Originally posted by Chrawnus
View Post
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
When does proving one's truth claims come to an end?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI'm not assuming there's a difference, but there definitely seems to be a strong prima facie case made for a difference based on all the arguments.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostUnless we have empirical evidence to the contrary, I think it best to maintain that the universe and all living things therein are nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.
As for the difference between the physical nature of subjective experience and the phenomenal nature, there are more similarities between the electro-chemical signals in your neural pathways and any other physical entity in the material world than there are similarities between that brain activity and the subjective experiences to which it gives rise.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostPossibilities? Experienced? Humans experience being human.
Unless you've experienced both the possibility in which God exists and the possibility in which God doesn't exist, how would you know that the nature of being human is the same in both possibilities?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostYes, and those reasons were not justified. You're confusing descriptive morality with normative morality.
So why say 'universal' then? The word is misleading. It all depends on the 'universe' you're referring to.BTW, you shouldn't have 'moral' in your definition because it's circular.
I'm talking about all rational social beings. It's based on normative realism, that there are real reasons in terms of justifications for doing things, in agent-neutral terms. You haven't given any real explanation for why rape is wrong. Just saying "Because God says so" isn't an explanation.
Any truth claim anyone makes, including you, is what we say it is. The persuasiveness of the claim depends upon the reasons and the evidence that can be brought to bear in defense of the claim. You haven't brought any evidence at all or any argument other than stipulation: ""This is the way it is and that is that!"
If we can make any truth claim at all beyond our subjective opinion, including scientists and mathematicians, we can do so depending on the evidence and arguments we make. According to you, each of us is stuck in our subjective prison. But we're obviously not. There is science, math, philosophy. You're making claims about God and the nature of reality. How are you justified in making these claims, if it's all just opinion?
Is pain bad, as in intrinsically a bad thing? Do we have good reasons for thinking so? If you say you're in pain, does it make any sense for me to ask why you believe you're in pain? Is it more immediately apparent that pain is an intrinsically bad thing for the sufferer than that God is the source of the moral law? Do I have better reasons to believe in other minds like my own than to believe that God is the source of the moral law, and that these minds cause these people the same badness associated with pain that I experience with pain? Are there any good reasons to think that the badness for them is any different from the badness for me?
Who's talking about consequences? Now YOU are clearly begging the question by assuming that there must be consequences to violating moral norms, ie you're assuming an authoritarian retributive basis for morality.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 Jim B. View PostI'm talking about all rational social beings. It's based on normative realism, that there are real reasons in terms of justifications for doing things, in agent-neutral terms. You haven't given any real explanation for why rape is wrong. Just saying "Because God says so" isn't an explanation.
Jim the more I think about this the more confused I get. Are you saying that God needs a reason for His moral character, that He needs reasons for being loving, just, forgiving, etc..? And that He needs reasons for acting on those moral qualities? If God by nature believes that lying is wrong, does He need reasons to hold that view?Last edited by seer; 01-29-2020, 11:38 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 Chrawnus View PostLet me specify:
Unless you've experienced both the possibility in which God exists and the possibility in which God doesn't exist, how would you know that the nature of being human is the same in both possibilities?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post"Unless we have empirical evidence to the contrary, I think it best to maintain that the only things which I'm going to even entertain the possibility of existing are the ones that are open to empirical study."
As for the difference between the physical nature of subjective experience and the phenomenal nature, there are more similarities between the electro-chemical signals in your neural pathways and any other physical entity in the material world than there are similarities between that brain activity and the subjective experiences to which it gives rise.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostLet me specify:
Unless you've experienced both the possibility in which God exists and the possibility in which God doesn't exist, how would you know that the nature of being human is the same in both possibilities?
Do you experience the possibility that God does not exist?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostHow does one experience a "possibility", exactly?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostUnless we have empirical evidence to the contrary there is no good reason of the existence of anything other than the natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostWhat's your point?
Originally posted by Tassman View PostI think it best to maintain that the universe and all living things therein are nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI am referring to the factual nature of human nature by the evidence humans are not robotic they are essentially human naturally. We are what we are regardless of what we believe. This in essence considers just those possibilities. I believe I experience the possibility that God does not exist and the possibility that God exists. I am a believer in God, but philosophical agnostic, because in reality 'I do not know.' Because of this the powers to be in this forum force me to use the label agnostic.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe nature of being human is not robotic regardless of whether God exists or not.
Also, my statement about "experiencing the possibility that God does not exist and the possibility that God exists." was not a statement about considering both possibilities, but a statement about actually existing in a reality where God exists, and one in which He doesn't, in order to compare how you would experience the world in both realities.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostDo you experience the possibility that God does not exist?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostUnless we have empirical evidence to the contrary, I think it best to maintain that the universe and all living things therein are nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
173 responses
649 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
06-07-2024, 07:30 AM
|
Comment