| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/13/2009 02:19:24 PM · #401 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
NOW, there are many reasons in this physical rational world as to why some people might think it is bad to eat pork (hence we have vegetarians and vegans), but for that they have information to back up their claims. |
You are kidding right? On some level their claims are going to be every bit as axiomatic as "God tells me to."
Here's another good one for you. It's a mind bender, although it has more to do with your last post rather than this one.
How do you KNOW I don't KNOW what is right and wrong? |
No. How about they don't agree with the treatment of the pigs? How about the pigs are fed hormones? How about cow babies are fed food mixes with cow blood? That is not the same as "God tells me to"! Those are real life, provable reasons. Whether you agree or not is up for debate. You can't debate with God tells me so without the response "God tells me its not so".
As for your questions. Just because I don't know if you know, doesn't mean you know. It still leaves it at all of us not knowing. |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 02:22:16 PM · #402 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let me ask another questions (and this is to anybody). When a Moral Relativist and a Moral Universalist meet and the Relativist tells the Universalist "It is wrong to tell someone else what is right and wrong." Is that paradoxical? That's a nut I'm not sure how the Relativist cracks? |
The statement seems paradoxical but Moral Relativism allows for exceptions.
In any case, I don't think that statement is what the relativists here are trying to say and is overly simplistic. I think more accurately "It is wrong to tell someone else what is right and wrong based solely on your opinion of the opinion of a Supreme Being that cannot speak for itself."
ie: It's ok to tell someone its wrong to murder because someone will lose their life and many people will be affected and hurt by it. It's not ok to tell someone its wrong to eat pork because God said they are going to hell if they do. |
You aren't really getting out of the box Relativism traps you in. Relativism says, "what's right for me is not necessarily right for you". Therefore, we should agree, that a Relativist should not say, "It's wrong for you to do X". You can make the X as complicated or simple as you want, it still is antithetical to the Relativist's position. What the Relativist could say is, "I believe it is wrong for you to do X" (X could be wrong for you to "tell other people what is right and what is wrong".) However, when the Universalist responds, "Well, I believe it is right to tell other people what is right and what is wrong." there is no reply. You are at loggerheads.
The Universalist, on the other hand, has a bit more wiggle room. He does not need to add the "I believe" portion to remain consistent to his position. The statement, "It is right to tell you what is right and wrong." IS his position.
|
If you call that wiggle room suit yourself. Allowing yourself to proclaim you KNOW something beyond a reasonable doubt, to me, is not wiggle room, its just pompous. Your first paragraph however makes sense. I should have added "I believe" but I figured it was inherently implied based on my position. |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 02:22:34 PM · #403 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
So cavemen and people who didn't have a bible declaring shellfish bad would just keep right on eating the stuff even as they watched others get sick and die from doing so? Mmm, hmm. Few animals are that stupid, let alone humans. |
Really? Ever seen the results of of horse allowed to eat as much grain as it wants? They die. |
Yes really. Overindulging is not the same as learning to avoid a potentially toxic food. A horse has no reason to suspect that eating too much might be a problem. What do you suppose the rest of the herd would think? "Hey, we've all eaten grain before without a problem. That horse has eaten grain lots of times without a problem. It must be something else." Good luck getting a monkey to munch on a poison dart frog, though. Monkeys wouldn't inherently know that one kind of frog is toxic, and one bite would be fatal, so it's not personal experience either. Perhaps the monkey shaman got the word from their monkey god? |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 02:26:04 PM · #404 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Religion is almost always irrational: at its heart, the reasoning behind religious instruction is "god made it so" or "god says so". This is arbitrary and highly unsatisfactory to the rationally minded. |
I'll quote thos part of your post to sum it up. I disagree. What you are saying here, to me, is that the axiomatic roots of religion feel wrong to you. All philosophical positions have axioms that are taken as self-evident truth. Rationality is merely the logical application of those axioms. Religion, therefore, can be as rational or irrational as any other philosophical construct. |
The wording is a little confusing but I think I happen to agree with your statement however I don't think that means I disagree with Matthew.
I might get this wrong but this is my understanding of what you are trying to say:
Religion is no more irrational than any other philosophical position. It is how those positions play out in the physical world that can make them rational or irrational.
If I understand you position correctly, it only seems to back up my position. If a philosophical position for example insists that nothing matters, everything is relative, etc. that would not necessarily be an illogical stance as there is no way to prove or disprove that opinion. When it becomes illogical is when that person uses that stance to justify meddling in peoples lives because it doesn't matter, and they know it doesn't matter because their worldview says so.
How is this any different from Christians believing things and then using it to influence the real world with little to no other justification? I don't think your position disproves Matthew's because he said "religious instruction" not religious beliefs. |
No you didn't quite get what I was saying. The irrationality of religion could come from the misapplication of the axioms that are taken as self-evident truth. If you believe "There is no God but Allah and Muhammed is his prophet." (an axiom) then it is irrational to believe Jesus Christ is divine. A more applicable statement may be that it would be irrational to believe drinking alcohol is moral because the Quran forbids it and it is the word of Muhammed who is the prophet of God. (My apologies if I butchered Islam there, I was trying to come up with a neutral example outside Christianity.)
Originally posted by escapetooz:
If I understand you position correctly, it only seems to back up my position. If a philosophical position for example insists that nothing matters, everything is relative, etc. that would not necessarily be an illogical stance as there is no way to prove or disprove that opinion. When it becomes illogical is when that person uses that stance to justify meddling in peoples lives because it doesn't matter, and they know it doesn't matter because their worldview says so. |
I almost agree with this. If you believe in Moral Relativism, you remain consistent with the tenent "it is not right to tell others what is right and wrong" only as long as you keep it to yourself. The second it comes up in a conversation, you are dictating to someone else what is right and wrong and going against your own precepts. The Universalist, because of his own set of axioms, isn't required to keep it to himself to remain internally consistent.
Message edited by author 2009-04-13 14:28:49. |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 02:32:13 PM · #405 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
NOW, there are many reasons in this physical rational world as to why some people might think it is bad to eat pork (hence we have vegetarians and vegans), but for that they have information to back up their claims. |
You are kidding right? On some level their claims are going to be every bit as axiomatic as "God tells me to."
Here's another good one for you. It's a mind bender, although it has more to do with your last post rather than this one.
How do you KNOW I don't KNOW what is right and wrong? |
No. How about they don't agree with the treatment of the pigs? How about the pigs are fed hormones? How about cow babies are fed food mixes with cow blood? That is not the same as "God tells me to"! Those are real life, provable reasons. Whether you agree or not is up for debate. You can't debate with God tells me so without the response "God tells me its not so".
As for your questions. Just because I don't know if you know, doesn't mean you know. It still leaves it at all of us not knowing. |
Are you telling me ALL vegans cite health reasons for their practices? I know that is not true.
As far as your last statement, you are wrong in that it also leaves the possibility that I DO KNOW what is right and wrong. That has not been disproven. It IS possible that neither of us KNOW, but it is also possible that I DO KNOW what is right and wrong. That has not been excluded. |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 02:33:51 PM · #406 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
If you call that wiggle room suit yourself. Allowing yourself to proclaim you KNOW something beyond a reasonable doubt, to me, is not wiggle room, its just pompous. Your first paragraph however makes sense. I should have added "I believe" but I figured it was inherently implied based on my position. |
And if it makes you feel better you can mentally add (but I don't KNOW this) to the end of each of my sentences as long as you add it to your own as well. It would be too tiring for me to write it all the time and since all sentences would have that it cancels everything out. |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 02:35:14 PM · #407 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Using experiment and observation (or your fingers if you'd like), give the value of X in the following equation:
3i+1=X where i equals the square root of negative one. |
Any mathematical formula is deduced from the known values and interactions of numbers. You don't just make up a new and completely arbitrary system outside all known rules of math and declare it valid. Any claim of knowledge from outside your boxcar example does exactly that. |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 02:36:24 PM · #408 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Religion is almost always irrational: at its heart, the reasoning behind religious instruction is "god made it so" or "god says so". This is arbitrary and highly unsatisfactory to the rationally minded. |
I'll quote thos part of your post to sum it up. I disagree. What you are saying here, to me, is that the axiomatic roots of religion feel wrong to you. All philosophical positions have axioms that are taken as self-evident truth. Rationality is merely the logical application of those axioms. Religion, therefore, can be as rational or irrational as any other philosophical construct. |
The wording is a little confusing but I think I happen to agree with your statement however I don't think that means I disagree with Matthew.
I might get this wrong but this is my understanding of what you are trying to say:
Religion is no more irrational than any other philosophical position. It is how those positions play out in the physical world that can make them rational or irrational.
If I understand you position correctly, it only seems to back up my position. If a philosophical position for example insists that nothing matters, everything is relative, etc. that would not necessarily be an illogical stance as there is no way to prove or disprove that opinion. When it becomes illogical is when that person uses that stance to justify meddling in peoples lives because it doesn't matter, and they know it doesn't matter because their worldview says so.
How is this any different from Christians believing things and then using it to influence the real world with little to no other justification? I don't think your position disproves Matthew's because he said "religious instruction" not religious beliefs. |
No you didn't quite get what I was saying. The irrationality of religion could come from the misapplication of the axioms that are taken as self-evident truth. If you believe "There is no God but Allah and Muhammed is his prophet." (an axiom) then it is irrational to believe Jesus Christ is divine. A more applicable statement may be that it would be irrational to believe drinking alcohol is moral because the Quran forbids it and it is the word of Muhammed who is the prophet of God. (My apologies if I butchered Islam there, I was trying to come up with a neutral example outside Christianity.)
Originally posted by escapetooz:
If I understand you position correctly, it only seems to back up my position. If a philosophical position for example insists that nothing matters, everything is relative, etc. that would not necessarily be an illogical stance as there is no way to prove or disprove that opinion. When it becomes illogical is when that person uses that stance to justify meddling in peoples lives because it doesn't matter, and they know it doesn't matter because their worldview says so. |
I almost agree with this. If you believe in Moral Relativism, you remain consistent with the tenent "it is not right to tell others what is right and wrong" only as long as you keep it to yourself. The second it comes up in a conversation, you are dictating to someone else what is right and wrong and going against your own precepts. The Universalist, because of his own set of axioms, isn't required to keep it to himself to remain internally consistent. |
Ok I get what you are saying. Like... if you believe in the Bible and the bible says there is heaven and hell, it is irrational to believe in reincarnation because the 2 are contradictory?
But what about when it gets to creationism vs. Evolution? There is no denying the physical evidence. There may still some debate about what that evidence means (though it is pretty well agreed upon). Some Christians try to debate the physical evidence as being "put there by the devil". Is that not then irrational? At that point God didn't even say that in the bible, they are just making up excuses. Or for the sake of not starting this evolution debate because that's not what I'm meaning to do, you can use this example: "God says the Earth is the center of the universe" pitted against "the sun is the provable center of the solar system" for the sake of understanding my position.
In other words, it makes sense if you believe one unprovable theory that you would not believe a conflicting one, but it doesn't make sense when you pit an unprovable theory against a provable one. |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 02:36:25 PM · #409 |
One of my favorite "Isn't religion silly" stalking horse is the sacred cow. The term has come to mean something that can't be bothered with, for fear of public outcry, and is used to tar everything form Social Security to school unions, anything seem as bloated and inefficient but can not be touched is a sacred cow.
To Hindus the logic is that Vishnu rides a cow therefore is sacred, but it seemed shocking that in a country of such limited resources that they would bar the such a prominent protein source on some vague religious grounds. When you see cows wandering around Agra it sure looks silly, then you get out on the dry plains and notice the lack of trees, in fact he lack of anything to burn for a cooking fire, except cow dung. Cows provide dairy food, butter for lamps, and dung for fires. The dung is collected into blocks the size of dog houses, with peaked roofs and intricately patterned. Someday I'll have to scan in all the slides I took of these amazing little structures, without which poor Indian families would have no fuel during monsoon season. In that situation, to kill and eat a cow would be to risk the long term survival of the community. |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 02:47:54 PM · #410 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
NOW, there are many reasons in this physical rational world as to why some people might think it is bad to eat pork (hence we have vegetarians and vegans), but for that they have information to back up their claims. |
You are kidding right? On some level their claims are going to be every bit as axiomatic as "God tells me to."
Here's another good one for you. It's a mind bender, although it has more to do with your last post rather than this one.
How do you KNOW I don't KNOW what is right and wrong? |
No. How about they don't agree with the treatment of the pigs? How about the pigs are fed hormones? How about cow babies are fed food mixes with cow blood? That is not the same as "God tells me to"! Those are real life, provable reasons. Whether you agree or not is up for debate. You can't debate with God tells me so without the response "God tells me its not so".
As for your questions. Just because I don't know if you know, doesn't mean you know. It still leaves it at all of us not knowing. |
Are you telling me ALL vegans cite health reasons for their practices? I know that is not true.
As far as your last statement, you are wrong in that it also leaves the possibility that I DO KNOW what is right and wrong. That has not been disproven. It IS possible that neither of us KNOW, but it is also possible that I DO KNOW what is right and wrong. That has not been excluded. |
NO I did NOT say ALL vegans cite health reasons did I? I only said that physical reason DO exist. Are there irrational reasons? I'm sure there must be, and if anyone were to try and convince me to be vegan based on those, I would dismiss them just as easily as religious groups. If they tried to convince me based on logical, physical reasons I might hear them out. Same with religious stances that have basis in reality. When a religious woman I spoke to tried to convince me to wait until marriage for sex I heard her out because she went into OTHER reasons besides "the bible says so". Reasons such as the emotional toll it takes on you to go through partner after partner. I'm not saying I agreed with her sentiments, only that I saw them as valid possibilities.
It is the same idea I keep trying to express over and over and OVER again. I do not discount religious ideas simply because they are religious. I discount them if their ONLY basis is in religion. The 2 are not mutually exclusive to me.
I get what you are saying I just don't get why you are bothering. Should I revise my statement to "I don't know anything"? You are trying to pick apart my stance with semantics when I think you understand the premise of it. Whether you know or not is a moot point because I don't know you know, nor does anyone else, so you still are not going to become lord master of all morals. Whether you know or not does not give you any more of a leg up than anyone else. Because anyone can know or not know. Does that make sense? So the blanket statement "no one knows" when put to real world use, is STILL true. |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 02:58:02 PM · #411 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
One of my favorite "Isn't religion silly" stalking horse is the sacred cow. The term has come to mean something that can't be bothered with, for fear of public outcry, and is used to tar everything form Social Security to school unions, anything seem as bloated and inefficient but can not be touched is a sacred cow.
To Hindus the logic is that Vishnu rides a cow therefore is sacred, but it seemed shocking that in a country of such limited resources that they would bar the such a prominent protein source on some vague religious grounds. When you see cows wandering around Agra it sure looks silly, then you get out on the dry plains and notice the lack of trees, in fact he lack of anything to burn for a cooking fire, except cow dung. Cows provide dairy food, butter for lamps, and dung for fires. The dung is collected into blocks the size of dog houses, with peaked roofs and intricately patterned. Someday I'll have to scan in all the slides I took of these amazing little structures, without which poor Indian families would have no fuel during monsoon season. In that situation, to kill and eat a cow would be to risk the long term survival of the community. |
I understand your point, I believe it was the same point that was made earlier about not eating pork. And as I said earlier, I understand that not all things in religions are "bull" or "hogwash" (should I lay off the puns?) :)
The issue arises when these ideas have run past their expiration date, so to speak. When they are no longer applicable. The cow being sacred as you have mentioned is still applicable. The idea "you can't be gay (or spill your seed, use birth control, etc) because God said we need to populate the earth" is no longer applicable. In fact if anything, we should be cutting down on the babies we bring into this earth. The bible was written during a population crisis. Survival rates were low, they were wandering around the desert, people were dying. Nowadays we are overpopulating the earth and depleting its resources. If there was a bible written today perhaps it would teach about respecting the earth, having a modest amount of children, and focusing our energies on progress instead of trying to hold it back in the name of God.
And the same people who use this argument against being gay surely masturbate and use birth control. So they are just hypocrites. |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 03:25:27 PM · #412 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
You do know String Theory is an attempt to describe the nature of this world, and not what lies outside of it, right? |
What Yanko said. Length, width, depth, time, plus 7 or more subatomic dimensions too tiny to detect supposedly provide a mathematical model for OUR universe (the real world). The example does not suppose that magical beings might live in the "depth" dimension, nor how one could be privy to detailed knowledge or direct quotes of a being living in an inaccessible dimension. |
Whoa. I never said Leprechauns were hiding in the 7th dimension. :P Richard specifically directed me to "use logic and reason to acquire actual knowledge of the outside of that boxcar." The "boxcar" represents the limitation to Scientific inquiry. Remember that. You guys keep changing the boxcar to simply represent our Universe. Extra dimensions that are beyond our ability to measure and see and touch would qualify, yet String Theory says they should be there. Even the Strings themselves, as Richard postulated, are likely so small as to be outside our practical boxcar (theoretically if you had a particle accelerator the size of the solar system you could do the experiment to find physical evidence of them).
Nobody was bringing magic beings into this portion of the conversation. We were just looking for examples where logic trumped empiric experimentation in providing knowledge.
(I quoted Shannon because his post was shorter yank. I'm not ignoring you.) |
I'm not asking for Leprechauns just actual knowledge about the outside of the boxcar and you still haven't provided any. Saying there's an outside isn't telling me anything about the outside.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2009 03:26:08 PM · #413 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...you are wrong in that it also leaves the possibility that I DO KNOW what is right and wrong. That has not been disproven. It IS possible that neither of us KNOW, but it is also possible that I DO KNOW what is right and wrong. That has not been excluded. |
How is it even a valid question? In many respects, right and wrong is as subjective as art. What's right to you might be totally wrong to someone else just as a painting you love could be someone else's idea of visual roadkill. In both cases, there IS no objective right or wrong. The best you can hope for is defined agreement through group consensus (and even that is historically subject to change). |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 03:27:57 PM · #414 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I'm not asking for Leprechauns just actual knowledge about the outside of the boxcar and you still haven't provided any. Saying there's an outside isn't telling me anything about the outside. |
..or how you even know there IS an outside. |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 03:33:34 PM · #415 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There is information available outside scientific inquiry. You didn't even address the extra dimensions or the Multiverse. If you want a pure example, just take the discipline of Mathematics. All information gained in that field is gained through logic... |
There is conjecture and imagination outside scientific inquiry, but unless it's grounded in some kind of actual evidence, that's all it is. Yanko already covered the Multiverse, and all information gained through mathematics is not an abstract thought experiment. You start by counting on your fingers (a concrete, repeatable observation) and work from there. |
Using experiment and observation (or your fingers if you'd like), give the value of X in the following equation:
3i+1=X where i equals the square root of negative one.
Hemineglect, my friend. Hemineglect. |
Why would he have to? Is Shannon saying that formula exists as anything more than a mathematical formula? Since you believe in God prove that unicorns exist. Does that make sense to you?
|
|
|
|
04/13/2009 03:51:31 PM · #416 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There is information available outside scientific inquiry. You didn't even address the extra dimensions or the Multiverse. If you want a pure example, just take the discipline of Mathematics. All information gained in that field is gained through logic... |
There is conjecture and imagination outside scientific inquiry, but unless it's grounded in some kind of actual evidence, that's all it is. Yanko already covered the Multiverse, and all information gained through mathematics is not an abstract thought experiment. You start by counting on your fingers (a concrete, repeatable observation) and work from there. |
Using experiment and observation (or your fingers if you'd like), give the value of X in the following equation:
3i+1=X where i equals the square root of negative one.
Hemineglect, my friend. Hemineglect. |
Why would he have to? Is Shannon saying that formula exists as anything more than a mathematical formula? Since you believe in God prove that unicorns exist. Does that make sense to you? |
NO, be quiet. Let Shannon answer this because he is against the wall (hence his silence). I am showing him that Mathematics stands apart from experimentation and observation and is a path to gaining knowledge (useful knowledge even). I asked him to further our knowledge using experimentation and observation by solving the equation. I have not heard him do it yet. Shannon is saying that all knowledge is ultimately provable in the physical, touchable, Scientific world. (2+2=4 can be shown on your fingers and repeated observation.) I cannot see how this equation (which has direct application to practical everyday technology) can be gotten at through observation and experimentation. Only logic can solve it.
EDIT: I missed Shannon's reply above:
Originally posted by Shannon:
Any mathematical formula is deduced from the known values and interactions of numbers. You don't just make up a new and completely arbitrary system outside all known rules of math and declare it valid. Any claim of knowledge from outside your boxcar example does exactly that. |
This is a total dodge. Tell me how the interaction of these numbers relates to observation and experimentation. Certainly it relates to a logical construct, but that isn't observation and experimentation.
Message edited by author 2009-04-13 15:55:33. |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 03:53:06 PM · #417 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...you are wrong in that it also leaves the possibility that I DO KNOW what is right and wrong. That has not been disproven. It IS possible that neither of us KNOW, but it is also possible that I DO KNOW what is right and wrong. That has not been excluded. |
How is it even a valid question? In many respects, right and wrong is as subjective as art. What's right to you might be totally wrong to someone else just as a painting you love could be someone else's idea of visual roadkill. In both cases, there IS no objective right or wrong. The best you can hope for is defined agreement through group consensus (and even that is historically subject to change). |
Axiomatic. I understand your position, but you speak merely from the axiom of Moral Relativism which I reject. |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 04:00:00 PM · #418 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Oh but you misunderstand. It DID make perfect sense. |
I specifically excluded you from that class of people, Monica. This was just a good place to bring up that particular point. And as to the continuing validity (or lack of same) of various biblical or other proscriptions, well, that's just the way the world is. It's called "ritual", and we humans tend to hang onto it because, frankly, the world's a scary place and by ritualizing it, we can find an easier comfort zone...
R.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2009 04:12:47 PM · #419 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Shannon:
Any mathematical formula is deduced from the known values and interactions of numbers. You don't just make up a new and completely arbitrary system outside all known rules of math and declare it valid. Any claim of knowledge from outside your boxcar example does exactly that. |
This is a total dodge. Tell me how the interaction of these numbers relates to observation and experimentation. Certainly it relates to a logical construct, but that isn't observation and experimentation. |
I never made the claim that mathematical formulas were subject to observation and experimentation since they don't actually EXIST except as logical constructs. They don't create worlds, possess knowledge, relay demands or impregnate humans... so who actually did the dodging here? Even so, they are still "provable" based upon known, testable rules of math. If it makes you happy, I will readily accept that gods also exist as exercises of imagination. ;-)
Message edited by author 2009-04-13 16:29:26. |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 04:18:32 PM · #420 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...you speak merely from the axiom of Moral Relativism which I reject. |
Your choice. Just be sure to treat your slaves well, and may your brother outlive his wife. ;-)
Message edited by author 2009-04-13 16:19:41. |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 04:36:23 PM · #421 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...you speak merely from the axiom of Moral Relativism which I reject. |
Your choice. Just be sure to treat your slaves well, and may your brother outlive his wife. ;-) |
Haha. As long as you kiss your moral peer the Nazi hello... ;) |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 04:38:52 PM · #422 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Even so, they are still "provable" based upon known, testable rules of math. |
HOLD THE PRESSES! This is a change of your position and could reflect the first time I've seen you do it. (haha, just bustin' chops there). the "known, testable rules of math" are not "experimentation and observation". They are completely different. One is logic. The other is what we call the Scientific Method.
If you say things are "provable" by math, and that some things are "provable" ONLY by math, I'm happy.
Message edited by author 2009-04-13 16:45:18. |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 04:43:11 PM · #423 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As long as you kiss your moral peer the Nazi hello... ;) |
Uh, uh... relativism, remember? Relativistic positions see moral values as applicable within certain cultural boundaries or as individual preferences, and 1940's Germany is neither of those. You, however, have painted yourself into the corner of whatever God says must be Right.ΓΆ„ΒΆ |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 04:46:31 PM · #424 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As long as you kiss your moral peer the Nazi hello... ;) |
Uh, uh... relativism, remember? Relativistic positions see moral values as applicable within certain cultural boundaries or as individual preferences, and 1940's Germany is neither of those. You, however, have painted yourself into the corner of whatever God says must be Right.ΓΆ„ΒΆ |
What I meant, of course, was that the Nazi would be your "peer" under Relativism because his views would be equally valid (although different one would hope) to yours.
I was just throwing mud back atcha...
Message edited by author 2009-04-13 16:46:48. |
|
|
|
04/13/2009 04:50:26 PM · #425 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you say things are "provable" by math, and that something are "provable" ONLY by math, I'm happy. |
My first response still stands. "Any mathematical formula is deduced from the known values and interactions of numbers. You don't just make up a new and completely arbitrary system outside all known rules of math and declare it valid." Though performed as a thought exercise, the calculations are based upon known quantities and sequences. They still aren't pure conjecture in a vacuum. Supernatural claims lack that foundation. You're making calculations of "logic" where the numbers have no meaning and the rules are completely unknown. |
|
