The "Problem Of Evil" does not exist

[Oreoracle]

By your own admissions earlier in this thread all you are doing here is giving your personal opinion (prevention of suffering)

Exactly. And you don’t have to heed my preferences, though I would like you to. Do you think reiterating the difficulties we face with ethics on a daily basis is going to somehow discourage me from defending my position? I’m quite aware that you don’t have to obey me. Many don’t. It’s just an obstacle of life that we all wish to avoid; one of many.

My preference (hypothetically) is that personal happiness should be maximized. It makes some people happy to be intellectually dishonest with others. Therefore, those people should be intellectually dishonest with others. See, I can demand of warpspeedpetey that he be dishonest with you if that is what makes him happy. Well, if my personal opinion is a rational basis for such a request anyway. But wait, so now our diametrically opposed positions are both rational bases? That would be contradictory. It’s apparent that your personal opinion does not provide a rational basis for your request.

This is a strawman. I don’t believe I’ve said that ethics have anything to do with rationality. If I did, it was an error on my part. Though, as a side note, I will say that the very idea of rationality is also subjective.

Theism, on the other hand, does provide such a basis.

Yep, it feeds you all the lies and empty promises that you want, and that’s why people love it so much. But at the end of the day, the world that is and the world that should be are disconnected, and moral objectivism doesn’t account for this. If morals are objective, why are these two worlds different? Also, if ethics are like any other factual statements, why are they phrased differently? How does one get from (for example) “I am naturally disinclined to kill humans” to “I should not kill humans?” Could you offer a logical argument in which an ought-statement is derived from only is-statements, with the premises and conclusion laid out? It should be noted that no philosopher has ever done this before. I wonder why…

 

[tdgesq]

Exactly. And you don’t have to heed my preferences, though I would like you to. Do you think reiterating the difficulties we face with ethics on a daily basis is going to somehow discourage me from defending my position? I’m quite aware that you don’t have to obey me. Many don’t. It’s just an obstacle of life that we all wish to avoid; one of many.

It’s an obstacle that you face because you don’t adopt a rational system. There is no “we” in this discussion. There is just you and your irrational statements. Apparently you accept it all on faith. I am glad there is no need for me to do that.

This is a strawman. I don’t believe I’ve said that ethics have anything to do with rationality. If I did, it was an error on my part. Though, as a side note, I will say that the very idea of rationality is also subjective.

Then speak up into the microphone. Your system of ethics doesn’t have “anything to do with rationality.” Those are your own words. Better yet, “rationality is also subjective.” Great. Then there is no truth besides my own subjective judgments.

Yep, it feeds you all the lies and empty promises that you want, and that’s why people love it so much.

This statement is solely subjective by your own admission. Therefore, I will ignore it. I encourage everyone else to ignore it as well. It is just as valid as my statement that it feeds us all truth and fulfilled promises.

But at the end of the day, the world that is and the world that should be are disconnected, and moral objectivism doesn’t account for this.

Another statement that is solely subjective by your own admission. Therefore, I will ignore it. I encourage everyone else to ignore it as well.

If morals are objective, why are these two worlds different? Also, if ethics are like any other factual statements, why are they phrased differently? How does one get from (for example) “I am naturally disinclined to kill humans” to “I should not kill humans?” Could you offer a logical argument in which an ought-statement is derived from only is-statements, with the premises and conclusion laid out?

There isn’t any need to answer your questions. All of the answers, according to you, will be merely subjective anyway. My answers have no objective meaning in your worldview. There is no reason for me to answer.

It should be noted that no philosopher has ever done this before. I wonder why…

Really, tell me about your background in philosophy to make such a statement Ribozyme.

 

[Oreoracle]

Then there is no truth besides my own subjective judgments.

Your entire post consists of you conflating ethics with facts. They are not the same. I’ve never said that facts are subjective, only ethics.

This statement is solely subjective by your own admission. Therefore, I will ignore it. I encourage everyone else to ignore it as well. It is just as valid as my statement that it feeds us all truth and fulfilled promises.

Another statement that is solely subjective by your own admission. Therefore, I will ignore it. I encourage everyone else to ignore it as well.

There isn’t any need to answer your questions. All of the answers, according to you, will be merely subjective anyway. My answers have no objective meaning in your worldview. There is no reason for me to answer.

Again, you conflate ethics with facts. They are not the same, no matter how much your childish mind wants them to be. But you’ve been looking for a way out of our discussions for some time now, so you can drop out of this one whenever you like. There’s no need to make excuses to avoid answering questions.

Really, tell me about your background in philosophy to make such a statement Ribozyme.

Name one philosopher that has derived an ought-conclusion from is-premises. Where is their argument? You’d think someone as confident as yourself would step up to the plate–or microphone, as you say-- and provide the argument(s). I’m all ears.

 

[tdgesq]

Your entire post consists of you conflating ethics with facts. They are not the same. I’ve never said that facts are subjective, only ethics.

Lol! No, you said “rationality is subjective.” That is even worse than stating facts are subjective. Holy smokes.

Again, you conflate ethics with facts. They are not the same, no matter how much your childish mind wants them to be. But you’ve been looking for a way out of our discussions for some time now, so you can drop out of this one whenever you like. There’s no need to make excuses to avoid answering questions.

Oh, I’m not dropping out. So ethics aren’t facts? Then why are you conveying them to all of us? I’m not interested, nor is anyone else I would wager, in your non-factual ethical comments.

Name one philosopher that has derived an ought-conclusion from is-premises. Where is their argument? You’d think someone as confident as yourself would step up to the plate–or microphone, as you say-- and provide the argument(s). I’m all ears.

I am glad you are all ears. I earlier cited to John Stuart Mill, the father of Utilitarianism. You ignored the article from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy Stanford. It doesn’t serve utility to be intellectually dishonest Ribozyme.

 

[tonyrey]

1. “Ought” implies that an activity is valuable and necessary.
2. All valid hypotheses are based on the principles of reasoning.
3. The principles of reasoning are valuable and necessary because they enable us to discover whether a hypothesis is true.
4. The “ought cannot be derived from is” hypothesis is based on the principles of reasoning.
5. The “ought cannot be derived from is” hypothesis is not true because it implies that the principles of reasoning are not valuable or necessary.

 

[Oreoracle]

Lol! No, you said “rationality is subjective.” That is even worse than stating facts are subjective. Holy smokes.

No, it isn’t “worse” at all. We all have different ideas of what is rational or reasonable. Rationality has nothing to do with trusting empirical evidence in its common usage. Here are a few examples of the subjective usage of “rationality”:

Is it rational to allow people to practice religions, when it offers no apparent advantage to society and tends to produce fanatics?

Is it rational to impose a curfew on your children when there is no apparent danger they can encounter at night?

Is it rational to fear common household spiders, but not heights?

I’m afraid you can’t whip out a test tube or start writing down insane deductions to answer these questions. Nope, you have to feel it out. Rationality is about as subjective as it gets.

Oh, I’m not dropping out. So ethics aren’t facts? Then why are you conveying them to all of us?

Because I want to.

I am glad you are all ears. I earlier cited to John Stuart Mill, the father of Utilitarianism.

I want the premises and the conclusion laid out, as with this argument:

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
   C. Therefore, Socrates is mortal

Do you think you can provide a deductive argument where there are only is-premises with an ought-conclusion?

You ignored the article from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy Stanford.

And you ignored the quote I offered where he explicitly stated that morality comes from the sentiments of man. And even if what you quoted was JSM’s opinion (as you interpreted it), you don’t need to be an objectivist to be a utilitarian. It’s not included in the definition at all. I’m not sure why you cited his opinion, since he didn’t make any arguments.

 

[Oreoracle]

1. “Ought” implies that an activity is valuable and necessary.

Valuable, maybe, but necessary? No. It’s only necessary to someone who wants their actions to be valuable. “Ought” just means that one course of action is, for some reason, preferable to another.

1. All valid hypotheses are based on the principles of reasoning.

What are those principles?

1. The principles of reasoning are valuable and necessary because they enable us to discover whether a hypothesis is true.

Why is truth valuable?

1. The “ought cannot be derived from is” hypothesis is not true because it implies that the principles of reasoning are not valuable or necessary.

How does it imply such a thing?

Needless to say, Tony, you broke the rules by including ought-premises in your argument. Your post basically amounts to, “You’re wrong because your conclusion upsets me, even though I don’t have any real counter-argument to offer…”

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Oreo,

First of all, I think you know that I have a lot of respect for you as a person and as a disputant. You are far more consistent than most agnostic posters here, and you seem to really want to know and understand whatever is true about the world.

That said, when I look at several of your above posts on this topic, I am perplexed. You see, I was under the impression that it was *arguments *that mattered in argumentation, not rhetoric. Any intelligent person is capable of effectively ridiculing his opponent’s position, but such a tactic is deflecting the issue.

Consider (Bolding mine):

Again, you conflate ethics with facts. They are not the same, no matter how much your **childish **mind wants them to be.

Yep, it feeds you all the lies and empty promises that you want, and that’s why people love it so much.

Does being a creature with feelings, who is entirely at the mercy of his/her feelings, make you feel so weak that you would deny the subjective nature of ethics? Do you hate knowing that your ethical standards aren’t written in stone somewhere, and that your vision of a perfect being doesn’t exist in any tangible form? Yes, faith is your way of escaping reality in a socially acceptable way, but it must hurt knowing that the object of your faith isn’t held so dearly or so surely by others, hmm?

This is rhetoric, not argumentation.

I only bring it up because your conversation with tdgesq touched on the “ends and means” issue. Surely, there are many ways that you could try to make tdgesq (or other theists) look foolish in this thread, but even if you succeeded, nobody would learn anything.

Intellectual honesty is (among other things) a decision we commit ourselves to because we want to know the truth more than we want to win the argument. But some – Machiavelli’s name has been mentioned – want to win more than they want to learn. I think it only fair that you tell us, quite frankly, whether you want to win, or whether you want to understand.

(I only wish we could know that your answer was honest).

 

[warpspeedpetey]

When I refer to nothingness, I’m not speaking of something that has form. Rather, I am speaking of the negation of all that exists. So when I say, “no things exist” I mean that “things don’t exist.” You’ve used negative existentials before, correct? Have you ever said that unicorns don’t exist, or that fairies don’t exist? This is the same concept, except we are negating everything, not just fairies and unicorns.

and when you negate everything, what do you have? nothing. something that doesnt exist.

Why is a universe where this is the case, where no things can ever come to exist, any worse off than the universe we have now?

what is the universe but a collection of beings? the universe is no more than the sum of its parts. just as there is no human race aside from its individual members. so there is no such thing as a universe where nothing comes to exist. because then you have no universe any more than you would have a human race if there were no people.

Or if you’ll allow me to phrase this more conveniently, why is a universe in which fairies exist any more or less valuable than a universe in which fairies don’t exist?

what? whats the difference in value between a world with bears and a world without? this is a nonsensical question, your still stuck with the idea that nothing is something.

How does the existence of things produce or yield value? Come to think of it, what is value, to you?

what are you talking about here?

I mean, if we’re going to talk about maximals, greatness, value, and the like, I expect definitions, not some airy fairy rhetoric from medieval theologians (coughAquinascough).

you already admitted that you dont understand Aquinas. so if you refer to Him as “airy fairy” then you just belittle yourself.

as to the definition of maximal, here.

education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/maximal

max·i·mal (mks-ml) KEY

ADJECTIVE:

Of, relating to, or consisting of a maximum.
Being the greatest or highest possible.

but ive posted it before.

Change that to “a reality in which things don’t exist.” I thought that my meaning was obvious before, but apparently not.

no, it was quite clear. but youre still not getting the point that playing with the language doesnt change the reality. things that “dont exist”, or things that “do not exist” are still nothing. they are not things at all.

Tell that to the seemingly absent unicorns.

we can negate things from existence, right up to the point where you negate everything, which is nothing, as i showed above.

I mean that the emotional climate of humans is nearly perfect for religion. Who wouldn’t want to live with the idea of a loving, ever-present god who can make miracles occur, provide dictums for the sheep who don’t like to think for themselves, and grant us eternal life if we happen to please him?

just about anyone who has ever had sex. do you think those dictums are fun to llive by? dont you think i would rather spend my time partying and talking girls into making me their next bad decision? please.

On second thought, the eternal life thing applies to everybody…make that “eternal bliss.” I know that **I dearly wanted **to believe in God when I was younger just so I could be with my friends and family forever.

the keyword is “I” you only know what you wanted. you assume that everyone wants to be around their family and friends forever. thats not the case. most adults are quite happy to limit familial contact. your friends grow up and get married. its the nature of life to grow apart from the people you know as a child. but your still a child. you have a view of life from that perspective. its inane. you flat out have not the foggiest idea what your talking about.

But how arrogant we humans are in thinking we’re so special that such a being, though only hypothetical, would care for us enough to construct a happy ending for those who are obedient and a bad ending for the rest! It reeks of human nature!

or even a cave man might be somewhat aware that this universe doesnt account for itself, after all what are the odds that some random universe would form in just the right way to make us? the odds of a random formation are simply ridiculous, no one believes them, not even atheists.

Yep, and no other religion has anything like that. No sirreee…

youre right, none of them do. isnt that amazing? there is no other religion in the world that makes the same claims or can back them mathematically in the way we can.

Firstly, the fact that you would attack what is written in one’s signature shows that you are arrogant.

im pointing out the hypocrisy of holding a position which has no valid evidence, but claiming that its wrong for anyone else to do so.

The fact that this dispute you’ve raised arises from questioning whether animals can feel shows that you are a fool,

arent you the one who told me that it was only rational to ask for evidence? it seems another hypocrisy to call me a fool for doing what you claimed was rational.

because you seem to be more certain in the existence of your god than you do the feelings of animals.

i have physical evidence of G-d, the universe itself. i have mathemaitcal evidence for G-d, the Messianic Prophecies, i have eyewitness evidence for G-d, the dozens of books written about what He did and said, collected into the Bible. i have alot of evidence for G-d. what evidence do you have for animal emotions? assumptive anthropomorphization, the idea that because it seems an animal is having emotions it must be having them, followed by the assumption that those observed behaviors are not simply evolutionarily programms, but instead must be real emotions? yeah thats not valid evidence thats an assumption to back up what you really want to be true.

so lets be clear, i have a ton of evidence, you have none. hypocrisy exposed.

You are in no position to debate with that sort of track record.

it seems i am, i believe in things i have evidence for, you believe in things you really want to be true.

 

[Oreoracle]

I only bring it up because your conversation with tdgesq touched on the “ends and means” issue. Surely, there are many ways that you could try to make tdgesq (or other theists) look foolish in this thread, but even if you succeeded, nobody would learn anything.

To be honest, as I’m sure you would prefer me to be, I’m dissappointed with tdgesq. We had a rather long-winded discussion before in which he talked in an almost scholarly manner (like he knew the terminology and concepts involved in the discussion). Now, I’m much less than impressed by his “effort” if one wishes to call it that. He seems to have given it all he’s got, and now his posts consist mostly of evasions and schoolyard taunts (as I’m sure you noticed, he addresses the audience quite often) His main argument against the subjective nature of morality seems to be that it would be inconvenient to live in a world where we all decide for ourselves what’s right and wrong and that things don’t work towards moral ends naturally. Well, I hate to break it to tdgesq, but he’s/she’s living in such a world. If all tdgesq can do is say, “That’s too hard!” and encourage the crowd to ignore me, then how else can I describe such a display other than “childish?” We certainly couldn’t call it intellectually honest.

Intellectual honesty is (among other things) a decision we commit ourselves to because we want to know the truth more than we want to win the argument. But some – Machiavelli’s name has been mentioned – want to win more than they want to learn. I think it only fair that you tell us, quite frankly, whether you want to win, or whether you want to understand.

I want to understand, of course. How did I give the impression that I only want to win?

(I only wish we could know that your answer was honest).

I guess you’ll just have to take my word for it. But I must ask: Even if winning is my only concern, though it is not, would that in any way change the validity of my arguments, or the plausibility of my ethical stance? Of course it wouldn’t. Oftentimes people will use the “you only want to win” excuse just to drop out of a debate. Now you could say that one cannot hope to change the mind of someone who only wants to win, but you can certainly sway the audience, so such a debate wouldn’t be entirely useless.

 

[MindOverMatter]

and when you negate everything, what do you have? nothing. something that doesnt exist.

 

[liquidpele]

Originally Posted by warpspeedpetey View Post
and when you negate everything, what do you have? nothing. something that doesnt exist.

I fail to see what the grin is for… that’s exactly what atheism is. It’s nothing in it’s very essence. The absence of belief in a deity.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Prodigal_Son]

To be honest, as I’m sure you would prefer me to be, I’m dissappointed with tdgesq. We had a rather long-winded discussion before in which he talked in an almost scholarly manner (like he knew the terminology and concepts involved in the discussion). Now, I’m much less than impressed by his “effort” if one wishes to call it that. He seems to have given it all he’s got, and now his posts consist mostly of evasions and schoolyard taunts (as I’m sure you noticed, he addresses the audience quite often) His main argument against the subjective nature of morality seems to be that it would be inconvenient to live in a world where we all decide for ourselves what’s right and wrong and that things don’t work towards moral ends naturally. Well, I hate to break it to tdgesq, but he’s/she’s living in such a world. If all tdgesq can do is say, “That’s too hard!” and encourage the crowd to ignore me, then how else can I describe such a display other than “childish?” We certainly couldn’t call it intellectually honest.

“A man sees what he wants to see, and disregards the rest.” - Paul Simon

The fundamental disposition of a person in an intellectual dispute must always be to understand – notably, to understand what the other person is saying. If you think that the above summary is fair to Tdgesq’s arguments, then you are seeing what you want to see, not seeing what is there. It is not enough to appreciate the opponent’s arguments one-by-one, as they come; we must also appreciate their arguments in total, and be able to summarize a persuasive version of them. Only then do we get to knock them down.

There is a fine line between having fun with your writing, using meaningless rhetoric, and ridiculing. We all (Tdgesq included) need to consider this.

I want to understand, of course. How did I give the impression that I only want to win?

Well, you see, we all want to win, but we don’t all want to understand. It is more convenient and more comfortable not to understand, because true understanding – which involves change – is much more difficult than posing. I’m always a wee suspicious, on this account, of self-professed utilitarians, because the utilitarian has no obligation to seek out what is true, only what produces pleasure.

That said, I do have a sense of your tremendous curiosity, Oreo. Curiosity is a good starting point from which to approach intellectual virtue (worked for Aristotle!).

I guess you’ll just have to take my word for it. But I must ask: Even if winning is my only concern, though it is not, would that in any way change the validity of my arguments, or the plausibility of my ethical stance? Of course it wouldn’t.

It would not affect your arguments. If by “plausibility of your ethical stance,” you mean that I am inclined to believe that you do in face hold said stance, then I’m with you there, too.

Oftentimes people will use the “you only want to win” excuse just to drop out of a debate. Now you could say that one cannot hope to change the mind of someone who only wants to win, but you can certainly sway the audience, so such a debate wouldn’t be entirely useless.

Audience, what audience? (Drops pin, hears pin strike ground audibly). Nobody here but us chickens.

 

[tdgesq]

No, it isn’t “worse” at all. We all have different ideas of what is rational or reasonable. Rationality has nothing to do with trusting empirical evidence in its common usage.

If there are no objective standards for rationality and reason, then there no standards by which we can even judge what constitutes empirical evidence, or anything else for that matter. I could make the flat-footed statement that empirical evidence is only trustworthy if it rains on Friday. Is there any rational basis or reason for that statement? Well, if rationality is purely subjective then it is reasonable from my own personal viewpoint.

You have your standard and I have mine. I can point out that your position is arbitrary, and you can say (which in essence you have) “golly, my rationality allows for arbitrary positions.” I can point out that your position leads to a logical inconsistency, and you can say “gee, my reasoning allows for logical contradictions.” You would not tolerate any of these irrational statements from others, yet seem quite content that others tolerate them from you.

Here are a few examples of the subjective usage of “rationality”:

You mean you have used the word “rational” in sentences. This tells us nothing about whether the proposition proposed is rational or not. Let me just use one of your sentences as an example:

Is it rational to allow people to practice religions, when it offers no apparent advantage to society and tends to produce fanatics?

First, the use of rhetorical questions is an informal fallacy. That is not rational. The correct form of argument would be: People should not be allowed to practice religion because religion offers no advantage to society and tends to produce fanatics. Of course, this is just a conclusion offered without evidence. I could just as easily say that atheism offers no advantage to society and tends to produce fanatics. Like Stalinism for instance. Yet if there are no objective standards of rationality, then there is no way to judge the evidence.

I’m afraid you can’t whip out a test tube or start writing down insane deductions to answer these questions. Nope, you have to feel it out. Rationality is about as subjective as it gets.

We both evaluate these kinds of judgments using standards of reasoning and rationality that are accessible and true for all of us. If not, then there is no point in discussing anything. Is your statement “you have to feel it out” an objective standard that declares some kind of rationality? By the very act of asserting it you imply that it is. Otherwise, it’s just your opinion and I can ignore it.

Because I want to.

You make ethical statements that you admit are not facts and are not rational because you want to. And you claim that my statements are childish. Grow up Ribozyme. What you are peddling here is not philosophy, and no rational man will listen to you.

I want the premises and the conclusion laid out, as with this argument:

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
   C. Therefore, Socrates is mortal

You forgot to change the capital “C.” on the example you took from the internet. Yes, I can put it in the form of a logical syllogism (that is what it is called btw), but why should I? You have your own subjective standard of rationality that you have already shown doesn’t correspond to logical norms.

Do you think you can provide a deductive argument where there are only is-premises with an ought-conclusion?

John Stuart Mill thought he could, but you object even to the greatest proponent of Utilitarianism of all time. I disagree with Mill btw, but I can construct a deductive syllogism from within my ontological framework that shows exactly that. Of course you won’t accept my ontology, but then again, you don’t accept rationality at all it appears.

And you ignored the quote I offered where he explicitly stated that morality comes from the sentiments of man. And even if what you quoted was JSM’s opinion (as you interpreted it), you don’t need to be an objectivist to be a utilitarian.

Ribozyme, Mill’s Utilitarianism (at least portions of it) is required reading in every first year college ethics class. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is right, and you are wrong. Mill does not claim that his ethical framework is purely subjective. He claims that no one can seek anything other than pleasure, and that therefore it is unreasonable to require a person to seek anything else. Your uninformed reading of his seminal work is confused, and you need to read it again. Sure, you can jettison his objective claims, but then you end up acting irrationally as you have done here.

 

[Oreoracle]

and when you negate everything, what do you have? nothing. something that doesnt exist.

what is the universe but a collection of beings? the universe is no more than the sum of its parts. just as there is no human race aside from its individual members. so there is no such thing as a universe where nothing comes to exist. because then you have no universe any more than you would have a human race if there were no people.

The universe is the sum total of all things. Any mathematician will tell you that it’s possible to have a sum of 0 (in fact, any 2nd grader could tell you this). Do you disagree?

If you agree, it’s hard to reconcile this agreement with your assertion that there can’t be a sum of no things. The sum of no things is zero. Pretty simple stuff, Pete. Therefore, we can have a universe (that is to say, a sum of all things) that possesses no things. For convenience, we often address this state as “nothingness” but that is very misleading because “-ness” suggests some form or essence.

Given this, do you deny that a universe of nothing (that is, no things) is possible? If you do, you’re going to have to prove to me that sums can never be zero, or that mathematical principles are not applicable to metaphysics (your brand of metaphysics, that is).

what? whats the difference in value between a world with bears and a world without?

Good question. I have another: What’s the difference between a universe with God and one without? Why is God (or, as you might put it, the form of existence itself) objectively valuable? Why is a universe without existence (that is, a universe without a positive sum) any worse off than one with existence?

you already admitted that you dont understand Aquinas. so if you refer to Him as “airy fairy” then you just belittle yourself.

Exactly. I don’t understand him because his explanations are only airy fairy rhetoric. There’s little to substantiate his metaphysical assumptions, and absolutely nothing to substantiate his assumption that the “uncaused cause” or “unmoved mover” is a sentient and sapient being. All you know about God from his arguments is that he’s supernatural. Big whoop. That’s not nearly enough to justify a religious position.

as to the definition of maximal, here.

That’s just swell. Now how do you define “greatness?” Very subjective, sir.

we can negate things from existence, right up to the point where you negate everything, which is nothing, as i showed above.

That’s like saying, “Well, you can take one step at a time. Heck, you can even walk a whole block. But there’s no way you can walk a mile.”

If some things can go without existing (again, misleading language here), then I don’t see any reason to think that we can’t go all the way. We’re back to your assertion that we can subtract from a positive number all day, but there’s no way that we can subtract until we have zero. That’s a no-no.

just about anyone who has ever had sex. do you think those dictums are fun to llive by?

Religious folks seem to have the idea that if morality is “too easy,” there’s no way it can be a plausible system. Some people want to live by difficult rules, if not only to create the illusion of discipline and acquired wisdom. I’ve seen it time and time again, even though I’m only young.

And I would certainly go without sex, gambling, drinking, etc., if it meant living forever in an eternal paradise. Those are small prices to pay, it would seem.

the keyword is “I” you only know what you wanted. you assume that everyone wants to be around their family and friends forever. thats not the case. most adults are quite happy to limit familial contact. your friends grow up and get married. its the nature of life to grow apart from the people you know as a child. but your still a child. you have a view of life from that perspective. its inane. you flat out have not the foggiest idea what your talking about.

Inane? Are you saying that my attachment to my friends and family isn’t substantial? Or were you referring to my observation (and it is just that, an observation)? The last time I checked, people still cry at funerals. Death is an aspect of reality nearly all of us wish to avoid, whether the victim is oneself or a family member.

youre right, none of them do. isnt that amazing? there is no other religion in the world that makes the same claims or can back them mathematically in the way we can.

Excuse me while I gag. :whacky:

i have physical evidence of G-d, the universe itself.

Even if we accept the uncaused cause argument, there’s no reason to assume that this is God. It could be Allah, for all you know.

i have eyewitness evidence for G-d, the dozens of books written about what He did and said, collected into the Bible.

So if I produced an extensive, ancient account of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you would be convinced? They could have easily made it all up, probably for one of two reasons: a) they wanted it to be true or b) they wanted to have followers. What’s sad is that you probably believe that other religions have done the very same thing. :banghead:

 

[Oreoracle]

If there are no objective standards for rationality and reason, then there no standards by which we can even judge what constitutes empirical evidence, or anything else for that matter.

Let’s not get confused here. I didn’t mention “reason,” but rather “what is reasonable.” Whenever we talk about logic, we’re speaking of reason. When we say that someone is reasonable, this more closely resembles a compliance with rationality.

And really, we don’t have objective standards of evidence. Scientists don’t always agree on whether there is enough evidence to support a hypothesis. So the question “Is it rational to accept a hypothesis with X amount of evidence?” goes unanswered.

But again, I’m speaking of rationality in the ethical sense. How do you determine the rationality of an ethical claim, or a decision? Is it rational or irrational for a man to feed his daughters to hungry bears? Why?

I could make the flat-footed statement that empirical evidence is only trustworthy if it rains on Friday. Is there any rational basis or reason for that statement? Well, if rationality is purely subjective then it is reasonable from my own personal viewpoint.

I’d actually say that it largely depends on your metaphysical beliefs. We derive those “objective standards” you love so much from shared metaphysical beliefs. To emphasize: we create them, and we’ve been wrong before.

You mean you have used the word “rational” in sentences. This tells us nothing about whether the proposition proposed is rational or not. Let me just use one of your sentences as an example:

Right, I wanted to let you pull off this magic I hear of. You know, how you’re supposed to prove to me that your conclusions are objectively rational. I hear a lot of talk, but no proofs.

First, the use of rhetorical questions is an informal fallacy.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but most informal fallacies don’t point to any error in logic, but only to the presentation of such logic, am I right? If so, I have to say that I’ll make my points how I please, thank you very much. I haven’t read of one philosopher who went without asking rhetorical questions to teach others (except perhaps the mathematicians). Have you?

That is not rational.

Correction: You mean it’s not logical. I didn’t intend for them to be propositions. They were questions that you were meant to answer and provide proofs supporting the rationality of your decisions.

Otherwise, it’s just your opinion and I can ignore it.

Well, you can ignore it either way. Humans can ignore mathematical proofs just as quickly as they can ignore emotional appeals. It’s not like the statement, if objective, is going to punch you in the face if you try to ignore it.

And you claim that my statements are childish. Grow up Ribozyme. What you are peddling here is not philosophy, and no rational man will listen to you.

How many of those all-important informal fallacies do you figure you made here?

You forgot to change the capital “C.” on the example you took from the internet.

“C” stands for “conclusion.” That’s exactly what I wanted it to look like. And yes, I found it on the internet (though I typed it) about 2 years ago. It’s one of the first you’ll find when you look up “deductive argument.”

Yes, I can put it in the form of a logical syllogism (that is what it is called btw),

That’s what the example is called, yes. I didn’t want to put the limitation of having only two premises on your argument though.

but why should I?

I’m sure there has to be an informal fallacy for refusing to provide an answer because of your opponent’s reputation. It’s probably classified under the ad hominems.

You have your own subjective standard of rationality that you have already shown doesn’t correspond to logical norms.

To me, fearing spiders but not heights isn’t rational. Not at all. What do you think in your fantastical “objective” world of rationality? Is it rational to fear spiders but not heights? How do you prove that?

John Stuart Mill thought he could

…but never provided the proof! His assertions of an objective morality, then, remain unsubstantiated. I’m not just going to have faith that he could have produced a proof. I want to see it, or you’ve got nothing on me. And needless to say, what you’re doing here is commiting yet another informal fallacy: appeal to authority. In fact, it seems like your shooting for an argument from popularity, at this point.

And if you answer no other questions in this post, I at least want you to tell me why my new nickname is apparently “Ribozyme.”

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The universe is the sum total of all things. Any mathematician will tell you that it’s possible to have a sum of 0 (in fact, any 2nd grader could tell you this). Do you disagree?

of course. 0 is “nothing” and nothing doesnt exist. if you have zero apples, what do you have? “nothing”, as far as apples go.

If you agree, it’s hard to reconcile this agreement with your assertion that there can’t be a sum of no things. The sum of no things is zero.

who said anything about a sum of no things? youre really stretching here, your not interested inthe truth, your just interested in being right.

Pretty simple stuff, Pete.

since you havent made it out of high school yet, save the condecsencion. its laughable

Therefore, we can have a universe (that is to say, a sum of all things) that possesses no things.

how is that? the universe is no more than the sum of its parts, is there some universe aside from its individual parts? please tell me what a universe with no parts consists of?

For convenience, we often address this state as “nothingness” but that is very misleading because “-ness” suggests some form or essence.

Given this, do you deny that a universe of nothing (that is, no things) is possible? If you do, you’re going to have to prove to me that sums can never be zero, or that mathematical principles are not applicable to metaphysics (your brand of metaphysics, that is).

yes, i deny a universe of “nothing” is possible. you still havent shown that there is a “universe” separate from its parts any more than the human race is something sperate from its members. if you have 0 humans, then you dont have a human race. if you have no beings, then you have no universe.

Good question. I have another: What’s the difference between a universe with God and one without? Why is God (or, as you might put it, the form of existence itself) objectively valuable? Why is a universe without existence (that is, a universe without a positive sum) any worse off than one with existence?

because there is no such thing as a universe without existence. if something doesnt exist, it simply doesnt exist. there is no such thing as “a universe without existence”

Exactly. I don’t understand him because his explanations are only airy fairy rhetoric. There’s little to substantiate his metaphysical assumptions, and absolutely nothing to substantiate his assumption that the “uncaused cause” or “unmoved mover” is a sentient and sapient being. All you know about God from his arguments is that he’s supernatural. Big whoop. That’s not nearly enough to justify a religious position.

you admit you havent read it, so your opinion is not based on anything but desire. there are whole schools of thought based on his philosophy and thousands of proffesors, teach this “airy fairy” stuff, its been treated by every one from metaphysicians, logicians, mathematicians, and theologians for more than 800 years now. i think you simply dont understand and cannot admit it. im telling you why there is an uncaused cause, and youre dancing a mad jig to avoid admitting the obvious. as to sentience ans sapience, its being dealt with on several threads i havent sseen you post on, so it looks like youre truthseeking to me.

That’s just swell. Now how do you define “greatness?” Very subjective, sir.

you admit on another thread that almost all definitions are circular if you keep at them long enough, since you know this its a little disenginuous to use it in this manner, but if you insist, it means highest possible value of magnitude, how bout that?

That’s like saying, “Well, you can take one step at a time. Heck, you can even walk a whole block. But there’s no way you can walk a mile.”

If some things can go without existing (again, misleading language here), then I don’t see any reason to think that we can’t go all the way. We’re back to your assertion that we can subtract from a positive number all day, but there’s no way that we can subtract until we have zero. That’s a no-no.

no, you cant go all the way back to nothing, because “nothing” doesnt exist. nor did i make any assertions about subtracting from a positive number did i?

Religious folks seem to have the idea that if morality is “too easy,” there’s no way it can be a plausible system.

its not a plausible system in that the rules it sets are as subjective as the moral claims it seeks to deny. it means there really are no morals. as i showed, now matter the precept, if morals are subjective, i see no reason to follow it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Some people want to live by difficult rules, if not only to create the illusion of discipline and acquired wisdom. I’ve seen it time and time again, even though I’m only young.

actually living by a moral code wouldnt be the illusion of discipline it would be discipline, no? as to acquired wisdom, havent you heard the expression that the path of excess leads to the palace of wisdom?

And I would certainly go without sex, gambling, drinking, etc., if it meant living forever in an eternal paradise. Those are small prices to pay, it would seem.

its not nearly as easy as it sounds.

Inane? Are you saying that my attachment to my friends and family isn’t substantial? Or were you referring to my observation (and it is just that, an observation)? The last time I checked, people still cry at funerals. Death is an aspect of reality nearly all of us wish to avoid, whether the victim is oneself or a family member.

no, the kids i have raised, love me and i them, but i wish to spend time away from them sometimes, and someday they will feel the same way. im pointing out that your observations are from a point in life that is insufficiently informed to make such assertions. and i dont know about you, byut i am ready for death,as are a great many of my fellow Catholics, we are ready for the beatific vision. the pain of death is feared, not the state of being dead.

Even if we accept the uncaused cause argument, there’s no reason to assume that this is God. It could be Allah, for all you know.

Messianic prophecy. no other faith has that. Allah, is G-d the father, in our theology, but you have to trust mohammed and mohammed alone, the koran is a revealed text. it just showed up one day.

So if I produced an extensive, ancient account of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you would be convinced?

if i had accounts from unrelated witnesses spanning hundreds of events over thousands of years, all describing the same flying spaghetti monster, yeah, that would be a neat trick , no?

They could have easily made it all up,

how could they controlthings like name, place of birth, time of birth? lineage, etc? that would require time travel and omnipotence.

probably for one of two reasons: a) they wanted it to be true or

why would they want it to be true if they knew it was a lie? what would be the point? to live lives of repression, torture, imprisonment, living on the run and in hiding, having no posssessions of note? that doesnt make alot of sense.

b) they wanted to have followers.

thats true, they were commanded to in the great commision by Christ, that was their entire purpose, but i dont suppose they had any benefits to it for themselves.

What’s sad is that you probably believe that other religions have done the very same thing. :banghead:

which ones? im sure there are some cults that have benefitted from these things, but the 3 major theistic religions are easily explained. Judaism, Christiainity and islam. Christianity is simply the fulfillment of Judaic prophecy, and islam is a Judeo/Christain heresy formed 600 years after the Ressurection. most othe major religions are nature worship, or philosophical systems. some are simply a reflection of peoples innate desire to seek the spiritual. its inbred to the human condition. atheism is the aberration, people instinctively know there is a G-d. why else do you think there are billions upon billions of theists? and have been long before any of the established religions.

 

[MindOverMatter]

of course. 0 is “nothing” and nothing doesnt exist. if you have zero apples, what do you have? “nothing”, as far as apples go.

who said anything about a sum of no things? youre really stretching here, your not interested inthe truth, your just interested in being right.

since you havent made it out of high school yet, save the condecsencion. its laughable

how is that? the universe is no more than the sum of its parts, is there some universe aside from its individual parts? please tell me what a universe with no parts consists of?

yes, i deny a universe of “nothing” is possible. you still havent shown that there is a “universe” separate from its parts any more than the human race is something sperate from its members. if you have 0 humans, then you dont have a human race. if you have no beings, then you have no universe. .

:hypno:Its like talking to a brick wall. There really is no excuse for not being able to grasp a simple thing like what you have just written here. You can say it a thousand times, but if your opponents not willing to listen…well…around around the mulberry bush.:hypno:

Can you see now why i get upset and frustrated?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

:hypno:Its like talking to a brick wall. There really is no excuse for not being able to grasp a simple thing like what you have just written here. You can say it a thousand times, but if your opponents not willing to listen…well…around around the mulberry bush.:hypno:

Can you see now why i get upset and frustrated?

yeah, its ok, though. eventually he will be either so embarassed or so frustrated, he will realize his position is wrong. so unless he is one of those who wants theism to be wrong so he can continue some immoral practice, which i dont think is the case, he will eventually come around.

i have a lifetime. im in no hurry.