Refuting "the problem of evil"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-08-2014, 12:49 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(24-08-2014 11:37 AM)Baruch Wrote:  Again, nothing you stated here justifies what you said about zero space between atoms etc, the paradox & singularities when making water. Basically your sentences I criticized still make no sense or nonsense.

Having read your responses to my post, I'm left feeling a bit doubtful that I would be able to explain my ideas in a way which will be wholly meaningful inside your perspective.

If you are curious, I can have a go at explaining why it won't fit, however I fear the explanation itself may likewise be somewhat unintelligible, for the same reasons!

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2014, 12:55 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(24-08-2014 12:38 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  "I don't believe in new age woo... Hydrogen and oxygen have water properties."

Consider


Nope.. Certainly not interested in reading this thread...

Too late, you already did.

Your post exposes my favourite paradox related to direct assertions we might make of ourselves.

Consider this quote, by former British PM Margaret Thatcher:

"Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't"

Whats interesting is - if you analyse anything someone claims of themselves, it's very frequent that the simple making of the claim will undermine it's own truth.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2014, 01:02 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(24-08-2014 12:55 PM)phil.a Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 12:38 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  "I don't believe in new age woo... Hydrogen and oxygen have water properties."

Consider


Nope.. Certainly not interested in reading this thread...

Too late, you already did.

...in its entirety.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2014, 01:08 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(24-08-2014 01:02 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 12:55 PM)phil.a Wrote:  Too late, you already did.

...in its entirety.

Oh, you're still here then? :-)

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2014, 01:20 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(24-08-2014 01:08 PM)phil.a Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 01:02 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  ...in its entirety.

Oh, you're still here then? :-)

Phil

I've always been here...

[Image: youve-always-been-here1.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WeAreTheCosmos's post
24-08-2014, 05:00 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(24-08-2014 12:33 PM)phil.a Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 11:34 AM)Baruch Wrote:  What do you mean by qualities - I asked you before but didn't respond.

I think I'd define qualities as "perceptual differentiations of reality" that are known of relative to each other, e.g. qualities are known through the knowing of other qualities. I know of "hot" through the fact I know of "cold", and vice versa.

In terms of the perceptions, if I look at the facts of my actual awareness I notice I can discern and perceive in 3 primary (but somewhat separate) dimensions or domains of awareness: Beauty, Goodness and Truth. So for a given perception of a "quality", the perception may be formed by any single one one of these domains or a mixture of all of them.

Phil

So Phil - one again the Qualities of water are emergent and not some hidden potential in H & O. In this case the emergence ALSO requires conscious beings if your including phenomenal qualities not just quantities. Obviously you cannot have phenomenal qualities of there is no one to perceive the phenomena eg a rainbow is still a reflection of various wavelengths of light but only "blue" is a conscious being perceives blue.
"Wetness" as an emergent property of water is not necessarily phenomenal because laws of fluid dynamics still exist regardless if there is an observer.

...as for evil, the concept is meaningless without any conscious beings who have phenomenal psychological properties such as suffering.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Baruch's post
24-08-2014, 05:13 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(24-08-2014 11:59 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 07:51 AM)Chas Wrote:  They have different roots and different origins.

The definitions quoted are descriptive, not prescriptive, they reflect the current misuse of the words by the ignorant.
What sort of nonsense is this? The meaning of words is determined by their usage, not by their etymological origins. That's how language works.

Of course it is, but you didn't acknowledge that there are prescriptive dictionaries vs descriptive dictionaries, and that not all language change is positive.

When the meanings of two different words are confused, that is a loss to the language.
These two words are such a case. 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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
24-08-2014, 05:17 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(24-08-2014 12:33 PM)phil.a Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 11:34 AM)Baruch Wrote:  What do you mean by qualities - I asked you before but didn't respond.

I think I'd define qualities as "perceptual differentiations of reality" that are known of relative to each other, e.g. qualities are known through the knowing of other qualities. I know of "hot" through the fact I know of "cold", and vice versa.

No, you don't. There have been many people who never experienced cold but did experience hot. People are aware of differences, but they need not be opposites.

Quote:In terms of the perceptions, if I look at the facts of my actual awareness I notice I can discern and perceive in 3 primary (but somewhat separate) dimensions or domains of awareness: Beauty, Goodness and Truth. So for a given perception of a "quality", the perception may be formed by any single one one of these domains or a mixture of all of them.

Phil

That is your reality. I don't subscribe to that.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
24-08-2014, 05:19 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(24-08-2014 12:49 PM)phil.a Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 11:37 AM)Baruch Wrote:  Again, nothing you stated here justifies what you said about zero space between atoms etc, the paradox & singularities when making water. Basically your sentences I criticized still make no sense or nonsense.

Having read your responses to my post, I'm left feeling a bit doubtful that I would be able to explain my ideas in a way which will be wholly meaningful inside your perspective.

If you are curious, I can have a go at explaining why it won't fit, however I fear the explanation itself may likewise be somewhat unintelligible, for the same reasons!

Phil

If you can't give a coherent explanation is plain language without jargon, then you probably don't have a coherent understanding yourself.

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
24-08-2014, 07:00 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(24-08-2014 05:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 12:49 PM)phil.a Wrote:  Having read your responses to my post, I'm left feeling a bit doubtful that I would be able to explain my ideas in a way which will be wholly meaningful inside your perspective.

If you are curious, I can have a go at explaining why it won't fit, however I fear the explanation itself may likewise be somewhat unintelligible, for the same reasons!

Phil

If you can't give a coherent explanation is plain language without jargon, then you probably don't have a coherent understanding yourself.

I agree with Chas - if you cannot explain it then you probably don't understand what your saying. Infact Phil a I think YOU agree with that judging by your comments.
In terms you may understand of "Beauty, Truth and Goodness" your explanation is:
Unintelligible therefore an ugly presentation.
Cannot be good because you cannot explain it therefore has no wholeness/completeness/Goodness.
As for Truth - It is unintelligible so by definition cannot be true.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Baruch's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: