Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-02-2017, 07:48 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 02:53 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 02:38 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  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.

Tell me, Christian Philosopher, does your god "exist" ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 07:49 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 02:31 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Answer: if you can't detect it, even in theory, it isn't true.

This is nonsense. You're suggesting gravitational waves didn't exist until we could detect them.

"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, 07:57 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 07:49 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 02:31 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Answer: if you can't detect it, even in theory, it isn't true.

This is nonsense. You're suggesting gravitational waves didn't exist until we could detect them.

Nope. We knew about gravitational wave in theory.
False analogy sport.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
03-02-2017, 07:58 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 07:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 02:53 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  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.

Tell me, Christian Philosopher, does your god "exist" ?

Well yes, I think there are many good reasons to think so. I would not want to get off topic, as I came here simply to defend some positions being discussed, but since that is such a big question with immense existential value, I would ask you to message me privately so I could discuss this on an app more appropriate for these long winded conversations, namely Skype.

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, 08:00 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 07:58 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 07:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Tell me, Christian Philosopher, does your god "exist" ?

Well yes, I think there are many good reasons to think so. I would not want to get off topic, as I came here simply to defend some positions being discussed, but since that is such a big question with immense existential value, I would ask you to message me privately so I could discuss this on an app more appropriate for these long winded conversations, namely Skype.

No it's a very short discussion. So I take it that's a "yes" ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 08:00 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 08:00 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 07:58 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  Well yes, I think there are many good reasons to think so. I would not want to get off topic, as I came here simply to defend some positions being discussed, but since that is such a big question with immense existential value, I would ask you to message me privately so I could discuss this on an app more appropriate for these long winded conversations, namely Skype.

No it's a very short discussion. So I take it that's a "yes" ?

Yes.

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, 08:01 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 08:00 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 08:00 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No it's a very short discussion. So I take it that's a "yes" ?

Yes.

So then your god does not "not exist" ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 08:09 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 08:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 08:00 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  Yes.

So then your god does not "not exist" ?

Well to begin it is meaningful to speak like this in fields like negative theology. Typically within Classical Theism we would say God is being itself, His essence is His existence. So, not to get lost in this too much. Negative negative existential statements are hard to map out in this way, because of how truth makers function. So purely semantically it is easier to just say it is true God exists, because the judgement in our intellect corresponds to reality. I will note before this jumps into pantheism, being is something to be analyzed analogously.

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, 08:09 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 07:45 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Thanks for demonstrating you have no clue how science works.
Studies are designed to rule that out. But then you know zip about Probability.

I'm going to be majoring in math. And the Baconian method is simply not capable of ruling out random chance. You need an alternative justification.

(03-02-2017 07:45 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You LEARN in ways that have proven reliable and reproducible.

What ways have been proven reliable? How can you prove anything?

(03-02-2017 07:45 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nope. False generalization and a lie. If you were very ill, you would make use of all sorts of science, and not just pray. Hypocrite. You proved you value science by using that computer, hooking up to the internet, eating dinner, turning on the light. You go right ahead a keep your god. You'll find out how useful that is when you are seriously ill or injured and just pray. FacepalmWeepingWeeping

What on earth are you talking about? I never said I didn't value science. I've been focused on science my entire life. You did not understanding what I said. I'm saying you have to justify science. The materialists and pragmatists that infest the scientific community just assume science works and they move on. You can't do this if you want a coherent worldview. And I haven't prayed once in my entire life.

"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, 08:11 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 07:57 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 07:49 PM)Naielis Wrote:  This is nonsense. You're suggesting gravitational waves didn't exist until we could detect them.

Nope. We knew about gravitational wave in theory.
False analogy sport.

It wasn't an analogy. It was an application of a principle. If the fact that we can't detect something makes it false, then gravitational waves were a false concept before we discovered them.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: