(July 3, 2016 at 9:07 am)MysticKnight Wrote:
@Veritas_Vincint
The issue is any argument is going to have some properly basic premises. For example, if you argue from objective morality, then it won't work if people don't accept there is such thing as truly right or truly wrong and is not just subjective taste like what food you like or don't like.
You were going so far as to deny free-will, but at the same time, you were angry with me. I honestly believe you are dishonest about that. If you truly didn't believe in free-will, you would not be reacting the way you are reacting.
I wanted to have a honest discussion about the fact we do believe there is exact (objective) value to who we are, we act upon that, and believed in that since childhood till now. It's our nature.
However I do realize that would not prove it to be there, it would just prove humans naturally believe in that.
Do actually realize you know there is exact value to who you are, that it requires perception, and that perception has to be perfect judge through perfect standards, this requires a level of self-honesty that I honestly don't believe people over all here have.
Anything can be denied right? Sure. Deny free-will even...even though you function with belief in it. The same is true, you don't believe imperfect perception can see truly who you are neither do you believe you are that perception, so what maintains your value.
What makes you inherit your action, what is keeping score of your deeds?
Yes we can say this all unproven, but, I've reflected over this issue with myself....surely some observer does see me, something maintains my identity from baby till now.....why am I the same person...you may say we aren't the same person but when you appreciate your mom, when you have kids, etc, you will see you never assume they are a person separate from that no matter how much they changed.
The fact is we can say "Yes humans believe in these things naturally but they can't be justified in them...", or we can say "perhaps they can be justified in them, perhaps they can know, the only question is do I personally know these things to be true?"
You can all together skip the step of "how would I know" to "Do I know?". And if you do know, then it's good question to ask, how do you know...as that would perhaps unveil you to the truth.
The difference here is, he denies free will and has lots of evidence to back it up. The lack of free will nullifies all religions that has to do with worship, good and bad deeds.
