Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-02-2017, 02:21 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 02:12 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Also, I'm not a Solipsist ( Yay for big words! Blush )

Solipsism is the last refuge of people whose arguments have been bitch-slapped. Laugh out load

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
[+] 3 users Like Astreja's post
03-02-2017, 02:28 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 02:21 PM)Astreja Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 02:12 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Also, I'm not a Solipsist ( Yay for big words! Blush )

Solipsism is the last refuge of people whose arguments have been bitch-slapped. Laugh out load

Um... yay...?

Blush

Not saying that the right slapping couldn't be a good thing. Blush

And with that poor attempt at humor I toddle off to the land of Nod.

See folks in the thread in eight or so hours.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 02:31 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 01:58 PM)Naielis Wrote:  So I assume you reject mathematics then? That's a priori and has nothing to do with a posteriori analysis.

I don't think you know what those words mean, or how they apply to mathematics, or how that applies to Astreja's statement.

(03-02-2017 01:58 PM)Naielis Wrote:  For any working worldview, one must have a cogent epistemology. You just keep repeating "physical evidence". Evidence? Physical?

Yes. They are not difficult words to understand.

(03-02-2017 01:58 PM)Naielis Wrote:  How do you know the physical world exists?

Because it acts exactly, in all situations, as if it does. Therefore, by any meaningful definition of the word "exists", the universe exists. Anything else is just playing pointless semantic games.

Solipsism is not a coherent position.

(03-02-2017 01:58 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I posed the problem of induction earlier. The only response I got was that we just assume laws.

You failed to get a coherent response because the problem of induction is not a coherent question, any more than the question of solipsism is. It is analogous to the question of gravity leprechauns: "how do you know that 'gravity' isn't just invisible, undetectable leprechauns moving things around to screw with physics professors?"

Answer: if you can't detect it, even in theory, it isn't true. Gravity leprechauns are, by definition, indistinguishable from just gravity; therefore, by definition, they do not exist.

Unless and until you show that there is actually some "chance" that even could be influencing a given result, there is no reason to think that it is the case - and that's without even touching the whole matter of you needing to establish that it actually did influence the result. Until this is done, "how do you know it wasn't chance?" is not a coherent question, because you haven't even shown how it could have been, let alone that it was.

"But induction" is not a magic wand that you can wave to magically make all knowledge disappear.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Unbeliever's post
03-02-2017, 02:38 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 02:16 PM)Astreja Wrote:  No; I think mathematics is fine. With math I can actually do useful things in the real world, and have a great deal of fun doing so. I've calculated fret spacing for a dulcimer builder using the twelfth root of 2, and resized a child-sized Alice in Wonderland dress pattern for an adult. I've also done utterly spectacular things with geometry, as anyone who has ever visited my house can attest.

This is what I was talking about. Mathematics is not a priori. It is, in fact, very much a posteriori; mathematics is a formalized language that was created to describe and model the way the world operates. Granted, it has very strict syntax and diction, and it's not a conversational language, but still.

Even concepts so simple as "1 + 1 = 2" are not considered true a priori, and have long and extensive proofs written about them. Even before formal mathematics advanced to the point where these more in-depth proofs were possible, concepts like "1 + 1 = 2" were not considered true a priori - the meaning of "1", "2", "+", and so on is a matter of definition, and definitions are not a priori.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 02:44 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 01:58 PM)Naielis Wrote:  You just keep repeating "physical evidence". Evidence? Physical? How do you know the physical world exists?

You cannot provide physical evidence so you question reality.

If you have to deny reality to make your god exist, then you lose the argument.

(03-02-2017 01:58 PM)Naielis Wrote:  How do you know any result from a scientific experiment isn't just random chance?

This indicates that you have no idea how science works. For evidence of an experiment to be acceptable it has to be verifiable and repeatable.

(03-02-2017 01:58 PM)Naielis Wrote:  How do you know anything?

Quoting Sye? or Hovind?

This question is one of the most irritating and pathetic tactics used by theists.

The closest thing we have to knowledge is knowledge that can be tested and verified by others. Scientific evidence. You can claim that you "know" god exists but that claim is meaningless without evidence.

(03-02-2017 01:58 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I posed the problem of induction earlier. The only response I got was that we just assume laws. Great. I'll assume god then.

And people in the Middle East assume allah. They're willing to kill and die for their god. Doesn't that make their faith stronger? Does that make their god real?

What about the Jewish god?
or the Hindu pantheon?
Greco-Roman?
Norse?
Scientology?
Mormonism?

How many people claim a different god?
How do you tell the difference?

Without evidence, the only thing you have is a claim. A meaningless claim.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
03-02-2017, 02:53 PM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2017 02:57 PM by Christian Philosophy.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 02:38 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 02:16 PM)Astreja Wrote:  No; I think mathematics is fine. With math I can actually do useful things in the real world, and have a great deal of fun doing so. I've calculated fret spacing for a dulcimer builder using the twelfth root of 2, and resized a child-sized Alice in Wonderland dress pattern for an adult. I've also done utterly spectacular things with geometry, as anyone who has ever visited my house can attest.

This is what I was talking about. Mathematics is not a priori. It is, in fact, very much a posteriori; mathematics is a formalized language that was created to describe and model the way the world operates. Granted, it has very strict syntax and diction, and it's not a conversational language, but still.

Even concepts so simple as "1 + 1 = 2" are not considered true a priori, and have long and extensive proofs written about them. Even before formal mathematics advanced to the point where these more in-depth proofs were possible, concepts like "1 + 1 = 2" were not considered true a priori - the meaning of "1", "2", "+", and so on is a matter of definition, and definitions are not a priori.

I actually agree with this user here. While I take mathematics to ultimately exist within the divine intellect (I am a divine conceptualist), I see nothing wrong with abstracting from singular items and forming discourse off this. Pretense theories of mathematics are fine for example. While I take sets to actually have some sort of independent existence (immaterial as well, since God is), more justification is needed than the Theist user has given. The ontological grounding of mathematics is an interesting topic I would like to see engaged more.

Good reply,

Christian Philosophy

Edit: After a further reading I am perhaps iffy on some of this users thoughts. It really depends on how user states his epistemology. It does seem strange to assert mathematical propositions have no truth value in this way, and his point on definitions seems to be an assertion about the structure of concepts outside of the human intellect. I would like further clarification before moving forward.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 03:17 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
I will try to stop discussing causality unless explicitly stated. I was simply backing up the theist on an issue I felt he was mostly right on. Unless I am called further or I see some relevance, I will refrain.

Thanks and love you all,

Christian Philosophy

2 Corinthians 10:5
"Every creature is a divine word because it proclaims God" - Bonaventure
"Do no harm. Do good. Stay in love with God." - John Wesley
"The highest service to which a man may obtain on earth is to preach the law of God." - John Wycliffe
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 03:21 PM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2017 03:35 PM by Unbeliever.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 02:53 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  It does seem strange to assert mathematical propositions have no truth value in this way

I did not say this.

(03-02-2017 02:53 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  and his point on definitions seems to be an assertion about the structure of concepts outside of the human intellect.

This is not a coherent question. What is your issue?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 03:42 PM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2017 03:47 PM by Christian Philosophy.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 03:21 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 02:53 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  It does seem strange to assert mathematical propositions have no truth value in this way

I did not say this.

(03-02-2017 02:53 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  and his point on definitions seems to be an assertion about the structure of concepts outside of the human intellect.

This is not a coherent question.


Which is why I asked for clarification. I was working with a standard model of this apprehension (the abstraction, semi Aristotelian model). If I mis categorized you I am quite sorry. Secondly, I do have to ask why is it not coherent? Clearly it is not absurd to ask what is the ontological grounding of propositions (unless you take these to be simple utterances), outside of human intellects. I would think a semi plausible debate could be made of this (and is by philosophers with no theistic bone to pick), since these seem to have truth value before human kind existed and in worlds where humanity did not exist, as we are contingent (and mind you, being a realist about concepts does not entail theism, realm based Platonism could house these plausibly). You do not even have to take intentionality to even be the mark of the intellect, as you could be a realist about powers (although I do think this works well with theism, perhaps better), so it is no issue propositions do have this feature. Why is this an incoherent statement again? Perhaps how this works is the issue, and perhaps you could appeal to mystery. but in and of itself I am not sure of the incoherence.

Thanks for the reply,

Christian Philosophy

2 Corinthians 10:5
"Every creature is a divine word because it proclaims God" - Bonaventure
"Do no harm. Do good. Stay in love with God." - John Wesley
"The highest service to which a man may obtain on earth is to preach the law of God." - John Wycliffe
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 03:46 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Edit: This post consisted only in me accidentally quoting myself Drooling

2 Corinthians 10:5
"Every creature is a divine word because it proclaims God" - Bonaventure
"Do no harm. Do good. Stay in love with God." - John Wesley
"The highest service to which a man may obtain on earth is to preach the law of God." - John Wycliffe
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: