Necessary evils

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 691
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
This is a pretty clear answer. It tells you what I believe and why. I therefore predict that you will take some exception to my answer on a semantic or definitional level or that you will move the goal post or that you will change the subject.

One does not logically follow from the other. 
Oh yeah? Then give me ONE example of something that makes sense with no reason for it whatsoever.
Moving the goal post. Nailed it.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
IF you INTRACTABLY believe that there IS a reason for EVERYTHING
...No, I believe if there is no reason for something then that thing makes no sense.
This is a pretty clear answer. It tells you what I believe and why. I therefore predict that you will take some exception to my answer on a semantic or definitional level or that you will move the goal post or that you will change the subject.

Nailed it again. 
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Care to go for the trifecta and change the subject now?
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
This is a pretty clear answer.
Maybe to a separate question, biology has nothing  to do with why some have personal feelings, tastes or opinions in regards to subjective morality.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
I believe if there is no reason for something then that thing makes no sense.
Then it is entirely possible (and indeed it appears to be the case) that nothing makes sense outside of human endeavors and that these only "make sense" in the context of human endeavors and not on a larger cosmic scale. Which is not the same as saying we cannot learn about our local expression of spacetime in the sense that we can determine patterns and physical laws and describe them so that we can collectively work on turning them to accomplish our own subjective goals. 

I am absolutely willing to accept and would find it completely unremarkable if nothing "makes sense" to the universe and the cosmos at large since that requires a mind and there is no evidence to support that the universe or the cosmos possesses a mind.

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Maybe to a separate question, biology has nothing  to do with why some have personal feelings, tastes or opinions in regards to subjective morality.
Nope it is just the mechanism which leads to this outcome. There probably isn't any particular reason why. We just happened to have developed that way because physics work the way they do and there isn't really a reason for that either 
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
context of human endeavors
Doesn’t make sense in that context either, considering if we’re extensions of the universe it makes sense that we should reflect the universe, I’ve said this before.
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,356
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
@zedvictor4
Must you two keep banging your heads against an obtuse wall?
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
What if I asked both. then what?
Maybe to a separate question, biology has nothing  to do with why some have personal feelings, tastes or opinions in regards to subjective morality.

Ok so which is it? I answered both questions to the best of my ability even if the answer to one us that neither of us is capable of knowing and we should not believe in things if we don't actually know are true.

You seem to be moving the goal post from asking both questions to only asking the question for which NEITHER of us has or can have an adequate answer for.

considering if we’re extensions of the universe it makes sense that we should reflect the universe, I’ve said this before.
Reverse composition fallacy. That a steel link is part of a chain doesn't necessarily mean that it reflects the utility, purpose, properties or usefulness of a chain when taken as a whole.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Lemming
We’ve had previous discussions in the past and if I recall you’ve been the obtuse party not me so come correct before you falsely accuse anyone of being obtuse.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Lemming
Must you two keep banging your heads against an obtuse wall?
But there is a moronic chance they may decide to actually engage!
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
That a steel link is part of a chain doesn't necessarily mean that it reflects the utility, purpose, properties or usefulness of a chain when taken as a whole.
...Wrong again, I didn’t say that humans reflect the universe, I said that we should unless you can make sense of subjective morality in the context of human endeavors, which you can’t because human endeavors make no sense as well.

But there is a moronic chance they may decide to actually engage!
Right back at you.

Thanks for listening to my Ted Talk ✌🏾.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
Must you two keep banging your heads against an obtuse wall?
But there is a micronic* chance they may decide to actually engage!
*self edit
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
it makes sense that we should reflect the universe,
Just as much as a chain link SHOULD reflect a whole chain.
I didn’t say that humans reflect the universe, I said that we should 


You are making a distinction without a difference. 

Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
@Tarik
There is definitely a difference in how I and Secular see subjective morality - I believe there are objective ways to frame our morality, but the fact that we are attributing such things to humans is what makes it subjective. Again - is-ought - its impossible for morality to be objective - which leads us to one of two conclusions: Morality doesn't exist (nihilist) - which you've agreed I don't follow - or there is a morality that isn't entirely factual - subjective morality - in other words, BECAUSE we have minds we construct a morality - IF we hold the axiom that humans matter, THEN we have morality, bada boom - done. As you are also a human you ought to value other humans, or sentience more broadly. I've made the argument so many times. 

This is my input here.

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Theweakeredge
There is definitely a difference in how I and Secular see subjective morality - I believe there are objective ways to frame our morality,
I don't think we are as different as you imagine. Once we agree on a SUBJECTIVE standard we can make OBJECTIVE statements based in that standard.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Just as much as a chain link SHOULD reflect a whole chain.
No, difference is humans have a mind chain links don’t.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Morality doesn't exist (nihilist) - which you've agreed I don't follow
For sake of the discussion I’m willing to argue in favor of nihilism.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,923
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
I am absolutely willing to accept and would find it completely unremarkable if nothing "makes sense" to the universe and the cosmos at large since that requires a mind and there is no evidence to support that the universe or the cosmos possesses a mind.
Excellent SMartin only humans project a reason for this that and the eternal, finite, occupied space Universe's existence, as the only, perpetual motion machine.

The perpetual motion has a trinary set occupied space events;

3} spirit-3, Gravity ( G ) is ultra-micro, utlra-high-tension, outer surface { of special-case tori } events, ergo non-quantised or quantified ---and may remain that way eternally for all intelligence mind accessing entities-----,

2} spirit-2, physical reality [ Observed time/relative }, as associated with sine-wave /\/\/\/\/ patterns of existence and our quantised and quantifications thereof,

4} spirit-4, Dark Energy D)(E is ultra-micro, ultra-high-tension, inner surface { of special case tori } events ergo non-quantised nor quantified, and may remain that way eternally for all intelligent, mind accessing  entitites.

.................................................Space(<G-DE>)(<DE-G>)Space.......................................................

and this latter above texticonic expression is similar too and directly realated the following texticonic expression

.....................................................Space(>s*t<) i (>s*t}Space.................................................

<G-DE> are  arrows { < > } as pointer to outer and inner surface of special-case tori

(><)  are inversion-outversion relationships when dropping in and then back out to and from Gravity and Dark Energy surface

s is small s ergo relative space,

* * is biologically synergetic consciousness with * * being most complex that we know of

t is small t ergo relative time

Mind accessing creatures my acquire the ability to conceptually { Metaphysical-1/spirit-1 } place them outside of a conceptual Universe, as if they are a God that then looks back and sees themself holding the finite Universe in their hand.











Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
"For the sake of discussion" Therefore you acknowledge that its not true - no - what do you think?
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Excuse me, but who are you to tell me how to argue? I’ll argue as I wish thank you very much.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
I mean - you're free to concede the point before you begin, but unless this is a debate I don't see any reason to argue with you if your gonna do devil's advocate
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
No, because humans have a mind chain links don’t.
Immaterial. Besides the point. A non issue. 

It doesn't matter if humans SHOULD  reflect the universe in its apparent mindlessness if we DON'T reflect the universe and just go ahead and have minds any way. 
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Then don’t, nobody forced you to join this discussion.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Hmm hmm - yeah thats fair
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
So you've conceded? Objective morality is bunk? You didn't even try to argue it - if you realize that then you should stop believing in objective morality - if you're intellectually honest that is
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
have minds any way.
I meant in the uncaring sense not in the no mind sense.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
So you've conceded? Objective morality is bunk?
No
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
I meant in the uncaring sense not in the no mind sense.
It doesn't matter if humans SHOULD  reflect the universe in its apparent inability to care if we DON'T reflect the universe and just go ahead and care any way. 
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
Then argue for objective morality - why did you entertain a notion you thought was false if there's an entirely other notion that you think is true?