Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-02-2017, 05:05 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
You debated Tenbruggencate, wow, you must have frustrated the hell out of each other Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
02-02-2017, 05:08 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 05:05 PM)adey67 Wrote:  You debated Tenbruggencate, wow, you must have frustrated the hell out of each other Laugh out load

Sort of like two chimpanzees discussing astrophysics.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
02-02-2017, 05:10 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 05:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is nothing I need to support as I am not making a claim.
I am pointing out that your statement about science was incorrect. I don't know what came before the Big Bang and neither do you.

I can reconcile my metaphysics with the best explanations from modern physics. And you make an implicit claim every time you ask a question.

(02-02-2017 05:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, you think science is just based on experimentation? Consider
What facts does philosophy discover and by what methodology?

I never said science was only based on experimentation. Philosophy discovers facts about the nature of reality, knowledge, and morality. Science would have no foundation or justification if not for philosophy. I already told you part of the methodology. It's a dialectic. More importantly, it's deductive reasoning. Science uses induction which is only justified through deduction.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Naielis's post
02-02-2017, 05:12 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 05:08 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 05:05 PM)adey67 Wrote:  You debated Tenbruggencate, wow, you must have frustrated the hell out of each other Laugh out load

Sort of like two chimpanzees discussing astrophysics.

Clever... just wondering how educated are you in physics?

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Naielis's post
02-02-2017, 05:12 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 04:32 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 04:15 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  It illustrates that you are just making shit up with no evidence.

It illustrates that you are. Meanwhile I have an actual argument for the necessary being.

You have ZERO evidence, all you have are fatuous arguments that have bad premises.

You must have missed my earlier post where there is evidence that falsifies the first premise of the Kalam Cosmilogical Argument:

Premise 1- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

This is false, radioactive decay has no cause. It is a wrong premise.

Furthermore you go on to create ARGUMENTS WITH ZERO EVIDENCE to support your imaginary being and then start listing characteristics of this being WITH NO EVIDENCE.

In short you are making shit up and then you double down on this imaginary being and assert characteristics about it after you are shown evidence that the premise of your argument is not true.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
02-02-2017, 05:12 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 04:10 PM)Naielis Wrote:  An argument for the existence of something can be used as evidence for it.

No as a matter of fact it cannot. If you cannot provide scientific evidence then you have no case.

(02-02-2017 04:10 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Scientific evidence only gets you so far.

It gets you a lot further than the metaphysical.

(02-02-2017 04:10 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Science can't be applied to everything.

And religion shouldn't be applied to anything.

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
[+] 5 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
02-02-2017, 05:13 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 05:08 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 05:05 PM)adey67 Wrote:  You debated Tenbruggencate, wow, you must have frustrated the hell out of each other Laugh out load

Sort of like two chimpanzees discussing astrophysics.

Lol, maybe bro maybe, I'm off to watch family guy before I lose anymore brain cells.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
02-02-2017, 05:16 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 05:12 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  You have ZERO evidence, all you have are fatuous arguments that have bad premises. You must have missed my earlier post where there is evidence that falsifies the first premise of the Kalam Cosmilogical Argument:

Premise 1- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

This is false, radioactive decay has no cause. It is a wrong premise.
No I saw it. The Kalam isn't my primary argument. It has too little specification. Many of the cosmological arguments were refined by contemporary philosophers to fit modern science.

(02-02-2017 05:12 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Furthermore you go on to create ARGUMENTS WITH ZERO EVIDENCE to support your imaginary being and then start listing characteristics of this being WITH NO EVIDENCE. In short you are making shit up and then you double down on this imaginary being and assert characteristics about it after you are shown evidence that the premise of your argument is not true.

Cosmological arguments are evidence. I'm not making anything up. You didn't show that my arguments were flawed. Did you think I was supporting the original Kalam?

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Naielis's post
02-02-2017, 05:17 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 05:13 PM)adey67 Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 05:08 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Sort of like two chimpanzees discussing astrophysics.

Lol, maybe bro maybe, I'm off to watch family guy before I lose anymore brain cells.

I'd appreciate some decency here. I don't recall insulting your intelligence in this manner.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Naielis's post
02-02-2017, 05:20 PM (This post was last modified: 02-02-2017 05:24 PM by Chas.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 05:10 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 05:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is nothing I need to support as I am not making a claim.
I am pointing out that your statement about science was incorrect. I don't know what came before the Big Bang and neither do you.

I can reconcile my metaphysics with the best explanations from modern physics. And you make an implicit claim every time you ask a question.

That is absurd as a useful idea as it could only be trivially true.

Quote:
(02-02-2017 05:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, you think science is just based on experimentation? Consider
What facts does philosophy discover and by what methodology?

I never said science was only based on experimentation.

You contrasted science and philosophy on that basis.

Quote:Philosophy discovers facts about the nature of reality, knowledge, and morality.

I'd say it connects facts discovered by observation.

Quote:Science would have no foundation or justification if not for philosophy.

Except for the fact that it works. Facepalm

Quote:I already told you part of the methodology. It's a dialectic.

That alone is not a methodology. Discussion and inquiry do not a methodology make.

Quote:More importantly, it's deductive reasoning. Science uses induction which is only justified through deduction.

No, science does not use only induction.
Simply put, induction is used to form hypotheses; deduction is used in applying them.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: