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

When does proving one's truth claims come to an end?

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

  • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
    Because the difference is obvious to anyone who is not a robot.
    The nature of being human is not robotic regardless of whether God exists or not.
    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 Jim B. View Post
      I'm not assuming there's a difference, but there definitely seems to be a strong prima facie case made for a difference based on all the arguments.
      Unless we have empirical evidence to the contrary, I think it best to maintain that the universe and all living things therein are nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.
      “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 shunyadragon View Post
        The nature of being human is not robotic regardless of whether God exists or not.
        Unless you've experienced both possibilities, how would you know?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          Unless we have empirical evidence to the contrary, I think it best to maintain that the universe and all living things therein are nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.
          "Unless we have empirical evidence to the contrary, I think it best to maintain that the only things which I'm going to even entertain the possibility of existing are the ones that are open to empirical study."

          As for the difference between the physical nature of subjective experience and the phenomenal nature, there are more similarities between the electro-chemical signals in your neural pathways and any other physical entity in the material world than there are similarities between that brain activity and the subjective experiences to which it gives rise.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            Unless you've experienced both possibilities, how would you know?
            Possibilities? Experienced? Humans experience being human.
            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
              Possibilities? Experienced? Humans experience being human.
              Let me specify:

              Unless you've experienced both the possibility in which God exists and the possibility in which God doesn't exist, how would you know that the nature of being human is the same in both possibilities?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                Yes, and those reasons were not justified. You're confusing descriptive morality with normative morality.
                Now you are moving the goal posts. Your whole point was that for something to be moral it must be based on reasons. But that gets us nowhere since we can just as well base immoral acts on reasons. So reasons are just as relative or subjective as anything else. Throwing around terms like descriptive or normative morality does not change that one bit.


                So why say 'universal' then? The word is misleading. It all depends on the 'universe' you're referring to.BTW, you shouldn't have 'moral' in your definition because it's circular.

                I'm talking about all rational social beings. It's based on normative realism, that there are real reasons in terms of justifications for doing things, in agent-neutral terms. You haven't given any real explanation for why rape is wrong. Just saying "Because God says so" isn't an explanation.
                Of course it is because God says so. What do you have? Because you say so?



                Any truth claim anyone makes, including you, is what we say it is. The persuasiveness of the claim depends upon the reasons and the evidence that can be brought to bear in defense of the claim. You haven't brought any evidence at all or any argument other than stipulation: ""This is the way it is and that is that!"
                If we can make any truth claim at all beyond our subjective opinion, including scientists and mathematicians, we can do so depending on the evidence and arguments we make. According to you, each of us is stuck in our subjective prison. But we're obviously not. There is science, math, philosophy. You're making claims about God and the nature of reality. How are you justified in making these claims, if it's all just opinion?
                God's law is certain, universal and non-relative. I can find no better basis in the musings of man.

                Is pain bad, as in intrinsically a bad thing? Do we have good reasons for thinking so? If you say you're in pain, does it make any sense for me to ask why you believe you're in pain? Is it more immediately apparent that pain is an intrinsically bad thing for the sufferer than that God is the source of the moral law? Do I have better reasons to believe in other minds like my own than to believe that God is the source of the moral law, and that these minds cause these people the same badness associated with pain that I experience with pain? Are there any good reasons to think that the badness for them is any different from the badness for me?
                Does the masochist necessarily think pain is bad? Is the pain of surgery a necessarily bad thing? If I can offer one exception the whole house of cards folds. Never mind the fact that even though one personally may not want to experience pain the cannibal has few qualms about boiling you alive. It does not necessarily follow that because one does not want to experience pain it is therefor immoral to inflict pain on others for personal gain or pleasure.


                Who's talking about consequences? Now YOU are clearly begging the question by assuming that there must be consequences to violating moral norms, ie you're assuming an authoritarian retributive basis for morality.
                So your theory has power. Then why adopt it?
                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 Jim B. View Post
                  I'm talking about all rational social beings. It's based on normative realism, that there are real reasons in terms of justifications for doing things, in agent-neutral terms. You haven't given any real explanation for why rape is wrong. Just saying "Because God says so" isn't an explanation.

                  Jim the more I think about this the more confused I get. Are you saying that God needs a reason for His moral character, that He needs reasons for being loving, just, forgiving, etc..? And that He needs reasons for acting on those moral qualities? If God by nature believes that lying is wrong, does He need reasons to hold that view?
                  Last edited by seer; 01-29-2020, 11:38 AM.
                  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 Chrawnus View Post
                    Let me specify:

                    Unless you've experienced both the possibility in which God exists and the possibility in which God doesn't exist, how would you know that the nature of being human is the same in both possibilities?
                    How does one experience a "possibility", exactly?
                    “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 Chrawnus View Post
                      "Unless we have empirical evidence to the contrary, I think it best to maintain that the only things which I'm going to even entertain the possibility of existing are the ones that are open to empirical study."
                      Unless we have empirical evidence to the contrary there is no good reason “to even entertain the possibility” of the existence of anything other than the natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.

                      As for the difference between the physical nature of subjective experience and the phenomenal nature, there are more similarities between the electro-chemical signals in your neural pathways and any other physical entity in the material world than there are similarities between that brain activity and the subjective experiences to which it gives rise.
                      What's your point?
                      “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 Chrawnus View Post
                        Let me specify:

                        Unless you've experienced both the possibility in which God exists and the possibility in which God doesn't exist, how would you know that the nature of being human is the same in both possibilities?
                        I am referring to the factual nature of human nature by the evidence humans are not robotic they are essentially human naturally. We are what we are regardless of what we believe. This in essence considers just those possibilities. I believe I experience the possibility that God does not exist and the possibility that God exists. I am a believer in God, but philosophical agnostic, because in reality 'I do not know.' Because of this the powers to be in this forum force me to use the label agnostic.

                        Do you experience the possibility that God does not exist?
                        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 Tassman View Post
                          How does one experience a "possibility", exactly?
                          Well, in this case you don't. Either God exists, or He doesn't, and there is no way to know how much the human experience would differ from the current one if the alternative reality rather than the actual reality, was true. In other words, when shunyadragon is saying that the human experience would be the same regardless of whether God exists or not, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            Unless we have empirical evidence to the contrary there is no good reason “to even entertain the possibility” of the existence of anything other than the natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.
                            We have no good reasons to believe that we are only warranted to believe things that can be verified by empirical evidence.


                            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            What's your point?
                            You replied in an earlier post to Jim B. with the following:

                            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            I think it best to maintain that the universe and all living things therein are nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.
                            My point is that the phenomenal nature of our subjective experiences differ in such a fundamental way from every thing you've listed above that it's impossible to categorize them as anything of the above.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              I am referring to the factual nature of human nature by the evidence humans are not robotic they are essentially human naturally. We are what we are regardless of what we believe. This in essence considers just those possibilities. I believe I experience the possibility that God does not exist and the possibility that God exists. I am a believer in God, but philosophical agnostic, because in reality 'I do not know.' Because of this the powers to be in this forum force me to use the label agnostic.
                              Regarding the bolded above, that was not how you initially put it, what you wrote was:

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              The nature of being human is not robotic regardless of whether God exists or not.
                              Which would indicate you believe that humans would experience the world in the exact same way regardless if God actually exists or not, and that you weren't simply speaking about whether you believe God exists or not.

                              Also, my statement about "experiencing the possibility that God does not exist and the possibility that God exists." was not a statement about considering both possibilities, but a statement about actually existing in a reality where God exists, and one in which He doesn't, in order to compare how you would experience the world in both realities.


                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Do you experience the possibility that God does not exist?
                              In the way I described above, no, I don't think I do.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                Unless we have empirical evidence to the contrary, I think it best to maintain that the universe and all living things therein are nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.
                                That's a classical example of circular reasoning.

                                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