tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post6391609488098350456..comments2023-10-25T14:20:11.408-05:00Comments on RHOBLOGY: When shallow thinkers create Facebook pagesRhologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-67460988699029509032012-05-30T01:27:30.647-05:002012-05-30T01:27:30.647-05:00As soon as you refuse to account for harm within y...<i>As soon as you refuse to account for harm within your valuation you open the<br />way for the justification of almost any atrocity.</i><br /><b><br />They wouldn't be atrocities if the goal of existence is the maximisation of<br />harm, now would they?<br />Hospitals would be atrocities in that case.<br />expand your mind, get outside your box, answer my questions.</b><br /><br /><br />Now you're just resorting to sophistry. This is exactly what I mean, if you don't aim to minimise harm and maximise well being then the torture, raping & killing of small children can be justified. If you do aim for these goals, then it cannot. In other words good is what is valued by the individual (on a conscious or unconscious level) and is beneficial to that individual and bad is what is not, when they are fully able to cogitate those effects. These <br /><br /><br /><i>Actually no, you are asserting that an external absolute moral authority is required</i><br /><br /><b> Otherwise we end up in the morass we've seen above from you.</b><br /><br />Where we value life and despise harm to others? What a terrible morass to be stuck in. You still haven't justified why an absolute moral authority is required to prevent us ending up in some morass nor have you adequately defined that morass.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>I am simply showing that this is not the case.</i><b><br /><br />You haven't shown that. You've shown the opposite - that YOU want to be the<br />moral authority.</b><br /><br />No, I have never said that I am the moral authority. In fact I have stated the exact opposite that, not only am I not the moral authority, the morality of an action must be objectively determined from all of that action’s effects on ALL parties involved.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13598840895793026452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-62112704777909568482012-05-30T01:27:03.307-05:002012-05-30T01:27:03.307-05:00Damn formatting errors
Correct. I'm one human...Damn formatting errors<br /><br /><b>Correct. I'm one human among 7 billion. Why should anyone listen to my<br />opinions?</b><br /><br />So all those without referencing an external source are just wandering around unable to make moral decisions? Really? You're honestly stating that all those atheists and non-believers in your god are simply incapable of making moral descisions? I'm not sure that even the most fundamentalist of moral philosophers would agree to that.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Because of the objectively observable & measurable effects of those<br />things and because the individuals are demonstrably worse off.</i><br /><br /><b>OK, so objectively measure "worse". Lay out your experiment, your<br />evidence, and what instrumentation you used to measure "worse"ness.</b><br /><br />Hypothesis: If someones arm is removed they will be less able to perform actions normally done with 2 hands.<br />Test: You are to tie up shoes with laces, walk along a balance beam and then untie them. Your arm is cut off. You are then to tie up those shoes again, walk along a balance beam and untie them.<br />You will be observed by a panel and timed on length of time for each stage and number of falls off the balance beam.<br />The worse performance, by all reasonable standards is the slower one with more falls.<br /><br /><br /><b>Right, you can't. </b><br /><br />Right, I did. It's really not that hard. <br /><br /><b>You ASSUME what is good and bad and then extrapolate from that to find out whether a given<br />action increased or decreased good.<br /></b><br /><br />No, I determine what is beneficial or harmful and deduce from that whether a given action increased or<br />decreased good. <br />It's better than your position, where you ASSUME that a god exits, you ASSUME that his thoughts have been transcribed perfectly, you ASSUME that it is personally invested in this universe and you, you ASSUME that it's thoughts even slightly align with our limited perception and you ASSUME that it would have ethics that are even remotely related to our our experience.<br />Expand your mind, get out of your limited middle world thinking that by its very nature is incapable of conceptualising the very large, the very small, the very quick and the very slow.<br />These effects can be long ranging, effecting generations and civilisations far removed in time and<br />distance from the initial actions. <br /><br /><br /><i>Are you really suggesting that harm is not bad?</i><b><br /><br />On atheism, I don't see any reason to think that bad even exists. Prove me<br />wrong. Show it.</b><br /><br />If bad doesn't exist, have someone cut off your arm. Is that bad or good for you?<br /><br /><br /><i>The reduction of harm is inherent</i><b><br /><br />Let's say Joe Atheist says the maximisation of harm is inherent. What is your<br />argument against him?</b><br /><br />But Joe Atheist the straw man wouldn't. He would ground his morals at even the most base level in what he thinks is good to him. Joe Atheist the non-straw man though, would flesh out a set of ethics that promotes the most good and the least harm.<br /><br /><br /><i>the only people who state otherwise are the nihilists, error theorists or<br />relativists</i><b><br /><br />So? Maybe they know what atheism results in and you don't.</b><br /><br />Well no. 1 I'm not arguing for a requirement for atheism, you are trying to argue for a need for a specific god. 2. 'Atheism' doesn't state this and doesn't result in a place where reduction of harm is irrelevent<br />Any system that doesn't take reduction of harm & maximisation of benifit as inherent ultimatly results in a place where anything can be justified.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13598840895793026452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-36441789986061674232012-05-30T01:23:12.794-05:002012-05-30T01:23:12.794-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13598840895793026452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-43731315157714396152012-05-30T01:19:33.502-05:002012-05-30T01:19:33.502-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13598840895793026452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-22301985963879275202012-05-30T01:18:51.721-05:002012-05-30T01:18:51.721-05:00It is worse for a person to lose an arm than to no...<i>It is worse for a person to lose an arm than to not lose an arm, even a moral relativist like yourself must admit that.<br /></i><br /><br /><b>1) Show it, don't assert it.<br />2) I'm not a moral relativist. You need to deal honestly with my position or you can just talk to yourself.</b><br /><br />Show that someone who has lost an arm is not as well off as someone who hasn't?<br />How about asking them to tie their shoelaces, I think that might just do it. <br />If you don't think an objective measures based upon actual results of an action can determine whether that action is harmful or beneficial and are relying on some<br />arbitrary and changing standard then yes, I'd say you were.<br /><br /><br /><i>Are you implying that you don’t know without having to reference<br />something outside of the effected individuals whether there is harm or good to a person?</i><br /><br /><b>Not implying; I've explicitly said so dozens of times on this blog.<br />And I'm not interested in "harm". I'm interested in the truth, what is good.</b><br /><br />So if a person is hurt or benefited by an action but that action is not covered within what you have accepted as truth or good, then how you decide?<br /><br /><i>That within your worldview the effect upon someone is irrelevant?</i><br /><br /><b>Not irrelevant, but not the foundational question.</b><br /><br />So, you agree, the effect upon someone is relevant. <br />At what point does the effect of an action become less important than abidance to a semi-arbitrary set of incomplete rules?<br /><br /><br /><i>That you cannot judge if something should or should not be done without<br />having to reference an external source?</i><br /><br /><b>Correct. I'm one human among 7 billion. Why should anyone listen to my<br />opinions?</b><br /><br />So all those without referencing an external source are just wandering around unable to make moral decisions? Really? You're honestly stating that all those atheists and non-believers in your god are simply incapable of making moral descisions? I'm not sure that even the most fundamentalist of moral philosophers would agree to that.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13598840895793026452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-18596259348232104332012-05-30T01:17:21.683-05:002012-05-30T01:17:21.683-05:00As a claim the burden of proof lies first upon the...<i>As a claim the burden of proof lies first upon the people who claim those books are directly or indirectly authoured by the diety to show such,</i><b><br /><br />Depends on what worldview you're putting forward. <br />ON Christianity, the Bible is the STARTING point, not the result of a line of reasoning.<br /></b><br /><br />We're not talking about atheism, we're talking about your misunderstanding of what a worldview is. If you're putting forward a worldview it must be demonstrated to be true.<br />If you use a text as starting point and that text is inconsistent, incomplete and wrong - verifiably so in cases, you have the burden.<br /><br /><br /><b><br />Atheism is absurd, and burdens of proof<br />don't exist on atheism.</b><br /><br />This doesn't even make sense<br /><br /><br /><i>Then this must be shown to be true</i><br /><br /><b>It has been. God's Word is the most reliable source of information possible,<br />and I was just repeating Romans 1.</b><br /><br /><br />Then you have to show that it is God’s word. All you have is second hand reports translated a few times with parts discarded when they don't suit. Then you must show that God's word actually is reliable and if you take the bible as being Gods word, then there are many examples that would demonstrate its unreliability.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Except they are internally consistent with the world, more so than your worldview,</i><b><br /><br />Naked assertion. I've put years into this blog to show this isn't so.</b><br /><br />Just because you've put years in is no argument for its veracity. In fact it's a good example of cognitive dissonance.<br /><br /><br /><i>>My worldview encompasses and explains your worldview</i><br /><br /><br /><b>How do you know that the external world exists?</b><br /><br />What's that got to do with my statement? My worldview is not predicated on the necessary existence of the external world. <br /><br /><i>yours cannot even accommodate the most basic of knowledge claims.</i><br /><br /><b>What precisely makes you say that? You're full of assertions today!</b><br /><br />No, I've already demonstrated this. Your worldview cannot accommodate that most basic of knowledge claims, that we can know we exist by the mere act of thinking about our existence.<br /><br /><i>I assume that effects upon those affected can be observed, measured,<br />inferred or surmised.</i><b><br /><br />And let's say I assume the opposite.<br />Now what? How do we know which of us is correct?</b><br /><br /><br />We see if we can observe, measure, infer or surmise the effects. And unsurprisingly, we can. And before<br />you start, yes, they have been observed, measured etc.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Very simply, that which is good, is that which enables one to be able to be better able to stay healthy, adapt, reproduce, respond, & grow without restricting the same in others. You know, the basics of life.</i><b><br /><br />Don't assume that life is good, or that these things are good if they lead to prolongation of life. You need to SHOW why this is so.</b><br /><br /><br />Yeaahhh, nah. 1. I didn't say prolongation. 2. That which is good to an individual is that which enables that individual to thrive. 3. There are many individuals. That which enables one individual to thrive may not necessarily enable another to thrive.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><i>And also because they are self-evident.</i><b><br /><br />No, they're not - I disagree with that entirely. </b><br /><br />So you don't agree that that which promotes life is good? I suggest you run along and remove all that<br />support of yours for the pro-life cause.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13598840895793026452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-27174987628720698202012-05-30T01:02:30.044-05:002012-05-30T01:02:30.044-05:00Apologies for the delay, been busy at work and for...Apologies for the delay, been busy at work and forgot I hadn't posted this yet.<br /><br /><i><br />But if<br />you wish to extend into a discussion or persuasive argument BEYOND seeing if it<br />is internally consistent into something EXTERNAL of the examination of that<br />internal consistency you need provide more.</i><b><br /><br /><br />Then we don't disagree.<br />Of course, if only one worldview is internally consistent, that's really as far<br />as one needs to go.</b><br /><br /><br /><br />No, if it conflicts with reality then it must be discarded, if it makes predictions about how the world will act and fails in those predictions then it cannot be sustained.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><i>as I have shown, Christianity is not internally consistent.<br /></i><b><br /><br />“I missed where you showed that.”</b><br /><br />I’ll C/P<br />again for you.<br /><br /><br />P1 - In your worldview it is not possible to<br />have knowledge without accounting for it by reference to a specific Christian<br />god.<br /><br />P2 - For a being to be able to think they must<br />necessarily exist.<br />C1 - If a being thinks, they must therefore<br />exist<br />C2 - A being can therefore have a justified true<br />belief that they exist by virtue of the fact they are merely positing whether<br />they exist or not.<br />C3 - This knowledge is gained without accounting<br />for it by reference to anything external to that being<br /><br /><br />Then, in response to your equivocation: The source of that<br />knowledge is the entity Itself. <br /><br /><br /><i><br />I think you don’t quite understand what a worldview is.</i><b><br /><br /><br />Whether I understand it is beside the point. I'm helping you understand that<br />the way we judge between worldviews is not the way you've been proposing.<br /><br /><br /></b><br /><br />Well,<br />yes it is. You want to use a worldview as a starting point you had damn well<br />understand what one actually is. It’s not up to you to decide this, nor I. You<br />can’t simply define something as what you are arguing towards, that’s a fallacy<br />of definition.<br /><br /><br /><i>There is the possibility of other worldviews, ones that you, I or anyone<br />currently on this planet have never thought of.</i><b><br /><br />Not really, not when the broader categories are taken into account, such as<br />monotheism, polytheism, materialism, naturalism, relativism. That's pretty much<br />all there is.<br />If you think some others exist, here's an idea - bring forward your evidence.<br /><br /></b><br />Just as a start, the very small and the very large are not encompassed by<br />any of those. You betray your ignorance of what is or could be possible.<br /><br /><i>This means that your - all other worldviews are inconsistent, therefore mine<br />is the only true one - argument is invalid due to the failure of one of its<br />premises.</i><b><br /><br />Supporting argumentation?<br /><br /></b><br />The aforementioned fallacy, it’s similar to the fallacy of false dichotomy,<br />one cannot prove the existence of something by disproving something else, when<br />those other things are part of a set.<br /><br /><i>But as I have shown, it is not necessary in all cases.</i><b><br /><br />You showed it in your imagination, but not here.<br /><br /></b><br /><br />Um, no, just because<br />you don't quite understand something, that doesn't mean you can just make stuff<br />up to suit yourself.<br /><br /><br /><i>For your worldview to remain consistent you have only one option, solipsism</i><b><br /><br />Actually, that's the logical conclusion of atheism, not Christianity.<br /><br /></b><br /><br />Not quite: Under Christianity there can be no knowledge without it coming from God. An<br />individual can know that they themselves exist. That knowledge comes from the<br />individual themself. As all knowledge comes only from God, therefore that<br />individual must be God.<br /><br /><br /><i><br />Which<br />means only that there is text that exists that can be claimed to say that, no<br />more.</i><b><br /><br />It's not merely text, on my worldview. It is the very<br />revelation of an omniscient unchanging God.<br /></b><br /><br />A worldview is not a substitute for proof, one cannot just fall back on 'It's my worldview' when challenged.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13598840895793026452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-63583632845480597252012-05-23T07:43:00.051-05:002012-05-23T07:43:00.051-05:00My worldview encompasses and explains your worldvi...<i>My worldview encompasses and explains your worldview</i><br /><br />How do you know that the external world exists?<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>yours cannot even accommodate the most basic of knowledge claims.</i><br /><br />What precisely makes you say that? You're full of assertions today!<br /><br /><br /><br /><i> I assume that effects upon those affected can be observed, measured, inferred or surmised. </i><br /><br />And let's say I assume the opposite.<br />Now what? How do we know which of us is correct?<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Very simply, that which is good, is that which enables one to be able to be better able to stay healthy, adapt, reproduce, respond, & grow without restricting the same in others. You know, the basics of life.</i><br /><br />Don't assume that life is good, or that these things are good if they lead to prolongation of life. You need to SHOW why this is so.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>And also because they are self-evident.</i><br /><br />No, they're not - I disagree with that entirely. SHOW they're self-evident.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>It is worse for a person to lose an arm than to not lose an arm, even a moral relativist like yourself must admit that. </i><br /><br />1) Show it, don't assert it.<br />2) I'm not a moral relativist. You need to deal honestly with my position or you can just talk to yourself.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Are you implying that you don’t know without having to reference something outside of the effected individuals whether there is harm or good to a person?</i><br /><br />Not implying; I've explicitly said so dozens of times on this blog.<br />And I'm not interested in "harm". I'm interested in the truth, what is good.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>That within your worldview the effect upon someone is irrelevant?</i><br /><br />Not irrelevant, but not the foundational question.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>That you cannot judge if something should or should not be done without having to reference an external source?</i><br /><br />Correct. I'm one human among 7 billion. Why should anyone listen to my opinions?<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Because of the objectively observable & measurable effects of those things and because the individuals are demonstrably worse off. </i><br /><br />OK, so objectively measure "worse". Lay out your experiment, your evidence, and what instrumentation you used to measure "worse"ness.<br />Right, you can't. You ASSUME what is good and bad and then extrapolate from that to find out whether a given action increased or decreased good. <br />But I'm not asking about that; I'm calling your assumption of what is good into question.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Are you really suggesting that harm is not bad?</i><br /><br />On atheism, I don't see any reason to think that bad even exists. Prove me wrong. Show it.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>The reduction of harm is inherent</i><br /><br />Let's say Joe Atheist says the maximisation of harm is inherent. What is your argument against him?<br /><br /><br /><br /><i> the only people who state otherwise are the nihilists, error theorists or relativists</i><br /><br />So? Maybe they know what atheism results in and you don't.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>As soon as you refuse to account for harm within your valuation you open the way for the justification of almost any atrocity.</i><br /><br />They wouldn't be atrocities if the goal of existence is the maximisation of harm, now would they?<br />Hospitals would be atrocities in that case. <br />expand your mind, get outside your box, answer my questions.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Actually no, you are asserting that an external absolute moral authority is required</i><br /><br />Otherwise we end up in the morass we've seen above from you.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i> I am simply showing that this is not the case.</i><br /><br />You haven't shown that. You've shown the opposite - that YOU want to be the moral authority.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-87012127066159813442012-05-23T07:42:49.927-05:002012-05-23T07:42:49.927-05:00But if you wish to extend into a discussion or per...<i>But if you wish to extend into a discussion or persuasive argument BEYOND seeing if it is internally consistent into something EXTERNAL of the examination of that internal consistency you need provide more. </i><br /><br />Then we don't disagree. <br />Of course, if only one worldview is internally consistent, that's really as far as one needs to go.<br /><br /><br /><i>as I have shown, Christianity is not internally consistent. </i><br /><br />I missed where you showed that.<br /><br /><br /><i>I think you don’t quite understand what a worldview is.</i><br /><br />Whether I understand it is beside the point. I'm helping you understand that the way we judge between worldviews is not the way you've been proposing.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>There is the possibility of other worldviews, ones that you, I or anyone currently on this planet have never thought of.</i><br /><br />Not really, not when the broader categories are taken into account, such as monotheism, polytheism, materialism, naturalism, relativism. That's pretty much all there is.<br />If you think some others exist, here's an idea - bring forward your evidence.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>This means that your - all other worldviews are inconsistent, therefore mine is the only true one - argument is invalid due to the failure of one of its premises. </i><br /><br />Supporting argumentation?<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>But as I have shown, it is not necessary in all cases.</i><br /><br />You showed it in your imagination, but not here.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>For your worldview to remain consistent you have only one option, solipsism</i><br /><br />Actually, that's the logical conclusion of atheism, not Christianity.<br /><br /><br /><i>Which means only that there is text that exists that can be claimed to say that, no more.</i><br /><br />It's not merely text, on my worldview. It is the very revelation of an omniscient unchanging God.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>As a claim the burden of proof lies first upon the people who claim those books are directly or indirectly authoured by the diety to show such,</i><br /><br />Depends on what worldview you're putting forward. Atheism is absurd, and burdens of proof don't exist on atheism.<br />ON Christianity, the Bible is the STARTING point, not the result of a line of reasoning.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Then this must be shown to be true</i><br /><br />It has been. God's Word is the most reliable source of information possible, and I was just repeating Romans 1.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Except they are internally consistent with the world, more so than your worldview, </i><br /><br />Naked assertion. I've put years into this blog to show this isn't so.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-38619010812713430842012-05-16T17:57:27.915-05:002012-05-16T17:57:27.915-05:00You're assuming what you need to prove. How do...<i>You're assuming what you need to prove. How do you know that being happier, healthier, richer, alive, more educated, etc are good things?</i><br /><br />No, I am proving whether I can determine something. I assume that effects upon those affected can be observed, measured, inferred or surmised. I am arguing that I can use quantification and qualification of those effects to make the determination.<br />Very simply, that which is good, is that which enables one to be able to be better able to stay healthy, adapt, reproduce, respond, & grow without restricting the same in others. You know, the basics of life.<br />And also because they are self-evident. It is worse for a person to lose an arm than to not lose an arm, even a moral relativist like yourself must admit that. <br /><br /><br /><i>B/c our worldview foundations are different. <br />I am asking you to justify these value claims based on your worldview.</i><br /><br />Are you implying that you don’t know without having to reference something outside of the effected individuals whether there is harm or good to a person? That within your worldview the effect upon someone is irrelevant? That you cannot judge if something should or should not be done without having to reference an external source?<br />Which is what I have done, as my worldview is internally consistent. But we're not talking about my worldview, we're talking about how you can coherently sustain a need for an external moral authority.<br /><br /><br /><i>What is your argument that these things are "harm"ful, terrible, and degrading?<br />After you give that argument, what would beb your argument that harm is bad? That one ought not to act "terribly"? That one ought not to degrade others?</i><br /><br />Because of the objectively observable & measurable effects of those things and because the individuals are demonstrably worse off. Are you really suggesting that harm is not bad? The reduction of harm is inherent, the only people who state otherwise are the nihilists, error theorists or relativists. As soon as you refuse to account for harm within your valuation you open the way for the justification of almost any atrocity.<br /><br /><br /><i>B/c our worldview foundations are different. <br />I am asking you to justify these value claims based on your worldview.</i><br /> <br /> Actually no, you are asserting that an external absolute moral authority is required, I am simply showing that this is not the case. I didn’t claim we needed an objective moral standard. Just b/c our worldview foundations are different doesn’t mean I have to justify your claims.<br />You need to justify your claim for requiring an objective moral standard.<br />So, given that you have agreed that subjective effects can differ from person to person. <br />1. How can moral judgements be made without reference to the effects upon the affected?<br />2. In what way can moral judgements not be made based upon the effects of actions upon the effected?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13598840895793026452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-63941156967433098072012-05-16T17:55:54.833-05:002012-05-16T17:55:54.833-05:00Knowledge is not possible w/o God's existence
...<i>Knowledge is not possible w/o God's existence</i><br /> <br />But as I have shown, it is not necessary in all cases. The source of that knowledge is the entity Itself. I have shown that the source is the entity Itself. <br />For your worldview to remain consistent you have only one option, solipsism. Under your worldview, the source of knowledge is God. I have demonstrated that the entity holding that knowledge is the source of that knowledge. Therefore that entity, if your worldview is to remain consistent, is God. <br /><br /><i>THe Bible makes this clear, tells us to expect it.</i><br /><br />Which means only that there is text that exists that can be claimed to say that, no more.<br /><br />The problem is that a particular diety is not claiming that all people believe it exists. Some people are claiming that certains books were authoured directly or indirectly by the diety and that those books claim that all people believe in this diety.<br />As a claim the burden of proof lies first upon the people who claim those books are directly or indirectly authoured by the diety to show such, and then upon the the diety itself to show good reason that all people believe it exists.<br /><br /><i>The claim is not that people have to acknowledge the source of knowledge to have knowledge. The claim is that they rely on the source whether they outwardly acknowledge Him or not.</i><br /><br />Then this must be shown to be true, and as I have shown, that source can be something else, it is you who must demonstrate that people rely on the source that you define.<br /><br /><i>Sin happens.</i><br /><br />Of course sin happens, given the number of religions, many of them contradictory it would be almost impossible to not sin. It is also irrelevant. <br /><br /><i>one of which is that the competing worldviews they form to make sense of the world never do, never achieve consistency, either internal or with the external world. </i><br /><br />Except they are internally consistent with the world, more so than your worldview, and make better sense of the external than yours. My worldview encompasses and explains your worldview, yours cannot even accommodate the most basic of knowledge claims.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>"You state I am making a naked assertion agree with the statement demonstrating it and at the same time ask me to demonstrate it. "<br /><br />I don't understand at all what you're saying. Please clarify. </i><br /><br />What you call naked assertion: ” You can't, with any internal consistently, assert that an action can be judged as good and/or bad without reference to its effects.”<br /> <br />Me demonstrating it: “That subjective effects can differ from person to person is demonstrably true."<br /> <br />You agreeing with the statement demonstrating it: “Of course.”<br /> <br />You asking me to demonstrate it: “Try demonstrating it this time, please.”Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13598840895793026452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-82463495205739285182012-05-16T17:54:31.942-05:002012-05-16T17:54:31.942-05:00You're forgetting that we're taking on the...<i>You're forgetting that we're taking on the worldview for the sake of the argument, to see whether it is INTERNALLY consistent.</i><br /><br /><br />And as I noted that is fine, as long as that is as far as it goes. But if you wish to extend into a discussion or persuasive argument BEYOND seeing if it is internally consistent into something EXTERNAL of the examination of that internal consistency you need provide more. <br /><br /><i>No, you forgot a part - internal consistency is a necessary condition of a worldview's truth but not a sufficient condition.<br />But since only CHristianity is internally consistent, I figure this is a good argument for Christianity's truth.</i><br /><br />Well no, as I have shown, Christianity is not internally consistent. <br /><br /><i>A worldview is not A proposition abbout something contingent. It deals with all sorts of things, including fundamental and necessary truths.</i><br /><br /><br />Not quite, I think you don’t quite understand what a worldview is. It is not a position one can fall back to when ones argument cannot be demonstrated. A worldview is made up of propositions that are held to be true, these can be argued from unless challenged, shown to be false or inconsistent. If challenged they must then be shown to be true.<br />So given that a world view is made up of these “fundamental and necessary truths”, they are then subject to the same rigour that any other proposition is, _if_ they are to be used as the basis of an argument.<br />Some of the propositions of a worldview are fundamental to that worldview and some are not. Some can be discarded from that worldview without having to discard it as a whole, some cannot.<br />Your problem is that try to address peripheral propositions of other worldviews and use that as an argument against the fundamental propositions of those worldview while simultaneously rejecting problems with the fundamental propositions of your worldview as merely peripheral.<br /><br /><i> "But to show that only one worldview is true, one must show that all other worldviews are not"<br /><br />I've provided lots of critiques of different major worldview on this very blog - check the archives.<br />And i've studied others that I haven't critiqued in writing here. <br /><br />"which is in itself an impossibility as there will always be worldviews that you do not or will ever know about."<br /><br />It's sufficient to study a category of worldviews (for example, polytheistic paganism) without studying all the more individualised members of that category. I know that polytheistic paganism is false, so any member of that greater category is false.<br /><br />"even if you have shown all worldviews you know of to not be internally consistent, there is the possibility that there exists worldviews that are."<br /><br />I suppose. I await more specifics.</i><br /><br />What you have been committing is the fallacy of the collectively exhaustive. There is the possibility of other worldviews, ones that you, I or anyone currently on this planet have never thought of. There is no need to provide specifics, you need to demonstrate why you have considered, and shown to be fundamentally inconsistent, every possible type of worldview including those that you cannot conceive of.<br /><br /><br /><i>Thanks for your opinion.</i><br /><br />This means that your - all other worldviews are inconsistent, therefore mine is the only true one - argument is invalid due to the failure of one of its premises.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13598840895793026452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-84156438532002858502012-05-15T10:59:22.370-05:002012-05-15T10:59:22.370-05:00How do you know whether someone is better or worse...<i>How do you know whether someone is better or worse off?<br /><br />Are they, happier, sadder, healthier, less healthy, damaged, poorer, richer, alive, dead, more educated, under delusions or not</i><br /><br />You're assuming what you need to prove. How do you know that being happier, healthier, richer, alive, more educated, etc are good things?<br /><br /><br /><i>The ways are many, varied, arguable, quantifiable and qualifiable.</i><i>I'm not sure why you would ask this question, as I am sure you yourself would be able to tell.</i><br /><br />B/c our worldview foundations are different. <br />I am asking you to justify these value claims based on your worldview.<br /><br /><br /><i>That's simple, I would explain to him the harm that he is doing to the girls, the families, his own village, that it's a terrible thing and degrades everyone involved including myself.</i><br /><br />What is your argument that these things are "harm"ful, terrible, and degrading?<br />After you give that argument, what would beb your argument that harm is bad? That one ought not to act "terribly"? That one ought not to degrade others?<br /><br /><br /><i> Why should one care about having a definite measurable standard for arbitrating actions?<br /><br />That's what you were arguing. You were the one stating we need an objective moral standard. So why are you asking me?</i><br /><br />B/c our worldview foundations are different. <br />I am asking you to justify these value claims based on your worldview.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-34727915433195783812012-05-15T10:59:17.700-05:002012-05-15T10:59:17.700-05:00If there is any desire to have a discussion or a p...<i>If there is any desire to have a discussion or a persuasive argument, yes it is.</i><br /><br />You're forgetting that we're taking on the worldview for the sake of the argument, to see whether it is INTERNALLY consistent.<br /><br /><br /><i>To say otherwise is to essentially allow any presuppositions of a statement that are internally consistent to stand as true.</i><br /><br />No, you forgot a part - internal consistency is a necessary condition of a worldview's truth but not a sufficient condition.<br />But since only CHristianity is internally consistent, I figure this is a good argument for Christianity's truth.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>. If I then use that as a basis of an argument without establishing that as true to the agreement of all parties involved, my argument is essentially invalid.</i><br /><br />Your dog'd brown-ness doesn't constitute a worldview. A worldview is not A proposition abbout something contingent. It deals with all sorts of things, including fundamental and necessary truths. Not peripheral things like your dog.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>But to show that only one worldview is true, one must show that all other worldviews are not</i><br /><br />I've provided lots of critiques of different major worldview on this very blog - check the archives.<br />And i've studied others that I haven't critiqued in writing here. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>which is in itself an impossibility as there will always be worldviews that you do not or will ever know about.</i><br /><br />It's sufficient to study a category of worldviews (for example, polytheistic paganism) without studying all the more individualised members of that category. I know that polytheistic paganism is false, so any member of that greater category is false.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>even if you have shown all worldviews you know of to not be internally consistent, there is the possibility that there exists worldviews that are.</i><br /><br />I suppose. I await more specifics.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i> you have not shown my worldview to be inconsistent, I have looked over your blog and it has not done so.</i><br /><br />Thanks for your opinion.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>your own worldview is inconsistent. </i><br /><br />Prove it.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>P1 - in your worldview it is not possible to have knowledge without accounting for it by reference to a specific Christian god.</i><br /><br />This is where you misunderstand. <br />Knowledge is not possible w/o God's existence, but plenty of ppl do not worship or acknowledge God. THe Bible makes this clear, tells us to expect it.<br />The claim is not that people have to acknowledge the source of knowledge to have knowledge. The claim is that they rely on the source whether they outwardly acknowledge Him or not. Sin happens.<br />Those who don't acknowledge Him demonstrate they are suppressing the truth about Him in a variety of ways, one of which is that the competing worldviews they form to make sense of the world never do, never achieve consistency, either internal or with the external world. <br /><br /><br /><i>You state I am making a naked assertion agree with the statement demonstrating it and at the same time ask me to demonstrate it. </i><br /><br />I don't understand at all what you're saying. Please clarify.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-58687268837639273672012-05-12T06:33:34.073-05:002012-05-12T06:33:34.073-05:00 "You can't, with any internal consistent... <i>"You can't, with any internal consistently, assert that an action can be judged as good and/or bad without reference to its effects. That subjective effects can differ from person to person is demonstrably true."<br /> <br />Another naked assertion. Try demonstrating it this time, please.<br />Of course. It's also irrelevant<br /></i><br /><br />Can you see how your statement doesn't make sense? You state I am making a naked assertion agree with the statement demonstrating it and at the same time ask me to demonstrate it. <br /> <br /> <br /> <i>How do you know whether someone is better or worse off?</i><br /><br />Are they, happier, sadder, healthier, less healthy, damaged, poorer, richer, alive, dead, more educated, under delusions or not. The ways are many, varied, arguable, quantifiable and qualifiable. I'm not sure why you would ask this question, as I am sure you yourself would be able to tell.<br /><br /><br /><i>This is question-begging.</i><br /><br />It's not question begging, the conclusion is not contained in the premise. <br /> <br /> <br /> <i>"Simply by examining the effects of the actions on all parties and showing that there is no need for an absolute authority to determine the good and/or bad of individual action."<br /> <br />Go for it.<br />Here's a good starting point.</i><br /><br /><br />That's simple, I would explain to him the harm that he is doing to the girls, the families, his own village, that it's a terrible thing and degrades everyone involved including myself.<br />It may or may not be persuasive to the man but there is no need for an absolute authority to explain why the actions are wrong. <br /><br /> <br /> <i>Why should one care about having a definite measurable standard for arbitrating actions?</i><br /><br />That's what you were arguing. You were the one stating we need an objective moral standard. So why are you asking me?<br /> <br /> <br /> <i>I have no idea. You brought it up and I was attempting to understand what you meant.</i><br /><br />Um, no I didn't. Could you quote my statement showing this please, I can't seem to find it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13598840895793026452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-82116344095831644152012-05-12T06:32:35.124-05:002012-05-12T06:32:35.124-05:00Posting in two parts due to char limit
"But...Posting in two parts due to char limit<br /><br /> <i>"But that world view must still be demonstrated to be consistent"<br /> And that is not the same as providing substantiation for the worldview's truth. Which is what you were asking before; you have lost track a bit of the conversation.</i><br /> <br />No, I am forming a complete sentence the second half of which is below.<br /> <br /><i>"and any presuppositions of that world must be agreed upon or demonstrated to be true."<br /> <br />See? Right there - this part is not true.</i><br /><br />If there is any desire to have a discussion or a persuasive argument, yes it is.<br />To say otherwise is to essentially allow any presuppositions of a statement that are internally consistent to stand as true. I could say "My pet dog is brown", a presupposition of this is that I have a pet dog. If I then use that as a basis of an argument without establishing that as true to the agreement of all parties involved, my argument is essentially invalid.<br /><br /><br /><i>One can take a worldview as a given, as a thought experiment, to see whether it is internally consistent for the sake of argument,<br />without demonstrating that it is true.</i><br /> <br />And as I said earlier, that is as far as it can be taken. You were asking why using a definition of a worldview as the presupposition of an assumption is bad.<br />I explained.<br />If the presuppositions of an assumption cannot either be agreed upon or demonstrated to be consistent & true then those presuppositions cannot be used as the basis of an argument and it undermines any part of the assumption that relies upon that presupposition.<br /> <br /><i>You may be getting lost in that I go into the process the other way 'round.<br />If a worldview is true, it will be internally consistent;<br />if only one worldview is internally consistent, that's the true one.<br />It's a necessary but not sufficient condition, but if only one worldview has the necessary condition...<br /> I have a whole blog in which I have shown this to be true many times. It's hardly "naked".<br />"Incorrect" is naked - show it.<br />How can one have knowledge without God?</i><br /> <br /> I'll take these together as they are all essentially scooting around the one issue.<br /> <br /> <br />But to show that only one worldview is true, one must show that all other worldviews are not, which is in itself an impossibility as there will always be worldviews that you do not or will ever know about.<br />So even if you have shown all worldviews you know of to not be internally consistent, there is the possibility that there exists worldviews that are.<br />Second, you have not shown my worldview to be inconsistent, I have looked over your blog and it has not done so.<br />Third, your own worldview is inconsistent. <br />Within that worldview it is not<br />P1 - In your worldview it is not possible to have knowledge without accounting for it by reference to a specific Christian god.<br />P2 - For a being to be able to think they must necessarily exist.<br />C1 - If a being thinks, they must therefore exist<br />C2 - A being can therefore have a justified true belief that they exist by virtue of the fact they are merely positing whether they exist or not.<br />C3 - This knowledge is gained without accounting for it by reference to anything external to that being<br />C4 - Therefore P1 is not consistent. <br />C5 - Therefore P1 is not true.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13598840895793026452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-48061618648543747102012-05-11T16:03:21.532-05:002012-05-11T16:03:21.532-05:00How is condemnation of child rape a basic axiom?
...How is condemnation of child rape a basic axiom?<br /><br /><br /><i>You've barely explained any of your positions.</i><br /><br />Sorta true. I do have a blog. You may have read it once or twice. I've written lots of words there explaining my position. You could also read the London Baptist Confession of 1689.<br /><br /><br /><i>I'm more surprised by your apparent indifference to suffering.</i><br /><br /><b>If atheism is true</b>, I see no reason to care about suffering.<br />I don't think atheism is true, and I'm hardly indifferent to it. I want you to tell me why, on YOUR position, one could consistently care about suffering.<br /><br /><br /><i>The kid'll die eventually, so why care if he suffers agony before he dies? I hope you don't have kids...</i><br /><br />I hope you don't think you understand internal critiques...<br /><br /><br /><i>Thanks for the (eventual) insight into your worldview.</i><br /><br />Since you have no idea what I'm talking about so far, you've unfortunately achieved no such insight.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-19249723962469907822012-05-11T15:56:31.763-05:002012-05-11T15:56:31.763-05:00"So you honestly don't know why I think a..."So you honestly don't know why I think absurdity is bad?"<br /><br />You've barely explained any of your positions. Mainly you've asked me questions and occasionally told me I've misunderstood you.<br /><br />I'm more surprised by your apparent indifference to suffering. You cannot even say that the suffering of a child is intrinsically best avoided. The kid'll die eventually, so why care if he suffers agony before he dies? I hope you don't have kids...<br /><br />Thanks for the (eventual) insight into your worldview. I can see now why you kept it hidden for so many posts.Stephen Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-72764525521878602602012-05-11T15:48:21.075-05:002012-05-11T15:48:21.075-05:00Oh, and May 9, 9am precisely is the last time I ex...Oh, and May 9, 9am precisely is the last time I explained... succinctly.<br /><br />I have no problem with someone saying they reject absurdity. But then I'm not the one asking other people to justify basic axioms like: "I condemn child rape". If you're taking the position that everyone else has to explain that to YOU, then you have to hold yourself to the same standard for consistency's sake. Hence my question for you. Which you never answered, just first posting nonsense "ugfyjdr" at me, then asking me the same question back.Stephen Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-18915106885759093262012-05-11T15:42:38.654-05:002012-05-11T15:42:38.654-05:00When you ask people how they condemn child rape, d...<i>When you ask people how they condemn child rape, does that automatically follow that you yourself do NOT condemn it (your above separate admission notwithstanding).</i><br /><br />So you honestly didn't know why I'd think absurdity is bad? Shrug. OK, whatever you say.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-60605003062461289352012-05-11T15:41:08.807-05:002012-05-11T15:41:08.807-05:00If there's no God then you have no problem wit...<i> If there's no God then you have no problem with it,</i><br /><br />Close. If there's no God then <b>there is no reason to have a problem</b> with it, outside of 100% arbitrary whim. <br /><br /><br /><i>even though the suffering involved is exactly the same with or without the God.</i><br /><br />In a godless universe, so what if people suffer? They're going to die and be forgotten in 100 years, and all memory of 99.9999999999% of all people will be gone within 200 years. And the rest will be lost in the heat death of the universe. So what?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-87015838834972488272012-05-11T15:39:41.463-05:002012-05-11T15:39:41.463-05:00You bleat to me about why I asked you why absurdit...You bleat to me about why I asked you why absurdity is a problem. This despite me already explaining to you why I asked. When you ask people how they condemn child rape, does that automatically follow that you yourself do NOT condemn it (your above separate admission notwithstanding).<br /><br />No, you were asking how the OTHER justifies that position in THEIR worldview. And yes, I believe I already explained that too, despite you whining that I didn't. Whine no more - I just explained again.Stephen Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-87924862339621356392012-05-11T15:34:10.156-05:002012-05-11T15:34:10.156-05:00Great, so to clarify, you refuse to say child rape...Great, so to clarify, you refuse to say child rape is wrong in every conceivable scenario. It is not objectively or intrinsically wrong, it is only wrong SUBJECT to the existence of God. If there's no God then you have no problem with it, even though the suffering involved is exactly the same with or without the God. At least you're honest.Stephen Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-62809965018883805102012-05-11T14:36:34.963-05:002012-05-11T14:36:34.963-05:00So you affirm it.
Why did you ask "why is to...So you affirm it.<br /><br />Why did you ask "why is total absurdity a problem?"<br /><br />You can whine again about how you've already explained it. You didn't. You may <b>think</b> you did, but that's hardly my problem.<br />Make it succinct, explain (again) why you asked it. <br /><br />BTW I love how you're complaining about the tautological nature of saying "absurdity is absurd". It's really funny, but it's also funny how you're not getting why it's funny. <br /><br />As for your child rape question, just since I find you amusing at this point, I'll answer.<br />The point of my linking you to that other post about A Scenario is to reveal that no atheistIC worldview can say with surety that what Tkalim was doing is objectively wrong. Ie, that it is a fact that it is morally wrong. <br />So I disaffirm your statement. In a godless universe, there is no reason to think child rape is wrong (or right); it just IS.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-16176860998274475102012-05-11T14:17:54.199-05:002012-05-11T14:17:54.199-05:00In a lost longer post, I did affirm, though:
A) I ...In a lost longer post, I did affirm, though:<br />A) I had already said as much in previous posts <br />B) it's a moot point as I never denied it in the first place - my point was that if YOU are going to question basic axioms like 'child rape is wrong', or at least claim that it was something that needed establishing, then YOU cannot get away with making assertions yourself like 'absurdity is wrong'.<br /><br />Oh and c), as pointed out, your question was circular in the first place.<br /><br />And another one line question from you. <br /><br />I already considered y you'd ruled yourself out of sensible discussion several posts ago. You've just turned yet another opportunity to engage.<br /><br />We done?<br /><br />Your turn.Stephen Bnoreply@blogger.com