Becoming the Right Person vs. Doing Right for Right Reasons

[seer]

You are the one erroneously claiming that you can make a sound deductive argument for god-based reality, not me.

Where did I ever say that? I like Kant's argument, but his premises can be disputed.

Rationality is only of use if it facilitates 'survival', which is the natural instinct of all living things.

Not the point, sheesh!

You mean that without the fear of Hell, then we run amok exploiting all and sundry.

This is demonstrably untrue. Maintaining a cohesive community is the naturally evolved thing to do. Some greedy people try to have it both ways, but the bottom line is survival of the community, not profit.

Yet you would still have to conclude that an unjust outcome is morally rational.

Moral behaviour evolved as a means of restraining individual selfishness in order to build more cooperative groups. Trump's behaviour is greedy and immoral.

How stupid Tass! How can Trump be immoral when he only doing what nature determined him to do. Is a sliver back immoral for dominating the group?

[JimL]

Jim you are missing the point, if your mental experience is a deception then you don't know what the real world actually is. You believe the deception is the real world - like in the Matrix. But the larger point is that there is no way to logically prove that what you are experiencing in your mind does actually corresponds to reality.

What difference does it make seer, although it is not what we experience, the world we live in may ultimately be naught but a mathematical construct. would that make the world any less real? If we observe a tree, where in reality there is only a mathmatical construct, then your mental experience is, in a sense, a deception. But you can't argue that because of that that your mind doesn't correspond with the real world, you are still experiencing the real world.

[seer]

What difference does it make seer, although it is not what we experience, the world we live in may ultimately be naught but a mathematical construct. would that make the world any less real? If we observe a tree, where in reality there is only a mathmatical construct, then your mental experience is, in a sense, a deception. But you can't argue that because of that that your mind doesn't correspond with the real world, you are still experiencing the real world.

Jim, the whole point in this discussion is that you can't "know" logically what you are experiencing. You can not prove it logically or empirically - without begging the question. So we take it by faith that we do in fact have access to reality. And if I'm deluded into believing that I see a tree, but trees don't actually exist then how am I experiencing the real world?

[Tassman]

Where did I ever say that? I like Kant's argument, but his premises can be disputed.

You routine argument is that without God to set the standard there can be no objective morality, forgetting that our primitive ancestors instinctively exercised rules of behaviour without divine input. Attributing morality to gods came much later.

Not the point, sheesh!

Yet you would still have to conclude that an unjust outcome is morally rational.

How stupid Tass! How can Trump be immoral when he only doing what nature determined him to do. Is a sliver back immoral for dominating the group?

[Tassman]

Jim, the whole point in this discussion is that you can't "know" logically what you are experiencing. You can not prove it logically or empirically - without begging the question. So we take it by faith that we do in fact have access to reality.

And if I'm deluded into believing that I see a tree, but trees don't actually exist then how am I experiencing the real world?

[JimL]

Jim, the whole point in this discussion is that you can't "know" logically what you are experiencing. You can not prove it logically or empirically - without begging the question. So we take it by faith that we do in fact have access to reality. And if I'm deluded into believing that I see a tree, but trees don't actually exist then how am I experiencing the real world?

You are experiencing whatever it is you are experiencing in whatever world you live in. What point would there be in the existence of an external world if there was no one in it to experience it? If our reality, the world of our experience, is naught but an internal illusion of our minds, then what point would there be for the existence of an external world? There would be no point to it, it would serve no purpose. Thats why we can know that our minds correspond with reality, whether that reality has an external component to it or not. I think the question you are pondering is more like this- "how do we know if there is an external world," rather than "how do we know that our minds correspond with the external reality." If an external world doesn't exist, then obviously our minds don't correspond to it. It doesn't exist! But, if the external world does exist, then our minds obviously correspond to it, because otherwise there would be no point to its existence.

[seer]

You are experiencing whatever it is you are experiencing in whatever world you live in. What point would there be in the existence of an external world if there was no one in it to experience it? If our reality, the world of our experience, is naught but an internal illusion of our minds, then what point would there be for the existence of an external world? There would be no point to it, it would serve no purpose. Thats why we can know that our minds correspond with reality, whether that reality has an external component to it or not. I think the question you are pondering is more like this- "how do we know if there is an external world," rather than "how do we know that our minds correspond with the external reality." If an external world doesn't exist, then obviously our minds don't correspond to it. It doesn't exist! But, if the external world does exist, then our minds obviously correspond to it, because otherwise there would be no point to its existence.

Jim that makes no sense, have you been following the argument. The point is you can not know if what your mind is experiencing is actually the real world or a delusion. Yes, a real world would exist, the question is what are we experiencing in our mind and thoughts - that real world or something else. That is what you can't prove logically.

[seer]

You routine argument is that without God to set the standard there can be no objective morality, forgetting that our primitive ancestors instinctively exercised rules of behaviour without divine input. Attributing morality to gods came much later.

Tass you do not see me using the term objective morality, but that has nothing to do with what we talking about - a deductive argument for God. And yes all men have an instinctive understanding of right and wrong (whether we follow it or not is another story), after all we are Created in the image of God, with the law of God written on our hearts. These are universal whether we have heard the Gospel or the Torah or not.


But you don't know that, and you can not prove that - that ethics are only the result of survival instincts. It is an assumption.


But this greedy Trump created literally thousands and thousands of jobs over his career - doing more for humanity in a week that you could ever do in a lifetime. Stop being so envious. And egalitarianism is just Communism under a different label - and we know from history that that does not work.

[JimL]

Jim that makes no sense, have you been following the argument. The point is you can not know if what your mind is experiencing is actually the real world or a delusion. Yes, a real world would exist, the question is what are we experiencing in our mind and thoughts - that real world or something else. That is what you can't prove logically.

Seer, what point would there be to the existence of an external world, an external reality, if what goes on in our minds doesn't correspond to that external reality? It could be that there is no external reality, but whatever the reality is, whether it be solely internal, or has an external component, your mind corresponds to it, because your mind is part of that reality. Your question doesn't make sense. Again, let me ask you; what purpose would an external reality serve if what goes on in the minds existing in that reality didn't correspond with it? Answer that question.

[seer]

Seer, what point would there be to the existence of an external world, an external reality, if what goes on in our minds doesn't correspond to that external reality? It could be that there is no external reality, but whatever the reality is, whether it be solely internal, or has an external component, your mind corresponds to it, because your mind is part of that reality. Your question doesn't make sense. Again, let me ask you; what purpose would an external reality serve if what goes on in the minds existing in that reality didn't correspond with it? Answer that question.

Jim, you are not understanding the argument. The question is not what is the purpose of the external reality if our minds don't correspond to it, but can we logically justify our belief in our experience. Did you see the Matrix movies? Humans were held in pods, and the Matrix induced a make believe world into our minds - so we thought we were going to work, falling in love, living in an apartment, going for a walk, etc... That is what they thought the world was, what they though they were doing. In reality they we living in pods and being used as human batteries. They were not going to work, falling in love, going to the park etc...

[Tassman]

Jim, you are not understanding the argument. The question is not what is the purpose of the external reality if our minds don't correspond to it, but can we logically justify our belief in our experience. Did you see the Matrix movies? Humans were held in pods, and the Matrix induced a make believe world into our minds - so we thought we were going to work, falling in love, living in an apartment, going for a walk, etc... That is what they thought the world was, what they though they were doing. In reality they we living in pods and being used as human batteries. They were not going to work, falling in love, going to the park etc...

your

[Tassman]

Tass you do not see me using the term objective morality, but that has nothing to do with what we talking about - a deductive argument for God. And yes all men have an instinctive understanding of right and wrong (whether we follow it or not is another story),

You do not have a sound deductive argument for God, so stop pretending that you have. All your god-arguments are faith-based.

after all we are Created in the image of God, with the law of God written on our hearts. These are universal whether we have heard the Gospel or the Torah or not.

But you don't know that, and you can not prove that - that ethics are only the result of survival instincts. It is an assumption.

It's an evidence-based assumption. One hundred thousand years ago, at least six human species inhabited the earth. Today there is just one. Us. Homo sapiens. All these species were social animals that lived in groups and this indicates the necessity for rules of behaviour. So, tell me, which of the gods laid down these rules of behaviour? Answer: None. They evolved naturally as a survival mechanism, as they have done for our primate cousins.

But this greedy Trump created literally thousands and thousands of jobs over his career - doing more for humanity in a week that you could ever do in a lifetime. Stop being so envious. And egalitarianism is just Communism under a different label - and we know from history that that does not work.

[seer]

your

That is not the point, sheesh Tass. The whole point is that we have to take reality by faith, without logical justification. Or empirical justification, which would require begging the question.

[seer]

You do not have a sound deductive argument for God, so stop pretending that you have. All your god-arguments are faith-based.

Tass where did I ever say that I have a deductive argument for God, please reference that claim by me. The only deductive argument I referenced was Kant's - whose premises can be disputed. I think they are solid, you don't.

evidence-based assumption. One hundred thousand years ago, at least six human species inhabited the earth. Today there is just one. Us. Homo sapiens. All these species were social animals that lived in groups and this indicates the necessity for rules of behaviour. So, tell me, which of the gods laid down these rules of behaviour? Answer: None. They evolved naturally as a survival mechanism, as they have done for our primate cousins.

It is an assumption based on limited knowledge, you can not prove that ethics are merely the result of evolutionary pressures, and you never will.

First we know that totalitarianism does work, the Roman Empire lasted centuries, as did other Empires, and is working in China, Iran, North Korea and Cuba today. Never mind the fact that it works quite well in higher primate groups like we have discussed. And economic egalitarianism ends up looking very much like socialism. And like I said risk takers like Trump, Gates, Buffett, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, etc... create thousands and thousands of jobs doing more to financially help people lift themselves up than all your welfare programs combined.

[JimL]

That is not the point, sheesh Tass. The whole point is that we have to take reality by faith, without logical justification. Or empirical justification, which would require begging the question.

No, you don't have to take reality by faith seer. Whatever goes on in our minds is the reality, whether or not there is an external reality which corresponds with our minds. There are only 2 possible worlds, one in which there is no external reality, and one in which there is an external reality, but, as I explained previously no matter which of those two possible worlds is the real world, we can know that what goes on in our minds corresponds with reality. In the former case, there is no external reality, therefore whatever goes on in our minds is all there is, that is the reality. And in the latter case, there being an external reality, if our minds didn't correspond with it, then its existence would be superfluous.