Thoughts on the gay cake case

[PRmerger]

As always I am happy to learn. The problem is that there are unquestionable dogmas,

Ummm…no, PA.

Where did you get the idea that there are “unquestionable dogmas”?

and the final argument is always: “the church is infallible because it claims infallibility”. This is a circular argument.

Nope. That is not the final argument.

Are we going to agree that Christ is divine (for the sake of this discussion)? If so, then I can present to you some arguments for the infallibility of the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

But what two consenting people do to each other in their home is no one’s business.

Really?

You are ok with adultery, then? As long as it’s consensual?

And why do you say “two”? What’s wrong with more?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I admit that this is a serious limitation, but if you wish to conduct a conversation, then you need to limit yourself to something I can comprehend.

In other words, God CANNOT exist because YOU cannot comprehend what it would mean for God to exist.

And any argument for God cannot be rational, true or valid because you cannot make sense of it.

I see

If God exists then Pallas Athene could fully comprehend God.
Pallas Athene cannot fully comprehend God.
Therefore God does not exist.

Aside from the fact that the argument is invalid, why do we have any reason for thinking God’s existence depends upon your ability to comprehend it or your assent, at all?

 

[PRmerger]

Proverbs 13:24 also Proverbs 23:13.

Not sure what your point is here, PA?

If so, then it should not be included in the 20 proofs.

Annnnd, another piece of evidence that demonstrates you have not read the proofs.

The concept of Greatest Conceivable Being is nonsense. What you imagine to be “greatest” is probably different from someone else’s “greatest”. It is subjective, contingent upon what one considers to be “great”. Moreover, the idea of “greatest” is a composite attribute, and its constituent parts are subjectively selected.

Let’s follow your reasoning here, PA: my idea of the best meal is different than yours. It is subjective. Therefore, my favorite meal doesn’t exist.

:whacky:

Really?

Three things are wrong with it. 1) You assume without any reason that “everything that has a beginning has an external cause for its existence”.

I am astonished that you could assert this. Absolutely astonished.

This is just basic logic that something that begins to exist MUST have a cause.

 

[Bradski]

Do you think some people could be intolerant to hate and step in to stop someone from thinking hateful thoughts about, say, African Americans?

I think that you mean ‘expressing hateful thoughts’.

Our Attorney General got into some hot water recently during debates on whether our Racial Discrimination Act should be repealed. He said: ‘In a free country people do have rights to say things that other people find offensive or insulting or bigoted.’

He was nearly right in that anyone is free to be a bigot or a racist. But there’s a huge difference between thinking that any given section of society deserves one’s contempt and expressing that same view.

In the matter of the cake, it’s no problem to think that SSM should not be allowed. It’s another thing to actively discriminate against people who are getting married.

A quick question…

The church allows girls of 14 to have sex (it allows marriage at that age if local laws and customs allow it). Would you say that the church is wrong and refuse to bake a cake for a wedding between a 30 year old man and a fourteen year old girl?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Three things are wrong with it. 1) You assume without any reason that “everything that has a beginning has an external cause for its existence”. That is an unfounded metaphysical assumption.

In other words, is it your claim that things can “bootstrap” themselves into existence?

That would be a perfect example of “an unfounded metaphysical assumption.”

If something “begins” to exist and needs no external cause, then it is legitimate to say that which was nothing can merely, of its own (though non-existent accord) become something. You see NO problem with that?

Why aren’t we seeing things just pop into existence willy-nilly? Is it rational to suppose such events can and do occur?

I would suppose never having observed such things would make such a proposal fall into the category of “unconvincing.” Which means it is quite reasonable, “metaphysically speaking” to assume things that don’t exist require something that does exist to impart existence to them, seeing that nothing, as an ontological non-entity, by definition has no power, no characteristics and no potential to accomplish anything whatsoever, including no power to create itself.

It’s not an “unfounded metaphysical assumption,” it is indubitable metaphysic assumption and the fact that you don’t see that it CANNOT be denied is grounds for thinking your metaphysical assumptions are unfounded.

 

[Peter_Plato]

A quick question…

The church allows girls of 14 to have sex (it allows marriage at that age if local laws and customs allow it). Would you say that the church is wrong and refuse to bake a cake for a wedding between a 30 year old man and a fourteen year old girl?

Are you supposing that no 14 year old girls anywhere and at anytime in human history could ever be fit mothers or wives?

What is it, in principle, that would make a fourteen year old unfit for marriage?

What you are doing here is taking the Church’s position as meaning that any fourteen year old is fit to marry when that isn’t the Church’s position at all.

It could very well be possible that the Church would agree with you if you refused to bake a cake for a wedding between a 30 year old man and a fourteen year old girl. Now, in cultures where 30 year old men have been marrying 14 year old girls for hundreds of years and that norm has resulted in a stable, self-sustaining and vibrant society, I am not sure what your complaint is about.

I suppose you would prefer a culture where 20-30 year old women abort their yet to be born children on a whim and never marry but regularly engage in “recreational sex” from the age of 14 or younger to be a preferable state of affairs? :ehh:

By the way, there is some evidence that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was about fourteen when she gave birth to Jesus.

 

[Bradski]

Well, if there is an effect, there must have been cause. It’s common sense. It’s as obvious as saying that something cannot be in two places at the same time. Or that something which is a particle cannot be a wave at the same time. Or that changing something in one place instantaneously alters something somewhere else. And no effect can be faster than the speed of light.

Objects of the quantum world – according to quantum theory – no longer move along a single well-defined path. Rather, they can simultaneously take different paths and end up at different places at once. phys.org/news/2015-01-atoms.html

It’s a fundamental property of the universe, and one that continues to blow people’s minds: photons behave as both particles and waves, matter and energy. Photons aren’t alone in this—every elemental particle is thought to act the same way—but they are perhaps the most well-known example. pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/physicists-finally-see-light-as-a-particle-and-a-wave-at-the-same-time/

When observed, Photon A takes on an up-spin state. Entangled Photon B, though now far away, takes up a state relative to that of Photon A (in this case, a down-spin state). The transfer of state between Photon A and Photon B takes place at a speed of at least 10,000 times the speed of light, possibly even instantaneously, regardless of distance. livescience.com/28550-how-quantum-entanglement-works-infographic.html

Can I suggest that common sense (it’s obvious!) is not a very good method of determining esoteric matters such as life, the universe and everything.

 

[Bradski]

Are you supposing that no 14 year old girls anywhere and at anytime in human history could ever be fit mothers or wives?

I’m asking if you’d support such a marriage by baking a cake. Or would you have reservations…

 

[Peter_Plato]

What is a miracle? Something that cannot happen in nature? Something that requires a supernatural cause? The problem: “how do you know what can or cannot happen in nature”? That would require some kind of omniscience. Second, “how do you know that a supernatural intervention occurred”? After all the supernatural is not supposed to be observable, it cannot be tested.

There are all sorts of “claims” for miracles. But as we know claims are dime a dozen.

Yes, proof for “dime a dozen claims” below.

No, only the rational ones. The ones which do not require an a-priori acceptance of the claim.

You do understand that it is in the nature of deductive proofs that the conclusion is implicit in the premises? Accepting the premises means you have accepted the conclusion because it follows logically and necessarily from the premises, yes?

In order to prove the premises, if these are challenged, there will have to be a series of back stepping arguments to support each premise until one arrives at self-evident or indisputable propositions or a priori assumptions.

It is in the very nature of proofs to require a priori acceptance of the premises.

Inductive arguments can only be as compelling as the evidence which means physical evidence can only demonstrate physical conclusions.

So your demand for “only rational ones” is about as empty a gesture as can be made. Simply put, it amounts to, “I’ll accept only what I’ll accept because…well… those are the only ones I’ll accept.” Speaking of begging the question.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, if there is an effect, there must have been cause. It’s common sense. It’s as obvious as saying that something cannot be in two places at the same time. Or that something which is a particle cannot be a wave at the same time. Or that changing something in one place instantaneously alters something somewhere else. And no effect can be faster than the speed of light.

Objects of the quantum world – according to quantum theory – no longer move along a single well-defined path. Rather, they can simultaneously take different paths and end up at different places at once. phys.org/news/2015-01-atoms.html

It’s a fundamental property of the universe, and one that continues to blow people’s minds: photons behave as both particles and waves, matter and energy. Photons aren’t alone in this—every elemental particle is thought to act the same way—but they are perhaps the most well-known example. pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/physicists-finally-see-light-as-a-particle-and-a-wave-at-the-same-time/

When observed, Photon A takes on an up-spin state. Entangled Photon B, though now far away, takes up a state relative to that of Photon A (in this case, a down-spin state). The transfer of state between Photon A and Photon B takes place at a speed of at least 10,000 times the speed of light, possibly even instantaneously, regardless of distance. livescience.com/28550-how-quantum-entanglement-works-infographic.html

Can I suggest that common sense (it’s obvious!) is not a very good method of determining esoteric matters such as life, the universe and everything.

Sure, and if you are prepared to accept seemingly incongruous or inexplicable theoretical proposals such as the above, then an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God should be relatively uncontroversial.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Where did you get the idea that there are “unquestionable dogmas”?

All dogmas are unquestionable - for the Catholics, of course.

Nope. That is not the final argument.

What is it then? I am really interested.

You are ok with adultery, then? As long as it’s consensual?

Adultery is - by definition - cheating. If the other party in a marriage consents to have an “open marriage”, then there is no adultery.

And why do you say “two”? What’s wrong with more?

Nothing at all. You know it is getting tedious to explain the same thing over and over again. If ALL the parties - the ones who actively participate and the ones who are also affected to the act consent to an activity - ANY activity - then there is nothing wrong with it. To refer to an actual example: two people in Germany consented that one of them will kill the other one, and make a meal (cannibalism) from the meat of the dead participant. We can feel that this is a despicable act, but since they both consented to it… it was their own business, and whatever revulsion we might feel is OUR own problem.

Not sure what your point is here, PA?

Nothing special. I quoted the old saying “do not spare the rod”. You asked: “where does this come form”? So I gave you the source.

Let’s follow your reasoning here, PA: my idea of the best meal is different than yours. It is subjective. Therefore, my favorite meal doesn’t exist.

Nope! The “best possible meal” does not exist. You can consider a meal to be the “best possible meal” according to your taste. I can consider the “best meal” whatever I prefer the best meal according to my taste (there are many contestants here). And Joe Q. Whoever has his own concept of the “best meal”. The point is that there is no “best possible meal”. Anselm stipulated the “GCB”, but he was wrong. My “GCB” is different from your “GCB” - so there is NO GCB.

I am astonished that you could assert this. Absolutely astonished.

This is just basic logic that something that begins to exist MUST have a cause.

No. There is the solution that some entity simply exists. You should not be astonished at this, since you proclaim that God simply exists. Materialists have the same starting point, they believe that the universe simply exists. They are in a better position, since the universe unquestionably exists, without any doubt.

There are many “brute facts” without explanations, without a need for explanations. For example, the virtual size of the Moon and the virtual size of the Sun are approximately the same - from the Earth, of course. Certain things are what they are for no rhyme or reason.

 

[Bradski]

Sure, and if you are prepared to accept seemingly incongruous or inexplicable theoretical proposals such as the above, then an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God should be relatively uncontroversial.

That nice Mr. Occam had a great idea some time back.

Notwithstanding that, the examples just show that an argument that starts: ‘It’s obvious that…’ or ‘Common sense dictates that…’ doesn’t carry any weight at all. Our brains have evolved to comprehend more mundane aspects of life. Distances measured in how far away the horizon is, not light years and parsecs. Time measured in weeks and seasons not billions of years. And common sense truisms like something cannot be in two different places at once and somebody made all this especially for us.

I mean, it’s obvious, isn’t it?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Nope! The “best possible meal” does not exist. You can consider a meal to be the “best possible meal” according to your taste. I can consider the “best meal” whatever I prefer the best meal according to my taste (there are many contestants here). And Joe Q. Whoever has his own concept of the “best meal”. The point is that there is no “best possible meal”. Anselm stipulated the “GCB”, but he was wrong. My “GCB” is different from your “GCB” - so there is NO GCB.

This is interesting in that it shows just how presumptive and question begging your acceptance of your own “arguments” truly is.

First, you equate the “greatness” of a meal - which is solely determined (you assume) by someone’s taste - with the conceptual or ontological greatness of being or existence - which isn’t a matter of subjective taste or preference at all. Yet you claim, without substantiating the claim, that greatness is only a subjective matter.

Even if true, subjects are, if anything, rational beings, which means that subjects can determine some qualities not by sensory preference but by sound judgement. Subjects can determine, for example: the qualities that comprise great art, great music, great literature and the like. Now presumably there are some qualities which have determinable great-making characteristics and those characteristics can be better determined by subjects with expertise or knowledge.

In other words, determining the quality of “greatest conceivable being” would best be left to the judgement of a being with the wherewithal to determine the great-making characteristics of any and all beings and the capacity to determine out of all beings which best fits the description.

It isn’t, therefore, true that because “My “GCB” is different from your “GCB” - so there is NO GCB.” It is true that the GCB as conceived by the greatest conceivable being would be a much more fit conceptual candidate for GCB than either your conception or mine. It isn’t that the conclusion follows that there is NO GCB, but that you or I, not being GCBs are not capable of rendering an adequate judgement on the matter. It doesn’t follow that there is “NO GCB” because “your GCB is different from mine,” it does, however, follow that only a GCB would be fit enough to render a judgement in the matter. Which means by assuming there is no GCB to determine whether a GCB actually exists, you are begging the question, yet again.

This does show that your ability to draw conclusions from premises is weak, at best. Which means that all your blather about the arguments for God’s existence being unconvincing is a claim being made by someone incapable of drawing a proper conclusion to an argument - which gives us absolutely no assurance that what you say about those arguments ought to be given any serious consideration at all.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That nice Mr. Occam had a great idea some time back.

Notwithstanding that, the examples just show that an argument that starts: ‘It’s obvious that…’ or ‘Common sense dictates that…’ doesn’t carry any weight at all. Our brains have evolved to comprehend more mundane aspects of life. Distances measured in how far away the horizon is, not light years and parsecs. Time measured in weeks and seasons not billions of years. And common sense truisms like something cannot be in two different places at once and somebody made all this especially for us.

I mean, it’s obvious, isn’t it?

Did you have a point or were you auditioning to write an episode for Seinfeld?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

First, you equate the “greatness” of a meal - which is solely determined (you assume) by someone’s taste - with the conceptual or ontological greatness of being or existence - which isn’t a matter of subjective taste or preference at all. Yet you claim, without substantiating the claim, that greatness is only a subjective matter.

There is no objective set of criteria what constitutes “greatness” in a meal. For some it might be the taste, for others its nutrition, for yet others the presentation, and so on. Greatness cannot be defined in a vacuum, one needs to state “this whatchamacallit is great in THIS respect”.

Even if true, subjects are, if anything, rational beings, which means that subjects can determine some qualities not by sensory preference but by sound judgement. Subjects can determine, for example: the qualities that comprise great art, great music, great literature and the like. Now presumably there are some qualities which have determinable great-making characteristics and those characteristics can be better determined by subjects with expertise or knowledge.

Nonsense. Experts disagree, too. Some prefer Wagner’s music, other like Mozart, there are people who love rap music. There can be no “greatest conceivable music”.

It doesn’t follow that there is “NO GCB” because “your GCB is different from mine,” it does, however, follow that only a GCB would be fit enough to render a judgement in the matter.

Oh, the beauty of circular reasoning!!! Aren’t you getting dizzy yet?

Of course Anselm was not a GCB, and yet he created the concept of GCB. From your circular logic it would follow that since Anselm was not the GCB, he was not in the position to declare the concept of CGB as a valid concept…

 

[PRmerger]

Three things are wrong with it. 1) You assume without any reason that “everything that has a beginning has an external cause for its existence”.

Can you give an example of anything–anything at all–that you can prove came into existence without a cause?

Something that came from nothing?

 

[PRmerger]

To step in and stop someone would mean to act, to force someone.

So this would be wrong? For anyone to do?

Or just for you?

Don’t confuse thinking about something and acting upon that thought. But I am probably wasting my time… after all you believe in thought crimes, and I don’t.

When have I articulated any belief in thought crimes?

Now, 'tis true that I do believe that some thoughts can be wrong. Treacherously wrong. Mortally wrong. Absolutely wrong. Repulsively wrong.

But as for making it a crime…can you point to the post where I expressed that view?

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is no objective set of criteria what constitutes “greatness” in a meal. For some it might be the taste, for others its nutrition, for yet others the presentation, and so on. Greatness cannot be defined in a vacuum, one needs to state “this whatchamacallit is great in THIS respect”.

Nonsense. Experts disagree, too. Some prefer Wagner’s music, other like Mozart, there are people who love rap music. There can be no “greatest conceivable music”.

So what if “experts” disagree, that just means the experts do not have full access to all the criteria by which to determine which music is actually the best. Of two things the “experts” will all agree on:

1. that one piece of music or composer is objectively as good as or better than the others - otherwise there would be NO BASIS FOR DISAGREEMENT and
2. that no discussion on the subject would be possible so they would be wasting their time disagreeing if it were the case that the quality of music depends merely on preference.

Experts on mere taste do not exist because any would-be “experts” in that realm would see right away that it would be inane to discuss or argue with you about which ice cream you prefer, as if THAT wouldn’t be a mere matter of preference.

Even sommeliers would not concede that the quality of wine is merely about their palates nor that any palate is as good as any other for determining the greatness of a wine.

You wouldn’t find any of the music experts capitulating to someone who claimed that Chopsticks was a better piece of music than Beethoven’s Fifth or Handel’s Messiah. If you are correct, then music theory and principles of composition ought to be tossed in the nearest trash bin because there is no way of objectively deciding whether any piece music is better qua music than any other or, for that matter, from pot lids in C♯ Minor (by a two year old.)

Oh, the beauty of circular reasoning!!! Aren’t you getting dizzy yet?

Well, no, it’s actually kind of fun watching the circular argument come around and bite you on the behind.

No, he may have been the first human being (doubtful) to become aware of the idea, but he didn’t create the GCB as GCB. The fact that he understood it to be a valid concept does not entail he was in a position to make determinations about everything that is entailed by GCB. Your ability to draw conclusions from premises, again, seems tenuous.

The mere fact that some criteria exists for determining “better” means that “best” must exist, even if that equates to the one that is better than the other where only two candidates exist. The problem becomes sticky when those making the determination do not have complete access to the field of candidates or to a full grasp of the criteria.

In the case of the GCB, it isn’t a quality, per se, that is being assessed but the ontology of being itself. Now if you wish to insist that having human existence is no better or worse, qualitatively speaking than being a slug, then I leave you to your delusion. Or if you insist that human beings are not better situated to make the judgement as to which level of being is greater than a slug is, well your alleged respect for reason and rationality has been shown to be a fraudulent and supercilious one.

What’s that I see sneaking up behind you? It appears to be a viciously circular argument with bared teeth about to bite you on your backside.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Can you give an example of anything–anything at all–that you can prove came into existence without a cause?

Something that came from nothing?

Irrelevant. To declare a metaphysical principle like “everything that came into existence needs an external cause” is like the declaration: “we have never seen a black swan, therefore black swans cannot exist”. The problem is that such metaphysical principles may seem to valid, but they are still just empty speculations.

So this would be wrong? For anyone to do?

According to my principles the only time that using force is justified is in self-defense (or defense of others), and even in those cases the force to be used must be kept at the minimum. Your mileage may vary.

When have I articulated any belief in thought crimes?

If you believe the passage where Jesus said: “whoever looks at a woman with lust, he already committed an adultery with her in his heart” - then you believe in thought-crime, or if you prefer a “thought-sin”. My point still is that thoughts can be wrong (as you said), but if they are not put into practice they are not a problem.

By the way we are seriously drifting…