Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2021 22:21:04 GMT
If you ARE interested in a meaningful conversation, try encapsulating my position in a way that I would agree with. As I have tried (and sometimes succeeded) in doing with you. As it is, I spend most of my time correcting your wild misrepresentations. Listen you can't disprove that something apparently random is only pseudo-random. Just as you can't disprove that that there is an extraterrestrial based under the surface of the moon or anywhere where we can't go yet. You can't disprove the existence of the Loch Ness Monster and lots and lots of other things. All you can say is that there is no positive evidence of any of these things and that some of them are laughably improbable. Make something up is a long way from anything comparable to scientific truth. Scientific truth made it possible for us to have that conversation, live, despite the enormous distance separating us and also the fact that we don't have the slightest idea of who the other guy is. Something like that would have been inconceivable only a few decades ago. What did your "truth" bring to the world that didn't exist before you "knew it"? Nothing, nothing at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 8, 2021 15:09:00 GMT
If you ARE interested in a meaningful conversation, try encapsulating my position in a way that I would agree with. As I have tried (and sometimes succeeded) in doing with you. As it is, I spend most of my time correcting your wild misrepresentations. Listen you can't disprove that something apparently random is only pseudo-random. Just as you can't disprove that that there is an extraterrestrial based under the surface of the moon or anywhere where we can't go yet. You can't disprove the existence of the Loch Ness Monster and lots and lots of other things. All you can say is that there is no positive evidence of any of these things and that some of them are laughably improbable. I'm not saying "pseudo-random." I'm saying "not random." But I also recognize that this cannot be proven--at least, empirically. Wow. The scientific method did not even exist as such until, what, the 1800s? Are you talking about that? Or do you mean "something other than that"? Because if so, you should define it. Physical laws? Naturalism? Empiricism? How does "scientific truth" make possible language? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2021 17:20:24 GMT
...I'm not saying "pseudo-random." I'm saying "not random." But I also recognize that this cannot be proven--at least, empirically. "pseudo-random" and "not random" is the same thing concerning what we're talking about. Do you think modern scientists would miss something, not being random if it wasn't pseudo-random? I was talking about personal computers and the internet. I thought I had been clear this time but you seem to keep missing my points. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 8, 2021 17:44:01 GMT
I was talking about personal computers and the internet. I thought I had been clear this time but you seem to keep missing my points. Oh, wow, yeah, I certainly missed that. By no means am I disparaging the value of the scientific method. To do so would be to demonstrate both a high level of ignorance and an obvious hypocrisy in having a conversation online (as you point out) that counts on the technology that relies on the scientific method and its results. I mean this to a greater extent than the average person realizes. The counter-intuitive realities of quantum mechanics that might be dismissed as "magic gobbledy-gook" by the uninformed are actually manifested in the operation of our computers, microwaves, etc. So, no, I don't dismiss scientific knowledge and the scientific method by which it is pursued, tested, verified, etc. I'm saying "that's not all there is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2021 17:52:51 GMT
I was talking about personal computers and the internet. I thought I had been clear this time but you seem to keep missing my points. Oh, wow, yeah, I certainly missed that. By no means am I disparaging the value of the scientific method. To do so would be to demonstrate both a high level of ignorance and an obvious hypocrisy in having a conversation online (as you point out) that counts on the technology that relies on the scientific method and its results. I mean this to a greater extent than the average person realizes. The counter-intuitive realities of quantum mechanics that might be dismissed as "magic gobbledy-gook" by the uninformed are actually manifested in the operation of our computers, microwaves, etc. So, no, I don't dismiss scientific knowledge and the scientific method by which it is pursued, tested, verified, etc. I'm saying "that's not all there is. Maybe, but if there are other things, we haven't designed objective ways of finding them and I don't think we ever will. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 8, 2021 20:08:12 GMT
I've had this discussion with countless religion peddlers (I am trying to embrace a vast category of people) and it almost always comes down to this: God is moral, it's man ( it's the generic term, not man as opposed to woman) that's immoral. Also God is good, the evil comes from man and his choices. Ok, so let's eliminate man from the equation, or formula, where does that leave us... Well, in pre-man nature. Take the lion for example, lions are evolved, high on the food chain animals, they're superior to dogs in every way including mental and most people think dogs are intelligent... Dominant male lions kill their young, they've existed for (paleontology tells us) about twenty five million years and therefore they've been killing their young for that time. Why do they do that? Because the female lion won't have sex as long as she's in charge of cubs. The lion gets sexual urges and the lioness won't have it. So what does he do, he kills the cubs, so he can have sex again, until the next time... Statistically, what is the most likely way for a lion cub to die? killed by its own father. Of course the rate of reproduction and the number of cubs in a litter is high, so lions don't go extinct, at least not because of this, (they could go extinct because of man but that's another story). Basically every dominant male lion is the killer of countless of his own cubs. In a way you could say that that's God way of validating this behavior, IE increasing the rate of reproduction to compensate for a massacre... Can you honestly say that a father killing his offspring is moral? So is God moral? I think not. All creation fell to sin...not just man. The sins of man and beast are there own. God does not cause us to sin. We do that on our own. God did not create man or lion sinners. But once sin entered the world God did curse the world to die in sin. This is because God does not sin nor does He allow sin in His kingdom. Therefore God is Absolutely Moral. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 8, 2021 20:40:47 GMT
Oh, wow, yeah, I certainly missed that. By no means am I disparaging the value of the scientific method. To do so would be to demonstrate both a high level of ignorance and an obvious hypocrisy in having a conversation online (as you point out) that counts on the technology that relies on the scientific method and its results. I mean this to a greater extent than the average person realizes. The counter-intuitive realities of quantum mechanics that might be dismissed as "magic gobbledy-gook" by the uninformed are actually manifested in the operation of our computers, microwaves, etc. So, no, I don't dismiss scientific knowledge and the scientific method by which it is pursued, tested, verified, etc. I'm saying "that's not all there is. Maybe, but if there are other things, we haven't designed objective ways of finding them and I don't think we ever will. Okay, so here's something that might be completely true while being completely subjective and unverifiable: "I feel depressed." (...or happy, excited, nervous). Could be completely unprovable...but still "true." So how does that "fit"? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2021 21:41:39 GMT
Maybe, but if there are other things, we haven't designed objective ways of finding them and I don't think we ever will. Okay, so here's something that might be completely true while being completely subjective and unverifiable: "I feel depressed." (...or happy, excited, nervous). Could be completely unprovable...but still "true." So how does that "fit"? The words "feel" and "depressed" are subjective words. How can you have any kind of objective truth with subjective words? I mean we have layers upon layers of miscommunication here. What do you mean by "feel"? How can I be certain that that's the same meaning as mine. Even more for "depressed". Some people use it for things that others wouldn't even notice. Some people faint at the sight of blood (their own or the one of others) others stitch their own wounds up without anesthetic (I know personally someone who did that and the doctors were impressed by the way he did it.) anyway, those are extreme but they show you that anything concerning feelings, pain... Anything concerning our senses, is essentially relative. Doctors ask sometimes their patients to grade their pain (from zero to ten) but they probably have a way to calibrate that number if you see what I mean.... My point is we're navigating an ocean of subjectivity here. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 8, 2021 21:56:13 GMT
Okay, so here's something that might be completely true while being completely subjective and unverifiable: "I feel depressed." (...or happy, excited, nervous). Could be completely unprovable...but still "true." So how does that "fit"? The words "feel" and "depressed" are subjective words. How can you have any kind of objective truth with subjective words? I mean we have layers upon layers of miscommunication here. What do you mean by "feel"? How can I be certain that that's the same meaning as mine. Even more for "depressed". Some people use it for things that others wouldn't even notice. Some people faint at the sight of blood (their own or the one of others) others stitch their own wounds up without anesthetic (I know personally someone who did that and the doctors were impressed by the way he did it.) anyway, those are extreme but they show you that anything concerning feelings, pain... Anything concerning our senses, is essentially relative. Doctors ask sometimes their patients to grade their pain (from zero to ten) but they probably have a way to calibrate that number if you see what I mean.... My point is we're navigating an ocean of subjectivity here. I agree with you about the subjectivity, but it can still be true that I "feel happy" (at least right now). It could even be verified with a measure of brain chemistry. But that we can't measure it, or that it is subjective, doesn't make it "not true." No? So what makes something "objective" when it comes to truth? That we can "all" confirm it and agree to it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2021 22:42:36 GMT
The words "feel" and "depressed" are subjective words. How can you have any kind of objective truth with subjective words? I mean we have layers upon layers of miscommunication here. What do you mean by "feel"? How can I be certain that that's the same meaning as mine. Even more for "depressed". Some people use it for things that others wouldn't even notice. Some people faint at the sight of blood (their own or the one of others) others stitch their own wounds up without anesthetic (I know personally someone who did that and the doctors were impressed by the way he did it.) anyway, those are extreme but they show you that anything concerning feelings, pain... Anything concerning our senses, is essentially relative. Doctors ask sometimes their patients to grade their pain (from zero to ten) but they probably have a way to calibrate that number if you see what I mean.... My point is we're navigating an ocean of subjectivity here. I agree with you about the subjectivity, but it can still be true that I "feel happy" (at least right now). It could even be verified with a measure of brain chemistry. But that we can't measure it, or that it is subjective, doesn't make it "not true." No? So what makes something "objective" when it comes to truth? That we can "all" confirm it and agree to it? Are you familiar with Gödel's incompleteness theorems? Essentially they have to do with mathematical assertions that are fundamentally undecidable. IOW, mathematical statements that are true but impossible to prove. Of course, we can't know what they are because if we could it would defeat the theorem... We only know that they exist. IOW, if there is a mathematical assertion that you can't seem to prove, it could be one of three things. 1) the assertion is false. 2) the assertion is true but you haven't found the way to prove it yet (like Fermat's last theorem for example that was only proven after three centuries and a half of a great many people trying to do so. 3) it could be a Gödel assertion, IE one that is true but impossible to prove. Some people see Gödel's theorems as proof of the inexistence of a god, IE a being that would know EVERYTHING, maybe you can see why by yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 8, 2021 22:52:00 GMT
I agree with you about the subjectivity, but it can still be true that I "feel happy" (at least right now). It could even be verified with a measure of brain chemistry. But that we can't measure it, or that it is subjective, doesn't make it "not true." No? So what makes something "objective" when it comes to truth? That we can "all" confirm it and agree to it? Are you familiar with Gödel's incompleteness theorems? I was going to bring it up earlier today but figured it was too much of a tangent. And yet...Gödel himself was a theist...? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2021 22:58:33 GMT
Are you familiar with Gödel's incompleteness theorems? I was going to bring it up earlier today but figured it was too much of a tangent. And yet...Gödel himself was a theist...? Well, Voltaire was a theist too (or is it a deist?) and he thought that god couldn't care less about humankind... I think he formulated that way: "When you are the captain of a big ship, do you worry about the vermin infesting its hold?" |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 8, 2021 23:49:36 GMT
I was going to bring it up earlier today but figured it was too much of a tangent. And yet...Gödel himself was a theist...? Well, Voltaire was a theist too (or is it a deist?) and he thought that god couldn't care less about humankind... I think he formulated that way: "When you are the captain of a big ship, do you worry about the vermin infesting its hold?" Interesting. Probably a deist, which would have been barely acceptable at that time. |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Feb 9, 2021 5:12:50 GMT
Who is to say that they don't? Whatever the lion preys upon survives. Only other alpha species co-exist with an alpha predator. Whatever is morality to them is at least as moral as what is morality to most humans. Okay, sure. So two followup questions: 1) As long as it's an "open question," isn't it hard to build a case on it? 2) If lions have a "moral code to them," then it's not "the same moral code" than would apply to humans? Or, as in the case of the argument, to God? That could create a whole bunch more problems, and would render the initial argument useless, because then God himself might be subject to a different moral code than humans. Which, of course, begs the question: can/would God be subject to a "moral code"? Wouldn't that effectively put the moral code "above God"? Or better yet, if God's creatures are by their nature either Moral, Amoral or Immoral . . . which is a lion? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2021 9:07:57 GMT
Well, Voltaire was a theist too (or is it a deist?) and he thought that god couldn't care less about humankind... I think he formulated that way: "When you are the captain of a big ship, do you worry about the vermin infesting its hold?" Interesting. Probably a deist, which would have been barely acceptable at that time. Well, Voltaire, wasn't one to choose the easy way. He criticized the catholic church on more than one occasion which was very courageous at the time. Remember his most famous quote: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" And for him it wasn't just words. On several occasions he defended people victim of the government or the church at his own peril. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 10, 2021 14:50:54 GMT
Interesting. Probably a deist, which would have been barely acceptable at that time. Well, Voltaire, wasn't one to choose the easy way. He criticized the catholic church on more than one occasion which was very courageous at the time. Remember his most famous quote: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" And for him it wasn't just words. On several occasions he defended people victim of the government or the church at his own peril. Absolutely. I do think that his criticism was highly informed by his context. He lived while the corruption of the Church in France was at its height, before the French Revolution (not least because of its embroilment in politics--that poisons both the politics and the Church). I suspect to some extent he was a product of his times. If he had lived, say, in England instead of France, his criticisms of the Church would likely have been less vociferous. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2021 15:21:04 GMT
Well, Voltaire, wasn't one to choose the easy way. He criticized the catholic church on more than one occasion which was very courageous at the time. Remember his most famous quote: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" And for him it wasn't just words. On several occasions he defended people victim of the government or the church at his own peril. Absolutely. I do think that his criticism was highly informed by his context. He lived while the corruption of the Church in France was at its height, before the French Revolution (not least because of its embroilment in politics--that poisons both the politics and the Church). I suspect to some extent he was a product of his times. If he had lived, say, in England instead of France, his criticisms of the Church would likely have been less vociferous. I don't know. He was exiled from France for 28 years and that never seemed to slow him down. It's amazing the number of things he did in his (for his time) very long life. Did you know that he once was beaten within an inch of his life by a bunch of thugs sent by an aristocrat he had offended? You'd think he would have kept a low profile after that, but not him. He was quite a remarkable man. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 10, 2021 19:27:34 GMT
Absolutely. I do think that his criticism was highly informed by his context. He lived while the corruption of the Church in France was at its height, before the French Revolution (not least because of its embroilment in politics--that poisons both the politics and the Church). I suspect to some extent he was a product of his times. If he had lived, say, in England instead of France, his criticisms of the Church would likely have been less vociferous. I don't know. He was exiled from France for 28 years and that never seemed to slow him down. It's amazing the number of things he did in his (for his time) very long life. Did you know that he once was beaten within an inch of his life by a bunch of thugs sent by an aristocrat he had offended? You'd think he would have kept a low profile after that, but not him. He was quite a remarkable man. I don't know that much about him. Maybe I should read up to develop more appreciation. One thing that drives me nuts is when his "I will defend your right to say it" quote is attributed to someone else. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2021 22:52:06 GMT
I don't know. He was exiled from France for 28 years and that never seemed to slow him down. It's amazing the number of things he did in his (for his time) very long life. Did you know that he once was beaten within an inch of his life by a bunch of thugs sent by an aristocrat he had offended? You'd think he would have kept a low profile after that, but not him. He was quite a remarkable man. I don't know that much about him. Maybe I should read up to develop more appreciation. One thing that drives me nuts is when his "I will defend your right to say it" quote is attributed to someone else. I think the most important is not that he said it, it's that he practiced it. |
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Mar 22, 2021 23:35:49 GMT
I've had this discussion with countless religion peddlers (I am trying to embrace a vast category of people) and it almost always comes down to this: God is moral, it's man ( it's the generic term, not man as opposed to woman) that's immoral. Also God is good, the evil comes from man and his choices. Ok, so let's eliminate man from the equation, or formula, where does that leave us... Well, in pre-man nature. Take the lion for example, lions are evolved, high on the food chain animals, they're superior to dogs in every way including mental and most people think dogs are intelligent... Dominant male lions kill their young, they've existed for (paleontology tells us) about twenty five million years and therefore they've been killing their young for that time. Why do they do that? Because the female lion won't have sex as long as she's in charge of cubs. The lion gets sexual urges and the lioness won't have it. So what does he do, he kills the cubs, so he can have sex again, until the next time... Statistically, what is the most likely way for a lion cub to die? killed by its own father. Of course the rate of reproduction and the number of cubs in a litter is high, so lions don't go extinct, at least not because of this, (they could go extinct because of man but that's another story). Basically every dominant male lion is the killer of countless of his own cubs. In a way you could say that that's God way of validating this behavior, IE increasing the rate of reproduction to compensate for a massacre... Can you honestly say that a father killing his offspring is moral? So is God moral? I think not.
If we're talking about the christian god, I would have to say yes to some extent. They're horrible morals on a standard that is much below the average human today.
|
|
