Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
How would freewill feel differently than a post hoc self justification for my actions from my perspective?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
At the very least I experience the post hoc self justifications for my actions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
That I will be judged based upon my actions. What does it mean to you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Do you need physical evidence for free will?
Only if I am to accept that we have freewill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
In my mind I accept that I will be held accountable. You presented the hypothetical in which this was not the case not I.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
If no one knows of my actions or if no one cares to hold me accountable then I suppose hypothetically I would not be held accountable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I'm not sure what you mean since most people observable do want others held accountable for their actions. Do you mean hypothetically?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
That is correct they have no choice but to hold me accountable for my actions especially if those actions represent a danger to the public.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I will be held accountable for my actions by my fellow humans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Not if the will or dipsosition is immutable.
I don't see how that would change the fact that the standard was the subjective opinion of this "immutable wull" even if such a will had been demonstrated.
No, it is not moral to tell the truth if it gets an innocent person killed. You can remain honest without answering their demands
We are half way there. It is not by your own admission always moral to tell the truth. Now for the second part which you would most like to side step. Is it immoral to lie if it is the ONLY way to save someone from getting hurt or killed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I see no evidence of freewill and so I reject that claim but let's assume for a moment you are right why give us freewill and the capacity for deductive thought and then withhold all evidence of oneself and then punish those that use this freewill and deductive thought to determine that there is no logical reason to believe? This still sounds like the hypothetical god(s) in question is/are the real one(s) at fault here. If your god(s) want me to believe why not just contact me directly? Why send you, a flawed human with the same epistemological limits that I have, to try to convince me? Either god(s) don't care if I believe or god(s) do not know how to convince me. Neither sounds like a deity I would like to worship.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Who said anything about access to shotguns or police? You are are adding to the hypothetical my friends and that is not how a thought experiment works. You haven't answered the basic question you have side stepped so let's just boil this down to basics. Is it moral to tell the truth if it results in someone getting hurt or killed? Is it immoral to lie if it saves someone from being hurt or killed?
Filling in gaps in knowledge is desirable because it makes you smarter.
Not smarter just more knowledgeable. That is just a semantics distinction however and it doesn't matter the question is why is that desirable and is desirable the same thing as moral?
Moral wrongs are always a disconformity to a certain will or disposition
That sounds exactly like a subjective standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So now I am sick? I'm sorry but you have claimed that you do not believe in freewill and that everything happens according to some cosmic plan. If your god(s) wanted me to believe their first mistake was making me an atheist. Perhaps your god(s) are/is the sick one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Let us try a thought experiment. Let us say a man with a gun knocks on your door and says he is here to kill your best friend Gary (a kind but hypothetical person) Gary is in your kitchen. The man asks if ypu know where to find Gary. Should you be honest or lie?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
And often they do not. They lack empathy. Children are very self absorbed people.Children sometimes naturally act compassionately and honestly.
It allows us to accurately share how much we know
Yes but why is this desirable?
strengthens our moral character.
What constitutes moral character may be largely subjective. This is a qualified statement not a quantifiable one. Moral character cannot be measured in the way one measures the temperature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
If that knowledge were innate we would not have to teach children to be compassionate or honest. I think you mean that they are learned behaviors. As for knowledge leading to perfection you would have to be clearer about what you mean by perfection. Now let's try that again. Let's focus on just one of these qualities. Why should we be honest?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
And without necessarily disagreeing why should we minimize harm?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Without necessarily disagreeing why should we do those things?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
And what is an example of something that one should do irrespective of anyone's input?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So your goal is to determine objectively what is true or false.
Nope. That is a foolish goal. My goal in this context is to believe in as many true things and as few false things as possible and to be able to admit it honestly when I don't know. Determining any objective truth is almost certainly beyond the scope of human epistemology.
Sin is to fall short, to miss the mark.
To fall short of What? To miss what mark?
It is evil to intentionally sin when you know it is wrong
And how does one make this determination? What standard are you using when claiming that something is "wrong"? If I think something is wrong and you disagree how do we determine which of us is correct if indeed either of us are?
I would suggest you go to an Orthodox Priest.
And what makes an orthodox priest an authority on the subject? Are they a better authority on the subject than a buhdists monk or the dudely lama (leader of the dudist movement)? If so how have you made this determination?
It is their job to answer these kind of questions.
Which does not necessitate them having the correct answers. You cpuld just as easilybsay thst it is the job pf a con man or cultbleader to answer these questions and it would not necessarily be untrue. Con men and cult leaders have both made very comfortable livings answering these questions questionably. Do you know who else's job it is to answer these questions? Philosophers and scientists. Of course the difference between an orthodox priest a con man or a cult leader and a philosopher or a scientist is that a philosopher or a scientist can admit they don't know without losing their livelihoods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I'm not sure, every time I think I am done and give up on it he draws me back in with his violation of epistemology. I keep thinking that if I can just find the right words I can... well actually at this point I'm not sure what I'm hoping for out of this conversation.Jesus, how much longer can the Ultimate Reality horse be beaten.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
In that case we are not qualified to make true statements about reality. Don't you see how this position is self defeating? We as humans can only make true statements about what we perceive (even if what we perceive is not real it is true that we perceive it) so if what we perceive is not real then we have no way of determining what is objectively true or false.If you honestly examine the reality you experience, you will find that reality isn't the way it looks to you.
Now I really must insist that you answer these questions.
What sins? What evil? Forgiven by whom? Repent of What?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
Im afraid that is a descision that must be made at the outset of the debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
@virtuoso
I don't really vote unless I am called upon as a judge for the debate but I disagree with the first and second premises. I'm not sure objective morality exists and even if it does I'm not certain how that points to any god(s) necessarily existing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
he realizes at this point to deny God or justify his lack of belief in God, he cannot outright say he is certain that reality exists.
Again I do not care what you call reality. You may call it god or Sam the eagle or Conan the barbarian. It is your claims about reality/truth/god that I find unsupportable. In fact if the reality that I perceive is real then your claims are even less likely to be true. If I admit that reality as I observe it is real then I must also admit that I don't observe anything the likes of which you are claiming.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Again you are talking about a linguistic truth. All the "objective truth" you have so far mentioned is qualified truth not quantified.
Created:
Posted in:
What sins? What evil? Forgiven by whom? Repent of What? Until you answer these questions your above post is mostly gibberish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I used to be a hard skeptic and a chaos magician. I know more about where you are coming from than you realize.
You keep making references to magic. You understand that I do not believe in magic? I'm not certain why you continue misrepresenting me if you understand me.
Just a tiny bit of faith helps. You really can't go anywhere without it. It is a choice to believe something is possible.
I do not choose to believe anything. I simply believe what is observable true (with the understanding that even this may not be an accurate reflection of reality).
All sins are forgiven, but there is one sin that can't forgiven. The sin of not accepting that your sins can be forgiven. If you do not accept forgiveness, you cannot receive it. And what is a sin but to be off the mark?
What sins? Forgiven by whom? Off th mark? As in wrong? Why would we need forgiveness for that? It is part of the human condition. What is the consequence in practical terms of this forgiveness, that is does it have any observable physical effect on a person?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I don't know. Maybe. But that is the case with me. Beliefs are not a choice but a realization. That is why new opinions and information are just abput all that can change them and often not even that. You claim that the problem is bad language. I agree. Your language does not seem to have words for the concepts I am trying to communicate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
When I use those terms that is what I mean. This makes the statement that the two terms mean different things this is a definitional truth not an objective truth. We as human beings cannot know objective truth with complete certainty. If our perceptions reflect reality then there are certain things that seem to be true when tested repeatedly with the scientific method. Some things cannot be tested in this way and we can be even less certain of them. If we cannot test a hypothesis it is a bad hypothesis. We have no other universe to examine as a comparison so we cannot test any hypothesis that ours is fine tuned or created. The best you can say is that it is possible. The same can be said of the hypothesis that ours is not fine tuned. They are equally sensible. By this I mean not sensible at all. The only sensible position in the absence of sufficient evidence is I don't know. In any case if we were to accept that the universe is fine tuned this still does not tell us anything about the force(s) or entity(ies) that did this fine tuning or why. This justifies a belief in deism at best.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
An axiom is only a personally accepted truth which is different from an objective truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Most likely and almost certainly are the furthest I will go on any subject withou first qualifying my statement. I thought you knew that about me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I would accept that as an axiomIs something only rational to believe if it can be proven true?
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
It is human nature to seek knowledge. Truth is not subject to my convenience but if I do not accept that you are real (as evidenced but perceptions of you) then why bother having this conversation. That is what I mean when I say as a convenience. It is a convenience which allows us to have this discussion at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I don't kniw. Maybe. But it certainly seems like the things you claim to know are beyond human epistemology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I have said what I can without violating my epistemological limits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
You did not ask me to defeat the fine tuned argument you asked if it was more rational to believe in a creator or not. My contention that neither is rational because neither can be proven. If they are equally rational then your position is not more rational. The only sensible stance in the absence of conclusive evidence is this "I do not know".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
The problem with ypur argument is that we do not have any other universe to compare this one with. There is no way of knowing how likely the conditions in this universe are or whether a sort of life we are unfamiliar with might develop in a differently "fine tuned" universe. In the end this is a personal incredulity fallacy. You personally cannot conceive of any other answer so you have decided that yours is the only plausible one. This has historically speaking not lead to truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
There are things that can be known that you are not aware of being knowable
Ah the appeal to special knowledge fallacy. You really run the gamut for logical fallacies don't you. This has certainly been instructional in that sense. It has been most edifying to see all these fallacies being used first hand thank you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
I think you are confusing comes from nothing (no cause) with comes from nothing (no existece). I have only proposed the first idea not the second.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Are you sure the universe is fine tuned for life? Is there any reason not to think that the kind of life that developed was shaped by its environment rather than the environment being shaped to promote it? Cart before the horse sir.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Your attitude toward "race" is bad for your race which is human.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
I do not agree with your conclusion and even less with you proposed policy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I am unaware of any data that points to any such conciousness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
And how do we determine if a being that we cannot even observe has these qualities?
Created: