- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadLet me try and narrow this down for you:
I have never said that any of them function illogically.
They are two unrelated word pairs. Maybe for the purpose of this thread we should even spell them differently. Lets use:
1. For Logical right and wrong, rightL and wrongL.
2. For moral right and wrong, rightM and wrongM.
Something is said to be rightL if it is logically true. This can includ ...[text shortened]... they may be to vague to have a rightL or wrongL value and this can be mistaken for being both.
Let us say there are two people, A and B talking about situation X.
Let us say that situation X is "the murdering of an innocent 2 year old baby".
1.Person A says "Situation X is morally right"
2.Person B says "Situation X is morally wrong"
Now seeing you believe in absolute (logical) truth, (or at least you say so), would you care to demonstrate how both these two condradictory statements can be absolutely (logically) true at the same time?
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerI have answered this in the other thread
Let me try and narrow this down for you:
Let us say there are two people, A and B talking about situation X.
Let us say that situation X is "the murdering of an innocent 2 year old baby".
1.Person A says "Situation X is morally right"
2.Person B says "Situation X is morally wrong"
Now seeing you believe in absolute (logical) truth, (or at leas ...[text shortened]... th these two condradictory statements can be absolutely (logically) true at the same time?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by ckoh1965What you are saying is true if are willing to reject logic and reason. My only aim is to try and show that the rejection of God is not an intellectual problem but a moral one.
Give it up, dj2. You're not gonna be able to trick people into acknowledging the existence of God by this means. Your approach is just too far-fetched!
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou mean .. FOR YOU it's not an intellectual problem but a moral one.
What you are saying is true if are willing to reject logic and reason. My only aim is to try and show that the rejection of God is not an intellectual problem but a moral one.
For others it's not a problem at all to reject God .. intellectually, morally or any other way.
You can't LOGICALLY prove the existence of God.
Not possible IMO
You can't prove Gods existance through REASON either.
Not possible IMO
If you have a point .. make it.
If you champion a certain moral code .. state it.
If you believe in God .. say so.
Just stop trying to prove God by logic or reason .. the entire concept is built on blind faith
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by jammerThose who believe in a naturalistic universe claim that everything came into being without the activity of an external, supernatural fist cause. Natiralists believe that random combinations of atmos just happened to bump into each other and stick together to form everything that exists. For naturalists, this view is the only possible explanation of the universe. Such a view cannot validate reason because when things collide and combine at random, the results must be considered irrational, meaning without reason. Therefore a universe that grew accidentally out of random forces is by definition a universe without reason. According to this model of origins, the human brain - the only reasoning organ we know of- is nothing more than a chance cluster of molecules thrown together by the random movement of irrational forces.
You mean .. FOR YOU it's not an intellectual problem but a moral one.
For others it's not a problem at all to reject God .. intellectually, morally or any other way.
You can't LOGICALLY prove the existence of God.
Not possible IMO
You can't prove Gods existance through REASON either.
Not possible IMO
If you have a point .. make it.
If you champio ...[text shortened]... st stop trying to prove God by logic or reason .. the entire concept is built on blind faith
So how can a naturalist trust such a mind to reach rational conclusions about reality?
IMO the fact that you even trust your own reason points towards God.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerI believe in God too ... key word being "believe", not "know"
Those who believe in a naturalistic universe claim that everything came into being without the activity of an external, supernatural fist cause. Natiralists believe that random combinations of atmos just happened to bump into each other and stick together to form everything that exists. For naturalists, this view is the only possible explanation of the uni ...[text shortened]... clusions about reality?
IMO the fact that you even trust your own reason points towards God.
Who cares what Naturalists claim?
Every single person i've ever met has a different belief about the unknown .. that's the point! that's what makes us humans as oppossed to Gods.
WE CAN'T KNOW.
If we knew, life would be chit IMO.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by jammerDo you mean to say that you KNOW that we CANNOT KNOW?
I believe in God too ... key word being "believe", not "know"
Who cares what Naturalists claim?
Every single person i've ever met has a different belief about the unknown .. that's the point! that's what makes us humans as oppossed to Gods.
WE CAN'T KNOW.
If we knew, life would be chit IMO.
Do you absolutely enjoy contradicting yourself?
20 Feb 07
I'm loving this, I don't htink I've ever seen anyone dig as large a hole for themselves as this, and in two seperate debates. It astonishes me that the further down dj goes, the more ridiculous his argument becomes and the stronger he clings to it. Pride and a fear of shame are powerful things.
20 Feb 07
5 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhat makes you think that the order you perceive in the universe is
Such a view cannot validate reason because when things collide and combine at random, the results must be considered irrational, meaning without reason.
there at all? Look at how we humans behave, look at how we live.
Compare it to animals and you'll see a striking similarity. Even in our civil
societies we live much like we did in the cave days, having sex to
procreate, acting mainly on emotional state (Christian or otherwise) and
we still have feelings of fear and joy alternating within us, directly
depending on circumstances around us. When we lose our grip of security
we go ballistic (look at what happened in New Orleans after the
hurricane). When Estonia sank some fifteen years ago, some survivors
describe how they thought nothing about others but actually climbed
above people in need of assistance to save themselves. A natural
instinct; behaviour that cannot be held against them in any way. In truth,
there isn't really that much order around us. We have to force the order.
One single asteroid and we all go the way of the dinosaurs. The only
order is that of the interaction between different entities in space (stars,
planets, inhabitant life and so on). There is an order between how the
planet earth circles the sun, but it can be explained completely from a
natural (random) chain of events, and it will most likely end some day.
There is no need for a concious force to put the earth at the exact
distance from the sun, spin it and send it swirling around our star like a
dirt-ridden satellite. I'm convinced that it can all be explained from
chaos.
In short, if there's any order that we can see, it's only because we are
part of it ourselves. A simple example (I know how much you enjoy
those) would be my desk. If anyone else walks into my office and takes
a look at my desk, they would say there is no order whatsoever; that I
can't possibly find this or that paper in this mess I'd like to call work
station. But ask for anything at all on my desk and I know exactly where
it is. Not because I've categorised things or anything like that, but simply
because I remember where I put them (yes, I'm told this is an unusual
ability - and for some reason it only seem to apply to my work desk).
There's order there, but it's completely undetectable by anyone but
myself. Now, who am I to say this order must have come from
somewhere other than the fact I simply throw whatever I read to the side
of me?
Sometimes they even form different shapes that I can detect. For
instance, right now there's a face on my desk if I dim the lights a little.
Am I on drugs? No. It's just that a face is a very common shape that we
humans learn to identify very early on in life, hence it's easy for us to
see "faces" in just about anything. All that's really needed is a circular
body with two dots in it, and there you have it. Our minds will fill in the
blanks (hair, mouth, ears and nose). This doesn't mean there's any
order to it as far as a spacefly is concerned. To them, we may not even
be perceived as intelligent life. And who really knows, but perhaps
bacteria and simple viruses are really highly intelligent (from their own
perspective). Hell, even rocks may be mobile, intelligent beings for all we
know. It just takes them a couple of thousand years to say the word:
"Aouch" in rock language, as we terrorise their dying bodies with our
buildings, our mining operations and what not.
The idea that because we humans can relate very well to the chaos
around us and adapt to various "extreme" circumstances such as natural
disasters we are special in a universal context is highly interesting from a
psychological perspective, but not necessarily the truth.
Addition: Just to clarify, there need not be a creator to explain the
obvious chaos and disorder of which we're a part.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by stockenThanks for your post. 🙂
What makes you think that the order you perceive in the universe is
there at all? Look at how we humans behave, look at how we live.
Compare it to animals and you'll see a striking similarity. Even in our civil
societies we live much like we did in the cave days, having sex to
procreate, acting mainly on emotional state (Christian or otherwise) and ...[text shortened]... eator to explain the
obvious chaos and disorder of which we're a part.
I will respond to it as soon as I get the time.
21 Feb 07
6 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerthey are not contradictory with regards to logic dj2becker.
Let me try and narrow this down for you:
Let us say there are two people, A and B talking about situation X.
Let us say that situation X is "the murdering of an innocent 2 year old baby".
1.Person A says "Situation X is morally right"
2.Person B says "Situation X is morally wrong"
Now seeing you believe in absolute (logical) truth, (or at leas ...[text shortened]... th these two condradictory statements can be absolutely (logically) true at the same time?
You confuse the word "contradiction"
A's opinion contradicts B's...but it is not a logical contradiction!! to make it as such you'd have to suggest that:
1.Person A says "Situation X is morally right"
2.Person A says "Situation X is morally wrong" (with both being mutually exclusive, and no intermediates between morally right and morally wrong)
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by AgergYes, since your logic rejects the existence of absolute truth.
they are not contradictory with regards to logic dj2becker.
You confuse the word "contradiction"
A's opinion contradicts B's...but it is not a logical contradiction!! to make it as such you'd have to suggest that:
1.Person A says "Situation X is morally right"
2.Person A says "Situation X is morally wrong" (with both being mutually exclusive, and no intermediates between morally right and morally wrong)
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerA logic that rejects the existence of absolute truth is not self-contradictory. A
Yes, since your logic rejects the existence of absolute truth.
logic that would both reject and accept the existence of absolute truth
would be self-contradictory if it does so in the same specific case.