(October 24, 2016 at 9:57 pm)Astreja Wrote:

(October 24, 2016 at 3:08 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: On what basis does someone know they are being wronged? Being angry or feeling aggrieved may be an evolved instinct, but that doesn't make it accurate or true.

How do we know?  Pain. Literally. 

That's absurd. That would me that jogging and lifting weights are morally reprehensible.

(October 24, 2016 at 5:18 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(October 24, 2016 at 9:44 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: I'd like to know what you think a more proper explanation looks like as well. The only possible answer is a trancedant cause, because of the impossability of the contrary.

You were the one who proposed that there are better explanations than brute fact, it's up to you to provide one. Again you're operating from a principle which states that they have an explanation and that explanation is God. So far the only evidence you've put forward for this proposition was an argument from ignorance which failed. If you think God is a good explanation for objectivity, then show it. Don't whine about what I haven't provided.

(October 24, 2016 at 9:44 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: You see sombody else replied with "Evolution did it", but a natural explanations cannot possibly justify immaterial truths, for example the laws of logic, morality.

Morality is not objective. Add this to the pile of things for which you need some evidence.

(October 24, 2016 at 9:44 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: Even you yourself strut about making objective claims all the time, this is because we must pre suppose logic to be logical. . . . . If you actualy lived by what you say you believe, you'd end every sentence with, "but i could be wrong".

You have a lot of assumptions about how I should behave. I accept logic provisionally. You'd do well to spend more time proving your claims than opining about what I do.

(October 24, 2016 at 9:44 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: Now you could deny objectivity, like you do. Or embrace objectivity, and refuse to agknowledge the only rational explanation, under the guise of, maybe we will find out one day.

You've lumped many things together not all of which belong together. I'll accept that logic is objective for the sake of argument. I don't agree that morality is objective, but let's say for the sake of argument that it is. How does that get us to God? What role does God play in this?

After all other options have been rendered impossible, what remains is the answer. The natural world cannot justify its own existence. Absolutes, moral duties, immaterial laws, work much the same way, demanding a trancedent cause. Something above and beyond the natural order

(October 24, 2016 at 11:13 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote:

(October 24, 2016 at 5:18 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: You were the one who proposed that there are better explanations than brute fact, it's up to you to provide one.  Again you're operating from a principle which states that they have an explanation and that explanation is God.  So far the only evidence you've put forward for this proposition was an argument from ignorance which failed.  If you think God is a good explanation for objectivity, then show it.  Don't whine about what I haven't provided.


Morality is not objective.  Add this to the pile of things for which you need some evidence.


You have a lot of assumptions about how I should behave.  I accept logic provisionally.  You'd do well to spend more time proving your claims than opining about what I do.


You've lumped many things together not all of which belong together.  I'll accept that logic is objective for the sake of argument.  I don't agree that morality is objective, but let's say for the sake of argument that it is.  How does that get us to God?  What role does God play in this?

After all other options have been rendered impossible, what remains is the answer. The natural world cannot justify its own existence. Absolutes, moral duties, immaterial laws, work much the same way, demanding a trancedent cause. Something above and beyond the natural order

Did you ever answer my question about what justifies God? If so, point to page please. If not, answer it!

(October 24, 2016 at 11:13 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: After all other options have been rendered impossible, what remains is the answer. The natural world cannot justify its own existence. Absolutes, moral duties, immaterial laws, work much the same way, demanding a trancedent cause. Something above and beyond the natural order

Even if that was true you have no way of knowing what that something is.

(October 24, 2016 at 11:13 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote:

(October 24, 2016 at 5:18 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: You were the one who proposed that there are better explanations than brute fact, it's up to you to provide one. Again you're operating from a principle which states that they have an explanation and that explanation is God. So far the only evidence you've put forward for this proposition was an argument from ignorance which failed. If you think God is a good explanation for objectivity, then show it. Don't whine about what I haven't provided.


Morality is not objective. Add this to the pile of things for which you need some evidence.


You have a lot of assumptions about how I should behave. I accept logic provisionally. You'd do well to spend more time proving your claims than opining about what I do.


You've lumped many things together not all of which belong together. I'll accept that logic is objective for the sake of argument. I don't agree that morality is objective, but let's say for the sake of argument that it is. How does that get us to God? What role does God play in this?

That was evidence for christianity, there's a difference in aproach when supporting the existence of a creator, vs which creator. And you can dismiss my propositions if you want, but that would make you unreasonable, writing it all off as coincidence.

After all other options have been rendered impossible, what remains is the answer. The natural world cannot justify its own existence. Absolutes, moral duties, immaterial laws, work much the same way, demanding a trancedent cause. Something above and beyond the natural order

(October 24, 2016 at 11:13 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: After all other options have been rendered impossible, what remains is the answer.

You haven't rendered all other options impossible, only those options known, so this remains an argument from ignorance.

(October 24, 2016 at 11:13 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: The natural world cannot justify its own existence.

You were asked to explain what you mean by this already. If you're appealing to some extreme version of the PSR then say so. Otherwise this is just a strange and unrelated claim. What does it mean to 'justify' the existent?

(October 24, 2016 at 11:13 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: Absolutes, moral duties, immaterial laws, work much the same way, demanding a trancedent cause. Something above and beyond the natural order

So you claim. I need more than just your claim to believe you. So far all I have from you is an argument from ignorance and a just-so story.

(October 24, 2016 at 11:05 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(October 24, 2016 at 9:57 pm)Astreja Wrote: How do we know?  Pain. Literally. 

That's absurd. That would me that jogging and lifting weights are morally reprehensible.

We can tolerate some discomfort temporarily and voluntarily if it also contains some benefit as a payoff.  I'm just explaining to you My hypothesis of how humans arrived at an almost universal moral sensibility.  If you're going to treat every statement as an absolute devoid of context, this conversation is going to go nowhere fast.

---

(October 24, 2016 at 11:13 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: The natural world cannot justify its own existence.

Why would it even have to "justify its own existence"?  It's here, isn't it?

I'm sorry, Soldat, but I just don't see the appeal of answering one question with an even more puzzling one.  Tossing a god into the mix just adds more questions, including (but not limited to) "Where did the god come from?  "Why did it decide to create a universe, and why this particular layout?" "If matter and energy didn't already exist, where did the god get the energy to create?"

(October 24, 2016 at 9:11 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(October 24, 2016 at 6:11 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote: I honestly don't care for your idealist delusion.

You should care whether you can support your position.  And you can't.

Every single time you stub your toe on a rock you prove my position is correct. You trying to say that materialism is unsupported is at the same level as Ken Ham trying to denounce evolution because "nobody has ever seen DNA mutate".

Your position is false, it is demonstrably wrong and is delusional. Deal with it.

(October 25, 2016 at 12:22 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(October 24, 2016 at 11:13 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: After all other options have been rendered impossible, what remains is the answer.

You haven't rendered all other options impossible, only those options known, so this remains an argument from ignorance.

(October 24, 2016 at 11:13 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: The natural world cannot justify its own existence.

You were asked to explain what you mean by this already. If you're appealing to some extreme version of the PSR then say so. Otherwise this is just a strange and unrelated claim. What does it mean to 'justify' the existent?

(October 24, 2016 at 11:13 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: Absolutes, moral duties, immaterial laws, work much the same way, demanding a trancedent cause. Something above and beyond the natural order

So you claim. I need more than just your claim to believe you. So far all I have from you is an argument from ignorance and a just-so story.

What i mean by, the natural world cannot justify it's own existence is; nothing in the natural order of things can explain how it came to be. For one example, there is no possible natural explanation for the universe's origin. It's been this way for years and the more we discover, the more it eliminates the possibilities of a past eternal universe. Saying if you give us time we will find out, is a cop out, allowing one to avoid following the evidence where it leads.

Now if you do not care to find the answers, if you like pick and choose what is important for you to know, and even worse reject the rest; than consider yourself unreasonable by definition.

---

(October 25, 2016 at 8:17 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(October 24, 2016 at 9:11 pm)bennyboy Wrote: You should care whether you can support your position.  And you can't.

Ken Ham trying to denounce evolution because "nobody has ever seen DNA mutate".

Your position is false, it is demonstrably wrong and is delusional. Deal with it.

Correction... We've never observed genetic mutation adding NEW genetic information.

(October 24, 2016 at 11:13 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote:

(October 24, 2016 at 5:18 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: You were the one who proposed that there are better explanations than brute fact, it's up to you to provide one.  Again you're operating from a principle which states that they have an explanation and that explanation is God.  So far the only evidence you've put forward for this proposition was an argument from ignorance which failed.  If you think God is a good explanation for objectivity, then show it.  Don't whine about what I haven't provided.


Morality is not objective.  Add this to the pile of things for which you need some evidence.


You have a lot of assumptions about how I should behave.  I accept logic provisionally.  You'd do well to spend more time proving your claims than opining about what I do.


You've lumped many things together not all of which belong together.  I'll accept that logic is objective for the sake of argument.  I don't agree that morality is objective, but let's say for the sake of argument that it is.  How does that get us to God?  What role does God play in this?

After all other options have been rendered impossible, what remains is the answer. The natural world cannot justify its own existence. Absolutes, moral duties, immaterial laws, work much the same way, demanding a trancedent cause. Something above and beyond the natural order

Assuming every question has an answer or that all can be adequately explained in such a way that a non-gullible human being can understand.