Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
Because the dictionary is not written by evangelists. You may personally take "mind" in the dictionary to include God's mind, but then you give the word meaning its authors did not intend.
I genuinely don't care what they think objective means, I go off of what the dictionary says objective means. Some words have multiple meanings in regards to a single philosophical topic, but in this reference I have already given the dictionary definition.
Objective - "Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual."
Worse, you are then claiming that morality does not stem from ANY mind! That is irrational on its face.
That's exactly why morality isn't objective, because it does stem from minds.... therefore it isn't objective.
OK, but still, since God is not a man, His rules would be objective to men in that those rules would not have been from any man or be able to be influenced by any man. This is a similar theory to outside investigators or independent councils.
You have repeated your point, and not addressed mine, yes, cool, the definition of mind does not exclude god, the definition of objective does not exclude god, you are excluding god on your own accord, not some logical necessity. That's cool, and only one definition of mind, where they include the word person, but the word person does not exclude god. You have no point here.
You are misunderstanding. I did not say God is not a mind, I said the dictionary definition of "objective" does not include God when it says "mind". So though God may also be a mind, it isn't a MAN's mind, and this qualifies as objective TO men.
What? No, I'm speaking what is objective in general, if you exclude god from the equation that is literally special pleading, a logical fallacy, you are the one who enjoys ascribing to logical thought, the word objective does not exclude god, it does not have to include god, the inclusivity is the literal definition which includes anything that has mental processes, god has these, therefore, they have a mind.
Then you must tell us what you think "objective" means.
I did... in my very first post.... and I also reput it here, but I'll put here here too.
You talk of philosophy and you don't know what "authority" means in moral philosophy? Law must have moral legitimacy. This is why you aren't obligated to obey some bloke who thinks you should. Or why a police officer can shoot a criminal when you legally cannot. Authority is what lends the law legitimacy.
Ehh no that is also not true, moral authority and moral legitimacy are not the same. Cops can be unjustified, and why is god the authority here? Because they claim to be one? Even if you were to posit that they could do give objective morality, there is literally nothing to stop god from lying to achieve their own benefit, and as they literally wrote the book, they did exactly that. What lends a morality legitimacy is a rationale, sound arguments, etcetera, not arbitrary authority.
I can't help what you're interested in. But I do not confine what is moral to what God demands. I say two things, first, that morality is nonsense without an objective, immutable, authoritative standard by which to measure morality by, and second, the only morality that is objective is that sourced in God, all others are subjective and therefore not morally binding on anyone but that person himself.
Then if you didn't believe in god you would go around murdering people? Or better yet, raping people? Would you start another holocaust? Steal and pillage? Or am I being, "to literal, we live in a society, of course, I wouldn't I just wouldn't see a problem with bad things!" Let's do something real quick, if you think x is only true is y is true, and y turns out to not be true, then x is also not true, you can't just say, "I want y to be true, therefore x is true." That's not how logic works. Also nope to your literal entire point, laws are often made like that, and they seem (generally we don't live in a purge) effective. As long as people agree on a standard, then we can go all day with subjective morality, maybe it'd make people more comfortable with morality that's objective, but claiming that its useless without some objective figure is just wrong, as humans we do share common goals. Such as living and attaining pleasure.
Interception: Depressed people are literally the exception if they have a condition, and depression isn't considered the norm human condition, clearly that isn't a sharing human goal, not to mention most depressed people still value these things, just an interception in case.
Theoretical arguments are helpful when we don't know whether the premises are true or not true. So we focus on the logical process, for example, Premise 1. "there is other intelligent life in the universe". Premise 2. "That life may not operate under the known laws of physics." Conclusion: "We may not be able to perceive it as life." This argument is sound.
No.. that argument is valid, you literally don't know what you're talking about. I will source my facts, do you need more? You are illogically placing a verb that has a clearly different meaning from what you're using it for in order to bring more legitimacy to your claims, which isn't logical, it's dishonest. They can be useful, but all theoretical arguments are useful for further comprehension of facts, or exploration of things not to be presented as truth, in order for the analogy to actually be effective it must have an actual sound basis.
"A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.
A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound."
"Sound: an argument is sound if and only if it is valid and contains only true premises.Unsound: an argument that is not sound."
Also, the soundness of an argument is not based on the truth of its premises, but on whether the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Sound arguments are not necessarily true arguments, though true arguments must necessarily be sound. We are trying to test the soundness of a theoretical argument because right now, we cannot determine its truthfulness. The logical process is important right now because unless we can get a sound argument, we will never arrive at a true argument.
NOOO, that is not what soundness means, that is what validity means, soundness is where the argument is both valid and true, all arguments that are sound are true, an argument is sound if and only if the argument is valid and true, otherwise its unsound.... does that sound familiar? Oh yeah, it's actual philosophic sources. You are speaking of a valid argument, and it is not useful if the impacts of that argument are necessitated on the truth of it, which it is.
A theoretical argument can be used just like a number equation where we put in x's and y's instead of numbers to test the soundness of the equation. Number equations are pure logical operations. So in a theoretical word argument, we insert premise concepts to test the soundness of the logic though we don't yet know if those premises are true. Theoretical scientists do this all the time. It is a valid logical exercise.
No, we use it to test the validity, except, and here's a big one here, we can't come to a useful conclusion without input for a variable, we use the numbers to solve the variables of an equation, so no, this doesn't work either. If you were to randomly insert variables into an equation you would get nowhere at all, you need enough information to actually solve for the variables. Yes, you can get use out of a purely hypothetical argument, however, it is not as useful nor necessary as a sound one, a proper sound one, which is one that is true.
We agree
Mmhm
These rules are objective TO MAN in that they are not sourced in man and cannot be affected by man. That is the definition of "objective" when used in morality.
From what? You? No, no it's not, you are positing that it should be limited that way, with no justification on your part. I have already given you my definition though you evidently missed it. Also, this really just seems like a fun little trick to remove all moral accountability on any god that may or may not exist, does that sound dishonest to you at all?
Not so. People tend to think that when the bible says God is all good, it means they themselves will think all God's actions are all good for them. Not so. When God allows a storm of disciplines a community, we may see it as "not good", but the goodness of God's behavior is not determined by how much man likes or profits from, that behavior.
god created that storm no? Or at least they put it into further action down the line? I don't care what the actual quality of the behavior right now, I am talking of the type of behavior being shown, objective or subjective, I don't know if you're responding to something else, but I can't be sure as you haven't quoted what you're talking about. Anywho, no, not according to god's subjective morality they don't judge themselves that way.
PART ! END
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
But the bible is not a necessary axiom, its quite arbitrary, of course I wouldn't accept it out of anything but what the bible says. If a comic book had on it's pages, "Everything in this book is real" and was intended by the author seriously, would you believe it? No, of course you wouldn't, now, I don't think the bible is like a comic book, just a more general analogy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
No, in order for something to be an axiom, it has to be contingently true, that if this isn't true a then we can't get anywhere. This applies to reality and logic, it does not apply to revelation, at least not any sort of revelation I know of
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Wrong. The bible does not need to be true in order to get anywhere, you do not have to use the bible to prove the bible wrong, this is a false equivalence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
No.... its an axiom you presume, and a proper one, unlike a lot of posited axioms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Well... I mean, you do have to use logic in order to even get to "logic is a fallacy" so....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I actually agree, people don't simple choose to be convinced of something, atheist or theist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Did you just? You! You Utanity ask that question? Hm.. I implore you to look into some of your past conversation with me... Not to mention that, "hate the sin not the sinner" would mean that this rule should be applied equally to every single sin, as in the bible god claims that all sins are the same, so if you feel justified in hating any person for any sin, then biblically speaking you should hate every person for there sin, or you should hate no one for their sins. This includes: People who commit genocide, rapists, abusers, slave owners, literally everyone because the bible also says that everyone falls short of the glory of god, and all that, so.....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes your argument could be logically valid, but you have to demonstrate its soundness before it would be true. Do you know what that entails?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
In the regard of using it to try to discount naturalism? No.
In actuality? Kinda.
I would define a mind as the product of the workings of the brain, such as a consciousness, "free will" in whatever fashion you look at it, gender, sexuality, etcetera. In that case of a mind, then yes it would exist, but I find that most people try to ascribe it supernatural or metaphysical in nature, whenever it is simply the product of a physical things, almost like mathematics in a way.
To be clear the actual definition of mind is: "A person's mental processes contrasted with physical action." or "The element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought" but the mental process is exactly what i was describing)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
If god is everything, literally eveything, (I am within god for example) then that means literally everything is god's play, and objective morality would have to be neccesary, I don't think god is everything if one were real, I don't really see that as a quality of a god, more of a universe. Now, could you ascribe that quality to a god? Yes, yes you absolutely could, but why? Whats your reasoning there? Why is god everything? Now, I would agree that god would usually be depicted outside of the universe, but not actually be in that universe. I suppose I could be misinterpreting what you're saying and you could simply say everything is contained within a literal "extra" universe of god? But if that uog had a mind, the objective thing would still apply
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Look at the dictionary definition again. The word "mind" there refers to man's mind. God is not a man. Morality from God's mind is objective of man's mind, and morality can only come from a mind. It does not simply pop into existence.
Will do,
Mind - "A person's mental processes contrasted with physical action."
Person - "Each of the three modes of being of God, namely the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost, who together constitute the Trinity."
All that definition does is give you food for thought, clearly, the word "person" is a broad stroke for an individual or agent. I, at least, feel justified in using them as synonyms. This shows that limiting what a mind is to mortal agents is arbitrary, why, does the mind just not refer to god in this case? A mind in philosophy is more often thought of as an agent and that was the perspective I posited this.
A truly objective morality will have three qualities...1. It will not have come from the mind of men - Be objective2. It will be immutable - Be unchanging3. It will be authoritative - Be legitimate
Why does it stop at man? Again this seems arbitrary, the mind applies to god as well, and there are multiple ways to prove that. The second premise is especially fun, considering the bible, not presuming you're using the bible however, I would typically agree. But I don't think any sort of morality can be objective, so... Authoritative isn't required, just that the law be true morally as well as factually. If you were to confine what is moral to only what a god demands, then I would not be interested in morality.
Before getting into the debate, I must say something about theoretical arguments. Logic can be used to validate the soundness of an argument without having to present physical proof. In an argument, for example, on whether or not men can live on Venus, we need not prove that men can go there first, the logic that Venus is too hot for human life holds even if we cannot get there.
Ignoring that other sentence, because it's kind of a transition, I'm presuming you were talking about god's but ya know, anywho. I disagree, logic can be used to measure arguments validness whether that argument is sound or not depends on both the logical necessity of the argument and the truth of each premise. In other words, you cannot get to a sound argument without each premise being true.
That is logical 101, but I do suppose it would only be a proper attack if your opponent claimed their argument to be sound, if they said it was valid then you would be correct, as that is only attesting to the fact that these premises logically lead to one another, or, as the IEP says, "A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false"
I will treat your argument as a valid one, until the soundness has been demonstrated.
Likewise, the logic of God's qualities holds even if we cannot prove God exists. (I did NOT say we could not) This is a theoretical argument. Logic holds. Could I defeat Godzilla with a BB gun? No one needs to prove Godzilla exists for the logic to hold that given the qualities of Godzilla, I could not defeat him with a BB gun.
The obviousness of this statement is obvious. Hence my response to Sum1huge's post, that I was assuming that a god existed and that we knew that god had given us x rule or such. That way this conversation could happen. I admire your want for a logical conversation (as much as I also come to metaphorical blows with you.)
This is done all the time in science. Einstein found out that time slows down the closer one approaches the speed of light without any physical proof. A logical argument remains logical even if it's premises don't exist but the conclusion follows. So the argument,"If Maria is in the house, and the house is in Germany, then Maria is in Germany"Is logically sound even if no house or girl named maria exists. The argument is not about Maria or the house, it is about the logic.
Again, I agree, and have known this. However, if we were say, arguing about the ramifications of following god's supposed moral code, or if someone were trying to argue that it is the best to follow or something along the lines, the basis for it would have to be questioned. So no, simply stating, "god doesn't exist" or "objective moral values don't exist" isn't a proper rebuttal. Now mentioned either to show that this line of reasoning takes some assumptions to get to? Fair play, as long as your arguments are not based on these statements.
Now, if God existed with the qualities the bible says He has, would it be logically sound to conclude that his moral laws would be objective TO MEN? Yes, for they would satisfy the 3 necessities given above.
No, you haven't proven why: A) These rules should be applied to objective morality (Now I kinda agree with your threesome up there, but there is one I disagree with), B) That these are the specific rules applied (hence you shoving man into there for some reason.) Third, the bible claim that god is all-good, so everything they do is good, which would be subjective as it literally, "Everything I have ever done is good,"
Now, people argue over if this means at a surface level or if that means that this is moral in the long run? I'd say take it as it says, "Everything." Well in that case then, it would be contradictory. As he murders his own son, that son was perfect, no? Then that son had literally no guilt for what the definition would need for it to be killing justly. One could argue that god logically needed to use the loophole of his son in order to demand his own thirst for justice, isn't god also "merciful" which is literally the pausing of justice?
There's also the fact that they are supposedly omnipotent and can do anything. Oh... well then... that god should be able to satisfy their justice without demanding life no? One could argue that jesus and god are the same entitiy and therefore that wasn't really killing someone else, is suicide not also condemned in the bible? My point is god clearly has a bias towards themselves in that book, which I suppose is fair if you're the creator of the universe, however it would also mean that moral system wildly contradictory.
So for right now, whether men are correctly transmitting the laws of God, or whether there actually is a God, the logic holds. The logic that if there was a God with these qualities, those laws would be objective and authoritative holds. That argument is sound.
I'm legitimately confused, what argument? Have i missed it? So far you have said that we cannot use x or y factor to evaluate this argument, and on the face I agree, however, I must have missed the actual argument. What qualities specifically? Why are they attributable to god? Why is the bible the word of a god? (I can presume that one just for the sake of having any grounding), how does these qualities lead to an objective god?
NOTE: Saying there is no God is not an attack on the soundness of the argument! Saying that even if God existed, His laws would not be authoritative and objective TO MEN would be an attack in the argument. The Christian is not trying to convince you right now that God exists, but that the logical soundness of his argument does not need God to exist.
Again, I know, however, if that christian is trying to posit that this moral system is superior to another, then the actual basis comes into question. See if we were to use that argument than a christian shouldn't care whether I'm assuming a single principle for my moral system, as them assuming a god would be equivalent (not quite as assuming a god is good deal bigger but whatevers), but if the christian is saying that other people should prefer it, or use it, then yes, you should absolutely question whether that god exists. Now, again again, should your entire argument or even your main argument be based on that? No, clearly not.
My point here is that yes I agree you shouldn't just say, "God doesn't exist your argument go brrr" And I haven't done that here, now, might I have done that in P... I can seriously not remember his name, the topic where it was atheist morals vs theistic ones, yes I have, has it been my only argument? No.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest.That function and process, dictates that objectivity is a consequence of subjectivity and therefore the two are actually one and the same.
Let's grant that you're right that objectivity is a consequence of subjectivity (which it isn't, just to be clear), I can punch the shit out of someone and harm them, am I then harm? Let's say you have a mathematical formula and discover the x-intercept, is the x-intercept and the formula the same? The answer seems to be no. That would then lead you to logically conclude that just because something is a consequence of something else that does not logically compute that they are the same.
Take this syllogism:
P1: X is a consequence of Y
P2: When something is a consequent they are equivalent.
Con: Therefore X = Y
Premise 2 is flawed, in this case, it's your underlying assumption.
I would therefore further suggest, that subjectively creating abstract principles, is only ever what it is.
Precisely why I posit morality is subjective.
in addition... I would therefore also suggest, that repeating fact verbatim, is an altogether separate data processing exercise.
The problem of trying to use fact as morality is that you have no frame of reference, is humanity immoral because they harm the earth? Is the universe immoral because it harms humans?
To conclude...I would suggest, that "objective" and "subjective" are a misleading dichotomy, and therefore unnecessary concerns....And that, the production of all thoughts and consequent output is a wholly internal data processing function, irrespective of the quality of both the internal data base and any eventual data output.
No, they are a proper dichotomy, they are clearly separate things. That second sentence is irrelevant, I suppose you could say that an opinion could be true from a mind, and that could be a proper objective thought, but the definition's purpose it to evaluate whether something would exist if x mind did not the ultimate tester of construct versus nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
And why is Collin's more credible than Oxford? No that's not much at all, the only distinction is the source, and mine is oxford yours is collins, so no, I don't find your case compelling. In order to find something objective in morality, you must connect a fact to a moral, why is this fact moral or immoral, and your definitions just don't work in that context, which is the one we are talking of.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm going off of the dictionary definition of objective, what are you going off? Opinion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
No... because it doesn't fit the definition, that's still subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Well, that's the thing, I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the theists here, even though there there hasn't been evidence they can even relate these laws, my question isn't really Divine theory, or at least not in that way, just: you had a group of rules, all of these rules were given by god, and you know that for a fact. Would those rules be objective necessarily?
I'm aware that's assuming a couple things, but its just for the sake of the question.
(Also do note theists that you have to assume these things (a gods existence, that you are accurately receiving their instructions, and that you taking the correct interpretation of those rules, before you can even get to whether its objective or subjective.)
Created:
Posted in:
I won't even try to stay out of the discourse this time, this is a question that I am very interested to see the different answers to. For me, something which is objective is true independent of any minds, therefore, if there was an objective morality we should be able to reach it WITHOUT god, so the lack of any objective standards seem to point out that IF a god existed what that god would be telling us wouldn't be objective.
Mind you, this is just a quick thought and not my entire argument, but its the basis of my reasoning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
That quote isn't even mine..... also nowhere, because none of those things is a thing, "Non-stamps" could be anything from books to cats, literally anything that isn't a stamp. Its a analogy to explain that Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Some may, some don't, when did you drop out of primary? I'm still in high school currently (taking college classes as I may be)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I think its meant to be strange in the lable-istic it is. Non-stamp collectors don't have a specific label afterall.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Busy with classes so I'll give more in depth rebuttals later, but these are literally more assertions, also, begging the question to that definition of god, also not a very good one, as the fallacies are readily apparent, again, I'll bite into it later.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Its very interesting, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but where would you propose we get the funding from? Just general taxes or do you have a specific plan for it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I'm a liberal and don't use that kind of reasoning, so no, that doesn't apply. That's a generalization without evidence, try again.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Again, notice all the lack of surety from the first link. The evidence has always been very debatable and doubtful. As I mentioned before, these theories are not plausible given the agency or lack of it - chance happenstance operating to organize and sustain particular conditions.
What? Do you only check the very first link? Second again, this suffers from the exact same problem as your last one, you can't actually debunk them, because you have no idea how to, and because you haven't shown any evidence to support your claims. Also, again cherry-picking, notice the little ellipses, "folks" that's part of the quote that he left out, not to mention you haven't proven that a mind is needed to create life, this is more appeals to ignorance, appeals to emotions, and assumptions.
Again, I could list all the presuppositions built into the theory and its beginning presuppositions, like life originating from a common ancestor. That is not demonstratable - we never witness it nor can we repeat it, but we can speculate about what might have happened by presupposing the commonality presupposes the common ancestor rather than a shared environment. We never witness macro-evolution, just micro, which Christianity supports. I could also show how the idea of macro-evolution caught on and how scientists ran with the Darwinian model despite the anomalies and presuppositions.
That is very demonstratable and has been demonstrated time and time again, in fact, some of the sources go into it! (If you don't know which one, then you haven't read them, as you probably didn't, because you have consistently only tried attacking the first source, but you don't even do that here), not to mention you don't even attempt to ever point out presumptions in sources just that they are "speculative" which flatly wrong. You don't need to reconstruct things to find evidence of it, you can find signs of that thing, such as CBR being evidence of the big bang, we don't need to see it directly happen to prove that it did, that's you, once again, not understanding science. You have literally presented no evidence here, and have no debunked a single source its just you claiming things.
Created:
First, you cut off the rest of my thought. Why did you not include it?Not allowing or not possible.
Because it's A) An informal colloquial definition, and B) Redundant
Fact or presupposition? You were not there. I agree that one event, the Flood, almost destroyed all life on earth. How does that event disprove the earth was made for life? Where else in the universe do you find the conditions NECESSARY for life? If the earth was not life-permitting, why is there life on it? The fact is that the earth is life-permitting, and you do find life here and so far nowhere else that we know of in the universe. Furthermore, if the conditions were not right, the universe would not even be here. If the natural laws were not precise, the universe would not exist. Regarding thermodynamics, why has it not died a heat death?As for the theory of everything, "God is the reason" is reasonable, for a reason is a mindful process.
I did include that part, I broke it up into sections to question your individual claims, but suuure, let's do this instead. Again, fact, "1A thing that is known or proved to be true" Not a presupposition, that would be you with god. Again, you haven't proven a global flood, so let's not even go there, and the fact that a PERFECT, OMNIPOTENT, OMNIPRESENT, etc, etc being made this world to support life, ANY mistakes or flaws should cause room to doubt, and the massive fuck up that is this earth, which is barely life-supporting because so many one-things, could kill almost everything, is even further evidence that it was not created to support life and merely, happens to.
Also, that last sentence, makes literally no sense, what do you mean?
""God is the reason" is reasonable," That is circular reasoning if If I've ever seen it, and "For a reason is a mindful process" also doesn't explain anything, that's you not typing a rebuttal properly.
At least you are revealing your bias! You believe that the universe and life in it are most likely not designed because of mass extinction. Thus, there is no intent behind either the universe of life, IYO. So that brings to mind how a universe that has no intention to it is sustainable? Why do things happen the way they do? For you no reason, as you give link after link full of reasons. The irony of it all. The universe would be here by chance happenstance unless you have another solution.I think your view is vastly more unreasonable than anything you can think of to disqualify the biblical account.
Wrong, that's one reason why I don't think it was designed, and that wasn't a bias, I came to that conclusion from sorting through the literal libraries of evidence to support my case, the other major reason is that there has been no demonstrated intent behind the universe, there has been no demonstrated god either, so no that is not the only reason, but you haven't even proven that! You haven't even disproven my point, all you've done is gish gallop away, content with your position that proves literally nothing, as you have not given any opposing evidence. No, this is you appealing to ignorance, a logical fallacy, this is dismissed because as another said, you are the king of fallacies.
I don't care if you "think" my view is unreasonable, I want you to prove it's unreasonable which you haven't done at all.
The purpose of the Bible is not to display scientific knowledge but a knowledge of why we, as humans exist (God chose to create us for a purpose - to chose whether or not to know Him), and what went wrong with the universe (sin, thus God imposed curses on the earth and humanity for a PURPOSE - we are only given so much time to either know and enjoy God or reject Him. We observe the consequences of our actions [in Adam], yet we try to explain them away with other reasons).
Okay... I hate to tell you this but.... cool story bro, what does that prove? Either we have an inherent purpose or we don't I say there hasn't been one demonstration and that more than likely we don't. You say there is and haven't proven it. Prove it. That's a neat story and everything, maybe it might have inspired some hope in me once upon a time, but now it doesn't as appeals to emotions don't move me unless your my boyfriend, and you don't seem to be him. I don't reject god because one hasn't been demonstrated to exist to reject, I am convinced that god most likely doesn't exist, boom, that's all it is. There is no rejection, that implies that he exists fundamentally and you haven't proven that.
Your universe, devoid of God, has no purpose, no meaning, yet you constantly search for it and find it. Why would that be? Are you just creating a fool's paradise (imagining meaning from the meaningless)? I say you are unless God exists.
You can call it whatever you want, no one has an objective meaning, or purpose, what makes it meaningful to us as humans is that we determine that purpose, "I say" isn't a logical argument, make one of those and maybe we can talk, until then, you seem to be spouting your beliefs and parsing them as facts, which, you haven't proven.
We can deduce why God created the vastness of space from the Bible. He did it to display His glory and power. So we know, provided God exists and has revealed (which is the biblical claim, and it is reasonable).
No, first, you would have to prove that god exists, second, you would have to prove that god could do that, third, you would have to prove that god did do that, fourth, you would have to prove that bible is accurate. Also, no, you claiming something isn't reasonable, it's you making an assertion, that isn't a logical argument, this is you asserting them and ad hoc declaring them to be the truth.
Not more doubtful than disbelief in God. That unbelief is unreasonable. Then you have no justification for the way things are other than sh_t happens. You can't account for the uniformity of nature - why things remain constant by chance happenstance. You have no justification for morality because morality is a mindful thing, and in a universe devoid of mind, how does life arise. Our life is meaningless in the big picture of such a universe. Why are you making it meaningful? You are not being consistent with your starting point; I am. There is no overall purpose for you in doing so. You are a tiny, insignificant human being in a vast expanse of meaninglessness once you discount God. You are trying to find meaning and reason in the meaningless. Go figure. It sounds insane to me, and people have gradually gone insane once they jettisoned God. Life without God is ultimately dead-end meaningless.
Wrong on literally all accounts, lets break this down.
Not more doubtful than disbelief in God.
Tu quoque, even if you had a point here, it doesn't prove that god exists. 1 fallacy.
That unbelief is unreasonable
Let's see your reasoning for that claim.
Then you have no justification for the way things are other than sh_t happens
Yes... because that's the only thing we can demonstrate happening, why is this unreasonable? Were you hoping your crude framing of what reality is would scare me off? Things happen, we don't know exactly what started the first thing, but you claiming "god" isn't proof either, its you asserting something. You are drawing a conclusion from reasoning that doesn't logically follow, Non sequitur. 2 Fallacies.
You can't account for the uniformity of nature - why things remain constant by chance happenstance.
The why doesn't really matter all that much, just that it did happen, you would have to prove that someone caused it... this isn't a point against me, this is another appeal to ignorance, 3 fallacies.
You have no justification for morality because morality is a mindful thing, and in a universe devoid of mind, how does life arise. Our life is meaningless in the big picture of such a universe. Why are you making it meaningful?
Not objective morality, but neither does a god... because a god would be making these laws.... from a mind... so it's still subjective... but also, because it's useful? I'm a human you're a human, regardless of whether it's "objectively" linked, doesn't much matter, as we can derive definite benefits for everyone from them. The justification doesn't matter in this particular instance because we can almost do that, we can base it on objective values and link them to morality, is it a bit arbitrary? Yes, is it less so than your god going, "Might makes right!" Yes. Gods of the gap's fallacy much? 4 fallacies.
and in a universe devoid of mind, how does life arise.
Ah, sorry I almost missed the assumption you snuck in there. Prove that life has to come from the mind, mind and the brain are synonymous, until proven otherwise, we should not assume that they are different, as Occam's Razor would apply. This isn't really a fallacy, more of a presumption on your part with no evidence. Overall, prove that life requires a mind to exist.
You are not being consistent with your starting point; I am. There is no overall purpose for you in doing so. You are a tiny, insignificant human being in a vast expanse of meaninglessness once you discount God. You are trying to find meaning and reason in the meaningless
No, I'm doing what's called, "being realistic", yes it's true that factually speaking there is no meaning in the universe, but the negative connotation is from your own biases, it's a neutral term by definition. We can make our own purpose just fine, and if we apply it, it is much more reasonable to follow that than your pathetic take. Question, if you suddenly stopped believing in god would you kill yourself? Because if that's the case then you just keep on believing, but that's not how the real world actually works, go figure.
Go figure. It sounds insane to me, and people have gradually gone insane once they jettisoned God. Life without God is ultimately dead-end meaningless.
From an objective universal scale? Sure. Are you the universe? No, we're both humans, so to us it very much isn't meaningless. Also that's a bald assertion, scientists and people in wealthier, happier countries are typically happier, more educated, better off, and here's a database of graphs, figures, and such proving my point:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1h4kSiruDDY5qPXPc18b96OotSEwGp8Vy Again, no fallacy, just you being factually incorrect.
Yet, what do you find? You discover that there are laws, fixed certainties that you can make predictions and do science with. You can express these laws you discover are operating in precise, concise formulas. You find things that you assess as beautiful and meaningful for life (the anthropic principle), and your mind can only fathom the earth as necessary in sustaining life in the vastness of the universe. The comprehensibility of the universe is beyond your mind, yet you make countless speculations on it that are not necessary for its existence. You can't tell me why it exists. Without God, there is no reason.
No... they aren't... some of them are sure, but not all of them, also.... so what? That's why there are so many laws, the formulas aren't how they function, that's how we can express them in their best form, your "neat" is your biases. These aren't "speculations" these are facts, facts that you refuse to accept because then there wouldn't be any reasons to believe beyond "hope". Even without these, you have on proof for the god you speculate to have created anything, before you can postulate that something created something else, you first have to prove that it exists, which you haven't.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
All such evidence relies on how you interpret the data. You come to the data from a particular worldview. Thus, you look for evidence that supports such a worldview. You rely on the supposition the present is the key to interpreting the past because that is what we are left with. Many of these models work on a specific worldview that depends on anomalies that do become too many. Once that happens, as witnessed many times in our distant past's scientific inquiry, the model or paradigm is thrown out, and a better one is employed. If there is no better model, the current one with all its anomalies is continued.
Wrong! You don't base the evidence on ANY presuppositions. The only two presuppositions you have to necessarily assume to get anywhere is that our reality is true, and that logic is real, nothing else is necessary. The model that is "current" is the model that has the most explanatory power, the one that is the best, we work towards that best explanation, and this is currently it.
What specifically do you want me to glean from these links? I could provide you with hundreds of links that question such views, and we could then get into a link war where nothing is stated, and hundreds of pages have to be read without a point being identified. I read your first and second links and noticed some of the language used is opinionated, speculative, not factual.
You took two sources and cherry-picked specific things that would align with your version of events, these things did most likely occur, you provide no discredit besides cherry-picking and not understanding how science works. Science isn't a collection of facts, its the observation of reality, and the scientific method is a process for finding the best and most verified version of that.
In fact, neither of these are speculative, they are saying, "We thought this, we were wrong, and here's why" that's not speculative, you should change your mind based ont he most rational and reasonable explanation, your entire point isn't' even a good one, its just one that doesn't understand how basic proof works, as I have already pointed out. Link your sources, they have to actually be credible to be worth any merit, conspiracy nuts aren't credible.
Both links are highly speculative, folks. Where are the facts? You have scientists reconstructing what they believe are models of the past while working solely from the present. They don't observe the original conditions. They recreate them on lots of suppositions. When the anomalies pile up to a critical point, the models are rejected in favour of what scientists consider better models. And you put all your faith in these models and these scientists because you think they are better than the biblical mode
There are like 6 sources! Did you ignore them? No? You just found cherry-picked sentences that taken out of context can be construed to fit your narrative? Hmm... it almost reminds me of how you quote the bible, not the point however, they reconstruct what were the past models to the best anyone can demonstrate, if you have better demonstrations, go ahead, demonstrate with empirical data and logically sound reasoning what you think the past was like because you have no scientific authority, reconstructing things is how we have made a vast leap in medical progress, technology etcetera, again, a basic misunderstanding of science.
A catastrophic event - millions of fossils buried in rock layers throughout the earth.Are there millions, billions, of fossils in rock layers throughout the earth?Is a catastrophic event or events necessary for this to happen?I will wait until you answer those two questions before replying.
No no no, you have to prove that this was caused by one global flood, that's not evidence of anything, you've thrown out a bunch of points without linking anything else.
Edit: Not linking as in sourcing, linking as in link a fact to a conclusion logically
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
? Wheres your verification that your certified to do or make such questions? Wheres your evidence that this is a valid form of even proper IQ? Wheres your evidence of any of this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
"Things are nuanced, more than 'yes or no' 'black or white', things can be partially right or partially wrong. Your absolutes are (most of the time) bullshit" - Progressivism
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Regardless if we reach the same conclusions, you are a mess of logical fallacies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
That's not how that works.... the economic policy that use for things such as public schooling is socialistic in nature, regardless if the people who wrote them thought that they were or weren't.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
That's fair enough, I'll try that one out for sure
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Exactly, and we would put this Razor to the idea of a god, ie:
Can we demonstrate the supposed axiomatic nature of a god?
Can we demonstrate that there is one?
Can we demonstrate that that god made anything?
Can we demonstrate that that god is using metaphysical material?
Can we demonstrate that this god is not inactive?
Can we demonstrate that this god influenced anything in holy books?
Can we demonstrate that this god would be useful in moral affairs?
Can we demonstrate that this god would have objective morality?
Can we demonstrate that this god would be able to actually explain any phenomena?
Those are some of the base assumptions that this worldview make, and I wonder if any god could actually fulfill these and make them not assumptions while also existing.
Those are some of the base assumptions that this worldview make, and I wonder if any god could actually fulfill these and make them not assumptions while also existing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Except no, there is no context aside from, "Its a puzzle not a sequence" that literally says nothing, as I said, abstract intelligence.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I agree with a lot, but the best way to put Occam's Razor is, "Do not needlessly multiply entities" or put in a more useful framing, "One should prefer the explanation with the least amount of assumptions."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
You can reach very bad conclusions from just capitalism, it's the mixed economic structure that America has that prevents that. The "Free-est market" would have no restrictions on businesses, they could do whatever they wanted so long as they were making profit. If that doesn't alarm you, it very much should.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yeah... that's kind of what evolution is..... And no they aren't similar biological processes at all, they have similar functions, that doesn't mean the they are the same. Get that assumption out of your head. Humans have the evolutionary advantage of being smart, and having thumbs of which to use tools, but mostly the first part, with both of these features together humans were able to become the top of the food chain. Whether we stay there is irrelevant to my point, and the rest is nothing more than postulation or joking I'm too tired to deal with
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I've already explained that, we don't need them, evolution doesn't seek to make the "BEST SPECIES OF ALL TIME" thats not what it is, its the species most fit for their environment, humans can adapt to environments using tools better than other species can adapt using extra sensory materials, not to mention, lion's whiskers and echo location are not the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Hmm gay? I'm not sure what you mean
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Yes, with the basis of evolution, as my sources demonstrate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I'll take that into consideration, thank you!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
That thing can make improper choices however, something which is not flawed is something which has literally no flaws, the ability to do the wrong thing is a flaw
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Honestly, the best way I've found isn't to debate, not at all. Usually, I've found that these people need correction, and if close to criminal behavior because of an extreme ideology, street epistemology, and the Socratic method. De-radicalization is a dangerous dangerous thing that can very easily backfire and should be left to either professionals, people very close to them, or former radicals themselves, otherwise, the attempt may push them further into that toxic belief system.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
No. That's not even a point, do lions have echo location? We have a more developed frontal cortex and are thus able to form a coherent thought, strategy, and tools, and that's what gives us such an evolutionary advantage. That's weak at best.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
English units of measure
Was what you claimed they were, I said, "English translations" stop.
For the other thing, prove it, cite something. Because unless otherwise demonstrated everything you've said in your second paragraph is assertions
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Wasn't a sequence I was pointing out, I as talking about factors of 20, regardless as I said if this is a "puzzle" then it requires context, as all puzzles do, without that context it's a matter of guessing.
Created: