Total posts: 3,052
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
In the hands of theists free will is how to let the gods off the hook. If something's good the gods get the credit; if it's bad it's our fault.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Morality is simply a classification of behaviors into acceptable and unacceptable.
Whenever i write 'simply' , 'just' or 'only' I usually go back and delete it because things are seldom simple!
I am imagining a scale, or a line, with 'very immoral' over on the left and 'very moral' on the right. Murder (or 'unjustified killing') is very near the left end, giving to charity somewhere on the right and telling 'white lies' near the middle. But what is it that determines where they are on the scale?
Surely 'morality' can't be a measure of 'morality'! Velocity is a measure of change of position per unit time. Mass is a measure of inertia/gravitational potential. But what is morality a measure of?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
But people are always saying things like 'murder is immoral'. That seems a natural and correct thing to say, but you appear to outlaw it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't see how to use that to assign a measure of morality to, say murder or giving to charity. The former is 'very immoral' (under usual circumstances), the latter is 'very moral' (unner usual circumstances) - but what are those estimates of the morality of murder and charity measures of?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Hopefully we can discover a well-defined and quantifiable interpretation of morality. We can avoid category error by interpretting moraluty as a measure of something, just as velocity and mass are measures of something. The question is 'What is morality a measure of?'
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
But why do you feel it’s reasonable to conclude that it is possible that such constants could hold any other value?
Well, for example the value of planck's constant is 6.62607004 × 10-34 m2 kg / s. I don't think it is unreasonable to wonder why it is 'just right' to create atoms with the right balance of properties to produce complex molecules and then even higher level structures on top of molecules. We could easily have a universe filled with uncombined protons and neutrons (ie no nuclei or atoms at all).
I suppose you could say that intelligence and consciousness could arise in a universe without atoms, but that strikes me as just being over-loyal to non-theism! I'm happy to concede there is no knock-down argument against deistic fine tuning - yet. But this is a hard and difficult area - we've only known there was a big bang for a few decades and that the rate of expansion is increasing ('dark energy') since 1998. it's flattering that theists think we should have it all worked out already, but we still have a bit of work to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Look at it this way: for there to be fine tuning, it must be true that physical constants are not truly constant, (there’s a whole lot of other issues too), how have you determined that these physical constants are not really constant, what is your proof? How do you know it’s true?chang
I disagree. We can test for fine-tuning by theoretically adusting a value and computing the consequences. When that is done the outcome is somethig like atoms don't form, or they are unstable or you only get radiation... I suggest that an alternative universe that supported life could not be slightly different from this one - it would have to be very different with its own set of finely co-ordinated constants.
It is my view that the apparent fine tuning of the universe is real, but it's not due to the it being fine-tuned by a deity. The best explanation is the AP, but like most people with a 'scientific bent' I'm not really happy leaving it at that; I'd like something a bit more 'positive' but given the state of knowledge in 2018 I don't think we can do any better.
Is it rational to believe that fine-tuning has an explanation that doesn't involve a deity when I don't know what it is, let alone i can't prove it? Frankly, I don't care! I have given up pretending I'm Spock. I have hunches and preferences. I try to indentify and examine them and I think I am prepared to change my position if I discover a reason to. It's just that I haven't found one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Nice - i'll try to remember that argument.
But re the cat analogy, the probelm is that someone put a lot more effort into looking for Jimmy's cat than many atheists put into finding God!
I think we athesits reject god unconconsciously (which is not the same as irrationally!) and then rationalise what we 'feel'. I am a great beliver that we use our cognition less and our gut-instincts more than we care to admit!
Created:
Posted in:
Not quite because information, math, logic etc are not properties. One can ask how much velocity an electron posesses but not how much math or logic it has. That is to say that the 'way that' velocity exists is not the same way that, say, mathematics exists. That probably needs its own thread, but for now I'd be happy to introduce a-existence (abstract existence).I agree that morality exists abstractly rather than concretely. Other things exist in the same manner, like information, math, logic, truth, etc.
I am developing the idea that morality p-exists but is often taken to a-exist (or may be even to c-exists by some people!)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
you wrote:
1 - "When I asked for an example of something that is not true I was referring to things that can be proven true or false."
That is the same as
2 - "You want something not true that can be proven to be be true or false?"
Suppose Z is not true but can be proven true or false.
Z is an example of what you asked for by 1) or 2).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
And what is an example of something that one should do irrespective of anyone's input?
I don't know what 'irrespective of anyone's input' means, but as it's 'irrespective' we can ignore it and just say;
And what is an example of something that one should do?
Its hard to come up with something that one should do under all and every circumstance and situation. The closest I can get is 'miminise harm'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
@3RU7AL
A typical sentence is 'the morality of murder' which resembles 'the velocity of an electron' gramatically. Velocity isn't made of atoms or energy either, but its not imaginary - so I don't want to say 'velocity' doesn't exist, but it clearly doesn't exist in the 'concrete' way a table or chair does.
I would say velocity and morality are 'properties'. Unlike 'objects' such as tables and chairs, properties do not have independent 'concrete existence' - a property depends on being 'of' an object to 'exist' at all.
That is objects and properties 'exist', but they 'exist' in different ways that probably should have different words. I suggest that when there is ambiguity we use o-exist and p-exist as approrpriate.
My position is that morality has p-existence, not o-existence.
Further, properties relate to a quantity. For example velocity relates to how far something moves in space per unit time. Mass (another property) realates how much inertia an object has.
if the above makes sense then 'morality' relates to a quantity - but what of? i'm not sure....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
As this is a thread about debating rather than truth I won't post any more here. I look forward to a thread on 'What is truth?' in the Philosophy forum sometime soon!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
There is a 'coherence' view of truth and a 'correspondence' view of truth.
Created:
Posted in:
Is there any such thing as morality? It is clear that if morality is a 'thing' it is not a thing made of atoms. Nor is it made of 'energy' because if it was it would be possible to use morality to heat water. Nor can morality be located anywhere in space.
We talk about morality a lot on DA... but what - if anything - are we talking about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Until and unless human nature changes radically there will be unwanted pregnancies. i think its plain that terminating an unwanted pregnancyvery near the beginning is not a 'big deal' but terminating a very late pregnancy is a very big deal.
The problem is the huge gray area in between. I don't see how there can be an objective point where terminating a pregnancy becomes unacceptable. Of course on can say 'when the notochord is functional' is an objective point but there is no objective reason to use that as the divding line and not any other criterion.
Clearly what we need to do is encourage women with unwanted pregnancies ot abort them as early as possible. Other things we have to decide is what to do if an abortion occurs after any legal cut-off point. Jail? Fine? Social/psychiatric support? And if an unwanted baby is born do we force the mother to look after it or do we take it away for adoption?
Rather than the abstract morality - which is endlessly debatable- what needs discussing is what we do in the real-world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Now of course there are versions of Christianity that are pure 'gordon gecko'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
I'm sure its fun for those that like it - like amateur dramatics or dressing up as a klingon. I'm not interseted in debating for its own sake. i am into bouncing ideas around - sadly that happens about 0.1% of the time even in the forums.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not to establish the truth of a proposition, then. That's what PG and skeps naively assumed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
Are votes for who is right or who makes the best case? In a formal debate a good debater should win 'night is day' against a bad debater.
It seems to me formal debating is a game for people who want to be shysters and con-men when they grow up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Jesus was - allegedly - the son of an ordinary carpenter, not of a priest or prince. I don't know about you but i'd be hard pressed to saying definite about my ancestors more tha 2 or three generations back and with the Hebrews we are talking about a barely literate society with limited record keeping capacity who had suffered generations of tribal wars, exile andoccupation by foreigners.But you have simply and for the sake of being contrary, overlooked the fact that we are NOT talking of the general population, we are talking of ROYALTY and the High Priesthood of which there are records.
imo both nativity stories in the bible are fictitious and the pedigrees especially so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I think it is quite likely that the Christian attitude to wealth softened as a result of the promised new order not being quite as imminent as supposed!
In Luke 6 verses 20-23 praise poverty and 24-26 condemns riches.
20 Looking at his disciples, he said:
“Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
21 Blessed are you who hunger now,
for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now,
for you will laugh.
22 Blessed are you when people hate you,
when they exclude you and insult you
and reject your name as evil,
because of the Son of Man.
24 “But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
25 Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep.
26 Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you,
for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.
I think Christianity may have started out very ascetic and un-materialist but softened somewhat fairly quickly.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I take the pedigrees with a large pinch of salt. Are they in the gospels because they are true or were they made up to legitimate Jesus' credentials?
Impossble to say, but if pushed I'd say it was probably the latter - I doubt the hebrew kept reliable, meticulous birth records for the general population over hundreds of years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Another 'meh' episode went by on Sunday... I wonder if we will ever get another 'blink' or 'empty child'...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
I think the basis of the debate is flawed.
I would suggest that 'morality' resembles 'free will' and 'colour' in that it seems like they exist but on deeper analysis they disappear. That is to say the premise of the debate is flawed because morality does not exist - it only appears to exist.
What exists is an instictive faulty in human brains to estimate the upside and downside of options. If we estimate something to be more up than down we get the subective feeling it is 'good' or 'right', and vice versa.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
You want something not true that can be proven to be be true or false?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dk-McDan
He's the sort you thought was already dead, like Kirk Douglas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
obviously the hope was to avoid the voting going purely on party lines. If the judges are known to be fair there is no need to demand they justify themselves. Also I don't think they felt it would be the end of the world for PG or skeps if they lost.. it is clear to outsiders that some people take formal debating and their ELO/leader board bragging rights far, far more seriously than a casual posters might imagine!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
PGA and skeps wanted to debate a particular issue they felt strongly about in a troll-free environment. They weren't in the least concened with their ELO or ranking. It was very much a one-off thing for them.
That is very different from people who debate because they like to debate, build up their ELO and top the leader board.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
But stronn, the way the universe is means that life exists for sure only in a thin layer around one planet in eight around our sun. If things were even slightly different there could well be no life at all anywhere. Even if ours is not the only possible universe that can support life I'd say that there are far more possible 'dead' universes that 'living' universes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
Everything is slower compared to god.
Prove it.
(I've always wanted to say that!)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
What is the intended pupose of formal debating? is it to prove the truth of a proposition, or to pratice rhetorical skills, or a 'pissing contest' or what?
I think some people just want a 'troll free' environment to disuss issues seriously but to others debating is a comptititive sport, like conkers.
AFAICT debates on DART don't affect policy or have any 'IRL' consequences. If you identify why there are debates at all the best way to implement them might become obvious. I suspect different people debate for different reasons so making up 'one size fits all' rules is infeasible.
So - why do people want formal debating in the first place?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
The sun isn't god. It only appears during the daytime when it's not dark anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
As you say, it's a bit 'meh'. It's not awful but its not exactly a 'must watch' either.
i've be watching star trek ToS... 50 years on that still works.
Created:
Posted in:
But what if the 'something' is 'lauren is prettier than ingrid'? According to G it is either true or false and not subject to interpretation.It IS either true or false...
Ok, so which one is it? True or false?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
My point is that truth is not subjective. Something is either true or it is false. Truth is not subject to interpretation.
But what if the 'something' is 'lauren is prettier than ingrid'? According to G it is either true or false and not subject to interpretation.
Here is another one - is it true or false: 'Infinity is even'.
is this true or false: "it will rain tomorrow".
Did I already say philosophy was obtuse nitpicking? (that is true, btw)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
FST is an objective measure of the 'genetic distance' between populations. The FST between widely separated human populations (Germans and Polynesians, say) is as great or greater than the FST between many zoological subspecies. I think that is mildly interesting,but perhaps not that surprising. I am not much good at distinguishing between subspecies of giraffes; I wonder if all humans look the same to giraffes.
If that is all AnalSpec was saying I'd say he had a valid point, but in post #34 he wrote:
For example, a race with an average low I.Q. doesn't belong in high I.Q. professions, such as law or university research.
What can one say? What on earth does the average of a person's race have to do with what professions should be open to them? Note: not their personal genetic merits; their average of the race. The racist doesn't see individuals - they only see faceless representives of a race.
It seems clear that AS is trying to smuggle racism in by the back door by feigning academic detachment and objectivity. I am gratified that it doesn't seem to be fooling too many people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
My standard for rational belief is whether the weight of the evidence is for or against.
But unless the evidence constitutes an actual proof you get the problem of how much weight to give either side.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
What is his original claim?Nice save! But we know what you intended. Its relatively true, but his original claim remains true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Can't be, because 'race' is not well defined. To see that I suggest you try to answer the simple question 'how many human races are there?'. Whatever number you pick there will be plenty of authorities who will give a different one.Race is an easily measurable, real quality.
How many races depends on the criteria choosen - it is in that sense subjective; you can get any number you want by choosing the right criteria.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
I don't know who that was. The factoid that "blondes are prettier" is not an absolute truth does not mean there are no absolute truths. The OP asked for an example of a non-absolute truth, not a proof nothing is absolutely true.Well, someone was claiming that because some men prefer blondes, there is no absolute truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I think the writers have got the balance between 'social comment' and 'escapism' wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
When I said "There is a difference" I was quoting G. I am not actually sure what the terms 'absolute truth' and 'universal truth' refer to.
Created:
Posted in:
You said "Actually, I'm looking for an example of something that is not based on absolute truth. I bet no one can give me an example."
Now you say
"Perhaps you are confusing absolute truth with universal truth. There is a difference."
So there are 'absolute truths' and 'universal truths'. Well - there you are then! What you're looking for is an example of a universal truth. There is a difference.
Created:
Posted in:
Aphoristically, consumerism is when people 'live to eat' rather than 'eat to live', with 'eating' intended figuratively.
Created:
Posted in:
There is a 10-over a side competion going on in the UAE.
Can cricket get any shorter? I quite like 5 day test matches that end in a tame draw....
Created:
Posted in:
Accoring to the theory, the relevant neural circuit operates below the level of consciousness. That is to say the circuit 'does its thing' and works out its recommendation and passes that recommendation to conciousness without also passing on how it reached its conclusion.
To experience that happening, consider your reaction to rape. You don't have to think about rape to know it is bad - that response to rape comes straight from the neural circuit. You can subsequently rationalise that response, but generally we don't bother and sometimes it is actually quite difficult to rationalise and we have to fall back on saying things like 'its obvious rape is bad'.
you don't believe in evolution, but if you did you would appreciate that after billions of years brains would all tend to be wired up in a way that the is close to optimal for the benefit species, but exceptions and outliers will always be present. Slight differences in the balance between selfishness and group advantage will produce individuals with different modes of behaviour and different moral judgements of the behavious of others
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
If you hadn't given yourself away by writing that some races should be excluded from professions such as research I might be willing to consider you as less of a lowlife. As it is you protestations ring very hollow.
Created: