Is it Fair to Incarcerate Christians for their Belief?

[viole]

I have even experienced a dozen or so things I believe were miracles, some you wouldn't believe.

Me too! i saw a few of those things, now that you tell me. And I have honestly no rational explanation for them. Really, no idea.

I believe the guy performing them was called Copperfield, or something.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

The singularity refers to a physical state that is not covered by our actual theories. The name comes from math: a point where some variables become meaningless. It is just a sign that our theories are incomplete. A bit like the precession of Mercury: something that was not covered by Newton.

This is circling the semantic drain at this point. The singularity refers to an event. That even in the time frame I gave and it is said that no one knows how to model it. I think we were both right at least twice about the singularity but neither of us are being relevant. The singularity it's self is not the God shaped hole. No matter what the singularity will eventually turn out to be requires an immaterial, space less, timeless, personal, and unimaginably intelligent being. Just like the BGTV was made robust too apply no matter what occurred during the singularity, so does my worldview.

Yes. The problem in this case is that those (metaphysical) pieces of the puzzle filling those gaps have been removed and replaced many times (by physical ones). So, induction is on my side. Do you have one case where a metaphysical piece ever replaced a physical one?

Instead let me expand my analogy. As has happened millions of times lets say that we dump out all the pieces on a table. We place every single one into the proper place in the puzzle, but as always we see one is missing. We both spot a piece on the floor under the table that fits perfectly. You claim it wasn't in the pile you dumped on the table and so it couldn't possibly be part of the puzzle, I say that is ridiculous and instead believe that piece will fit and complete my puzzle. I can keep making this analogy with further details, but I hope I won't have to. Actually I think you require it because I think it can make the analogy much better.

Yes, but all your moral arguments rest on this premise. Ergo, a God that does not like gays. So, I could you use the same premise with a God who loves gays, and your arguments would be as moot as mine.

Again, my two original arguments were secular and had nothing to do with what God likes. I also explained what standards we must appeal to, to debate any behavior in a secular sense. You imported God into the discussion.

Every religion says that. Since I suppose you agree that Apollo is not true, then it follows that whomever cherished the belief in Apollo did not make the plausibility of Apollo any higher. She was, for all practical purposes, cherishing a delusion.

I thought Apollo was male. Regardless, Apollo like most of history's God's is / are derivative and not primary. Contingent, not necessary. I was not arguing for God, I was stating what is true if God exists and what isn't if he does not.

That is not evidence Robin. My Muslim friend told me the exact same things. All of this just testfies how strong the evidence is, for you both.

Why are you?:

1. Claiming my clarifications are begging questions?
2. Claiming my if then claims are begging questions?
3. Getting my moral ontology arguments confused with moral epistemology?
4. Confusing my conditional conclusions about morality confused with arguments for God's existence?

Ok.

Since you did not quote any questions I begged, as I requested I will assume you could not find any.

Oops, sorry. i should stop drinking Negronis when I post .

What on Earth is that? Google time. Ok, it's gin, orange peel and two things that sound like they came out of a chemistry set.

But this is good news. Because it gives a bit of substance to my claims. Namely, that you can debate things even if we just delude ourselves that objective morality exists.

This is again where we started from. I said that since you presume God does not exist, therefor objective morality does not exist, so instead of ending the debate right there that I would pretend actually moral good and evil exists just to have a discussion. Now, like a week later we are right back to the same point.

And an indirect confirmation that it is possible to give more importance to the belief rather than to the actual existence of that belief. I suspect many theists would respond like you.

Of course, I think that pretending morality exists even it isn't true than for it to be true and pretend it isn't. That is pretty much a no brainer. Neither one is ideal but the former is much better than the later. Fortunately I do not have to pretend, I just have to pretend to pretend for the sake of debate.

And that is what old Freddie meant and was concerned about. What should we do now that we buried the (belief in) God? What happens now that we lost a reference, a compass, something that, albeit false, was giving a direction that seems to work?

It does not matter. What is true for belief is even more true concerning God's existence. The same principle would apply in both cases, and that is the real point. Let me give you a tip. If you want to counter my use of Fredrick all you have to do is say that he believed that a "superman" would eventually show up and make things even better than in the dark days of belief in God. Of course we might well have killed this "ubermensch" in the womb anyway.

How is that relevant? Would you prefer to live in Switzerland, or the Fijii islands, or Bora Bora, or Russia? What about North Corea? It might be able to nuke Bora Bora into oblivion any day.

You were suggesting that I move from where I live to Sweden. That makes the US and Sweden relevant, not whatever North Corea is, Fijii, etc.......I like having the most lethal military in the history of mankind on my side. I often wonder what it must feel like to live in a nation that couldn't hope to defend its self. It must be like dying, you learn to ignore it, right up until it happens.

Yes. Always been a fan of double deltas. Not sure those planes still have double delta wings, though. But they were cute. By the way, I think the best plane ever made was the ME 109.

The ME 109 was a good plane but was not used correctly. It did not have the legs for escort duty, could only roll one way, it did have cannons and fuel injection, but poor visibility, and it was hard to bail out of. There is no objective way to prove what the best plane in history was. They had different rolls and existed in different times. The F-15 does have the best success rate of any mainstream fighter, I think at least 100 - 0 but it isn't the best fighter. Greatest impact for a fighter was P-51. Greatest performance for a fighter F-22. Fastest mainstream fighter / interceptor Mig - 25. Most impressive SR - 71. Fastest X - 15. Best bomber B - 52. Best soldiers Spartans. I guess I have to stop somewhere.

Does it increase or decrease the probabilities of another Hitler?

I asked first.

Yes, with their taxes. Since all those things fall within social welfare. Like basically everything else. But we try our best to avoid abortions, among other things, by extensive sexual education at very early age. Those things are very expensive. Also in emotional terms. I remember that my old school in the village had a deal with a sex shop to provide the material and tools for us kids so that we could train the correct deployment of condoms.

I think the percentage of the time that planned parenthood recommends abortion is over 90% but that may have been propaganda. I am not from Sweden, Christian built my nation (the greatest in human history), only to have it taken over by secularists. The social welfare models you refer to are anomalies of modernity and will bankrupt any nation that funds them. The only question is how fast. Did you know that we have so much debt that not enough money even exists to pay it off?

I suspect you guys have more or less the same. If not, I would strongly recommend it.

Most places that have adopted them are going bankrupt unless there are some coincidences that are delaying it (like Canada's oil shale and sands).

What violence?

Ever heard of the middle east or the Roman Empire? Maybe Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, that fat little boy running Corea? Or perhaps the Byzantine Empire, Turkey, the post Muhammad Caliphate, the Janissaries?

Strangely dressed? You have not seen the pope.

He's bad, they are worse.

Oh dear, no. They are Swiss guards. Switzerland and Sweden are two different countries.

Never hear of either one in the news, maybe that's a good thing.

But you are lucky, I am citizen of both countries, so that you can freely confuse what nationality I have, without any risk.

Ciao

- viole

Now you have gone too far, I am going to have to look at a map. ............ Looks like Sweden is in the arctic circle, and I can't find Switzerland at all.

 

[Dinolil1]

No. I don't believe it is right, unless you are talking about the bible and what God says, then otherwise it is somewhat scary, and not something I can explain. I'd say outside of religion, everyone should accept the beliefs of others, or at the very least, don't hurt them

 

[1robin]

Np. What I claim is that what I know is not supported by my senses nor my intuition. That does not mean that I am a nihilist or a universal skeptic. It just means that our natural belief creation machines are defective and therefore you need different tools. Plantinga identified that very well. If naturalism was true, then our belief forming systems would be unreliable. They indeed are.

How on earth can a man as lazy as I am find the energy to be this prolific? This must be your fault. I can't believe you know Plantinga, Monty Python, and Messerschmitt Bf 109s. However, Plantinga doesn't think naturalism is true, he was simply saying (as I originally did) that if it was true then no foundations for meaningful moral debate exists.

Maybe. But intuition is unreliable in general. And that is why we test nature and check feedbacks., intead of thinking things out based on our thought alone. Intuition led even people like Aristoteles to conclude ridicolus things.

Give me an example of the internal mechanisms by which you evaluate the external world other than sensory or experiential data.

Since your secular arguments have zero convincing power, then it is obvious that your biblical ones have more than zero convincing power. They convince at least the Christians, even if not all of them.

I think persuasiveness is mainly a function of the receiver. Regardless I made no claim about how convincing my arguments were. I said that the most fundamental foundations for morality (actually ethics) without God would be cost benefit analysis. It's all that is left, but that does not make it necessarily convincing.

Yes, and people believe in the prophecies of Nostradamus. And, again, such hits could have been written a posteriori. Or just have been artificially selected among tons of other prophecies by keeping out the ones which did not turn out true. Or a mix of the two things plus some statistical coincidences.

Are you actually claiming that both the bible and Nostradamus sink and swim together?

It is not very difficult really. I could easily anticipate the stock market results for the next 10 sessions by using the same methods.

I think I gave you the actual nature of a prophecy. Please predict as the Tyre prophecy did the very next fortress city that will be annihilated and how it will occur.

Well, I told you. Even if miracles happened, the stories on the NT are completely implausible.

How would you know it? Suspensions of natural law are not accessed by natural science. Take the water into wine. How do you know that is implausible?

Yes, and after having witnessed the miracles of Jesus, including the resurrection of Lazarus, His anticipation of being killed and return after the third day, the perfect realization of those anticipations, including the three times betrayal of Simon, all the amazing things that happened at His death, including an army of resurrected saints popping out from their graves, earthquakes, disappearing suns, centurions admitting that He must indeed be the son of God, etc. .......

I tell you what, I have always found the apostles lack of expectation concerning Christ's resurrection to be surprising as well. If you want dispense with the rest of this and we can investigate the plausible reasons for it.

.... the twelve did not even wait an additional couple of days to see if what he anticipated (His resurrection) would not happen? They suddenly turned back to their normal lives and into rational skeptics even after the first reports of the anticipated rising of the master?

No, I believe they debated that exact thing and decided to wait.

I don't know you, but if I had been a disciple having witnessed all these things, I would have called the CNN, or its Roman Empire equivalent, to record His resurrection live.

They did everything they could. They all wrote it down, suffered for it, and even at the point of death never recanted. That is as good few other ancient histories ever get.

C'mon Robin. This one really looks like a second rate script, at least for what concerns plausibility.

I started off having more problems with the bible, even as a believer, than you ever have. However after having spent decades researching them they have one by one been explained by brilliant scholarship and reasoning. If you want to turn the lamp on their non-expectations lets do that exclusively.

History teaches us that what looks like the best explanation. Is not.

The entire discipline of history is founded on the opposite. That does not mean that all intuitions are correct but it does mean intuitions coupled with evidence can be reliable. Why do you think you know anything about a singularity when you think we know nothing about events 2000 years ago?

This is getting out of hand. I am going to have to take a break and reply to the rest later.

 

[metis]

Whoever those ceremonial guys are now, I read that they were fearsome soldiers back in their day. I would love to visit the Vatican but I do not really anticipate being able to. I am probably going to go to Saudi Arabia in a year or two (but not really by choice) and then hang up my traveling shoes for good.

It's possible they could have been fearsome soldiers, but I don't know. I hope you can avoid going to Saudi Arabia as I do know a couple of couples whereas both lived there for several years, one working for oil and the other medical. It wasn't their favorite place by any stretch of the imagination, but I'll stop it at this.

 

[viole]

This is circling the semantic drain at this point. The singularity refers to an event. That even in the time frame I gave and it is said that no one knows how to model it. I think we were both right at least twice about the singularity but neither of us are being relevant. The singularity it's self is not the God shaped hole. No matter what the singularity will eventually turn out to be requires an immaterial, space less, timeless, personal, and unimaginably intelligent being. Just like the BGTV was made robust too apply no matter what occurred during the singularity, so does my worldview.

It does not require a timeless, personal (why personal?), spaceless, or whatever being. It requires going back to the blackboard. Like many physicists do, despite your alleged necessity of a metaphysical being.

Instead let me expand my analogy. As has happened millions of times lets say that we dump out all the pieces on a table. We place every single one into the proper place in the puzzle, but as always we see one is missing. We both spot a piece on the floor under the table that fits perfectly. You claim it wasn't in the pile you dumped on the table and so it couldn't possibly be part of the puzzle, I say that is ridiculous and instead believe that piece will fit and complete my puzzle. I can keep making this analogy with further details, but I hope I won't have to. Actually I think you require it because I think it can make the analogy much better.

Sure. The only difference is that this piece is not under the table. You are making it yourself to fill the hole.

Again, my two original arguments were secular and had nothing to do with what God likes. I also explained what standards we must appeal to, to debate any behavior in a secular sense. You imported God into the discussion.

So, it makes sense to debate moral things independently from what God likes, after all. Or even under the assumption that He does not exist (even if He does). Because that is was secular means, I think.

I thought Apollo was male. Regardless, Apollo like most of history's God's is / are derivative and not primary. Contingent, not necessary. I was not arguing for God, I was stating what is true if God exists and what isn't if he does not.

I was talking of the worshipper of Apollo. When I said that she might have worshipped a delusion, I did not obviously meant Apollo.

Why are you?:

1. Claiming my clarifications are begging questions?
2. Claiming my if then claims are begging questions?
3. Getting my moral ontology arguments confused with moral epistemology?
4. Confusing my conditional conclusions about morality confused with arguments for God's existence?

Because you assume that without a reference to God we cannot have a compass that makes it meaningful to discuss about morality. But I might be wrong, because you seem to assume the possibility of a metric for morality entirely based on secular arguments.

What on Earth is that? Google time. Ok, it's gin, orange peel and two things that sound like they came out of a chemistry set.

No more chemistry set than gin. You should try it. Stirred, not shaken.

This is again where we started from. I said that since you presume God does not exist, therefor objective morality does not exist, so instead of ending the debate right there that I would pretend actually moral good and evil exists just to have a discussion. Now, like a week later we are right back to the same point.

Well, then I guess we have to agree to disagree.

Of course, I think that pretending morality exists even it isn't true than for it to be true and pretend it isn't. That is pretty much a no brainer. Neither one is ideal but the former is much better than the later. Fortunately I do not have to pretend, I just have to pretend to pretend for the sake of debate.

I don't like pretend. It is possible to believe that it is true, without pretending. I don't believe that objective morality is true, but that is a far cry from believing that morality is not true. I debate many that I know are not objective nor universal. I just do not need the metaphysical label before starting a discussion.

It does not matter. What is true for belief is even more true concerning God's existence. The same principle would apply in both cases, and that is the real point. Let me give you a tip. If you want to counter my use of Fredrick all you have to do is say that he believed that a "superman" would eventually show up and make things even better than in the dark days of belief in God. Of course we might well have killed this "ubermensch" in the womb anyway.

I am a uebermensch. That does mean that I am Superwoman or anything like that. It just means that I can find the sufficient meaning to live happily and fulfilled even under the awareness that everything is ultimately pointless. I don't need any gods, nor belief in them. Nor ultimate purposes, guides, compasses, nor anything of the sort. I am my own God, the only being in my image. Alas, I still have problems to turn water into Negronis, for some reason. Bummer.

You were suggesting that I move from where I live to Sweden. That makes the US and Sweden relevant, not whatever North Corea is, Fijii, etc.......I like having the most lethal military in the history of mankind on my side. I often wonder what it must feel like to live in a nation that couldn't hope to defend its self. It must be like dying, you learn to ignore it, right up until it happens.

Yes, I am sure that living and playing golf in Tahiti (unable to defend itself), must be horrible. People living there look really depressed, by the constant thought of being like dying. I wonder where they find the motivation to play golf.

By the way, your most lethal army in the history of mankind got some donkeys kicked by some people named Charlie inhabiting a small country, if my memory did not abandon me.

The ME 109 was a good plane but was not used correctly. It did not have the legs for escort duty, could only roll one way, it did have cannons and fuel injection, but poor visibility, and it was hard to bail out of. There is no objective way to prove what the best plane in history was. They had different rolls and existed in different times. The F-15 does have the best success rate of any mainstream fighter, I think at least 100 - 0 but it isn't the best fighter. Greatest impact for a fighter was P-51. Greatest performance for a fighter F-22. Fastest mainstream fighter / interceptor Mig - 25. Most impressive SR - 71. Fastest X - 15. Best bomber B - 52. Best soldiers Spartans. I guess I have to stop somewhere.

No idea what you are talking about. My (limited) knowledge is restricted to WW2 planes.

I think the percentage of the time that planned parenthood recommends abortion is over 90% but that may have been propaganda. I am not from Sweden, Christian built my nation (the greatest in human history), only to have it taken over by secularists. The social welfare models you refer to are anomalies of modernity and will bankrupt any nation that funds them. The only question is how fast. Did you know that we have so much debt that not enough money even exists to pay it off?

Well, I was a born in a country built by Pagans only to have it taken over by Christians, imagine how I feel.

By the way, what do you mean? All Europeans single out the USA as the only religious country left in the West. Is that because you have no natural resources?

Most places that have adopted them are going bankrupt unless there are some coincidences that are delaying it (like Canada's oil shale and sands).

For instance? You mean Germany? Or France? Or all nordic countries? All of Europe? Australia, maybe? Or New Zeland? What is left?

You should really visit us, sometimes.

Ever heard of the middle east or the Roman Empire? Maybe Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, that fat little boy running Corea? Or perhaps the Byzantine Empire, Turkey, the post Muhammad Caliphate, the Janissaries?

Again, you should visit really secular countries. Ergo, countries where belief in God has evaporated, or is not relevant, and yet, you are still perfectly free to hold it. True secular countries do not care if you believe in Jesus, Apollo, Star war heroes, etc.

Countries that need to forbid religion have the same problem of countries that forbid not being religious, or forbid to have the wrong religion.. They are two faces of the same medal.

Never hear of either one in the news, maybe that's a good thing.

What? You did not hear of the contest about the best looking cow in Switzerland? Or about our sky team? Or about the extra marital escapades of the king of Sweden? That is important stuff.

What are the news from your country usually about?

Now you have gone too far, I am going to have to look at a map. ............ Looks like Sweden is in the arctic circle, and I can't find Switzerland at all.

Just go to Wikipedia and you will see a small map. By the way, we can effectively defend ourselves. How? Simple. We hold the money and assets of all possible attackers. You should ask yourself why Hitler never invaded us despite us giving shelter to Jews and being surrounded by fascist countries. No F15 needed. Just a lighter to burn all that money down. That is probably why we only have aging hornets.

Ciao

- viole

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and maybe another book or three, the entire bible is irrelevant to me.

Wow! Only THREE books out of 66 are relevant to you? How did you come to that conclusion? Did the writers sneak in 3 good books among all the garbage somehow?

 

[1robin]

Fine. But did that choice of yours begin to exist or not? I just need one bit of information. Yes, or no?

I am going to answer yes, then you going to ask me to explain the choice and the cause. This line of reasoning will then peter out because I have no idea how to model or quantify agent causation. The study of mind brain duality is in it's infancy. Your placing your burden on me. You said that basically every state of affairs is the result of physics, so it's your burden to show that physics explains the occurrence of a desire and the rational fulfillment of that desire X 10^trillionth. As an example lets say you woke up in the arctic tundra you call home and had the intention of going to work pop into your mind. Mathematically or give me some physics equates that explain the thousands of decisions that had to be enacted in order for you to arrive at work.

i don't need to. I just need to know that any physical state of the Universe is contained and inferrable from any of its prior states. I only need to know that information is conserved.

That is what I keep asking you for. Show the causal chain between the sensation that I am thirsty and the hundreds of decisions I need to make to get some water. Use physics to get from any intent to it's fulfillment.

It's like solving problems by means of conservation laws. Energy conservation for instance. You do not need to go through all the detail mechanics. You reach a solution that is much more parsimonous and elegant.



Again, I do not need to. I just need to invoke conservation laws and the principle of information constancy. If that ball could have really been somewhere else, for the same state of the Universe 1 billion years ago, then I can throw all of physics in the garbage can.

The goal of inquiry is not to be frugal, it is to be correct. I see trillions of intentions along with a trillion rational fulfillments. I do not care how efficient the explanation of the data by the presence of freewill, it appears to be true.

I think that our ego dictating that we are free agents, for some reason, is not worth the price.

I have no idea what to do with your statement here. It is very inconvenient and humbling to posit moral standards which we will all fail to perfectly obey. Christianity is founded on our inadequacies and failures.

If you believe that logic could not exist without God, and you use logical arguments to prove Him, you are circular. You cannot prove God if you believe that the proof requires God given properties.

What? I believe the existence of reason is best accounted for by a being that reasons. In fact that is why the modern scientific revolution occurred almost exclusively in Christendom. Men believed in a rational God and thought he would have made a rational universe. They set out to decode that lawfulness or rationality in nature, and do so.

Take Kalam. Why do you use it, since you claim to have strong evidence of the Christian God? Why do you need Kalam, that says nothing about Jesus, when you have already evidence of JEsus?

I use kind of a hybrid cosmological argument. I think Leibniz is the closest to it. However I do not remember using either in any proof for God in out discussion. You keep referring to arguments for God's existence I do not recall having made. My best evidence is not available to you (you have no access to my experiences), and others are biblical (which is a book you reject). All that is left are best inferences from the evidence. I have not been trying to prove God exists, nor Christ. If you can decide on which thing you want to discuss I can tailor my arguments for it.

I anticipate that either the Dallas Cowboys win the next superball or they will not. Am I divine since I will surely have one fulfilled prophecy?

If then arguments are not really prophecies. Besides I have already given you the criteria if you want to attempt a bible type of prophecy. Take the prophecy about Tyre, and make a similar one your self.

And who is talking of miracles? I am talking of people who use things like Kalam when they are already, allegedely, sure that the stunts of Christ are true. Same for people believing in the evidence of the stunts of other prophets, obviously.

I misunderstood. We use history, science, philosophy, etc..... because they are the only common grounds upon which both should agree. I would think 2 + 2 = 4 would be far more persuasive to you than a pinched nerve that instantly healed when I prayed. I can't win, I make secular arguments, you want biblical arguments, I relate the bible to cosmology, history, and philosophy, you don't like any of that either. It appears I chased you right out of reality.

Do you realize that your opener was about homosexuality? How did we go from that to proofs for God, miracles, Kalam, prophecy, proofs for Christ, and circular reasoning? I wish you would pick one thing and lets resolve it before moving on.

No Robin. If I have strong evidence for electrons, I do not look for additional evidence for the existence of more generic subatomic particles. I have my electron. i do not need further support. I know there are subatomic particles. My electron being it.

Prove your not in the matrix being fed a belief in electrons? I am not sure what your talking about. I do not know what answer to give because I have no idea what your question. Electrons have sufficient evidence for their existence to be believed in, same with God.

I would simply waste my time.

Then why are their libraries full of books explaining electrons?

Sure they are. Do you really think you would not believe in Apollo if you were not born in ancient Greece? And what you call a joke is what people believe in West Africa. So, a bit of respect, please.

That is to confuse epistemology with ontology again. Even if I lived in ancient Greece, and even if I had complete faith in the existence of Apollo, he would still make a pathetic cause or explanation for the universe. He is a derivative God, nature supersedes him. For pity's sake Apollo was born on the island of Delos, was not bad at archery, but killed his best friend by accident. Yahweh created the universe. List al the attributes that whatever the cause of the universe's beginning to exist and we will see whether Apollo's or Yahweh's original description includes more of them.

From my vantage point they are all equally plausible. Since they all share the same exact evidence. Namely, zero.

They do not share anything except for a few superficial similarities, mainly because they concern similar things. They can't all be equally plausible, they are all different, and all have different evidence. In fact not any two of them have equal plausibility. What you should have said is that despite your having less than .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the totality of evidence available to you, you do not prefer a God to exist, so you throw them all in a bag and flush mankind's only hope down the toilet. It is intellectually dishonest to even hint that God's must all stand together or fall together.

I am quite ecumenic about the thousands of God pleople believe, or believed in.

Ciao

- viole

I am sure you prefer them all to non-exist equally. There is no hero in neutrality, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.

 

[1robin]

Me too! i saw a few of those things, now that you tell me. And I have honestly no rational explanation for them. Really, no idea.

I believe the guy performing them was called Copperfield, or something.

Ciao

- viole

Your talking about things explained by natural law (even if you don't know which or how), I am referring to things that defy or contradict natural law.

There is a street magician who does all the classic tricks the others you mentioned do, only he then explains how it is done. For the things I am referring to there is no parallel. In fact, I don't know why people like Dawkins do so, but a complaint they always have is that saying a miracle occurred defies science. Sorry Richie but the purpose of miracles is not to further science nor obey it. Apollo may be subject to natural law but my God created it and is in no way constrained by it.

 

[1robin]

It's possible they could have been fearsome soldiers, but I don't know. I hope you can avoid going to Saudi Arabia as I do know a couple of couples whereas both lived there for several years, one working for oil and the other medical. It wasn't their favorite place by any stretch of the imagination, but I'll stop it at this.

Oh, believe me I am conflicted about having to go there on many levels. I am even kind of disappointed that my company is facilitating them at all.

You seem a pleasant enough poster, so let me back up and clarify something. I did not indicate what my policy of refugees would be. I am sure that after I had adequate information I would have different policies for different countries. However I constantly hear people talk about rights to this or that, or what things should be protected by law, etc...... However 99% of them lack the foundations to claim anything is inherent. Saying certain things should be enforced by law, ultimately means forced at gun point. So when I see people talking about rights or demands for recognition by law I always want to see what the justifications for their demands are. For example I have heard a thousand times that everyone has the RIGHT to health care. Where did we get that right? Rights only exist if God does, the government is merely required not to infringe upon them. ISIS and other terrorist organizations have admitted and have been caught using our refugee policy to smuggle terrorists into this country, and we already have millions of illegals here. That is where my questions about refugees came from. If I am asked to take additional risks my first response is to ask for the justifications for those additional risks.

 

[metis]

Oh, believe me I am conflicted about having to go there on many levels. I am even kind of disappointed that my company is facilitating them at all.

Ya, my oldest daughter and son-in-law were faced with a similar problem about 10 years ago when the company he worked for wanted them to move to Russia for a minimum of a three year stint. Even though it would prevent him for getting any more promotions, he turned them down, especially since their kids were very young.

 

[viole]

I am going to answer yes, then you going to ask me to explain the choice and the cause. This line of reasoning will then peter out because I have no idea how to model or quantify agent causation. The study of mind brain duality is in it's infancy. Your placing your burden on me. You said that basically every state of affairs is the result of physics, so it's your burden to show that physics explains the occurrence of a desire and the rational fulfillment of that desire X 10^trillionth. As an example lets say you woke up in the arctic tundra you call home and had the intention of going to work pop p...

I am not going to ask you to explain the choice and the cause. I don't care about particulars, in this case. I just need to know that there is a cause.

What I am going to ask you if that cause, which must exist if your choice began to exist, has another cause, and another cause, and another cause, ...., up to that prime uncaused cause that generated the Universe.

In other words, is your choice ultimately caused by God, or not?

If not, why not?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Ya, my oldest daughter and son-in-law were faced with a similar problem about 10 years ago when the company he worked for wanted them to move to Russia for a minimum of a three year stint. Even though it would prevent him for getting any more promotions, he turned them down, especially since their kids were very young.

When I was young I traveled all the time and loved it. Now going the 4 miles between work and home is pushing it.

 

[1robin]

I am not going to ask you to explain the choice and the cause. I don't care about particulars, in this case. I just need to know that there is a cause.

Your previous post is a monster so I will respond to this one first.

BTW since you love Chesterton so much here is a good one.

He said: Whether real dragons exist or not is not the point of the tale. The point is that dragons can be slain.

The mind, abstract concepts like numbers, and free will or agency are very little understood things. I do not know how causation works in the abstract. I do not know of any tools to use in the investigation. Your the one making simplistic claims and you were the one who originated a positive claim to knowledge concerning determinism and choice. You should be able to give me some equations which explain both an intention and it's satisfaction. I do not think that any natural law can account for freewill. You think natural law does fully account for choice. Your argument is far easier to make. There are well known tools to use if your correct.

What I am going to ask you if that cause, which must exist if your choice began to exist, has another cause, and another cause, and another cause, ...., up to that prime uncaused cause that generated the Universe.

I do not believe choice can be reduced to natural law.

In other words, is your choice ultimately caused by God, or not?

If not, why not?

Ciao

- viole

I believe God holds ultimate sovereignty over everything, however I believe he can endow other creatures with localized sovereignty.

BTW No one has to know what something is to easily see what it isn't. I can easily see that determinism does not explain human choice, but I would be hard pressed to say exactly what it is. Its like that missing puzzle piece. I may not yet know what puzzle a piece I found goes with, but I can easily tell if it goes to the one I am working on.


And the ME 109's landing gear was too narrow.

 

[Abigail]

Hi my name is Abigail Davis and I am currently researching the effects of personality on religiosity, at Nottingham Trent University, for my final year research project. I would greatly appreciate your participation in my study; it is a short online questionnaire designed for individuals who regularly attend a place of worship.

If you attend a regular place of worship and have a spare 10 minutes, please would you complete my questionnaire, thank you in advance.

Religiosity and Personality Questionnaire

 

[metis]

When I was young I traveled all the time and loved it. Now going the 4 miles between work and home is pushing it.

I hear ya. They say you know you're getting older when you look forward to a boring evening.

Or, you know you're getting older when your back goes out more than you do.

 

[viole]

Your previous post is a monster so I will respond to this one first.

BTW since you love Chesterton so much here is a good one.

He said: Whether real dragons exist or not is not the point of the tale. The point is that dragons can be slain.

The mind, abstract concepts like numbers, and free will or agency are very little understood things. I do not know how causation works in the abstract. I do not know of any tools to use in the investigation. Your the one making simplistic claims and you were the one who originated a positive claim to knowledge concerning determinism and choice. You should be able to give me some equations which explain both an intention and it's satisfaction. I do not think that any natural law can account for freewill. You think natural law does fully account for choice. Your argument is far easier to make. There are well known tools to use if your correct.




I do not believe choice can be reduced to natural law.

I believe God holds ultimate sovereignty over everything, however I believe he can endow other creatures with localized sovereignty.

BTW No one has to know what something is to easily see what it isn't. I can easily see that determinism does not explain human choice, but I would be hard pressed to say exactly what it is. Its like that missing puzzle piece. I may not yet know what puzzle a piece I found goes with, but I can easily tell if it goes to the one I am working on.


And the ME 109's landing gear was too narrow.

Yes, but you said that your choice (e.g. having a hot dog) began to exist. Which seems reasonable, at least from your vantage point, since it would be difficult to imagine the decision of eating a hot dog as something eternal.

And you insist that everything that begins to exist, has a cause.

Note that I am not making any mention of natural laws; I just appeal to beginning of existence and its alleged necessary cause. After all you would also agree that the cause of the universe is not subject to a natural law.

So, if your choice began to exist, then it has a cause. Therefore, either this cause is eternal or began to exist, too. And so on.

Since you also insist that infinite regress is impossible, you must hit a wall that is eternal. And that wall must be the ultimate trigger of you having chosen to have a hot dog, instead of, say, a hamburger.

Do you agree?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

It does not require a timeless, personal (why personal?), spaceless, or whatever being. It requires going back to the blackboard. Like many physicists do, despite your alleged necessity of a metaphysical being.

This is like taking my first step up mount Kilimanjaro.

1. How would a being in time create time? If he is time dependent he could not exist before time (for lack of a better word) in order to create time.
2. Personal in the sense of having intent or will. Able to choose to act.
3. How would a being dependent on matter create matter? If his existence requires matter then how could he have existed prior to matter in order to create matter?

We have both agreed that no known physics or mathematics apply to the singularity, so staring at black boards is not going to help. There is not even a theory for how nothing can become something. It's not even a scientific question.

Sure. The only difference is that this piece is not under the table. You are making it yourself to fill the hole.

Then I must be at least 3000 years old, because that was when men recorded the nature of God. They did not know the right questions to ask, yet they got every answer correct. Just like the puzzle piece found under the table, I did not create it, I found it existing, and that it perfectly fits the hole.

So, it makes sense to debate moral things independently from what God likes, after all. Or even under the assumption that He does not exist (even if He does). Because that is was secular means, I think.

Once again we have traveled for weeks to end up where we began. Yes we should pretend some moral values and duties exist even if God doesn't. I would think that cost versus benefit would by among the foundations that the most people would agree on.

I was talking of the worshipper of Apollo. When I said that she might have worshipped a delusion, I did not obviously meant Apollo.

Ok.

Because you assume that without a reference to God we cannot have a compass that makes it meaningful to discuss about morality. But I might be wrong, because you seem to assume the possibility of a metric for morality entirely based on secular arguments.

1. Objective moral values and duties only exist if God does. However belief in God is not required to act morally. I believe we have God given consciences which we can obey even while denying God's existence.
2. It gets confusing calling both objective and subjective values and duties morality. So lets call objective moral values morality and subjective moral ethics.

No more chemistry set than gin. You should try it. Stirred, not shaken.

Funny you say that. When my Mom got cancer, the worse she got the more I used drinking to escape. Even 10 years later I drank beer everyday and couldn't stop. The instant I was born again I lost all desire for alcohol. I do drink a beer or two per year but could take it or leave it. I also don't believe responsible drinking is sinful.

Well, then I guess we have to agree to disagree.

Yet again, back at the starting line. Metallica made a song about WW1 called back to the front. Seems like that is what we are doing. I do not see anything in my statements you have not already agreed to. I covered what would be true if God exists, and what would be true if he didn't and I believe you agree. You sure you understood what I said?

I don't like pretend. It is possible to believe that it is true, without pretending. I don't believe that objective morality is true, but that is a far cry from believing that morality is not true. I debate many that I know are not objective nor universal. I just do not need the metaphysical label before starting a discussion.

I know for a fact objective morality does not exist if God does not exist. Assuming God does not exist but believing objective morality exists is a poster child for the label of pretend. However you know I do not care about semantic technicalities so you can use any label you wish.

I am a uebermensch. That does mean that I am Superwoman or anything like that. It just means that I can find the sufficient meaning to live happily and fulfilled even under the awareness that everything is ultimately pointless. I don't need any gods, nor belief in them. Nor ultimate purposes, guides, compasses, nor anything of the sort. I am my own God, the only being in my image. Alas, I still have problems to turn water into Negronis, for some reason. Bummer.

The ideal superior man of the future who could rise above conventional Christian morality to create and impose his own values, originally described by Nietzsche in Thus Spake Zarathustra (1883–85).
Übermensch - Wikipedia

Yes, I am sure that living and playing golf in Tahiti (unable to defend itself), must be horrible. People living there look really depressed, by the constant thought of being like dying. I wonder where they find the motivation to play golf.

I didn't characterize anything. I said since I have grown up my whole life in a nation which has won every war it has fought and which has the most lethal military in human history I can't imagine what it would feel like to live in a nation that could be swallowed whole at any time.

By the way, your most lethal army in the history of mankind got some donkeys kicked by some people named Charlie inhabiting a small country, if my memory did not abandon me.

We both make many spelling mistakes, but usually I can understand what your saying. Not so this time.

No idea what you are talking about. My (limited) knowledge is restricted to WW2 planes.

Ok WW2. Best pure fighter P-51 (US), toughest fighter P-47 (US), hardest hitting Bristol Beaufighter (English), best Naval fighter Corsair (US). Coolest name for a fighter Saab Draken (Swedish I think).

Well, I was a born in a country built by Pagans only to have it taken over by Christians, imagine how I feel.

What characteristic or beliefs make a person a Pagan? Where are the goal posts?

By the way, what do you mean? All Europeans single out the USA as the only religious country left in the West. Is that because you have no natural resources?

Religious countries are theocracies and some monarchies. Christianity was never intended to govern a nation, it was intended to govern a person. My country is a confusing one, we specifically did not want to make ourselves into a monarchy like England. So we made our institutions secular to a great extent. However the secular revolution found that secular crack and drove a wedge in it until they have watered down everything. It would take days to explain our history.

For instance? You mean Germany? Or France? Or all nordic countries? All of Europe? Australia, maybe? Or New Zeland? What is left?

You should really visit us, sometimes.

Greece, France, England, etc...... are all regretting their liberal spending practices. From letting Muslims take over parts of their nations, to the necessity for austerity measures, to trying to re-privatize health care. I would love to visit Sweden but I fear I do not own enough clothes to survive.

Again, you should visit really secular countries. Ergo, countries where belief in God has evaporated, or is not relevant, and yet, you are still perfectly free to hold it. True secular countries do not care if you believe in Jesus, Apollo, Star war heroes, etc.

There are none. Christianity is the only religion in history that exists at a significant level in every nation of earth.

Countries that need to forbid religion have the same problem of countries that forbid not being religious, or forbid to have the wrong religion.. They are two faces of the same medal.

I agree but this is another modulation issue, all forms of government will all always fail because they are composed of faulty people. Our founders created as close to a perfect governmental structure as is humanly possible, yet I expect this nation to implode within a hundred years.

What? You did not hear of the contest about the best looking cow in Switzerland? Or about our sky team? Or about the extra marital escapades of the king of Sweden? That is important stuff.

Is there an objective standard for bovine beauty? You guys have a king?

What are the news from your country usually about?

Donald Trump being the anti-Christ and Obama being the second coming of Christ.

Just go to Wikipedia and you will see a small map. By the way, we can effectively defend ourselves. How? Simple. We hold the money and assets of all possible attackers. You should ask yourself why Hitler never invaded us despite us giving shelter to Jews and being surrounded by fascist countries. No F15 needed. Just a lighter to burn all that money down. That is probably why we only have aging hornets.

I did, I pointed to Sweden and my finger froze. Wikipedia said that Sweden has two seasons, winter, and the 4th of July. The only reason your not speaking German right now is because of the human wave attacks Russia carried out, the British navy and air force, and our technical and industrial might.

 

[1robin]

I hear ya. They say you know you're getting older when you look forward to a boring evening.

Or, you know you're getting older when your back goes out more than you do.

Bingo.

 

[1robin]

Yes, but you said that your choice (e.g. having a hot dog) began to exist. Which seems reasonable, at least from your vantage point, since it would be difficult to imagine the decision of eating a hot dog as something eternal.

Let's say for example that A = my being hungry, B = my deciding to get a hot dog, and C = the thousands of events that must take place to actually get the hot dog and eat it. You stated that physics (basically) can account for everything from A to C. Since I know of no physics what so ever (not even in theory) that can account for all that, then that is the end of my argument. If we are to resolve this your going to have to post the equations which accounts for the trillions of examples where people go from A to C. My argument is that that does not exist because I cannot see it if it exists and you can't provide it.

And you insist that everything that begins to exist, has a cause.

Yes, I would say that it is a agent causation. I do not know how to describe it but there appears to be trillion of examples of it. Until you start knocking them down with equations.

Note that I am not making any mention of natural laws; I just appeal to beginning of existence and its alleged necessary cause. After all you would also agree that the cause of the universe is not subject to a natural law.

I do not recall saying that choices are based on necessary causes.

So, if your choice began to exist, then it has a cause. Therefore, either this cause is eternal or began to exist, too. And so on.

Life span isn't relevant. What is relevant is whether physics alone can be shown to account for a choice or not. Think of it this way. Let's say you told me there is an elephant inside of a standard sized garbage can. We both stare at it and I see no good reason to think that is true, so I say go over and open the trashcan and lets see if there is an adult elephant in it. You say no, that I should instead prove that it is impossible. You say physics accounts for choice, open the lid (physics) and let me see the elephant (the equations).

Since you also insist that infinite regress is impossible, you must hit a wall that is eternal. And that wall must be the ultimate trigger of you having chosen to have a hot dog, instead of, say, a hamburger.

Do you agree?

Ciao

- viole

I think I said it pretty well. God holds ultimate sovereignty over every single thing that exists, but can impart provisional and partial sovereignty to other creatures. God explains why I can make a choice, but his existence rarely compels me to make any specific choice.

On my view choice is a very abstract and or spiritual issue, and things like that very hard to know or explain.
You however claim choice is simply physics, and things like that can be shown. So the burden is yours.

Hey, if your getting bored with the determinism stuff, do you want to switch to the prophecy about Tyre? It is not one of the best known prophecies but it is one of the most fascinating.