I don’t know if I have free will or not, so how can I know if I can or cant?
We can still make scientific discoveries, that does not rely on free will.
Well it would require freewill to be proven not to exist, which of course would nullify the Job experience to be merely a futile puppetry between two puppet masters.
Sure, but we cannot choose when or how to do them. It is then merely revealed as is preordained for us to do, either by accident or a controlling factor.
No it wouldn’t, we could simply be propelled by biology and not have free will but still discover there is no free will. Maybe free will does exit and maybe god does.
My question is if we discover it does not, does that not then disprove the christian god?
It’s crap. Why do you care?
Being ‘propelled’ by biology is still an accident. Biology has no commanding will by which ‘it decides’ how things turn out.
Not having freewill would disprove morality and freewill, it does nothing to whether or not God exists or not. It certainly would affect the Christian ethos, but there is no such thing as a “Christian God”. Christianity does not posses God. There is God, and there is Christian theology, in by which we foolish humans think we can interact with God. We cannot ‘prove’ Christianity is true. We can prove parts of it is true, there by having good reason to accept it, but we cannot prove the whole thing, no. But even if you were able to prove Christianity false, it still would not prove God does not exist.
Now the cornerstone of this is proving freewill false. Where by, I already laid out an argument for it’s existence. That then needs to be proven false, which by it’s very virtue is to prove that nihilism is true. The godless love nihilism, but it’s difficult to love and defend.
I’m not sure which comment you’re referring to.
Well morality isn’t set, it has been different in different places at different times. Morality is dead from a materialist perspective.
Well, the thing is, he said modern philosophy, so it depends on where you draw the line on “modern”.
Given what he posted, it would be strange if he wasn’t at least familiar with Descartes, Kant, etc.
I’d rather err on the side of caution that he knows more than he’s showing, given his education. You can’t get through a curriculum without a couple of ethics or philosophy based classes.
1 Like
I had the suspicion that by “modern” be meant contemporary, but I could be mistaken.
I agree. It has been proven scientifically that women use more parts of their brain when they communicate.
Men use maybe the lower head, sometimes the upper, but only under special circumstance.
2 Likes
I thought it was women who used head to communicate 
Men always use the lower head. The only exception is when they use their upper head as a means to eventually use their lower head. 
Has anyone read Blaise Pascal’s writings?
I’ve read his wager and the triangle. Never did finish that one.
Heh. Here we go.
Answer this: Can baby rape and murder ever be a moral good?
1 Like
Well in Greece it was considered rather great and Plato loved some young lads. In Afghanistan they fuck boys on the daily. Muhammed married a 9 year old, Mary married Joseph at 12, Richard the second married Isabella of Valois in 1396 when she was 6.
As we gain more knowledge and culture grows more sophisticated, we understand what causes harm and what does not and our morality evolves. Hence rigid or absolute morality does not exist.
I am not arguing it is good, but i know it isn’t good based on the culture and time I live in. Was Joseph an evil molester or did the moral landscape of his time consider what he was doing as moral?
It’d never been ‘alive’ from a materialistic perspective since it is metaphysical in its nature. Material has no propensity to care one way or another.
But I can demonstrate by example, that moral relativism is a dead thory.
Would there be possible world where the rape, torture and murder of, say a 5 year old boy ever be considered right, or even morally neutral and irrelevent?
I am not asking whether or not people don’t care, I am asking is if such a thing be considered morally right or even morally neutral?
2 Likes
Putting aside the fact that you’ve got your history dead wrong, I asked if baby rape could ever be a moral good, not whether societies had engaged in a certain practice.
2 Likes
From my point of view no. But that is based on the knowledge and understanding we have. There were cultures where child sacrifice was considered moral. To an educated modern human, living in the 21st century I can’t think it is moral because I am aware in a way the ancient cultures who burned children alive were not.
So yes killing kids was considered moral in different times in history. And where was my history faulty exactly?