They Are Going After The Churches:

[The Thinker]

Why?

Because if you have a chain of causality the goes past you, you're not free.

At what level? To what end?

Whatever level you think is needed to show LFW is possible under your metaphysic, and we'll take it from there.

[The Thinker]

Sheesh Thinker, what - are you twelve? Stop playing the hypocrite - if grounding ethics in God is circular then so would be any grounding for ethics that you could offer.

When did I say here mine wasn't? I'm merely noting that yours is, yet you deny it.

Me? I just made it clear that your claim that God would be illogical if He assigned men to hell is bunk. It would violate no rule of logic. Try and stay on subject.

So what's the answer to my question?

You are just making stuff up now Thinker. We are comparing two ethical theories here, and obviously the one that offers universal justice, born from a morally immutable Being, who knows how every act would effect the present and past would be far superior to one based on creatures with a fickle moral sense who have no idea of long term effects of certain moral acts and where justice is often eluded and non-existent.

But you are a mutable being, limited, and fallible, and if you think ethical systems arrived at by limited, mutable, fallible people is untrustworthy, you are blissfully unaware that this applies to your ethical system as well. You seem to be unaware that the people who wrote the Bible could actually themselves be "creatures with a fickle moral sense who have no idea of long term effects of certain moral acts".


Furthermore, the person in ISIS claims he has universal justice, yet in his ethic, you burn in hell for eternity because you deny Islam. So unless you can actually show a logical justification for what is justice, and why only your god can provide it, your claim is an unsupported assertion.

Again, that is completely false. I believe that our rational conscious deliberations are the source of our decisions (not random fluctuations) you believe that random chemicals interactions dictate what you believe or don't. Conscious deliberations play no role in the process, so you could never know if what your chemicals dictated that you believe is true is actually true. You NEVER could close that logical circle, you just take it by faith.

Seer, when are you going to finally understand, that you can believe whatever you want, but if you cannot rationally demonstrate it's coherency, your "belief" is incoherent. You can believe square-circles exist for all I care, that doesn't make them coherent, or real, and it doesn't make them a justification of anything. Merely claiming that your thoughts are due to rational conscious deliberation, doesn't show it to be the case, and it doesn't show it to even be possible on your view. On your view, thoughts cannot have a cause, and if they have no cause they would have to be random fluctuations - and you even admitted they were random fluctuations a few months back. Now you somehow want to have your cake and eat it too. You can't. You cannot take something incoherent on faith. Logic won't allow that. And again, having your thoughts caused is the only way they can be rational. Chemical reactions are not random, they follow a pattern, that's why it's even possible for us to think rationally.

[seer]

When did I say here mine wasn't? I'm merely noting that yours is, yet you deny it.

You described my position as "circular, and unintelligible." Are you saying that your position is also circular, and unintelligible?

So what's the answer to my question?

What question? I'm countering your claim that God would be "illogical" if He sent men to hell. That, as I have shown, does not follow.

But you are a mutable being, limited, and fallible, and if you think ethical systems arrived at by limited, mutable, fallible people is untrustworthy, you are blissfully unaware that this applies to your ethical system as well. You seem to be unaware that the people who wrote the Bible could actually themselves be "creatures with a fickle moral sense who have no idea of long term effects of certain moral acts".

Thinker you are moving the goal posts. We are discussing ideas or theories. And which would be a better grounding for ethics. And a morally immutable, all knowing Being, who could apply universal justice would obviously be superior.

Furthermore, the person in ISIS claims he has universal justice, yet in his ethic, you burn in hell for eternity because you deny Islam. So unless you can actually show a logical justification for what is justice, and why only your god can provide it, your claim is an unsupported assertion.

Again that makes no sense, even if I can not define universal justice does not mean that it does not exist. And again, it would be God that defines it, not me or you.

Seer, when are you going to finally understand, that you can believe whatever you want, but if you cannot rationally demonstrate it's coherency, your "belief" is incoherent. You can believe square-circles exist for all I care, that doesn't make them coherent, or real, and it doesn't make them a justification of anything. Merely claiming that your thoughts are due to rational conscious deliberation, doesn't show it to be the case, and it doesn't show it to even be possible on your view. On your view, thoughts cannot have a cause, and if they have no cause they would have to be random fluctuations - and you even admitted they were random fluctuations a few months back. Now you somehow want to have your cake and eat it too. You can't. You cannot take something incoherent on faith. Logic won't allow that. And again, having your thoughts caused is the only way they can be rational. Chemical reactions are not random, they follow a pattern, that's why it's even possible for us to think rationally.

Nonsense, I never agreed with random fluctuations. I always made the case that THOUGHTS - rational conscious deliberation was the source of our decision making process. You on the other hand have chemicals (that care nothing for rationality) driving the car. And like I said, your position is deeply circular and incoherent. For you can never go from being cause to believe that A is true to the knowledge that A is actually true. You can not logically justify knowledge.

[The Thinker]

No, you haven't refuted him at all you stupid fundy. What you have done is created a strawman to refute. Here, let me help you here since you're a little show:....

Are you kidding me? He's admitting that in practice, slavery existed. Second of all, I defined slavery, showed how the Bible legally allows for that, and merely quoting me a person saying it wasn't slavery isn't an argument. It's an argument from authority - a classical logical fallacy. One would think you'd know better, but I guess not. Show me that the Bible did not allow under any circumstances forced servitude.

Do you feel better when you scream out absurdities, that you can't prove, like the above?


And you've thrown out every assertion, in the fundy atheist handbook and showed you can't refute any of it.


So you don't care what scholars say, you just want to keep screaming, "WAA! SLAVERY!" over and over again, even when the major details do not line up and even when the minor details don't line up either? Who cares though, an agenda has to be pressed and damn the evidence if it says what non-thinker wants it to say.

It seems that you've lost the ability to have a rational argument now, and are resorting almost entirely to name calling. Absolutely nothing here refutes my refutation of Miller. Nothing. I've thrown no assertion in the atheist handbook, meanwhile you've thrown out every assertion and red herring in apologetic handbook, wasting my time for days. Well, at least I'm better prepared now to refute and preempt the nonsense theists like you throw out. You've helped make me a better atheist debater and are unwittingly helping me refute religion. Thanks! I've taken what scholars say and refuted it. So it is completely nonsensical to tell me I ignore what scholars say. That is precisely what you do when scholars say the Bible condoned slavery.

Sorry non thinker, but definitions do not cover the wide range of beliefs and views that a societies holds and there's a reason that critical scholars tend not to quote dictionaries, when it comes to a critical study of a belief or term. Try again

Um, sorry, but I defined slavery, and showed how the Bible condoned it. Now you're just complaining about semantics. If you hate the term "slavery" but want to call it "servitude" instead, be my guess. All that matters to me was whether people in the Bible could be forced into servitude. They could legally, and that is tantamount to any reasonable usage of the term slavery. Because you have so much emotional investment in Christianity, your brain will try and fight every way it can to deny this, but it won't work. It is obvious who is the loser in this debate, and it is you because your denial of the obvious is apparent.

It's perfectly relevant, non thinker, because what we are trying to establish is if the rules of Israel are any better than the society around them....

No!!! We're not. This is exactly why you're debating an imaginary atheist in your head. The debate is over whether the Bible condones conditions that meet the definition of slavery. Mentioning biblical slavery being better is a red herring, it's irrelevant to the debate. This is why I can't debate religitards like you. You are on a totally different page. So answer this yes or no question: did the Bible condones conditions that meet the definition of slavery?

Of course it's 'irrelevant' because you can't refute the arguments actually made and need to make up ones to refute.....

It's irrelevant because that's not what we're debating. We're debating whether the Bible condones conditions that meet the definition of slavery.

It is actually you who can't refute that and want to change the subject to something else.

Translation: "WAAA! I DON'T CARE ABOUT DETAILS, I JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO SCREAM SLAVERY! AT THE TOP OF MY LUNGS!"

Isn't that more honest than pretending that you're interested in the details?

LOL. You are so pathetic. If you actually paid attention to the details, you'd see that I'm agreeing with you on all these points. But you act as if I'm denying them, and you want to debate me on them. This is the height of absurdity. I'm saying I can concede all these points and it is irrelevant to the debate over whether the Bible condones conditions that meet the definition of slavery. Get that in your head.

Yet again, you scream, "WAAA SLAVERY!" over and over again because that's the only argument you have. We both know that when most westners hear 'slavery' what they think of non-thinker and what emotional images you're trying to conjure up. You just want to keep screaming, "WAAAA! SLAVERY!" over and over again because you have no real arguments.

Are you kidding me? I have a real argument that shows the Bible condones conditions that meet the definition of slavery. You can't refute it by claiming the Bible allowed better conditions than other societies near it. That's like saying Islam improved its treatment of women so isn't sexist -- that in no way shows Islam is not sexist. You are still arguing against the strawman I specifically mentioned in my bullet points that I'm not trying to argue for. It shows you're incapable of having an honest, intellectual debate. You are the one not paying attention to detail. You want to have an argument against a caricature of my views. I already acknowledge biblical slavery was not exactly like American slavery. How many times do I have to mention that.

Really? Like what 'general Christian theology' are you talking about, non thinker?...

The general theology that says salvation depends on belief at the very least (whether or not works are relevant) and that those who are not saved go to a hell that is a very bad place, but not necessarily a place of torture. Very simple. You seem to not even know that there are millions of Christians who disagree with your views.

All one has to do is see how you keep changing up arguments and screaming, "WAA IRRELEVANT!" whenever you run into anything you can't refute.....

This is amazingly ignorant of you. It seems now that me specifically mentioning biblical slavery was not exactly like American slavery is somehow not enough for you to understand that I'm not making the argument that it was. So because words have connotations, and some people might think biblical slavery was exactly like American slavery when someone uses the word 'slavery' that is somehow an argument against mine that the Bible condones conditions that meet the definition of slavery? That's absurd. And no, you still have shown me nothing I cannot refute. Try again.

Already refuted, non thinker. Why do you think repeating your same failed talking points, over and over again, makes them true?....

No that's your job. And no, just like with slavery, you have not refuted anything. You just make a bunch of noise and irrelevant points.

More of your rambling stupidity where you make up what you want to hear instead of dealing with what your opponents actually said. My logic says nothing of the sort and I challenge you to show where it says that....

That is exactly your logic: since the atheist doesn't believe in faith/religion it makes no sense to obsess over it. Anyone with a brain can refute such nonsense.

Non thinker, did you actually READ the entire Psalm instead of finding soundbites to throw out there? Here is what Psalm 14:3 says:...

Oh so basically, the Bible never means what it says, when it says something you disagree with. That's fundy apologetic nonsense. I guess also millions of your fundy Christian counterparts have misinterpreted this for thinking atheists are evil and do harm. You don't think lines like this have contributed to the dislike and mistrust of atheists over the years by Christians? Atheists are one of the most hated groups of people in the US.

No non thinker, that is a belief your black/white fundy brain has made up because you're a moron that can't read for context. Try actually reading an entire Psalm, before you decide to rip a verse out of it to use. It will keep the egg off your face.

Sorry, but that's not an argument. It is clear that these lines contribute to the mistrust/hate/dislike of atheists among Christians. If you disagree, tell me, what is the source of this mistrust/hate/dislike of atheists among Christians over the last 2000 years?

I have answered them and thus far, you're doing a great job of showing just how much of a fundy you are and how little you understand the religion you claim you can refute. Did you actually read all of Pslam 14 before you decided to blurt something out that showed you didn't understand the Psalm at all?....

Then why specifically mention non-believers? You have not really answered them. You've complained about them via your strawmen and misunderstanding. That's all.

I understand that you want to keep screaming, "WAAA ANSWER THE QUESTION!" because you don't have an answer for me, but answering a loaded question, with a question, is a perfectly valid strategy. Your base of your question is under attack. On what bases do you make the claim that the size of the universe should have any bearing on if God exist.

I did have an answer for you...it was the very next line that you quoted. This is what happens when I debate religitards.

Hummm, fundy atheist talking points are something I could care less about fundy boy because at Sunday school, the Christians there said the amazing majesty and size of the universe spoke of God's majesty. Beyond his own personal opinion, does he have anything at all to state that the God needs and tiny universe, to exist? ...

Sorry, this is not a fundy atheist talking point, this is a logical argument that you must refute if you think it has no merit, lil ditzy. Saying there is amazing majesty is not an argument. It is a post hoc rationalization. My argument is not saying god needs a tiny universe to exist. You'd know that if you actually read the argument. Looks like you're a hypocrite for not reading a single sentence of my link, when you expect others to read the entirety of your links.

I would of thought that stuff like Jersey Shores or the mindless parade of mindless reality TV shows would tell you that most people just want to be entertained and could care less about 'life's deeper questions' there non thinker. Did you even give this question a second of your thought? My point about you is you assume that God will automatically do everything and solve everything, including answering questions and everything else, but where is any of that actually stated in the Bible? See, non thinker, you like putting others on the spot, but don't like it when people turn things around on you and put you on the spot. I know, you like sitting on your judgment seat and casting down divine judgments, but I want to watch you back up your opinion with some actual data and facts. ....

The Jersey Shore idiots are all dumb Christians, showing my point. Sad. Second, you are aware that Jersey Shore idiots don't represent all of humanity, right? Third, I just told you that my question does not in any way assume god will answer every question and do everything we want and I showed you why and you still reiterate this garbage. Sad. The only tiny fundy brain is clearly yours, since you've been refuted over and over again by me and all you ever do is attack strawmen, just like now. I back up my arguments with facts, you ignore them and strawman them. It makes me using facts pointless since you never address them. My question is to expose an absurdity in Christian thought, and the fact that you refuse to answer it is indicative of that. It has nothing to do with casting down divine judgments. Nor does it assume it's all about me. That's what Christians actually are best at doing to others.

Yeah it does because you're just repeating your same obsessions over and over again. Why are you so obsessed with this same point?

Prove it. Don't assert nonsense.

So cute to watch you spin and spin ...

There's no spinning. All you are doing is asserting your opinion that I am. Make an actual argument or shut up and go back to serving your husband's needs as your lord intended.

What's cute is actually watching you squirm over the slavery debate, shouting irrelevancies like "Biblical slavery was not like American slavery." Total strawman.

Of course it's 'nonsense' because you can't refute it. Yeah, it is the same question covered yet again about how you seem to have this obsession with 'proving' atheist are not evil. Why are you so obsessed, with that point?

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Nothing about the 10th question is talking about atheists being evil. Anyone with a brain can read that it is about meaning of life questions. That would not include you.

...I just teat you like the bully you are and you don't like it. ...

This is self-projection at its finest. None of your arguments are logical. Your views are entirely emotionally driven. Anyone reading our debates can see that I've refuted you on slavery. What questions did I not answer? This is your imagination yet again. I read Psalm 14, it says atheists are fools and wicked. And I'm not a bully. Just because I debate theists online and challenge their views does not make me a bully. And it seems that the principle you live by is treat others as you think they do to you, and not the golden rule. OK, so since Christian fundies treat atheists bad, that means I can treat them bad too, right? And I treat Christians good all the time. One of my best friends is a Christian. On this site I'm here to debate, and debating involves refuting others views. That is not bullying. That's like an idiot who claims all criticism of Islam is "racist".

Are Christians who say atheism is false and absurd bullies?

Yes because we all know less than 1/20th of my time, per day, is proof positive that I must have all the time in the world. I also guess your job must be pretty easy if you have time to goof off all day. Don't worry, a robot will be doing your job one day for you.

Right, keep saying that to yourself. You clearly are obsessed with me.

Interesting because here is what he said:....

Um, how is that an argument? My whole point, and the refutation on my blog, specifically refutes that direct quote. Merely quoting it again is not an argument. What low standards we have.

In other words, I shut down yet another one of your strawman and this is your way of saying that, "Crap, that didn't work, but I'm too full of pride to admit I was wrong again!"

Shut down what? Specifically lay out what you shut down. Do you really think my argument didn't know there was no modern technology back then? It in no way relies on that. I can't debate someone with such a wild imagination like you.

I have already refuted this comment of yours previously, but it seems you just flat ignored that I have already established that female leadership existed in the Bible and in the church...

No you didn't. All of your arguments on sexism were as bad as your arguments against slavery. They miss the mark and are irrelevant. The Bible clearly has subordinate roles for women in mind, which is the definition of sexism. Whether or not the Bible improved the status of women from before, or occasionally told stories of women rising to power, that is irrelevant to whether the Bible condones or commands conditions that meet the definition of sexism. And if your argument is "that was back then, it's different now" kindly tell me where in the Bible it says you can ignore the Bible when conditions change.

Sorry, but you showed that you couldn't read and/or just lied about what you claimed he said, so I understand that you want it all to go away because you're talking points are failing, but you have been caught, red handed, lying about what you claimed was said or you're just too stupid to read at a basic level of comprehension. Just to reestablish that you lied and/or can't read, you said:....

He's saying that the Israelites could not seek land outside their borders, and claims from that, that no condition arose for forced slavery. That's exactly why I said he's claiming there was no condition where the Israelites can force other societies into servitude. If you actually disagree with this, you will actually be conceding to my point of view that the Israelites did, and thus you'd be admitting I'm right. Did your lil ditzy brain not think of that? Miller is wrong; Deut. 20:12-14 says that the Israelites could force the inhabitants of the region they call their "Promised Land" as well as "all the cities that are at a distance from [them] and do not belong to the nations nearby" into forced servitude if they surrender their land and belongings. If they don't surrender, their towns will be besieged and their men will be killed and the women and children can be taken as booty. In Judges 1:28-34 it even says the Israelites forced the Canaanites, the Naphtalites, and the Amorites into servitude, all while the "LORD was with them."

No, he didn't. The problem is you're too stupid to understand what he said and just keep making up what he said. Once a fundy, always a fundy, eh fundy boy?

Yes he did. Seer has been arguing this to me for months.

Yep, that hatred of Christians, comes shining though again. ...

I will keep forcing you to spend so much time obsessing over me. I kind of like it. And no, I'm no bully. Debating Christians and forcing them to examine their inconsistencies is not bullying. It's debating.

Sorry non thinker, but 10 year old didn't reach the age of puberty, in the ancient world half wit.....

Here we have another in principle argument. Average doesn't = all. If a 10, 11, or 12 year old hit puberty, would she be eligible for marriage under biblical law? Yes or no? And prove to me that no prebubescent person could be legally married in the biblical code?

Nope, not at all fundy boy. I know you want that point to go away because your tiny fundy brain can't process it, but not you really didn't because why did Christians fight against slavery, non thinker?

It certainly wasn't because the Bible was against slavery in principle. This again is irrelevant: did the Bible condones conditions that meet the definition of slavery? Yes or no?

Decontextualized soundbites and not arguments, fundy boy. If that's true, here's your own words:

"And your life is to serve your husband's needs."

Therefore, following The Thinker Logic^TM, you're a sexist! It's always great how your sword keeps cutting off your own head and you're too stupid to realize it. Sorry, non thinker, but you need more than decontextualized soundbites, to make your failed arguments work.

LOL. You clearly don't understand that I'm using your own religion's philosophy against you. Those aren't my views, they're your god's. Wow. Epic stupidity.

I see you keep making this same bald assertion, but have not actually backed up your claims. Go ahead and back it up, fundy boy and please give your sources that you used to prove your claim.

What bald assertion? All I said was that this logic: "The Bible improved the lives of women, therefore it isn't sexist" is as stupid as this logic "The Koran improved the lives of women, therefore it isn't sexist". That is your logic.

AKA you have no response. Nice. Too bad many of your precious 'enlightenment' thinkers were also Christians that were influenced by their religion eh? Oops...

Um, I gave you an argument. Ignoring it and claiming I have no argument is not an argument.

Yeah we do know that you're filling people with lies that will destroy their lives and lead to their unhappiness because it will not work. S...

What lies am I filling them with and prove it will make them unhappy?

If you admit you can have lots of sex and still treat people like human beings, then you've lost your argument. If you think "sleeping with lots of women, isn't treating women like people, but objects to sleep with" then you need to actually prove that it's impossible in principle to do this and treat women like people. Your claim relies on this being the case, and you have not shown it to be true, but merely assumed it.

Nope, it's your strawman recreations of my arguments because you're too stupid to refute them, so you leave out critical details of my arguments and make up what I said vs dealing with what I said. Yep classic non thinker, too stupid to refute what his opponents say, so makes up what they say.

LOL. The logic is exactly the same.

Prove it...

Um prove what? You make no sense. You must get it from your religion.

Sorry. I'm not 'doing the same thing I accuse atheist of doing' because you're just doing the classic elephant hurling game where you throw out tons and tons of stuff, hope nobody takes the time to refute it all, so you can declare victory. Sorry, non thinker, but unlike you, I have a life and more important things to do than listening to your ranting and raving all day.

That's exactly what you did by linking me to a giant web page and claiming that it refuted slavery in the bible and hoping that I wouldn't actually read it, when it turns out your silly link did no such thing. And of course I always notice that you don't answer my direct challenges. Coward. And if you have better things to do, why do you spend so much time responding to me? I'm getting paid right now to refute silly religitards like you.

[The Thinker]

You described my position as "circular, and unintelligible." Are you saying that your position is also circular, and unintelligible?

You again are ignoring the question: I'm asking you to admit what you've been denying and affirming on an off for months. Is your view more logically grounded over mine? If yes, why?

What question? I'm countering your claim that God would be "illogical" if He sent men to hell. That, as I have shown, does not follow.

Answer this: Is your view more logically grounded over mine? If yes, why?

Thinker you are moving the goal posts. We are discussing ideas or theories. And which would be a better grounding for ethics. And a morally immutable, all knowing Being, who could apply universal justice would obviously be superior.

I'm not moving any goal posts. All I'm simply saying is that if you claim fallible humans cannot come up with an ethical system that makes sense, you are ignoring the fact that your ethical system was created by fallible humans. Your 2 options therefore make no sense. Your (2) undermines your (1).

Again that makes no sense, even if I can not define universal justice does not mean that it does not exist. And again, it would be God that defines it, not me or you.

It makes perfect sense. If you can't define justice you can't claim your god defines it and offers it. All you have is a bald assertion. I can just as easily claim your god doesn't define justice. And god isn't here to define anything. People will always define it, so your view is self-defeating. And there is no logical rule that says of a god existed it would define justice. You need to learn to be a little more skeptical of your own views and have higher intellectual standards. You seem to just assume so many things as if they're obviously true and yet when I press you on them you eventually admit you have a faith based position.

Nonsense, I never agreed with random fluctuations. I always made the case that THOUGHTS - rational conscious deliberation was the source of our decision making process.

What causes those thoughts? They either have a cause or not, and neither option can lead to LFW.

You on the other hand have chemicals (that care nothing for rationality) driving the car. And like I said, your position is deeply circular and incoherent. For you can never go from being cause to believe that A is true to the knowledge that A is actually true. You can not logically justify knowledge.

You for the 20th time just made the fallacy of division. When will you ever learn? And speaking of cars, we have self driving cars which behave rationally, yet they are entirely material. So your own answer refutes your own view. And for the claim that I cannot go from being caused to believe that A is true to the knowledge that A is actually true, I already refuted that months ago.

[seer]

You again are ignoring the question: I'm asking you to admit what you've been denying and affirming on an off for months. Is your view more logically grounded over mine? If yes, why?

Thinker I NEVER claimed that my view was more "logical" than yours, only that your view would suffer the same circular charge that you leveled at me. That your position is hypocritical, and since you know that was my point your continual harping on this suggests that you are also dishonest.

I'm not moving any goal posts. All I'm simply saying is that if you claim fallible humans cannot come up with an ethical system that makes sense, you are ignoring the fact that your ethical system was created by fallible humans. Your 2 options therefore make no sense. Your (2) undermines your (1).

That is nonsense, you are again moving the goal posts. I'm arguing for ethics that are grounded in God, in a creator. That is the discussion. So I'm not granting that said ethics are merely man made. You asked me why ethics grounded in God would be superior - I offered an answered, then you started this "fallible human" thing. You clearly moved the goal posts.

It makes perfect sense. If you can't define justice you can't claim your god defines it and offers it. All you have is a bald assertion. I can just as easily claim your god doesn't define justice. And god isn't here to define anything. People will always define it, so your view is self-defeating. And there is no logical rule that says of a god existed it would define justice. You need to learn to be a little more skeptical of your own views and have higher intellectual standards. You seem to just assume so many things as if they're obviously true and yet when I press you on them you eventually admit you have a faith based position.

Higher intellectual standards? Coming from one who moves the goal posts? Who is hypocritical (and possibly dishonest) in his arguments? And of course my position is based on faith, as yours is, do we need to go over this again? As I have shown you can not defend your ethical beliefs without arguing in a circle, hell you can not even justify your belief in reality without begging the question.

You for the 20th time just made the fallacy of division. When will you ever learn? And speaking of cars, we have self driving cars which behave rationally, yet they are entirely material. So your own answer refutes your own view. And for the claim that I cannot go from being caused to believe that A is true to the knowledge that A is actually true, I already refuted that months ago.

That is pure bunk Thinker, you never refuted my point. I never claimed that you couldn't be determined act rationally, a dog could do that. But that you can not logically justify any knowledge. If your thoughts and rational deliberations play NO ROLE in the process (and that would mean they play no role in deciding what is true or not) then how could you possibly know when you were determined to believe a truism? You couldn't make a logical (deductive) case then and you can't now. You take in BY FAITH.

[The Thinker]

Thinker I NEVER claimed that my view was more "logical" than yours, only that your view would suffer the same circular charge that you leveled at me. That your position is hypocritical, and since you know that was my point your continual harping on this suggests that you are also dishonest.

You've claimed numerous times that you have a better foundation for ethics, but I don't think you've ever used the term "more logical". I ask this because I am very confident that at some future point in our discussions you will try again to say that your position is better or makes more sense or is more coherent than mine. So once again, is your view that both of our positions are logically equal? Yes or no?

That is nonsense, you are again moving the goal posts. I'm arguing for ethics that are grounded in God, in a creator. That is the discussion. So I'm not granting that said ethics are merely man made. You asked me why ethics grounded in God would be superior - I offered an answered, then you started this "fallible human" thing. You clearly moved the goal posts.

Again, I am not moving any goal posts. Please explicitly tell me what my goal post was, and what you think it is now. I know you're arguing that ethics are grounded in god, and you know of course that I've been arguing for months with you that this cannot be done without running into the trilemma I showed you. All you can do is have circular reasoning. And I understand that you seem to be making an in principle argument: if god exists, ethics would be grounded in god. I'm saying that even if god exists, ethics would not be grounded in it and there is no logical rule that says so. So the principle fails and is not supported. When it comes to the in practice aspect, you will never be able to demonstrate that your ethics came from god, and so you will only be able to use the same fallible methods you claim I am using to find out your views. The Bible and Christianity are clearly man-made, and what I have you doing is claiming that you have a better ethical system on one you cannot even justify, and that has the same problems you think mine does.

Higher intellectual standards? Coming from one who moves the goal posts? Who is hypocritical (and possibly dishonest) in his arguments? And of course my position is based on faith, as yours is, do we need to go over this again? As I have shown you can not defend your ethical beliefs without arguing in a circle, hell you can not even justify your belief in reality without begging the question.

Well you are hypocritical and very dishonest since you trot out the same lines over and over that you know you cannot justify and that make no sense, like libertarian free will. It is a 100% faith based position on a incoherent concept. You cannot use faith to justify an incoherent position. My position is not incoherent. Yours is. As such, even if both of our positions are ultimately based on an axiom that we cannot prove, yours is incoherent since it requires LFW, but mine isn't. Therefore, mine is more logical than yours. We are not equal.

That is pure bunk Thinker, you never refuted my point. I never claimed that you couldn't be determined act rationally, a dog could do that. But that you can not logically justify any knowledge.

I totally refuted your point. You cannot logically justify knowledge because if you try and your argument terminates in LFW - that is an incoherent concept. And no amount of faith can help you.

If your thoughts and rational deliberations play NO ROLE in the process (and that would mean they play no role in deciding what is true or not) then how could you possibly know when you were determined to believe a truism? You couldn't make a logical (deductive) case then and you can't now. You take in BY FAITH.

Thoughts and rational deliberations are the same thing as what's going on in the brain. They are what happens when the brain is thinking rationally about something, so they do play a role in the process - the role they play is allowing you to know and experience the thinking going on in your brain. Thoughts are not something that exist separated from the brain. Thoughts and brain function are two different aspects of the same thing. And brain function clearly plays a role in the process of knowing truth - heck, without it there would be no knowledge of anything.

And seer, you seem to forget that no one can logically prove what they believe is actually true. No one! It is logically impossible to claim 100% certainty on any knowledge derived from your senses. And this is not a problem with determinism. This is a problem that every view has. Yet you seem to be claiming that only I as a determinist have this problem. However, determinism is more logical since your thoughts would be causally connection with your environment. On your view thoughts must necessarily be random fluctuations that would have no connection to your environment. You can deny this all you want, but it is a logical entailment from your view.

[seer]

You've claimed numerous times that you have a better foundation for ethics, but I don't think you've ever used the term "more logical". I ask this because I am very confident that at some future point in our discussions you will try again to say that your position is better or makes more sense or is more coherent than mine. So once again, is your view that both of our positions are logically equal? Yes or no?

Yes, I gave the reasons why I believe my position is superior to yours, not that it is logically more justified.

Again, I am not moving any goal posts. Please explicitly tell me what my goal post was, and what you think it is now. I know you're arguing that ethics are grounded in god, and you know of course that I've been arguing for months with you that this cannot be done without running into the trilemma I showed you. All you can do is have circular reasoning. And I understand that you seem to be making an in principle argument: if god exists, ethics would be grounded in god. I'm saying that even if god exists, ethics would not be grounded in it and there is no logical rule that says so. So the principle fails and is not supported. When it comes to the in practice aspect, you will never be able to demonstrate that your ethics came from god, and so you will only be able to use the same fallible methods you claim I am using to find out your views. The Bible and Christianity are clearly man-made, and what I have you doing is claiming that you have a better ethical system on one you cannot even justify, and that has the same problems you think mine does.

Of course you moved the goal posts, you asked why I thought that grounding ethics in God was superior. I stated my reasons which you pretty much ignored then you jumped to arguing about human fallibility. And again, as far as the trilemma - if ending up on one of those horns invalidates my argument for ethics then it invalidates all arguments for ethics - including yours. That is why you are hypocritical, and possibly dishonest.

Well you are hypocritical and very dishonest since you trot out the same lines over and over that you know you cannot justify and that make no sense, like libertarian free will. It is a 100% faith based position on a incoherent concept. You cannot use faith to justify an incoherent position. My position is not incoherent. Yours is. As such, even if both of our positions are ultimately based on an axiom that we cannot prove, yours is incoherent since it requires LFW, but mine isn't. Therefore, mine is more logical than yours. We are not equal.

Really, that is all you can say - na na na na na! You are the one who accuses me of operating on faith or arguing in a circles, yet you do the very same thing! Make a non-circular argument for ethics, justify your knowledge of reality without begging the question, prove deductively that what your brain reports to your conscious awareness as being true, is actually true - you can't and we both know it - yet you chide me while doing the same thing.

Thoughts and rational deliberations are the same thing as what's going on in the brain. They are what happens when the brain is thinking rationally about something, so they do play a role in the process - the role they play is allowing you to know and experience the thinking going on in your brain. Thoughts are not something that exist separated from the brain. Thoughts and brain function are two different aspects of the same thing. And brain function clearly plays a role in the process of knowing truth - heck, without it there would be no knowledge of anything.

But rational conscious deliberation is not how we come to conclusions or how we make decisions in your view. You are the one who said that our thoughts are like the steam off the steam engine - they play no functional role in the process. Let me ask you Thinker - if we had no conscious awareness of our brain's activities would we do or be any different? Of course not, not in your world.

And seer, you seem to forget that no one can logically prove what they believe is actually true. No one! It is logically impossible to claim 100% certainty on any knowledge derived from your senses. And this is not a problem with determinism. This is a problem that every view has. Yet you seem to be claiming that only I as a determinist have this problem. However, determinism is more logical since your thoughts would be causally connection with your environment. On your view thoughts must necessarily be random fluctuations that would have no connection to your environment. You can deny this all you want, but it is a logical entailment from your view.

Except in my view conscious rational deliberation, conscious weighing of evidence and circumstance is what leads us to rational conclusions. This plays no functional role in truth finding in your view - where we believe what our brain chemicals dictate that we believe - true or not. But hey I can understand the attraction of determinism - when we are cruel or immoral - hey we were determined to do so - no foul, we couldn't help it! Heck it is a better excuse than saying that the Devil made me do it!

[Tassman]

<snipped>

Except in my view conscious rational deliberation, conscious weighing of evidence and circumstance is what leads us to rational conclusions.This plays no functional role in truth finding in your view - where we believe what our brain chemicals dictate that we believe - true or not. But hey I can understand the attraction of determinism - when we are cruel or immoral - hey we were determined to do so - no foul, we couldn't help it! Heck it is a better excuse than saying that the Devil made me do it!

[Starlight]

Thinker,

The way I personally like to interpret LFW, is to tie it to the collapse of the wave-function. Our values, thoughts, motives etc set up a scenario in our brains where various choices have different probabilities of being made. Then the probabilistic firings of various neurons will finally decide which choice is made. Because the collapse of the wave function is one-directional process in time, and the 'after' state is distinctly different in kind (a single outcome) to the 'before' state (a set of outcomes and probabilities), the 'person' that we are after having made the decision is different to the 'person' that we were prior to making the decision, in the sense that the person who has made the decision can be casually connected to the decision with certitude (they are definitely, as opposed to probabilitistically, the person who made that decision, because we are tracing it backward in time), whilst the person who had not yet made the decision can only be probabilistically connected to it (in only some possible future worlds will they make the decision). I think this gives us a useful way of explaining why a person is morally responsible for an action after it is made but not before they make it. I think this explanation provides for all the logical and moral consequences that the LFW idea aims to accomplish, and therefore is usefully viewed as "a sensible interpretation of what LFW is trying to get at".

Of course, you can object, and say that that explanation does not meet some particular definition of LFW that you like to use... however given you think definitions of LFW are incoherent I would suggest that you would therefore be better just using my explanation above. And in that sense, I think LFW is totally fine, and I don't have a problem with it. (Although I certainly have a problem with any claims that God knows in advance the definitive outcomes of LFW decisions! Although I would argue that many, many, passages in the bible imply Open Theism anyway.)

[seer]

Tass, logically, demonstrate that what your brain just determined that you think and write is actually true. And remember your "conscious" thought process plays no role in the process - I will be waiting...

[The Thinker]

Yes, I gave the reasons why I believe my position is superior to yours, not that it is logically more justified.

OK, I'm glad this came out. I just want to be clear on what your stance is. So your stance is that it is not more logically justified, but superior because of a few reasons you have.

Of course you moved the goal posts, you asked why I thought that grounding ethics in God was superior. I stated my reasons which you pretty much ignored then you jumped to arguing about human fallibility. And again, as far as the trilemma - if ending up on one of those horns invalidates my argument for ethics then it invalidates all arguments for ethics - including yours. That is why you are hypocritical, and possibly dishonest.

First, I never ignored your points. I addressed them. Your view is not superior because you have no objective basis for justice. You just claim your god is just, and ISIS claims their god is just, and neither of you have a stronger argument without an objective basis. Human fallibility undermines your claim that god grounds ethics, because that claim itself is made by a fallible human. And as far as the trilemma, my horn is the only one that makes sense, and the trilemma is not a problem for secular ethicists, it is only a problem for theistic ethicists, since it shows there can be no intelligible grounding for saying ethics is based on god. You have to make circular or arbitrary argument, or say ethics exists independently of god, which of course is my view.

Really, that is all you can say - na na na na na! You are the one who accuses me of operating on faith or arguing in a circles, yet you do the very same thing! Make a non-circular argument for ethics, justify your knowledge of reality without begging the question, prove deductively that what your brain reports to your conscious awareness as being true, is actually true - you can't and we both know it - yet you chide me while doing the same thing.

This is you acting like a cornered child. I am in no way just calling you names. Seer - do you understand the following?: you cannot justify something incoherent on faith. Logic doesn't allow that. However, justifying your sense experiences on faith entails no contradiction. It is not incoherent. These are two completely different categories of claims. So we are not in the same boat.

I grant my sense experiences as valid as a basic belief even though I cannot prove them and that entails no incoherence. You grant a logically incoherent idea like LFW as a basic belief which does. I've mentioned this to you months ago and yet you completely deny it and assert we're in the same boat. This is utter nonsense.

But rational conscious deliberation is not how we come to conclusions or how we make decisions in your view. You are the one who said that our thoughts are like the steam off the steam engine - they play no functional role in the process. Let me ask you Thinker - if we had no conscious awareness of our brain's activities would we do or be any different? Of course not, not in your world.

If a "conclusion" means having conscious knowledge of an idea, then yes we do arrive at them through rational conscious deliberation - since that precedes the conclusion. All of this is caused by brain activity, which is the real driver. You even admitted in the past that the brain causes the mind. Your question makes no sense.

Except in my view conscious rational deliberation, conscious weighing of evidence and circumstance is what leads us to rational conclusions. This plays no functional role in truth finding in your view - where we believe what our brain chemicals dictate that we believe - true or not. But hey I can understand the attraction of determinism - when we are cruel or immoral - hey we were determined to do so - no foul, we couldn't help it! Heck it is a better excuse than saying that the Devil made me do it!

Except in your view it is based on the incoherent idea of LFW - yet you belief it on faith! You can't believe an incoherent idea on faith. Logic won't allow that. Can you believe in square-circles on faith? No. LFW prevents the possibility of rational conscious deliberation since your thoughts cannot have a cause, and by definition you cannot have any control over something that has no cause. Likewise, something without a cause will have no necessary causal connection with what preceded it, and so your thoughts will necessarily be random fluctuations. There is no logical way out of this. That excludes rational deliberation. You are still utterly unaware of this, but one day I hope it clicks in your brain and you get it. Determinism is the only view that actually makes sense. Do you really think things begin to exist without a cause? LFW requires that.

[The Thinker]

Tass, logically, demonstrate that what your brain just determined that you think and write is actually true. And remember your "conscious" thought process plays no role in the process - I will be waiting...

Seer - prove to us that your rational deliberation on something was in fact connected with the reality of it.

[seer]

OK, I'm glad this came out. I just want to be clear on what your stance is. So your stance is that it is not more logically justified, but superior because of a few reasons you have.

Thinker, I never did claim otherwise.

First, I never ignored your points. I addressed them. Your view is not superior because you have no objective basis for justice. You just claim your god is just, and ISIS claims their god is just, and neither of you have a stronger argument without an objective basis. Human fallibility undermines your claim that god grounds ethics, because that claim itself is made by a fallible human. And as far as the trilemma, my horn is the only one that makes sense, and the trilemma is not a problem for secular ethicists, it is only a problem for theistic ethicists, since it shows there can be no intelligible grounding for saying ethics is based on god. You have to make circular or arbitrary argument, or say ethics exists independently of god, which of course is my view.

What are you talking about - of course secular ethical theories end in a circle, it can not be otherwise. If you think they do not offer an example. So the trilemma applies across the board. And again this is not about whether we know or even understand God's justice or which god it may be, it is about the possibility of universal justice existing. It can not in a godless universe, it can in a God created universe.

I grant my sense experiences as valid as a basic belief even though I cannot prove them and that entails no incoherence. You grant a logically incoherent idea like LFW as a basic belief which does. I've mentioned this to you months ago and yet you completely deny it and assert we're in the same boat. This is utter nonsense.

So you grant that your experience of reality is based on a question begging assumption. Fine, so question begging is not incoherent in your view - correct?

If a "conclusion" means having conscious knowledge of an idea, then yes we do arrive at them through rational conscious deliberation - since that precedes the conclusion. All of this is caused by brain activity, which is the real driver. You even admitted in the past that the brain causes the mind. Your question makes no sense.

Let me ask you again; if we had no conscious awareness of our brain's activities would we do or be any different? If so how?

Except in your view it is based on the incoherent idea of LFW - yet you belief it on faith! You can't believe an incoherent idea on faith. Logic won't allow that. Can you believe in square-circles on faith? No. LFW prevents the possibility of rational conscious deliberation since your thoughts cannot have a cause, and by definition you cannot have any control over something that has no cause. Likewise, something without a cause will have no necessary causal connection with what preceded it, and so your thoughts will necessarily be random fluctuations. There is no logical way out of this. That excludes rational deliberation. You are still utterly unaware of this, but one day I hope it clicks in your brain and you get it. Determinism is the only view that actually makes sense. Do you really think things begin to exist without a cause? LFW requires that.

What nonsense! Even if it one day "it clicks in my brain" how do I know that my brain clicked a truism? How do you know that your brain clicked a truism above? Again in my world rational conscious deliberations play the key role in truth finding, they play no role in your world.

[seer]

Seer - prove to us that your rational deliberation on something was in fact connected with the reality of it.

This is the bottom line, isn't it - I believe we can understand reality through conscious rational deliberation, you do not. In you world chemicals dictate what you will or will not believe. And you have a lot of faith in non-rational chemicals.