Does Satan Exist?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Would we agree that widows, for ex, can be thrown upon their husbands funeral pyre in one culture and its moral and correct, while in another its abhorrent? Ludicrous.

OctoberGirl already used that as an example of an alternative “truth.”

When OctoberGirl says “truth” I read “conviction,” and then I think we are both on the same page.[/quote]

What if there really isn’t one Truth?

Are you assuming there is, or do you believe that there must be?

I really don’t know. Is there some rule that presupposes that there must be A TRUTH?

And as for substituting conviction for truth… I suppose you could do that or belief. But for people in that moment or that situation, that are those believers, it is their truth.

And again, I just don’t see how it can ever not be colored or influenced by personal subjectivity.

162

Nephorm and Iscariot, you’ve made this a very interesting thread to read.

163

[quote]iscariot wrote:
Thus actually proving my initial point. (I did choose such clearly differnt ‘truths’ for a reason). The mechanisms for defining and/or determining each truth, as it occurs, is largely dependent on the type of analysis applied to it…best of luck applying a moral emphasis to gravity (the rock fell because it was more inherently good than the evil sky which held it…) or empirical ‘truth’ to spirituality…(go on God - pick up the damn rock!!! You didn’t ergo, you’re not there)…

Apologies…I find this stuff fun :)[/quote]

No apologies necessary!

So here’s what I see as the major flaw in this: you are basically positing a dualism between spiritual truth and physical truth. But even if we allow that distinction, it still isn’t a problem. That is, the good is not a substance that exists independent of other things. It is rooted in the nature of the order of things. Things that are.

So let’s take a look at your examples with slightly more detail.

  1. It is a true statement that when I let go of a rock, it will fall due to gravity.

Now, this is statement has several implicit declarations of truth. It is a statement about what must be in the future. It is also a statement that implies the universality of something that is, namely gravity.

So this statement (as it was designed) makes an assertion about what is. “What is” includes the ordering of the parts, implying what “must be,” as well.

  1. It is true to say that all killing is wrong.

What does “wrong” mean, here? It seems that in order for you to make the argument you want to make, truth in this case must be subjective; that is, the truth of the statement is implicitly dependent upon the perception (rather than the reality) of right versus wrong. The reference needn’t be human; if the Deity has opinions which are enforced and yet are not necessary parts of the nature of things, right and wrong are still subjective.

Even so, the problem is not a problem at all, but a mere confusion of language. If right and wrong are subjective, than to say that it is ‘true that all killing is wrong’ is really to assert that it is ‘true that it is commonly held that killing is wrong.’ This is a falsifiable statement, and it speaks only of what is.

Now, the alternative is that right and wrong are not subjective, that they derive from the nature of things. In such a case, then right and wrong (whether they be ideas or forms, or simply ways of describing conditions) are discoverable from nature and are therefore subject to the same sort of truth statements that any other natural phenomenon is subject to, such as gravity.

The sky does not rain because it is evil or good anymore than people kill because they are evil or good. It seems clear that what the sky does is not voluntary, and what we do is voluntary. But we do not possess evilness or goodness; these are terms used to describe our being, or the way in which our souls are ordered. Fine. So now you may say “ah ha! But moral descriptions are different from physical descriptions, thus proving my point!” (well, maybe you wouldn’t say “ah ha!”).

But I think a little investigation into what is evil or good would indicate that we need to understand what we mean when we say “evil” or “good,” and that these describe beings in the same way as “gravity,” or “dirt” describe beings.

That is, again, evil and good do not exist independently as some insubstantial substance that must be possessed by a being. But if they do exist as forms or ideas, then again, they are subject to the same sort of analysis and understanding as natural things.

164

Right, this is gettin messy…wheee.

The soundtrack for this answer is provided by:
The Razor Skyline
Null Device
JPSE

[quote]nephorm wrote:

So here’s what I see as the major flaw in this: you are basically positing a dualism between spiritual truth and physical truth.[/quote]

OK, here’s where we hit our first impasse; do you mean a dualism in terms of the existance of two meta-truths for the two concepts (spiritual/ physical) or a dualism in terms of the definition I am positing?

Anyway, I disagree…and then again, I don’t.

If there is such a thing as one overarching, universal concept of ‘truth’ then, by extension, all things which partake of being ‘true’ must, in some shape or form, conform to the precepts which govern the meta-concepts existence.

That being said, while there might be consistency in the application of differeing concepts to a meta-principle I believe that a ‘duality’ (to use your expression) may, and in some cases MUST exist in the mechanisms by which they are defined/ understood and even - potentially - operate within a defined social space; for this reason it is, perhaps, not ‘truth’ that is relative but the mechanisms that surround the constrction of truth…

See…agree/ disagree grin

The problem with that statement is that it is filled with definitional points that are as broad as the concept itself.

First, let’s agree that the concept of ‘good’ is not something that exists in isolation. Why? Because the concept of good is defined in relation to its opposite [the ostensible] evil…however, after this point it gets murky simply because anything that is defined as part of a binary opposition becomes something almost toally subject to subjective definition.

I don’t agree that concepts such as truth/ good/ evil are rooted in an order of nature (or a natural order - I wasn’t sure if that was a mis-type on your part, apologies) because the concepts in and of themselves are not organic concepts; that is, they rely on action to have meaning.

Now, certainly, it is possible to argue that concepts like G/E etc devolve from action, but agian, I would argue that it is the interpretive mechan ism that gives meaning/ definition and even purpose to them.

[quote] [snip - statement and preamble]
So this statement (as it was designed) makes an assertion about what is. “What is” includes the ordering of the parts, implying what “must be,” as well.
[/quote]

The thing is though, although I agree with your point, ‘what is’ is conditional, and solely conditional to a given situation; if I was being exceptionally pedantic I could argue that in a give situation X, no replication of that situation is going to produce a true replication unless all
conditions pertaining to that replication are identical. Thus we, as a society, essentially create a pro-forma (yet socially formalised) agreement that certain conditions extend across all sitations…this is, of course, fine until you start looking at it closely grin

[As a side note: the above (your statement is one of the fun reasons why S/R models fail so miserably - the some smart cookie put the ‘O’- for oeprations in the middle and watched the chaos of competing analyses flow]

[quote]
2) It is true to say that all killing is wrong.

What does “wrong” mean, here? It seems that in order for you to make the argument you want to make, truth in this case must be subjective; that is, the truth of the statement is implicitly dependent upon the perception (rather than the reality) of right versus wrong. The reference needn’t be human; if the Deity has opinions which are enforced and yet are not necessary parts of the nature of things, right and wrong are still subjective.[/quote]

Just for the record, you do realise I WAS trying to make those examples as oppositional and unrealistic as possible - apologies if I didn’t make that clear enough.

…Yes. I agree; but I would amplify what you noted and add that it is not the ‘truth’ that is subjective, but the mechanisms that propogate the ‘truth’ that are. Also interfering are the other definitional - and value laden - concepts which interfere in the determination of whether the statement is true. Before you can even appraoch whether the statement is true you’ve got to decide what is meant by:
‘killing’
‘wrong’
etc

Anyway, what is eventually returned to is the perception of X - determination by semantic devolution, if nothing else, becomes nothing more than a by-product of social experience/ enculturation and learned values.

[quote]
Even so, the problem is not a problem at all, but a mere confusion of language. [/quote]

No. Not a confusion - differing concepts through language doesn’t indicate, nor is indicative of, confusion; rather, I would argue that the social meanings and constructs that define the operation of the language begin to operate at different levels of meaning, of understanding and inevitably the effect of the [meta]concept on the universal consciousness (yep, the concept makes me wince in pain too, but it’s late and I’m tired, so bear with me).

ANyway, as John Simon so aptly notes:
In the beginning was the word.
But by the time the second word was added to it,
there was trouble.
For with it came syntax …

I’ll stop there…I’m starting to tie myself in knots grin BTW: I’m gonna proof this tomorrow, so there may be some hasty retractions if I’ve contradicted myself too much :slight_smile:

165

[quote]iscariot wrote:
I’ll stop there…I’m starting to tie myself in knots grin BTW: I’m gonna proof this tomorrow, so there may be some hasty retractions if I’ve contradicted myself too much :slight_smile:
[/quote]

This is why I didn’t go into analytic philosophy…

166

[quote]iscariot wrote:
I’ll stop there…I’m starting to tie myself in knots grin BTW: I’m gonna proof this tomorrow, so there may be some hasty retractions if I’ve contradicted myself too much :)[/quote]

Well, there’s a first - I was actually coherent for the entire post - have at it.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
This is why I didn’t go into analytic philosophy…[/quote]

grin Abstract sociology is more my area: the whole ‘what is a society’ and ‘how can it go wrong - let me count the ways’ provides hours of mindless entertainment.

167

[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
It amazes me how no one expects other beings (such as animals) to have rubber definitions, to have a pattern of existence, but MAN can be anything we want to twist, that morality is relative to ones culture. Would we agree that widows, for ex, can be thrown upon their husbands funeral pyre in one culture and its moral and correct, while in another its abhorrent? Ludicrous.

Headhunter,

You may need to think a little deeper. Not too long ago the world had a lot of slavery going on. It had existed for ages and ages.

Based on our current understanding, we see that it was wrong.
[/quote]

Clarificaton: The chattel slavery in the US really had not existed for ages and ages. I don’t think that other forms (biblical, medieval) of slavery were wrong (looking back). They were really no different than a servant-lord relationship. The slave-owner was responsible for his slave’s actions, owed him the same human rights as non-slaves, and was his only source of existence. Chattel slavery in the US was always considered to be “an evil” but it was a short term dilemena-that’s all.

168

[quote]vroom wrote:
There are many issues that are not simply defined as right and wrong on a clear cut basis, though a lot of people will feel very strongly about it.
[/quote]

See, I think the whole problem is that we want to create moral categories-well any categorization is going to have to generalize somewhat. We will never be able to say-“every instance of this category of action is wrong” but I still think that we can look back at some particular actions and agree that they were wrong.

Though I would posit that the Christian perspective is that in an imperfect world, it is inevitable that one make a choice of “evils” (a choice of harms) every day.

Are their any good moral categories that work almost all of the time? I don’t really see the act as being moral or immoral, but rather immorality is a process which allows you, little by little to develop a moral set that is perverse.

169

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
See, I think the whole problem is that we want to create moral categories-well any categorization is going to have to generalize somewhat. We will never be able to say-“every instance of this category of action is wrong” but I still think that we can look back at some particular actions and agree that they were wrong.

[/quote]

Every instance of child rape is wrong, without looking back. Ask Jessica Lunsford. Wait…she was raped and buried alive. Let’s put that in there too — burying a child alive is wrong too.

170

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
See, I think the whole problem is that we want to create moral categories-well any categorization is going to have to generalize somewhat. We will never be able to say-“every instance of this category of action is wrong” but I still think that we can look back at some particular actions and agree that they were wrong.

Every instance of child rape is wrong, without looking back. Ask Jessica Lunsford. Wait…she was raped and buried alive. Let’s put that in there too — burying a child alive is wrong too.

[/quote]

Yes but the terms “child” and “rape” can not be defined by the physical elements alone.

Besides, I don’t see your point. Mine was that you cannot place absolute physical/observable definitions on moral events.

Look, to me personally, our acceptance of the existance of free will is our acceptance of moral right and wrong, and ultimately good and evil.

I believe that the standard is “absolute” but NOT “generalizable” in other words an action is morally right or wrong, but we can not generalize that all actions that we happen to categorize the same as that action are right or wrong due merely to the fact that we happened to categorize them that way.

A PARTICULAR act of one person killing another person is morally wrong (or not) but that doesn’t mean that all acts of a person killing another person are evil.

171

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
See, I think the whole problem is that we want to create moral categories-well any categorization is going to have to generalize somewhat. We will never be able to say-“every instance of this category of action is wrong” but I still think that we can look back at some particular actions and agree that they were wrong.

Every instance of child rape is wrong, without looking back. Ask Jessica Lunsford. Wait…she was raped and buried alive. Let’s put that in there too — burying a child alive is wrong too.

Yes but the terms “child” and “rape” can not be defined by the physical elements alone.

[/quote]

How do we form concepts? I have never seen ‘child’, but I’ve seen many individual children. I observe that the entities are similar enough to fit under one word-concept — child. The roots of the concept are in my percepts. I add nothing to the event, except the organisation of the sensations into perceptions and then reason to form concepts.

Is this someohow what you’re saying?

172

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
See, I think the whole problem is that we want to create moral categories-well any categorization is going to have to generalize somewhat. We will never be able to say-“every instance of this category of action is wrong” but I still think that we can look back at some particular actions and agree that they were wrong.

Every instance of child rape is wrong, without looking back. Ask Jessica Lunsford. Wait…she was raped and buried alive. Let’s put that in there too — burying a child alive is wrong too.

Yes but the terms “child” and “rape” can not be defined by the physical elements alone.

Besides, I don’t see your point. Mine was that you cannot place absolute physical/observable definitions on moral events.

Look, to me personally, our acceptance of the existance of free will is our acceptance of moral right and wrong, and ultimately good and evil.

I believe that the standard is “absolute” but NOT “generalizable” in other words an action is morally right or wrong, but we can not generalize that all actions that we happen to categorize the same as that action are right or wrong due merely to the fact that we happened to categorize them that way.

A PARTICULAR act of one person killing another person is morally wrong (or not) but that doesn’t mean that all acts of a person killing another person are evil.
[/quote]

Is it always wrong to initiate violence against others who are doing you no harm and don’t intend to?

173

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

How do we form concepts? I have never seen ‘child’, but I’ve seen many individual children. I observe that the entities are similar enough to fit under one word-concept — child. The roots of the concept are in my percepts. I add nothing to the event, except the organisation of the sensations into perceptions and then reason to form concepts.

Is this someohow what you’re saying?

[/quote]

I was just reading Aristotle’s Categories last night, so I couldn’t help but laugh when I read this paragraph :).

174

The world is FULL of sick SOB’s like this.

If there was only a way to round them up and put them into a detention area…

But we won’t call it a detention area, we can call it a camp or something.

Sounds like a good idea huh?

175

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
See, I think the whole problem is that we want to create moral categories-well any categorization is going to have to generalize somewhat. We will never be able to say-“every instance of this category of action is wrong” but I still think that we can look back at some particular actions and agree that they were wrong.

Every instance of child rape is wrong, without looking back. Ask Jessica Lunsford. Wait…she was raped and buried alive. Let’s put that in there too — burying a child alive is wrong too.

Yes but the terms “child” and “rape” can not be defined by the physical elements alone.

How do we form concepts? I have never seen ‘child’, but I’ve seen many individual children. I observe that the entities are similar enough to fit under one word-concept — child. The roots of the concept are in my percepts. I add nothing to the event, except the organisation of the sensations into perceptions and then reason to form concepts.

Is this someohow what you’re saying?

[/quote]

My main point was that you are already calling your category “rape” which is already a category which means “wrong” “criminal” or “illegal”.

You are saying that things are evil which we put into our “evil” category.

Sex with a child (under 15 I believe) is rape in this country, but in some countries at some times, girls, and boys were sometimes married at 13 or younger.

I think you can say that there are certain combinations of ages, and actions that would be always categorized as child rape, but the defininition has varied somewhat.

176

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
See, I think the whole problem is that we want to create moral categories-well any categorization is going to have to generalize somewhat. We will never be able to say-“every instance of this category of action is wrong” but I still think that we can look back at some particular actions and agree that they were wrong.

Every instance of child rape is wrong, without looking back. Ask Jessica Lunsford. Wait…she was raped and buried alive. Let’s put that in there too — burying a child alive is wrong too.

Yes but the terms “child” and “rape” can not be defined by the physical elements alone.

How do we form concepts? I have never seen ‘child’, but I’ve seen many individual children. I observe that the entities are similar enough to fit under one word-concept — child. The roots of the concept are in my percepts. I add nothing to the event, except the organisation of the sensations into perceptions and then reason to form concepts.

Is this someohow what you’re saying?

[/quote]

“child” “rape” is wrong. I’m not talking about how we come to know the external truth-WE ALL CAN PERCIEVE THE SAME TRUE SET OF EXTERNAL EVENTS-but we CAN place them into different categories.

177

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Is it always wrong to initiate violence against others who are doing you no harm and don’t intend to?

[/quote]

The Jews and Jerico?

You have a “legal” right to run someone else off the road if either you or they will go over a cliff.

Also, we can all view HARM relatively.

The external observables of the event are in theory consistent for all observeres, but the way we define them can vary.

What if you accidentally cause harm? What if you should have known that it would cause harm? What if they don’t consider it to be harm but you do, or vice versa?

178

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

How do we form concepts? I have never seen ‘child’, but I’ve seen many individual children. I observe that the entities are similar enough to fit under one word-concept — child. The roots of the concept are in my percepts. I add nothing to the event, except the organisation of the sensations into perceptions and then reason to form concepts.

Is this someohow what you’re saying?

I was just reading Aristotle’s Categories last night, so I couldn’t help but laugh when I read this paragraph :).[/quote]

I read the child concept line and thought of,

“There is a man named Socrates but there is no Socrates named man.”

179

[quote]superscience wrote:
The sheer self importance that man puts on himself is nothing short of breath taking.

Have you ever to stop and think about the sheer baffling scale of the universe? In our nearest Neighboring galaxy Andromeda their are between 8-10,000,000,000 stars. Our own milky way is of a similar size.

The Hubble space telescope took a 2 arbatory shots of the sky it found no less than approx 1000 galaxies in each shot.

It is believed that their are 10,000,000,000 - 20,000,000,000 Other galaxies.

Now encase you are a bit shoddy at maths lets take a wild stab at a number in the middle of the stars that leaves?

15,000,000,000,000,000,000 Stars.

And that is only the observable universe!

Why would an all powerful creater god give a flying fuck if you are having unpure thoughts at this minute in time? Ready to put you to eternal suffering for thinking about “fornicating” an Act you are HARD WIRED to do. Pro-Creation is your number 1 Drive.

The sad truth children is that to any sort of Creator being we are of less magnitude to a him as a neutron is to us… Thats not even an atom.

When was the last time you gave any thought to what the atom that makes up part of the cell membrane on the very tip of your left nut was doing? Exactly.

We are nothing more than a collection of very gradual jumps in complexity that took place over billions of years. To think that such a book was written by a God for our benift is so Fucking absurd that it should really baffle anyone with a logical thought more developed than that of a 6 year old.

The fact that we are still having conversations about a book written by a bunch of bronze and iron age men is a fucking tragedy.

From the god delusions book.[/quote]

VERY WELL SAID!!!