Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Morality is objective
Bald assertion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The sentence is evidence that “subject to” doesn’t mean subjective because it had nothing to do with dependent on the mind for existence.
I'm not up to date on your argument or that of your interlocutor but perhaps the problem is a simple category error possibly based on imprecise definitions. Contrary to your claims that definitions are only useful if there is some "official" consensus your definitions are not really particularly universal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The possibility of punishment does not in fact appear to stop some people from "preying" on one another.Exactly, so what do you think will happen once you take that component away?
It really doesn't seem like you are listening. I am in favor of prevention. I am in favor of people learning lessons. In as much as "punishment" is a tool used to accomplish these things I do not not necissarilly object but my goal is not to "make people pay" because I am disinterested in vengeance.
It is also worth noting that a legal system which distributes a minimum of "punishment" would be "more successful" since in my paradigm harm=crime so less crime can indicate that harm is being prevented. Likely this process would be imperfect and should be improved and streamlined whenever possible.
My goalEven if I understood and agreed with your goal, how do you prove that your goal is THE goal.
It really doesn't seem like you are listening to me. I don't believe in any "THE goal". I think we have to get on as best we can without one and in as much as you are not arguing FOR any alternative you are not giving me any alternative.
No one involved is a nihilist.Not the point, that’s what me and 3RU7AL were discussing.
IF morality/punishment/reward/meaning not existing REQUIRES that 3ru7al is a nihilist despite his not self identifying as one because he doesn't believe in "real" meaning THEN it also REQUIRES that you are a nihilist for the same reason.
IF you are not a nihilist because you don't self identify as a nihilist and you believe in your best idea of meaning EVEN if it doesn't exist THEN 3ru7al is not a nihilist because they do not self identify as a nihilist and also believe in their best idea of meaning EVEN if it doesn't exist.
Created:
Posted in:
1. The universe is the totality of all time space and matter.
I do not accept this premise without some clarification. Are you referring to entirety of the galaxy cluster we inhabit (including those galaxies which may or may not be observable to us) the earliest associated event of is known colloquially as the big bang? Or are you referring to any matter and energy which may or may not exist(s)(ed) before after or outside that phenomenon which may or may not have always existed?
2. Whatever caused time space and matter must be timeless, space less, and immaterial.
What even is a thing that exist for no time and takes up no space and is made of no material?
3. Therefore something immaterial, timeless, and space less caused the universe, and these properties are said of God.
They are said of some god(s) sure but certainly not all and anyway... well see below.
4. Therefore we conclude God exists.
This is a perfect example of the association fallacy. I have skin. A banana has skin. I have DNA. A banana has DNA. I have mass. A banana has mass. I am on earth. Some bananas are on earth. I have already found more things that I have in common with a banana than you are even arguing this cause has in common with (your personal preferred god concept). I think we agree that I am not a banana.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soluminsanis
Stage 1
I'm not sure I accept the premises involved and so I do not accept the conclusion by logical extension but assuming that we grant both premises what does it tell us other than that this observable local expression of spacetime (the universe) has some cause without telling us anything about this cause. The Kalam is not an argument for any god(s) but only for some cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The context is what evidence you mean and what it presumably is evidence of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Please be specific about which proposal is flawed and in your critique of it.Nihilists don’t believe anything is “right”.
No one involved is a nihilist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
you can try all you want people can still prey on your weakness and get the drop on you whenever they get there moment, that wouldn’t happen if you enforce punishment.
The possibility of punishment does not in fact appear to stop some people from "preying" on one another.
My goal, in part, is minimization of harmful behavior and, in part, the protection of potential victims. Even if this necessitates punishment (a separate conversation) the goal is not punishment.
There is a word for enforcing obedience through fear of punishment. It is tyranny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
It appears the two proposals are functionally indistinguishable.Well one of the proposals you depicted inaccurately so 🤷🏾♂️ .
Please be specific about which proposal is flawed and in your critique of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
is it enough to say that my goal is to protect society from dangerous individuals and whenever possible to rehabilitate those individuals.No because it leads me to ask what makes you think everybody can be saved?
IF you have three heart patients who you aren't sure you can save THEN it is still worthwhile to try to treat them.
IF two die THEN it does not mean you shouldn't save the last one. IF they all die THEN it was still worth trying.
You don't know who you can save till you die.
disinterested in making people "pay" for their crimes.Then there would be no CONSEQUENCES plain and simple.
You are making a category error here. Not all consequences are punishments and petty revenge doesnot have to be the goal. I'm still not sure why you are so focused on punishing people.
My goal does not change because some people disagreeWell your goal is unclear due to the psycho/socio example I was able to use.
All that is clear is that sociopaths, a rare subset of humans whose mental health would seem to be compromised, would not share my goal.
Look this is far simpler than you are making it. If we both want to have healthy lives then we can agree, at least with each other if not with some hypothetical sociopaths, that this goal would be better served if we cooperate with each other then we can agree to cooperate. All human legal systems are just this agreement on a larger scale with more individuals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well.. to be fair, havng had conversation with this fellow before, they have an aversion to presenting evidence or accepting it, so that doesn't surprise meI was subjected to this weather. That sentence has nothing to do with dependent on the mind for existence (so much for “I wouldn't bother”).How’s that for evidence? Your not going to prove it so I guess I will.Thanks for listening to my Ted Talk.
I feel like I'm missing some context here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
IF you are unwilling or unable to present some argument AND you are unwilling or unable to accept some argument THEN your conversations will by necessity go nowhere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
@3RU7AL
IF morality/punishment/reward/meaning exist THEN ???You must be willing to accept any and all consequences of your actions (be willing to suffer for what you believe is right).IF morality/punishment/reward/meaning don't exist THEN ???You must discover for yourself what actions are appropriate.
Are these completed syllogisms acceptable to you Tarik?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Prove what? That something which is subject to God's word is subjective? Are you serious?
Well stated. Unfortunately he is serious. He appears to prefer prescriptive language to descriptive language. I have pointed out to him before the dangers of defining something out of existence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
To some punishment is how you prevent the harm, unless you have another suggestion?
Are you asking me to make a full legal system right now with consideration of all the variable factors involved or is it enough to say that my goal is to protect society from dangerous individuals and whenever possible to rehabilitate those individuals.
Some consequences may be involved and you might define those consequences as punishment but to focus on punishment is in my opinion counterproductive. I am disinterested in revenge and also disinterested in making people "pay" for their crimes.
Then how are you inclined? Because judging by my example your syllogism has a lot of vague holes.
You mean it starts out IF? That is by design. The conclusion is only true if the premises are true. Not all humans care about human wellbeing (though most care about at least their own allowing for the selfish argument for secular morality) and not all humans recognize all other humans as human but I personally would find it preferable if they did and I shall continue to advocate for it. My goal does not change because some people disagree and also does not change if some god(s) disagree.
Wow we have really strayed from the topic. Hey you do understand the there is an IF in the syllogisms I provided you with too right? You can complete them without arguing for the position you so obviously believe in and just as obviously know you cannot ever prove. Like you don't have to prove anything to complete these syllogisms.
IF morality/punishmen/reward/meaning exist THEN ???
IF morality/punishment/reward/meaning don't exist THEN ???
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Because people have their own disagreements regarding the welfare of humans and due to that disagreement they take the law into their own hands, how do you suggest we deal with those people?
How does focusing on punishment rather than on prevention of harm help the problem?
That still doesn’t mean much, especially if you interpret it as individual psycho/socio or GROUP of psychos/socios.
I'm not inclined to do that so unless you are that is sort of irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Because God created morality
Bald assertion. Also proposing an undemonstrated proposition as a cause for anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
whats wrong with the final judgement
What judgment is that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
the end times were part of the nt writings and not the oral word of Jesus
I'm not proposing what any hysterical figure actually said nor to what degree they are reflected in the NT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
God is the context of morality, he provides it
I fail to see how any god(s) provide any context for morality that effects our defacto need to trust our own personal moral intuition in the absence of a clearly defined moral standard. What are you proposing some god(s) want and why should I care?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I came to that conclusion on my own, simply because if everything was legal nobody would have to pay for anything they’ve done which is what you seem to be in favor of.
Why does a legal system have to have the goal of publishing people? Why can't it be the wellfair of the humans under its jurisdiction (preferably voluntarily)
So what about the physical/mental health of a psycho/socio I’m sure what stimulates their health is a lot different from you but you didn’t have them in mind when you made your syllogism did you?
I had them specifically in mind. They are why I define wellbeing as being for an individual or GROUP of individuals. The needs of the many don't dismiss the needs of the one but people do tend to give the needs of the many more weight and there is something to be said for wellbeing of the species. Some humans are dangerous to wellbeing and unless we judge a mad dog guilty of something we don't need to judge them guilty of anything to take necessary steps to protect group wellbeing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
Let me be Frank with you. I am not a solipsist. I accept reality despite being unable to falsify it. That is because it is the only reality of which I'm aware so there are still benefits to "learning the rules". Also regardless of whether this is an illusion I still love my family and my dog and enjoy life and am fulfilled by my work.
That's as far as it goes and the problem of identity is as the problem of identity does.
"I" and "am" are a first person noun referencing the self and a verb meaning to exist in the present tense.
Well that certainly brings up a problem of the meaning of the words self and exist. If you can find a way of determining what they are rather than just feeling like they exist let me know otherwise it is just a brain state. The state of having an "aware brain" and now suddenly awareness is in here! I give up. Honestly I'm not sure that I would believe that neuroscience understands the brain. That of course doesn't obligate me to adopt some ad hoc explanation of conciousness especially not a vague one built on a special knowledge argument.
You were right about the sharpshooter fallacy by the way. The SETI program discovering pulsars is another example of the sharpshooter fallacy that Ive been misclassifying. Thank you for the correction. That actually helps a great deal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Tell me more about trust. What is trust in this context? Like trusted to have correct verified facts or to be likely to tell the truth? If you cannot have both which do you go with?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don't agree with a system which is primarily concerned with "making people pay for their crimes".So we should just legalize everything then?
Where in my statement do I say that?
So define the term right now.
Human wellbeing.
The sum total of the physical and mental health of any individual human or group of humans in so much as we can assess it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
But you were referred to systems, I was thinking along the lines of justice system, do you support having such a thing yes or no?
Again this depends entirely on the goal you are suggesting for the organization. I don't think punishment is a worthwhile goal so I don't agree with a system which is primarily concerned with "making people pay for their crimes".
No, but you can’t label that thought as well-being because there’s no consensus on the meaning of that term.
Is the problem here that you do not know what I mean by human wellbeing? If you understand what I mean then I have communicated an idea. Using the "right" word is of secondary importance to that so if I am being unclear that is my primary concern. If you know what I am trying to say but don't agree with my definition then please explain what alternative term you would like to use and why it has more utility beyond an argument from concensus?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
which is God
No context as in a goal in this case. If we are playing chess and it is assumed that we both want to win then we can examine any given move to see if it is a good or a bad move FOR THE PURPOSES OF WINNING THE GAME.
No god(s), even if they exist are a context even if they provide some context (a separate proposition).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
You wouldn't unless the synchronicities were enough that it would be silly to assume chance.
At what point is this exactly? How does this avoid the gamblers fallacy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Proofs become 2ndary to experience of our reality.
For the purposes of our normal every day life? Sure. The problem, if you want to call it a problem, is when our experience is not accurate to reality because of some preexisting bias or optical illusion for example. It is important to carefully observe our epistemological limits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
How so?
Because I am not arguing for some greater justification of human accountability. Humans can and do hold humans accountable. That is my whole argument.
No we don’t, but at the very least we can use standards
I agree we can agree to a standard for the purposes of this conversation. Whether there is some "consensus" or not however that consensus cannot tell me what I think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
the end times wasn't his main teaching
In as much as we know what he might have taught at all l don't see any reason to object to this statement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Right and wrong are meaningless without some context
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
everyone knows right from wrong
Right and wrong are subjective. Of course everyone knows how they would prefer people to behave.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
objective morality is a proven fact
Excellent. I look forward to you presenting this proof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
Synchronicity
the simultaneous occurrence of events which appear significantly related but have no discernible causal connection.
If there is no discernable connection why suppose one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I do on the grounds that your opting to argue yours.
Well whatever else is happening I think you must be reading far more into my argument than there actually is.
How do you know that’s an example of well-being when there’s no consensus around a definition?
Alive person has more wellbeing than a deaf person. A well person has more wellbeing than a sick person. A happy person has more wellbeing than a sad person... if we agree on the definition of wellbeing.
If we don't then we are not even discussing the same thing. You don't have to agree to my definition but when I propose wellbeing as a standard if there is some question as to exactly what that means you can ask me. We don't have to give up on communication altogether just because languages evolve and definitions are mutable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
a lot of people know significantly more than me and have more accurate views of God.
How did you determine this? How did they demonstrate this accuracy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Believing, in that which we have arrived at via rational, logical common sense pathways of thought, that, are based in observations of environment --Universe--- is easy.Proofs is a whole other story that only leads some people into rabbit hole of ...'cant believe without proof'...type of thinking.I dont believe the car approaching me is going to cross the center line and hit me, so a certain amount of driving involves believe, trust and faith on histroical experiences of self and others.
I couldn't get put of bed in the morning if I didn't have faith in the floor to hold my weight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If I argued in favor of either (which I didn’t) that comparison would’ve been fair but that hasn’t been my argument over the course of this discussion, so don’t use me to avoid answering the tough questions.
Well...
Fish or cut bait.
If you aren't arguing going to argue your position you really don't have the right to question mine.
I don't believe in any god(s) because they haven't been demonstrated and you are not even arguing that one could be.
You don't have any arguments I find compelling and you haven't really explained exactly what I need to justify or why in order for humans to behave in exactly the way I observe them too.
Let me know if you want to at least finish those syllogisms. I really would be interested in knowing how you would complete them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
And what would you say if I told you that others have suggested a similar process but whose definition of god does not match yours?
How shall I as an outside observer determine which of you is correct if indeed either are if you are using the same methodology and your positions are both unfalsifiable?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
My most immediate problem with this proposal is that I have no idea how to choose to believe something. I can be convinced of things but that is not a choice. Beyond that I am glad to know that you are aware of confirmation bias. I am curious to know your specific definition of god and to detail your methodology in determining the specific difference between god doing stuff and stuff happening for any other possibly unknown reason?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
SM, it is only you that applys a meaning --intrinsic or not--- for your experiences.
As for a "higher power", you may say it is the synergetic effects of;1} Gravity ( ), --contraction aka mass-atraction---2} Dark Energy )(, --repulsive aka cosmological constant----3} fermionic matter, bosonic forces and any collection thereof ex humans, trees, planets, etc.We think { most complex Metaphysical1 { spirit-1 }, about something { occupied space finger, toe etc } ergo we exist via our sensorial { 31 bilateral nerves , 12/24 cranial nerves, brain etc } occupied space.We experience memory of past sensorial experiences and may communicate { via access to intellect } that, to self and others.We appear to have access to Metaphysical-1 { spirit-1 } mind/intellect/concepts, that, do not occupy space, have no energy, no charge, no spin, etc.
Good point. Sometimes defining is believing. If the cosmos, conscious or not, exactly as it exists outside human ego is being defined as "god" then "god" becomes a logical necessity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
My starting assumption is that God is real.
Ok and why is that your starting point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
How do you know that’s an example of well-being when there’s no consensus around a definition?
With some degree of confidence greater than my confidence in some higher power or intrinsic meaning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
To some degree that is true. Sometimes we do not know in advance what will promote wellbeing. It is less vague than the standard that a being who may or may not exist may or may mat not hold. In addition you have admitted to the same problem of not always knowing what is "good" as you seem to be demanding that I solve.
I don't always know what will foster the most wellbeing but I can observe that some things (food, shelter, social interaction etc) are necessary for humans and that lacking these things can harm or even kill humans. I know what my goal is. It is well defined and especially in hindsight we can make objective statements about the effect that something had on the wellbeing of some person or group of people. I cannot explain why human wellbeing is important beyond the fact that I am human and I am important to myself and by extension other humans take on value. You are like me and I therefore consider care of you to be self care. It feels good to do something that you imagine makes someone else feel good. This puts definite limits on behavior. Feeding someone is "good" and killing someone is "bad".
You don't know what some god(s) expect from you and you cannot demonstrate any. There is no readily available reason to say that any god(s) exist or that any god(s) which exist care about, judge or even notice human behavior, morality or rights. In no case is it made clear to us before we die what if anything is expected from us in order to attain any particular afterlife or if any afterlife even exists. You don't (or haven't shared) what exactly the moral standard is. The standard is the standard of some higher power is beyond vague and so you have no real direction. So far the reasoning you have given me could be used to justify any behavior whatsoever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
IF and ONLY IF the only reason to have any moral standard is the fear of a cosmic hall monitor waiting to spank you for your misdeeds or give you a lollipop for behaving THEN there is no reason to maintain any moral standard at all UNTIL you have both demonstrated that the hall monitor exists and determined what the hall monitor is basing his decisions about spankings and lollipops on.
Please look at my other two above syllogisms to see why fear of a cosmic hall monitor is not the ONLY POSSIBLE REASON.
Created:
-->
@janesix
P1 all matter and energy in the universe existed before humans evolved
P2 humans "create" by rearranging this matter and energy into configurations that suit our purposes
C humans do not create they only reconfigure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What proof do you have that I shouldn’t be?
Well even if you are only doing things for personal gain you still stand to benefit from the fostering of human wellbeing in general so there is a selfish argument for secular morality.
So basically
IF you are caring for others for their own sake THEN it is reasonable to foster human wellbeing.
And
IF you are only doing things for the sake of personal gain THEN all things being equal it is reasonable to foster human wellbeing because your own wellbeing is included
But
IF the only reason to have any moral standard is the fear of a cosmic hall monitor waiting to spank you for your misdeeds or give you a lollipop for behaving THEN there is no reason to maintain any moral standard at all UNTIL you have both demonstrated that the hall monitor exists and determined what the hall monitor is basing his decisions about spankings and lollipops on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
And you don't see how that position might be construed as being very selfish?
More selfish say than the position that we she charitable and kind and look after human wellbeing both individually and for the species as a whole regardless of the personal cost or consequences of doing so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So bottom line you don't think being a good person or caring about others is worthwhile unless you are getting something out of it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Wanting to be rewarded and not punished.
How very self involved of you.
don't have any observable reason to careBut I said that already.
Ok then why do you care?
Created: