Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
To say that biblical figures existed the way that Voldemort exists and that biblical events happened the way that the war of the ring happened is an exceptionally low bar. Clearly there is a difference between what we mean when we say these things existed/happened and what we refer to as reality or nonfiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
This is true of concencus reality but there is still.a very large difference between the way we view fiction and concencus reality. One of those differences is that our opinions are not necessarily equally valid. When we talk about fiction we agree that it is not a part of reality whatever that actually is, when we talk about concencus reality we are talking about a collective confidence in a proposition based on what is independently observa and verifiable. Unless we assume solipsism (which cannot be ruled out but which provides no actionable data).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
In that case as is the case with many classical fictions, what the story says to you is no less valid than what it says to me or anyone. Thank you for hosting the topic.
Created:
Posted in:
--> @RationalMadman
I see two problems with your interpretation of biblical events. You have not demonstrated that anything resembling the events described did or even could happen and you have not established the historical existence of any of the characters.
--> @Mopac --> @PGA2.0 -->@anyone I missed
What exactly makes your interpretation more authoritative/correct?
It would save time if you avoid arguments about how many people agree with you (appeal to popularity)
or how far back the interpretation goes back historically (appeal to antiquity)
or what biblical expert, historical or contemporary, argues the virtues of the interpretation (appeal to authority)
or about context that rational is clearly missing (because I'm certain Rational has taken context into consideration amd merely begs the separate but related question what makes you interpretation of the context more authoritative/correct)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I do. There is no number of people who hold a subjective opinion that will transform a subjective opinion into an objective fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
And you have convinced me you don't know. Now what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
The best minds working on the issue cannot answer the question satisfactorily. I'm unsure what you expect from me. The best evidence you have presented so far was very clear that the results were inconclusive for all proposed models.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
And we are back to this. If I don't agree specifically with ebuc it has nothing to do with ebuc's argument the problem must be that I am an egotistical idiot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
If you have more to offer than you already have please present your evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
At the point where you are telling me what I believe oir conversation is over.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
My intention is not to give up. It is to be intellectually honest. I am not a cosmologist. My best guesses will perforce be based on theirs. In truth I remain unconvinced that anyone will ever be able to answer this question with more than a hypothesis because I am uncertain how test such a hypothesis. Take pir galaxy as an example. We have reasonable confidence that it is a spiral galaxy but we can't exactly take pictures so we don't actually know what it looks like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Might, maybe, could be. We do not actually know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Or i can admit the truth. That the greatest minds working on the subject have only educated guesses and that I am not one of those minds and am not really even able to make an educated guess. Perhaps one of these great minds will have an answer some day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Our opinions of the shape of the universe have nothing to do with the actual shape of the universe. My opinion is that our opinions are inconsequential to the question.
Is there something wrong with answer I don't know if it is the most honest answer?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
I understand the question. It is just unanswerable. You are asking for a guess. I can guess but I have no more reason to think my guess is right than any other possibility.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Ok I think I understand. We have finally gotten to the plain message behind your confusing posts and unorthodox language.
You think that I am refusing to accept your position just to gas light you. This is not the case ebuc. I am genuine when I say that I do not know if the laws of thermodynamics apply outside of our local physical universe and I don't know that the local physical universe or its constituent parts are or could be eternal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
The term innocent is descriptive.
The term innocent is subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Then to pretend otherwise is naked hair splitting and muddying the waters. The idea that you are communicating is prescriptive.The statement in its entirety is prescriptive
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
This double negative kills my eyes. If I can clarify my position however. I do not believe that the cosmos is finite. I do not believe that the cosmos is infinite. I do not believe that the cosmos has a beginning. I do not believe that the cosmos has existed eternally. All I believe is that we do not and cannot know.Yeah we already know that you dont believe we dont live in a finite, occupied space Universe, ergo the only alternative is and infinite occupied space Universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
No one knows. It is beyond pur epistemology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
It is prescriptively true. The innocent do not deserve to be punished and the bachelors aren't married.
Please do not confuse prescriptive and descriptive language.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
I do not see that this reveals the shape (3 or 4 dimensional) of said universe.
Created:
Posted in:
If what constitutes an offense is subjective then what does not constitute an offence is also subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
We can have confidence in certain propositions due to their being independently testable and verifiable. The shape of the universe does not fall under this category.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Innocent is prescriptive in this case not descriptive. We define innocent as not guilty of wrongdoing. Everyone agrees (most everyone anyway it is subjective after all and some people do believe in general purpose punishment as a deterrent) that we should not punish someone who is not guilty of wrongdoing. What we disagree on (because it is subjective) is exactly what constitutes wrongdoing. That innocent people should not be punished is generally agreed upon. Who I'd and is not innocent is not. Please do not conflate prescriptive language with descriptive language it only muddies the water.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I see no problems with your construction materials.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Focusing on only this and nothing else.Metaphysiscal-2 macro-infinite non-occupied space is out-side of Universe ergo it is a Space that embraces Universe we can point to its in any direction because it is a Space.
We do not know what is outside our local observable physical universe. Any claim made about what is outside our local observable spacetime is therefore by necessity only conjecture.
You will not go any further with me then what we have observed and demonstrated. Period.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well this thread is getting about as much attention as I e expected it too. Those who understand what the story means have little to add and those who do not or who are being purposely obtuse are generally unwilling to absorb the message as it would be detrimental to their arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I mean unless you know where the coin is before you pick you will by necessity be making your decision arbitrarily.That would be cheating!
Then if one has a religion which is revealed truth then one knows where the coin is and is ergo cheating. If however it is impossible to know which religion actually has revealed truth or indeed if any does then it is not cheating it is just a high degree of confidence in an arbitrary decision.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Whay we don't know about the universe is its overall shape or if that shape is static or dynamic. These would be issues which are likely beyond our epistemology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
If there is no evidence that there is any objective morality (no perfect standard that can be calculated mathematically or measured physically) but there is evidence that people hold different subjective opinions about morality then subjective morality has been demonstrated and objective morality has not. Under those circumstances it is more rational to believe in the proposition that has been demonstrated than the one which has not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
You will have to demonstrate the 1st law of thermodynamics outside our current observable physical universe before we can count on the fact that the 1st law of thermodynamics exists outside our local observable physical universe. Do you not understand what I'm saying? Or do you just not understand why I would even ask for evidence because you are unable to imagine being wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I see no reason to believe in space and time as intangibles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Well you completely missed the point of a worldview but whatever, that's fine.
Not at all a world view merely is a set of axiomatic guidelines that we use when interacting with or investigating the world.
The current structure, chemistry and expression of neural pathways. Our thoughts and emotions would seem to be emergent qualities of brainstates.And how exactly would you define a brainstate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Empathy is not immaterial. It is a brainstate and brains are physical.
- Where did we come from? my parents had sex.
- Why are we here? causation
- What's wrong with the world? "wrongness" is quallia not quanta. It is subjective and there is no "wrong answer"
- How do we make it right? "Rightness is quallia not quanta. It is subjective and there is no "right answer"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Ok what form did this opportunity take before it was taken? And how exactly donl we know it was always available rather than simply available when it was taken? It doesn't seem like we know what this opportunity was or if it qualifies as eternal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Skepticism is my baseline. My default position. The most logical position is one of credulity in the absence of sufficient evidence. If that isn't a worldview then you will have to explain the difference.
As for empathy humans display ot. It is amongst the causes that govern our behavior. Do you disagree that humans display empathy? Because whatever its source unless you disagree that we have it I really don't need to demonstrate it. I have not in fact endorsed any source besides the one we can confirm, that the brain would seem to produce a subjective experience and that empathy is a part of that experience. Again if it is more than it seems that will have to be demonstrated to me.
Created:
Posted in:
First, you cannot choose to be empathetic.
So what? I still am. I have no choice.
If humans don't establish standards of morality there are none because humans are the only observable beings who seem capable of participating in the conversation.
Also materialism isn't my worldview skepticism is. I know the brain is involved in our thoughts and emotions. If there is anything else involved you will have to demonstrate it.
Created:
Posted in:
This is my exact point. We have no evidence that there was a time before the big bang or even if before is even a sensical term to use.you have no evidence or rational logical common sense concerning any "time before big bang".
you have no evidence or rational logical common sense concerning any "time before big bang".
You said it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Well how else can I say it. You said the cosmos is eternal and there is no way to know. The laws of thermodynamics may well break down in the time before the big bang. At least that is my best understanding of our best understanding.
That was the very first thing you said and I asked if you can demonstrate that the it is eternal rather than just baldly asserting it.
I understand thermodynamic law we just don't know if it works outside the local observable physical universe.
If you want to have a conversation address this first. If you don't want a conversation then leave me alone. I'm good either way but I do not have to accept your claims without evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Sure. I'm still at a loss for where to go from here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I thought we agreed that subjective =/= lacking legitimacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
My empathy is not borrowed from anywhere it is my own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So in your hypothetical children too young to walk are serial killers? I must admit it is hard to take this thought experiment seriously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Agreed. Math is really off topic. In order to prove morals are objective I propose you show a truly objective standard. One that can be measured like one measures the temperature of soup or the speed at which venus orbits the sun. Do you have such a standard and if so why do humans not seem able to agree on the small minutia of morality? If such a metric existed would we not simply be able to get out the moralometer and measure the badness in men's hearts? Why would we bother with legal systems and juries? Surely if morality could be measured we wouldn't need to judge people innocent or guilty. Judgement is by its very nature subjective. A judgement is essentially an opinion.But we're starting to go down a rabbit hole. I was interested in discussing whether morality is objective or subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Well God's law is a perfectly moral law
I don't know what to say to someone who thinks it is moral to exterminate unarmed civilian human populations except I disagree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Legal and moral are different distinctions. Lawful and unlawful do not necessarily correlate directly with right and wrong. Rather I believe that if you are caught and proven guilty you will be punished according to the law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I would actually say my argument is that only humans can commit genocide
Does that excuse the act if perpetuated by an acting agent who is not a human?
the act of genocide would be a morally neutral act without the existence of God.
That is an odd position given that what you actually seem to be arguing is that genocide (or whatever you want to call it when some god(s) commit the act) is a morally neutral act for god(s).
You could replace the example with an exterminator seeking to systematically destroy an entire population of termites or whatever. If we treat human interactions with other humans different than interactions with animals, I don't see why we wouldn't also make a distinction between God and humans.
So your argument is that if the yahweh exists it is morally neutral at worst if he treats us like cockroaches and exterminated us? So again not so much that the Yahweh's actions cannot be directly compared to Hitler's as that the yahweh is justified in perpetuating the same sort of mass slaughter that hitler did or worse?
Now if we're talking about the Christian God, we are talking about an all-powerful being who created humans and defines morality outside of human opinion.
Ok and what makes that more than just the Yahweh's personal subjective opinion?
God cannot wrongfully kill someone, so He cannot commit genocide.
So of the two of us you are actually the one that is arguing that the systematic extermination of unarmed civilian populations cam be moral.
Created: