Sometimes my fingers get ahead of me. What on earth is an "organizism?"
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)
Collapse
X
-
The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
-
Originally posted by seer View PostOk, I still find your defense of relative ethics strange.No, I'm saying calling these repeatable, predictable principles "natural" is arbitrary.Oh no, there are real questions, read Sam Harris, a good card carrying atheist, this is not as black and white as you suggest: https://samharris.org/the-mystery-of-consciousness.
Never mind the hard problem of consciousness, by another good card carrying atheist, Chalmers: https://blog.ted.com/the-hard-proble...rs-at-ted2014/
OTOH card-carrying atheist philosopher Dan Dennett says: "The "miracles" of life itself, and of reproduction, are now analyzed into the well-known intricacies of molecular biology. Why should consciousness be any exception? Why should the brain be the only complex physical object in the universe to have an interface with another realm of being? Besides, the notorious problems with the supposed transactions at that dualistic interface are as good as a reductio ad absurdum of the view. The phenomena of consciousness are an admittedly dazzling lot, but I suspect that dualism would never be seriously considered if there weren't such a strong undercurrent of desire to protect the mind from science, by supposing it composed of a stuff that is in principle uninvestigatable by the methods of the physical sciences". - Daniel C. Dennett, "Consciousness in Human and Robot Minds,"
Really, how could I possibly demonstrate the color red to a man born color blind? In essence that is what you are asking me to do, I will not be able to break through your presuppositions or your rebellion. And since you already admitted that you don't know why/how the universe exists you can not dismiss God as the originator, but you will.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
You do love to go back to that "safe place," don't you, Seer. I remember how often I had to do so as well, until I finally came to the realization that, if I could not explain my views and why I had them to someone, then perhaps I needed to more closely question those views. That process led me to where I am now.
Seer, you are entitled to have whatever beliefs/position you wish. But you cannot truly expect to make a claim like, "all of creation/universe proves that God is," then be completely unable to explain how you go from "the universe is" to "god is," and expect it to be very compelling to anyone else. It certainly is not to me. And constant retreat into "you can't understand" and "you are in rebellion" says more about you and your beliefs than it does about me and mine. I look for evidence on which I can base beliefs. If someone can make a case, I will look at it. If they can't...
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse."
So I ask, if the creation is not evidence of a Creator, what is it evidence of? You say you don't know, then you don't know that it isn't evidence of a Creator. Nevertheless I will not adopt your presuppositions and reject mine and jump to your arbitrary definitions and understandings.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThat is nonsense Carp, what you are again asking me to do is reject my worldview and adopt yours. You may not see it that way, but that is exactly what is happening. I must satisfy your relative understanding of evidence or what constitutes evidence. I must meet your subjective definitions. That is impossible. Again this is what my worldview states:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse."
So I ask, if the creation is not evidence of a Creator, what is it evidence of? You say you don't know, then you don't know that it isn't evidence of a Creator. Nevertheless I will not adopt your presuppositions and reject mine and jump to your arbitrary definitions and understandings.
In our recent chats, you stumbled on one of many reasons for my shift of beliefs: I eventually found it unsatisfying to continually resort to "you cannot understand" and "you are blind - so I cannot explain it to you." Eventually, I confronted the fact that I retreated to that position whenever I was challenged in a way where I could not respond. I may well be projecting on you, but you appear to be doing the same thing in this discussion. I obviously cannot know this for a fact, but I strongly suspect that you are not answering my question because you cannot; you have locked your belief to what the bible tells you, and even the bible lacks an explanation for this question. It merely asserts it. So you, in turn, have no explanation.
As for your final question, I cannot ask it as answered. You have dubbed all of the universe "creation," which presumes a "creator," so you have biased your question to the outcome you wish to have. I have explained why I do not see the universe as evidence of a creator, and it frankly has nothing to do with the logic or illogic of a creator creating it. If you posit an omnipotent god, by definition such a god can do anything, including creating the universe. However, because I believe such beings to be the creation of human minds handed down over the years as "fact," and a fabrication of the human mind cannot create anything, ergo, I believe the universe was not created by a god. Do you see the difference? I DO beleive there is no god, ergo it could not create the universe. I do NOT believe the universe is evidence that there is or is not a god.Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-06-2018, 08:34 AM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostFirst of all, what worldview you have is none of my concern. But if you express a worldview in discussion/debate, it is reasonable to expect you will get a response. I find it inconsistent to hold the view that I am blind and lack the capacity to understand, and then continue to talk to me as if I can. Then our discussion reveals you don't actually think I lack the capacity, because apparently I CAN change my ability to understand by making specific choices, I only lack the capacity until I make those choices, which seems to reverse the original position. I, frankly, am not sure exactly what it is you DO believe about "blindness" and "lack of capacity." Your explanations are inconsistent, and they are also inconsistent with your behavior.
In our recent chats, you stumbled on one of many reasons for my shift of beliefs: I eventually found it unsatisfying to continually resort to "you cannot understand" and "you are blind - so I cannot explain it to you." Eventually, I confronted the fact that I retreated to that position whenever I was challenged in a way where I could not respond. I may well be projecting on you, but you appear to be doing the same thing in this discussion. I obviously cannot know this for a fact, but I strongly suspect that you are not answering my question because you cannot; you have locked your belief to what the bible tells you, and even the bible lacks an explanation for this question. It merely asserts it. So you, in turn, have no explanation.
As for your final question, I cannot ask it as answered. You have dubbed all of the universe "creation," which presumes a "creator," so you have biased your question to the outcome you wish to have. I have explained why I do not see the universe as evidence of a creator, and it frankly has nothing to do with the logic or illogic of a creator creating it. If you posit an omnipotent god, by definition such a god can do anything, including creating the universe. However, because I believe such beings to be the creation of human minds handed down over the years as "fact," and a fabrication of the human mind cannot create anything, ergo, I believe the universe was not created by a god. Do you see the difference? I DO beleive there is no god, ergo it could not create the universe. I do NOT believe the universe is evidence that there is or is not a god.Last edited by seer; 02-06-2018, 10:32 AM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostCarp, I have no idea what you are on about. My explanations are not inconsistent, I have been making the same points for pages now. And I'm not sure if you have the capacity to receive Christ as your savior or not, there are degrees of blindness - but I do believe that the more a man closes himself to God the more blind he becomes.
- It started with you noting I could not understand you because I was blind and lacked the capacity to do so.
- After some back and forth, you told me that my lack of capacity was self-induced, and could be reversed based on my chioces. That is self-refuting, because if I can reverse it, I don't lack the capacity to do so.
- Despite repeated assertions that I am blind and lack the capacity, you continue to engage and discuss. That's odd behavior. If I truly think someone lacks the capacity to understand a concept, I politely disengage or change the subject. Why waste the time?
From my perspective, you're all over the map on this. I have no idea what you actually think.
Originally posted by seer View PostRight, the Bible asserts this, but what is your point?
Originally posted by seer View PostYou still want me to reject my worldview and accept your relative and subjective standards for evidence.
Originally posted by seer View PostWhat does your personal opinion have to do with the truth or falsity of my first axiom that the Bible is the word of God? Absolutely nothing. And I never claimed that I could answer every question, neither do I have to. The Biblical fact is Carp, that there is something in man that rejects the authority of God, often for the reasons I previously gave. And for other reasons since each man may have different personal objections.
Originally posted by seer View PostYes, but you just offered an assertion, an opinion, that there is no god or gods, with no evidence. That ideas of the divine are merely the inventions of human minds with no connection to reality. But how do you know that?
1) An absence of any experience/evidence of the supernatural in my life
2) An absence of any confirmed encounter with the supernatural (we will likely disagree on what it takes to "confirm" it)
3) A significant history of supernatural claims being shown false (mistakes or cons)
4) The pattern of continued separation in the world's religions as well as the wide pattern of similarities
5) The pattern of scientific knowledge/discoveries continually displacing religious explanations
6) What we know about the history of religions from the dawn of man
7) What we know about the conveyance of beliefs in family and cultural structures
8) The very nature of the description of god
Some of these we have discussed. None of these is definitive. Together, they form a picture I find compelling. I see in it adequate evidence that "god" is a human construct, not an objectively real phenomenon.Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-06-2018, 11:22 AM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI was going to trace the conversation and give you your statements and links to the posts, but I really don't have the time. I'll let you do that for yourself. My memory of it is as follows:
- It started with you noting I could not understand you because I was blind and lacked the capacity to do so.
- After some back and forth, you told me that my lack of capacity was self-induced, and could be reversed based on my chioces. That is self-refuting, because if I can reverse it, I don't lack the capacity to do so.
- Despite repeated assertions that I am blind and lack the capacity, you continue to engage and discuss. That's odd behavior. If I truly think someone lacks the capacity to understand a concept, I politely disengage or change the subject. Why waste the time?
From my perspective, you're all over the map on this. I have no idea what you actually think.
The biblical claim, Seer. Not the biblical fact. You may accept it as fact because of your worldview, but you have not shown it to be fact, so someone outside your worldview is not going to accept it as such. You are talking to someone outside your worldview, so I think it is reasonable to assume that mere assertions are not going to cut it. Believe what you wish, but continually asserting "facts" is simply not going to be very compelling to someone outside your worldview.
Actually, I have traced the evidence I find compelling in several of our previous posts, so this was not technically an assertion, it is a restatement of my conclusion. How I come to that conclusion is based on several pieces of evidence form history and my life that include:
1) An absence of any experience/evidence of the supernatural in my life
2) An absence of any confirmed encounter with the supernatural (we will likely disagree on what it takes to "confirm" it)
3) A significant history of supernatural claims being shown false (mistakes or cons)
4) The pattern of continued separation in the world's religions as well as the wide pattern of similarities
5) The pattern of scientific knowledge/discoveries continually displacing religious explanations
6) What we know about the history of religions from the dawn of man
7) What we know about the conveyance of beliefs in family and cultural structures
8) The very nature of the description of god
Some of these we have discussed. None of these is definitive. Together, they form a picture I find compelling. I see in it adequate evidence that "god" is a human construct, not an objectively real phenomenon.
1. Why is your limited experience the measure of anything?
2. Right, and since I have experience the supernatural the possibility is open to me.
3. It don't follow that because some claims are wrong, that they are all wrong.
4. So both similarities and differences make your case? I don't get that.
5. Not in the case of Christianity.
6. ????
7. So? I learned to treat my fellow man with respect from my culture, does that necessarily make it false?
8. I have no idea what that means.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostCarp, I don't think I ever used the term capacity, you did, but I do believe that the more a man rejects His Creator the darker his reasoning becomes, the more difficult it becomes for him to repent. In your case, since you claimed to have been a Christian in the past, I do wonder if you could ever return. But I also said that if you still have breath, there is hope. This is all I'm saying.
Originally posted by seer View PostYou are doing it again, you can not logically demonstrate that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality.
Originally posted by seer View PostYou accept that axiom by faith, by assertion. Your unbelief concerning Scripture means nothing (logically) except when it comes to your soul. Should I deny Scripture to satisfy you? We simply can not meet since we begin with completely different assumptions.
As for the assumptions, there I have no clue. I'm not sure we've ever discussed assumptions.
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd why do you trust your reasoning powers on any of these questions?
Originally posted by seer View Post1. Why is your limited experience the measure of anything?
Originally posted by seer View Post2. Right, and since I have experience the supernatural the possibility is open to me.
Originally posted by seer View Post3. It don't follow that because some claims are wrong, that they are all wrong.
Originally posted by seer View Post4. So both similarities and differences make your case? I don't get that.
Originally posted by seer View Post5. Not in the case of Christianity.
Originally posted by seer View Post6. ????
Originally posted by seer View Post7. So? I learned to treat my fellow man with respect from my culture, does that necessarily make it false?
Originally posted by seer View Post8. I have no idea what that means.
As I said - I have no doubt you will find all of these wanting, because you have already accepted Christianity as true. Perhaps you looked at this body of evidence, and rejected it as "uncompelling," I find it highly compelling, ergo I believe that the notion of god is a human construct - not something with an objective reality. God lives, in other words, in the human mind and in human art and literature, and nowhere else.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI first used it, and you picked it up from there. As for whether or not I ever return to Christianity, I will go where the evidence takes me.
No one can "logically demonstrate that what goes on in [their] mind corresponds to reality," Seer. You're not saying anything. Such a logical proof is not possible, AFAIK. We can experientially affirm that what is going on in our minds aligns with reality - but that is the best any of us can do.
We all ultimately accept all beliefs we hold "on faith." Hopefully, however, it is not a "blind" faith. Hopefully it is a reasoned and thoughtful faith. As for the rest, since I do not subscribe to the notion of a soul, I have no response. Again, no one has asked you to change your beliefs (I think I've said that now a half dozen times. I have no idea why you keep returning to it...).
As for the assumptions, there I have no clue. I'm not sure we've ever discussed assumptions.
Yes. Religions have highly similar themes (e.g., creation, redemption, sacrificial offerings, flood stories, etc.). These seem to link to the types of questions early man would have been trying to answer, and to the commonality of all being based on human experiences on planet earth. But rather than this similarities unifying all beliefs, as religions have progressed forward in time, they continually show a tendency to fragment and differentiate. When there is an underlying truth, beliefs tend to unify around that truth. We see this in scientific observations all the time. Someone proposes a new concept (that geocentrism is false) and it is soundly rejected. But as more and more test the idea, confirm the accuracy of experimentation, successfully repeat experiments, and the claim can be successfully used to predict other outcomes, its acceptance grows until it is close to universal. But religion shows the opposite trend, suggesting there is either a) no underlying objective reality to unify on or b) no mechanism for testing and confirming claims.
I'm referring to how beliefs become embeddedin family, social, and cultural groups and the power they then have.
There is an interesting truth about human imagination: we cannot imagine something that is not, in some way, related to our experiences. God is almost universally represented as male and human in aspect, referred to with (mostly male) gender pronouns. His characteristics are largely human characteristics, and some of them are widely considered negative human characteristics (e.g., jealousy, hatred, even fear). We have, in essence, created god in our own image and likeness, and then struggle to then reframe gods as somehow transcending humanity.
As I said - I have no doubt you will find all of these wanting, because you have already accepted Christianity as true. Perhaps you looked at this body of evidence, and rejected it as "uncompelling," I find it highly compelling, ergo I believe that the notion of god is a human construct - not something with an objective reality. God lives, in other words, in the human mind and in human art and literature, and nowhere else.Last edited by seer; 02-07-2018, 07:59 AM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd again what you consider evidence or what weight you put on it is as subjective or relative as anything else.
Originally posted by seer View PostYou can even do that, since any "proofs" could just as easily be part of the deception. The point is we all start with unprovable assumptions. Just that some of mine are different than yours.
Originally posted by seer View PostYet you have time and time again asked me to demonstrate my beliefs starting with your worldview, accepting your assumptions to satisfy your criterion. And your belief that what goes on in your mind corresponds is "blind" faith - it can not be demonstrated deductively of empirically.
Originally posted by seer View PostThere you go again, scientific inquiry does not lend itself to religious questions.
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd perhaps these similar religious themes point to an underlying truth.
Originally posted by seer View PostThe sacrificial point is interesting, why do you have ancient cultures, from the Middle East to South America to Asia, and on...(who are completely separated) coming to the conclusion that in some fashion that they need to atone for their behavior. Why do men think there is something wrong in/with them? I doubt that the Lion would come to that conclusion, if it could.
BTW - you have just stumbled on part of why I believe Jesus of Nazareth was so ultimately successful. He out-Trumped Trump.
Originally posted by seer View PostThat does not say anything about their truthfulness.
Originally posted by seer View PostOr the reverse, we are created in His image, hence we share some of His qualities or attributes.
Originally posted by seer View PostRight...The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI didn't expect agreement, Seer. I know your beliefs are different. I am speaking of my beliefs and why I have them.
Ok Carp, I think we beat this horse enough, you my have the last word. Peace...Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostOk Carp, I think we beat this horse enough, you my have the last word. Peace...
I've enjoyed the chat. Someday, perhaps we should explore those "differing assumptions." I'm not sure we ever really established what they were.
Wait, wait...I just saw the horse twitch...
*that's a joke. I wasn't in it to win or lose, just to exchange/explore views. Hopefully, we've accomplished some of that.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd again what you consider evidence or what weight you put on it is as subjective or relative as anything else.You can even do that, since any "proofs" could just as easily be part of the deception. The point is we all start with unprovable assumptions. Just that some of mine are different than yours.
Yet you have time and time again asked me to demonstrate my beliefs starting with your worldview, accepting your assumptions to satisfy your criterion. And your belief that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality is "blind" faith - it can not be demonstrated deductively of empirically.There you go again, scientific inquiry does not lend itself to religious questions. And perhaps these similar religious themes point to an underlying truth. The sacrificial point is interesting, why do you have ancient cultures, from the Middle East to South America to Asia, and on...(who are completely separated) coming to the conclusion that in some fashion that they need to atone for their behavior. Why do men think there is something wrong in/with them? I doubt that the Lion would come to that conclusion, if it could.
That does not say anything about their truthfulness.
Or the reverse, we are created in His image, hence we share some of His qualities or attributes. Though displayed in a very flawed way.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostYou know this how?Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostThe 'know' word again. Since I don't put knowledge in a scientistic straight-jacket, I know it
Start a thread on what knowledge is and I'll discuss it with you. But I get a feeling it'll be like talking about color to a blind guy.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
173 responses
643 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
06-07-2024, 07:30 AM
|
Comment