Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
P1) If driving drunk increases the likelyhood of accidents, then it is immoral to drive drunk.
P2) Driving drunk increases the likelyhood of accidents
C: Therefore, it is immoral to drive drunk
This one appears validly constructed, but its actually either not valid or not sound because the only way I could justify P1 is if I already knew C meaning I have begged the question(formally invalid), or I have an unjustified premise.
I don't know what he's talking about either.I admit that I only have a ninth grade education, but that argument looks like a holy mess to me.
I guess that higher education was designed specifically to confuse me. If so... it's working.
We get to know Him, there is none more worth knowing!
Both are equally important.
This is, as the well known Philosopher C.S. Lewis once said: "Nothing leading to Nothing." It's a logical oxymoron.
It's really not imagination. It's just comparative analysis.
No, you didn't present an argument at all. You produced a non-sequitor.I'd already done that. We didn't need you proposing a nonsensical argument. And I'm being generous in calling it that. It had the conclusion in the first premise...it was a mess.
That;s not how arguments work. Premises being correct is necessary, but not sufficient.I wasn't making a moral argument. Just showing you that if premises are correct then it leads to a conclusion. Just think of the IS OUGHT to be an IF THEN. IF we want to reduce accidents we THEN have to reduce drink driving.
So what kind of argument were you making, then?I wasn't making a moral argument.
So then what was the relationship to moral truth? If it wasn't an moral argument, why did you draw a moral conclusion?Well, wasn't it lucky I wasn't making a moral argument.
Ahhh....comparison. Thankfully we never have to choose between two evils and try to consider which is lesser.
Self-evident ... how could a reasonable person hold otherwise?
The Truth in the story is substantive, beneath the form of the text, infallible and eternal.
God did not punish us with utter separation.
Alienation as a medicinal is useful in bringing about at-one-ment ... as we see He did in the New Testament.
That's almost exactly the Adam and Eve story:
- "Newcomers to the group get the norms explained to them"
- They willfully disobey the norms (important step excluded above)
- Then they suffer the effects of their disobedience
In the story there are two trees in the garden. Adam and Eve were first given the fruit of the tree of life then follows the explanation.
They were not punished for understanding.
They alienated themselves from God through their free act of disobedience.
Made in God's image means, unlike the brute animals, Adam and Eve possessed both reason and free will. Having reason, they were not completely ignorant. Having free will, they were open to sin.
After one reads the rest of the story, in the New Testament, through the God-man Jesus Christ, atonement is complete.
Well, science claims to comprehend the relationship. Neither time, nor space, nor matter can physically exist independently of the others.
So, there is no passage of time before God created the universe. So, God in eternity necessarily exists outside time.
God wills to be intimate with those made in His image. But mankind likewise needs to freely will the same. We are slow learners. The story is not completely over for you and me so stay tuned.
Maybe. But then again, what is considered "evil" depends upon who the authorized definer of ethics happens to be.
Or vice versa.....and not only God, but everyone else too.There could be some things that, with only momentary consideration, you and I wouldn't think of as being "evil," but God would.
And if the God of the Bible exists, then you and I, in those particular moments, would have an ethical dilemma to deal with.
Sure....it's unclear what that report might sound like or come from.That's precisely my point, we don't have any reports of reality without a subjective experience.
So while we may intuit the idea of a reality that is independent of all subjective experience, we don't know that one exists.
And I'm not just talking about a radical skeptical position, I'm depending on physics because the reality of observer-dependent phenomenon.
The only interpretations of quantum physics that doesn't introduce the subjective into the physical system are Von Neuman.
The shared physical space need not be entirely subjectively independent, it only needs to be shared and internally consistent.
Objective truth is not the only kind of truth
Yet we refuse to consider the proposition that there is no such thing and instead insist that we know that nature is physical because..science! Objectve truth! We all agree, we've come to an agreement so this is what objective truth is. Except that's not objective truth, it's intersubjective truth. Which is all science is capable of producing, consensus truth. So long as nobody questions it, we don't have to examine our foundations. Hey! Don't question the science! My metaphysical hypothesis about reality is scientific! I know what nature is at a fundamental level! And that is physical!Sure....it's unclear what that report might sound like or come from.
I mean with any degree of real certainty. Intersubjective truth is no more objective than subjective truth, and so long as we begin with a metaphysical principle about what nature fundamentally is we can't get to it. Our metaphysics won't let us. Shut up philosopher, listen to the science.No....we don't "know" it exists (if you mean "know with absolute certainty").
Without going any further than to assume that it exists. We can't presume that it is what it appears to be to our senses any more than we can assume that it is what it appears to be to our thoughts.I fully agree.
What I am saying though is in order to talk about what is true....we must assume it exists.
I agree, but I simply mean that measurments and observations, regardless of how they are defined, throw a spanner into the works that doesn't seem to be sortable other than to define observation and measurement in a way that doesn't comport to commonsense understandings of the terms.Not certain what you mean here. The "observer effect" of the double slit experiment is probably the most misinterpreted experiment in physics.
An objective reality, sure. But an objective-subject is just as objective as an objective world that is empty of mind.Again, to make the claim this is true in any sense of the word true requires the assumption that am objective reality exists.
No, all that it requires is to accept that there is something that exists external to me. Objective substantial reality? Objective-subjective reality? Don't really know what it is, I just know it's not me and I'm not it.Again...the claim that this is true requires the assumption of an objective reality.
When I say that, I don't mean that truth doesn't have to be objective. What I mean is that when we're talking about truth, we have to recognize that there are strata. There are subjective truths, intersubjective truths, and an objective truth. The stratification is at the level we are able to attain, not refering to the idea of truth itself.I'm going to give you a chance to respond to the above before addressing this.
” Because the bible says so” carries no weight with me.If you looked at the Greek and Hebrew you'd find different words used for each.
For Christians, the Bible is the dictionary in theological situations.
He is as immortal as you are, no more no less. And yes, he's powerful, but God can turn His power of like you turn of the sink.
As far as Him having the attributes of what other religions call god, you're quite right. For a Christian is this not surprising since we beleive that demons are behind and represented by all pagan Gods.
Firstly, because the Bible says so.
But also, if we have multiple equal powers in the universe, who can we trust? How can we know that God will protect his people eternally no matter what? We can't. He might be overruled.
I think you are here referring to the Catholics. They are, (no offense to them) false Christians, and do not follow what the Bible say as the only standard. No one but God should be prayed to. Anything more is idolatry.
Self-evident ... how could a reasonable person hold otherwise?
The Truth in the story is substantive, beneath the form of the text, infallible and eternal.
God did not punish us with utter separation.
Alienation as a medicinal is useful in bringing about at-one-ment ... as we see He did in the New Testament.
That's almost exactly the Adam and Eve story:
- "Newcomers to the group get the norms explained to them"
- They willfully disobey the norms (important step excluded above)
- Then they suffer the effects of their disobedience
In the story there are two trees in the garden. Adam and Eve were first given the fruit of the tree of life then follows the explanation.
They were not punished for understanding.
They alienated themselves from God through their free act of disobedience.
Made in God's image means, unlike the brute animals, Adam and Eve possessed both reason and free will. Having reason, they were not completely ignorant. Having free will, they were open to sin.
Mankind was never completely exiled from God. The Old Testament provides the evidence.
After one reads the rest of the story, in the New Testament, through the God-man Jesus Christ, atonement is complete.
Well, science claims to comprehend the relationship. Neither time, nor space, nor matter can physically exist independently of the others. So, there is no passage of time before God created the universe. So, God in eternity necessarily exists outside time.
God wills to be intimate with those made in His image. But mankind likewise needs to freely will the same. We are slow learners. The story is not completely over for you and me so stay tuned.
Yet we refuse to consider the proposition that there is no such thing and instead insist that we know that nature is physical because..science! Objectve truth! We all agree, we've come to an agreement so this is what objective truth is. Except that's not objective truth, it's intersubjective truth.
Which is all science is capable of producing, consensus truth. So long as nobody questions it, we don't have to examine our foundations. Hey! Don't question the science! My metaphysical hypothesis about reality is scientific! I know what nature is at a fundamental level! And that is physical!
I mean with any degree of real certainty.
Intersubjective truth is no more objective
Without going any further than to assume that it exists. We can't presume that it is what it appears to be to our senses any more than we can assume that it is what it appears to be to our thoughts.
I agree, but I simply mean that measurments and observations, regardless of how they are defined, throw a spanner into the works that doesn't seem to be sortable other than to define observation and measurement in a way that doesn't comport to commonsense understandings of the terms.
An objective reality, sure. But an objective-subject is just as objective as an objective world that is empty of mind.
No, all that it requires is to accept that there is something that exists external to me.
When I say that, I don't mean that truth doesn't have to be objective.
What I mean is that when we're talking about truth, we have to recognize that there are strata.
There are subjective truths, intersubjective truths, and an objective truth.
The stratification is at the level we are able to attain, not refering to the idea of truth itself.
Let me ask you a question, if atheists have so much knowledge how come when they're asked to provide it the best they seem to be able to muster is to plead ignorance? Where is this knowledge, and why must they depend on reasoning circularly by assuming causal closure of the physical and then presenting all the physical facts they've discovered? You ask me where is my God I boast about, I ask you where is this knowledge you boast about? Why should I be the one providing reasons, if you're the one who's supposed to be rational?I think you mean intersubjective agreement.
Well perspective hasn't put a man on the moon yet....it's difficult to argue with results.
Well I would disagree then.
Intersubjective agreement isn't all that's in science you know....
Again, I would have to disagree...intersubjective agreement of the senses exists. I can never know if you agree with a thought. I can only take your word for it.
I'm sorry....you're getting a little too metaphorical. What spanner are we throwing into what works?
Example of an objective subject?
Sure, and independently of you.
Or rather...independently of your ability or inability to perceive it.
If that helps.
Ok.
Ok.
I'll agree there are subjective truths but we cannot know them by any means I'm aware of.
Intersubjective truths is an interesting idea....I certainly understand intersubjective agreement, but it's unclear what an intersubjective truth is.
And I hope it's obvious what I mean by objective truth.
When I categorize truths...I tend to along the strata I think is most important to people in general. I'm always speaking about objective truths since I don't know how we can demonstrate or perceive a subjective truth....and I'm unfamiliar with your idea of intersubjective truths.
There are happy truths. There are unhappy truths aka ugly truths. There are indifferent truths. There are difficult truths (think something so emotionally unsatisfactory that you'd reject it regardless of any evidence or logic) and sometimes there are dangerous truths (those which probably shouldn't be told simply from the risk of catastrophe that can result).
.
Ok....well I'm curious about the idea of an intersubjective truth. I have a conceptualization of subjective truths I simply cannot describe a way to know them....and then there's objective truth which can be approached pretty closely, depending upon the method, but rarely obtained.
Let me ask you a question, if atheists have so much knowledge
how come when they're asked to provide it the best they seem to be able to muster is to plead ignorance?
Where is this knowledge, and why must they depend on reasoning circularly by assuming causal closure of the physical and then presenting all the physical facts they've discovered?
You ask me where is my God I boast about, I ask you where is this knowledge you boast about? .
Why should I be the one providing reasons, if you're the one who's supposed to be rational?
Sorry, I'm in a weird mental place today.I don't see atheists as some unusual repository of information.
This seems like it's directed at someone....
Did you ask me something that I forgot to answer?
More generally....
Is that a bad thing? If someone doesn't know something....surely you're not upset about them admitting to it?
I try my best to avoid circular reasoning but I don't know what you're talking about with the "causal closure" and presentation of physical facts.
I'm admitting to not knowing what you mean here despite you just telling me that you dislike "pleading ignorance".
If you want me to take a stab at explaining something difficult that I'm very uncertain about....just say so....but don't expect me to defend an idea I came up with on the spot.
Did I boast about knowledge?
I'm detecting some defensiveness. I thought we were having a pleasant exchange.
Tell you what....ask me something about morality and I'll give you my best explanation.
Sound fair?
Yeah, that works too.I think you mean intersubjective agreement.
The issue isn't perspective, it's about unjustified assumptions. There is an objective truth, and if we dig deep enough there is a ground floor. God cannot not exist, because existence is in His nature. It's literally impossible, so the question isn't does God exist but what God is like. This doesn't preclude science at all, it just means that if we're truly interested in what is objectively true we have to start at First Principles.Well perspective hasn't put a man on the moon yet....it's difficult to argue with results.
Science can never escape the subjective understanding of the most intelligent human being, or at least not much beyond that. Reason can't take us to the promised land, at least not from science, because it begins by settling for the universe as the thing that must be true rather than digging all the way to the thing that is true by definition. Science settles for physical, but reality is deeper than that. There is only one objective truth, and it's not the universe.Well I would disagree then.
My issue isn't with science principally, but with the metaphysics of science. Taken the universe as the foundational brute fact. Physical reality, but not reality proper.Intersubjective agreement isn't all that's in science you know....
You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying, because it's not whether you agree with a thought but reality as it exists in the abstract. The world of the mental, which is just as real as the physical substance of our bodies but physics must deny as truly real.Again, I would have to disagree...intersubjective agreement of the senses exists. I can never know if you agree with a thought. I can only take your word for it.
If we have to define observor and measurement in a way in which it no longer resembles our conception of these things we lose semantic coherence. Nobody understands what an observor without consciousness is, so how can we say that such a thing is possible? It's somethng that we have no real concept for, so it's not really explanatory. It's just words that are bound to lead to confusion.I'm sorry....you're getting a little too metaphorical. What spanner are we throwing into what works?
GodExample of an objective subject?
Within which I move and breath and have my being. That reality is God.Sure, and independently of you.
Yep. The necessary truth that exists by its own necessity. God.Or rather...independently of your ability or inability to perceive it.
If that helps.
The truth that rests at the bottom of reality. Science promises to get to it, but it can't because science begins with an unjustiified assumption and then refuses to consider it's validity so long as it keeps producing physical facts. But all you'll ever get are physical facts until science gives up the idea that physical reality is the substrate. Science isn't approaching the truth, because it can never go deeper than it's opening assumption.Ok.
Ok.
I'll agree there are subjective truths but we cannot know them by any means I'm aware of.
Intersubjective truths is an interesting idea....I certainly understand intersubjective agreement, but it's unclear what an intersubjective truth is.
And I hope it's obvious what I mean by objective truth.
Yeah, I suppose we could categorize truth in all sorts of ways.When I categorize truths...I tend to along the strata I think is most important to people in general. I'm always speaking about objective truths since I don't know how we can demonstrate or perceive a subjective truth....and I'm unfamiliar with your idea of intersubjective truths.
There are happy truths. There are unhappy truths aka ugly truths. There are indifferent truths. There are difficult truths (think something so emotionally unsatisfactory that you'd reject it regardless of any evidence or logic) and sometimes there are dangerous truths (those which probably shouldn't be told simply from the risk of catastrophe that can result).
So long as science assumes that physical is the foundation, it will never be able to approach objective truth. God is the ground floor, and God is objective truth. Science is just the latest tower of Babel man has built in an attempt to get at Him. We're fast approaching the point where science will declare that man has no mind, and cut off its own legs. God is dead, man shortly followed..
Ok....well I'm curious about the idea of an intersubjective truth. I have a conceptualization of subjective truths I simply cannot describe a way to know them....and then there's objective truth which can be approached pretty closely, depending upon the method, but rarely obtained.
....................................................... yes. "Our faith," assuming we're talking Christianity here, of course.The author and perfector of our faith.
It's those "vice versa" issues that most annoy me......................that is, when I see them manifested cavalierly among "everyone else" without much of anything in the way of deep thought on the matter. Then again, I don't expect everyone to be able to study Philosophy (i.e. ETHICS and other stuff) and achieve a significant degree of understanding and familiarity with the various substantive issues involved.Or vice versa.....and not only God, but everyone else too.
Well you would. I don't know what God believes is good (just some of what Christians have told me and what I can recall from the bible). I won't tell you that I don’t ever consider these normative social values... because they are pervasive in much of our society. As such, regardless of whether or not I genuinely agree with these moral norms, it's in my best interests to understand them...and consider them carefully if I'm about to transgress one.
You have the conclusion in the premise.P1) If driving drunk increases the likelyhood of accidents, then it is immoral to drive drunk.
P2) Driving drunk increases the likelyhood of accidents
C: Therefore, it is immoral to drive drunk
Ahhh....comparison. Thankfully we never have to choose between two evils and try to consider which is lesser.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?