Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-02-2017, 10:04 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 07:27 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Since the necessary being must have been atemporal, the act of creating time must have been atemporal.

No, it's more likely that an atemporal being (necessary or not) would be inert, incapable of any action.

I'm sorry, but your beliefs are much too silly to take seriously. Got anything else we can discuss?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 10:08 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 05:33 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  Four years of research without grounding in the form of University courses indeed does not mean much. William Taubman spent nearly 20 years on research needed for his Khrushchev. The Man and His Era. I dare to say that philosophy is much more wide ranging than story of one person and said person rule. So four years of what you call research don't mean much.

I simply disagree. I know what I have learned in this short span. You and others appear to be holding me to the standard of experts in their field. I claim no such title. I just claim that I do know the subject well. It will be my minor when I start college this year though. Perhaps then more responses will be directed at my arguments instead of my credentials.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 10:11 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 10:04 AM)Astreja Wrote:  No, it's more likely that an atemporal being (necessary or not) would be inert, incapable of any action.

The being we're talking about is necessary. It's not applicable to contingent beings. Since the necessary being must exist soley on the basis that nothing would be caused otherwise, it follows that the necessary being caused all contingent beings. If one uses a cosmological argument to prove a necessary being, they tacitly prove that the necessary being is the first cause.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 10:16 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 10:08 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I simply disagree. I know what I have learned in this short span.

I'm not asking for your agreement.

As for knowing what you learnt - you haven't dazzled me with brilliance so far.

Quote:You and others appear to be holding me to the standard of experts in their field.

No. I simply say that 4 years of so called research without simple grounding that University courses would gave you means shit. You're free to disagree with me, but your posts show different story.

You don't even know that what you do is special pleading which RS post showed.

Quote:I claim no such title. I just claim that I do know the subject well. It will be my minor when I start college this year though. Perhaps then more responses will be directed at my arguments instead of my credentials.

Perhaps when you start college you will realize stupidity of all that necessary being shit?

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 10:28 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 10:11 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 10:04 AM)Astreja Wrote:  No, it's more likely that an atemporal being (necessary or not) would be inert, incapable of any action.

The being we're talking about is necessary. It's not applicable to contingent beings. Since the necessary being must exist soley on the basis that nothing would be caused otherwise, it follows that the necessary being caused all contingent beings. If one uses a cosmological argument to prove a necessary being, they tacitly prove that the necessary being is the first cause.

However, there is no valid proof of a necessary being.
The 'necessary' is a bit of hand-waving, but the big problem is the 'being'.
You are going to end up with infinite regress or special pleading; there is no escape.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
03-02-2017, 10:31 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 10:16 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  I'm not asking for your agreement.

As for knowing what you learnt - you haven't dazzled me with brilliance so far.

I'm sorry I've disappointed you.

(03-02-2017 10:16 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  No. I simply say that 4 years of so called research without simple grounding that University courses would gave you means shit. You're free to disagree with me, but your posts show different story.

I think my posts show an understanding of philosophy.

Quote:You don't even know that what you do is special pleading which RS post showed.

This isn't special pleading and I explained exactly how it wasn't. But I didn't see this post. Thank you for pointing it out. I'll address it now. "No, Special Pleading is creating an exception for an otherwise universally (no pun intended) applicable rule, so your argument can rest on that illogical basis." This could be an understanding of special pleading. But I didn't do this. I didn't make an exception for a universal rule. This assumes I claimed a universal rule. What I'm trying to show is that "all things are contingent" cannot be a universal rule. The Kalam says all things are caused. I do not. That would be special pleading. I'm saying we know some things are caused but all things must be grounded. Aquinas' third argument does a reductio of the "all things are contingent" quite well. So you see I'm not violating a universal rule to make one exception in any ad hoc sense. I'm saying the universal rule is not a universal rule. It is only assumed to be one.

Quote:Perhaps when you start college you will realize stupidity of all that necessary being shit?

Stunning rebuttal.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 10:33 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 10:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  However, there is no valid proof of a necessary being.
The 'necessary' is a bit of hand-waving, but the big problem is the 'being'.
You are going to end up with infinite regress or special pleading; there is no escape.

This is an attempt to prove a negative. You're claiming there exists no valid argument. Have you heard every argument for the necessary being? Also, I gave many.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 10:36 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 09:56 AM)Naielis Wrote:  First, I wasn't here until page 83.
OK, fair enough.
(03-02-2017 09:56 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Second, I wasn't under the OK impression I needed to have original arguments.
Since all the arguments you have used are well-worn and long-since discredited, you'll need an original argument to further your case. As it is, you may as well be arguing that storks bring babies.
(03-02-2017 09:56 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Third, the cosmological arguments have simply not been refuted. They are still heavily debated in the philosophical sphere.
Sorry, but they've all been refuted. It's not even debated anymore. The closest any theist came was the "fine tuning" argument but that, too, has now been found to be in error. Here's just one of the scores of refutations: Why the universe wasn't fine-tuned for life
(03-02-2017 09:56 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Fourth, I never mentioned the argument from design or common morality.
Wrong. One of your first posts was the teleological one - the argument from design.
(03-02-2017 09:56 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Fifth, your picture makes no sense considering I am not a Christian.
Perhaps not, but you're arguing as if you are one.

Since you have yet to make any rational argument, and refuse to see your special pleading fallacy when it's right in front of you, there's really no point in discussing this further.

By all means, if you have faith in some sort of deism or even theism, knock yourself out. I will support you in your freedom to have such faith. But do yourself a favour and just say it's faith and leave it at at that, because if you pretend you have scientific evidence for such faith (if there were evidence, faith wouldn't be required, would it?) you will lose.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Heath_Tierney's post
03-02-2017, 10:39 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 09:59 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 08:25 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Naielis, Right now I'm guessing you're ignoring me because you got yourself in a snit about yesterday, that's cool ignore me don't ignore me I don't care, but if you're going to get all ansy and butthurt everytime someone isn't perfectly polite to you you're going to have a difficult time of things. You're clearly a smart fellow but acting all huffy holding grudges and being unable to navigate and interpret peoples reactions and read between the lines is what people mean when they talk about life experience being important. Its an important skill to learn and if you had it already you would have been able to pick up that I was actually trying to build bridges with you.

You construct this entirely on the premise that I'm ignoring you. I'm not. I never was. I don't hold grudges in discussions. That would be childish and innapropriate. It wouldn't lead to fruitful discussion. I'm well aware that there are people that can't be discussed this, but I never thought you were one of them. Please don't jump to conclusions.

Ok, that's cool, forgive me for thinking you were.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 10:41 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 10:31 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I'm sorry I've disappointed you.

I didn't expect much from you so there is no disappointment.

Quote:I think my posts show an understanding of philosophy.

You also think you're experienced.

Quote:This isn't special pleading and I explained exactly how it wasn't. But I didn't see this post. Thank you for pointing it out. I'll address it now. "No, Special Pleading is creating an exception for an otherwise universally (no pun intended) applicable rule, so your argument can rest on that illogical basis." This could be an understanding of special pleading. But I didn't do this. I didn't make an exception for a universal rule. This assumes I claimed a universal rule. What I'm trying to show is that "all things are contingent" cannot be a universal rule. The Kalam says all things are caused. I do not. That would be special pleading. I'm saying we know some things are caused but all things must be grounded. Aquinas' third argument does a reductio of the "all things are contingent" quite well. So you see I'm not violating a universal rule to make one exception in any ad hoc sense. I'm saying the universal rule is not a universal rule. It is only assumed to be one.

That's nice I guess.

Now offer some evidence. Schoolyard "philosophy" and shit like Aquinas isn't something that I take seriously.

Quote:Stunning rebuttal.

Stunning? Hardly. It's simply one on your level.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: