They Are Going After The Churches:

[rogue06]

That's why the world is in total harmony, eh? You guys fixed everything!

Even the sea levels began receding at the mere news that Obama was the Democrat's nominee back in 2008.

[Tassman]

Do you have any control over what you do or believe? Yes or no, if yes, how so?

[NorrinRadd]

At some point one must wonder whether the participants in this discussion share enough common understanding at a very basic level to actually communicate in any meaningful way.

[Tassman]

At some point one must wonder whether the participants in this discussion share enough common understanding at a very basic level to actually communicate in any meaningful way.

You need to be more specific NorrinRadd.

[seer]

What? Do you mean the chimp was not determined to choose the banana? He had a real choice - to either choose or not choose it? And if said choice is determined by antecedent causes then no, the chimp had no control over his acts. Just as you had no control over spitting out the above - right or wrong, true or not.

[Tassman]

What? Do you mean the chimp was not determined to choose the banana? He had a real choice - to either choose or not choose it? And if said choice is determined by antecedent causes then no, the chimp had no control over his acts. Just as you had no control over spitting out the above - right or wrong, true or not.

[seer]

I'm not arguing for anything at this point, I'm only showing that what ever problems LFW may have your position, IMHO, it much worse. And I'm not speaking of fatalism, just your standard determinism where we are no more than cogs in the machinery of the universe. You were determined by antecedent conditions beyond your control to post the babble above. Concepts like right or wrong, true or false do not enter the picture - you believe and say what your biology dictates that you say and believe, regardless of truth. Never mind the fact that your attack on Mother Teresa in the other thread was completely hypocritical and irrational from your worldview since in your view she had no control over what she did - it was all DETERMINED. You might as well get upset with a rock because it rolled down the hill - it is all equally determined. Hypocrite...

[Cow Poke]

Wrong, for the reasons stated umpteen times...

Because stating something "umpteen times" is the magic number that automatically transforms an assertion into a fact.

[Tassman]

I'm not arguing for anything at this point, I'm only showing that what ever problems LFW may have your position, IMHO, it much worse.

And I'm not speaking of fatalism,

just your standard determinism where we are no more than cogs in the machinery of the universe. You were determined by antecedent conditions beyond your control to post the babble above.

Just as a chimp can choose his preferred banana so too humans can make effective choices, although the level to which all sentient creatures have influence over their future is largely dependent on present and past events. But, so long as our mental states are themselves a part of the deterministic sequence of events, they too have a role in determining what will happen.

Concepts like right or wrong, true or false do not enter the picture

Of course they do. All social creatures have codes of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. And since altruism, empathy, and gratitude all underpin moral behaviour, finding them in our fellow mammals indicates that they run deep in our brain biology and did not come about because of moral reasoning or religion.

- you believe and say what your biology dictates that you say and believe, regardless of truth. Never mind the fact that your attack on Mother Teresa in the other thread was completely hypocritical and irrational from your worldview since in your view she had no control over what she did - it was all DETERMINED. You might as well get upset with a rock because it rolled down the hill - it is all equally determined. Hypocrite...

[seer]

Sure it can, you could never logically justify knowledge.


No I'm not

Oxford: The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us...sh/determinism

Just as a chimp can choose his preferred banana so too humans can make effective choices, although the level to which all sentient creatures have influence over their future is largely dependent on present and past events. But, so long as our mental states are themselves a part of the deterministic sequence of events, they too have a role in determining what will happen.

Just as a rock rolling down the hill is a part of the deterministic sequence of events. The monkey my choose to eat the banana and the murderer to murder, but they really did not have a choice to do otherwise - they were determined.

Of course they do. All social creatures have codes of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. And since altruism, empathy, and gratitude all underpin moral behaviour, finding them in our fellow mammals indicates that they run deep in our brain biology and did not come about because of moral reasoning or religion.

But that was not my point which is you have no logical way to justify knowledge. You wrote the above not because it is true, but because you were determined to - whether it is true or not.

I'm a Christian Homer, God and the human soul play a key roll in my arguments.

[The Thinker]

No I wasn't, I never, ever claimed the higher logical ground, only that when it comes to ethics that you do not have the higher logical ground.

No, you were claiming only you have a grounding for objective morality for months before I showed you that was based entirely on circular logic.

Really? One can see how universal justice could exist with a God (a moral mind) who is both universal, and all knowing and powerful enough to see that justice is universally applied. How can atheism accomplish this?

That's just the thing, you cannot claim it is justice on anything else other than your opinion unless you can outline an objective philosophy of justice. And considering how your notion of "justice" relies on the incoherent view of LFW, it's definitely wrong.

"Basic belief" is just your ad hoc way of avoiding the problem. And remember in the past you could not even logically define what constitutes a basic belief. You are left begging the question.

What the hell are you talking about? First of all, question begging is not incoherent. Being incoherent is when your belief contradicts itself, like LFW. Begging the question is just having an unjustified assumption in your views. It does not entail the view is logically incoherent. So your whole point fails. Secondly, I did not fail to define what constitutes a basic belief.

No, I mean zero conscious awareness of anything. That we only have brain activity, that does what it does now, but never reports to our conscious awareness. Would we act any differently - if so why?

Oh, you're talking about philosophical zombies. You're asking if philosophical zombies could exist, would they behave exactly as we do? The answer to that is yes. But I think philosophical zombies are metaphysically impossible.

This again makes zero sense. Rational conscious deliberation plays no role in truth finding with Epiphenomenalism, it does not weigh or find truth - only the physical brain does that. It may report these findings to the conscious mind but the conscious mind has no influence on what we decide is true, or false or real. That makes any claim you make about knowledge, like the above, deeply incoherent since you have no way of knowing if your brain reported a truism or not.

Reporting these findings to the mind is exactly what allows is to "know" anything. I think you're being confused here. Rational conscious deliberation does not have to be the causal force in order for it to be what allows you to find truth. Since truth is a conscious state, rational deliberation is what allows us to know truth. You're making a question begging assumption by assuming it has to be the causal force in order to allow you to know anything truthful. Since LFW is incoherent, that can't be the case.

Again you are still asserting that the incoherent view of LFW is required to know things that are true, when I've logically proved that cannot be the case. LFW is totally incoherent and you cannot keep asserting it on faith that it is required to know truth. LFW completely negates truth and I've explained that to you over and over again. You have never once shown LFW to be coherent, let alone the truth. When are you going to get this in your head? We can know what's truthful by comparing to evidence, via methods like science.

[The Thinker]

I'm not arguing for anything at this point, I'm only showing that what ever problems LFW may have your position, IMHO, it much worse.

I'm not completely sure what Tassman believes but there is no way LFW is worse than my view. Nothing about my view is incoherent, yours is totally incoherent and therefore can't possibly be true. Nothing about my view is at odds with science, yours is totally at odds with science.

[The Thinker]

I'm a Christian Homer, God and the human soul play a key roll in my arguments.

So basically you are indeed basing your views on something completely faith based that not only has no evidence for it, is completely at odds with the evidence we have. It's a wave of the magic wand. This is why intellectually serious people can't take your views serious.

[seer]

No, you were claiming only you have a grounding for objective morality for months before I showed you that was based entirely on circular logic.

No Thinker, I believe I made the point that God's moral law is subjective to Him, but objective to mankind. But that is not what I took exception to, which was your claim that grounding ethics in God was circular and therefore incoherent. But that would then apply to any theory of ethics, that we can not escape a circular argument. Yet, you would not automatically reject these other, more secular theories, because of their circular nature. Which is a double standard on your part.

That's just the thing, you cannot claim it is justice on anything else other than your opinion unless you can outline an objective philosophy of justice. And considering how your notion of "justice" relies on the incoherent view of LFW, it's definitely wrong.

But there is no objective source for a definition of justice, nor can there be. Of course it is opinion, it is all opinion. My opinion, your opinion, the Nazi's opinion or God's opinion. There is nothing else. And no, my argument here does not depend on LFW, I made that clear a while back. My argument depends on who or what defines justice.

What the hell are you talking about? First of all, question begging is not incoherent. Being incoherent is when your belief contradicts itself, like LFW. Begging the question is just having an unjustified assumption in your views. It does not entail the view is logically incoherent. So your whole point fails. Secondly, I did not fail to define what constitutes a basic belief.

I'm using incoherent as not comporting to the rules of logic. And you are violating the law of logic, your argument is circular. Throwing in the ad hoc idea of basic beliefs does not change the fact: You can not logically demonstrate that what goes on in your subjective mind actually reflects reality. And while you are at it - give me an objective standard for what constitutes a "basic belief" without begging the question.

Oh, you're talking about philosophical zombies. You're asking if philosophical zombies could exist, would they behave exactly as we do? The answer to that is yes. But I think philosophical zombies are metaphysically impossible.

Reporting these findings to the mind is exactly what allows is to "know" anything. I think you're being confused here. Rational conscious deliberation does not have to be the causal force in order for it to be what allows you to find truth. Since truth is a conscious state, rational deliberation is what allows us to know truth. You're making a question begging assumption by assuming it has to be the causal force in order to allow you to know anything truthful. Since LFW is incoherent, that can't be the case.

But "knowledge" as you have agreed plays no role in what we would or would not do. How we would or would not act, so "knowledge" is completely superficial. Where I believe that conscious knowledge and conscious rational deliberation plays a key or the key roll in discovering facts and truth. And again, in any given situation, or on any given subject, how can you possibly know if you were determined to believe a truism or not? How do you know that your brain reported a truism rather than a falsehood presented as a truism? You conscious mind plays no role in deciding this.

[seer]

So basically you are indeed basing your views on something completely faith based that not only has no evidence for it, is completely at odds with the evidence we have. It's a wave of the magic wand. This is why intellectually serious people can't take your views serious.

Nonsense Thinker, we are Christians, we are not restricted to the narrow views of the materialists. Why should we be? Can you offer a deductive argument for why I must accept your limited worldview? Please enlighten us all.