Total posts: 1,014
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
You haven't demonstrated anything that needs to be designed. Or how that means something like the universe is designed
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
In no case it does, because that's a false analogy fallacy
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
"... And an orchestra needs an orchestrator."
Simply because two things share one quality, like being in harmony, doesn't mean they share another quality, like being orchestrated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
@seldiora
I think he may have quit the site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
It's not about moral action being right or wrong, it's about the motive of moral action. For example, there is, to my knowledge, no motive for stealing that isn't geared towards the satisfaction of some preference. No motive for stealing can ever tell one, without qualification, what is right. Therefore, motives for stealing will always be immoral, or at best, amoral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The wrongness of an action is context-independent, because it's A Priori knowledge, acquired from pure inquiry. Ethical judgements always have empirical and A Priori inputs. The wrongness of an act is the a priori principle applied to a situation. Therefore, the wrongness isn't context dependent. So yes, many motives of moral action can be wrong 100% of the time
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Congrats, it's all downhill from here.
Created:
Posted in:
- Married my sweetheart forever, shortly after we graduated hs
- Got the president's award back in the 2nd grade lol
- I was spelling bee champ once, got a huge trophy for it, so it feels like an achievement.
- Won a couple of online debates.
Created:
-->
@Athias
.
My only contention would be that a "mixed" economy is essentially socialism. In practice, there aren't any "true" private entities. Citizens and their properties and resources are subject to regulations of the State.
.
Well pure socialism and pure capitalism are poles on the left to right aspect of the political spectrum. So an economy can have socialist aspects, but remain mostly capitalist. So it's not completely accurate to say that an economy is socialist because it entails some regulations. That really just means that it is pulled a little left.
Created:
-->
@Athias
The systems of market regulators determine socialist and capitalist policies in different markets. So as pure extremes they are juxtaposed, but in practice systems display aspects of each idea. Pretty much everything is a mixed economy in practice
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
If it's a forfeit then the next challenger should have to start the tower over
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aletheakatharos
Went the atheist route bc, after growing up biblical literalist fundamentalist Christian and almost going to college for preaching, I started really analyzing my faith. Really the final nail in the coffin for me was the anthropocentrism being destroyed by the sheer vastness of the Universe. Since then though I haven't found any argument for God that didn't have serious flaws.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Capitalism vs socialism is definitely a spectrum. And people's stance towards each will vary depending on the issue. (Like, should healthcare be socialized or privatized? What about roads?) But a totality of either on every single issue is patent extremism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
The principle of universalizability isn't about expecting people to accept a maxim of moral action. It's about reasoning if ones maxim for moral action contradicts itself when raised to the level of universal moral law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
I'm not sure what you're saying, so I'm gonna go with, "yes."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I haven't read your new abortion debate yet but I would say so yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
@Jarrett_Ludolph
@Theweakeredge
In the first grade, we would put germ-x in our paper cuts to see who was the toughest.
Would you rather have to bathe in a tub of cockroaches or a tub of wolf spiders?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
@Theweakeredge
A friend of mine ate a ball of shower drain hair once for $50.
Would you rather have to take a paper cut on the eyeball or five between your toes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
@Theweakeredge
Would you rather have to eat an entire shower drain hair taco, or an entire droolsicle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Shoot em.
Would you rather have to fight 10 angry geese or 100 pillsbury doughboys?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Since space is expanding uniformly in all directions, both everywhere and nowhere is the center. Or me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lit
How do you know the brain isn't simply processing the information received from the sense organs?
Created:
-->
@Barney
Well that's cool man. So, would you consider like, stephen hawking surviving lou gehrig's disease for so long a miracle?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Divine Command Theory necessarily predicates its morals on the dictates of men claiming to speak for God. So while you can interpret the law in an objective way, "God" is not giving those laws.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Sense experience isn't necessarily objective reality.
Experience isn't always observation of facts and events.
Schizophrenic people suffer from hallucinations all the time, those aren't objective, nor particularly reasonable (In more ways than one). It hasn't been demonstrated that anyone's spirituality is founded on reason.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
What I'm getting at is, how do you determine what is organized? How is the concept of "organized" not left up to individual interpretation?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I said on a similar topic a while ago - that I take the view that the philosophical argument is my favorite. Not necessarily a good one or the best - but it is my favourite.It is the agnostic. An agnostic is "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God." I think this beautiful statement is a perfect definition of self-contradiction. In other words, it philosophically proves God exists. It does not prove who God is or what his or her name is - but it is brilliant.I also think that the existence of evil is one of the best arguments for the existence of God. Without God, there is no evil or understanding of evil.
Would you care share the philosophical argument? There are a number of them, so do you mean that the argument of gods existence as a moral standard for determining evil is your favorite philosophical argument?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
The same way energy differs from matter. They do have different properties, but both are eternal, but exist as either organized [created] or disorganized [chaos].
Well that's not a very clear distinction. And calling them organized and disorganized is arbitrary.
A better understanding of organized [created] as opposed to disorganized [chaos] might be to take a collection of shattered glass shards, toss them, and have them arrange as a complete, one piece sheet of organized dimension without a piece out of place, and even visually apparent as a single piece of glass and not a correctly arranged puzzle of separate pieces.
See, this illustrates my point very well; since the decision to consider the shards landing in the shape of a glass sheet as "organized" is an arbitrary decision. Organized and disorganized are arbitrary because their parameters are determined by the organizer.
That's not the flow of my logic. I assume me [with some valid evidence applied], and conclude God [concluded by the same evidence]
Well the problem is that God doesn't derive from your evidence that you exist.
.
Third to last paragraph of my #7:"So, even though we are first created as mortal beings that will die, the design is perfect and is ultimately perfected in reality."
I misunderstood what you had meant by "consequences." I thought you had meant the occurrence of natural phenomena. However, It seems like it goes back to if a spirit exists or not. Which, I'm not totally convinced that this use of the word energy is appropriate for such a discussion about a spirit, unless that spirit is ultimately physical.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
This is interesting. It seems like you assume God, and reason from there though.
You mentioned that the spirit is organized energy. One problem with this is that the concepts of "organized" and "disorganized" are arbitrary. Suppose I throw a rock at a sheet of glass, and the pieces land exactly the way I want them to, I would consider that the most organized result possible. Since E=mc^2 means that matter than energy are interchangeable how do you differentiate the spirit from the body?
Finally, maybe I missed it, but you didn't justify the assertion that the consequences are not accidental. So if you could please clarify, I would appreciate it.
Created:
-->
@Barney
Well that's interesting. How do you determine what constitutes a miracle?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Yeah, well I'm hoping there'll be one I haven't heard.
Created:
I'm curious if there's one I haven't heard yet. And....go!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lit
But that doesn't mean that men's spirituality is founded on reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Lol, I was just poking fun at ya because I knew you'd comment on that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Well that's pretty gay. Socratic method has worked somewhat, but honestly they just retreat into circular reasoning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
You're just claiming that processes that would otherwise be naturally occuring, are being directed, simply because you find it absurd that "...inanimate forces and inanimate materials could begin to produce anything, let alone processes that have specific results." Yet, this feeling is just a baseless assertion. Electricity is a naturally occurring phenomenon, and it is superfluous to assume that an intelligence guides the electrons along the lattice., simply because humans use electricity to power things with intent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Natural Processes =/= Intelligent design nor intention.
Nothing you've said so far indicates that there is a designer besides your assertion that processes correlate to intelligence. This feels like an allusion to the watchmaker argument. Also, if the designer needs natural processes to design things, then why assume a designer? The designer in your examples remains superfluous to otherwise working models of reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Life has been an above average plateau of pleasantry with the occasional revine for me to tumble blindly into; wbu?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
MACVSOG and ethics. Also, how do you convince someone whos conflict averse, but becoming dangerously ideologically extreme, that they need to tone it back a little?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Do you disagree with George Box's claim that all models are wrong, but some are useful?
It's a way of remembering that models are incomplete. That doesn't make their individual data points wrong.
I think what you mean to say is intelligent design is the same as biblical creationism insofar as......
Nope, as far as I'm aware, any form of creationism posits the "designer" aspect of Intelligent Design.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Well the variation is perfectly known, 0-16% reflection. I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding "apply".
Created: