Originally posted by shunyadragon
View Post
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
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
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostBut 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 PostAgain 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.
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 PostReally? Name one experience that could not be reproduced in your brain, in the vat, by an evil genius?“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 PostWhere did you publish your last peer reviewed paper?
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 PostSure 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.
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 PostAgain 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.“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 PostWhat ALL people need, not just atheists, is a moral standard that reflects the current moral values of society.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 PostUltimately, 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.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 PostStill 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.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 element771Sure 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.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 PostWhy don't you answer his questions Shuny: Where did you publish your last peer reviewed paper?
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 PostResorting 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.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 PostShuny, we know you are a deceiver, and will use falsehoods to support your position: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...rlier-universe
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 PostResorting 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.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
by shunyadragon
Today, 05:44 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
|
88 responses
354 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-01-2024, 09:27 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
133 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment