The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[AlphaAlex115]

You're welcome.

quality

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't think your a qualified neuroscientist. I have read about the event sand shelved it under knowable. No one can disprove what he claimed and he is obviously qualified to intelligently discuss it but it goes way beyond him, there are now entire funded projects in universities and major medical institutions that are piling up evidence that so far has PROVEN that mind is more than the brain. I don't think they can prove heaven or hell with their methods but they at least show the brain is no the end. You ever read about the lady who had all the blood drained from here brain and yet described every action in the waiting room and that occurred outside the hospital? How about the guy in Africa who was not a believer and was dead for 3 days. He is one of those transparent gold sources. The kid who despite never knowing his grandfather and never seeing a picture of him described him as a child in perfect detail. The gang member who described Hell. I would and do rule out most, as mistakes or lies but when you try and rule out thousands you just come off like an emotionally motivated denier. I do not believe in UFO but I would never say all the claimers are faking it or deluded and unlike UFO there are no scientific reasons to exclude heaven or hell.


.

The problem is that when we delve into these extraordinary claims, we find out they actually have ordinary explanations and/or didn't happen quite as reported.

Our perceptions our flawed and biased and our memories are based on our perceptions and preconceptions.

 

[1robin]

The problem is that when we delve into these extraordinary claims, we find out they actually have ordinary explanations and/or didn't happen quite as reported.

Our perceptions our flawed and biased and our memories are based on our perceptions and preconceptions.

They can be but your assuming they are and without any justification. My view only requires that one be true, yours requires they all be wrong.

 

[viole]

Nope. I do not agree that humans came from fish. I do not think there is even the beginning of enough evidence to justify that. I said the bible's kinds are most often thought to be defined as fertile populations. Dogs, cats, etc.... I have never tried but I don't think I can breed with a whale shark, have you attempted it.

Ergo, you do not accept evolution. And probably your apologists do not either. What is the difference with that preacher from Mississippi? He also probably accepts that dog come from dogs, big deal.

You take any concessions and just run with it. I said the bible agrees that evolution occurred not that evolutionary theory is all true. It limits evolution, the theory does not, it traces it's source to mind, the theory does not. The theory is almost absurdly false which is why it so radically morphs every decade or so. I think nature can rearrange existing codes. I have no reason to think it can produce them and little to think it can effective build on them. But even if it could it would be practically miraculous as virtually nothing else acts this way naturally. Every new atoms requires intelligence and they are basically codes. Computers don't act like hat, machines don't. Someone asked an evolutionist if he could name any other natural system hat increased in specified complexity over time without intelligence, he said aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh, evolution.

Nope, you really do not accept evolution. To say that the Bible confirms evolution because the divenely inspired authors noticed (how smart) that dogs come from dogs is frankly ridicolous.

YThat is not what they are saying. They don't think Darwin as a whole is compatible but elements of it were in the bible thousands of years before he was born. We believe dogs produce other dogs, maybe bigger ones, smaller ones, ugly ones and cute ones. Guess what that is all hat anyone has ever seen occur. Even when trying to accelerate it intentionally he fruit flys remained flys, and never became lizards or anything but flys. Germs remained germs, life only came from life no matter how hard we tried to force it to do otherwise we miserably failed. Don't worry reality has little effect on the theory however.

Oh yes. They observed that dogs produce dogs and therefore they anticipated Darwin. Surely, there is a divine inspiration behind. Well, then they anticipated Newton too, since I believe that divine inspiration led them to believe that apples fall down froma trees.

The wood truck might become merciful if I keep obeying thermodynamics as I have in the past. I am proof positive that biological systems deteriorate over time just as every thing else does.

Did you deteriorate between age zero and twenty? You must, because of the second law of thermodynamics.

First only with God do our genes have any actual value so he would obviously be interested in them remaining in tact. Second you will never convince me any mother in human history jumped into the water to save here genes. She had no idea what they were in most cases to begin with...

Of course she doen't. It is difficult, if not impossible, to introspect our machines in the skull. We are automatons, after all. Selected to have gene preservation behavior. Hoping for an afterlife is also an obvious extension of our aurvival instinct. The whole hope thing is a powerful adaptation.

I don't get the point. Obama sucks, economics is the greatest cause of immorality I can think of, Christians are not against the death penalty, nor social security. But we are against the death penalty for babies and using social security to buy votes.

Well, the point is that many Christians are against the death penalty. In (ex)Christian Europe it is considered equivalent to a barbaric habit.

So, what about agreeing at least amongst Christian? It should not be to difficult if objective morality exists. You can still ask God in one of your personal meetings with Him.

Ask him what, you have lost me? Half that stuff was not even accurate and the rest needs clarification.

Ask HIm: is the death penalty OK? and check the results with the answers received by other Christians. Very simple empirical test about the truth of your alleged personal relationships with Jesus. For if they do not come with the same answer, how I am supposed to believe that you guys really talk with Him?

He already said the death penalty was ok. He already said that hell would be thrown into the pit and destroyed forever. I am not sure you understand what you deny. Almost nothing in the past few statements has been true or accurate.

You have to convince the other Christians, not me. You seem to disagree on some major points here. What is written in the Bible can be interpreted in many ways. All you have to do is ask Him. Today.

Still lost. I have simple answers to your bizarre questions. I have long ago concluded people in a forum are mostly convinced of a position and are only here to declare it, no one on either side ever concedes anything but the slightest issue. I am required to give the truth as best as I can know it, not to be responsible with the results....

Well, this works both ways. They tell me you are not conceding what is obviously true. That God abhors the death penalty, with all this new covenants and loving Jesus stuff.

I can prove an objective mathematical truth to all mathematicians. Can you do the same with all other Christians?

Since evidence shows you can't, what does objective mean to you?

Have you measured it? No, then it is faith based. It is subjective what knowledge is and can either be an intuition or only that I think. I don't care as long as you apply it consistently.

Lol. It is very easy to measure the speed of light in vacuum.

NO it was pointing out the obvious lack of qualifications we have to split moral hairs with a perfect being with infinite knowledge...

Well, this is an obvious cop-out. After all we are in his image and we ate from the tree of knowledge, allegedely. Since I doubt that being in His image means that He also looks like an ape, I suspect that we share some knowledge with Him on a moral, intellectual level.

By the way, I thought infinities were verboten

If I could take an a/c unit and my microwave I would be very tempted. Do you consider near Nuclear holocaust compensation for cell phones? I imagine your compensating for moral decline with possible technological advancement.

Yes, until you get a toothache. Good luck with it in the year AD 1014. Not to speak of the barbecue they would do with you for being skeptical about the divine authority of the pope.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

The definition of an automatic is not to have limits on choice but to have no choice at all.

And what makes you think that your choosing process is not reduceable to the state of your brain?

I don't know. I am inclined to the theological definition of freewill is the capacity to chose what you will to select. In Heaven I may have choice but I would never will to choose evil or wrong. I may chose left or right but not to murder.

Well, I wonder how you are going to choose to murder harp playing spiritual souls, which are immortal by definition .

In other words: is there any possible evil you can choose to instantiate in Heaven?

By the way, good to know that there are things like left or right in Heaven. That tells us something about the geometry of spacetime in Heaven. Well, must be, if Jesus sits at the right of the Father, neglecting for a moment that you can sit only if you have a gravitational field (and a rear side) in place. Do you think we (well, you) will have stereoscopic vision?

I did not say God did not will it, I said it was no Genocide.

Well, it pretty much looked like one.

I could not imagine a righteous God that would not have to kill to preserve goodness in the sea of rebellion.

And why should an omnipotent and infinite being be concerned with the rebellion of a few apes (only from a certain area on the planet)? What happened with that tribe? They suddenly decided that the broadcasted covenant was negotiable?

I did not sign it, it was Abraham...please treat us like the Aztecs (leave us in peace).

If you only suggest he was a theist then it has no relevance to me or this argument. He actually was an opportunist who used theism, mysticism, Tibetan mythology, social Darwinism, and Nietzscheism, etc..... to get what he wanted. I can't say about most but his actions many times were consistent with social Darwinism. The same is true of Obama though Obama is much more subtle and indirect. The only relevant point is that what he did is NOT in anyway justified by the Bible. Anything beyond this is another subject.

To be quire honest, i don't believe he believed in God. Or maybe he did. Who cares? He was probably totally deranged, anyway. I am interested in the metaphisical claim and not about Hitler, Stalin, Newton or the midlle age popes and crusaders. This is food for anti-theists, or theists who think that good Christian behavior proves anything.

That was a type-o. We were talking about transparent Gold which I spelled correctly several times, was not the one time I left out the l an obvious typing mistake?

Nope. We were talking about transparent flowers made of gold, as evidence of some agreement between independent visions of Heaven. So, I am not sure how your alleged typo is relevant, anyway.

I don't think your a qualified neuroscientist. I have read about the event sand shelved it under knowable. No one can disprove what he claimed and he is obviously qualified to intelligently discuss it but it goes way beyond him, there are now entire funded projects in universities and major medical institutions that are piling up evidence that so far has PROVEN that mind is more than the brain.

I am not. But there is no need. For I am a skeptic. And skepticism gets active whenever there is an extraordinary claim which is not accompanied by equally extraordinary evidence.

First question: how does he know that he had these visions when his brain was dead? Did he time the event together with the medical team?

Second question: how does he remember the events if his brain, and the associated memory subsystems, were dead? As a neurosurgeon he should know that there are parts of the brain responsible for memory, as anyone who suffered amnesia after a concussion can attest. The alternative would be that they are totally useless, which would question divine design, anyway.

But, of course, like Hume said, a miracle is such when all other possible alternatives are more miracolous than the event they try to explain.

In this case, I can find an easy alternative. A guy trying to sell a book to the gullible by putting "PHd. MD. Whatever important sounding title ... Neurosurgeon" on the cover.

Hope springs eternal, as usual. And it can be used to buy the next villa.

I find other explanations for almost all supernatural claims. However that leaves plenty that I can't. I look for corroboration, the principle of embarrassment, the lack of willingness to discuss them, the lack of seeking a profit, things like multiple sighting which rule out epilepsy and hallucinating, consistency over time. etc... Some survive every test I can think of.

Ergo, UFO exists. And Elvis is still alive.

Hoe may explain heaven but it doe snot explain hell and that is why I find accounts of Hell a little more certain that heaven.

The question is why some see hell and some see heaven. Is that the current destination according to their salvation status?

You seriously are not asking me to describe the dynamic of a supernatural experience are you? Is not knowing the mechanics evidence against something? I guess gravity is off the table then.

Well, I can test gravity easily by jumping off a cliff, or better, by letting someone else jumping off a a cliff.

And we know the machanics of gravity pretty well. With "we" I do not necessarily include "you" in the set.

No transcendent forces are far more consistent with transcendent realms and beings that materialistic atheism. You have switched back and forth in single posts so it would be no wonder if I sometimes can't figure out what your referring to. Your reference to Hitler is only relevant if Christian so of course that is what I assumed you meant. I did not assume you were intentionally irrelevant.

Forget it. i am too lazy to check what line you are referring to.

I can't remember the X reference.

It was a multiple choices test. You could choose only only one of the alternatives. god or spiritual force or nothing.

I have not seen too many Jedi's who for example were involved with making the movie who suffered lifetimes of oppressions and death defending the truth of the force. There is about a billion inequalities between Lucas and God.

Wait a couple of centuries. As if dying for a belief carried any evidence of the reality of the belief.

An atheist's power flows from the farce, it binds them, and surrounds them. Maybe no heaven but you can transform into the living farce if your good enough. I am joking of course. Did you ever notice Yoda said all living things have it, like rocks? Come on Lucas.

Atheists have no power. And no, I do not believe in metaphysical forces of any kind. I wonder if they can be measured in Newtons.

Those things are just fillings for holes left by Christianity. But there is no hole, of course.

Alas, hope springs eternal.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Ergo, you do not accept evolution. And probably your apologists do not either. What is the difference with that preacher from Mississippi? He also probably accepts that dog come from dogs, big deal.

Visa-vise, concordantly I have no apologists Neo. I do believe that genetic codes can change. It is not an all or nothing proposition unless you have granted the theory more status than what it is supposed to represent. I actually have no Christian scholar favorites who get into evolution because they do not see any threat in it. I will caution you again that guesses at things you have no access so like who I like or my motivation is an unnecessary risk to credibility. What preacher from Mississippi? There is more than one you know?

Nope, you really do not accept evolution. To say that the Bible confirms evolution because the divenely inspired authors noticed (how smart) that dogs come from dogs is frankly ridicolous.

I accept evolution happens. How on he Earth is that not evidence that I believe evolution. Have you assigned a theory with omniscience so to question any part is to be unworthy of the whole? What are you talking about? I did not say dogs coming from dogs was a miraculous deduction. Though knowing a rat terrier and a pit bull are related is not obvious. I said it is consistent with what we can observe. Macroevolution is not, it is evidenced based faith the same as Christianity only less evidence.

Oh yes. They observed that dogs produce dogs and therefore they anticipated Darwin. Surely, there is a divine inspiration behind. Well, then they anticipated Newton too, since I believe that divine inspiration led them to believe that apples fall down from a trees.

What are you talking about? I never claimed any miracle here. I said that what the authors of the bible predicted is exactly and only what we see occur. We can guess beyond that and may be right but I doubt if we can ever know. BTW it just might inspired for a bronze age man to know that a wolf and a cocker spaniel are the same kind, I did not claim that but it might be so. I would certainly not look at a wiener dog and a great Dane and think brothers instantly.

Did you deteriorate between age zero and twenty? You must, because of the second law of thermodynamics.

Yep, though it is not so obvious and it gets more complicated. I asked you to tell me another place thermodynamics does not work in observable reality, You like the guy I mentioned must not be able to. It would take volumes to hash out the details of thermodynamics and youth.

Of course she doen't. It is difficult, if not impossible, to introspect our machines in the skull. We are automatons, after all. Selected to have gene preservation behavior. Hoping for an afterlife is also an obvious extension of our survival instinct. The whole hope thing is a powerful adaptation.

If your an automaton then you had no choice but to think you are without any capacity to weigh the truth of the claim, so I reject it. Determinism besides being wrong is the most untrustworthy conclusion possible. Survival instincts are not automated. They are codes (again requiring minds) which can be implemented or not. In fact if evolution is true they are rewritten constantly. I notice not even an attempt at evidence accompanied your declarations. Unless I know the person I will let my Genes be annihilated without a thought. Your a science oriented person, why do you not recognize that determinism is in the coffin scientifically. I think it has actually been proven wrong.

Well, the point is that many Christians are against the death penalty. In (ex)Christian Europe it is considered equivalent to a barbaric habit.

In the most Christina country on earth and possibly in history it is practiced quite a bit. However it is irrelevant what Christians do in the face of what the bible declares. God himself executes the death penalty. In fact we are all under it and will succumb. Hopefully some will rise to overcome it as Christ did but not one person will escape it. Non-Christians are the major support of the death penalty for the most innocent life possible. How is that consistent.

So, what about agreeing at least amongst Christian? It should not be to difficult if objective morality exists. You can still ask God in one of your personal meetings with Him.

He does not acknowledge al my motions. Since he has already both given us a moral conscience and codified the principle for morality I would not expect him to be willing to exhaustively repeat himself. Regardless correct morality as humans almost universally agree to it is among the tiniest of fractions of the total range of moral possibility so we have little need for a committee. As Chesterton said we mostly agree about what is wrong, but we disagree about what wrongs to excuse. Chalk up unstoppable epistemological response number 50 billion to an ontological issue.

Ask HIm: is the death penalty OK? and check the results with the answers received by other Christians. Very simple empirical test about the truth of your alleged personal relationships with Jesus. For if they do not come with the same answer, how I am supposed to believe that you guys really talk with Him?

I did he said yes. Test concluded. You happy?

You have to convince the other Christians, not me. You seem to disagree on some major points here. What is written in the Bible can be interpreted in many ways. All you have to do is ask Him. Today.

Why must I? Why must we? Who doesn't anyone else have to in order to have a proposition with merit?

Well, this works both ways. They tell me you are not conceding what is obviously true. That God abhors the death penalty, with all this new covenants and loving Jesus stuff.

So, is disagreement proof against the source or concept. Why you demand of faith what you do not for science? God is a God of justice. If at least some acts did not merit death he would not be.

I can prove an objective mathematical truth to all mathematicians. Can you do the same with all other Christians?

Is theology or should theology be a mathematical truth? Your winging it pretty heavily. Faiths only burden is the lack of a defeater, I raise the bar but do not have to, to best explanation, you throw all the bars away or apply them inconsistently.

Since evidence shows you can't, what does objective mean to you?

True. Why is my moral apprehension less objective than my optic apprehension?

Lol. It is very easy to measure the speed of light in vacuum.

Not everywhere, and not for an average person which is why it took so long to finally do. I did not say anything about it's ease anyway. I said you take it on faith.

Well, this is an obvious cop-out. After all we are in his image and we ate from the tree of knowledge, allegedely. Since I doubt that being in His image means that He also looks like an ape, I suspect that we share some knowledge with Him on a moral, intellectual level.

Having access through moral intuition to a sometimes clouded view of moral truth does not make us in any way capable of judging God. That is not even coherent. Are you saying that using your God given morality you have concluded God is immoral? Where did your standard originate again?

By the way, I thought infinities were verboten

I never said that, I said natural infinities have never been found and good reasons exist to think that can't ever be.

Yes, until you get a toothache. Good luck with it in the year AD 1014. Not to speak of the barbecue they would do with you for being skeptical about the divine authority of the pope.

How many toothaches justify the absence of rampant aids, abortion, missiles aimed at each other, WW2, WW1? Was the doomsday clock closer to midnight or further away in 1014?

This reminds me of something. Nietzsche said because poets killed God in the 19th century, the 20th would be the bloodiest in history and a general madness would prevail. Not only did madness prevail on Nietzsche, the 20th century was bloodier than all the rest combined. Thanks progress.

 

[1robin]

And what makes you think that your choosing process is not reduceable to the state of your brain?

Intent. I can not only be given a problem, I can in the next instant resolve a solution to it. Now the series of events that led up to the problem if determinism is true have no interest in a solution. Only being s with intent would desire to resolve things, Exploding stars and physical forces do not cause me to wonder what 2 + 2 is and then care about giving me an answer. It might accidentally do so but it will not do so billions of times in a repeatable fashion. It will also not sufficiently explain causal intention. For example if I assigned an act to every number on a roulette wheel if determinism is true I should not be able to enact whatever it lands on because the series of causal events do not care, they just interact without reason or purpose. Determinism is so silly I would never have figured you would buy into it. Why do you not disregard morality all together if it is true?

Well, I wonder how you are going to choose to murder harp playing spiritual souls, which are immortal by definition .

Oh come off it. You know exactly what I meant. Very well, I will have no desire to disobey God and so will not miss not being able to nor would that technically restrict freewill.

In other words: is there any possible evil you can choose to instantiate in Heaven?

Yes but I would have no desire to ever undertake it. Do you ever have a desire to suffer infinite pain? Do you feel cheated if you haven't. Look up the theological doctrine of freewill. It is a little surprising.

By the way, good to know that there are things like left or right in Heaven. That tells us something about the geometry of spacetime in Heaven. Well, must be, if Jesus sits at the right of the Father, neglecting for a moment that you can sit only if you have a gravitational field (and a rear side) in place. Do you think we (well, you) will have stereoscopic vision?

No, from your infinitely small perspective sitting requires gravity. Actually it does not even do that. But literal sitting was never the intent of that verse anyway. It's intent was to indicate Christ is co-occupant of the throne of authority with the father not his cardinal proximity and direction.

Well, it pretty much looked like one.

I can't change your lenses, you must.

And why should an omnipotent and infinite being be concerned with the rebellion of a few apes (only from a certain area on the planet)? What happened with that tribe? They suddenly decided that the broadcasted covenant was negotiable?

Because he chose to. I did not say cornered I said voluntarily limited through a chosen agency. You sure do have a knack for repackaging. Since God values righteousness he condemns unrighteousness. He allows choice but executes judgment based on choice. Which BTW is fundamental to justice on any level. Only your side can equate justice with weakness. What tribe?

I did not sign it, it was Abraham...please treat us like the Aztecs (leave us in peace).

The Aztecs did not leave anyone else in peace nor were they left in peace. You know Cortez killed very few of them, it was their fellow countrymen who they had beheaded, enslaved, and tortured for generations that executed vengeance on them. But most ere killed by germs. The Aztecs more than most were not left in the peace of their evil actions.

To be quire honest, i don't believe he believed in God. Or maybe he did. Who cares? He was probably totally deranged, anyway. I am interested in the metaphisical claim and not about Hitler, Stalin, Newton or the midlle age popes and crusaders. This is food for anti-theists, or theists who think that good Christian behavior proves anything.

I believe he did, he did what must be done when you deny the actual God, you must in effect become God.

Nope. We were talking about transparent flowers made of gold, as evidence of some agreement between independent visions of Heaven. So, I am not sure how your alleged typo is relevant, anyway.

So God flowers is just as appropriate as Gold flowers?

I am not. But there is no need. For I am a skeptic. And skepticism gets active whenever there is an extraordinary claim which is not accompanied by equally extraordinary evidence.

We are not talking about Christianity and it's 2500 prophecies, what are we talking about? Maybe not in your case but skepticism is many times the arrogance of the ignorant and uncommitted. Christianity has not only convinced billions of skeptics despite it's extraordinary claims it has convinced millions of it's dedicated enemies and in spite of great cost to them.

First question: how does he know that he had these visions when his brain was dead? Did he time the event together with the medical team?

How do you know you have any comprehension of anything? I don't care how demanding your are just be consistent.

Second question: how does he remember the events if his brain, and the associated memory subsystems, were dead? As a neurosurgeon he should know that there are parts of the brain responsible for memory, as anyone who suffered amnesia after a concussion can attest. The alternative would be that they are totally useless, which would question divine design, anyway.

As a neuro-surgeon he is much more aware of the implications of his claims than either of us.

But, of course, like Hume said, a miracle is such when all other possible alternatives are more miracolous than the event they try to explain.

He also said there is not such thing as truth. Kind of weeds him out to begin with.

In this case, I can find an easy alternative. A guy trying to sell a book to the gullible by putting "PHd. MD. Whatever important sounding title ... Neurosurgeon" on the cover.

BY claiming the exact thing most detrimental to his career?

Hope springs eternal, as usual. And it can be used to buy the next villa.

As well as put you on a cross. When I see it being held by both sets it gets real serious.

Ergo, UFO exists. And Elvis is still alive.

You have just rendered all legal principles invalid because every standard I gave is a fundamental principle of them. Be as cynical and irrational as you like just do so consistently.

The question is why some see hell and some see heaven. Is that the current destination according to their salvation status?

No, if it was they would not come back. It is either a glimpse into their destination if not altered or for revelation purposes. One of the few I have confidence in is a evangelist who says he went to hell. He did not talk about it for years, did not want to ever talk about it, was only convinced to by others, and is extremely uncomfortable doing so. He does not want to or he deserves an Emmy.

Well, I can test gravity easily by jumping off a cliff, or better, by letting someone else jumping off a a cliff.

Gravity is not supernatural. Maybe it is but we do not classify it in the same realm as supernatural events. Natural processes are governed by accessible and quantifiable natural laws. Supernatural events are by definition not and so how could I describe them even if I knew them. They are by necessity transcendent.

And we know the machanics of gravity pretty well. With "we" I do not necessarily include "you" in the set.

We actually know very little about gravity and only the most mundane parts. We know how it acts not what it is or why? I don't mean you may in the omniscient set. I mean us humans.

Forget it. i am too lazy to check what line you are referring to.

I am too lazy to object.

It was a multiple choices test. You could choose only only one of the alternatives. god or spiritual force or nothing.

Ok now what was the question. I have blocked this issue out or something. Did you call me a name or something?

Wait a couple of centuries. As if dying for a belief carried any evidence of the reality of the belief.

Interestingly enough it does. If those who did were those who had access to the truth of the claim then it most certainly does. Every court on Earth considers sincerity in the face of trial or embarrassment. Entire legal theories are based on it. You ever read Greenleaf or Lyndhurst. I used to work in fed court rooms and spent a lot of time thumbing through law libraries.

Atheists have no power. And no, I do not believe in metaphysical forces of any kind. I wonder if they can be measured in Newtons.

It is measured in Nietzsche's. 100 Nietzsche's equals a black hole.

Those things are just fillings for holes left by Christianity. But there is no hole, of course.

Then no need of fillings. You leave an atheist along a few minutes and they will implode on themselves.

Alas, hope springs eternal.

Ciao

- viole

And is irrationally condemned by preference.

 

[idav]

Intent. I can not only be given a problem, I can in the next instant resolve a solution to it. Now the series of events that led up to the problem if determinism is true have no interest in a solution. Only being s with intent would desire to resolve things, Exploding stars and physical forces do not cause me to wonder what 2 + 2 is and then care about giving me an answer. It might accidentally do so but it will not do so billions of times in a repeatable fashion. It will also not sufficiently explain causal intention. For example if I assigned an act to every number on a roulette wheel if determinism is true I should not be able to enact whatever it lands on because the series of causal events do not care, they just interact without reason or purpose. Determinism is so silly I would never have figured you would buy into it. Why do you not disregard morality all together if it is true?

I agree with the sentiment. Thats why morality coming from a book or from parents doesn't make sense without reasons to be moral. We are moral because it makes sense when trying to live with other people. If we were not trying to strive in society then there would be no need for moral. If not for other people we wouldn't need to constantly worry if something we do makes anyone upset. If we were never worried about what "determinism" might bring us then we wouldn't ever feel the need to intervene. People are smart enough to see what is moral cause we can see the ramifications and see what causes harm.

 

[1robin]

I agree with the sentiment. Thats why morality coming from a book or from parents doesn't make sense without reasons to be moral. We are moral because it makes sense when trying to live with other people. If we were not trying to strive in society then there would be no need for moral. If not for other people we wouldn't need to constantly worry if something we do makes anyone upset. If we were never worried about what "determinism" might bring us then we wouldn't ever feel the need to intervene. People are smart enough to see what is moral cause we can see the ramifications and see what causes harm.

I never saw that use for what I said when I posted it. I was countering determinism.

The transmission method for morality is not relevant as it is epistemological. It is far more important whether a moral is true then how I learned of it. You are right to suggest it should be useful but I think it would be given evolution alone or God. However it would be universally useful given God and inconsistently useful given evolution. My survival is useful to me but may come at another's expense using social Darwinism.

We may can see but we cannot choose if determinism is true and if we cannot chose then there is no responsibility.

Where are you going with this? Are you a determinist? Then why bother with morality? You should undue my defeaters of determinism. Are you making a point about moral ontology? Then I need a whole other argument.

 

[idav]

I never saw that use for what I said when I posted it. I was countering determinism.

The transmission method for morality is not relevant as it is epistemological. It is far more important whether a moral is true then how I learned of it. You are right to suggest it should be useful but I think it would be given evolution alone or God. However it would be universally useful given God and inconsistently useful given evolution. My survival is useful to me but may come at another's expense using social Darwinism.

We may can see but we cannot choose if determinism is true and if we cannot chose then there is no responsibility.

Where are you going with this? Are you a determinist? Then why bother with morality? You should undue my defeaters of determinism. Are you making a point about moral ontology? Then I need a whole other argument.

Morality isn't even an issue for evolution. It is an issue for people who want to live with others without a great deal of suffering. No matter what absolute moral you find it will conflict with someone or something. One just has to hope that the controller is on your side but that isn't morality, that's my way or the highway.

 

[1robin]

Morality isn't even an issue for evolution. It is an issue for people who want to live with others without a great deal of suffering. No matter what absolute moral you find it will conflict with someone or something. One just has to hope that the controller is on your side but that isn't morality, that's my way or the highway.

That is sort of a premise. What is the conclusion? Christianity does not suggest my way or the highway. It suggest God's way is right and leaves judgment in his hands. What some factions have done in violation of that is not a reflection on it. Only with God is morality reflective of truth. Without him the holocaust was inconvenient or socially unfashionable, with him it was wrong. If I have to give my life to stop something similar I hope I have the justification of the latter not the former.

 

[idav]

That is sort of a premise. What is the conclusion? Christianity does not suggest my way or the highway. It suggest God's way is right and leaves judgment in his hands. What some factions have done in violation of that is not a reflection on it. Only with God is morality reflective of truth. Without him the holocaust was inconvenient or socially unfashionable, with him it was wrong. If I have to give my life to stop something similar I hope I have the justification of the latter not the former.

The holocaust is evidence that we can have morality and need it apart from god. Allowing the holocaust says that god thinks it was fashionable in one way or another. Going by a god that thinks the holocaust is a greater good doesn't make for a god who cares about our own suffering enough to know what morality is. In fact the holocaust, if anything, is evidence there isn't a god.

 

[1robin]

The holocaust is evidence that we can have morality and need it apart from god. Allowing the holocaust says that god thinks it was fashionable in one way or another. Going by a god that thinks the holocaust is a greater good doesn't make for a god who cares about our own suffering enough to know what morality is. In fact the holocaust, if anything, is evidence there isn't a god.

I missed the verse about the holocaust being the greater good. Chapter and verse please.

 

[idav]

I missed the verse about the holocaust being the greater good. Chapter and verse please.

God is so moral then holocaust is moral, I choose to get morals logically, like by avoiding suffering for myself and others.

 

[Thief]

Morality isn't even an issue for evolution. It is an issue for people who want to live with others without a great deal of suffering. No matter what absolute moral you find it will conflict with someone or something. One just has to hope that the controller is on your side but that isn't morality, that's my way or the highway.

A digression from the thread....but anyway...

If the guy in charge of 'your' side has a morality....good for you.

Is God on your side?

I suspect ...as God gave Man dominion....He isn't going to interfere.
He will let the bomb fall on your head.
He will let the bad guy punch your face.

I think heaven deals with it ...'later on'.

'Do unto others as you would have it done unto you'... is a code of behavior and ...fair warning.

 

[1robin]

God is so moral then holocaust is moral,

What does that mean?

I choose to get morals logically, like by avoiding suffering for myself and others.

You can call morality anything you want and use any terms you want. Without God it will be pure preference and opinion and never be true.

 

[idav]

What does that mean?

You can call morality anything you want and use any terms you want. Without God it will be pure preference and opinion and never be true.

It is true for whoever is holding the moral stick. When someone is being violated, morality is to the victim not some arbiter of morality and justice. What makes something good is the help that is given to someone who needs it. We don't need someone to deem it good or to make it true.

Morality is always opinion even from god, we all disagree with gods opinion unless you agree with god that the holocaust is for the greater good.

 

[1robin]

It is true for whoever is holding the moral stick. When someone is being violated, morality is to the victim not some arbiter of morality and justice. What makes something good is the help that is given to someone who needs it. We don't need someone to deem it good or to make it true.

That carries some drastic dependency. For God to be responsible for helping in every crisis he would have to suspend free will which is about the most immoral thing imaginable. You can't judge a teacher by those who do not practice the lessons. You cannot judge a moral be being by those who rebel against him. God has taken ultimate responsibility by promising to right every wrong, cure every injustice, and reward every good deed in the end but he has granted us freewill for a unknown time period. You would have to show violating freewill is better than granting it, but only with freewill can love exist, is responsibility valid, and relative good possible.

Morality is always opinion even from god, we all disagree with gods opinion unless you agree with god that the holocaust is for the greater good.

This one is completely wrong. God did not check with an exterior standard or arbitrarily decide morality on a whim. Euthyphro's dilemma is complete garbage. God's morality is a reflection of his objective a timeless nature. It always was, is the same in everyplace, transcends every opinion, and is the most objective standard possible. God's moral nature has never been consistent with the holocaust. He may have allowed it but he never condoned it. He even forbid it, he will judge it, and he will rectify it ultimately but he did not suspend freewill to prevent it.

 

[idav]

That carries some drastic dependency. For God to be responsible for helping in every crisis he would have to suspend free will which is about the most immoral thing imaginable. You can't judge a teacher by those who do not practice the lessons. You cannot judge a moral be being by those who rebel against him. God has taken ultimate responsibility by promising to right every wrong, cure every injustice, and reward every good deed in the end but he has granted us freewill for a unknown time period. You would have to show violating freewill is better than granting it, but only with freewill can love exist, is responsibility valid, and relative good possible.

God doesn't have to be in every moral dilemma to have opinion about it. Gods love would hold the opinion that violations are immoral as the person suffering would think. Anything allowed by god is then god condoning it. People would still have free will and god not agree with the morality behind the situations. Every moral code is subjective, just like it's subjective if we think god finds something moral or not since we can't tell by his lack of response.

 

[1robin]

God doesn't have to be in every moral dilemma to have opinion about it. Gods love would hold the opinion that violations are immoral as the person suffering would think. Anything allowed by god is then god condoning it. People would still have free will and god not agree with the morality behind the situations. Every moral code is subjective, just like it's subjective if we think god finds something moral or not since we can't tell by his lack of response.

He does not have an opinion about it he has the absolute facts about but that does not obligate him to act. If his purpose includes freewill then he is prevented from acting by his own methodology at least until the final reckoning. I never said God has no position on the issue, I said his passive will may not justify any action against it. Of course God would hold a person in violation of moral facts but that does not imply he must instantly act against that person. Allowing something is not condoning it, especially since it is only permit to temporarily escape judgment but will inevitably receive what it merits to the last ounce. It would be condoning it to never prohibit it or to never judge it but that is not the aces we have. If you think God's moral code is subjective then the term objective has no meaning what ever. Objective is always in reference to something. For morality it is in reference to the opinions of those it binds. No human opinion has any role in God's moral standards, and to suggest morality is God's opinion is as incorrect as suggesting gravity is the opinion of mass. Gravity is an objective property of mass, and morality is an objective property of God.