Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Sorry but even if we accept the kalam it does not explain the presence of a first cause. You cannot solve a mystery by appealing to a bigger mystery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Then where did your proposed first cause come from?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I agree that there is no sufficient evidence to support deism but the kalam does not make a case for anything else. If we accept the kalam (which I do not) it is still quite a leap from "some cause" to "some god" and an even further leap to "some specific god".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
who cares about deism
I'm sure I don't know but the kalam does not support anything beyond deism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That was from Virt btwto show your scientific theour
I am not sure what this means but the theory of evolution is not my theory. It is simply a widely observed and documented process.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I reject the first premise of the kolam cosmological argument but even if the argument were not deeply flawed it does not tell us anything about this prospective first cause. It does not tell us the cause is some god(s) over any other possibility. At best the Kalam is an argument for deism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Also what does evolution to do with our argument?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Evolution taking place in real time under laboratory conditions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Both of these claims require a burden of proof.Wrong, God has the most answers, but the scientific theory proves god
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The default of the scientific method which has an observable better track record of discovering truth and improving our lives than any other single method of evaluating the universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Anecdotal evidence is insufficient to establish such an extraordinary claim. Without independently verifiable testable evidence your claim can and should be dismissed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That many people claim the existence of god(s) is observable. The god(s) themselves do not appear to be. Not in the way that evolution and gravity are observable anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Within the possibly illusory universe we inhabit evolution is observable taking place. If the universe is real then so is evolution and if the universe is an illusion then evolution is an observable part of that illusion and at least as real as all the rest of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
If the universe is a hologram it still doesn't change its apparent nature. It still appears to have no intrinsic goals and to be mostly full of empty space with a very occasional material body to break the monotony.
You say the universe may not be real. As a soft solipsistic I agree whole simultaneously informing you that it is immaterial to our discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Solipsism is impossible to dismiss philosophically and it is true that we can never be certain but it provides no actionable data and even if the universe is illusory we can still evaluate "reality" and become conversant in the physical laws that govern it. If the universe is an illusion it would appear to be mostly the illusion of empty inhospitable space containing no apparent life or means of supporting life.
If you see a specific flaw in my logic please point it out and provide a counterfactual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Prove that the universe would appear to be mostly empty space? Do you not have access to Google? Are you unfamiliar with our current cosmological models? If so you would seem to be woefully underprepared for this conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
We have no way of knowing exactly how rare life is but far more of the universe appears to be empty uninhabited space than anything else. Why would we not think that empty space rather than occupied space was the goal given these observations?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
There may be other planets that support life. We do not know of any such planets however and the vast majority of observable space would appear to be completely inhospitable to life.
If you see a flaw in my logic please point it out and offer a counterfactual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
wouldnt we have found life if we were just "another" planet, right?
I don't know what your point is and I'm not sure I agree with this statement anyway.
The tides are not a goal of the moon. The tides are simply caused by the moon.How do you know?
Must I preface every statement with it would appear or all evidence points too? Can we not at some point simply take that as read? The tides do not appear to be a goal 9f the moon. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise then I have no choice but to reject any claim to the contrary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The tides are not a goal of the moon. The tides are simply caused by the moon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Life so far as we know exists as a thin film stuck to the surface of one small world. If life is a goal of the universe it would seem to have mostly failed at this goal. Still I think you misunderstand the difference between goals and unguided causation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Please supply the intrinsic goals of the universe along with evidence to support your claim.
As for survival this is a goal but not provably an intrinsic one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Shall I assume your ability to understand my language is somehow compromised? That would honestly explain a lot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I was unaware that I developed a stutter or that it translated to this medium. Allow me to reiterate. The universe does not appear to have an intrinsic goal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Please review my earlier comments. Usefulness can only be measured in relation to a particular goal. DNA, life and indeed the universe have no intrinsic goals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Useful/useless is a subjective term. A thing can only be useful/useless in relationship to a particular goal. Since neither life nor the universe would seem to have any set goals this is a nonsequiter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
DNA is not information as you seem to be implying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Their DNA and shit would likewise not appear to be designed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
There is no sufficient evidence to support the idea that humans are designed at all. Unless you can somehow demonstrate this your claim is nonsensical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The search for meaning is not the meaning... unless you subjectively decide to make that the meaning for you. Your purpose could just as easily be collecting stamps. The point is that there is no meaning unless some conscious being decides to make one up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You may subjectively decide to impose whatever meaning you would like. That does not mean we share said purpose.
Created:
Posted in:
--> @3RU7AL --> @Reece101
I see the conversation has moved on without me. Reece101 has 3RU7AL's language proven easier to understand than mine?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Humans impose meaning in the universe. Without living organic brains there is no reason to think that there would be any meaning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Objectivity has nothing to do with human experience and it may in fact be completely beyond us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Common does not equal objective. Us sharing an idea does not make it objective. It must be objective despite us outside of us irrespective of us. We are not a part of the equation at all. I'm not sure how else to put this. What you are talking about, common ideas, that is not objectivity it is agreement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Morality would appear to be a product of the first kind of behavior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Firstly subjective and objective are dichotomous. If one then not the other. Also natural selection can predict amd explain at least these four kinds of traits/behaviors.
Those that promote species interest (sometimes manifesting as altruism/empathy).
Those that promote self interest as individual survival is necessary for a viable species.
Those that are incidental but not detrimental to species or individual survival.
Those which once promoted species or individual survival but which no longer serve their purpose in an organism's current environment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I think there is a genetic component and also that it is a learned behavior. The ideas reached are not necessarily universal however.
You keep bringing up haphazard killing which I take to mean unjustified. So you have put a modifier on killing. This is tacit admission that some killing is justified. Killing humans is not therefore in your opinion immoral only killing them under certain circumstances. What constitutes a justifiable killing is not going to be the same for everyone. That is subjective by definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Unless one can be demonstrated as more than a simple fiction it is not an observable difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Do you mean is objective irrespective of our experiential awareness? Quite possibly, our individual perception and memories have been shown to be unreliable and subject to bias. That is why peer reviewed science is so important. We may actually be incapable of objectivity but science is our best attempt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I do not wish to win I wish to be understood.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Okay, be honest. If we were just casually talking and I said “haphazardly killing people is bad.” You’d be like “ummm yeah, of course. WTF!”, right? Or even if you were internally talking to yourself. That’s what I mean when I say a common Idea. It doesn’t have to be an exact thought process. It’s the same notion as a “common ancestor” if you know what I mean.
We seem to be talking past each other. Do you not understand that even if the entire world shares a subjective opinion or feeling it does not become objective?
If not what about the concept specifically is eluding you?
Common idea = an idea irrespective of any one individual.
This is not the definition of objective. Objective is irrespective of opinion. This goes further than simply irrespective of the individual. Irrespective of the individual in and of itself does not necessarily mean objective. It only necessitates concencus and a consensus opinion is still an opinion.
So what you are saying is objectivity is irrespective of observation? Seems to me you’re putting objectivity on a pedestal, making it worthless.
People do love to put words in my mouth. You are not talking about an observation. An observation would be a human was killed. This is objectively true or false. The human was either killed or not. The human was killed haphazardly is an opinion about the observation and an opinion others might disagree with depending on the circumstances surrounding the incident.
They would be both subjective and objective. Opinions are multifaceted. Some aspects of a reasonable opinion are common, and some aspects aren’t.
Objective and subjective are mutually exclusive concepts. It is dichotomous.
If objective then not subjective.
What if you said the sun is hot, relative to humans
Do you understand why the above is an objective fact but if the last part is removed it becomes subjective?
Objective: the sun is hot relative to humans.
Subjective: the dun is hot.
Objective: the human was killed
Subjective: the human was killed haphazardly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Let me give you an example.
The sun is hot.
This may seem like an objective fact and indeed it is far hotter than you or I could survive, but as stars go the sun is very much average. Other stellar bodies make the sun seem down right cool.
The objective fact is that the heat output of the sun would kill us. The subjective opinion is that the sun is hot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
What constitutes haphazardly is entirely subjective. I chose my words carefully. That an idea is common or that you and I have it in common does not make it objective.
There is no number people who have a belief, opinion or idea that will tip the scales from subjective to objective. The number of people who agree is entirely uconnected with objectivity.
Any number of people are able to hold the same subjective opinions and standards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Killing humans is sometimes considered justified in all cultures. What is disagreed upon is when the killing of humans is justified. This is because it is subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Objective =/= agreed upon. Objective = irrespective of opinion.
It does not matter how many people hold the same opinion. It is still an opinion and opinions are subjective by definition
Created: