Human Dignity?

[Sparko]

Charles, I still don't know what you are on about. My only point is that God can create human beings for a purpose, an inherent purpose - nature does not and can not. Only intention and intelligence can do that. It is completely immaterial as to which possible God or purpose we are speaking of, the point remains.

it is his way of avoiding the topic.

Charles either you believe that humans have dignity or not.

If you do, then explain what is the cause of that dignity?

If not, then you are done. Nothing to discuss.

Seer thinks that humans do have dignity. He thinks God is the cause of that dignity.

Rather than explaining your view and what you think gives humans dignity, you are trying to move the goal posts and ask why Seer thinks God give men dignity.

First answer the question of do you think humans have dignity and what is the cause, THEN you two can move on and discuss the method or why.

[Charles]

Charles, I still don't know what you are on about. My only point is that God can create human beings for a purpose, an inherent purpose - nature does not and can not. Only intention and intelligence can do that. It is completely immaterial as to which possible God or purpose we are speaking of, the point remains.

I am pointing to something rather simple. If a God created us with the purpose of killing, then that according to this logic would be the purpose. And should we just blindly follow that? If not, then perhaps we would already some idea of purpose and dignity? We are back at some of the points Leibniz pointed to. And remember, he was a Christian, so my points are not necessarily against Christianity. They are just against making claims about dignity and purpose without being able to provide anything but the words. Did that make it clear? Or else I'd be happy to explain further.

[Charles]

it is his way of avoiding the topic.

Charles either you believe that humans have dignity or not.

If you do, then explain what is the cause of that dignity?

If not, then you are done. Nothing to discuss.

This does not actually follow if seer is able to answer my questions. Then perhaps he could show my understanding wrong. Or, if I do not hold humans have dignity, he might be able to show me why I should change my mind. So, it simply does not follow, and I allow myself to wait for seer's answers (if he has got any which I am starting to doubt).

[seer]

I am pointing to something rather simple. If a God created us with the purpose of killing, then that according to this logic would be the purpose. And should we just blindly follow that? If not, then perhaps we would already some idea of purpose and dignity? We are back at some of the points Leibniz pointed to. And remember, he was a Christian, so my points are not necessarily against Christianity. They are just against making claims about dignity and purpose without being able to provide anything but the words. Did that make it clear? Or else I'd be happy to explain further.

Nonsense Charles, you just can't grasp concepts. It is not my job to convince you of this purpose, or to convince you that this purpose is good. Because when I do state a reason you will again move the goal posts - like you always do. And you already know what the Christian answer would be - via the teaching of Christ - to love God and neighbor. That is our inherent purpose along with the intrinsic dignity of being God's image bearers. Of course you already know that, that is why your questions are deeply dishonest.

So I will ask again Charles - do human beings have inherent purpose or value?

[shunyadragon]

I never said that the mind was independent of the brain Shuny, I hold to Emergent Dualism - and this is a fact, science can not explain consciousness. Will it in the future? Who knows.

Your claim that science cannot explain consciousness is an unfounded assertion based on a weak 'argument from ignorance.'

You are still a dualist Shuny - the body and soul - both being of a different substance.

The problem in this discussion is the nature and relationship of the mind and not the nature of the soul. Your moving the goal posts. It concerns the nature of the mind and the relationship with the brain.

Some type of Dualism? OK! the Dualism of the Soul independent of the brain and the mind.

If you consider yourself an 'Emergent Dualist' than you need to define what you believe the mind is emergent from. Some emergent dualists consider the mind simply emergent from the brain.

But the reflection in a mirror is a physical thing, so it can be investigated - the mind according to your prophet is not a physical thing. Try again...

[Tassman]

Right, I can not prove it, nor can you prove me wrong or prove that this universe was created from a natural source.

Traditionally, the burden of proof is usually on the person making the positive claim, i.e. you. We already know that the universe exists.

But that is not my point, which is apart from God there is no inherent value or purpose.

Again Tass that has nothing to do with inherent purpose. Nature did not create us to survive, and could care less if we did survive.

Natural selection endowed us with the instinct to survive and all our values, sense of purpose and moral codes derive from this natural instinct.

We have no more inherent purpose than the dinosaurs.

All living creatures are (or have been) imbued with the survival instinct.

[seer]

Your claim that science cannot explain consciousness is an unfounded assertion based on a weak 'argument from ignorance.'

Shuny, don't believe me go back to what Sam Harris said. Not to say that science won't in the future.

Some type of Dualism? OK! the Dualism of the Soul independent of the brain and the mind.

Good so you are a dualist!

If you consider yourself an 'Emergent Dualist' than you need to define what you believe the mind is emergent from. Some emergent dualists consider the mind simply emergent from the brain.

It is emergent from the physical brain - that is the only kind of emergent dualism there is.


That is just stupid Shuny, of course a reflection in a mirror is physical, made of photons/light, and photons can be investigate. What is the mind made up of?

[seer]

Traditionally, the burden of proof is usually on the person making the positive claim, i.e. you. We already know that the universe exists.

Right, because we both know that neither side can prove their position.



No it is not, that is just an accident of nature. You have no idea if this instinct to survive will last into the future, it is not permanent. And it certainly does not mean that we have inherent value.

Natural selection endowed us with the instinct to survive and all our values, sense of purpose and moral codes derive from this natural instinct.

Yes, our subjective values and sense of purpose.

All living creatures are (or have been) imbued with the survival instinct.

Instinct does not equal value or purpose. Nature did not create us to survive, it was accidental.

[Charles]

Nonsense Charles, you just can't grasp concepts. It is not my job to convince you of this purpose, or to convince you that this purpose is good. Because when I do state a reason you will again move the goal posts - like you always do. And you already know what the Christian answer would be - via the teaching of Christ - to love God and neighbor. That is our inherent purpose along with the intrinsic dignity of being God's image bearers. Of course you already know that, that is why your questions are deeply dishonest.

So I will ask again Charles - do human beings have inherent purpose or value?

Seer, this is rather simple. If anyone in here said nature, evolution or whatever provided dignity, you would ask them how and why. If they gave answers you found not satisfying, you would ask further questions. There is nothing dishonest about that. You have done so to everyone else in here. All I am asking for is an answer to some rather fundamental questions that dig a little deeper than taking the Christian intepretation at face value. I am asking you to provide a little more than that and answer the question as to why it has got value and why it provides dignity. Feel free to find that unfair. But you do so to everyone else.

[seer]

Seer, this is rather simple. If anyone in here said nature, evolution or whatever provided dignity, you would ask them how and why. If they gave answers you found not satisfying, you would ask further questions.

No Charles, I would ask one question; how do the non-rational, non-intentional forces of nature confer purpose or value on the things they created.

There is nothing dishonest about that. You have done so to everyone else in here. All I am asking for is an answer to some rather fundamental questions that dig a little deeper than taking the Christian intepretation at face value. I am asking you to provide a little more than that and answer the question as to why it has got value and why it provides dignity. Feel free to find that unfair. But you do so to everyone else.

But I already answered you concerning human purpose and ontology. Now Charles, do human beings have inherent purpose or value? Either answer my question or leave my thread.

[Charles]

No Charles, I would ask one question; how do the non-rational, non-intentional forces of nature confer purpose or value on the things they created.



But I already answered you concerning human purpose and ontology. Now Charles, do human beings have inherent purpose or value? Either answer my question or leave my thread.

Ok, seer, sorry to say but you really don't point to anything substantial here. But it has been painfully clear for a while that what you have got is only superficial and either you cannot or will not give further explanation.

[seer]

Ok, seer, sorry to say but you really don't point to anything substantial here. But it has been painfully clear for a while that what you have got is only superficial and either you cannot or will not give further explanation.

Nonsense Charles, I gave clear reasons for inherent human purpose and value. And what you consider substantial is immaterial, since your opinion carries no weight and I will add that you have offered nothing. The reason being is that you can not even approach the idea of an inherent human value or worth from your perspective - you have nothing that is why you dishonestly nitpick my points. Now please leave my thread.

[Charles]

Nonsense Charles, I gave clear reasons for inherent human purpose and value. And what you consider substantial is immaterial, since your opinion carries no weight and I will add that you have offered nothing. The reason being is that you can not even approach the idea of an inherent human value or worth from your perspective - you have nothing that is why you dishonestly nitpick my points. Now please leave my thread.

You gave no clear reasons and you could not answer basic questions, so there is not much reason to stay. I have not seen you approach the idea of inherent human value or worth on any other level than just making claims. We can all do that and if further questions are written of as dishonest it is way too easy to claim you have got an answer.

I am leaving with dignity.

[seer]

I am leaving with dignity.

Yes a subjective and meaningless dignity...

[Charles]

Yes a subjective and meaningless dignity...

That is the one you hold to since you cannot even start to answer very simple questions making the case it is more than subjectivity. But I better leave....