Morality vs. Legalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-09-2015, 02:01 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(18-09-2015 01:56 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  For God has literally supplied all in great splendor and wealth. If we but could see.
Nice story. Do you have anything to back that up with?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
18-09-2015, 02:09 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(18-09-2015 02:01 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(18-09-2015 01:56 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  For God has literally supplied all in great splendor and wealth. If we but could see.
Nice story. Do you have anything to back that up with?
Our inhabitance(Earth), and fellow inhabitants(life/energy) are our supply and resource, yet we abuse them frivolously, and in vain. Surely a damning scenario in general.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2015, 03:08 PM
Morality vs. Legalism
(18-09-2015 01:45 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(18-09-2015 10:57 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  There are surly higher powers past these ultimately pleading to a singular highest power
There is no power higher than the fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear) that's why they are called fundamental.

Consciousness is an emergent abstract consequence of these fundamental force.
No thought or original idea has ever come to be without being a direct consequence of an event caused by the fundamental forces.

So basically it all reduces to physics. You're just peddling physiciallism.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2015, 03:13 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(18-09-2015 03:08 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-09-2015 01:45 PM)Stevil Wrote:  There is no power higher than the fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear) that's why they are called fundamental.

Consciousness is an emergent abstract consequence of these fundamental force.
No thought or original idea has ever come to be without being a direct consequence of an event caused by the fundamental forces.

So basically it all reduces to physics. You're just peddling physiciallism.
You make it look like I said something that I indeed did not. It does not stop at physics. Physics is just a result of God, not the cause.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2015, 03:24 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(18-09-2015 03:08 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So basically it all reduces to physics.
As far as we know, yes, just physics and the fundamental four forces.
As far as we know everything is just a consequence of these forces interacting.

In our human consciousness perspective of the universe we think we are able to make choices. But as far as we know we cannot choose the path of an electron, we cannot make it go left rather than right by wanting it to go left. We can only manipulate by taking advantage of the four fundamental forces, by moving magnets, by moving circuits through magnetic fields, by moving chemicals together and taking advantages of the chemical reactions that ensue.

All our choices, all our thoughts are a result of the four fundamental forces, we are essentially conscious observers within a biochemical machine..

As far as we know our thoughts do not count as a fifth force.

You can speculate as to forces or causes outside of "materialism" but until you have any evidence of this, we cannot consider this to be something real.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2015, 03:27 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(18-09-2015 03:24 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(18-09-2015 03:08 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So basically it all reduces to physics.
As far as we know, yes, just physics and the fundamental four forces.
As far as we know everything is just a consequence of these forces interacting.

In our human consciousness perspective of the universe we think we are able to make choices. But as far as we know we cannot choose the path of an electron, we cannot make it go left rather than right by wanting it to go left. We can only manipulate by taking advantage of the four fundamental forces, by moving magnets, by moving circuits through magnetic fields, by moving chemicals together and taking advantages of the chemical reactions that ensue.

All our choices, all our thoughts are a result of the four fundamental forces, we are essentially conscious observers within a biochemical machine..

As far as we know our thoughts do not count as a fifth force.

You can speculate as to forces or causes outside of "materialism" but until you have any evidence of this, we cannot consider this to be something real.


So what does that say about the scientific method? Is the reducible to the laws of physics?

So what does this mean in regards to convincing you of what the truth is? Won't I have to manipulate physical forces to do so?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2015, 03:46 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(18-09-2015 03:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So what does that say about the scientific method? Is the reducible to the laws of physics?
Yes, if you come up with something that isn't reducible to the laws of physics then you have a huge gap in your claim.

The scientific method is an approach based on observation therefore it is entirely limited to materialistic explanations.

The scientific method cannot explain non materialistic causes or events as those are not observable or measurable. They are not open to scrutiny or verification and they are not falsifiable.

Your religious leaders can try to come up with supernatural explanations, but how to they verify them, how do they attempt to falsify them? If they had a suitable method of discovery, I'd take them more seriously. At the moment their claims are entirely vacuous.


(18-09-2015 03:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So what does this mean in regards to convincing you of what the truth is? Won't I have to manipulate physical forces to do so?
You'd have to appeal to objective observations which means material causes and material effects.

Unless of course you have a method which includes observation, verification, falsifiability which can cover non material things. Otherwise you are just speculating.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2015, 03:58 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(18-09-2015 03:46 PM)Stevil Wrote:  So what does this mean in regards to convincing you of what the truth is? Won't I have to manipulate physical forces to do so?
You'd have to appeal to objective observations which means material causes and material effects.

[/quote]

You're just trying to explain what you think is required to manipulate physical forces to get you to believe something is true.

To get you believe something is true, requires that I manipulate the neurochemistry in brain, that interacts with the neurochemical components underlying your introspection, getting you to say to yourself, yes this is true.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2015, 04:14 PM (This post was last modified: 18-09-2015 04:26 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(18-09-2015 03:58 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  To get you believe something is true, requires that I manipulate the neurochemistry in brain, that interacts with the neurochemical components underlying your introspection, getting you to say to yourself, yes this is true.
You give me an objective method of discovery and if the evidence falls into place and alternatives are shown to be invalid then you might just be onto something.
It will result in a rewiring of my brain, a change in my thoughts, and my justified beliefs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2015, 04:55 PM
Morality vs. Legalism
(18-09-2015 04:14 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(18-09-2015 03:58 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  To get you believe something is true, requires that I manipulate the neurochemistry in brain, that interacts with the neurochemical components underlying your introspection, getting you to say to yourself, yes this is true.
You give me an objective method of discovery and if the evidence falls into place and alternatives are shown to be invalid then you might just be onto something.
It will result in a rewiring of my brain, a change in my thoughts, and my justified beliefs.

There is no objective method, because our brains are all wired differently. What it takes for your brain to register something is true might be entirely different for some other brain. In fact you might not even been entirely aware of what is required, because your introspection is unreliable.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: