Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ta. I'll have a brood over that. Initially yes. For any event to occur (miracles aside) it must be at least possible for it to occur.
The key, of course, is to think about the nature of possibility. What makes something possible? Why are some things possible, but not others? And what is the nature of the change from merely possible to actual? When this happens, to what extent does something "new" come into the world, and to what extent is this transition just a "rearrangement" of what already "is". And BTW, even for a miracle to happen, the world must still be the sort of place where miracles are possible. If miracles are impossible in a given world, then miracles cannot happen in that world.
I doubt that anyone can give authoritative answers to these questions, but what we can do is try to identify a set of foundational premises that fit reasonably well with everything that we know. This is where my proposed unconscious (as opposed to "non-conscious") "primordial chaos" comes into play.
Another consideration: Even if we accept Mystic's proposition of a primordial conscious source, we can still ask: What determines God's thoughts? Presumably, if God is conscious and intelligent, then God knows that 3 is numerically closer to 4 than it is 8. How does God know this? Did God "decide" to make 3 closer to 4 than 8? Or does God's knowledge depend on the underlying structure of reality such that God had no choice in the matter? I'd say that logical truths are just part of the nature of God, and I think it is conceptually incoherent to say that God "chose" his own nature. God's nature just "is" without further explanation. I'd say this fundamental structure of reality is "God's unconscious" and I've basically been suggesting ways to conceptually explore "God's unconscious."
The basic idea is simply that we can think rationally about the foundations of reality without presupposing the primordial existence of consciousness or intelligence. It is reasonable to suppose that consciousness and intelligence are contingent aspects of reality, not intrinsically necessary aspects. It is logically possible that a conscious God does not exist, and thus the existence of a conscious God is a logically contingent fact, not a logically necessary fact. If Mystic wants to say that God is nothing other than "the Source" of everything, and if he admits that this source could be unconscious, then I would agree to say that "God" is a logical necessity. But I would still want to explore the nature of this source (or "God's inherent nature) in terms of chaos, because chaos implies the possibility for order, and "the possibility for order" is exactly what "the source" is.
Pure mountain water, natural ingredients, and natural fermentation, nectar of the gods (brew misters are gods)
No silicon enhancements
Lots of drunk driving injuries/death/property damage...addiction...and illness. Social acceptability masks it.
No quality of life enhancement. Well...unless you run a rehab, dialysis center, perform liver transplants, operate a tow truck & auto impound yard, fix cars for a living, or work as an attorney handling DWI cases.
Lots of drunk driving injuries/death/property damage...addiction...and illness. Social acceptability masks it.
No quality of life enhancement. Well...unless you run a rehab, dialysis center, perform liver transplants, operate a tow truck & auto impound yard, fix cars for a living, or work as an attorney handling DWI cases.
You are trying to claim the high ground while standing neck deep in the sleaze of the porn industry. I'll enjoy my favorite ale without getting drunk or harming anyone. Much better than degradation of women for personal gain, and claiming all the phony self-rightness of being a christian.
You are trying to claim the high ground while standing neck deep in the sleaze of the porn industry. I'll enjoy my favorite ale without getting drunk or harming anyone. Much better than degradation of women for personal gain, and claiming all the phony self-rightness of being a christian.
Nope...just pointing out the hypocrisy you are putting forth.
The harm and pain (see previous list) caused by the INDULGENCE you endorse, is objective, actual, and epic...While the harm and pain you ALLEGE ("degradation" of women) occurs in the BUSINESS/VOCATION you denounce, is just a subjective personal hang-up that is nothing more than an opinion.
The difference between me and you in this...is I'll cop to what I do.
I have openly said my own OPINION was that the pornography business was debased and depraved. And I've stated as much on this forum.
While you look to cover up the FACT that what you advocate and praise has derivatively caused prolific sickness, injury, and death.
"Sleaze" is arbitrary, and nothing but a matter of opinion. What is "sleazy" to one, may not be to another. People differ...cultures differ on the matter. I defy you to show any objective basis to your contention.
That nudity/sexual interaction as art/performance art/entertainment is "degrading" to the women that endeavor in that line of work, is nothing more than the subjective opinion of the person considering the issue.
But the harm, death, and loss that has occurred as a derivative of drinking beer is a real, documented, OBJECTIVE FACT known by all.
That you argue the point by assessing just yourself (I'll enjoy my favorite ale without getting drunk or harming anyone) is beyond ignorant...like that somehow dismisses the real and actual harm it has caused millions upon millions.
The real irony here is how switched-up you are now! Arguing the subjective over the objective when it suits you. Your argument has no real merit...and you know it.
Oh, and...I never said I was righteous...MOF just the opposite.
That's just more lies by you.
If you don't accept that human moral instincts are a product of evolution and that the moral codes we build upon them is derived from a reasoning brain then you might never see it. I have already seen the preliminary work being done and I can see it coming. You can say it is faith - based, I say it is extrapolating from the present. The fact is, like it or not, the work is going on now.
Okay I guess you have a point. The materialist basis would seem to lead to the idea that everything, even products of our mind, are just a part of nature so are also amenable to science. I admit to me it's hard to fathom why anyone would sincerely think like that. Partly because the rational atheists I read in youth did not think like that and the atheists I've known I don't think see the world that way. They didn't/don't think of how everything can and should be reduced to science. That was something I didn't encounter until the late 1990s from writers in the British Commonwealth.
Naturally though my mind still goes to one of two possibilities on this.
One: People who say they think this don't sincerely like this. They just have a strong need for order and consistency so try to think like that as it seems to offer order and consistency.
Two: There are people who really do believe this and that's probably all I can say on them because they're largely inexplicable from my vantage point.
My initial impression was that you were a One, but I admit I'm starting to think you are indeed a Two. Considering that it's amazing we can communicate at all. I wouldn't say we communicate well, but we can and that's why I probably thought you were a One. I'm not sure I've ever met someone who actually believed in this kind of reductionism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I understand that there are a lot of posts here and you won't have read everything but the free will debate was nothing to do with the Gospel criticism threads. The problem of evil and the free will response, the question of moral absolutes and god - given moral codes was thrashed out several times by many posters and the theist side could not maintain its position.
That could just be a sign the people here aren't good debaters. I'm of above average intelligence (I worry that sounds arrogant but I'm going by what testing indicates), but I stink at persuasive speaking or debate.
Or it could be a sign of how differently you would think than many to most people I've ever known. So for you "not maintaining the position" might only refer for not being applicable to anything you'd accept. For people of other philosophical or human perspectives maybe their arguments did just fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I do want them to abandon the idea that these values come from a god (because it isn't an argument that stands up) and that, because it comes from a god, the terms and parameters of morality are to be found in one Holy Book or another. I want the matter looked at logically, not dogmatically.
Well what you or I want and what should or will happen aren't necessarily the same thing. In your case I think you're already at the point where you know this, people getting their values from logic, will not happen.
Still I may have misstated it at times. Morality can largely/mostly be gleaned from nature and the observation of humans. It's just that it is more certain, or truly felt, with revelation. When you lack that the morals, even if valid, can appear to be merely the consensus of flawed human beings. God, of some form, provides both imperative and an objective observer. And I may or may not get more into this if you wish. From what I recall in the past on basic issues of God or morality I never felt like you "bested" me at all, but I can't know for certain how others saw it.
Basically though I'm saying an atheist can probably be as moral as anyone. Although I'll admit I have a strong bias against the kind of logical, empiricist, reductionist mindset you're indicating with regards to morals or anything. I'd lean toward saying you probably wouldn't get a valid moral system with that because it disregards too much of even the humanistic side of morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Of course I'm half kidding, yet the idea of divergent time lines where Hitler never came to power, Paul never converted and America is still technically under the British throne, came from scientists, not me. The idea of actually being able to access those time - lines is the stuff of science - fiction, but you know, when it comes to saying what's definitely not possible, you are a darn sight more prone to doing it than I am.
Oh I suppose you're right on that, but I'm not claiming to be a logical or empiricist or reductionist. I value logic for doing puzzles or solving problems, but I have a strong romanticist type side to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
You don't speak for all theists any more than I speak for all atheists, but logical constructs speak for ALL logical constructs. Logic is like mathematics and science - it is universal. If there is a different 'version' it is probably wrong.
The problem is you're setting yourself up as a preacher for a rather intolerant form of religion. Because at this point it almost certainly is a religion as it has a faith in things unseen (this future science) and a belief in the rightness of its metaphysical views. On top of that it asserts its Universality and Truth.
And it is seductive. There is something powerful about a religion that is so convinced it is True. I mean I'm a fairly conservative Catholic, if anyone gets that "Outside the Church there is no Truth/Salvation" I do. Still it just has no appeal to me and I think it's potentially more dangerous than any religion except maybe Radical forms of Islam. If it's not dangerous now it's because people like you are relatively rare. Still at least with Catholicism we can recognize other faiths as having validity that comes from their cultures understanding of natural law. Your religion just seems to preach destruction of all other faiths.
I did the best I could to not make this personally insulting. You mean well I think. But in some ways it is unfortunate that I'm not a better instrument to counter your evangelism.
The brain belongs to the material body, and the reasoning belongs to the ethereal soul. So without the spiritual soul the material brain cannot think by itself.
Okay I guess you have a point. The materialist basis would seem to lead to the idea that everything, even products of our mind, are just a part of nature so are also amenable to science. I admit to me it's hard to fathom why anyone would sincerely think like that. Partly because the rational atheists I read in youth did not think like that and the atheists I've known I don't think see the world that way. They didn't/don't think of how everything can and should be reduced to science. That was something I didn't encounter until the late 1990s from writers in the British Commonwealth.
Naturally though my mind still goes to one of two possibilities on this.
One: People who say they think this don't sincerely like this. They just have a strong need for order and consistency so try to think like that as it seems to offer order and consistency.
Two: There are people who really do believe this and that's probably all I can say on them because they're largely inexplicable from my vantage point.
My initial impression was that you were a One, but I admit I'm starting to think you are indeed a Two. Considering that it's amazing we can communicate at all. I wouldn't say we communicate well, but we can and that's why I probably thought you were a One. I'm not sure I've ever met someone who actually believed in this kind of reductionism.
That could just be a sign the people here aren't good debaters. I'm of above average intelligence (I worry that sounds arrogant but I'm going by what testing indicates), but I stink at persuasive speaking or debate.
Or it could be a sign of how differently you would think than many to most people I've ever known. So for you "not maintaining the position" might only refer for not being applicable to anything you'd accept. For people of other philosophical or human perspectives maybe their arguments did just fine.
Well what you or I want and what should or will happen aren't necessarily the same thing. In your case I think you're already at the point where you know this, people getting their values from logic, will not happen.
Still I may have misstated it at times. Morality can largely/mostly be gleaned from nature and the observation of humans. It's just that it is more certain, or truly felt, with revelation. When you lack that the morals, even if valid, can appear to be merely the consensus of flawed human beings. God, of some form, provides both imperative and an objective observer. And I may or may not get more into this if you wish. From what I recall in the past on basic issues of God or morality I never felt like you "bested" me at all, but I can't know for certain how others saw it.
Basically though I'm saying an atheist can probably be as moral as anyone. Although I'll admit I have a strong bias against the kind of logical, empiricist, reductionist mindset you're indicating with regards to morals or anything. I'd lean toward saying you probably wouldn't get a valid moral system with that because it disregards too much of even the humanistic side of morality.
Oh I suppose you're right on that, but I'm not claiming to be a logical or empiricist or reductionist. I value logic for doing puzzles or solving problems, but I have a strong romanticist type side to.
The problem is you're setting yourself up as a preacher for a rather intolerant form of religion. Because at this point it almost certainly is a religion as it has a faith in things unseen (this future science) and a belief in the rightness of its metaphysical views. On top of that it asserts its Universality and Truth.
And it is seductive. There is something powerful about a religion that is so convinced it is True. I mean I'm a fairly conservative Catholic, if anyone gets that "Outside the Church there is no Truth/Salvation" I do. Still it just has no appeal to me and I think it's potentially more dangerous than any religion except maybe Radical forms of Islam. If it's not dangerous now it's because people like you are relatively rare. Still at least with Catholicism we can recognize other faiths as having validity that comes from their cultures understanding of natural law. Your religion just seems to preach destruction of all other faiths.
I did the best I could to not make this personally insulting. You mean well I think. But in some ways it is unfortunate that I'm not a better instrument to counter your evangelism.
Your self-assessment is too humble Thom.
I've never seen it put better.
MOF it's now my "gold-standard" explanation of how it's a religion...and the most closed-minded, judgmental, biased, and intolerant one at that.
The key, of course, is to think about the nature of possibility. What makes something possible? Why are some things possible, but not others? And what is the nature of the change from merely possible to actual? When this happens, to what extent does something "new" come into the world, and to what extent is this transition just a "rearrangement" of what already "is". And BTW, even for a miracle to happen, the world must still be the sort of place where miracles are possible. If miracles are impossible in a given world, then miracles cannot happen in that world.
I doubt that anyone can give authoritative answers to these questions, but what we can do is try to identify a set of foundational premises that fit reasonably well with everything that we know. This is where my proposed unconscious (as opposed to "non-conscious") "primordial chaos" comes into play.
Another consideration: Even if we accept Mystic's proposition of a primordial conscious source, we can still ask: What determines God's thoughts? Presumably, if God is conscious and intelligent, then God knows that 3 is numerically closer to 4 than it is 8. How does God know this? Did God "decide" to make 3 closer to 4 than 8? Or does God's knowledge depend on the underlying structure of reality such that God had no choice in the matter? I'd say that logical truths are just part of the nature of God, and I think it is conceptually incoherent to say that God "chose" his own nature. God's nature just "is" without further explanation. I'd say this fundamental structure of reality is "God's unconscious" and I've basically been suggesting ways to conceptually explore "God's unconscious."
The basic idea is simply that we can think rationally about the foundations of reality without presupposing the primordial existence of consciousness or intelligence. It is reasonable to suppose that consciousness and intelligence are contingent aspects of reality, not intrinsically necessary aspects. It is logically possible that a conscious God does not exist, and thus the existence of a conscious God is a logically contingent fact, not a logically necessary fact. If Mystic wants to say that God is nothing other than "the Source" of everything, and if he admits that this source could be unconscious, then I would agree to say that "God" is a logical necessity. But I would still want to explore the nature of this source (or "God's inherent nature) in terms of chaos, because chaos implies the possibility for order, and "the possibility for order" is exactly what "the source" is.
I am being made very much aware of my lack of expertise in this area. However, I had a few preliminary thoughts on your previous post.
"Perhaps this will help: Would you agree that, for any actual event, let's call it X, the nature of reality must be such that X is logically possible, given the nature of reality? I say yes.
Now, I would say that logical possibilities are non-temporal, which is to say, they don't come into existence, nor do they ever disappear. Also, if there is a multiverse, then logical possibilities apply to all universes. ("Natural possibilities," in contrast, would be tied to the rules of a given universe. So, for example, it is logically possible to go to the sun and back in 1 second, but if the theory of relativity is correct, it naturally impossible to do so in our physical universe.)"
Let's check something first about logical possibilities in universes.
Natural possibility would say that it is possible for a being (on another planet, say) to travel to their sun, though it is unlikely that they would ever actually be able to do so without burning up long before they arrived (to use a similar example to your 1-second travel) but it would be logically impossible for them to travel to their moon if their planet didn't have one. Or would it be a logical possibility in that it could potentially have a moon but actually doesn't?
It would seem that to be non - temporal, the logical possibility of going to a non - existentmoon is a logical impossibility only, because we only have the moon not existing in a temporal situation.
But then I suppose the multiverse idea can have moons for planets so the logical possibility is still inherent and the planet without a moon is a situation tied to that universe, so it is a natural possibility.
The logical possibility is for moons to exist but not inside suns, I suppose. It sounds like a logical impossibility but only because it is naturally impossible. True? Thus logical possibilities (or impossibilities) may be dependent on what is naturally possible. Comment?
If so, it suggests that it is not entirely non -temporal because the rules (shall we say) of what is logically possible may depend on what is naturally possible. Or are we talking about logical possibilities of the kind which have no parallell in the natural universe(s), in which case, what could they be?
p.s I'm reminded of Mystic demanding 'what are they?' (natural mechanisms, I recall)
This is leading to the suggestion that consciousness is a logical possibility only because it a natural possibility. If for example you talk of a square circle or 2 and 2 = 5, that is not a logical possibility because it is not a natural possibility. I realise that abstracts of that kind may not be the same as moons not being able to exist in suns, but perhaps you'd comment?
What it seems to be is that even logical possibilities depend on what is naturally possible, so in a way, they are (arguably) temporal - dependent. Until the time there is a natural universe, there is no way to know what is logically possible or, one might say, logical possibility does not yet exist.
I know this sounds like someone talking about the meaning of architecture in terms of what sticks together with mortar but it is actually about conceptualising situations. If one approaches them from another angle, one may find that the terms one has applied may not apply and in fact those assumptions about concepts may not be valid.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-21-2011 at 05:27 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
