[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I know that rape is evil… it makes no statement about objective facts in the universe.[/quote]
[/quote]
Why do you keep confusing moral judgments with objective facts in one post, then contradicting yourself by admitting that morality isn’t subject to scientific inquiry in another post? State your position and stick with it.[/quote]
See last post.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I never said morality was subject to science. To the contrary, I’ve said repeatedly that morals make no assertions about objective facts in the universe.
[/quote]
So, again, “rape is evil” is not a fact for you. You do not KNOW that rape is evil. I [/quote]
I KNOW that rape is evil according to my moral system, which I also KNOW exists inside my head and is not magically floating out there among the stars.
I KNOW that 2+2=4 according to another manmade system, called mathematics.
I KNOW that there are 26 letters in the alphabet, according to another manmade system, namely the English language.
None of this has anything to do with OBJECTIVE FACTS about the universe.
[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< It may be self-evident to you, but millions of people claim that their own supernatural beliefs are even more self-evident. Which is why an objective, reliable, scientific method for testing hypotheses is superior to what people believe to be self-evident.[/quote]“Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” Acts 19:23 and following =]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Is that what this is? Atheistic perpetual depression? A hatred for the existence of life and will? Your objection can only rest on one thing, a hatred for self-aware will. Perhaps that’s why the righteous will always inherit the earth—through demographics alone. Atheists feel compelled to not add evil to world, so they don’t reproduce. Depressing, but interesting.[/quote]
lol
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
A father and mother bring children (wills) into the world. Obviously, those children will take action in the world. Therefore, father and mother define what actions are good and desireable. For example, they instruct that rape is an evil.[/quote]
Parents didn’t create the world itself.[/quote]
The world doesn’t make decisions, good or evil. It’s not a factor.[/quote]
What you don’t seem to understand here is that everything in existence, every relationship of the natural world, of the human world, the “unnatural” world etc. is all a product of God. EVERYTHING. Evil is one of those things He created.[/quote]
But you’re an atheist. So, you must blame child-bearing and scientific inquiry.[/quote]
But nothing. Evil and atheism are Gods creations. Who are you to critique His creation?[/quote]
Lol you are quite humorous yet bring up a valid point. I think I have said this before as a reply to one of kamui’s and forlife’s post that God did indeed foreknew and allowed the existence of evil to endure for a finite time by giving his creation free will. However by him allowing it he is causing a greater good than none, as no good can be done by machina with no free will.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Morals aren’t myths. They exist only in the heads of the people that have them. They make no claims about the real world.
[/quote]
Oh, ok. Rape isn’t REALLY evil. Thanks, was wondering how that worked.[/quote]
The moral systems most people have in their heads define rape as evil. To us, rape is morally wrong.
Does that necessitate believing a supernatural scorekeeper will give all rapists their just due come judgment day?
Nope, which makes civil justice and accountabiliity all the more important. We don’t need myths in order to value love and respect for others. See Einstein’s quote earlier in the thread.[/quote]
If morality is defined by the majority then what nazi germany and sparta did was morally right(even if you say well there is a greater population who disagrees with them about what is morally right, well what if the majority of the world started to agree that things both you and I consider morally reprehensible as good.) And what gives one subjective opinion more weight over others on what is good and evil.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Cortes, I wasn’t trying to disparage the tilma…it was your own quote that referenced it as an apron.
My point is that religious people sometimes use pseudo science to bolster their supernatural claims, but inevitably when you test their claims in a controlled scientific setting they prove false. Any attempts to conduct these studies are dismissed as sacrilegious, as if their god is offended by actual proof and instead insists on faith, which is belief without proof.
Is it any wonder that faith gets such high billing in the religious world? Imagine what would happen if the tilma was actually tested in a controlled setting, and proved to be destructible like any other piece of cloth.
Take a step back and think for a minute. Science is based on the principle of repeatability. Any hypothesis that cannot be tested and replicated by an objective observer is useless, because it cannot be reliably confirmed or disconfirmed.
You may be firm in your religious beliefs, and unwilling to question whether they are grounded in reality. Just in case though, I highly recommend reading “Demon Haunted World” by Carl Sagan. He discusses these cognitive fallacies and the (imperfect but preferable) protection science offers from them. [/quote]
Ugh…I guess you don’t get it, yet. Not everything is repeatable. And, as Catholics not everything is true because “science” can prove it. We’re not skeptics, we’ll take something as truth because there are witnesses.[/quote]
Believing in something on hearsay, without the ability to repeat or scientifically confirm the claim, is tantamount to wishful thinking. This is why there are so many different religions, because nobody provides actual proof for their claims. [/quote]
There are many things that we all believe and consider reasonable to believe that cannot be scientifically proven, such as logic, there are minds out there that are not my own and even science itself which presupposes logic.[/quote]
As I’ve pointed out, religion is full of logical inconsistencies. For example, a prime mover is logically impossible because nothing created it…the whole idea is predicated on the necessity of a creator and the created, but it logically fails to answer what created the creator.[/quote]
You are misrepresenting the cosmological argument, it looks at the causal chain of created things and states that no cause or an infinite regress(which is begging the question) are both less plausible than a first cause.[/quote]
How is a first cause not begging the question? How about the possibility that the universe, or a string of universes, have always existed? That is the most logical conclusion since energy/matter can’t be created or destroyed.
[/quote]
The first cause is not begging the question because it logically follows from the argument. However there are many atheist/agnostic and even famous philosophers such as David Hume to say why can’t the universe be the first cause. To answer that statement since it is valid, requires us to take a look into what properties a first cause must have. Then compare them to the universe. At the singularity there was no time, space, energy or matter. I have a class in 30 minutes so I may be unable to reply for some time.[/quote]
Just finished my physics test and feel pretty good for it so I have some time for discussion, any reply?
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Morals aren’t myths. They exist only in the heads of the people that have them. They make no claims about the real world.
[/quote]
Oh, ok. Rape isn’t REALLY evil. Thanks, was wondering how that worked.[/quote]
The moral systems most people have in their heads define rape as evil. To us, rape is morally wrong.
Does that necessitate believing a supernatural scorekeeper will give all rapists their just due come judgment day?
Nope, which makes civil justice and accountabiliity all the more important. We don’t need myths in order to value love and respect for others. See Einstein’s quote earlier in the thread.[/quote]
If morality is defined by the majority then what nazi germany and sparta did was morally right(even if you say well there is a greater population who disagrees with them about what is morally right, well what if the majority of the world started to agree that things both you and I consider morally reprehensible as good.) And what gives one subjective opinion more weight over others on what is good and evil.[/quote]
Saying what they did is morally right presupposes an absolute standard that is independent of human thought. It is more accurate to say that what they did was morally right according to their particular moral values. What they did was morally wrong according to most of the rest of us.
There is no guarantee that the majority will agree with you on what is or is not morally right. Our system of law is derived from majority opinion, but sometimes it becomes necessary to modify it as societal values evolve.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Morals aren’t myths. They exist only in the heads of the people that have them. They make no claims about the real world.
[/quote]
Oh, ok. Rape isn’t REALLY evil. Thanks, was wondering how that worked.[/quote]
The moral systems most people have in their heads define rape as evil. To us, rape is morally wrong.
Does that necessitate believing a supernatural scorekeeper will give all rapists their just due come judgment day?
Nope, which makes civil justice and accountabiliity all the more important. We don’t need myths in order to value love and respect for others. See Einstein’s quote earlier in the thread.[/quote]
If morality is defined by the majority then what nazi germany and sparta did was morally right(even if you say well there is a greater population who disagrees with them about what is morally right, well what if the majority of the world started to agree that things both you and I consider morally reprehensible as good.) And what gives one subjective opinion more weight over others on what is good and evil.[/quote]
Saying what they did is morally right presupposes an absolute standard that is independent of human thought. It is more accurate to say that what they did was morally right according to their particular moral values. What they did was morally wrong according to most of the rest of us.
There is no guarantee that the majority will agree with you on what is or is not morally right. Our system of law is derived from majority opinion, but sometimes it becomes necessary to modify it as societal values evolve.[/quote]
I see, so are you a moral relativist?
Depends how you define moral relativist.
I don’t believe morals are supernaturally written into the fabric of the universe. They are created by men.
However, I am as bound by my moral system as if a supernatural scorekeeper were holding me accountable. That not everyone shares it doesn’t make it any less important for me to follow my moral values.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Depends how you define moral relativist.
I don’t believe morals are supernaturally written into the fabric of the universe. They are created by men.
However, I am as bound by my moral system as if a supernatural scorekeeper were holding me accountable. That not everyone shares it doesn’t make it any less important for me to follow my moral values.[/quote]You really don’t see the meaninglessness of this statement do you?
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Morals aren’t myths. They exist only in the heads of the people that have them. They make no claims about the real world.
[/quote]
Oh, ok. Rape isn’t REALLY evil. Thanks, was wondering how that worked.[/quote]
The moral systems most people have in their heads define rape as evil. To us, rape is morally wrong.
Does that necessitate believing a supernatural scorekeeper will give all rapists their just due come judgment day?
Nope, which makes civil justice and accountabiliity all the more important. We don’t need myths in order to value love and respect for others. See Einstein’s quote earlier in the thread.[/quote]
If morality is defined by the majority then what nazi germany and sparta did was morally right(even if you say well there is a greater population who disagrees with them about what is morally right, well what if the majority of the world started to agree that things both you and I consider morally reprehensible as good.) And what gives one subjective opinion more weight over others on what is good and evil.[/quote]
Saying what they did is morally right presupposes an absolute standard that is independent of human thought. It is more accurate to say that what they did was morally right according to their particular moral values. What they did was morally wrong according to most of the rest of us.
There is no guarantee that the majority will agree with you on what is or is not morally right. Our system of law is derived from majority opinion, but sometimes it becomes necessary to modify it as societal values evolve.[/quote]
I see, so are you a moral relativist?[/quote]
Abolitionist: Slavery is immoral, down with the practice!
Relativist: Actually, in our time and place black slavery is quite moral. Morality is defined by time and place, after all. Indeed, as long as you’re not succesful in changing hearts and minds, we can enjoy slave labor and maintain good moral standing.
Abolitionist: So, wait…If I drop my argument and recognize that slavery is moral as defined by our time and place, and I master my guilt, than I’m good with a capital “G” for supporting slavery?
Relativist: Correct, sir. Our good, which you’ve wrongly deemed an evil in the incorrect time and place, is good in the here and now. Never needing to become an evil so long as it’s good. You see? A good need only become an evil if you agree to it. And, if you ever feel yourself succumbing to evil, decide that it’s a good!
[quote]
I don’t believe morals are supernaturally written into the fabric of the universe. They are created by men.
However, I am as bound by my moral system as if a supernatural scorekeeper were holding me accountable. That not everyone shares it doesn’t make it any less important for me to follow my moral values. [/quote]
at this point, this topic need some brutal philosophy.
subjectivity, as it is defined by modern thinking, is an intellectual cancer.
once you admitted it, it start to invade everything.
our concepts and our ideas are no more real or true, they become subjectively true, subjectively real.
the outside become mute. and the inside start to babble endlessly.
it start with our more abstract ideas. the idea of our philosophies, our religions, our myths, our metaphysics, our morals.
then it infect all our ideas.
one day, the table in your room is no more real. it’s your representation of a table in your room, but it’s “in your head”. and you created it.
if you have read Descartes, you can try to save yourself. and exclame “at least I exist”.
and you will use that to make yourself believe the universe is real.
but if you inject more modernity in your veins, you will end up doubting even that.
the very word “I” will then become a social construct, something man made.
you will realize that “I am an Other”
at this stage, your identity itself is beginning to float in uncertainty.
what you’re saying is that you’re not yet in the final stage of this cancer.
you “acknowledge” that morals are subjective and man-made.
and therefore you are forced to rebuild a fragile concept of “existence” to be able to assert that morality “exist” and matter, in some non-objective, non-material, not-exactly-real way.
but there is another option.
you can cure this cancer.
recognize that modern subjectivity is nothing more than a myth.
Mind, Truth, Ideas, Morals, etc are not “in your head”. they are not inside. they are not created.
they are there, real, at the surface of your skin.
on the interface between you and the Universe, between you and the All.
information is a relation.
there is no inside/outside separation.
but you will need to recognize that our contact with the All is anterior to our understanding of its parts, the so-called “objects”.
then, faith, in God or otherwise, is no more an horror.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I KNOW that 2+2=4 according to another manmade system, called mathematics.[/quote]
Excellent! Now share the equations for “rape is evil,” “charity is good.” You can use whatever symbols or terms you wish, as long as we all have access to them so we too may run through your personal (yet universal) morality equation, arriving at the same conclusion.
Excellent! Now I suppose if we spell out “adultery is evil,” it must be so.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Depends how you define moral relativist.
I don’t believe morals are supernaturally written into the fabric of the universe. They are created by men.
However, I am as bound by my moral system as if a supernatural scorekeeper were holding me accountable. That not everyone shares it doesn’t make it any less important for me to follow my moral values.[/quote]You really don’t see the meaninglessness of this statement do you?
[/quote]
Do you find Einstein’s assertion equally meaningless? I think it’s sad when people need a supernatural stick to motivate them to treat others with dignity and respect. It’s a very immature morality that requires an extrinsic motivation, but unfortunately some do need it and for that reason I think religion has its place.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You’re now responsible for creating and maintaing the evil of his acts. [/quote]
He didn’t create everything. God did that. God is responsible.[/quote]
You still have not answered how God created evil.[/quote]
Simple, God created everything. Your own doctrine makes this necessary, as God is the prime mover, creating everything. Unless you are suggesting something existed before God?[/quote]
Is evil created?
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Depends how you define moral relativist.
I don’t believe morals are supernaturally written into the fabric of the universe. They are created by men.
However, I am as bound by my moral system as if a supernatural scorekeeper were holding me accountable. That not everyone shares it doesn’t make it any less important for me to follow my moral values.[/quote]You really don’t see the meaninglessness of this statement do you?
[/quote]
Do you find Einstein’s assertion equally meaningless? I think it’s sad when people need a supernatural stick to motivate them to treat others with dignity and respect. It’s a very immature morality that requires an extrinsic motivation, but unfortunately some do need it and for that reason I think religion has its place.[/quote]This was Ben Franklin’s view.
No I do not find Einstein’s assertion meaningless. Nobody loves science, astronomy and theoretical physics more than I do. Nobody. Oh how the most high God must snicker at His fallen creation as they stare Him practically in the face while using their gifts to deny Him.
I stand by my declaration of your quoted statement as meaningless except as further confirmation of the truth of the Word of God.
If I were independently wealthy I would spring to have a whole bunch of us meet somewhere in person for a month. Wadda blast that would be.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
A father and mother bring children (wills) into the world. Obviously, those children will take action in the world. Therefore, father and mother define what actions are good and desireable. For example, they instruct that rape is an evil.[/quote]
Parents didn’t create the world itself.[/quote]
The world doesn’t make decisions, good or evil. It’s not a factor.[/quote]
What you don’t seem to understand here is that everything in existence, every relationship of the natural world, of the human world, the “unnatural” world etc. is all a product of God. EVERYTHING. Evil is one of those things He created.[/quote]
But you’re an atheist. So, you must blame child-bearing and scientific inquiry.[/quote]
But nothing. Evil and atheism are Gods creations. Who are you to critique His creation?[/quote]
Oh, you’re a theist now? I didn’t know. [/quote]
Sloth, Mak’s arguing straw-man. I’ve pointed out his errors several times, but he ignores them.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
The moral systems most people have in their heads define rape as evil. To us, rape is morally wrong.
[/quote]
You feel like it’s wrong, but know that it actually isn’t. [/quote]
What do you mean I “know that it actually isn’t”? Since when does morality have to be dictated by a supernatural being in order to be valid? My value system is just as valid as the value system of your hypothetical supernatural being. [/quote]
And, as valid as Hilter’s? What about Stalin’s?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Not by fallen, sinful logic and intellect which are comprehensively impervious to OBJECTIVE facts of any kind, scientific or otherwise. I said in YOUR arena you are correct and Christians do err in confronting you there (generally speaking).
[/quote]
<<< concede >>>[/quote]That was more of a declaration than a concession. I do not consider it in any way damaging to God’s credibility that He refuses to reduce himself to your pitiful intellect (or mine). On the contrary, it further highlights his glorious majesty. Of course this does presuppose that one already believes which is THE point. Maybe more later. Really busy with a half dozen computers at the moment.
[/quote]
Tirib, did you just say that God gave us reasoning facilities that are useless to understand Him?