| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism#Relationship_with_existentialism_and_nihilism is so good. I haven't actually thought about the subject but I'd put myself on column 1 except for question 3 which is dumb saying that ...anything really is essential (essential for what...?) | ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
| ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
in which xelin replies quite appropriately "And you seem to be trying to force people into the position of arguing objectively whilst maintaining for yourself the luxury of subjectivity." first of all i do not know where the apparent hostility comes from toward the video as author but it is easily percieved.. he never claimed to have made an undergraduate level treatise on the subject , just a video titles critical thinking .. and with the amount of time he used i thought he did a decent job presenting the ideas concisely . but that is only my opinion... to move on to your above listed quote , somehow tinman i think you would like these things alot less if they were being done to you with hateful ferver .. maybe you meant in an artistic sense ( macabre art)but you really did not clarify which leads me to believe it was more rhetoric than anything else. From the a basic standpoint all form of moral systems realizes within themselves an EPISTEMOLOGICAL flaw when using using logic or experimentation to find results or make assumptions based on predicted results however the dogma that arises in both academic and especially pyrrhonian skeptics is amusing , ... if we can know nothing at all than how can you know to make that statement ?....objective morality instead relates morality to a set of basic human needs that have already been established,, example if you do not eat you die .. the basic model being humanistic psychological values like maslow's heirarchy of needs , while the skeptic's flaw lies in the fact that it ignores causality. i.e actions have consequence in the real world.. the skeptics model has no context it is like a controlled laboratory trying to claim naturalistic observation reliably ......denying objective assertions are based more rhetoric than reality and not very useful in everyday life..... of course just because something is practical does not make it true.. but in the instance of contextuality , objectiveness as a musician is very appealing to myself . When we examine an action, we cannot ignore that the action takes place with in a related context. This context is needed to evaluate the consequences of an action, because it informs the values that are effected by the action . the difference between naturalistic and controlled experiment .( like examining a melodies harmonic value compared to chords in music theory ... you need the chords to relate the harmonic value) To take a simple example, the action of “killing” effects very different values in context as previously implied in this thread.. although the question was never really expanded upon. the skeptic has an interesting view that objectives assume a large universal truth of common ground however is it really that far fetched when we are part of the same species ?.. of course a skeptic might reply evolution is the vehicle for this transmitter of universality and nothing more.. the fuzzy logic in moral skepticism specifically the afore mentioned type is very humorous . one can know temporal moral substance but not moral knowledge ?however it is based on an enlightening semantic . knowledge, justified belief .. skepticism about moral truth-value at least allows some room for compatibility( not going to get into practical skepticism) one interesting type of logic that holds interestingly enough 1 moral claims may be true, even if we cannot know or have justified beliefs about which ones are true. 2 However, a implied reverse implication seems to hold: If knowledge implies truth, and if moral claims are never true, then there is no knowledge of what is right or wrong morally however one big flaw i find in all forms of moral skepticism is the fallacy that if moral assertions have no realized or examined truth-value, then it is hard to see how they can fit into truth-functional contexts, such as negation, disjunction, contradiction , and conditionals. the contexts are also extremely unassertive and describe very little in way of assumption, thus cannot yield experimental results . when dealing with morality and its flaws theist attempt to dodge through divine communication and altruistic forces or spiritual needs, but skeptics ignore it altogether using evolution as the mechanism , i probably lie somewhere in between in the subset of moral relativity ... although i am an atheist i am not a through and through skeptic morally speaking.. certain humanistic aspects appeal to me biologically speaking.... to say no objective realities can be deduced is denying simple formal logic and basic mathematics ethics and morality is not comparable to denying governing dynamics in nature, while religion does attempt to make the two synonymous btw i did not find the vid religion bashing , religious philosophies do that all on their own | ||
|
gyth
657 Posts
 Try not to make too many points at once. Its too easy to ignore them all. | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
ok goona chop it down....you are right do not want to lose the point | ||
|
Badjas
Netherlands2038 Posts
It seems the current topic is the origin of morality? Yuribis, thanks for that link, seems I would best put myself as an absurdist, although I might just be misinterpreting some of the terminology. Ah well. | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
the kamal argument is not really worth examining imo as it is little different than a basic first cause argument which is easily embarrassed with basic logic , they try to get around this with adding the word " begins" or " finitude" and since god never began he does not need a cause .. however it fails since just because the evidence implies that this cycle of the universe suffered inflation it does not imply previous states before the bigbang ... therefore there is no sufficient reason to assign the universe a cause.the other fallacy of infinite series is also flawed as mathematics would disagree as well as thermodynamics,, not to mention that if nothing is infinite than when did god begin , if he did begin becuase nothing is infinitethan according to your logic he needs a cause.. so i would ask what is his cause ? then you would say god does not need a cause , ,, well if god does not need a cause why does the universe?1+1=2 not much more complected than that... they use pages of unrelated argument but in the end it boils to this simple flaw... ,, i cannot believe any serious atheist would have trouble putting craig in his place .. the entire argument is nothing more than Aquinas revisited.... takes little more than Hume as Aquinas has been ignored by anyone other than theist for centuries.... it is attempting to use logic but the very logic is uses chops away at its base more than it manages to prop it up ...Hume showed that humans cannot perceive 'cause' and 'effect', but construct these notions from past experiences." you cannot know something is designed until you have observed it happening or can relate it to something observed ... but to conclude the major problems with the theory ...even if the universe in t his current form has a beginning there is no way to know if this is a single random event or a continuous one ,, if it is continuous then the laws of physics are internal ... impersonal ? yes it is .. but logically justified thought i would reply with this becuase imo craig is just recycling old ideas with a big bang twist added after all that logic fallacy craig would probably then use intuition as a form of evidence , but this evidence is anecdotal in nature and once again hard to take seriously in light of a centuries old Hume argument p.s i do not care what we talk about .. but i found the debate between the objectives and skeptics to be worth elaborating on as they were all being jumbled into one in-concise theory | ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
On May 09 2010 00:11 chessmaster wrote: the kamal argument is not really worth examining imo as it is little different than a basic first cause argument which is easily embarrassed with basic logic , they try to get around this with adding the word " begins" or " finitude" and since god never began he does not need a cause .. however it fails since just because the evidence implies that this cycle of the universe suffered inflation it does not imply previous states before the bigbang ... therefore there is no sufficient reason to assign the universe a cause. the other fallacy of infinite series is also flawed as mathematics would disagree as well as thermodynamics,, not to mention that if nothing is infinite than when did god begin , if he did not begin than according to your logic he needs a cause then you would say does not need a cuase , ,, well if god does not nned a cuase why does the universe? Hopefully I've understood what you're saying here. I apologize if I haven't, it's a little difficult to follow what you're saying with the formatting. In any case. The Kalam would be very similar to Leibniz's argument in that the latter would require an explanation for everything that exists, while the former only goes so far as to say that "everything that begins to exist has a cause". It's not entirely the same question. Of course, Leibniz would say that the explanation (or cause) of god's existence is in the necessity of his own being (i.e. god exists necessarily), and I think those who adhere to the Kalam would agree with that, even though that's not quite what their syllogism deals with. So in that sense, there is a "cause" to gods existence. With respect to previous states before the big bang, what cosmological model to you subscribe to? As far as I'm aware, even cyclical models of the universe (i.e. endless cycles of contraction and expansion) fall suspect to the same criticisms that an eternal universe would fall suspect to, with respect to entropy, thermodynamics, etc. So I think, yes, there is a lot to be said for "was there anything "before" the big bang" (which is a tricky thing to phrase, as there would appear that there was not any state of affairs prior to the big bang). That's a question that really does need answering, especially if current models of cosmology state a definite beginning of the universe in the big bang, rather than some sort of eternal or cyclical model. Even still, there is a reason to assign a "cause" to the universe (even in our current model, this would be the big bang). Now, Craig would say that he distinguishes "infinity" into quantitative (mathematics) and qualitative (attributes and characteristics of god, by this he might mean that gods love is unconditional, boundless, etc.) aspects. He would also create a distinction between potential infinities and actual infinite (with no actual infinities existing, but these would be related to god). I suppose to end this off, theists have provided a "cause" for god, scientists are likewise trying (or have) provided "causes" for the universe. As far as I'm aware, cosmology predicts a beginning of the universe, so it's natural to ask, what was the cause? Implying that we don't need to provide a cause of the universe, because the theist has not provided a cause for god (give that question some good thought, its a category error) seems to be a confusion. ,, i cannot believe any serious atheist would have trouble putting craig in his place .. the entire argument is nothing more than Aquinas revisted takes little more than hume and has been ignored by anyone other than theist for centuries.... It depends. There are a lot of "forum atheists" who seem to think they have the answers to everything, and are surprised to learn that some argument has not yet been adequately answered or rejected or defeated. The Kalam is not a restatement of Aquinas, Hume didn't answer anything and what does it matter if the argument has been ignored? Does that some how make it less valid? it is attempting to use logic but the very logic is uses chops away at its base more than it manages to pro it up ...Hume showed that humans cannot perceive 'cause' and 'effect', but construct these notions from past experiences." you cannot now something is designed until you have observed it happening or can relate it to something observed ... It makes you wonder how Hume came to know that  But anyway, you're going to have to do more than just mention Hume and declare "Aha!". This is much more an argument against the sort of reasoning being used (i.e. deductive or inductive, Hume's problem of induction, I believe?) and not the argument itself (it's a question of epistemology, is it not?). Is there a consensus on one reasoning being more valuable than the other? Otherwise the point seems rather moot, and non-sequitur--are there not levels of belief, rather than simply "certain belief"? These arguments draw probable conclusions, rather than certain conclusions. Though I suppose you're free to pursue that line of reasoning if you wish, it just doesn't seem consonant with what you've said above. You'll have to excuse me though, I could be wrong, I haven't read much Hume.but to conclude the major problems with the theory ...even if the universe in t his current form has a beginning there is no way to know if this is a single random event a continuous one ,, if it is continuous it then the laws of physics are internal ... impersonal ? yes it is .. but logically justified A proposal Hawking would like, I'm sure. The proposal, however, still requires support. thought i would reply with this becuase imo craig is just recycling old ideas with a big bang twist added after all that logic fallacy craig would probably then use intuition as a form of evidence , but this evidence is anecdotal in nature and once again hard to take seriously in light of a centuries old Hume argument Then all I can suggest is that you read up on what Craig is proposing, I'm not entirely sure you've understood him. | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
once again the logic provided in this very old concpet does more to discredit the idea than it does to support it your quote " It depends. There are a lot of "forum atheists" who seem to think they have the answers to everything, and are surprised to learn that some argument has not yet been adequately answered or rejected or defeated. The Kalam is not a restatement of Aquinas, Hume didn't answer anything and what does it matter if the argument has been ignored? Does that some how make it less valid? " i am aware the subtle differences but in the end the logical concepts are the same as it pertains to the theory contradicting itself.. auinas doesn't postulate an absolute beginning Craig does....craig postulates a forward progression of time where one unit can always be added that supports his second claim that time cannot reach infinity ,,, but the simple counter to this is since the universe does not require a cause as your god doesn't it is the laws of physics which are infinite and therefore so is time when all forces are unified .. time no longer exist as itr does in the universes current state when the universe is unified.. since craig has never viewed the universe beofere the big bang he cannot postulate time functions the same ut all the current eviden in the very theory he is using as support suggests that the physical forces unify i.e unified field .. so once again a flawed argument, and a very simple one to spot for the serious atheist.... i do understand the finer details of this theory and in the end there is not much new here in the way of concept but there is in the way of minor details.. however in the end the very same fallacy is noticed and same reasons given for debunking...it all boils down to the basic fallacy of his assumptions and subsequent contradictions ,, my debunking while impersonal is not logically flawed the reason it is not valid as i mentioned is it is attempting to use logic to provide a reason and it fails miserably. this and only this is the reason it is ignored by those using logic to entertain notion .. whether he uses something like hilbert's paradox of the grand Hotel to explain the concept of infinite series , then invents a term to explain why this is absurd , the empircal evidence of thermodynamics disagrees with this concept ,, values can be infinite ,,, but in the case if we assume they cannot be ,, then i will ask what created your god so on and so forth , there is no if you say god does not need a cuase then i will say the universe does not either .... there is no way to escape the contradiction with any amount of semantics and i really can really on this and this alone to prove the fallacy if you want to put this theory under logical scrutiny as a logical proof i do realize the slight difference between aquinas and craig lie in a i really can list hume and nothing more because the combating logic is completely applicable ...the assertion that it is not similar to auinas or auinas revisited it false because it classified as a cosmological creation argument,, it is merely adding the concept of finite that is basically the premiere difference ....changing the semantically based terms does not change the concepts.... the main one being a logical first cause, reason or whatever else you want to call it the concept is the same ....if i provide a concept in another language while the eccentricities maybe slightly different the concepts will be the same this is why these types of arguments at least in a logical sense | ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
On May 09 2010 01:34 chessmaster wrote: once again if god is its own cause than why cant the universe be its own cause..i.e the laws of physics are internal ???? this form of logic is circular. there is no logical postulation to explain this belief.. as my previous post ... theists have provided a cause as they always have .. the difference is they are attempting to logically provide reason for this cause in a flawed argument .. scientist are not once again the logic provided in this very old concpet does more to discredit the idea than it does to support it Does this not suggest that the universe created itself before it existed (i.e. a contradiction between the necessary nature of the universe - as you're saying - and the reality that the universe had a beginning)? If there could have been different configurations to the laws of physics (which is how I understand possible worlds hypothesis), then I fail to see how they are in any way necessary. And besides, if the universe has a definite beginning, i.e. at one point it didn't exist, then it's not necessary, and therefore has a cause. It depends. There are a lot of "forum atheists" who seem to think they have the answers to everything, and are surprised to learn that some argument has not yet been adequately answered or rejected or defeated. The Kalam is not a restatement of Aquinas, Hume didn't answer anything and what does it matter if the argument has been ignored? Does that some how make it less valid? " the reason it is not valid as i mentioned is it is attempting to use logic to provide a reason and it fails miserably So you keep saying, mind expanding on the assertion? But I'll be honest with you, I really don't feel like discussing this thread for much longer. | ||
|
lOvOlUNiMEDiA
United States643 Posts
On May 09 2010 01:41 Gnosis wrote: Does this not suggest that the universe created itself before it existed (i.e. a contradiction between the necessary nature of the universe - as you're saying - and the reality that the universe had a beginning)? If there could have been different configurations to the laws of physics (which is how I understand possible worlds hypothesis), then I fail to see how they are in any way necessary. And besides, if the universe has a definite beginning, i.e. at one point it didn't exist, then it's not necessary, and therefore has a cause. So you keep saying, mind expanding on the assertion? But I'll be honest with you, I really don't feel like discussing this thread for much longer. Existence precedes causality. There is no cause and effect until there is something. That is why asking for a "cause" of the universe is a mistake. | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
here is your quote ( my quotes button has disappeared so i must do it this way " Does this not suggest that the universe created itself before it existed (i.e. a contradiction between the necessary nature of the universe - as you're saying - and the reality that the universe had a beginning)? If there could have been different configurations to the laws of physics (which is how I understand possible worlds hypothesis), then I fail to see how they are in any way necessary. And besides, if the universe has a definite beginning, i.e. at one point it didn't exist, then it's not necessary, and therefore has a cause." no i am saying the physical laws are eternal you have it exactly wrong .. i am saying the physical laws have the very properties your god does..if your god does not need a cause then neither do the unified field ,, as a matter of fact that is what i pray to ,, dear unified field though art my heaven etc.. i would not be surprised if you leave that is all someone arguing this logically can do,, once again the very logic the theory attempts to use for support does more in its detriment in the form of dogmatic contradiction .. if god does not need a cause .. neither does the unified field | ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
On May 09 2010 01:59 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: Existence precedes causality. There is no cause and effect until there is something. That is why asking for a "cause" of the universe is a mistake. Do you believe the universe is eternal, or necessary? If not, you see the problem of an infinite series of regressions. So it is not a mistake to ask for the cause of the universe, it is a mistake to say that there is none. But, as I said in my previous reply... I'm going to "bow out". I'm not really interested in the thread any more. On May 09 2010 02:01 chessmaster wrote: it is because when the fields unify time no longer exists in the way craig postulates for support of his second method..infinite series is not relevant prior to the big bang ,,, also i mentioned there is no proof that this current state of the universe is random ( requiring a cause ) or a series of repeated events .. the existence of unified governing dynamics precede causality .... i.e the universe does not behave in the same way..... as the physical fields are the reason for our existence they are the eternal god if you want to word it like that .. the very reason you give for his argument is self contained within the laws of physics.. they do not require a cause Frankly, and quite honestly, I'm not following you. So I think I'm going to leave things at that, as I already said I would (to Miramax). My heart (or head) really isn't into this anymore. So I'll look into what you've said, but I'm not going to argue with it | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
gnosis you said " which is a tricky thing to phrase, as there would appear that there was not any state of affairs prior to the big bang " this is incorrect .. nothing before the big-bang is implied besides a quantum vacuum or if you choose singularity, which is the very unified form of fields i and basic cosmology postulates ,, the very laws you attempt to use .... you are trying to use some of a theory but not all of it .... but to educate you on the subject since you are confused in reality they cannot get back to the very point of the big bang and certainly not before it .. current particle accelerators are attempting to get as close as they can to what happens after it ,, but still cannot achieve this state to answer another question i see the physical laws as eternal and as being there own necessity as previously stated numerous times , the very quality you place on god to escape causality i place on the universe itself.... once again while this is impersonal it adequately answers Craigs questions | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
| ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
| ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
if you cannot follow this basic contradiction proof then you probably should stop because this is all it takes for example einstien managed to connect space with time viewing time a manifested physical force as well as space ... it is relative to the observer... space and time while currently unified and manifested in the universe can be held to causality .. the existence of all fields being unified preceded causality as it is an expression of the fields being separated.... i am not claiming to know how many cycles this occurs for or what cycle we are on ,, but in the end it comes down to the fact you claim god does not need a cause because he is outside of time and eternal ... the same claim applies to the unified fields so through basic syllogism i can use your own logic to say the universe does not require a cause either... or ask why the universe requires that the governing fields that are unified , need a cause when they are eternal ? or like this .... everything has cause and effect within time ... therefore there must be a first cause to avoid infinite series ....god is the first cause .....what is gods cause ? he does not need a cause his existence precedes time ..... debunk... physical laws when unified precede causality and time ... therefore why does the universe require a cause ? it all comes down to this and has for a long time now..... this and only this is the reason the logic is not regarded seriously.. i am not saying it is not an interesting attempt .. it took several centuries for this basic contradiction to be found although t was not supported by physics it was by logic .. ie.e one more time if god does not need a cause why does the unified universe require one ? both are outside the realm of causality and time becoming their own necessity you cannot demonstrate or justify why the universe requires a personal origin with this theory ....no matter how hard you try it contradicts itself | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
Gnosis Canada. May 09 2010 02:22. Posts 192 PM Profile Quote # By necessary I mean that it is not possible for them not to exist. They would not be contingent on anything, including physical fields. " then what is god contingent on ? they are eternal that is what makes them necessary once again .. the very reason no doubt t you will give for god you cannot escape this contradiction .. if god does not require a necessary reason .. then neither does the quantum vacuum of unified fields,, which exist outside the realm of causality and time as the space-time dimension has not inflated/// as your god also exists outside of time does/// the very reason you give for god not being subject to your arguments i can simply use as reasoning that god is not needed for mine as well .....as the universe also exists outside time in its unified state and thus is not required to have a cause do you follow ? as many pages can be written on this as wanted but in the end this is all that is needed to reasonably discount it as logical proof.....i am not saying it is not correct ...could not be correct or any of the following ... as opposite a theist i do not pretend to know ...it could be correct ,, i am merely saying it is not a logical proof for god which many theist erroneously attempt to use it as as i said any serious atheist knows these debunkings , and would just merely repeat them over and over again.... i could not see craig winning a debate on logical grounds with this model with any skilled atheist . the theist will always be forced to acknowledged their own contradictions, as well as the previous debunking of finitude as an absolute assumption ,, he is describing the universe in its current form not its unified one.. also while thermodynamics implies matter is not eternal it allows for it to be....that was my point there... but it really does not matter because none of the laws behave as we understand them when all the fields are unified,, the unified fields exists outside time so please tell me why god does not require a cause that does not contradict itself? if the very cosmological attributes you use to prove causation doesn't apply to god because he is outside time,... the unified nature of the universe does also for itself ....... i cannot make this more clear as i said earlier if i was to pray it would be to the unified field of physical laws | ||
|
AmIGoingToGetBanned
United States19 Posts
All of the points and claims made in this thread are refuted entirely in that link. | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
theist will attempt to ignore these contradictions , but in the end , any serious logician realizes immediately this theory dismisses itself i think i do a simple refutation over the course of my posts , but there maybe more serious ones i will check it out .. issued the most simple and easily understood , seriously do not know why gnosis had so much trouble with it , i merely turned arguments logic on itself , which is all that refutation takes ,the illumination of the dogma contained within its own description ..... but thx for the link will check this out for sure i am sure there will be some more complex refutations that are a little more dated currently with informal logic | ||
| ||
The PiG Daily
Best Games of SC
Serral vs Clem
Solar vs Cure
Serral vs Clem
Reynor vs GuMiho
herO vs Cure
PiGStarcraft175
BSL 21
ProLeague - RO32 Group C
Tarson vs Julia
Doodle vs OldBoy
eOnzErG vs WolFix
StRyKeR vs Aeternum
ZZZero.O279
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
RSL Revival
Reynor vs sOs
Maru vs Ryung
Kung Fu Cup
Cure vs herO
Reynor vs TBD
WardiTV Korean Royale
BSL 21
JDConan vs Semih
Dragon vs Dienmax
Tech vs NewOcean
TerrOr vs Artosis
IPSL
Dewalt vs WolFix
eOnzErG vs Bonyth
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
WardiTV Korean Royale
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
