Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

New huge 'Victory Christian Fellowship' centre being completed in Firhouse, Dublin

Options
1…89111314…28

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    kiffer wrote: »
    The old science should stick with 'How' and religion/philosophy should stick to 'Why'?

    That's pretty much my viewpoint. It may be subject to change in the future, but currently you're about right.
    kiffer wrote: »
    ... Wait wasn't it your position in the BC&P thread that Gods morality is absolute as he is all knowing?

    To be intellectually honest, I find it is better to examine the views that:
    1) Morality is natural, 2) Morality is contrived, 3) Morality is absolute

    I personally believe 3 is the case. You could break up different philosophers into any of these groups.
    kiffer wrote: »
    This is hard to do when you already assert that you have the right answer before we have even discussed whether or not there is one at all.

    I believe that I have the right answer yes. Generally before we make these kind of assumptions, it's good to go through the reasoning behind these assumptions, but generally when we have got to that stage here it gets messy.


  • Options
    #303
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm sure you could have preempted this response, but you do realise that there is a difference between knowing something is true, and believing something is true, don't you?
    Yes I do. One is knowing it's true and the other is thinking it's true either consciously or instinctively or wanting it to be true. you only have to read any of the Lisbon threads to see that people have an unfortunate propensity hold very stubbornly to things that they want to be true in the face of overwhelming evidence.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Let's carry on. As for it being disproven, I don't think your assumption is correct. Given that humanity has free will it is quite conceivable that humanity could fall away from any absolute moral standard.

    So is there any way to prove that there is an absolute moral standard without proving the existence of a God who claims to have given one?


  • Options
    #304
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    To be intellectually honest, I find it is better to examine the views that:
    1) Morality is natural, 2) Morality is contrived, 3) Morality is absolute

    I personally believe 3 is the case. You could break up different philosophers into any of these groups.

    This is really the problem with having any debate with you over, say, abortion, homosexuality, prostitution, drugs, aids prevention etc. It makes absolutely no difference what anyone says to you, what evidence is presented and how well backed up the opposing arguments are. The only way to change your mind about any of these is to disprove the existence of the Judeo-Christian God because as far as you're concerned these things are absolutely wrong and anyone who says otherwise is arguing with God and therefore mistaken, no matter what they say


    Which is of course the problem with people who think they have absolute morality, but who in all likelihood don't


  • Options
    #305
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    What are you talking about?

    I'm talking about moral philosophers such as Jurgen Habermas, who have put forward ideas concerning ethics when there are differing people with different moral value systems in one society (aka a pluralism). This kind of reasoning is far more effective to come up with ideas, and solutions to these kind of problems.
    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Sounds suspiciously like science. Or else I have no clue what I'm talking about.

    Perhaps it is like it to an extent, but putting peoples ideas into practice to see if they can bring results or encourage a moral outlook to existence isn't exactly the same thing. People like me are putting ideas based on the Biblical text into practice to see if we can encourage a moral outlook.
    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    You mean you need to because you're a christian. Unfortunate that. Natural selection so far is the only theory that at least to me explains why we behave the way we do.

    In your opinion.
    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    It already has. You really need to read The Selfish Gene.

    I thought that was Richard Dawkins opinion based on science. Is it absolutely proven that we have answers in this respect. I would consider getting the book to read if it shed light on this.
    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    :confused: What?

    At it's very best, science will only be able to inform us about the origins of morality rather than actually providing us with a moral framework to lead our lives in terms of what is right and what is wrong.


  • Options
    #306
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    Húrin wrote: »
    There are, even Christian ones - the Amish Mennonites for instance. I imagine that many fundamentalist Muslim groups oppose it too. Jakkass isn't obliged to agree with them though.

    I never imagined he would have to agree with them. Rather, studying Computer Science would lead Jakkass to form a rather scientific naturalism in regards to it. I'd imagine he'd find it rather comical if he was confronted with someone trying to reason that the subject he is learning is the work of Satan, especially when these individuals would be clearly drawing wild assumptions about a subject they know nothing about.

    Yet he then leaves his studying behind and proceeds to draw his own large and ridiculous assumptions about the nature of this Universe, it's beginning and the set of rules a supposed omniscient being has outlined for some hairless apes so that they can get back the immortality he supposedly took from our distant ancestors.

    It would be nice if Jakkass could apply the same reasoning abilities he must clearly use in the microcosm of computer science to the macrocosm of reality.
    Húrin wrote: »
    I would expect that atheists should assert that morality comes from the desire for self-preservation. Theists should assert that morality comes from some deeper metaphysical source....

    ... which comes out of their desire for self-preservation.

    We're all eating the same plate of meat and vegetables, but Theists are carving it up and rearranging it to look fancier. Atheists however are happy to eat it as nature intended it to look. The presentation may be different but the substance of it and the purpose of eating it are the same.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    Jakkass wrote: »
    That's pretty much my viewpoint. It may be subject to change in the future, but currently you're about right.

    The problem sometimes the clearing up a 'how' or two seems to totally eliminates the need for the one or more 'why's...

    To be intellectually honest, I find it is better to examine the views that:
    1) Morality is natural, 2) Morality is contrived, 3) Morality is absolute

    I personally believe 3 is the case. You could break up different philosophers into any of these groups.

    Yes but absolute morals either come form reason based on absolute knowledge or by might makes right arbitrary absolute authority...
    I believe that I have the right answer yes. Generally before we make these kind of assumptions, it's good to go through the reasoning behind these assumptions, but generally when we have got to that stage here it gets messy.

    It's always messy... Otherwise it would be easy... ;)


    As an a side people... Am I more or less coherent than usual today?


  • Options
    #308
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    I never imagined he would have to agree with them. Rather, studying Computer Science would lead Jakkass to form a rather scientific naturalism in regards to it. I'd imagine he'd find it rather comical if he was confronted with someone trying to reason that the subject he is learning is the work of Satan, especially when these individuals would be clearly drawing wild assumptions about a subject they know nothing about.

    I doubt any such objection would have an impact on my studying of Computer Science, out of interest I would ask what basis they would have for such a claim. As for a "scientific naturalism" what do you mean? I mean I think computers have come into our world because of mans use of the resources we have. If you could explain yourself more here it'd be appreciated.
    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    Yet he then leaves his studying behind and proceeds to draw his own large and ridiculous assumptions about the nature of this Universe, it's beginning and the set of rules a supposed omniscient being has outlined for some hairless apes so that they can get back the immortality he supposedly took from our distant ancestors.

    I think it is possible for assumptions however ridiculous they may be to be drawn on both sides of this discussion about God.
    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    It would be nice if Jakkass could apply the same reasoning abilities he must clearly use in the microcosm of computer science to the macrocosm of reality.

    Hm. Do you think my understanding would be any different than my current understanding? I think the existence of God makes sense rationally, it's something I've been chastised for saying in here repeatedly :pac:, but I don't see any major conflict between my faith or studying any subject.


  • Options
    #309
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm talking about moral philosophers such as Jurgen Habermas, who have put forward ideas concerning ethics when there are differing people with different moral value systems in one society (aka a pluralism). This kind of reasoning is far more effective to come up with ideas, and solutions to these kind of problems.

    Really? Also the question of which philosopher is involved in ethics is a non issue for me. The origin of my questions concern Hùrin suggesting through this question
    What is the scientific consensus on what promotes culture, morality and ethics, and human purpose?

    i.e. that these weren't amenable to science. They are. You of course need a way for god to get into it hence the quagmire I'm in now trying with great difficulty to get through your brilliant sophistry.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    In your opinion.

    No not just mine.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I thought that was Richard Dawkins opinion based on science.

    Yes based on science (I forgot that doesn't mean as much to you as it does to me).
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Is it absolutely proven that we have answers in this respect. I would consider getting the book to read if it shed light on this.

    In as much as we know natural selection provides answers with respect to genetics. You should read it, if for nothing but advance your knowledge of evolutionary biology.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    At it's very best, science will only be able to inform us about the origins of morality rather than actually providing us with a moral framework to lead our lives in terms of what is right and what is wrong.

    Well science and its study of behaviour adequately tells me why we have morals/ethics and why I would choose to update them in the future I don't know what else I can say on the matter.


  • Options
    #310
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I doubt any such objection would have an impact on my studying of Computer Science, out of interest I would ask what basis they would have for such a claim. As for a "scientific naturalism" what do you mean? I mean I think computers have come into our world because of mans use of the resources we have. If you could explain yourself more here it'd be appreciated.

    What I am saying is that you would find it odd to have to contend with metaphysical or religious arguments regarding Computer Science in your course would you not? Do you think these fields have any business speculating or imposing their beliefs on the subject you are learning? You wish to study computer science in a naturalist manner.

    Yet your beliefs, and those of all theists, proceed to keep blindly guessing about other fields of science they know nothing about. Whether it be the origins of the Universe to the origins of life on Earth, to what happens to us when we die.

    How would you feel if every time talk of the possibility of an undetected Alpha Particle affecting computer electronics came up you had to contend with individuals in your course raising the argument that it could equally be possible that God chose to stop that electron in it's tracks. Now, under your reasoning, this could very well be a "rational" explanation to yourself as you believe in a Theistic God. But it would be infuriating as you know there is more than likely a natural explanation for these transient errors, and the people trying to say "It could be God" are deviating attention away from methods of detecting and prevention of them.

    You know you are happy that metaphysics and religion have nothing to do with your course. You are happy that God does not need to be considered when asking the questions and finding the answers. Well leave metaphysics and religion out of astronomy and biology and every other science that Theists feel fit to inject their God into.

    Next time you are in your computer science class. Stop and imagine what it would be like if the lecturer said, "Now class, lets stop and pray to be thankful that God has given these computers his holy spirit to move the electrons through it's circuits. Amen". Then think about all the other natural occurrences in this world that you also thank God for, and all the questions that Science is trying to answer that you also impose your God on.


  • Options
    #311
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    What I am saying is that you would find it odd to have to contend with metaphysical or religious arguments regarding Computer Science in your course would you not? Do you think these fields have any business speculating or imposing their beliefs on the subject you are learning? You wish to study computer science in a naturalist manner.

    Computer Science and my interest in such things are secular activities for me. No doubt there are people of every religion and none involved in it.
    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    Yet your beliefs, and those of all theists, proceed to keep blindly guessing about other fields of science they know nothing about. Whether it be the origins of the Universe to the origins of life on Earth, to what happens to us when we die.

    I don't think I'm guessing about anything. It's rather that the way things are seems to suggest to me that a higher power exists. I'm not saying I know this as an absolute fact. There is no way I can do it. It's like the way people speculate about the existence of other intelligent life existing in the universe.
    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    How would you feel if every time talk of the possibility of an undetected Alpha Particle affecting computer electronics came up you had to contend with individuals in your course raising the argument that it could equally be possible that God chose to stop that electron in it's tracks. Now, under your reasoning, this could very well be a "rational" explanation to yourself as you believe in a Theistic God. But it would be infuriating as you know there is more than likely a natural explanation for these transient errors, and the people trying to say "It could be God" are deviating attention away from methods of detecting and prevention of them.

    Due to our knowledge of the creation of computers and everything about this creation we aren't in the same situation in computers as we are with cosmology.
    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    You know you are happy that metaphysics and religion have nothing to do with your course. You are happy that God does not need to be considered when asking the questions and finding the answers. Well leave metaphysics and religion out of astronomy and biology and every other science that Theists feel fit to inject their God into.

    Considering that computers are based and built based on the reasoning of humans. The closest you could get to saying that God was involved is in saying that He provided the materials to do so.
    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    Next time you are in your computer science class. Stop and imagine what it would be like if the lecturer said, "Now class, lets stop and pray to be thankful that God has given these computers his holy spirit to move the electrons through it's circuits. Amen". Then think about all the other natural occurrences in this world that you also thank God for, and all the questions that Science is trying to answer that you also impose your God on.

    Replace God with humanity, and Holy Spirit with electricity and you'd be getting somewhere. The question with computers is different because we know that mankind is their creator. The question in cosmology is different because we do not know what Created it if anything. That's the big unknown variable that people are looking for. Divine revelation helps to clarify the identity of this x for the theist, but there are still some things that remain unclarified.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    Unsigned variables are the work of Satan. Pointers aren't real! They are just a dishonestly falsehood.
    Booting a computer is impossible because booting, aka bootstrapping, means to lift oneself by one's own bootstraps which is impossible unless you are Baron Munchhausen or God.


  • Options
    #313
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't think I'm guessing about anything. It's rather that the way things are seems to suggest to me that a higher power exists. I'm not saying I know this as an absolute fact. There is no way I can do it. It's like the way people speculate about the existence of other intelligent life existing in the universe.

    It would be kind of like that if there were churches of the alien speculators where people dedicated their lives to carrying out the wishes of the aliens
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Due to our knowledge of the creation of computers and everything about this creation we aren't in the same situation in computers as we are with cosmology.



    Considering that computers are based and built based on the reasoning of humans. The closest you could get to saying that God was involved is in saying that He provided the materials to do so.

    Can you prove that the electrons don't only go around because God pushes them?


  • Options
    #314
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Can you prove that the electrons don't only go around because God pushes them?

    Well... Yeah of course that's why they go round... God set up the rules at the start that makes electrons behave like that... He can arbitrarily change the rules at any time... So they go round the system only because he wants them to.
    I thought that was pretty obvious...:-D


  • Options
    #315
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    kiffer wrote: »
    Well... Yeah of course that's why they go round... God set up the rules at the start that makes electrons behave like that... He can arbitrarily change the rules at any time... So they go round the system only because he wants them to.
    I thought that was pretty obvious...:-D

    Unless of course Jakkass is actually a deist (not that far from atheism...)


  • Options
    #316
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Unless of course Jakkass is actually a deist (not that far from atheism...)

    It is if you use my crazy graph! Did you see that thread...? Hephaestus only knows where I was going with that one...


  • Options
    #317
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Unless of course Jakkass is actually a deist (not that far from atheism...)

    Considering I believe in a personal God, I don't think it's possible I could be a deist.
    A Personal god is a deity that is, and can be related to as, a person. The personhood of God is one of the characteristic features of monotheism. ...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god


  • Options
    #318
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Considering I believe in a personal God, I don't think it's possible I could be a deist.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god


    Right so, do you believe the laws of nature are exact or variable?


  • Options
    #319
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Right so, do you believe the laws of nature are exact or variable?

    Nature is as it is expected to be. The laws of science and nature are God's creation. I believe it is possible for God to intervene in nature, but it is incredibly rare for Him to do so.


  • Options
    #320
    Overblood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    Wikipedia wrote: »

    To say that God is like a person is to affirm the divine ability and willingness to relate to others. This does not imply that God is human, or located at a specific point in the universe.

    Religion will never die as long as they have that axiom.

    Anyway, people, ye should seriously start a thread dedicated exclusively to Jakkass. What was this thread about again?


  • Options
    #321
    Overblood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Nature is as it is expected to be. The laws of science and nature are God's creation. I believe it is possible for God to intervene in nature, but it is incredibly rare for Him to do so.

    Can you give a few examples where you believe god has intervened in nature?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Nature is as it is expected to be. The laws of science and nature are God's creation. I believe it is possible for God to intervene in nature, but it is incredibly rare for Him to do so.

    But when he does intervene it's for really important things like having people appear as an apparition on a church in Mayo. He doesn't waste time on piddly little things like ending world hunger


  • Options
    #323
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    But when he does intervene it's for really important things like having people appear as an apparition on a church in Mayo. He doesn't waste time on piddly little things like ending world hunger

    I'm not sure of the validity of the Marian apparitions at Knock. However, I think the feeding of the 5,000 and indeed the feeding of the 4,000 would have hit into the category of hunger. Both figures being the figures of the men only, women and children were also present.


  • Options
    #324
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm not sure of the validity of the Marian apparitions at Knock. However, I think the feeding of the 5,000 and indeed the feeding of the 4,000 would have hit into the category of hunger. Both figures being the figures of the men only, women and children were also present.

    Any proof of that? I've got a book that says that never happened


  • Options
    #325
    Overblood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm not sure of the validity of the Marian apparitions at Knock. However, I think the feeding of the 5,000 and indeed the feeding of the 4,000 would have hit into the category of hunger. Both figures being the figures of the men only, women and children were also present.

    What's the feeding of the 5,000?

    Is that the bread & fish trick?


  • Options
    #326
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    lawl....


  • Options
    #327
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Overblood wrote: »
    What's the feeding of the 5,000?

    Is that the bread & fish trick?

    I think so. I'm going to go out on a limb and say what happened is 20 people each had a very small portion and the figures and the portions doubled for each day between the event and when they wrote it down. Assuming it happened at all


  • Options
    #328
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I think so. I'm going to go out on a limb and say what happened is 20 people each had a very small portion and the figures and the portions doubled for each day between the event and when they wrote it down. Assuming it happened at all

    I'd stake the patent rights to my time machine on that... (not exactly 20 though) Or... Lots of people had some food with them but weren't sharing... Jesus made an example of the one boy and all the others copied and everyone had some then...


  • Options
    #329
    enda1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,166 ✭✭✭enda1


    Handy also he never does it these days now that we have computers, cameras etc. basically any way to document the event.

    That of course would be too easy and would go against the Christian "belief" system...

    Why is it in your religions viewpoint "fair" that some people are given unequivocal proof of god's existence while the rest of us have to "believe" in him trusting in blind faith?


  • Options
    #330
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    No no kiffer, we have to ignore all the dozens of possible rational explanations and jump to the conclusion that it must have been the creator of the universe who did it. But very importantly we should only do it for the claims in this book, all the other ones that make similar claims are clearly false

    And that's how you build up a rational belief in the Judeo-Christian God :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    Sam... You just don't understand... And for that you must be tortured.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement