Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(May 4, 2011 at 11:33 am)Nathanael Wrote: Well, in Christianity God's nature is the objective moral standard. What is it on your view?
Different christians say different things about their god's nature, as do different parts of the bible.
How do you determine what is correct and what is incorrect?
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip
(May 4, 2011 at 7:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Any statement that contains a "should" or an "ought" is a moral statement. We use these all the time in science, so I believe moral laws are necessary in order to conduct the scientific method.
Should or ought statements are normative statements, and though they are often used in conjunction with morals in social contexts, this is not the case with science. For starters you are not supposed to use normative statements in science, as they are often based on emotion and not rational thought. If you nonetheless were to use them, and wish to connect them to morals, it depends how you define morals. If you define morals as the feeling of right and wrong as is most common in everyday speech then no, no morals are required. If you define it simply as a differentiation between correct and incorrect(a bit of a stretch but an arguable position) then it can be tenuously applied in some contexts.
(May 4, 2011 at 7:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well I believe a rational creator is necessary for several reasons, two of which would be...
The other presuppositions I listed above are completely rational if a rational creator is exists. If the universe came into being without a rational mind behind it there is no reason at all to make these presuppositions.
The second reason is that there would be no reason for humans to develop rational minds from irrational events and matter. Our ability to think rationally I feel is one of the greatest evidences that we are made in the image of another rational being. Irrational events never begot rationalism. So that's one reason I believe in God. Thoughts?
Your first point is an argument from ignorance and a presupposition which is not rationally defensible.
Your second point is a string of arguments from ignorance from start to finish, with a sprinkling of fallacies to top it off.
May 5, 2011 at 8:06 am (This post was last modified: May 5, 2011 at 8:08 am by lilphil1989.)
(May 5, 2011 at 7:45 am)Matthew Wrote: They same way that I do with every matter in which there is difference of opinion (whether it be science, history or whatever) - by studying the various positions.
But when it come to objectivity, surely opinion is irrelevant?
The problem then, as I see it, is that to test for objectivity you'd need to compare what the bible (for example) says and compare that with the underlying reality (i.e. the "true" nature of god).
The fact that it can't even be demonstrated that such an underlying reality even exists surely precludes making such a comparison.
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip
(May 4, 2011 at 7:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Any statement that contains a "should" or an "ought" is a moral statement. We use these all the time in science, so I believe moral laws are necessary in order to conduct the scientific method.
Should or ought statements are normative statements, and though they are often used in conjunction with morals in social contexts, this is not the case with science. For starters you are not supposed to use normative statements in science, as they are often based on emotion and not rational thought. If you nonetheless were to use them, and wish to connect them to morals, it depends how you define morals. If you define morals as the feeling of right and wrong as is most common in everyday speech then no, no morals are required. If you define it simply as a differentiation between correct and incorrect(a bit of a stretch but an arguable position) then it can be tenuously applied in some contexts.
(May 4, 2011 at 7:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well I believe a rational creator is necessary for several reasons, two of which would be...
The other presuppositions I listed above are completely rational if a rational creator is exists. If the universe came into being without a rational mind behind it there is no reason at all to make these presuppositions.
The second reason is that there would be no reason for humans to develop rational minds from irrational events and matter. Our ability to think rationally I feel is one of the greatest evidences that we are made in the image of another rational being. Irrational events never begot rationalism. So that's one reason I believe in God. Thoughts?
Your first point is an argument from ignorance and a presupposition which is not rationally defensible.
Your second point is a string of arguments from ignorance from start to finish, with a sprinkling of fallacies to top it off.
To your first point, I disagree. Even if you are making the statement that science "should" be devoid of all morals, this in itself is a moral statement as to how science should be conducted ideally. So I am sorry, moral laws are completely necessary to obtain knowledge through investigation.
As to your second point, it is not an argument from ignorance at all. This would only be the case if there was insufficient investigation into the matter, which of course there has been plenty of investigation. These presuppositions could not have arisen from a universe that had no rational creator, yet they have to be true in order to gain any knowledge through investigation. The Christian has rational reasons as to why these things are true the atheist just assumes they are true for no real rational reason.
Your third point, again not an argument from ignorance because there has been sufficient investigation into the matter. There is no observed or theorized manner as to which rationality could arise from irrational events and matter. I am a little surprised and disappointed; I was not expecting you to improperly use the argument from ignorance accusation just to avoid the issue
(May 4, 2011 at 7:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Any statement that contains a "should" or an "ought" is a moral statement. We use these all the time in science, so I believe moral laws are necessary in order to conduct the scientific method.
Should or ought statements are normative statements, and though they are often used in conjunction with morals in social contexts, this is not the case with science. For starters you are not supposed to use normative statements in science, as they are often based on emotion and not rational thought. If you nonetheless were to use them, and wish to connect them to morals, it depends how you define morals. If you define morals as the feeling of right and wrong as is most common in everyday speech then no, no morals are required. If you define it simply as a differentiation between correct and incorrect(a bit of a stretch but an arguable position) then it can be tenuously applied in some contexts.
(May 4, 2011 at 7:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well I believe a rational creator is necessary for several reasons, two of which would be...
The other presuppositions I listed above are completely rational if a rational creator is exists. If the universe came into being without a rational mind behind it there is no reason at all to make these presuppositions.
The second reason is that there would be no reason for humans to develop rational minds from irrational events and matter. Our ability to think rationally I feel is one of the greatest evidences that we are made in the image of another rational being. Irrational events never begot rationalism. So that's one reason I believe in God. Thoughts?
Your first point is an argument from ignorance and a presupposition which is not rationally defensible.
Your second point is a string of arguments from ignorance from start to finish, with a sprinkling of fallacies to top it off.
To your first point, I disagree. Even if you are making the statement that science "should" be devoid of all morals, this in itself is a moral statement as to how science should be conducted ideally. So I am sorry, moral laws are completely necessary to obtain knowledge through investigation.
I agree that saying science should be devoid of morals is a moral statement, but you are making a fallacious inference in claiming that it therefore follows that science requires morals to obtain knowledge through investigation. The actual practice of science requires no morals, though morals are often introduced by us humans in places where they need not exist.
(May 5, 2011 at 3:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: As to your second point, it is not an argument from ignorance at all. This would only be the case if there was insufficient investigation into the matter, which of course there has been plenty of investigation. These presuppositions could not have arisen from a universe that had no rational creator, yet they have to be true in order to gain any knowledge through investigation. The Christian has rational reasons as to why these things are true the atheist just assumes they are true for no real rational reason.
Your third point, again not an argument from ignorance because there has been sufficient investigation into the matter. There is no observed or theorized manner as to which rationality could arise from irrational events and matter. I am a little surprised and disappointed; I was not expecting you to improperly use the argument from ignorance accusation just to avoid the issue
I stand by my statement, they were both arguments from ignorance. As for your reply:
You are fallaciously equating investigation with evidence, you infer conclusions from false premises, you make unsupported statements about the nature of the universe and claim them as fact, you presume to know the state of mind of a large group of diverse individuals and repeat your offense of arguments from ignorance. Finally you attempt to appeal to emotion by pretending disappointment, a poorly veiled personal slight, though that is not important in light of your other mistakes.
May 5, 2011 at 6:54 pm (This post was last modified: May 5, 2011 at 6:58 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(May 5, 2011 at 4:50 pm)Boreasos Wrote:
(May 5, 2011 at 3:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
(May 5, 2011 at 5:13 am)Boreasos Wrote:
(May 4, 2011 at 7:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Any statement that contains a "should" or an "ought" is a moral statement. We use these all the time in science, so I believe moral laws are necessary in order to conduct the scientific method.
Should or ought statements are normative statements, and though they are often used in conjunction with morals in social contexts, this is not the case with science. For starters you are not supposed to use normative statements in science, as they are often based on emotion and not rational thought. If you nonetheless were to use them, and wish to connect them to morals, it depends how you define morals. If you define morals as the feeling of right and wrong as is most common in everyday speech then no, no morals are required. If you define it simply as a differentiation between correct and incorrect(a bit of a stretch but an arguable position) then it can be tenuously applied in some contexts.
(May 4, 2011 at 7:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well I believe a rational creator is necessary for several reasons, two of which would be...
The other presuppositions I listed above are completely rational if a rational creator is exists. If the universe came into being without a rational mind behind it there is no reason at all to make these presuppositions.
The second reason is that there would be no reason for humans to develop rational minds from irrational events and matter. Our ability to think rationally I feel is one of the greatest evidences that we are made in the image of another rational being. Irrational events never begot rationalism. So that's one reason I believe in God. Thoughts?
Your first point is an argument from ignorance and a presupposition which is not rationally defensible.
Your second point is a string of arguments from ignorance from start to finish, with a sprinkling of fallacies to top it off.
To your first point, I disagree. Even if you are making the statement that science "should" be devoid of all morals, this in itself is a moral statement as to how science should be conducted ideally. So I am sorry, moral laws are completely necessary to obtain knowledge through investigation.
I agree that saying science should be devoid of morals is a moral statement, but you are making a fallacious inference in claiming that it therefore follows that science requires morals to obtain knowledge through investigation. The actual practice of science requires no morals, though morals are often introduced by us humans in places where they need not exist.
(May 5, 2011 at 3:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: As to your second point, it is not an argument from ignorance at all. This would only be the case if there was insufficient investigation into the matter, which of course there has been plenty of investigation. These presuppositions could not have arisen from a universe that had no rational creator, yet they have to be true in order to gain any knowledge through investigation. The Christian has rational reasons as to why these things are true the atheist just assumes they are true for no real rational reason.
Your third point, again not an argument from ignorance because there has been sufficient investigation into the matter. There is no observed or theorized manner as to which rationality could arise from irrational events and matter. I am a little surprised and disappointed; I was not expecting you to improperly use the argument from ignorance accusation just to avoid the issue
I stand by my statement, they were both arguments from ignorance. As for your reply:
You are fallaciously equating investigation with evidence, you infer conclusions from false premises, you make unsupported statements about the nature of the universe and claim them as fact, you presume to know the state of mind of a large group of diverse individuals and repeat your offense of arguments from ignorance. Finally you attempt to appeal to emotion by pretending disappointment, a poorly veiled personal slight, though that is not important in light of your other mistakes.
Well good luck telling people they "should" follow the scientific method in order to conduct science without morals. I completely stand by my assertions that morals are a necessary precondition for intelligibility.
I feel you are being nothing more than intellectually lazy on this one. To say that making a statement like, "irrational events never yield rationality" is somehow an argument from ignorance is absurd. It would be no different than saying the statement, "humans don't give birth to cats" is somehow an argument from ignorance. We have done extensive investigation into the matter and cannot even device a method as to how it could happen (which is probably why you have not presented one). So I can rationally conclude that irrational natural events cannot give birth to rational minds. I think you tap dance around the issue because you realize how powerful the implications are.
(May 5, 2011 at 6:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well good luck telling people they "should" follow the scientific method in order to conduct science without morals. I completely stand by my assertions that morals are a necessary precondition for intelligibility.
I am not claiming people "should" anything. I pointed out that science can be conducted without introducing morals. Can != should.
(May 5, 2011 at 6:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I feel you are being nothing more than intellectually lazy on this one. To say that making a statement like, "irrational events never yield rationality" is somehow an argument from ignorance is absurd. It would be no different than saying the statement, "humans don't give birth to cats" is somehow an argument from ignorance. We have done extensive investigation into the matter and cannot even device a method as to how it could happen (which is probably why you have not presented one). So I can rationally conclude that irrational natural events cannot give birth to rational minds. I think you tap dance around the issue because you realize how powerful the implications are.
You are misunderstanding which part of your argument is from ignorance. You fallaciously assume that events are irrational, which in itself is a nonsensical statement. Events happen, rationality or irrationality does not enter into it. A quantum particle jumping in and out of existence is neither rational nor irrational, it just is. It may seem irrational from our perspective since it is counter intuitive, but that is a failing on our part.
You keep referring to "extensive investigations", but you have not pointed out which investigations and what they concluded. I do not simply take your word for it, especially since I find the entire argument to be from ignorance and based on fallacious premises(see my previous point).
Your flawed premises also means you draw incorrect conclusions regarding the origins of rational minds. The origin of our brains is presumably the same as with all life, through the long and arduous process of evolution and natural selection. Since all observed life evolves, and can be proven to have evolved from common ancestors I can rationally infer that we, and by extension our brains, have followed the same path.
I have not pointed it out yet, but I will draw in that you presume a rational creator is necessary for rational beings to exist, but then you make an unproven and irrational presumption in regards to the existence of a rational creator. Where did the rational creator come from, or do you presume it always existed which is also an unproven irrational presumption?
As for the implications, I do not tap dance, as there is nothing to tap dance around.
(May 5, 2011 at 6:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well good luck telling people they "should" follow the scientific method in order to conduct science without morals. I completely stand by my assertions that morals are a necessary precondition for intelligibility.
I am not claiming people "should" anything. I pointed out that science can be conducted without introducing morals. Can != should.
(May 5, 2011 at 6:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I feel you are being nothing more than intellectually lazy on this one. To say that making a statement like, "irrational events never yield rationality" is somehow an argument from ignorance is absurd. It would be no different than saying the statement, "humans don't give birth to cats" is somehow an argument from ignorance. We have done extensive investigation into the matter and cannot even device a method as to how it could happen (which is probably why you have not presented one). So I can rationally conclude that irrational natural events cannot give birth to rational minds. I think you tap dance around the issue because you realize how powerful the implications are.
You are misunderstanding which part of your argument is from ignorance. You fallaciously assume that events are irrational, which in itself is a nonsensical statement. Events happen, rationality or irrationality does not enter into it. A quantum particle jumping in and out of existence is neither rational nor irrational, it just is. It may seem irrational from our perspective since it is counter intuitive, but that is a failing on our part.
You keep referring to "extensive investigations", but you have not pointed out which investigations and what they concluded. I do not simply take your word for it, especially since I find the entire argument to be from ignorance and based on fallacious premises(see my previous point).
Your flawed premises also means you draw incorrect conclusions regarding the origins of rational minds. The origin of our brains is presumably the same as with all life, through the long and arduous process of evolution and natural selection. Since all observed life evolves, and can be proven to have evolved from common ancestors I can rationally infer that we, and by extension our brains, have followed the same path.
I have not pointed it out yet, but I will draw in that you presume a rational creator is necessary for rational beings to exist, but then you make an unproven and irrational presumption in regards to the existence of a rational creator. Where did the rational creator come from, or do you presume it always existed which is also an unproven irrational presumption?
As for the implications, I do not tap dance, as there is nothing to tap dance around.
Forgive me for using your own definition of "irrational"; I do believe you said that it is anything that is not rational. Maybe a better term would be "non-rational". Does not change the argument at all, rational minds still don't arise from n0n-rational events and matter.
Well I would argue that since you are the one asserting that rational minds arose from non-rational events and matter the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how this could happen. It has never been observed to happen, that is what I meant by investigation. I reject your premise that you can logically prove life arose from a common ancestor through natural selection, but even if you could this would not give rise to rational minds. Thinking rationally is completely irrelevant to survival, an animal can have irrational thoughts, but as long as they enhance survival the irrational mind will be preserved.
As to the old, “well who created God argument?”…
God is not a contingent being by definition, so he does not need to be created or formed by a rational mind. Men are contingent beings, they are material.
May 6, 2011 at 5:00 am (This post was last modified: May 6, 2011 at 5:01 am by Boreasos.)
(May 5, 2011 at 8:02 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
(May 5, 2011 at 7:46 pm)Boreasos Wrote:
(May 5, 2011 at 6:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well good luck telling people they "should" follow the scientific method in order to conduct science without morals. I completely stand by my assertions that morals are a necessary precondition for intelligibility.
I am not claiming people "should" anything. I pointed out that science can be conducted without introducing morals. Can != should.
(May 5, 2011 at 6:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I feel you are being nothing more than intellectually lazy on this one. To say that making a statement like, "irrational events never yield rationality" is somehow an argument from ignorance is absurd. It would be no different than saying the statement, "humans don't give birth to cats" is somehow an argument from ignorance. We have done extensive investigation into the matter and cannot even device a method as to how it could happen (which is probably why you have not presented one). So I can rationally conclude that irrational natural events cannot give birth to rational minds. I think you tap dance around the issue because you realize how powerful the implications are.
You are misunderstanding which part of your argument is from ignorance. You fallaciously assume that events are irrational, which in itself is a nonsensical statement. Events happen, rationality or irrationality does not enter into it. A quantum particle jumping in and out of existence is neither rational nor irrational, it just is. It may seem irrational from our perspective since it is counter intuitive, but that is a failing on our part.
You keep referring to "extensive investigations", but you have not pointed out which investigations and what they concluded. I do not simply take your word for it, especially since I find the entire argument to be from ignorance and based on fallacious premises(see my previous point).
Your flawed premises also means you draw incorrect conclusions regarding the origins of rational minds. The origin of our brains is presumably the same as with all life, through the long and arduous process of evolution and natural selection. Since all observed life evolves, and can be proven to have evolved from common ancestors I can rationally infer that we, and by extension our brains, have followed the same path.
I have not pointed it out yet, but I will draw in that you presume a rational creator is necessary for rational beings to exist, but then you make an unproven and irrational presumption in regards to the existence of a rational creator. Where did the rational creator come from, or do you presume it always existed which is also an unproven irrational presumption?
As for the implications, I do not tap dance, as there is nothing to tap dance around.
Forgive me for using your own definition of "irrational"; I do believe you said that it is anything that is not rational. Maybe a better term would be "non-rational". Does not change the argument at all, rational minds still don't arise from n0n-rational events and matter.
Well I would argue that since you are the one asserting that rational minds arose from non-rational events and matter the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how this could happen. It has never been observed to happen, that is what I meant by investigation. I reject your premise that you can logically prove life arose from a common ancestor through natural selection, but even if you could this would not give rise to rational minds. Thinking rationally is completely irrelevant to survival, an animal can have irrational thoughts, but as long as they enhance survival the irrational mind will be preserved.
As to the old, “well who created God argument?”…
God is not a contingent being by definition, so he does not need to be created or formed by a rational mind. Men are contingent beings, they are material.
Somehow you completely missed the part where events and rationality do not intersect, even though I spelled it out in clear text.
The fact that you reject evolution from a common ancestor when the body of evidence for this is vast and readily available tells me you do not care to know about it. Your preconceived notions about reality has made you irrational in your thinking process, which makes any rational debate with you inherently difficult. Your irrationality is exampled in your continued stating of claims without evidentiary support or rational reasoning (see "but even if you could this would not give rise to rational minds").
You also throw out the old and worn "god did not need to be created" fallacy, creating a special exception for your preferred deity. This once again highlights your irrational line of reasoning and your logical schism.
I have not been completely blind to your previous history on this forum, and I see that the pervasive opinion of your lack of rational thought on certain topics was correct. I will likely have further discussions with you in the future, but this discussion I can see will lead nowhere.
One suggestion, educate yourself on evolutionary biology.
(May 5, 2011 at 6:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well good luck telling people they "should" follow the scientific method in order to conduct science without morals. I completely stand by my assertions that morals are a necessary precondition for intelligibility.
I am not claiming people "should" anything. I pointed out that science can be conducted without introducing morals. Can != should.
(May 5, 2011 at 6:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I feel you are being nothing more than intellectually lazy on this one. To say that making a statement like, "irrational events never yield rationality" is somehow an argument from ignorance is absurd. It would be no different than saying the statement, "humans don't give birth to cats" is somehow an argument from ignorance. We have done extensive investigation into the matter and cannot even device a method as to how it could happen (which is probably why you have not presented one). So I can rationally conclude that irrational natural events cannot give birth to rational minds. I think you tap dance around the issue because you realize how powerful the implications are.
You are misunderstanding which part of your argument is from ignorance. You fallaciously assume that events are irrational, which in itself is a nonsensical statement. Events happen, rationality or irrationality does not enter into it. A quantum particle jumping in and out of existence is neither rational nor irrational, it just is. It may seem irrational from our perspective since it is counter intuitive, but that is a failing on our part.
You keep referring to "extensive investigations", but you have not pointed out which investigations and what they concluded. I do not simply take your word for it, especially since I find the entire argument to be from ignorance and based on fallacious premises(see my previous point).
Your flawed premises also means you draw incorrect conclusions regarding the origins of rational minds. The origin of our brains is presumably the same as with all life, through the long and arduous process of evolution and natural selection. Since all observed life evolves, and can be proven to have evolved from common ancestors I can rationally infer that we, and by extension our brains, have followed the same path.
I have not pointed it out yet, but I will draw in that you presume a rational creator is necessary for rational beings to exist, but then you make an unproven and irrational presumption in regards to the existence of a rational creator. Where did the rational creator come from, or do you presume it always existed which is also an unproven irrational presumption?
As for the implications, I do not tap dance, as there is nothing to tap dance around.
Forgive me for using your own definition of "irrational"; I do believe you said that it is anything that is not rational. Maybe a better term would be "non-rational". Does not change the argument at all, rational minds still don't arise from n0n-rational events and matter.
Well I would argue that since you are the one asserting that rational minds arose from non-rational events and matter the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how this could happen. It has never been observed to happen, that is what I meant by investigation. I reject your premise that you can logically prove life arose from a common ancestor through natural selection, but even if you could this would not give rise to rational minds. Thinking rationally is completely irrelevant to survival, an animal can have irrational thoughts, but as long as they enhance survival the irrational mind will be preserved.
As to the old, “well who created God argument?”…
God is not a contingent being by definition, so he does not need to be created or formed by a rational mind. Men are contingent beings, they are material.
Somehow you completely missed the part where events and rationality do not intersect, even though I spelled it out in clear text.
The fact that you reject evolution from a common ancestor when the body of evidence for this is vast and readily available tells me you do not care to know about it. Your preconceived notions about reality has made you irrational in your thinking process, which makes any rational debate with you inherently difficult. Your irrationality is exampled in your continued stating of claims without evidentiary support or rational reasoning (see "but even if you could this would not give rise to rational minds").
You also throw out the old and worn "god did not need to be created" fallacy, creating a special exception for your preferred deity. This once again highlights your irrational line of reasoning and your logical schism.
I have not been completely blind to your previous history on this forum, and I see that the pervasive opinion of your lack of rational thought on certain topics was correct. I will likely have further discussions with you in the future, but this discussion I can see will lead nowhere.
One suggestion, educate yourself on evolutionary biology.
II am quite aware that events and rationality do not intersect; it is you that is suggesting that events somehow gave rise to rational minds. A bold claim that would require a lot of proof, of which you have given none.
I said you could not provide any valid logical proof that life originated from a common ancestor, which of course still stands because you didn't even attempt to.
You toss out the word "rational" as if you have a clue about what it means, but it's obvious you are clueless (as evidenced by your claim that a non-contingent being is somehow contingent). You pretty much just toss out the same old leaky bucket arguments that all atheists do, nothing new here folks, move along.
I find it funny your only response is to "educate myself in evolutionary biology", which of course is not an argument at all. However, if you knew anything about me you would realize that the reason I do not buy into common descent is because I have TOO MUCH education in evolutionary biology. I have a natural sciences degree and was the highest achieving student in my advanced evolutionary biology course in university. I taught high school biology and now work for the USDA in the natural sciences and continuing education departments. So nice try, I am still waiting for your proof of common descent, or even a little evidence.
