Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-02-2017, 11:48 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 11:44 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 10:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  Special pleading. Drinking Beverage

Nope.

"everything created needs a creator, except that creator"?

Sorry but that is the very definition of special pleading.

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
02-02-2017, 11:49 AM (This post was last modified: 02-02-2017 11:52 AM by Chas.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 11:44 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 10:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  Special pleading. Drinking Beverage

Nope.

Yes.

"Everything is created - except for the uncreated one" is the poster child for special pleading.

And "necessary being" is a smokescreen of hand-waving. It is only necessary to those who can't bear uncertainty.

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
[+] 7 users Like Chas's post
02-02-2017, 12:05 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 11:42 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  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.
This simply isn't honest. I never claimed their was a divine superintelligence. I simply stated that the necessary being was a mind. This follows from a cosmological argument. I'm not introducing a god into the natural order. I'm explaining how the natural order could even possibly exist as it does.
(02-02-2017 11:42 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  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 [i[may be[/i] some evidence for a divine superintelligence, somewhere, at some time, but nothing you've shown here comes remotely close.
I read what was on the link. "But perhaps most bizarrely, the remaining energy of the Universe, the stuff that’s required to bring us up to 100%, is energy that appears to be intrinsic to empty space itself: dark energy." The physicist says here that dark energy appears to be intrinsic to empty space itself. This doesn't mean spacetime itself is causing energy to exist. Physicists are not sure where vacuum energy originates. And the fact that energy is observed doesn't mean we know its 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
02-02-2017, 12:13 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 10:29 AM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

Justification, cognition and realism are mental shadows of reality that in no way guarantee a good life for oneself and others. In fact, by adopting a particular set of principles such as "might makes right" or "apostates must die," one can subvert morality by anchoring it to a blatantly harmful justification.

A classic example of this subversion is the Christian deity, which regularly does an end run around its own commandments -- killing whatever it wants to kill and using its position in the hierarchy to justify it.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Astreja's post
02-02-2017, 12:13 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 11:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  Yes.

"Everything is created - except for the uncreated one" is the poster child for special pleading.

And "necessary being" is a smokescreen of hand-waving. It is only necessary to those who can't bear uncertainty.

I don't think Aquinas was in the business of making smokescreens. Necessary and contingent beings are an important part of any metaphysic. The question is whether reality consists of only contingent beings or includes a necessary being. Necessary beings are things whose existence is grounded in themselves. They were not created because they are not temporal. Here's a link that explains quite a bit about the subject. Go to the section on dualism. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modal...eties/#Dua

"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, 12:14 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
So substitute my description of "divine superintelligence" with your description of "mind" and you're still at the same place, no further ahead.

I'll give you a solid B for effort, Naielis, but, to repeat, there's nothing you've purported in any of your arguments that hasn't been logically and factually refuted a thousand times before.

I note that now you've resorted to dualism. That, too, has long since been refuted; the first refutation took place in the 17th century and has yet to recover. Source: Princess Elisabeth’s Denial of Cartesian Substance Dualism

Unless you can come up with something new, I'm done here.

Over/out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Heath_Tierney's post
02-02-2017, 12:20 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 12:13 PM)Astreja Wrote:  Justification, cognition and realism are mental shadows of reality that in no way guarantee a good life for oneself and others. In fact, by adopting a particular set of principles such as "might makes right" or "apostates must die," one can subvert morality by anchoring it to a blatantly harmful justification.

A classic example of this subversion is the Christian deity, which regularly does an end run around its own commandments -- killing whatever it wants to kill and using its position in the hierarchy to justify it.

I'm not in the business of figuring out what guarantees a good life for oneself and others. I'm in the business of figuring out what is true. The Christian god kills, but this isn't contradictory to the commandments. Murder is sin. Killing is not. A Christian could simply argue that the killing God did was justified. But we're back to the main issue here: why is what God did wrong? Is your answer to this question a statement of truth? If not, then it's not very useful to take that angle with a Christian. It would be better to argue metaphysics first to arive at your ethic. And as I stated earlier, this non-cognitivism ethic of yours has flaws.

"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, 12:28 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 12:14 PM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  So substitute my description of "divine superintelligence" with your description of "mind" and you're still at the same place, no further ahead.

I'll give you a solid B for effort, Naielis, but, to repeat, there's nothing you've purported in any of your arguments that hasn't been logically and factually refuted a thousand times before.

I note that now you've resorted to dualism. That, too, has long since been refuted; the first refutation took place in the 17th century and has yet to recover. Source: Princess Elisabeth’s Denial of Cartesian Substance Dualism

Unless you can come up with something new, I'm done here.

Over/out.

How exactly am I no further ahead? And I'm not here for you to condescendingly grade my argumentation. Also, it's hilarious that you think dualism has been refuted. Is your mind material? Are your thoughts material? Your experience? Here's some reading on dualism: http://www.iep.utm.edu/dualism/

"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, 12:30 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 10:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  Quantum physicists disagree with your Principle of Sufficient Reason. And substance dualism has no credibility; there is no evidence to support it.

Some quantum physicsists disagree with the PSR but not all of them. There are many deterministic view of QM.

"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, 12:30 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Interesting topic, but what's going on that has yielded 45 pages of discussion?


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: