Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

[seer]

I showed that your belief that god is the basis for objective moral values is vacuous, because it results in nonsense, and that the only way to coherently and plausibly justify moral values is to show what they do. There is no need for objective moral values to have "authority" in the sense you need them to be in order to be objective. And ultimately, we make sense of the world based on induction, and it has shown itself to be successful.

But you never demonstrated that objective moral values actually existed. And that you fell into the same problems that the theist did. Do you want to go over it again? In the end you offered nothing of note.

How can the soul be free if god causes it? Already your view makes no sense. Give detail here. Is the soul the same as the mind?

I don't know, why can't God make a soul that can freely choose? And I'm not sure if the soul is the mind or that the soul is different from the mind but can direct, accept or reject thoughts

Newsflash: that's the whole point of a basic belief. That's why they're called basic beliefs. Duh! If you notice, in my basic beliefs, I don't assume my entire worldview. My basic beliefs don't entail atheism. You however grant the Bible as a basic belief, and that means you assume Christianity is true from the start, even though we know the Bible is false.

Yes, I agree that you take these things on faith.

There is no way for anyone to show how all of their beliefs are true, so you're holding me to a standard that you can't even meet. On top of that, LFW is internally incoherent, as is evident by your pathetic attempt to explain it above. It makes far less sense than my deterministic view.

I didn't claim that I could prove anything, only that you do not apply logic (in the sense of following the rules of logic) to much or most of what you believe. Your logical justifications have been successfully knocked out from under you. You remind me of the Black Knight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

This is a logically valid deductive argument. And the first premise is based on induction. So do you admit now that valid deductive arguments can contain premises that are based on induction?

The deductive method is valid, the premises are in always question.

Why does something have to be eternal for it to have any meaning or value or hope? The universe will "die" a googol years from now. That's 10^100 years. The finitude of life gives it more value. That's why we value diamonds, because they're rare. If diamonds were as common as dirt, they'd lose value. Thing is, you were probably brainwashed into thinking that only heaven and god can give you hope. I wasn't raised with such nonsense, so that belief is totally absurd to me.

I asked a specific question Thinker - where is your hope? What gives you hope in light of a dying universe?

[seer]

Your question makes no sense. Rephrase it.

I asked is time was either way directional or not one way directional, you said: That's not necessarily true. On the B-theory of time it could have both.

That is incoherent, so are you sticking by that answer?

Then every DVD is incoherent because the character who dies in the movie is both dead and alive. How do you resolve this?

That is a red herring since my POV is limited. That is not the case where we're are speaking of the totality of matter and energy.

"Time" simply has a slightly different meaning on the B-theory. There is no need for flow in order to have time, otherwise you'd have to conclude that there is no concept of time in a movie.

Is time in the B-Theory static or not. Does the past, present and future all exist together? Is the totality of matter and energy in full entropy or not in full entropy? Even your own video said that the experience of past, present and future is only an illusion.

[The Thinker]

But you never demonstrated that objective moral values actually existed. And that you fell into the same problems that the theist did. Do you want to go over it again? In the end you offered nothing of note.

I did, by showing that they make sense only when you show what they do, which removes god from the equation. But maybe you and I disagree on what 'objective' is, so please define what you mean by it.

I don't know, why can't God make a soul that can freely choose? And I'm not sure if the soul is the mind or that the soul is different from the mind but can direct, accept or reject thoughts

Because the whole concept of 'freely choose' is incoherent, because, for the 20th time, you cannot have a thought, about a thought, before you have the thought. You cannot choose what you will. There is no "freely choose". The whole idea is incoherent. So once again, is your will caused or uncaused?

Yes, I agree that you take these things on faith.

I don't take things on faith, I take basic beliefs on assumptions I cannot prove. That's not the same thing as believing everything on faith.

I didn't claim that I could prove anything, only that you do not apply logic (in the sense of following the rules of logic) to much or most of what you believe. Your logical justifications have been successfully knocked out from under you. You remind me of the Black Knight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

That is a claim that needs backing up with evidence. Show me that I "do not apply logic (in the sense of following the rules of logic) to much or most of what [I] believe."

The deductive method is valid, the premises are in always question.

Exactly, that is my point. A valid deductive argument can still be wrong if one of the premises are wrong.

I asked a specific question Thinker - where is your hope? What gives you hope in light of a dying universe?

Why should the universe's heat death 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 (10^100) make any difference of my life now? I have hope for example, that religion will die in the next coming decades. Christianity is dying fast in the West. The standard of living is going up for people. Technology is improving to save lives and cure diseases at a rapid rate. That all gives me hope that the future will be better. The death of the universe 10^100 years from now is irrelevant.

[seer]

I did, by showing that they make sense only when you show what they do, which removes god from the equation. But maybe you and I disagree on what 'objective' is, so please define what you mean by it.

But no such values actually exist. Isn't that a bit of a problem?

Because the whole concept of 'freely choose' is incoherent, because, for the 20th time, you cannot have a thought, about a thought, before you have the thought. You cannot choose what you will. There is no "freely choose". The whole idea is incoherent. So once again, is your will caused or uncaused?

And you know how a soul operates?

I don't take things on faith, I take basic beliefs on assumptions I cannot prove. That's not the same thing as believing everything on faith.

Are you missing the point? To even get off the ground you have to have faith, to even approach reality you have to have faith. Everything from that point on is built on a foundation of faith.

That is a claim that needs backing up with evidence. Show me that I "do not apply logic (in the sense of following the rules of logic) to much or most of what [I] believe."

I have shown that all through this discussion. And I did say that you didn't use logic (whatever that means), but that your positions and beliefs are not logically justifiable.

Why should the universe's heat death 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 (10^100) make any difference of my life now? I have hope for example, that religion will die in the next coming decades. Christianity is dying fast in the West. The standard of living is going up for people. Technology is improving to save lives and cure diseases at a rapid rate. That all gives me hope that the future will be better. The death of the universe 10^100 years from now is irrelevant.

Or we could be wiped out by an asteroid next week. So much for your "hope."

[The Thinker]

I asked is time was either way directional or not one way directional, you said: That's not necessarily true. On the B-theory of time it could have both.

That is incoherent, so are you sticking by that answer?

Your question is still misinformed. Saying "either way directional" makes no sense. I assume you mean "one way directional." There is nothing incoherent here, you just don't understand science, and you've proven that you are incapable of understanding concepts that high school kids could understand.

That is a red herring since my POV is limited. That is not the case where we're are speaking of the totality of matter and energy.

It's the same exact concept and it logically shows your misunderstanding is foolish.

Is time in the B-Theory static or not. Does the past, present and future all exist together? Is the totality of matter and energy in full entropy or not in full entropy? Even your own video said that the experience of past, present and future is only an illusion.

On the B-theory time is static, yes, the past, present, and future all exist, but not in the same part of spacetime. The experience of an objective past, present, and future is an illusion; all notions of past, present, and future is subjective.

[The Thinker]

But no such values actually exist. Isn't that a bit of a problem?

Prove they don't exist.

And you know how a soul operates?

That presumes a soul exists or could operate coherently. My whole point is that "freely choose" is a totally incoherent concept, regardless of whether there is a soul or not. According to your own standards, unless you can logically demonstrate this is coherent, it is false.

Are you missing the point? To even get off the ground you have to have faith, to even approach reality you have to have faith. Everything from that point on is built on a foundation of faith.

That doesn't mean that I have to have faith that 1+1=2. It doesn't mean I have to have faith that the earth isn't flat. You're obviously not a very philosophically inclined person.

I have shown that all through this discussion. And I did say that you didn't use logic (whatever that means), but that your positions and beliefs are not logically justifiable.

You're just making assertions here. Back that up with evidence. I logically showed you how I can be determined to believe X, and X is actually true. You claim induction is a logical fallacy, and got shown it isn't. I said I could've just used adding rocks in my example which would use deduction and not induction. And now you're just claiming you won somehow. I have no idea how to make sense of you other than the fact it is obvious you religious views are getting a whipping.

Or we could be wiped out by an asteroid next week. So much for your "hope."

Yeah, but that won't happen, so I'm not worried.

[seer]

Your question is still misinformed. Saying "either way directional" makes no sense. I assume you mean "one way directional." There is nothing incoherent here, you just don't understand science, and you've proven that you are incapable of understanding concepts that high school kids could understand.

I have been saying one way directional (I may have missed the one, one time). And just asserting that a contradiction is not a contradiction is no answer Thinker. Time either actually does move in one direction only or it doesn't. It can't be both.

It's the same exact concept and it logically shows your misunderstanding is foolish.

Really we are not speaking of all matter and energy?

On the B-theory time is static, yes, the past, present, and future all exist, but not in the same part of spacetime. The experience of an objective past, present, and future is an illusion; all notions of past, present, and future is subjective.

Ok,

1. Time is static, so there are actually no differing times in space time.

2. There is only one actual clump of actual matter and energy. So there are no differing parts there either.

So again where are these different parts if the time is all the same and the matter and energy is all the same?

[seer]

Prove they don't exist.

You are making the claim, not me, it is on you to demonstrate it. And this was the problem in our last debate - you could not.

That presumes a soul exists or could operate coherently. My whole point is that "freely choose" is a totally incoherent concept, regardless of whether there is a soul or not. According to your own standards, unless you can logically demonstrate this is coherent, it is false.

Well it is no more incoherent than time moving only in one direction and not moving in only one direction. I guess we all have faith Thinker.

That doesn't mean that I have to have faith that 1+1=2. It doesn't mean I have to have faith that the earth isn't flat. You're obviously not a very philosophically inclined person.

What is a one? What is flat? What is an earth? You will find hidden unproveable assumption behind all those questions and definitions. And since you are so much more philosophically inclined than I, you know that is true.

You're just making assertions here. Back that up with evidence. I logically showed you how I can be determined to believe X, and X is actually true. You claim induction is a logical fallacy, and got shown it isn't. I said I could've just used adding rocks in my example which would use deduction and not induction. And now you're just claiming you won somehow. I have no idea how to make sense of you other than the fact it is obvious you religious views are getting a whipping.

Yes, but as you rightly stated your premises are inductive, and therefore always suspect.

Look.

1. I could be determined to believe a truism.

2. I believe that A is true.

3. Therefore A is actually true.

Do you see the problem? Never mind that the fist premise is an assumption, a faith position.

Yeah, but that won't happen, so I'm not worried.

Hope springs eternal...

Anyway Thinker, I'm going to end this soon. A couple of more posts at most, so we should sum up for our avid lurkers...

[The Thinker]

You are making the claim, not me, it is on you to demonstrate it. And this was the problem in our last debate - you could not.

Well you were claiming that they don't exist. I'm claiming that trying to argue that god is required to have objective moral values eventually results in nonsense, and the only way to make sense of it is to show what the moral values do - in other words, they are not grounded in god.

Well it is no more incoherent than time moving only in one direction and not moving in only one direction. I guess we all have faith Thinker.

Ha ha. No, it's nothing like it. You see, the directionality of time being dependent on the direction entropy increases, which can go in multidirections relative to the other, is coherent if, and only if, you understand the science behind how that could be possible. If you don't understand it, it seems incoherent. Here's a paper describing it. I'm not trying to say it is true, just that it is not logically incoherent.

"Freely" choosing something is totally incoherent because there is no way to describe it coherently. It has nothing to do with faith, it has to do with your profound scientific ignorance.

Your not off the hook. Are you admitting your view cannot be coherently or logically demonstrated?

What is a one? What is flat? What is an earth? You will find hidden unproveable assumption behind all those questions and definitions. And since you are so much more philosophically inclined than I, you know that is true.

A one is just a single object or thing. There is no hidden assumption behind it. In math we can have logical proofs that require no faith at all.

Yes, but as you rightly stated your premises are inductive, and therefore always suspect.

Look.

1. I could be determined to believe a truism.

2. I believe that A is true.

3. Therefore A is actually true.

Do you see the problem? Never mind that the fist premise is an assumption, a faith position.

That is not at all my argument. I only have to argue that it is logically possible for me being determine to believe A is true, and A is actually true. We already agreed that there is no way for us to know our beliefs are true 100% of the time. My premises could be just as deductive, for example:

Let's say A = adding one rock to one rock leaves me with two rocks. I take one rock, add it to another rock. I get all this data from my senses of sight and my brain processes that data and I am determined to conclude that adding one rock to one rock leaves me with two rocks. The sight of one one rock being added to one rock determined my brain to believe that A = adding one rock to one rock leaves me with two rocks. That is a physical and logically deductive mathematical proof that does not require induction. Now if you say that I can't know for sure whether my belief in A is true you will be violating your claim that "I never asked you to demonstrate with 100% certainty.

Hope springs eternal...

Anyway Thinker, I'm going to end this soon. A couple of more posts at most, so we should sum up for our avid lurkers...

I'll be seeing you around here, and no doubt we'll clash at some point.

[seer]

Well you were claiming that they don't exist. I'm claiming that trying to argue that god is required to have objective moral values eventually results in nonsense, and the only way to make sense of it is to show what the moral values do - in other words, they are not grounded in god.

No, I don't remember saying they could not exist, I was asking how the could exist, where they existed, and how we came to know what they were. Are you admitting that you have no answer?

Ha ha. No, it's nothing like it. You see, the directionality of time being dependent on the direction entropy increases, which can go in multidirections relative to the other, is coherent if, and only if, you understand the science behind how that could be possible. If you don't understand it, it seems incoherent. Here's a paper describing it. I'm not trying to say it is true, just that it is not logically incoherent.

I have no idea what this means - the universe could go from high entropy to low entropy? Remember we are speaking of the universe. But why would that even matter if time is actually static?

Your not off the hook. Are you admitting your view cannot be coherently or logically demonstrated?

Nope, I'm saying that we don't have enough knowledge of the soul, how it acts or reacts to make any firm conclusions.

A one is just a single object or thing. There is no hidden assumption behind it. In math we can have logical proofs that require no faith at all.

Really? The definition of one is arbitrary, as are the tokens we use for mathematics, these are abstracts.

That is not at all my argument. I only have to argue that it is logically possible for me being determine to believe A is true, and A is actually true. We already agreed that there is no way for us to know our beliefs are true 100% of the time. My premises could be just as deductive, for example:

Let's say A = adding one rock to one rock leaves me with two rocks. I take one rock, add it to another rock. I get all this data from my senses of sight and my brain processes that data and I am determined to conclude that adding one rock to one rock leaves me with two rocks. The sight of one one rock being added to one rock determined my brain to believe that A = adding one rock to one rock leaves me with two rocks. That is a physical and logically deductive mathematical proof that does not require induction. Now if you say that I can't know for sure whether my belief in A is true you will be violating your claim that "I never asked you to demonstrate with 100% certainty.

Excuse me? You first have to beg the question that your sense experience is even connected to reality, then you have to assume that your brain is processing this all correctly. And then reporting it to your conscious mind correctly. That is not deductive reasoning Thinker.

I'll be seeing you around here, and no doubt we'll clash at some point.

Be still my beating heart!

[The Thinker]

No, I don't remember saying they could not exist, I was asking how the could exist, where they existed, and how we came to know what they were. Are you admitting that you have no answer?

You wrote: "But no such values actually exist."

I'm definitely not admitting that I have no answer. I already gave you my answer: objective moral values are grounded in what they do. That's the only logical and intelligible way to ground them.

I have no idea what this means - the universe could go from high entropy to low entropy? Remember we are speaking of the universe. But why would that even matter if time is actually static?

Allow me to try to explain it to you in as simple as possible terms, even though I know you won't get it. Imagine an eternal universe with an infinite amount of time in the past and in the future. Now imagine a low entropy state at one point in the universe, with entropy increasing in one direction and entropy increasing in the other. It would look like a bowtie in its shape. The direction of entropy increases in each direction like this <----lowentropy----> A messier picture looks like this:

cosmo.PNG

As for your last question, this is a side issue about the arrow of time.

Nope, I'm saying that we don't have enough knowledge of the soul, how it acts or reacts to make any firm conclusions.

This is not a matter of not knowing enough. This is a matter that there is no coherent way to establish LFW regardless if one believes in a soul or not.

Really? The definition of one is arbitrary, as are the tokens we use for mathematics, these are abstracts.

Um no. One relates to one. It can't be arbitrary.

Excuse me? You first have to beg the question that your sense experience is even connected to reality, then you have to assume that your brain is processing this all correctly. And then reporting it to your conscious mind correctly. That is not deductive reasoning Thinker.

Doesn't matter. Even if we are in a computer simulation 1 + 1 will always = 2. If you disagree, give me an example of deductive logic that doesn't rely on assuming reality exists.

[Tassman]

You did not answer the questions.

He never does, he's unable to, because there is no answer to his logical incoherence. But he expects answers from everyone else based upon his misrepresentation of causal determinism. Talk about blatant double standards.

No Tass, own up to your determinism. You don't believe that the ISIS fighters could break the causal chain and not slaughter all those innocent people in Paris - right?

Still waiting!

[seer]

You wrote: "But no such values actually exist."

I'm definitely not admitting that I have no answer. I already gave you my answer: objective moral values are grounded in what they do. That's the only logical and intelligible way to ground them.

How is that more than just your opinion? And how does "what they do" make them objective?

Allow me to try to explain it to you in as simple as possible terms, even though I know you won't get it. Imagine an eternal universe with an infinite amount of time in the past and in the future. Now imagine a low entropy state at one point in the universe, with entropy increasing in one direction and entropy increasing in the other. It would look like a bowtie in its shape. The direction of entropy increases in each direction like this <----lowentropy----> A messier picture looks like this:

So the same matter and energy can be in different degrees of entropy, at the same time? Especially in light of the fact that time is static?

[seer]

Still waiting!

Tass, I already gave my answer. I believe, as Shuny, in a rational soul, that is free. It is not part of the causal chain, and can influence our choice making. So now answer my question: You don't believe that the ISIS fighters could break the causal chain and not slaughter all those innocent people in Paris - right?

[The Thinker]

How is that more than just your opinion? And how does "what they do" make them objective?

Because that's the only logically coherent way that morality makes sense. What they do is objective, that's not a matter of opinion.

So the same matter and energy can be in different degrees of entropy, at the same time? Especially in light of the fact that time is static?

Just as I suspected, you're too uneducated to understand it. It's not the same matter and energy.

So how does the soul freely choose things when it is impossible to have a thought, about a thought, before you have a thought. You still haven't resolved that. To borrow your own standard, "I'm asking you to make a logical case for your position. If you can't then your position is not logically coherent."