Total posts: 3,052
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
It's all bs of course, but it fits together logically. He knows how to construct an argument.
I tend to agree. I think that if you grant the assumptions made the argument goes through - the problem is spotting the hidden assumptions!
I'd say "But the Unmoved Mover, as the source of all change," is an instance. The assumption is that the natural, default state is stasis. But you don't need anything to extra to make the world change. With our crude, unaided senses it can seem that nothing much goes on without an external agent. A glass of water on a table just sits there. But come back in a week and the water will have evaporated away. An 'inert' block of metal is a maeltrom of sub-atomic activity. Nothing is truly static.
Change and motion are the defaults, not stasis. Aristotle belived a steady force was needed to sustain motion because in common eperience if you stop pushing on something it stops. There were no ice rinks in ancient Athens for him to skate on!
Created:
Posted in:
How can I tell what is right and what is wrong? What is the measuring tool of such value statements?And moreover, by what measure are you going to use to determine whether my believe is reasonable or not?
How can I tell what is right and what is wrong?
You don't need to know how - you can tell right from wrong already!
You can tell squares from circles but you don't know how - it's basically 'circles look like circles and squares look like squares'. Your brain is wired-up to tell shapes apart and your brain is wired up to tell good and bad apart, or more accuratey wired up to judge things as being somewhere on a good-bad/right-wrong scale.
What is the measuring tool of such value statements?
i think you are asking what tool is used to determine what is good and what is bad. Well, it's not really a tool. judging thing as good or bad is a function of how you brain is wired up. Most brains are wired up to judge mugging an old lady to as a bad thing; if you have a brain wired differently you are a danger to society.
what measure are you going to use to determine whether my moral judgement belief is reasonable or not?
Note I'm answering out of the original context.
I have implied moral judgement is instinctual, that it is unconscious and outside our control. And so it is. You cannot change your opinion on capital punishment by will power alone. But what we can do is use the rational part of our brains to check, confirm or override our intinct. Being disguted by homosexuality is not a choice - refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
@3RU7AL
If you live in texas, you welcome strangers from Oregon 1500 miles away and turn guns on strangers from Chihuahua 10 miles away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Interesting you've got G, e, pi and c all in there... you're on safe ground with e and pi, but sticking your neck out on G and c...
Would you consider 'true' to be a universal constant?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The questions give me a framework... I'm giving it serious consideration. It's not a 5 minute job though!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Socialism, coming to a theatre near you!
One of the most beautiful sights in nature! The point being it is produced by each bird obeying the same simple, fixed rule. The complexity that can arise from the simple is too rarely appreciated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Many go through a 'neitzsche phase' - mine was 30 years ago and i haven't read him since!
But I think the quote is about how Plato, Christians and modern intellectuals have all 'fetishised' truth.
Neitzsche thinks they were all wrong - truth is a lie we agree on.
"To be truthful means to employ the usual metaphors. Thus, to express it morally, this is the duty to lie according to a fixed convention, to lie with the herd and in a manner binding upon everyone…"
If that view of truth defines a nihilist then i'm not a nihilist - no matter how many times you call me one!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
You'll have to buy my book, if ever I write one!
When I can put something together i'll let you know. But that you won't accept my answers is a given, isn't it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The murmuration of starlings is deterministic.Are we mechanical systems that are determined?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
if you use nietzsche as your authority on what nihilism is,beware that he counted Christianity as nihilism. According to nietzche you, mopac, are an arch nihilist.
Nietzche did not advocate nihilism - rather he saw nihilism as a pervasive corrosive force with many faces (including religion) that was sapping mankind's vitality. Nihilism for nietzsche was something to be opposed and overcome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
True, I can't be certain. But I think the priests would encourage the plebs to think they held the keys to knowledge and weren't just making stuff up. Their power depended on being believed. I think any skeptical Hebrew would have kept his doubts to himself. Doubt would be unpatriotic as well as blaspheous and could prove fatal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
According to Psalms, it's fool, not idiot.I don't believe that any gods exist.
Twit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
You can't say a story isn't about good and bad if the point is to address "If God good, why life bad?"
I can!
Different senses of good and bad are involved. 'If god morally good, why life terrible?'
'A bad apple' uses bad in two ways depending on whether it is literally a piece of decaying fruit or metaphorically an immoral individual.
i meant the story isn't primarily about morality but is about the daily grind. The only moral lesson is 'obey or else'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Can anyone explain to me why some people think leaving it up to chance and letting God decide what happens are the same thing.
Probably not, but I think some people think they aren't the same because you can pray to God but you can't pray to chance. I presume that is thecase with the parents in this case - the BBC article says "They have a deep, profound and simple faith. They believe only in the power of prayer."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
Any correctness in my previous post was purely accidental!Correct
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
A misunderstanding of how the word 'opinion' works in the English language. One of us is convinced that it is only possible to have opinions on subjective matters such as whether a piece of metal is pretty or the color blue is a pleasant color. It's a conversation that should be moved away from here, hence the [declined] debate challenge in post 38.
Oh. in that case i believe my opinion is that i believe that I believe opinions are subjective beliefs that people with opinions believe they believe, er, subjectively.
Of course, that's just my opinion - you don't have to believe it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I know what you mean by THE Church!
I reckon no Christian church can get close to what Jesus taught unless it junks Paul and all the theological mumbo jumbo that has overgrown a very simple message. The essence is not john 3:16; it's James 1:27.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
@Discipulus_Didicit
What is the argument over, exactly?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
@n8nrgmi
N8nrgmi is right in that once saved always saved is not biblical.
It's not that simple! john 10:27-28 reads
"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand."
i am not saying those verses support osas, but some Baptists say they do. So whether it is biblical or not is relative; it depends who you ask.
Created:
Posted in:
N8nrgmi is right in that once saved always saved is not biblical.
It's not that simple! john 10:27-28 reads
"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand."
i am not saying that supports osas, but the Baptists do. So whether it is biblical or not is relative; it depends who you ask.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
1. What am I, [ontology]2. Why am I here, [philosophical]3. Where do I come from, [metaphysics]4. How do I know, [epistemology]5. What difference does it make [axiology]6. What happens to me when I die [destiny].
I reckon I know the answers to most of those! The hard question is 'What do I do?'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I agree that a lot of people find strength and solace in religion. In my view it's a placebo, but placebos often work.
Religion also has its downsides - what more is there to say?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Then we have to learn how to do without 'absolute truth'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
how are you making a meaningful distinction, by saying there's being saved and not sinning on one hand, and being saved and losing your salvation on the other?
There is no practical difference. It is theological hair-splitting, but hair-splitting is what theologists like to do!
The point is that osas is not a licence to sin without consequences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
The goal of any religious is to have faith, enough to at least have a decent, happy and fulfulling life.
That doesn't explain 9-11 or a lot of other things such as wearing hairshirts and living on top of poles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
@bsh1
@Vader
@oromagi
I think banned members spend the time on DDO!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
osas is often misunderstood as a licence to sin.
The real meaning is that if you are truly saved you will not sin. That is if someone thinks they are saved and subsequently sins it only shows they were not saved in the first place. That is very slightly different from the idea that you can be saved and lose your saved status by sinning subsequenly but it is 'functionally equivalent'.
The calvinist version is that your fate was set at conception and it doesn't matter if you sin or live as a saint - it won't affect your destiny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
So you believe your religion is right because you created it yourself.
Who did you get to check you hadn't made any mistakes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
"trust and confidence in someone or something"
Nonethess, the defining aspect of faith is that it doesn't derive from ordinary experience. You can have plain old 'trust and confidence' in a bullet proof vest after it's been tested. But it needs faith to rely on it having received only a ressurance from God it will work.
I like to call faith 'belief beyond the evidence' rather than without evidence. Evidence can suggest something is possibly or probably true; faith then raises it to certainty.
Created:
Posted in:
Why do you believe your religion is right?
Because otherwise it wouldn't be my religion, would it? Duh.
Created:
Posted in:
The girl's parents said her fate should be left in the hands of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
100 years ago people were fighting a war using chlorine gas to kill each other in the most horrible way and children with rickets worked in factories. Things haven't really got worse - i wouldn't swap places with a Victorian.People in fact so uprooted from the source of these things that now we have atheists today who don't even realize that atheism is nihilism 100 years ago, people knew this.
Things are better now becuse of secular advances.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
No.. i'm happy to just do daniel - there's more than enough there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Using the Ptolemaic dating system? What makes you think it is accurate?
I didn't intend to imply there is any limit or constraint on what or how you present things. I'd just like to see the case laid out clearly so we all know the score.
Do you think that you do not want to believe despite the evidence because you do not want to be accountable to God but want to do your own thing? Do you think that your own mind holds the keys to life and you will discover them unaided by God?
Can we deal with that at later date?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality is God. Is this not something that can only be known through revelation?
I hate rhetorical questions! i'm guessing the answer is supposed to be 'no', that is to say 'the Ultimate Reality is god is something that can only be known through revelation'.
In yet other words, the UR is G is not someting you can see with eyes or infer with cold logic; it has to come as a revelation.
i suggest DD goldy and gus say how much they think that is nonsense and then call it a day 'cos nobody is going to change their mind now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Perhaps for clarity you could give some specific dates and events? for exaple 490 from 70AD is c. 420BC - why start counting from then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
And there is only 1 God, The Ultimate Reality. There is no god that is this.
If you concede that is an item of faith and not actually logically entailed we can all go home!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I've tried to break down your 'wall of text'.
Moses, God used him as a mediator and deliverer for His people Israel.
Jesus was the Mediator or a new covenant, the Deliverer of His people to the New Promised Land.
Moses was told to smear the blood of a lamb on the doorposts and lental,
Jesus blood was smeared on the upright and crossbeam of the cross.
Moses took the people of Israel into the wilderness where they sojourned for 40 years and because of unbelief most of that generation never entered the Promised Land. Those with unbelief perished in the wilderness during those forty years.
The same is true of those who did not trust in Jesus Christ. They met judgment at the end of the forty-year period when the change took place and the transition between the two covenants was complete.
Moses and the people crossed from bondage in Egypt (sin) to freedom when they crossed the Red Sea.
Jesus takes the believer on a spiritual journey from spiritual bondage and sin to freedom and the journey towards the promised land, the heavenly country.
God fed the people manna from heaven and Moses struck the "rock" which the NT attributes to Christ Jesus.
Jesus called Himself the true manna from heaven, the greater reality.
I think you have to be sympathetic to the type concept before hand! If not the parallels seem forced and artificial. Of course the gospel writers were familiar with the OT and its traditions. Of course they wanted to present jesus as following on in the line of the heroes of the past. You are seeing something close to miraculous - I am seeing deliberate propaganda. I very much doubt that will ever change!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
All I know is there is a strike-through on her username.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
I apologise.
But a lot of atheists do cite fear of death as the motivation for theism, just as a lot of theist think atheists are motivated by hedonism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
My conclusion is people see what they want to see.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I think poly suffers from an internet version of tourettes or something. I'd rather she was insulting me than strangers IRL.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I scarce need to say that if I asked brutal he'd say Jesus is nothing like Adam or Moses!Yet Jesus fits the type to a tee. He fits the Second Adam, the Second Moses, the type of the sacrificial system, the type of the feasts, the type of Deliverer, Priest, Prophet, King, Mediator. What is said of God in the OT is applied to Jesus in the NT. The Mosaic Covenant people make a covenant with God; the NT people covenant is made through Jesus and is a covenant in Him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
I think I'm right... but it's almost a pity because Feser builds such a lot on top of 1b its deflating that its all a waste of time. i suggest that next time you are ever in argument with a 'feserite' you don't let them get past any even slightly dubious premise!Once 1b ('Something must move them')is falsified the rest of the argument is rendered irrelevant.
You can prove anything and everything with false premise.
Created:
Posted in:
Spinoza covers this better.
it's not immediately apparent how that refutes Feser's argument!
Fundamentally Feser/Aquinas is based on Aristotelian physics and so their arguments' defects are the defects of Aristolelian physics, in particular that a force is required for sustained motion, which we now know to be false.
Once 1b ('Something must move them')is falsified the rest of the argument is rendered irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Phones work both ways, and i'm the one who's not retired and has a 15 hour schedule day to day with kids.
Agreed. I'll wait for god to pray to me. Then I'll ignore him to see how he likes it!
God: "O keithprosser who art in Croydon, Hallowed be thy name..."
KP: Get lost.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
You're not conceptualizing this enough
No! You are over conceptualising it.
It was not an age of sophisticated literary criticism. But perhaps they, like us, couldn't resist wondering about the world and the lights in the sky. If an ordinary Hebrew was to ask about such things their priests had to have an answer. Their power and status depended on their claim of such knowledge.
If people in the C21st can take Genesis literally we can be sure people 3000 years ago did. A tale of gods and magic would not seem fantastic or unlikely then; it would not be offered or received as an allegory or metaphor but as unvarnished truth.
Created: