Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
If anyone sees any structural problems with the argument or can provide some logically necessary counterfactual please present it.
Created:
Posted in:
The argument from selfishness for secular morality (or A.F.S.F.S.M.) goes as follows.
IF you are alive and IF you care to continue doing so THEN you ought to engage in self care.
IF self care is worthwhile and IF some other organism contributes to caring for you THEN you ought to care for them right back as part of that self care in as much as no man (ant/zebra/wild dog/bee) is an island.
IF whether or not some person(s) contribute to your care is an unknown quantity (such as all humans who engage in a modern global economy) THEN all things being equal you should care for and about them to insure that care in every possible case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you really think the corporations are going to want to keep people alive if they DON'T NEED WORKERS?
Do you really think the corporations are going to want to keep people alive if they are unemployed and CAN'T AFFORD TO BUY THEIR PRODUCT?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Just my two cents but to call it darwinism evolution at this point would be somewhat inaccurate. The theory has evolved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Evolution, in any form, has never been demonstrated. Some minor adaptation, which is itself unexplained especially by Darwinian evolution, has been observed. Usually much much quicker than expected by Darwinian evolution.
The process of evolution, which is observable in laboratory conditions up to and including speciation, as seperate from the theory of evolution is merely the sum total of small mutations over time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Orthinogenesis, like some god(s), does not contradict the fact that evolution observably takes place but would have to be demonstrated separately. Occum's Razer again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
According to wikipedia's article on the man Conway Morris, a Christian, holds to theistic views of biological evolution.
Or in other words he believes in evolution amd creation simultaneously. I am making no argument concerning a "creator" other than that none has been demonstrated but IF a creator COULD NOT EXIST in the same universe with evolution I may have some bad news for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Demonstrate that.
You have this backwards. It would need to be demonstrated that there was more to it. Occum's Razer my dear. The solution that makes the fewest assumptions.
I see plenty of evidence for creation over natural selection/darwinism.Like for instance, the fact that it is impossible to "accidentally" develop DNA in the time span of 13.7 billion years. I assume you have read up on this, so I won't provide links unless you ask, and it will take some time for me to find it.
Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Both could be true but one is a demonstrable and widely accepted scientific fact. As for anything being by "accident" you would have to demonstrate some actual goal before we could talk about what was according to that goal and what was an "accident". Absent goal there are no accidents only occurrences.
Or in other words it is what it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->@Polytheist-Witch
How do you determine the difference between someone who loves their spouse and someone who just like and respects their spouse. Both may look like love but one is missing and element they other has. If an experience feels spiritual it is. If it feels like life it's probably not. Just like you can watch sunsets over and over and one evening you feel small or get overwhelmed with emotion or sense a stronger than usual connection to the Earth. It's as small as that most times. Other times it's like being smacked in the face. You know if your in a spiritual experience.
IF spiritual = some emotional brainstates THEN there is perfectly logical explanation for it which is the interactions of biology and chemistry within the brain itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Yeah I think you are wrong. We were given brains and higher thought for a reason.
Before we can even begin speculation on the issue can you demonstrate that our brains were "given" to us or demonstrate any purpose behind the act or are you simply assuming that? I only ask because brains give every indication of having simply evolved according to mindless, unguided and nevertheless inevitable naturalistic laws.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I don't know how thinking about it and looking at past experiences is NOT investigation.
Just thinking does not constitute investigation in and of itself AND any investigation conducted will by necessity be only as reliable as the methodology employed.
Simply thinking and/or or imagining an answer is not the same as investigating some phenomena utilizing scientific methodology. I just don't know how to categorize something as spiritual without an adequate definition and a demonstration of some supernatural thing which can be investigated.
The supernatural is indistinguishable to me from any other unexplainable phenomenon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I have no way of reliably inspecting my cellular memory at this time though doubtless what I am as an organism does inevitably impact my stream of conciousness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
We can think about it and make guesses as to the explanation.
I can also guess if a defendant is guilty but if there is no evidence of guilt then a verdict of guilty is premature.
We can look at past experiences.
Past experiences of unexplained phenomenon seems less useful to me as a learning tool than past experience of an event that reliably is explainable based on past experience.
For example it doesn't matter how often I experience finding my keys in a different place than I remember putting them and I've never had an adequate explanation then I have NO EXPLANATION.
Your idea feels like giving up, and just accepting that it is unexplained.
Not at all.
IF we guess at a cause and simply decide to believe it THEN we may stop seeking an answer.
I don't know followed by investigation is ALWAYS the beginning of discovery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Either we are talking about the process of biological life and reproduction which started 3.5 billion years ago or we are talking about our stream of conciousness (you are the sum of your experiences). If you try to conflate the two you will end up in an inescapable philosophical quagmire with no rational escape.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
What about the things you can't measure? How do you deal with those? Do you just ignore everything with any small amount of subjectivity?Last night, I fished the last M&M out of the package. It was yellow. Then over a period of about two seconds, it slowly disappeared from my hand as I watched it. How do you "measure" something like that?Ok... well if I saw an M&M disappear in an unexplainable way... I would have to conclude that it was an unexplained phenomenon and if a phenomenon is unexplained then it makes no sense to suggest an explanation. So are you suggesting an explanation for an unexplained phenomenon?
If I observed an M&M disappear like that I would have to conclude that it was an unexplained phenomenon. Unexplained phenomenon are unexplained. It is not reasonable to suggest that a phenomenon is e explainable through the "spiritual" if we don't actually know the explanation
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Ah biological life! Well that is differe. Biological life started some three and a half billion years ago as near as we can tell. I don't think we can really be much more precise than that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
decrease in labor demand.
Like say that caused by automation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Your personal conscious is subject to biases and especially under altered states is not entirely trustworthy. That is why we must be able to demonstrate, observe and measure or we cannot really say that we know anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
The difference is "discovering" and actually coming to an understanding. I "know" a zillion "facts". It is when you put some of them together,and understand something new. It involves both intuition and thinking.
I have undergone this process while comfortably ensconced in an arm chair so I remain unconvinced that "real" learning can "never" happen in a "paradise".
I observe spiritual things all the time.
How do you determine the difference between something "spiritual" and just something?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I am unaware of any life other than the one we are living and we all would seem to be mortal so there is no real reason to use the descriptor.
This life (as in my life) would appear from my perspective as a stream of conciousness experience beginning with my first cogent memory (visiting a swimming pool with my father) and so I would argue that conscious life (a more important distinction perhaps) begins with one's earliest memories. This "starting" point may or may not change throughout ones life but in general does not start until one is at minimum a few years old.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Therein is an issue: "in isolation."
I'm not saying you are wrong in that there are other factors that go into determining the price of products I'm saying I think you missed the point of the hypothetical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Why don't we all use the original?In 1806 Webster published A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language, the first truly American dictionary.
Because definitions are subjective, practically arbitrary other than by our mutual agreement and language therefore evolves.
There is no such thing as a definitive "correct" definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I am unaware of the difference between discovering facts (by whatever means) and real learning. As for spiritual anything I think you you know that I consider it impossible to learn anything about something which cannot be demonstrated, measured or observed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Maybe we can't learn anything living in Paradise.
Actually this article (and accompanying bibliography) would seem to surge that people learn better when not under emotional stress.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
that to say God's existence is impossible is rationally and logically stupid
You don't actually have to dismiss the existence of some undemonstrated proposition.
IF something is niether demonstrated adequatly nor a logical necessity THEN that thing is irrational to believe in until the situation changes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
They'd be knocking the dominoes behind them "up".
Good point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Seems like he was trying to present an "all things being equal" hypothetical and you are trying to answer that hypothetical by saying "oh yeah? Well things aren't all equal smart pants!" Wich is unnecessary as most people who present "all things being equal" hypotheticals understand that all things are not equal and also counterproductive since the whole point of such hypotheticals is to evaluate one particular factor (like self driving cars effects on the fruit market) in isolation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
By that tactic, you want that corporation to be more profitable
I agree. IF your goal is profits THEN mechanisms by which to profit are what you want.
Profits are not the explicit goal which is just providing those basic necessities (and you and I have at least found enough space for shelters and enough food to feed everyone that NO ONE is using) goal when we discuss providing shelter and food and medicine for everyone neither is it the implicit goal which is overall human welfare.
If you would like we can talk about ways of securing profits INSTEAD of about any given idea concerning providing basic necessities to basically everyone we can but you should probably start your own thread for that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I think it should be obvious how automation reduces cost of living but if it isn't then let me know and I will explain.Please explain, because history would appear to say otherwise
Well stated. There is no evidence to suggest that an unregulated market shows appreciable cost reductions when cost of production goes down. Instead it translates this reduction in cost into higher profits for corporations.
IF profits are the primary goal THEN human wellbeing is not the primary goal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
. It is intelligent man that has made life liveable in such a poorly designed world
Well stated
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I think one major problem for the Ontological argument is that it cannot convey knowledge of god's existence. It is a wholly conceptual argument, and without an empirical element, it can only become more specific as a concept. But no concept, however specific, can convey actual knowledge if it doesn't correlate to some empirical element. So the argument can only generate specific concepts of god, but it is empty as a source of actual knowledge.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
you know...basic stuff
Such as?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Any other objections?
Objections? I thought we had solved the thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Great! According to this article the United states wastes 80 billion pounds of food per year! Between that and the millions of acres of wilderness that you have pointed put we have land on which to house the entire homeless population and also enough excess food! And you were worried it would cost you something to feed and house everyone!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Are you trying to suggest that the entire homeless population, given the skill and determination, could live off the land ... in all the PRISTINE WILDERNESS left in America? I may have some bad news for you concerning the numbers of homeless people, the amount of wilderness we have left and the number of people it will support.
As for housing, well I'm actually only talking about shelter.
Created:
Posted in:
It seems nonsensical to me to say someone has the unconditional right to life but only the conditional right to commodities that one cannot live without.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
IF housing is a privilege AND housing is necessary to live THEN the "right" to life is dependent upon the privilege of housing. Any right that is contingent upon a privilege that can be revoked becomes a defacto revocable privilege.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
A Valid statement MIGHT BE "true", but it is NOT "demonstrably true and or logically-necessary" unless it is both Valid and Sound.
Well stated
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Now suddenly two living units are required,
This is not what I am suggesting. I am not arguing that everyone have PRIVATE residences but only adequate shelter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I am not necessarily advocating making home ownership to 100% I am nearly evaluating ideas. I am interested in your simpler idea. If the idea is to IMPROVE the situation then the answer need not be perfect merely better than what we currently have.
Created:
Posted in:
We have no way of effectively evaluating (no-time/no-space)/(anti-time/anti-space) and I'm not sure we can even describe it sufficient to make arguments about it possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Why would demand be higher than it currently is? This is a genuine question. I do not pretend to be an expert in the housing market any more than I am a social engineer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
That's just option B with extra steps.
The extra steps being someone having a place to shelter temporarily yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Am I missing some third option?
Temporarily selling them equity to be repaid at a later date upon the relinquishing of the property to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I would say it is worthwhile for someone other than me to make sure of that, I have enough on my hands just trying to keep my own in good repair.
I do not think any one person is capable of solving nor should be solely held responsible for the problem of homelessness. It is a problem that can only be addressed by an entire society. No man is an island.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I have lived in houses others built, but it was my money that bought them.
So the measure of someone's SUBSTANTIVE EXERCISABLE right to life is money?
wealth = right to live
Would you agree with this equation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
take care of their personal needs on their own
In light of the fact that most of us, rich or poor live in houses we DID NOT build and or eat food we DID NOT grow and or receive medical care from SOMEONE ELSE and or require social interaction with OTHERS perhaps you should describe exactly what you mean by take care of their personal needs on their own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I understand you say you aren't proposing any specifics but I would need somebody to do so before I agree or disagree with the idea.
That is fair enough. Would you say that it is WORTHWHILE to find some way to make sure every human POSSIBLE has a home?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If you can disregard causality for one thing then you can disregard it as a law, therefore there could be infinite “Gods”, which would seem to undercut what you’re calling God.
Well stated
Created: