Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

ISAW

himnextdoor wrote: »

Fixed it; it was Saul, not David.

Fixed what?
what king was saul told to kill?
what commandants did Saul receive before Moses got the ten commandments?

ISAW

muppeteer wrote: »

Well as I'm not a dualist the mind body problem isn't really a problem.

Nice try but sorry not working.

We are not discussing what you are not. We are discussing you claim of the mind body problem being resolved in favour of the mind being explained exclusively in terms of the brain. Medicine or science does not say that this has been resolved; And i have produced some criticism of it being shown by the field you appeal to i.e. cognitive psychology.

Sufficient for what exactly?

sufficient for society! To believe science is is scientism.

I subjectively think that it is always wrong.

do you subjectively think a foot is a meter or PI is three?
are they?

Whether they believe they are right or wrong is irrelevant. All that matters is that I think that it is wrong.

so if you think Pi is three then it is?

I, currently, subjectively think I would be wrong, always.

according to WHAT? To what you happen to believe? Even if you believe Pi is three it is good enough for you. Until all the buildings fall down?

I think it is well supported that the mind is an effect of a physical brain. I don't claim that position is solved or can't be questioned at all. More questioning the better.

so it is "well supported now". that is a bit of a climb down from earlier where you stated

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77540045&postcount=2943

all human emotion/personality is centered in the brain. I'm unaware of any alternative that is seriously considered.

And you stated that in response to my directly putting the mind body problem to you!
:"Where is the evidence that the mind and emotions are wholly biological in nature? Medicine is still divided o this issue. "

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

according to WHAT? To what you happen to believe? Even if you believe Pi is three it is good enough for you. Until all the buildings fall down?

Can you cite a single example of anyone in the history of humanity having a subjective moral assessment being demonstrated objectively wrong through external events (ie the equivalent of the buildings falling down if you get pi wrong).

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

Would it be fair to say that Lazarus was resurrected?

No, it wouldn't.

muppeteer

ISAW wrote: »

Nice try but sorry not working.

We are not discussing what you are not. We are discussing you claim of the mind body problem being resolved in favour of the mind being explained exclusively in terms of the brain. Medicine or science does not say that this has been resolved; And i have produced some criticism of it being shown by the field you appeal to i.e. cognitive psychology.

Science is not something that comes to a conclusion in a single step, it takes time where doubt is lessened but questioning never stops. As such, evidence such as this support the physicalists view point but won't stop criticisms. As I said before Cognitive Sciences, not just the subset Cognitive Psychology, generally works on the assumption that the brain is the source of the mind. As such it seems a reasonable conclusion to me as the alternatives I'm aware of do not have the same explanatory power.
Do you know of any explanation that is as well supported as I would be curious?

sufficient for society! To believe science is is scientism.

I believe science can help us with knowledge about running society but how we decide to run it is beyond what the method is designed for.

do you subjectively think a foot is a meter or PI is three?
are they?

I subjectively believe that PI = 3.14 in objective reality as I can measure and test it and view the consequences of a bridge built with PI=3:)
Ethics cannot be measured and as such it remains wholly subjective.

so it is "well supported now". that is a bit of a climb down from earlier where you stated

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77540045&postcount=2943


And you stated that in response to my directly putting the mind body problem to you!
:"Where is the evidence that the mind and emotions are wholly biological in nature? Medicine is still divided o this issue. "

How is doubt a climbdown? I would think it quite healthy in a position. I suggested I was unaware of any alternative that is as seriously considered and as backed up by evidence, which is still true.
Everything that science tells us is only supported to one degree or another, and in my humble opinion of the sciences the physical brain/mind is well supported. Areas such as this have show for decades that what we think of as the mind is based in the brain from the simple experiment of when removing parts of the brain we remove parts of the mind.
Medicine/neuroscience seems, while not being certain, to be settled on a physical brain/mind. Philosophy seems to be the one that is more divided.

Festus

himnextdoor wrote: »

The more I hear about Lucifer, the less wise he seems.

Well, he does have pride issues.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

Can you cite a single example of anyone in the history of humanity having a subjective moral assessment being demonstrated objectively wrong through external events (ie the equivalent of the buildings falling down if you get pi wrong).

So basically your argument is the Holocaust (as assessed by Hitler) or child abuse is not wrong because it cant be objectively assessed?

But it is wrong! this is just sophistry. Next i suppose you will be claiming objective human rights are non existant because they are held to be "self evidence"?

what Hitler or child abusers did is wrong and not just because I say so. it would always be wrong no matter whether i or anyone else thought the "final solution" was right.

ISAW

muppeteer wrote: »

Science is not something that comes to a conclusion in a single step, it takes time where doubt is lessened but questioning never stops.

In colloquial terms you are "hedging" or "kicking the can down the road"
the think is you claimed the mind is explained by science. It isnt.
Now you are saying "the jury is still out" on that claim which is entirely different to Message 2943 "all human emotion/personality is centered in the brain. I'm unaware of any alternative that is seriously considered. "

Apparently now not alone are alternatives considered but the certainty you earlier offered isnt so certain and science has not come to a conclusion on it!

As I said before Cognitive Sciences, not just the subset Cognitive Psychology, generally works on the assumption that the brain is the source of the mind.

earlier it was centred on the brain based on the science of cognitive psychology and there was no serious scientific alternative. Now that certainty is based on an assumption? Ironically the assumption is the very point you are claiming it proves! A little bit of circular reasoning there i think?

As such it seems a reasonable conclusion to me as the alternatives I'm aware of do not have the same explanatory power.
Do you know of any explanation that is as well supported as I would be curious?

so your conclusion that the mind is a creation of the brain is based on the assumption that brain is the source of the mind?

Very good at getting from A to A there.

I believe science can help us with knowledge about running society but how we decide to run it is beyond what the method is designed for.

So you agree - science is not sufficient.

muppeteer

ISAW wrote: »

In colloquial terms you are "hedging" or "kicking the can down the road"
the think is you claimed the mind is explained by science. It isnt.
Now you are saying "the jury is still out" on that claim which is entirely different to Message 2943 "all human emotion/personality is centered in the brain. I'm unaware of any alternative that is seriously considered. "

Apparently now not alone are alternatives considered but the certainty you earlier offered isnt so certain and science has not come to a conclusion on it!

I still think that the Cognitive sciences, especially cognitive neuroscience, show "all human emotion/personality is centered in the brain. I'm unaware of any alternative that is seriously considered. " I clarified that there is still doubt but that so far it is currently the best explanation going and backed up with lots of research.
What is so wrong with that position?

earlier it was centred on the brain based on the science of cognitive psychology and there was no serious scientific alternative. Now that certainty is based on an assumption? Ironically the assumption is the very point you are claiming it proves! A little bit of circular reasoning there i think?

Assumption is part of science. It is also an assumption that the evidence for gravity is correct and valid and that our theories based on it are correct. No need to accuse me of circular reasoning as you have misunderstood what I was trying to say.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

So basically your argument is the Holocaust (as assessed by Hitler) or child abuse is not wrong because it cant be objectively assessed?

My argument is that no one has any idea if it is or isn't objectively right or wrong (or even if objective morality exists), and in fact the objective view wouldn't matter to anyone if they found out it was objectively right or wrong and this conflicted with their own subjective idea.

If I found out tomorrow that the Holocaust was in fact objectively moral I would still consider it a bad thing that shouldn't have happened and should never happen again. I suspect you would feel the same.

Of course it is moot point though because again you have no idea if it was or wasn't objectively moral, there is no method to measure such a thing or even if such a thing exists.

ISAW wrote: »

But it is wrong! this is just sophistry. Next i suppose you will be claiming objective human rights are non existant because they are held to be "self evidence"?

I see no evidence that objective rights exist, nor does it matter to me if they do.

Again if it turned out that in fact based on the objective standard of the universe black people don't have the right to vote I wouldn't care. I would still say they should be allowed to vote, even if that meant I was objectively "wrong".

Likewise if it turned out that in fact based on the objective standard of the universe you do have the right to force your daughter into an arranged marriage, I wouldn't care either. I would still say it is wrong to do so and attempt to stop it if I can.

But (again) this is all moot point since no one has any idea what is or isn't the objective rights, or even if such rights exist.

ISAW wrote: »

what Hitler or child abusers did is wrong and not just because I say so.

Ok, demonstrate please how you determined that independently to your subjective opinion on the matter. This takes us back some what to the original question that despite your little rant you didn't actually answer, I suspect because you know you cannot.

himnextdoor

ISAW wrote: »

Fixed what?
what king was saul told to kill?
what commandants did Saul receive before Moses got the ten commandments?

The erroneous reference to David.

Agag, the king of the Amalekites.

I'm saying that the 'moral position' had been laid down by God to Moses long before Saul showed the moral fibre to spare Agag.

It's all there in 1 Samuel 15; by sparing the life of that Agag, Saul lost favour with God. Apparently God holds grudges for a long time.

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, it wouldn't.

Really? But:

res·ur·rec·tion (rz-rkshn)
n. 1. The act of rising from the dead or returning to life.
2. The state of one who has returned to life.
3. The act of bringing back to practice, notice, or use; revival.
4. Resurrection Christianity a. The rising again of Jesus on the third day after the Crucifixion.
b. The rising again of the dead at the Last Judgment.




Was Lazarus not dead for four days?

himnextdoor

Festus wrote: »

Well, he does have pride issues.

Is that correct; Satan is an idiot due to his pride?

How dumb does that make God whose pride bloats the Bible?

Manach

In support of objective rights existing, since the end of WWII there has been a wide range of academics (offhand John Finnis) who have written in support of these rights. The ECHR is part based on these. In university jurisprudence courses, these are part of the curriculum and are contrasted with other legal schools of though on what is the correct grounding of moral rights. Thus the impact of such rights are real and measureable.

Zombrex

Manach wrote: »

In support of objective rights existing, since the end of WWII there has been a wide range of academics (offhand John Finnis) who have written in support of these rights. The ECHR is part based on these. In university jurisprudence courses, these are part of the curriculum and are contrasted with other legal schools of though on what is the correct grounding of moral rights. Thus the impact of such rights are real and measureable.

Can you detail what method anyone has used to determine what is the accurate reading of the objective standard of the universe or reality?

I mean if I want to find out how far it is in meters from my desk to the office fridge I get out a tape and measure it. Anyone else can use the same method to verify that this is in fact the length from my desk to the fridge. If I said it is 24 meters from my desk to the fridge it is relatively easy for anyone who is bothered to determine if that is or isn't an accurate statement.

How would someone verify a similar thing with a statement on morality. For example, the statement "The holocaust was moral". How does one go about demonstrate that this statement is objectively right or wrong.

himnextdoor

ISAW wrote: »

what Hitler or child abusers did is wrong and not just because I say so. it would always be wrong no matter whether i or anyone else thought the "final solution" was right.

What is the difference between what Hitler is purported to have done and what God commanded Saul to do?

Was God wrong to insist on committing genocide against the Amelekites?

Festus

himnextdoor wrote: »

Is that correct; Satan is an idiot due to his pride?

Are you calling him an idiot?

himnextdoor

Festus wrote: »

Are you calling him an idiot?

Wasn't he stupid enough to help the Messiah prophecy come true?

Also, the synagogue while accusing Jesus of blasphemy did all they could to make Jesus fit the bill for the Messiah.

Festus

himnextdoor wrote: »

Wasn't he stupid enough to help the Messiah prophecy come true?

You are still calling him stupid. Is that wise?

himnextdoor wrote: »

Also, the synagogue while accusing Jesus of blasphemy did all they could to make Jesus fit the bill for the Messiah.

Jesus does fit the bill for the Messiah.

Manach

Zombrex wrote: »

Can you detail what method anyone has used to determine what is the accurate reading of the objective standard of the universe or reality?

Based on my recollection and notes of a 10m talk on the subject, it would be everyone have an intuitive understanding of what is good in terms of society as per Finnis. This was broken down into a 7 part division which included
"
Commonalities goods for humanity
7 basic goals
1 life
2 knowledge
3 Excellence in work and play
4 Aesthetic experience
5 Friendship
6 Practical reasonableness
7 'Religion'
"
This was an unenumerated unsorted list.

himnextdoor

Festus wrote: »

You are still calling him stupid. Is that wise?

If Satan existed and was not an idiot then the prophecy of the Messiah would have been thwarted. I have as much to fear from Satan as I have from Casper the friendly ghost.

Festus wrote: »

Jesus does fit the bill for the Messiah.

The Jews denied Jesus was the Messiah but at the same time they micro-managed the trial, the crucifixion and the resurrection in order that Jesus appeared to be the Messiah.

Remember, it was a Jewish prophecy that was being fulfilled. In order to show that Jesus was not the Messiah, all they had to do was either let Him live or execute Him the following Monday after the Passover. If they'd have left Him on the cross for a bit longer or allowed the Roman guard to break His legs then the prophecy wouldn't have come true.

Why would they do that then but today deny that Jesus was the Son of God?

Zombrex

himnextdoor wrote: »

If Satan existed and was not an idiot then the prophecy of the Messiah would have been thwarted. I have as much to fear from Satan as I have from Casper the friendly ghost.

It should be pointed out as well that Satan isn't the one who throws you into hell for eternal suffering cause you stole a pencil when you were 10.

Festus

Zombrex wrote: »

It should be pointed out as well that Satan isn't the one who throws you into hell for eternal suffering cause you stole a pencil when you were 10.

Quite correct. One throws oneself into Hell

himnextdoor

Manach wrote: »

Based on my recollection and notes of a 10m talk on the subject, it would be everyone have an intuitive understanding of what is good in terms of society as per Finnis. This was broken down into a 7 part division which included

You didn't answer Zombrex's question but if everyone has an intuitive understanding of what is good then why do we have to teach morality?

Commonalities goods for humanity
7 basic goals
1 life (But not for everyone)
2 knowledge (But not for everyone)
3 Excellence in work and play (But not for everyone)
4 Aesthetic experience (But not for everyone)
5 Friendship (But not for everyone)
6 Practical reasonableness (But not for everyone)
7 'Religion' (For everyone)

Also, '7' is the same as saying 'maintaining psychological control of the masses in order to pervert the implications of the first six'.

Festus

himnextdoor wrote: »

If Satan existed and was not an idiot then the prophecy of the Messiah would have been thwarted. I have as much to fear from Satan as I have from Casper the friendly ghost.

You are talking as if you believe he does.

himnextdoor wrote: »

The Jews denied Jesus was the Messiah but at the same time they micro-managed the trial, the crucifixion and the resurrection in order that Jesus appeared to be the Messiah.

Remember, it was a Jewish prophecy that was being fulfilled. In order to show that Jesus was not the Messiah, all they had to do was either let Him live or execute Him the following Monday after the Passover. If they'd have left Him on the cross for a bit longer or allowed the Roman guard to break His legs then the prophecy wouldn't have come true.

Why would they do that then but today deny that Jesus was the Son of God?

Are you a fan of conspiracy theory?

himnextdoor

Festus wrote: »

Quite correct. One throws oneself into Hell

Which would make 'free-will' something of a Trojan Horse.

God created Hell and then bestowed 'free-will' upon humanity in order to populate it.

himnextdoor

Festus wrote: »

You are talking as if you believe he does.

Are you a fan of conspiracy theory?

Well done! You demonstrate the problem with religionists perfectly; if you can interpret the points made in this thread in such a skewed manner then it is little wonder that you fail to interpret the Bible correctly.

himnextdoor

ISAW wrote: »

So you agree - science is sufficient.

If by science you mean an investigative process that doesn't rely on faith then yes, science is sufficient.

ISAW

himnextdoor wrote: »

If by science you mean an investigative process that doesn't rely on faith then yes, science is sufficient.

If yoj look at the message i was responding to i meant science is noit sufficent for society.

Science can be argued to rely on faith as well as can human rights.

Many problems arise with relativity of the "objective" and it isnt restricted to morals.

where is the objective evidence for parallel universes for example?
Where is the objective evidence that all people are equal in terms of basic human rights.
e.g a right to life liberty or the pursuit of happiness etc.?

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

It should be pointed out as well that Satan isn't the one who throws you into hell for eternal suffering cause you stole a pencil when you were 10.

Noir necessarily is God. People may for example throw themselves in through avoiding God.