Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Arguments we should use or not use.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Arguments we should use or not use.

    The original thread deteriorated into debating individual specific arguments, and not the logical basis and reasons for 'Why should arguments be not used' and 'what arguments should we use' based on the logical basis, soundness and relevance of the arguments.

    I have specific problems concerning the arguments of 'free will, mind and consciousness and objective morality be used for arguments for the existence of God.

    The reasons that these arguments should not be used is:

    (1) There is no objective evidence that humans could naturally be a deterministic machine or as claimed a robot without free will. Human nature is what it is naturally with consciousness, a mind, and a (free?) will regardless.

    (2) There is no way to compare the possible options for the nature of our existence with or without God. This is the same for the weak argument for an objective morality, because human nature and morality is as it is whether God exists or not, and there is no way to compare a hypothetical world with a God and one without God.

    (3) There is a problem with how 'objective' is used in arguments such as the issue of the origin of human morality. This will be addressed with references concerning how 'objective' is used, and how it is defined and should be used.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-01-2016, 07:45 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  • #2
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    (1) There is no objective evidence that humans could naturally be a deterministic machine or as claimed a robot without free will. Human nature is what it is naturally with consciousness, a mind, and a (free?) will regardless.
    Isn't this pre-supposing what you hope to prove?
    You're simply making a claim here and declaring it off limits when it is the exact point of the debate.

    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    (2) There is no way to compare the possible options for the nature of our existence with or without God. This is the same for the weak argument for an objective morality, because human nature and morality is as it is whether God exists or not, and there is no way to compare a hypothetical world with a God and one without God.
    See above.

    I never found these sorts of arguments entertaining, much less convincing; however, even I can see that your just declaring your own presuppositions as correct and irrefutable. That isn't a change in tactics for you but I'm surprised you're making it this obvious.
    Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
      Isn't this pre-supposing what you hope to prove?
      You're simply making a claim here and declaring it off limits when it is the exact point of the debate.
      No, my argument does not presuppose anything. Anyone can challenge me and show how one can make a comparison between a world with God, and one without God when arguing for the existence of God in these arguments.

      I never found these sorts of arguments entertaining, much less convincing; however, even I can see that your just declaring your own presuppositions as correct and irrefutable. That isn't a change in tactics for you but I'm surprised you're making it this obvious.
      My suppositions, not presuppositions, may not be correct, and possibly refutable. Anyone is free to refute my argument and find it incorrect.
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-01-2016, 09:48 AM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        No, my argument does not presuppose anything.
        Yeah, you kind of did here:

        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        1) There is no objective evidence that humans could naturally be a deterministic machine or as claimed a robot without free will. Human nature is what it is naturally with consciousness, a mind, and a (free?) will regardless.
        If the debate is whether or not humans have freewill and you set up the debate rules such that freewill is defined as being a part of human nature than you've already answered the question.

        It would be like me doing something like this:
        Let's debate as to whether or not Shunya is silly.

        Here are the rules:
        There is no objective evidence that silliness is not a part of Shunya's composition.

        Let's start...
        Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

        Comment


        • #5
          Shunya,
          That all said I agree with you in part.
          I don't see how anyone could craft a meaningful argument from freewill/lack of freewill.

          -Meh Gerbil
          Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            (1) There is no objective evidence that humans could naturally be a deterministic machine or as claimed a robot without free will. Human nature is what it is naturally with consciousness, a mind, and a (free?) will regardless.
            The fact is that we humans are self-willed beings. That that will is to what degree is free is what is debated. This post of yours is in evidence here.

            (2) There is no way to compare the possible options for the nature of our existence with or without God. This is the same for the weak argument for an objective morality, because human nature and morality is as it is whether God exists or not, and there is no way to compare a hypothetical world with a God and one without God.
            The problem is two fold. 1) An existence is presumed. 2) What is meant by the term 'God' is not defined and that term`s meaning is being debated as well.
            (3) There is a problem with how 'objective' is used in arguments such as the issue of the origin of human morality. This will be addressed with references concerning how 'objective' is used, and how it is defined and should be used.
            Again a problem of definning terms as to what one means by the terms used. For example, the term 'Natural.'
            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              The fact is that we humans are self-willed beings. That that will is to what degree is free is what is debated. This post of yours is in evidence here.
              OK, but needs further explanation in the terms of the subject of the thread. This may be apparently true regardless of whether God exists or not.

              The problem is two fold. 1) An existence is presumed.
              Needs more explanation. Existence is presumed in one form or another in all worldviews.

              2) What is meant by the term 'God' is not defined and that term`s meaning is being debated as well.
              The definition of 'God' here is no problem. The Theistic God Creator of all of existence is an adequate definition.

              Again a problem of defining terms as to what one means by the terms used. For example, the term 'Natural.'
              No problem, the term 'nature' and 'natural' simply refers to the nature of our physical existence and the Laws of Nature as they are.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                Shunya,
                That all said I agree with you in part.
                I don't see how anyone could craft a meaningful argument from freewill/lack of freewill.

                -Meh Gerbil
                I amen'd with a caveat. There's not an argument for/against a deity based on free will, in my opinion. However, there IS an argument against the Christian God. To the extent free will is linked to responsibility, so too is accountability.
                I'm not here anymore.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                  I amen'd with a caveat. There's not an argument for/against a deity based on free will, in my opinion. However, there IS an argument against the Christian God. To the extent free will is linked to responsibility, so too is accountability.
                  Interesting conclusion concerning the Christian God about responsibility. I would like to hear more. In the Baha'i Faith humans remain responsible for their actions. In societies and cultures throughout history, including the Christian culture, people are generally considered responsible and accountable for their choices and actions.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment

                  Related Threads

                  Collapse

                  Topics Statistics Last Post
                  Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                  161 responses
                  514 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post shunyadragon  
                  Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                  88 responses
                  354 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post shunyadragon  
                  Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                  21 responses
                  133 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post shunyadragon  
                  Working...
                  X