-->
@Theweakeredge
What you need to understand is there is no subjective biases in regards to semantics, words mean what they mean period.
What's your best argument for God's existence?
Posts
Total:
372
-->
@Tarik
What? But harm doesn't mean immoral, thats you conflating things
-->
@Theweakeredge
Scholastic theologians and even naturalistic philosphers would refer to the laws of nature as the mind of God.
I don't think it is really an issue unless you have an idea of mind that is very narrowly used to refer to a human like mind. Even then, some determinist thinkers would say the human mind is no different than natural processes.
-->
@Theweakeredge
No but immoral means harm, almost like apple means fruit but fruit doesn’t necessarily mean apple.
-->
@Mopac
uh huh, except their is a clear difference - this isn't me being "narrow minded" this is me actually talking about minds - and they belong to agents, which the universe is not one that I am referring to. Also, appeal to authority much? Yes a mind could be a result of natural systems, in fact that is my opinion on it, but there is still a distinction between a chemical agent and a system of them that interact in a way of self-awareness. As even determinists still agree that their is will just not free will.
-->
@Tarik
No it doesn't you are incorrect there - you believe it means harm because that is what immoral means to you specifically, but immorality does not mean harm definitionally.
ADJECTIVE
-->
@Theweakeredge
Okay you got a definition of harm for me?
-->
@Theweakeredge
I am not making any appeals to authority, nor am I even expressing any viewpoint that I prescribe to. I am only saying that these are different waysbof looking at things that people have historically expressed.
Yet even I would have no issue making the connection between the laws of nature as a type and shadow of the mind of God.
The big point I would like to make though is that not all conceptions of God imply the type of agency to God that you do.
If you have a conception of ultimate reality, that is your conception of God. In ascribing this particular type of agency to God, you are actually adding to the definition without realizing it.
Supreme Being refers to the most total and complete existence. When you ascribe to the concept the understanding of the words involved that you do, it leads to absurd things that even we don't truly accept. God to us is not an invisible bearded guy in the clouds. Rather, existence as it truly is. Because we relate to that personally, we refer to God in persons. Not to say our relationship is something like an invisible bearded man in the clouds!
-->
@Tarik
Several, none of which fit your definition that I can find:
-->
@Mopac
No, whenever you ascribe the definitions that you are using you create absurd things that don't exist, such as conflating a universe with god - what you are doing is trying to describe something - but that is not cogent whenever there is already a prescription of that thing. Name an example of something that I am supposedly creating with my specific definitions, which are just the actual definitions of words. Your sole argument for god is semantic, and I am telling you, that does not include my definition of god, whatsoever. The universe has not and will never describe god in my lexicon because there is no reason for that to be the case. There is no distinction between a universe that would make it a god.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Okay got any synonyms for me?
-->
@Theweakeredge
Interesting, I found evil
badness
wrong
mischief
wrongdoing
immorality
ill
wickedness
vice
iniquity
sin
What does that tell you?
-->
@Tarik
I didn't get any of that:
harm[härm]NOUN
Maybe in more?
-->
@Tarik
VERB
Nope
-->
@Tarik
None of that checks out, seems to me like your trying to add in your own words
-->
@Theweakeredge
It's really the other way around. Your language has been confused in order that what has been expressed for thousands of years becomes unintelligible.
Every atheistic argument is contingent on making God something other than God.
I am not a pantheist. I do however, know the God I worship. The Ultimste Reality. Not a conception of The Ultimate Reality, but the essence of what that truly means.
When did language start getting confused? Only after the philosphers of the 1800s overturned everything, and the intelligensia followed after them. Very intentionally has language been confused, and it is done because the worldview of those causing the confusion demand it.
Nihilism is the spirit of the modern age, and it even to a greater extend permeates the post-modern age.
There is one thing that is absolutely certain. God exists. If you are in doubt about this, it is a testament to the confusion of these times, not the infallible existence of God.
-->
@Theweakeredge
They were two other definitions under noun, one of them was “actual or potential ill effect or danger.”
Tell me what you see then.
-->
@Tarik
Ah, the third removed definition of harm has synonyms of immorality. Cool. Still wouldn't matter, since... as humans again, it would only make sense that we establish the connection. Philosophically speaking it isn't there.
-->
@Mopac
You haven't answered any of my quesitons, on top of that, your entire argument is begging the question, a fallacy. On top on top of this, your claim, that "from your use of language, blah blah blah." Has not been substantiated, you dropped it. I don't care what you think in this regard, I'm going to need proof. To you the ultimate reality includes god, to me, I see no such reality. The universe is the universe and it has no agency. It has no intentions. Nothing that would mark it something with a self aware mind. Which you also ignored. All of your arguments are semantic with NOTHING else to support it.
-->
@Theweakeredge
No sir, it doesn’t work that way just because you can’t establish a connection that doesn’t mean it isn’t there, your ignorance is a “YOU” problem.
-->
@Tarik
Maybe I'm explaining this wrong, harm isn't necessarily connected to immoral because is some things were harmed we wouldn't call that immoral, for example, a wall, a rock, etc etc. The actual thing that we are discussing that is being harmed is often what marks it as "wrong" or not. Why is humans being harmed immoral? Why isn't it the same as a wall or a rock being harmed? I actually already asked the first question, I just didn't elaborate enough apparently.
-->
@Theweakeredge
agency
intentions
a self aware mind
Not integral to the definition of God. God is simply The Ultimate Reality, whatever that may be.
That is the proper understanding of the concept. Certainly there are those who believe in a God that lacks the things you say are essential to what makes God.
That is what I am actually saying as an argument.
-->
@Theweakeredge
But that’s straying from the narrative though, I don’t care to get into the why’s of these things.
-->
@Mopac
Except I don't accept that definition. "The ultimate reality" Okay and what does that ultimate reality include? Because that would distinguish things, in the ultimate "reality" i acknowledge there is nothing supernatural and the universe has no agency, the reason I object to that definition, is because I have a better term for that, reality.
-->
@Tarik
No its not, thats the entire point! Its subjective because there is no answer that is objective to why, there is no real justification that humans being harmed is immoral, just subjective ones.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Your argument holds no weight if it’s not fitting though, what if I told you I hold a wall and a rock to the same standard as a human (even though I don’t) then the point is meaningless.
-->
@Tarik
That's the point, the only reasons you hold one thing or another is subjective. Which was my point, that morals are subjective, just like you arbitarily hold walls like that the entire holding humans as a moral center is subjective, its because we are humans.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I said what I said earlier because I thought you’ll drop the point if I did but I guess you’re gonna die on this hill so I’ll say this, the objective answer is it’s immoral the why’s is a separate issue, if a basketball team wins a game then the answer is they won, if you get into the why’s and discover it’s a result of cheating then so be it but that’s a separate conversation, and that’s essentially what you’re doing conflating two separate things.
-->
@Tarik
No, my point is that harming something can be immoral or moral or ammoral depending on the subject of harm, and where we assign the subject of harm is the subjectiveness that is in no way another category, you are just wrong here, and I've explained why so many times.