Total posts: 30
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
What exactly is your point here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Interesting. The reason I would disagree is that I never seen someone like that myself
I appreciate your input.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
They accept the principal, and they then believe it's wrong to take someone's stuff. they just don't care about morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
The 'good reason' requirement is that the only good reason are other's human rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Unless you mean we all value the same items, which I don't agree we do.
I say we value the same core items yes. For example:
'We cannot violate someone's human rights without really good reason'
I don't believe there are any examples of people believing any differently then the items I just stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I think that you'll agree that the concept of human rights are intuitive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I believe it evokes the same theory.
The Nazis believes humans have rights, but that Jews aren't human, so they believe in the same theory as I.
The Aztecs believe the theory, because they believe the human has rights, but they everyone will die if the human is not sacrificed, so they have to protect the tribes rights.
There certainly is genuine moral disagreement because people genuinely disagree on moral principles and the rights they imply. Some people even deny moral principle and appeal directly to power be it democratic
I guess I'll like you to provide a concrete example.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
So do you believe everyone believes the same principles, just enforces then differently?
I could say everyone agrees on the same moral principles. What do you think of that?
Created:
Posted in:
I'll attempt to defend that there are NO genuine moral disagreements.
I'll attempt to defend that we all agree with the following principle:
We cannot violate someone's human rights without really good reason
Any reason would appeal to other's human rights.
So.... Is there any counterexamples?
One possible one are Nazis, they believed we could violate the human rights of Jews. However, this disargeement is about reality, not ethics. The Nazis and I disagree not on the principal above, but one whether Jews are people. So there's no moral disagreement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Are you saying they don't? I wouldn't really have a proof that the mind really does interact with matter, other then that seems to be the case in everyone's experience. (Or at least mine) in my experience, and most people's they think they're thoughts cause actions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CoolApe
Just to clear things up, my post is an objection to dualism. I'm not supporting it.
Created:
Posted in:
The interaction problem is a supposed problem for Dualism, the view of the mind that humans have two parts, an immaterial mind and the body
I will state it as it follows:
1-The mind and body are two separate substances, and have no shared properties
2-two substances need one shared property to interact
3-the mind and body cannot interact
However, the mind and body do clearly act. Whether you are a materialistic, Idealist or whatever, you most likely belief that your thoughts cause your actions. You need to drop either one or two.
Two can be supported by the fact it has wide confirmation: a hammer and a nail have the property of being physical, and ideas that interact with each other have the property of being ideas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
Can you provide sources for the mind controlled toys, and the telepathy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Agreed. I thought people were supposed to be more inclusive nowadays.
Created:
Posted in:
Do you have any evidence/arguments that would prove that humans have souls/immaterial minds?
Evidence against the immaterial part of the mind is Phineas Gage [1].
Popular reports of pre-accident Gage often depict him as a hardworking, pleasant man prior to the accident. Post-accident, these reports describe him as a changed man, suggesting that the injury had transformed him into a surly, aggressive alcoholic who was unable to hold down a job.
Damage to the Brain = damage to the mind, therefore mind is not separate from the brain.
[1]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
That's really not what I'm saying.
Now could evolution be wrong? Sure, until further evidence, I accept evolution.
However, a Infinite being's justications are only truly knowable if one is omniscient, until you are, you cannot say whether a being such as a 'God' would have justications.
Now, you could just parody what I said in paragraph 2, however you have no evidence for the omniscient being's justications unless you are omniscient.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No, I’m saying that if one has to appeal to God’s omniscience then their argument is clearly not valid.
Can you explain why, it seems you have asserted this.
Also, just so you know (again) I'm not defending the Bible nor an idea of hell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Correct. We would need evidence for a God. What I'm also saying is that the problem of evil wouldn't be a good argument against a Deistic God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I'm saying that since there's a ridiculous intelligence gap between us and God we logical cannot criticize him. It would be like a new chess player telling a Grand Master that he made a bad move.
That saying says that evil things are sometimes done for good reasons which is not exactly what I'm getting at. My point is that we have no idea whether God has good justications for his actions, we have to be indifferent about whether he does.
That saying says that evil things are sometimes done for good reasons which is not exactly what I'm getting at. My point is that we have no idea whether God has good justications for his actions, we have to be indifferent about whether he does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
I don't seem to follow. Skeptical Theism is considered a legitimate response in the philosophy of religion see here:
Sure philosophers have problems with it, but none of them are the ones brought up on this forum.
Can you elaborate a bit?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
All analogies brake down at some point. But can you answer the question.
(I myself would say that probably no, because the intelligence gap is so big, I don't think I could actually criticize the Grand Master)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Firstly, I like to say I believe in rational disagreement, and I never called you irrational.
Secondly, you bring up a point of someone's behavior. Here's an analogy: you are a new chess player, and a Grand Master makes a move you think is bad. Do you conclude that he made a bad move?
Secondly, you bring up a point of someone's behavior. Here's an analogy: you are a new chess player, and a Grand Master makes a move you think is bad. Do you conclude that he made a bad move?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Correct, but this claim states that we have no positive evidence against God. Whether God exists is another question. I'm still not sure whether anything someone would call God exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Calling something absurd doesn't really make it that way. Are you saying we can know the mind of a literal God?, If so, you must be omniscient by definition.
Also, not out here to defend the bible, for the record, I'm not a Christian, don't know why you would assume I'm one.
The point is that in the end were left with one of two logical possibilities; God does not exist, or God is a moral monster.
To me, this seems to not have been justified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The point is that we cannot know the mind of God. It's quite literally logical impossible.
Yes I've heard the arguments, and even if a fawn dies in a forest fire, that doesn't mean that there is unnecessary evil, we don't understand everything about morality, if we did, we wouldn't see moral progress.
Yes I've heard the arguments, and even if a fawn dies in a forest fire, that doesn't mean that there is unnecessary evil, we don't understand everything about morality, if we did, we wouldn't see moral progress.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Not from my experience of it. [1]We cannot tell whether God is sociopathic or good, it is out of our domain of understanding. I could just parody your argument against you, and say you have no reason to believe God isn't good.
[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skeptical-theism/
Created:
Posted in:
The problem of evil is an argument against the existence of a God. Therefore, it sets out to prove a God does not exist.
Skeptical theism, as a response to the problem of evil, states that we cannot see God's intentions and therefore cannot claim the evil in the world disproves God. At the very most, we may be agnostic towards the idea that God has good justifications for allowing evil.
Created: