Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-02-2017, 10:46 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 10:04 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 09:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  That is a self-contradictory mess.
Skepticism requires no certainty as it is an attitude of questioning.

An attitude of questioning requires knowledge. How does the skeptic know the reasoning process they used to arrive at skepticism was not flawed? The skeptic fails to provide a coherent worldview upon which it can counter other worldviews.

Skepticism is not a worldview, it is a tool.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
02-02-2017, 10:48 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 10:22 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 10:17 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  Then you're left with the problem of infinite regress; that is, if everything created has a creator, what created the creator? You're no further ahead.

That's simple. The creator was not created so it needs no creator. The creator is the necessary being. This is shown from a collection of cosmological arguments. There must be a necessary being grounded in itself or you're left with an infinite regress of spacetime. This would suggest that space and time are themselves the necessary being. This would then lead to several problems. The main issue I'm seeing is that the Principle of Proportionate Causality is violated. Spacetime doesn't have the potency to cause energy, matter, or minds.

Special pleading. Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
02-02-2017, 10:50 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 10:29 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 10:08 AM)Astreja Wrote:  We need not "justify" anything. We need only practice it.
Oh, and all morality is subjective because it is a value judgement. "Objective morality" is an oxymoron.

If justification is not needed, then the Principle of Sufficient Reason is violated. This means it's a nonrealist and non-cognitivist ethic. The Frege Geach problem seems to apply here.

Quantum physicists disagree with your Principle of Sufficient Reason.

And substance dualism has no credibility; there is no evidence to support it.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
02-02-2017, 10:51 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 10:16 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 09:57 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Ok so you're kind of a theist am I understanding you correctly?

Somewhat. I don't necessarily believe in the divinity of the necessary being, but I have no problem with the label of "theist" as long as it's understood what is meant by it in this context.
That's cool, but if its a first cause and its not a natural first cause as in a scientific one mustn't that necessarily be a divine entity also if skepticism is the incorrect position which belief system is the correct one there are so many of them ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 10:52 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
derp


Drinking Beverage

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
02-02-2017, 10:58 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 10:14 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 09:59 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Hello. Smile
Okay, why?
Why a 'Mind'? Or... why any 'cognitive' thing?

I'm speaking from my metpahysics here to make it more brief. The Prinicple of Proportionate Causality justifies the claim that it is a mind. There must be potency within the cause that allows it to lead to the effect.

Please define *metaphysics*

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
02-02-2017, 11:42 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 09:05 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Your first presupposition is the foundation of empiricist knowledge. If you can't justify it, then you have a problem.

We prove the validity of our senses by using them.

If you are denying reality then we have little to discuss.

(02-02-2017 09:05 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Your second presupposition, is critical to the foundation of the Baconian method and all inductive reasoning. If you can't justify that, you have another problem.

Are you questioning the validity of science?

Are you praying this discussion or typing it on a computer?

(02-02-2017 09:05 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Your epistemology is a blend of multiple epistemologies but with no consideration of the contradictions that arise.

On the contrary, my first two comments are validated by our daily existence and the reality of this conversation.

(02-02-2017 09:05 AM)Naielis Wrote:  For example, how do you know that you can learn about the universe with science?

Do you not understand what a presupposition is? Are you ignoring my previous post?

The scientific method presupposes or takes for granted, that the universe is both consistent and understandable.

(02-02-2017 09:05 AM)Naielis Wrote:  You assume universality of physical laws, but what if they're not universal? You can't even ask this question because you haven't shown that the universe is real.

You have done nothing to prove that the universe is not real. Until you do so, I am comfortable in accepting my two presuppositions.

(02-02-2017 09:05 AM)Naielis Wrote:  You just assume your senses are valid.

We all do. Once again, if reality has to be illusionary, then discussion with you is pointless.

(02-02-2017 09:05 AM)Naielis Wrote:  If every point in your epistemology is an assumption, you're left with confusion instead of knowledge.

This describes theism and religion very well.

(02-02-2017 09:05 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Your final presupposition is the most ridiculous. All human beings are born equal in rights? But this doesn't follow from your epistemology.

Science, at our current level, is unable to quantify the worth of a human being, especially in regards to one individual or another. It has been tried many times, by scientific standards, religions and other means. All standards of measurement have failed.

Thus if we cannot determine a scale of judgment then we must agree to treat all humans equally.

Note that I am not saying that some physical force, like gravity, must be involved. We are speaking of standards of behavior that we humans agree on.

(02-02-2017 09:05 AM)Naielis Wrote:  And how do you refute someone who presupposes black people have less rights?

How do you justify white people having more rights?
How can you refute black people having more rights?

Perhaps we should all have equal rights.

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
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
02-02-2017, 11:42 AM (This post was last modified: 02-02-2017 11:47 AM by Heath_Tierney.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 10:36 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I don't see how it violates Occam's Razor or physics.
Then you don't have an understanding of what Occam's Razor is.

Occam's Razor: “Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.”

The introduction of a divine superintelligence into the natural order - in other words, a God who started it all - multiplies the "entities" necessary. Therefore, it violates the principle.

(02-02-2017 10:36 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Spacetime doesn't have the potency to cause energy. This doesn't contradict the observation that empty space contains energy.

You have contradicted yourself. It seems you have an incorrect understanding of what spacetime is.

The link about spacetime and energy is in my previous post.

Once more, with feelng: there may be some evidence for a divine superintelligence, somewhere, at some time, but nothing you've shown here comes remotely close.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Heath_Tierney's post
02-02-2017, 11:44 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 10:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  Special pleading. Drinking Beverage

Nope.

"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
02-02-2017, 11:46 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 10:04 AM)Naielis Wrote:  An attitude of questioning requires knowledge.

No it requires a desire to learn.

(02-02-2017 10:04 AM)Naielis Wrote:  How does the skeptic know the reasoning process they used to arrive at skepticism was not flawed?

By testing their conclusions and results via science and by having others repeat and verify the results.

(02-02-2017 10:04 AM)Naielis Wrote:  The skeptic fails to provide a coherent worldview upon which it can counter other worldviews.

What is the alternative?

God did it? That is the most incoherent worldview of all.

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
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: