They Are Going After The Churches:

[Tassman]

So you believe that Moses had no choice but to slaughter, he was determined to do so. Nature being nature.

The alternative is that Moses chose to slaughter his tribal neighbours without

[seer]

The alternative is that Moses chose to slaughter his tribal neighbours without

No, I'm saying if you are correct we are no more than biological automatons. Moses is no more morally responsible than a lion that kills a gazelle. Just nature in motion.

[seer]

You haven't shown any such thing. That greater moral concern for greater conscious capacity logically follows. Not my opinion.

Of course that is exactly your opinion. Why should greater awareness lead to greater moral concern? There is nothing that logically follows, morally, from greater awareness. If you think otherwise create a deductive syllogism demonstrating your point. I think you know that you can't.

You just assert it is. I'm talking about the explanatory power of what goodness is. On your view there is no explanation. It "just is" whatever your particular subjective belief in god says. Why we murder, rape and steal is not supposed to be explained by metaethics. Categorical mistake. Your view doesn't offer consequences because like I said, I can torture children for 50 years and get to heaven if I believe. And you have to also explain to me why having eternal consequences even matters to have an ethical theory. It assumes no one can do good or will do good, or have a reason to do good, or not do bad, unless there is a heaven or a hell.

Again, what good is an ethical theory where there are no consequences? You are just spinning your wheels. And I already explained that there are consequences for all men in Scripture - both the saved and the unsaved. Degrees of rewards and punishments. And the reason it matters is because it points to the kind of universe we live in - a amoral, unjust universe or a moral, just universe. And if you don't believe that those two concepts influence the thinking and acts of men I don't know what to tell you.

Are you too afraid to answer my question?

No, I'm just showing where your theory logically leads, and you know it. You would have to choose the ape over the human child with downs if the ape was more self aware.

[seer]

Sure:

P1: Our thoughts (mind or will) is either caused or uncaused, no other option is available
P2: If our thoughts (or whatever caused them) are caused we cannot be in control of them
P3: If our thoughts (or whatever caused them) are uncaused we cannot be in control of them
P4: It is logically impossible to choose our thoughts
P5: Being in control of our thoughts (mind or will (or whatever caused them)) is a requirement of libertarian free will
C: Therefore libertarian free will is logically impossible

There is no logical way out of the conclusion, and no philosopher or theologian in 3000+ years has refuted this, and so by using pure logic, and no need for sense data, I can logically prove your worldview is incoherent since it rests on LFW. If I was wrong, you'd be able to show me where I'm wrong. No one ever has.

That is not what I asked you Thinker!!!! Make a deductive that what you just wrote is a truism. Make a deductive argument that your brain reported a truism. If it is logically impossible to choose your thoughts then your thoughts are determined, right or wrong, true or not, and you could not - EVER distinguish between when your brain reported a truism, or a falsehood as a truism. And this includes your syllogism above. Your theory is completely self-refuting.

I can, and do, and we've evolved (most of us) to feel remorse because doing wrong things hurts others, hurts society, and that in turn tends to also hurt us.

I don't need to believe in incoherent concepts in order to feel remorse.

Yes, but logically it is silly to feel remorse for what we could not help. It may be a socially ingrained emotion, but it is not rational.

[The Thinker]

Of course that is exactly your opinion. Why should greater awareness lead to greater moral concern? There is nothing that logically follows, morally, from greater awareness. If you think otherwise create a deductive syllogism demonstrating your point. I think you know that you can't.

Of course there is. If X is bad, more X is more bad. If X is good, more X is more good. If morality depends on conscious awareness, more conscious awareness is more moral concern. It logically follows. Only an idiot in denial that his moral views are inferior to atheism can't see that.

Again, what good is an ethical theory where there are no consequences? You are just spinning your wheels. And I already explained that there are consequences for all men in Scripture - both the saved and the unsaved. Degrees of rewards and punishments. And the reason it matters is because it points to the kind of universe we live in - a amoral, unjust universe or a moral, just universe. And if you don't believe that those two concepts influence the thinking and acts of men I don't know what to tell you.

YOUR view has no consequences. I can torture 50 children to death and get into heaven. Are you so dank that you're blind to this, as you are blind to the fact that LFW is incoherent? And on top of that an ethical theory does not require consequences after you die to make sense. In fact, if you do, then everything becomes a selfish desire to want what gives you pleasure: If I do good god will reward me, if I do bad he will punish me. That means if ISIS's god is real, a jihadi will get 72 virgins for killing Christians in a suicide mission.

No, I'm just showing where your theory logically leads, and you know it. You would have to choose the ape over the human child with downs if the ape was more self aware.

No, you are too afraid to answer the question and you know it. Answer it and I will answer yours.

[The Thinker]

That is not what I asked you Thinker!!!! Make a deductive that what you just wrote is a truism. Make a deductive argument that your brain reported a truism. If it is logically impossible to choose your thoughts then your thoughts are determined, right or wrong, true or not, and you could not - EVER distinguish between when your brain reported a truism, or a falsehood as a truism. And this includes your syllogism above. Your theory is completely self-refuting.

It's not self refuting at all. I know it is correct because I can go through the appropriate mental processes that logically lead to it's necessary confusion. This is a priori reasoning, not a posteriori reasoning. It is not dependent on the senses.

And do you admit that your worldview negates the possibility of trusting your senses? If no, explain why.

Yes, but logically it is silly to feel remorse for what we could not help. It may be a socially ingrained emotion, but it is not rational.

If it leads to more compassion, then it is rational.

[seer]

Of course there is. If X is bad, more X is more bad. If X is good, more X is more good. If morality depends on conscious awareness, more conscious awareness is more moral concern. It logically follows. Only an idiot in denial that his moral views are inferior to atheism can't see that.

Buy why is X bad? And again, morality does depend on rational minds but nothing follows from that. The fact that we have to have self-awareness to have ethics in the first place does not tell us what those ethics should be. You are making assertions Thinker - nothing more.

YOUR view has no consequences. I can torture 50 children to death and get into heaven. Are you so dank that you're blind to this, as you are blind to the fact that LFW is incoherent? And on top of that an ethical theory does not require consequences after you die to make sense. In fact, if you do, then everything becomes a selfish desire to want what gives you pleasure: If I do good god will reward me, if I do bad he will punish me. That means if ISIS's god is real, a jihadi will get 72 virgins for killing Christians in a suicide mission.

Like I said there are consequences for the saved and unsaved. And the bottom line remains the same, we either live in an amoral unjust universe or a moral, just universe.

No, you are too afraid to answer the question and you know it. Answer it and I will answer yours.

No, not at all. Which one would I save? The less aware person or the more aware person - depends - is the less aware person a loved one. Then I would save him. So now answer mine.

[seer]

It's not self refuting at all. I know it is correct because I can go through the appropriate mental processes that logically lead to it's necessary confusion. This is a priori reasoning, not a posteriori reasoning.

It is not dependent on the senses.

Are you freaking kidding me!? That is exactly what you can't do! You do not believe something because of good reasons, good conscious rational reasons. You believe things because of one thing alone - that you are determined to. And there is no way to logically justify any particular belief you may have. Conscious introspection plays no roll in discovering truth, nor can it. For then it would have a causal function.

And do you admit that your worldview negates the possibility of trusting your senses? If no, explain why.

Nonsense, since I come to my beliefs based on good conscious reasoning. Unlike the determinist.

[Tassman]

No, I'm saying if you are correct we are no more than biological automatons.

There are many factors underlying our beliefs and behaviours...as previously outlined ad nauseam.

Moses is no more morally responsible than a lion that kills a gazelle. Just nature in motion.

Ya think!

Why do you believe things seer? How do you logically justify any particular belief or choice of yours?

[Tassman]

Nonsense, since I come to my beliefs based on good conscious reasoning. Unlike the determinist.

Who or what is this "you" that's doing such "good conscious reasoning"?

[seer]

There are many factors underlying our beliefs and behaviours...as previously outlined ad nauseam.

But that changes nothing, we are automatons. You still have no control over what you believe, everything is determined by antecedent conditions, right or wrong true or not. You believe the above not because it is true, but because you were determined to - true or not.

Ya think!

Will I'm glad you agree that we are no more morally responsible than other animals.

Why do you believe things seer? How do you logically justify any particular belief or choice of yours?

I have explained that already. I believe our conscious rational deliberation, the conscious weighing of evidence leads to us choosing the best explanations or course of action. These conscious deliberations play no causal role in Thinker's philosophy, nor are they causal factor if determinism is true.

[seer]

Who or what is this "you" that's doing such "good conscious reasoning"?

I'm sorry Tass that you don't know who you are. Sad really...

[seer]

If it leads to more compassion, then it is rational.

Of course that assumes that compassion is the rational choice. But like I said, personally, I can not live with determinism and keep my moral sanity. Others may be able to, but I need to hold to LFW.

[The Thinker]

Buy why is X bad? And again, morality does depend on rational minds but nothing follows from that. The fact that we have to have self-awareness to have ethics in the first place does not tell us what those ethics should be. You are making assertions Thinker - nothing more.

Morality depends on the conscious life, not just rational minds. And it depends on conscious life because conscious life has the ability to suffer. It logically follows from that that the higher the level of consciousness the higher the moral concern. This is basic logic.

Like I said there are consequences for the saved and unsaved. And the bottom line remains the same, we either live in an amoral unjust universe or a moral, just universe.

Since you cannot give an objective definition of justice and only have your opinion, you forfeit the opportunity to claim your view offers a just universe. And this still stands on your view: I can torture 50 children to death and get into heaven.

Yay justice!

No, not at all. Which one would I save? The less aware person or the more aware person - depends - is the less aware person a loved one. Then I would save him. So now answer mine.

I already wrote that you must assume the two are strangers to you. Don't pretend like you didn't read that. So answer again.

[The Thinker]

Are you freaking kidding me!? That is exactly what you can't do! You do not believe something because of good reasons, good conscious rational reasons. You believe things because of one thing alone - that you are determined to. And there is no way to logically justify any particular belief you may have. Conscious introspection plays no roll in discovering truth, nor can it. For then it would have a causal function.

Yes I do! Those good conscious rational reasons are caused by my brain properly processing information. You keep assuming that being determined to believe X means there is no causal connection between X being true and my belief that X is true. That's the only way you can even have any certainty that your belief is true.

There is no contradiction there at all. Remember, the alternative view you're proposing is one where thoughts have no cause, and by definition no one can have control over that which is uncaused. So on your view everything must be random. No preference is even possible. On my view, things are not totally random, they have causes, or explanations. They follow patterns. Being determined doesn't negate one having true beliefs. You seriously are failing to see how completely incoherent your view is - and you ignore that.

Nonsense, since I come to my beliefs based on good conscious reasoning. Unlike the determinist.

The determinist comes to conclusions on good conscious reasoning - that is all determined. Your view prevents that so you're wrong. Your LFW view negates this possibility since on LFW the will cannot be caused by anything, and by definition you cannot control something that is uncaused, so it would make no sense to claim your beliefs are true about anything since the will must be uncaused in order to be "free."

You keep failing to notice that your view is incoherent. Your view negates the possibility of having reliable beliefs.