Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-02-2017, 01:53 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 01:25 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

From interactions with Naielis I do belive people's word usages are 'Different'.

Sometimes Naielis is typing a word they are mentally assigning a 'function' to said word which readers are possibly assigning a more vernacular 'function' to said word.

Just a thought. Thumbsup

We know.

It's always the best way to wind up a 'philosopher'.

Laugh out load

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
04-02-2017, 03:53 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Ha, DLJ is right.

I spent much of my youth with Plato, Aristotle, up through Voltaire to the modern guys. As far as I can tell, aside from morals, or rather, ethics, philosophy has been overtaken by maths and physics.

Not my advice to choose it as a career.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
04-02-2017, 04:03 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(04-02-2017 03:53 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Ha, DLJ is right.
...

That's a tautology.

Girl_nails

And I'm going to remind you of it next time we have a PM exchange like the last one we had.

Smartass

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
04-02-2017, 04:37 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 07:33 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 07:12 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  I perhaps misread your statement. My point was about the identity of concepts, and whether conceptual statements are true and valid in some sense apart from human discovery (which would sidestep your point about definitions and a priori elements. Our definitions simply denote the identity of things, which themselves would be more primitive, numbers simply would be this sort of thing, assuming they are not innate ideas, which is possible). You perhaps agreed. This is fine. The issue at stake was how definitions were being treated in your first post (which again, perhaps I misread). If you take these axioms to be simply human conventions about our understanding of the universe, then perhaps this is subject to critiques like Quine's indispensability argument, but I allowed that. I probably misinterpreted your view on propositions, which led to a mistake (assuming there is one), as I think I read it into your post. I felt like it perhaps did jump the gun a bit to claim that this as a whole makes them not a priori, as it is defensible to say these identity statements are literally about actual numbers conceived in the mind rather than treating them as mere abstractions from say, unitary things (so every being). The issue with this human conceptualist approach was what I was attacking. If these are simply treated as such, without any sort of transcendent truth maker (which I think could plausibly be God, or they could be a sort of platonic realm, if you take mathematical statements to exist like the forms), it does ultimately dissolve to saying these statements are not really the eternal truths Augustine spoke of, but lack any sort of independent validity. Even if you take this nomininalistically, this still seems like an absurd conclusion, which is why for the most part nominalists like Ockham were theists (among other reasons, which is why I think theism is ultimately the best way to ground nominalism. I should note Ockham was concerned about nominalism for other reason namely transubstantiation and Voluntarist Divine Command Theory). Another way to ground these I did not hint at is modal realism, but this has other issues and I will not treat it today. Overall, I apologize for any misunderstandings and I hope I was not too uncharitable to you.

You still need to work on making your posts less jargon-cluttered, I'm afraid. I know the terms and names that you are throwing around, but they're arranged in such incoherent ways that it's almost impossible to get even a basic idea of what you're actually trying to say. And, like I said, I study this stuff - I can't imagine how impossible this would be to someone who didn't.

The ultimate thrust of it seems to be "there is independent truth, and therefore there must be a god", which is a non sequitur. Other than that, I'm afraid you're completely unreadable.

I'm really sorry CP I must agree with Unbeliever. I don't study philosophy and I find your posts hard to understand even though I had a reading age of 21 by the time I was 8, I'm not a total dunderhead and am reasonably well educated I would also make the same criticism of Naielis so its not just you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
04-02-2017, 07:29 AM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2017 08:21 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 11:43 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 10:17 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  What's the difference between an agnostic theist and an agnostic atheist ?

I disagree with the term "agnostic atheist". But as it's commonly used, the difference is that I do not think I have knowledge that God exists. I'm not a hardcore agnostic though. I do think I could have knowledge of God. Agnostic atheist generally means you are unsure of whether god exists but you do not believe.

You didn't answer the question. (You're also not a theist of any sort. You're trying to make a distinction without a difference).

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
04-02-2017, 07:36 AM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2017 08:58 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 11:54 PM)Naielis Wrote:  If the question is how someone knows they are right, then the answer is always going to be epistemology. But I was asked why I was right. This is an ontological question about my beliefs. They are right because they correspond to reality. I don't see how I could have answered that differently, unless you're proposing I'm under a faulty understanding of truth.

So you can stop asking people how they know anything.

You could be a psychopath, who has an epistemology. What makes you think psychopaths don't have an epistemology ?
You operate as if your beliefs correspond to reality. You haven't told us how you know that, and how it's come about. Asserting they do, does not make it so.

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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-02-2017, 07:59 AM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2017 08:26 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 08:37 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  Well lets look at this statement. You start off making a claim about theistic language which I will grant. I think my statement about "being" being analogous is important here. I would not grant to you non existence exists in reality, as it is literally nothing, this is not a coherent statement, I would say this is the same fallacy Parmenides stated.

It is not the same. At all. If you *need* to make a statement about a being "existing" (which you do), then an alternative exists, OR you would not feel you need to say anything *at all*.
You do say *something*. You hold a "belief" *about something*. You could be wrong.

Quote:What I would say is logical potentialities exist (potential being), but as concepts in God's mind.

Nice try. Fail.
Concepts are ideas. You have not a shred of evidence that a god has a "mind". Thoughts exist only in healthy brains. We can watch them happen in PET scans. They also require the MOVEMENT from place "a" to place "b" in a process (of thought). That requires time. If your "eternal being" is timeless, what is not coherent here, is your using temporal processes to describe a timeless entity. You can say nothing about a timeless being, (without invoking temporal concepts).

Quote:God is the sole ultimate reality.

Define "ultimate reality".
So I am god. LMAO. Which logic system does your god use ? (There are many).
If beings are actually potential "in your god's mind", then Reality changes when he decides (A PROCESS) they are to become "actual", and the Reality in which your deity exists CHANGES.
Without time, that is incoherent. The statement is about actuality and potentiality is meaningless, in the context YOU have claimed.

Quote:But you make it seem as if God is sitting in an empty void. No, all these logical possibilities are grounded in His will, Nothing exists apart from God's will , so it is self contained within God and grounded only in Him.

Wrong. You made a specific positive statement ("god exists"). There is alternative IF your claim is true. (You also have not a shred of evidence for all this theological mumbo-jumbo).

Quote:But to speak of God just finding himself in empty reality is a poor way to word this.

I never said that. That's your interpretation... AND you missed the point.


Quote:God as the sole necessary being

Define "necessary". Necessary to whom/for what ? For your theological clap-trap to be true, it's "necessary ? A "necessary being" is subject to, (and cannot be the creator of) the Reality, it is REQUIRED to participate in.
Where did Reality come from ? Your system hasn't answered the most important question.

Quote:and the creator of all things other than himself grounds these truths by willing them to be the case. He knows all truth statements by knowing Himself as the timeless creator. Typically theists have said God wills all of reality outside of Himself. I would agree with this statement. God does not find himself surrounded by forms that are disconnected from His will. On classical Theism, God simply is His Knowledge, which is His will. He is not composed of any metaphysical parts, which would include an essence separate from His act of existence . So contingent reality is willed to be the case, but God has aseity before and after contingent reality. He receives no perfections from creatures. So I feel this neutralizes any sort of statement you have made thus far, and hence I feel Christian Theism is un harmed and flying stronger than ever.

In your mind, maybe. What you feel is irrelevant. All this theological clap-trap is worthless. You have no evidence for any of it. Obviously you memorized it all.

Quote:Thanks for the reply and may God bless you,

Christian Philosophy

What does that mean ? Your atemporal being changes what he was already going to do ?
Keep your idiot blessings to yourself, Church Lady. I get you need to feel morally superior, but it doesn't work here.

(BTW, there is no "Christian Philosophy". There are many philosophies. Plural. You may know only one brand. That's your problem, not ours).

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
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-02-2017, 08:32 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 10:04 AM)Astreja Wrote:  
(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.

The nonsense of "necessary beings" is an example of the Fallacy of Composition.
They try to define god into existence.

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
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-02-2017, 08:40 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 04:48 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Well science can tell you something about it, but science ends at the big bang. You can't go further than the natural world with science. Philosophy aims to describe all of reality.

Science does't "end" at the Big Bang.
Do you have a refutation for Roger Penrose's Cycles of Time ?
Facepalm

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
04-02-2017, 08:54 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 04:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 02:52 PM)Naielis Wrote:  What claim about the universe are you referring to? I have evidence for the necessary being. I use a collection of refined cosmological arguments. And Craig is an intelligent person. How are his arguments are sophistry?

An argument is not evidence - it is just an argument.

And Craig is a buffoon in debate. He just spouts his dreary arguments and does not engage his opponent.

His arguments ARE "sophistry".
He's also a dishonest idiot.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAS-SLEaF...cFiagiDi0f

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqKObSeim2w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbClnWrUF2Q

In his debate with Ehrman, he was blatantly dishonest about the denominator in Bayesian probability.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: