Yes I did. Several times. Please tell me if I have misunderstood.
[quote]ephrem wrote:[quote]bigflamer wrote:You make the claim to your god, you have the burden of proof.[/quote]For the life of me, I can’t remember if a believer ever addressed this issue without deflecting.[/quote]Yet one more time. The inescapable evidence of the existence and providential authority of the one true and living triune God is absolutely everywhere and most clearly in your own mirror. The burden of proof is on you.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
In the scenario you presented, what would really matter is what God himself means.
I suppose He would require me to abandon most of what i think i know.
I agree.
But here, i disagree.
For morality to exist at all, you don’t need a specific direction determined by a transcendant will.
You “just” need a map that let you know which things possess an intrinsic value and which doesn’t. [/quote]Ok, cheap simple response because I’ve been in the middle of 10 things and giving short responses in other threads. I don’t want to leave you hanging another day. Where is this map so I can see it and what happens if someone else cannot or will not see it. Most importantly what is the GREATEST value and therefore ought? Is it attainable. Ever? What does it produce in you if pursued? If not?
[/quote]
You can find what the logos “want” in the same way you can find what the logos is.
To find our first truth, we used radical scepticism.
We can do the same thing with morality. Trying to think in a radically, absolutely a-moral way, ie : trying to see every thing as totally valueless.
We would soon find that it’s impossible.
We just KNOW that things have an intrinsic value.
Inert things are passive. They possess some informations, but thy doesn’t create it. Metaphorically speaking, they are parts of the Logos’ “body”.
As such, they have a relative value. an economic one, which depend on their scarcity.
Living things (human or not) are active. They do create new informations. They are unique parts of the Logos’ body AND mind.
As such, they have an absolute, infinite value.
A moral one.
Another way to look at this :
You can’t meaningfully “respect” inert things. They have no discernable purpose, no “telos”. no direction.
But you definitely can respect living things. They have (and in a way they are) a specific direction, a “telos”.
And if you CAN respect them, then you must.
Everything else would be immoral, by definition.
And now, you have your map.
You can go wherever you want, as long as your follow your “telos” without disturbing the “telos” of other living beings.
Granted, it’s just another expression of the old “golden rule”.
But there is a reason why this rule is so old, and so universal.
It’s the only universal rule that one can formulate without internal contradiction.
And by the way, “universal rule” is actually a pleonasm.
So it’s the only rule one can logically formulate.
Epistemology come first, because you need it to know that logic itself is reliable and valid.
But once you know that, absolute morality follow immediatly. (litteraly, without any mediation)
My arachnid neighbor already has an infinite value.
You and me do too.
But it’s not what you are speaking about. You are speaking about ideals.
And i can’t answer this question.
In my eyes, ideals are manifestations of the vice of hope, and should be avoided.
Learning to love reality as it is is already an endless, full time job. I don’t have the time to dream about other worlds.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
That’s also proof of Vishnu, Brahman, Zeus, Odin or TFSM and countless other gods and goddesses.
IOW, your proof is bullshit.
I am going to have to study your post Kamui. Read it twice now. My dear friend Ephrem still does mot get it. All of those false gods are one way or another contingent. I’ll never give up on him though.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am going to have to study your post Kamui. Read it twice now. My dear friend Ephrem still does mot get it. All of those false gods are one way or another contingent. I’ll never give up on him though.[/quote]
Vishnu, Odin and Zeus are definitely contingent beings. They are/was described as such by their followers.
But Brahman is a different beast.
Most schools of hinduism describe it as a supreme, unique, absolute, infinite, noumenal Being that is the universal cause of the phenomenal world.
It does qualify as a non-contingent being in my book.
And it’s probably a “purer” version of a non-contingent being than the abrahamic God.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
In the scenario you presented, what would really matter is what God himself means.
I suppose He would require me to abandon most of what i think i know.
I agree.
But here, i disagree.
For morality to exist at all, you don’t need a specific direction determined by a transcendant will.
You “just” need a map that let you know which things possess an intrinsic value and which doesn’t. [/quote]Ok, cheap simple response because I’ve been in the middle of 10 things and giving short responses in other threads. I don’t want to leave you hanging another day. Where is this map so I can see it and what happens if someone else cannot or will not see it. Most importantly what is the GREATEST value and therefore ought? Is it attainable. Ever? What does it produce in you if pursued? If not?
[/quote]
You can find what the logos “want” in the same way you can find what the logos is.
To find our first truth, we used radical scepticism.
We can do the same thing with morality. Trying to think in a radically, absolutely a-moral way, ie : trying to see every thing as totally valueless.
We would soon find that it’s impossible.
We just KNOW that things have an intrinsic value.
Inert things are passive. They possess some informations, but thy doesn’t create it. Metaphorically speaking, they are parts of the Logos’ “body”.
As such, they have a relative value. an economic one, which depend on their scarcity.
Living things (human or not) are active. They do create new informations. They are unique parts of the Logos’ body AND mind.
As such, they have an absolute, infinite value.
A moral one.
Another way to look at this :
You can’t meaningfully “respect” inert things. They have no discernable purpose, no “telos”. no direction.
But you definitely can respect living things. They have (and in a way they are) a specific direction, a “telos”.
And if you CAN respect them, then you must.
Everything else would be immoral, by definition.
And now, you have your map.
You can go wherever you want, as long as your follow your “telos” without disturbing the “telos” of other living beings.
Granted, it’s just another expression of the old “golden rule”.
But there is a reason why this rule is so old, and so universal.
It’s the only universal rule that one can formulate without internal contradiction.
And by the way, “universal rule” is actually a pleonasm.
So it’s the only rule one can logically formulate.
Epistemology come first, because you need it to know that logic itself is reliable and valid.
But once you know that, absolute morality follow immediatly. (litteraly, without any mediation)
My arachnid neighbor already has an infinite value.
You and me do too.
But it’s not what you are speaking about. You are speaking about ideals.
And i can’t answer this question.
In my eyes, ideals are manifestations of the vice of hope, and should be avoided.
Learning to love reality as it is is already an endless, full time job. I don’t have the time to dream about other worlds.
[/quote]
I’m getting hung up on ability to respect some beings vs not having respect other beings (a metal atom vs a cat for example). Most people place more value on the cat. The cat has loads of more information and is vastly more intelligent than a single atom and can concentrate and relate information much faster than an individual atom. But an atom can concentrate and relate new information too by bonding with other atoms and creating molecules.
So by the logic I think you presented there about information, I’m gathering that the more related a gathering of informations and the more of the information, the more valuable that grouping of information is? (go back to the cat vs. metal atom example for reference if wanting an example).
And I’m not sure if this relates, but in physics, information can never be created or destroyed, only transformed. So there’s going to be pockets where there’s loads of informations (a human brain) and areas that have next to zilch (empty space with nothing but the space itself granted that is information in and of itself and if you observe it you place more information either there, in the brain, or both, I’m not sure) So in this example, by the logic I think you explained, obviously, the human brain is more valuable than empty space.
And think of your worst sociopaths. Not even respect for other humans which contain the human brain which has more neurons than stars in the galaxy and is more complexly organized than a galaxy. These people just don’t have that part of the brain that gives them the ability to appreciate any oughts.
Is this just to say that some people innately are able to follow the ‘roadmap’ better than others?
And I can’t help but believe that non-living beings do have a direction. The evolution of the universe is a good example I think. Initially, there weren’t any particles at all and all was infinitely hot and dense. But over time, all in the universe transformed it’s information into subatomic particles, quarks, hydrogen atoms, helium atoms, stars, galaxies, even the human brain and so on. Humans arise out of non-living information. So to me, it would seem like all information has direction.
Is there a purpose to this and why is there purpose if there is?
Is this something that a non-contigent uncaused cause directed? Kind of like a director to a play? Like all we see is the play, but we cannot directly see what’s happened behind the scenes so we make inferences as to how the play was made, it’s direction, and it’s purpose?
And how is living being defined? As carbon based lifeforms on Earth? Would a boltzman brain be considered an intrinsically infinitely valuable being?
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
And I can’t help but believe that non-living beings do have a direction. The evolution of the universe is a good example I think. Initially, there weren’t any particles at all and all was infinitely hot and dense. But over time, all in the universe transformed it’s information into subatomic particles, quarks, hydrogen atoms, helium atoms, stars, galaxies, even the human brain and so on. Humans arise out of non-living information. So to me, it would seem like all information has direction.[/quote]
I won’t take anything cosmology tell us about the evolution of the universe for granted.
Our current model is an impressively successfull one, but it still need more than 15 arbitrary constants to work, and it is pretty clear that it won’t survive another century.
That being said, in a way, yes, all information has direction.
Starting with the direction imposed by gravity and thermodynamics laws.
But precisely : inert (eg : inorganic) matter just “follows” the general and external directions they get from the rest of the universe.
Living (eg : organic) matter actively, constantly and consistently re-organize itself to resist these general and external direction.
They have some kind of internal purpose, that fights against entropy.
And that’s what i called a “telos”.
That’s the difference between a lone metal atom and a cat.
The metal atom doesn’t care it falls. The cat orients itself as it falls in order to land on its feet… except if you do something immoral that prevent it to do so.
Even the simplest of the living creatures (eg : unicellular beings) show the most basic of these neguentropic purposes (ie : “staying alive”).
And by the way, we all know the difference between a thing and a being. We know it intuitively, even if we don’t know how to define it “thermodynamically”. And we intuitively know that it’s morally relevant.
It’s not a coincidence if normal children awaken into morality at the same time their “animist stage” end.
[quote]
And how is living being defined? As carbon based lifeforms on Earth? Would a boltzman brain be considered an intrinsically infinitely valuable being? [/quote]
a boltzmann brain is a neguentropic entity. As such, yes, it would be defined as a “living being”, at least in the “morally relevant” meaning of this word.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am going to have to study your post Kamui. Read it twice now. My dear friend Ephrem still does mot get it. All of those false gods are one way or another contingent. I’ll never give up on him though.[/quote]
Vishnu, Odin and Zeus are definitely contingent beings. They are/was described as such by their followers.
But Brahman is a different beast.
Most schools of hinduism describe it as a supreme, unique, absolute, infinite, noumenal Being that is the universal cause of the phenomenal world.
It does qualify as a non-contingent being in my book.
And it’s probably a “purer” version of a non-contingent being than the abrahamic God. [/quote]Brahman would also address the problem of the one and the many. That’s where I was headed with Squating_Bear when I thought he was a Hindu. Alright were all over the place here. That stalemate is still coming though. Describe free will or the lack thereof in your view Kamui. I know the standard Hindu view which is entirely inconsistent. What’s yours?
As i said in a previous thread, free will and determinism are both true, but in entirely separate “dimensions”.
Determinism rules the chain of material/efficient causes.
To continue with my anthropomorphic metaphor (but i insist : it’s only a metaphor) : determinism is the law of the Logos’ body.
It’s the answer to the question “how ?”.
Free will rules the chain of final causes.
It belongs to the mind of living beings.
It’s the answer to the question “why ?”.
The two lines of causes never cross. They are “parallel”, and as such, independant.
Even we had an absolute knowledge and complete understanding of all neurologic mechanisms, we would not be able to solve the mystery of a simple thought.
Our scientific answers would still answer only the question “how ?”, but not the question “why ?”.
To answer the question “why ?”, we have to acknowledging the existence (and the freedom) of the will.
Actually, you do that too.
You perfectly acknowledge the existence and the freedom of the will… of God.
And then there is no room left for your own free will.
In a way, your will is not even your will.
It’s HIS will.
You want because God want you to want.
But this perspective is logically intenable.
See,
you and me want different and opposed things.
And since in both cases, our wills are God’s will, it would mean that God’s will is… plural.
Such an “equivocity of Being” would limit His infinity, break His unicity, ruin His omnipotence.
Blasphemy.
The only conclusion is that our will is free, but is just that : a will. And that “God”, as an infinite being, doesn’t bound “himself” to finite goals and objects, ie : He has no will.
[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Actually, you do that too.
You perfectly acknowledge the existence and the freedom of the will… of God.
And then there is no room left for your own free will.
In a way, your will is not even your will.
It’s HIS will.
You want because God want you to want.
But this perspective is logically intenable. >>>[/quote]I’m not ignoring the rest, but I am super pressed tonight. That’s not EXACTLY my view though I understand how you could think it was. Try these from the confession of 1646 again. I do believe that man freely chooses precisely what God has ordained that eh freely choose. No idea how that works. He’s God n I ain’t. I would never say that our wills are ontologically indistinguishable if that’s what you meant.
[quote]CHAPTER III.
Of God’s Eternal Decree.
I. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future, as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions.
III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.
<<<<<>>>>>
VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel. [/quote]Chapter 9. Of Free will [quote]CHAPTER IX.
Of Free Will.
I. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.
II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which is good and well-pleasing to God; but yet mutably, so that he might fall from it.
III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
IV. When God converts a sinner and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that, by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.
V. The will of man is made perfectly and immutable free to good alone, in the state of glory only. [/quote] I have no idea of the precise divine mechanisms by which this is accomplished and neither did they and neither will anyone else save for God alone.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Yes I did. Several times. Please tell me if I have misunderstood.[/quote]
I am not sure, that is why I asked. If you did, I assume that I didn’t make myself clear.
I’ll make this clear: Christianity doesn’t have a philosophy. That is right, Jesus did not deliver a philosophy once and for all to the saints. He delivered revelation, Divine Revelation delivered to the saints once and for all. So, how using Aristotle to prove Jesus is any different than Augustine using Plato to prove Jesus.
So, why did Aquinas use Aristotle to prove the tenets of Divine Revelation? That I’ll get to in a few sentences. But, I want you to know that Aquinas proved the tenets of Jesus with Aristotle, but Aquinas never doubted those tenets of Christianity. His questioning of the tenets only led to him giving proof that they were true.
The simple answer to the first question, nothing dies unless it dies in its own home. He fought on two fronts during his life time. Against the Muslims and the Manichees. The same ones that Augustine fell in with and fought against. He fought against the former in his own universities. The Muslims found Aristotle and were using it to convert universities and Christians. And he knew you can never prove someone wrong with your own philosophy, you can only prove someone wrong with their own philosophy, which is the explanation of why he used Aristotle.
The Muslims had Aristotle proving prophet and their tyrant-god. Aquinas knowing that Plato of Augustine could not stand against his pupil, even if he was superior since it was Aristotle’s home that Aquinas was playing in. And, the King of the home is always superior. Aquinas against this threat took the great Pagan and showed that even the Moslem’s bad translation could not in fact prove Mohammed or Tyrant. But that their philosophy only proved Christ to be King.
On the other hand he dealt with the Manichees. Who were called Augustines. We have seen how the great name of Augustine, a name never mentioned by Aquinas without respect but often without agreement. The difference, like every difference between Catholics, was only a difference of emphasis. But there is emphasis and emphasis. And, a time was coming in Aquina’s life that emphasizing the one side was to mean flatly contradicting the other. The Augustinians stressed the idea of impotence of man before God, the omniscience of God about the destiny of man, the need for holy fear and the holy humiliation of intellectual pride, more than the opposite and corresponding truths of free will or humans ignite or good works. Augustinians Emphasis the Word was God, but they lacked in stressing Word became flesh. They lacked in emphasizing the least abstract idea, almost to be the opposite of being an abstraction: the Incarnation. Jesus is a man.
We see that in one particular monk in an Augustinian monastery in the German forests. For this monk emphasized with a singular and special talent of emphasis, for nothing except emphasis. Emphasis with the characteristic of an earthquake. His name was Martin Luther. Augustine nor any of the augustinians would have wanted to see the day that Martin Luther avenged Augustinian tradition, but Augustinian tradition was vindicated that day, avenged they were. It came out of it’s monastic cell and demand and screamed for such an elementary and emotional religion with the destruction of all philosophies. That day it came out with its own theory that destroyed and let loose all theories, its theology was the death of theology. At that moment, man could say nothing to God, nothing from God, nothing about God, except an unclear cry for mercy and for Christ, in a place where natural things were useless. Reason, Will, and man was useless. Man could not move and could not trust that his own head was not a tulip.
Anyway, regards.
Chris
You’re gonna have to bear with me here Chris. I have spent more time with you than anybody else ever that I have not met in person and many that I have. You are one of the most beloved people in my life. I am incapable of being more sincere than that. I am beyond honored that you would take the time and thought required to construct a post like the above in my thread. Where’s the “but” right?
It would take me a week to answer all the dense substance that you have touched upon here. I am through making promises to you that I am not sure I can keep. I have a small string of them behind us that I have still not answered going back a year. I do remember. I will respond as best I can as soon as I can. As you can see I have my hands full with turbo brain Kamui here as well.
You are a very gifted kid Chris and I have no doubt that the God I love is working in your life. I would be proud to have you as my son. Like never before it is going to break my heart to have to disagree, strenuously, with very much (but not all) of what you’ve said in this post. I’m still learnin Christopher. Expect a more “charitable” Tiribulus. (within reason =] )
Interesting.
I actually agree with this.
We freely choose what we are determined to freely choose.
[quote]
No idea how that works. He’s God n I ain’t. I would never say that our wills are ontologically indistinguishable if that’s what you meant.[/quote]
If we consider that ideas and bodies are two dimensions of the same thing (Spinoza would say “Thought and extension are two distinct attributes of the same substance”), then there is no paradox.
bodies are caused, limited and determined by other finite bodies, under the law of the infinite being.
ideas are caused, limited and determined by other ideas, under the law of the infinite being.
If my idea is caused by another idea of mine, then i can say that my will is free.
Not because it is not determined at all, but because it’s determined by me.
And this definition of free will does not contradict the absolute law of the infinite being in any way, shape or form.
As i am not a believer, i can’t meaningfully comment the quotes you gave me. In my pagan eyes, the whole theology of protestantism sound like an effort to explain, justify and legitimate the idea that not everyone will be saved… when i don’t even believe that there has been a fall.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You’re gonna have to bear with me here Chris. I have spent more time with you than anybody else ever that I have not met in person and many that I have. You are one of the most beloved people in my life. I am incapable of being more sincere than that. I am beyond honored that you would take the time and thought required to construct a post like the above in my thread. Where’s the “but” right?
It would take me a week to answer all the dense substance that you have touched upon here. I am through making promises to you that I am not sure I can keep. I have a small string of them behind us that I have still not answered going back a year. I do remember. I will respond as best I can as soon as I can. As you can see I have my hands full with turbo brain Kamui here as well.
You are a very gifted kid Chris and I have no doubt that the God I love is working in your life. I would be proud to have you as my son. Like never before it is going to break my heart to have to disagree, strenuously, with very much (but not all) of what you’ve said in this post. I’m still learnin Christopher. Expect a more “charitable” Tiribulus. (within reason =] )[/quote]
Hahah, okay. I’ll wait patiently.
It’s 11:23 and I just walked through the door from 6:45 this morning guys
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Dennett is probably the most “gentle” of the atheists; a soft spoken thinker, easy like Sunday morning. lOL
Or maybe it’s just his epic beard, a beard like that just puts a man at ease, ya know? . 
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Excellent! I’m ready to convert as soon as the evidence is in front of me. lol
But seriously, this burden of proof reversal tactic will not work. You make the claim, you provide the proof. It’s just that simple.
Sparky wrote:[quote]Excellent! I’m ready to convert as soon as the evidence is in front of me. lol[/quote]This is an untruth. The proof IS right in front of you… and in you and everywhere else. You will not see it(even though you really do anyway)because you are dead to the things of God. HE created YOU. The burden is on you. You’re the one doing the reversing. But seriously, this burden of proof reversal tactic will not work. You make the claim, you provide the proof. It’s just that simple.