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

An infinite series of finite causes.

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

  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    I do science for a living,
    Where did you publish your last peer reviewed paper?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      But every since instance of the argument that I have ever encountered boils down to the same basic argument: it can't be relative/subjective because then it isn't absolute/objective. As I noted before, that's like arguing, "but it can't be blue, because then it isn't green." We all know subjective/relative is not objective/absolute. Likewise, we all know blue isn't green. But noting that is not an argument for why the things ISN'T that. It's just a reaffirmation that subjective/relative isn't objective/absolute and blue isn't green. We already knew that. Nothing is being said...

      Again Carp, it was never my intention to disprove subjectivism. Didn't I make that clear? What I do is paint the clearest picture of these opposing views that I can, often using the most stark contrasts possible. And you are correct, most people, even an increasing numbers of atheist, intuit the need for an objective moral standard. Through our discussions I appeal to that intuition, which I believe is God given. And the fact that most people don't not find subjectivism livable - perhaps they are correct.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        Again Carp, it was never my intention to disprove subjectivism. Didn't I make that clear? What I do is paint the clearest picture of these opposing views that I can, often using the most stark contrasts possible. And you are correct, most people, even an increasing numbers of atheist, intuit the need for an objective moral standard. Through our discussions I appeal to that intuition, which I believe is God given. And the fact that most people don't not find subjectivism livable - perhaps they are correct.
        I've never been one to appeal to the masses for an argument

        Ultimately, Seer, it is equally likely that people tend to run to "objective" standards because that is what they have been indoctrinated to since birth the vast majority of times. When Einstein first proposed his relativity model, he likewise was resisted. Newtonian physics was how everyone had been trained to think: pool balls on a pool table. Then along comes Einstein with the audacious claim that "the train does not have an absolute speed - that's an illusion."

        Ultimately, Einstein is proven correct (though apparently you don't agree). All of physics is revolutionized as a consequence. I believe the same is true of morality. We have been indoctrinated to think in terms of absolutes, predominantly by religions. Even atheists, most of whom probably grew up in a theistic culture or home, have absorbed this indoctrination. That is religions speaking - not god. And when you peel back the onion just a bit, you find there is nothing inside. All of the claims rejecting relative/subjective morality devolve to the same bacic three techniques (which we have discussed). Meanwhile, the evidence of the subjectivity and relativity of morality is all around us, even for the so-called "objective/absolute" moralist. It is, when you dig into it, inescapable.

        And that is why I have let go of the absolute/objective model. It simply cannot be shown to exist, or even make sense. While the relative/subjective model can be easily demonstrated to be how moralism works throughout humanity.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          Really? Name one experience that could not be reproduced in your brain, in the vat, by an evil genius?
          We have no reason to believe it to be true just as we have no reason to believe our universe is a virtual reality experiment being conducted by an incredibly advanced societies. Whatever! We have no option other than to live our life as though the 'reality' we experience around us is real.
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by element771 View Post
            Where did you publish your last peer reviewed paper?
            Still waiting . . .

            Answer the question.

            . . . it is unethical to misuse science to support a theological/philosophical argument that is not grounded in objective verifiable evidence either from a theist or atheist perspective despite the fact that scientific findings are neutral to either belief.

            Still waiting for examples of 'scientific findings' that may be used to support theological/philosophical question.
            Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-19-2018, 09:56 PM.
            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


            • Originally posted by element771 View Post
              Sure but that is where Tass' argument falls apart.

              Theological point: Universe had a beginning.

              Scientific point: Currently science says the universe has a beginning.

              To say that someone cannot use this data to support this theological point is ridiculous.
              Actually, your use of the word "currently" is where YOUR argument falls apart. Religion deals in absolutes but scientific knowledge grows and evolves; the scientific hypothesis that seems to support a theological point now may not always support it.

              As you say, scientists currently say this universe has a beginning, but this does not take into account the proposed multiverse theory. Hence, the danger for theists using current scientific views to support a theological point is that the science may no longer support that point at a later stage.

              When this occurs, the theist must then resist scientific advances (as many do regarding the possible multiverse) or acknowledge that science no longer supports their theological claim, which many seem reluctant to do.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                Again Carp, it was never my intention to disprove subjectivism. Didn't I make that clear? What I do is paint the clearest picture of these opposing views that I can, often using the most stark contrasts possible. And you are correct, most people, even an increasing numbers of atheist, intuit the need for an objective moral standard.
                What ALL people need, not just atheists, is a moral standard that reflects the current moral values of society. These values have demonstrably changed over the millennia...from brutal tribal values in the past to the modern values of universal human rights.

                Through our discussions I appeal to that intuition, which I believe is God given.
                By which you mean YOUR god. This is a poor basis for morality, given that many competing religions hold “God given” beliefs which are mutually exclusive.

                And the fact that most people don't not find subjectivism livable - perhaps they are correct.
                The rule of law enforces societal values as though they were objective; they are as far as a given society is concerned.
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  What ALL people need, not just atheists, is a moral standard that reflects the current moral values of society.
                  This part of what you wrote is what I meant earlier about people tending to want to turn to an external source, and I think this is exactly backwards because it gives "society" primacy. Moralizing is an individual activity. The collective moral norms of the members of a society is what is expressed as "the moral code" of the society. Seldom does the "social moral norm" align perfectly to any particular member, but the measure of "right/wrong" is not whether we align with the social norm. We measure right/wrong internally. The social norm applies peer pressure, as do many other sources, on our internal moral code - but it does not dictate it. If it did, the person with a new moral insight would be "wrong" and "immoral" until they convinced the bull of the society to change. They might be wrong/immoral to much of society, but they would not perceive themselves as wrong/immoral as they set out om their quest to convince.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    Ultimately, Einstein is proven correct (though apparently you don't agree). All of physics is revolutionized as a consequence. I believe the same is true of morality. We have been indoctrinated to think in terms of absolutes, predominantly by religions. Even atheists, most of whom probably grew up in a theistic culture or home, have absorbed this indoctrination. That is religions speaking - not god. And when you peel back the onion just a bit, you find there is nothing inside. All of the claims rejecting relative/subjective morality devolve to the same bacic three techniques (which we have discussed). Meanwhile, the evidence of the subjectivity and relativity of morality is all around us, even for the so-called "objective/absolute" moralist. It is, when you dig into it, inescapable.
                    Again Carp, the fact that you see moral disagreement "all around us" neither proves subjectivism nor disproves universal moral truths. And what you see as indoctrination I see as a God given moral intuition bent towards the absolute (Romans 2).

                    And that is why I have let go of the absolute/objective model. It simply cannot be shown to exist, or even make sense. While the relative/subjective model can be easily demonstrated to be how moralism works throughout humanity.
                    Well you have not shown that universal moral norms are illogical, or violate any rule of logic, so what makes sense to you or not, is not really relevant - is it? Just your opinion.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Still waiting . . .

                      Answer the question.

                      . . . it is unethical to misuse science to support a theological/philosophical argument that is not grounded in objective verifiable evidence either from a theist or atheist perspective despite the fact that scientific findings are neutral to either belief.

                      Still waiting for examples of 'scientific findings' that may be used to support theological/philosophical question.
                      Why don't you answer his questions Shuny: Where did you publish your last peer reviewed paper?
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by element771
                        Sure but that is where Tass' argument falls apart.

                        Theological point: Universe had a beginning.

                        Scientific point: Currently science says the universe has a beginning.

                        To say that someone cannot use this data to support this theological point is ridiculous.
                        I missed this, and Tassman is correct. The above bold is a false statement.Science does not consider the universe to have a beginning in the theological sense, nor in any definitive physical sense. In science there are numerous possibilities including: cyclic models for our universe, multiverse hypothesis, and Black Hole hypothesis Even without these possibilities science currently considers the hypothesis that our universe began as a singularity, and the singularity to form from preexisting matter/energy. Absolute beginnings that would be a theological beginning of our universe nor our physical existence are not a remote consideration in science. It is often the case I hear apologists argue that science does not know nor cannot falsify hypothesis beyond the beginning of our universe therefore. . . is a fallacious arguing from ignorance.
                        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


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Why don't you answer his questions Shuny: Where did you publish your last peer reviewed paper?
                          Resorting to Ad hominem does not satisfy the reasonable logical requirement for a coherent answer:

                          Answer the question.

                          . . . it is unethical to misuse science to support a theological/philosophical argument that is not grounded in objective verifiable evidence either from a theist or atheist perspective despite the fact that scientific findings are neutral to either belief.

                          Still waiting for examples of 'scientific findings' that may be used to support theological/philosophical question.
                          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


                          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            Resorting to Ad hominem does not satisfy the reasonable logical requirement for a coherent answer:

                            Answer the question.

                            . . . it is unethical to misuse science to support a theological/philosophical argument that is not grounded in objective verifiable evidence either from a theist or atheist perspective despite the fact that scientific findings are neutral to either belief.

                            Still waiting for examples of 'scientific findings' that may be used to support theological/philosophical question.
                            Shuny, we know you are a deceiver, and will use falsehoods to support your position: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...rlier-universe
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Shuny, we know you are a deceiver, and will use falsehoods to support your position: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...rlier-universe
                              Resorting to Ad hominem does not satisfy the reasonable logical requirement for a coherent answer:

                              Answer the question.

                              . . . it is unethical to misuse science to support a theological/philosophical argument that is not grounded in objective verifiable evidence either from a theist or atheist perspective despite the fact that scientific findings are neutral to either belief.

                              Still waiting for examples of 'scientific findings' that may be used to support theological/philosophical question.
                              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


                              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                Resorting to Ad hominem does not satisfy the reasonable logical requirement for a coherent answer:

                                Answer the question.

                                . . . it is unethical to misuse science to support a theological/philosophical argument that is not grounded in objective verifiable evidence either from a theist or atheist perspective despite the fact that scientific findings are neutral to either belief.

                                Still waiting for examples of 'scientific findings' that may be used to support theological/philosophical question.
                                Shuny, you can not be trusted. You have a religious agenda, your faith requires matter and energy to be co-eternal with your god, you just try and dress your faith up in science.
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                513 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