested.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
Firstly, are there any Christians who hold to this view and who would be prepared to discuss it further?Secondly, would you consider a debate on the subject?
You should talk with PGA2.0.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
The rules for the modern game are fixed. The fixed reference point is the game.
If you think the rules of chess have become immutable (since their last change)...I don't know what to tell you. I would say the rule are stable but definitely capable of change. I guess that analogy isn't going to get us anywhere if we don't agree on that.
Can you give examples of qualitative and quantitative values so I can wrap my head around what you're referring to?
His word is the objective standard, and when we do not interpret according to what He means we corrupt His meaning.
How can it be an objective standard if you need to interpret it? ~40,000 denominations says the Bible isn't an objective standard.
You think "this generation" means "that generation."
Good god, man. We had that debate like 6 years ago! If you haven't figured I'm not impressed by the appeal to your own authority by now its unlikely you ever will. Suffice to say, If God wrote it why should I or anyone care what you (a.k.a "not god") thinks it is supposed to mean? Besides that, the fact that it isn't clear speaks to an omniscient being NOT being the author - and that is my point here.
[c] I have explained to you and others many times the meanings of slavery and that God explicitly told Israel never to treat others as they were treated in Egypt
Yes, you have said that, but your cherry picking doesn't show the whole picture. I haven't had a good debate in a while. Maybe we can debate slavery in the bible - just a thought.
No prophecy is to be privately interpreted.
Unless you think the entire Bible is a prophecy, you're not addressing my point entirely. Secondly, people do it all the time, don't they? You need to take that up with your fellow believers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Has our conversation really com to pete and repeat? I've gone as much into this as I care to. It seems clear you're running away from the OP as fast as you can at this point. ;-)
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
The question is, how could you move a king or queen without a game involving those concepts and with fixed rules such as Chess?
There is a definite disconnect here. You are not describing reality as it is. Chess does not have fixed rules - the rules are merely stable. It provides a situation where there is no fixed reference point and we can still objectively determine right from wrong. Its the thing you say cannot exist without god. Apply it to morality and you'll have the answer you don't want. :-)
We have physical verifications for quantitative values that meet a physical universal standard (IBWN). What do you use for qualitative values?
Its still not making sense. What do you mean by quantitative and qualitative values? Give examples if possible.
I answered your question. You charged God with the inability to communicate with humanity.
I absolutely did not. I was simply pointing out a god shouldn't need humans to interpret his words for other humans. I'm not interpreting or injecting meanings that aren't written into the passages on slavery - you are. I'm willing to accept that if the words of the Bible are from a God, it says what he meant for it to say. You seem to think it needs explanation because...what, God didn't foresee that people from 2021 would be reading it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Does a rationalist base their foundation of a truth claim on empirical data or experience?
I think you mean, "Does a rationalist *say* they base their foundation of a truth claim on empirical data?". Because everyone uses empirical data, logic, and reasoning as a default to operate in their daily lives....
You did not actually answer the question.
I've answered your question. If you believe there is a better answer, that's your argument to make rather than trying to get me to utter your conclusion with a loaded question.
You don't have to compare it to my position. A straightforward answer will suffice.
Comparing it to your position is reasonable. If you think logic and rational thinking is insufficient in some way, then you'll need something to replace it or make it better. Does your position replace or add to logic and reason? I submit "no" (for the reasons stated) and that seems to be a problem you want to push under the rug. If your views can't withstand the questions you lob at others...you should probably be silent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Isn't this what everyone's reasoning uses?No, it's not. Perhaps practically they do as they live their lives,
You say "no" and provide the exception...which applies to everyone. It sounds like a 'yes' to me...
To your point we all rely on circular reasoning of some sort, thats true #119Is this true? If so, what is the authority that you appeal to in your circular reasoning, however justified you think it may be?
I take it this IS your point?
It is simply a matter of practicality. Without some basic axioms, we would not be able to function in the world. It seems you are trying to shoehorn your beliefs in here, but what the 'Bible says is true and false' really isn't a necessary to function as evidenced by billions of people functioning without this presupposition.
[...]As long as you can convince yourself something is reasonable, you can accept it as true.
Irony. I love it. :-)
Created:
Okay, I grant that some chess rules changed [...]The question is how would something be wrong for everyone if there were no moral absolute, no final reference point or court of appeal?
'The question is how would moving a king like a queen be wrong if there were no chess absolute, no final reference point or court of appeal? ...oh wait, there is none of that in chess and we still know it is wrong according to the unfixed rules. The answer to your question is provided by the chess analogy you're torturing. ...poor little guy. :-p
[a] Quantitatively, yes. How do you do that qualitatively without God?[b] I'm asking for your objective qualitative reference point. You say there can be one without God. I ask what that is. Let's test its objectivity.
[a] What is this supposed to mean? Keep it short and sweet, please.
[b] What [a] said.
An all-knowing, all-powerful being is incapable of clearly communicating to humanity and needs his words for humans to be explained by humans?No, I argue that you are incapable of rightly interpreting His word, because of the noetic effect and your natural bias.
Either you're not human or you didn't grasp the question.... want to try again?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
No doubt, but I was hopeful there was some relevance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
"It seems rather that your subjective reasoning uses a combination of logic and empirical evidence. And this subjective reasoning is the final authority that you appeal to as the foundation for validating a truth claim."
Isn't this what everyone's reasoning uses? I'm really wondering where you're going...it doesn't seem to be toward the OP. Get to the point, please.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So, if you appeal to logic alone (the objective tool) without also appealing to empirical evidence, it can lead you to absurd conclusions.
You can't have it both ways. There is no absurd conclusion without comparing it to (a misrepresentation of) reality. On the other hand (as you've conceded) reality (empirical evidence) nullifies the paradox. Either way, I don't think this leads where you want it to go.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Are you using logic and reason synonymously? Because I am making a distinction between logic (an objective tool, including laws of logic) and reason (the subjective process by which we arrive at conclusions using logic and other means). You seem to be using the term logic to refer to both. Clarification would be helpful.
I've probably been sloppy with my language. I agree to your definitions.
Are you familiar with Zeno's dichotomy paradox? I am simply saying that using logic alone, the premise holds up. You need to appeal to some other form of reasoning to disprove it.
I think you're using 'logic' and 'reasoning' synonymously here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So is logic an infallible truth that has never been contradicted, or is it a versatile tool that can sometimes be paradoxical?
I choose C: none of the above. The laws of logic are, by every way we can measure, true. Not failing (so far) is not the same thing as being infallible. Logic is a versatile tool, but paradoxical? ...thats you trying to put words in my mouth. Speak for yourself. ;-)
You said previously, "To your point we all rely on circular reasoning of some sort, thats true..." as you went on to justify your version of circular reasoning while claiming mine is fallacious. I however disagree and think that my circular reasoning of appealing to the Bible as my final authority is completely reasonable. So how do we objectively determine who is right? We obviously wouldn't just appeal to a textbook to establish the validity of a claim...
There really isn't a comparison here. Logic isn't the basis for logic, but the Bible is being used to prop up the Bible.
It's not an analogy. I was referencing one of Zeno's paradoxes in which logic can be used to justify the claim you can never move from point A to point B. You and I both know that is ridiculous, but logic would tell us otherwise.
If you, for whatever reason, decide to move shorter and shorter distances (ad infinitum) while moving slower and slower velocities (ad infinitum), you won't reach your destination. That follows. In the real world we don't do that and arrive at our destinations. That follows. I don't see the problem...
Created: