Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 9, 2016 at 1:59 pm
(January 9, 2016 at 1:53 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: (January 9, 2016 at 1:20 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: That was her objection though, to her it is relevant, she is saying I'm taking for granted God exists for the argument to work. So I'm trying to get her past that. So that we can discuss other parts of the argument.
No mystic,
What I cannot get past is this absurd notion that morality cannot exist with out a god. The fact that your whole "argument," which is set up to "prove" this idea, falls completely out of the realm of common sense only compounds the issue.
Ok which premise do you have an issue with now? Attacking the conclusion without the argument doesn't make sense. So tell me which premise do you have an issue with.
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 9, 2016 at 2:07 pm
(January 7, 2016 at 11:27 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: [quote='MysticKnight' pid='1165263' dateline='1452221924']
Another way to frame the argument is to say, "If no hypothetical creator can decide or create morality from nothing in a hypothetical world, then neither can anything else".
K. Wtf is this supposed to mean? If this hypothetical creator can't creat morality out of nothing, what does he create it out of? Star dust? And how does it follow that morality can't be created from any other natural phenomenon outside of god? I guess I missed the part where you explained that.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 1314
Threads: 14
Joined: December 1, 2015
Reputation:
9
RE: Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 9, 2016 at 2:27 pm
(This post was last modified: January 9, 2016 at 2:43 pm by God of Mr. Hanky.)
(January 9, 2016 at 1:59 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: (January 9, 2016 at 1:53 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: No mystic,
What I cannot get past is this absurd notion that morality cannot exist with out a god. The fact that your whole "argument," which is set up to "prove" this idea, falls completely out of the realm of common sense only compounds the issue.
Ok which premise do you have an issue with now? Attacking the conclusion without the argument doesn't make sense. So tell me which premise do you have an issue with.
Can you provide any argument-free facts for your premise?
Evidence for naturalistic morality:
"Morality" is a behavioral quality, and there is strong genetic linkage between genes and behavior. Physical regions of the brain are strongly linked with behavioral functions, and behavior can be altered through surgery, as well as the more commonly observed medications. While it doesn't have wholly isolated divisions, your behavior would certainly not be the same without every region of your brain working properly. Alterations to an existing brain can in demonstrable fact alter, and fundamentally, one's personality. There is overwhelming proof that some alterations can change the most honest, gentle person into a cunning and cruel monster, and vice-versa.
I'm neither a neurosurgeon nor a genetic biologist, but the above statements are to some extent supported by those who are the world over - go google it!
If you have evidence to support your position, then it would necessarily contradict the above evidence. Got any?
Mr. Hanky loves you!
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 9, 2016 at 2:29 pm
(January 9, 2016 at 2:27 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: (January 9, 2016 at 1:59 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Ok which premise do you have an issue with now? Attacking the conclusion without the argument doesn't make sense. So tell me which premise do you have an issue with.
Can you provide any argument-free facts for your premise?
Evidence for naturalistic behavior:
"Morality" is a behavioral quality, and there is strong genetic linkage between genes and behavior. Physical regions of the brain are strongly linked with behavioral functions, and behavior can be altered through surgery. While it doesn't have wholly isolated divisions, your behavior would certainly not be the same without every region of your brain working properly. Alterations to an existing mind can in demonstrable fact alter, and fundamentally, one's personality. There is overwhelming proof that some alterations can change the most honest, gentle person into a cunning and cruel monster, and vice-versa.
If you have evidence to support your position, then it would necessarily contradict the above evidence. Got any?
The guy with the railroad spike through his head...that was some crazy shit!
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 1314
Threads: 14
Joined: December 1, 2015
Reputation:
9
RE: Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 9, 2016 at 2:45 pm
(This post was last modified: January 9, 2016 at 2:46 pm by God of Mr. Hanky.)
(January 9, 2016 at 2:29 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: (January 9, 2016 at 2:27 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Can you provide any argument-free facts for your premise?
Evidence for naturalistic behavior:
"Morality" is a behavioral quality, and there is strong genetic linkage between genes and behavior. Physical regions of the brain are strongly linked with behavioral functions, and behavior can be altered through surgery. While it doesn't have wholly isolated divisions, your behavior would certainly not be the same without every region of your brain working properly. Alterations to an existing mind can in demonstrable fact alter, and fundamentally, one's personality. There is overwhelming proof that some alterations can change the most honest, gentle person into a cunning and cruel monster, and vice-versa.
If you have evidence to support your position, then it would necessarily contradict the above evidence. Got any?
The guy with the railroad spike through his head...that was some crazy shit!
That should have been "alterations to existing brain", not "mind" (for those who think there's a difference), plus other errors and qualifications to my statements fixed.
Mr. Hanky loves you!
Posts: 22115
Threads: 24
Joined: February 2, 2010
Reputation:
106
RE: Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 9, 2016 at 2:48 pm
(January 9, 2016 at 1:35 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: (January 9, 2016 at 1:33 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: If goodness is attached to godly belief, why have you believers built such a shitty world? Because they associate (shirk) others with that belief.
Explain, please. This makes no sense to me. Who is "they"? How are "associate" and "shirk" interchangeable?
Please clarify.
Posts: 22115
Threads: 24
Joined: February 2, 2010
Reputation:
106
RE: Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 9, 2016 at 2:50 pm
(January 9, 2016 at 1:44 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: (January 9, 2016 at 1:39 pm)Rhythm Wrote: IOW, the good believers aren't at fault, good believers like him. Why not...? Whhy haven;t the good believers managed to build that better world...assuming that they could. Remind me again...what's standing in the way.............
First of all, I'm not claiming to be a true believer or a good believer at that. But I believe if people didn't associate with worship of God and obeyed him with sincerity, not breaking his covenant....then with God have sent perpetual stream of guides in different places, this world would be a different place. History is a tragedy, but I believe one day the population will shift against insincerity to God to that of sincerity. Then with God's Guide and his guidance, everything will be set in order. There will be enough supporters that will support the truth and realize the need of God's hand in bringing justice.
If the Muslim nation didn't break the covenant and accepted the authority of the family of Mohammad, everything would of been different. But a minority, an oppressed minority, can only do so much.
I disagree. I think a good proportion of the world's evil aren't mitigated by religion, but rather, derive from it.
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 9, 2016 at 3:25 pm
(This post was last modified: January 9, 2016 at 3:26 pm by Mystic.)
(January 9, 2016 at 2:07 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: (January 7, 2016 at 11:27 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: (January 7, 2016 at 10:58 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Another way to frame the argument is to say, "If no hypothetical creator can decide or create morality from nothing in a hypothetical world, then neither can anything else".
K. Wtf is this supposed to mean? If this hypothetical creator can't creat morality out of nothing, what does he create it out of? Star dust? And how does it follow that morality can't be created from any other natural phenomenon outside of god? I guess I missed the part where you explained that.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk What I meaning is he can simply decide what it is without it already existing. If the Creator can't do that, but can create every natural phenomenon (so whatever structure in our mind makes have morality/goodness, he can create), if follows nothing can create it.
Rather it must be eternal. What I meant from nothing, is that morality itself is created without being it taken from an existing morality.
If a hypothetical creator can create it without it already existing, then he can decide what it is. If he can decide what it is, it can decide it's moral to rape, he can decide it's moral and good to torture a being for no crime it's done forever with intense torture.
I hope you understand what I mean.
Posts: 66527
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 9, 2016 at 3:27 pm
(This post was last modified: January 9, 2016 at 3:30 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Quote:If a hypothetical can create it without it already existing, then he can decide what it is. If he can decide what it is, it can decide it's moral to rape, he can decide it's moral and good to torture a being for no crime it's done forever with intense torture.
Yes.........all of this follows, in fact it's a tautology.....and......?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge
January 9, 2016 at 3:36 pm
(January 9, 2016 at 3:27 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Quote:If a hypothetical can create it without it already existing, then he can decide what it is. If he can decide what it is, it can decide it's moral to rape, he can decide it's moral and good to torture a being for no crime it's done forever with intense torture.
Yes.........all of this follows, in fact it's a tautology.....and......?
If it can't decide what it is, and goodness is real and not an illusion, it follows it's eternal.
|
