-->
@Ramshutu
Why not? Someday, you will find that all is encompassed in one eternal round. No, physics did not teach me that. There are greater laws than physics.
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
Posts
Total:
280
-->
@949havoc
Why not? Someday, you will find that all is encompassed in one eternal round. No, physics did not teach me that. There are greater laws than physics.
Because you have 4729 different threads talking about determinism. Don’t pollute a new thread talking about something different into a discussion about determinism
-->
@949havoc
There are greater laws than physics
15% of pregnancies result in miscarriages world wide. Apparently God has to work with physics. Either that or he is pro-abortion.
-->
@Ramshutu
I'll do whatever I damn well please with threads. My free will. Let your determinism stop me. Go.
-->
@FLRW
Apparently God has to work with physics.
There's that pesky omnipotence, again. Who said God always acts omnipotently, when not necessary? Frankly, the notion that God is the total cause of everything is as nonsensical as determinism, which really comes to the same conclusion without acknowledging God. God may not be the total cause of anything.
And people wonder why my avatar, being a Christian, is "havoc." I don't think like most Christians on this site.
-->
@Ramshutu
you’re just injecting the necessity as an unfounded assertion in order to be able to assume your own conclusion
…That’s not how logic works you can’t prove a negative, so if you can make sense of it all then by all means go ahead the floor is yours (and it has been for quite some time now).
-->
@Tarik
The basis that no one is able to give me an answer when asked the question.
So this is called an “argument from ignorance”. Your premise must be right if no one else is able to explain something. This is faulty reasoning.
Why it is faulty reasoning is pretty well explained in this thread: you have absolutely no actual logical justification for your claims - you’re not able to answer the question either. You simply using directed questions to imply your case is true, predicated on failure of others - to make up for the complete lack of justification action.
Saying that: don’t confuse us realizing that you’re asking a faulty question based upon sneaky burden shifting, and calling you out, with an inability to actually answer the question in general.
Our brains are the results of a billion years of evolution. They consist of a complex neural network that forms connections and reinforces behaviour and connections between nodes through reward/punishment mechanisms, including the involvement of emotions, which are largely feedback mechanisms to avoid danger and to allow individuals to work in groups (I can happily explain the evolutionary imperative of this, but you can see similar emotional response and learned behaviour in all social animals). Emotional responses help define neural connections, and vice versa in a continual learned feedback loop.
Or to summarize, we give things meaning because of a complex learned behaviour response mediated by emotions that have evolved to constrain and promote behaviours beneficial to overall group survival.
You may not like that response - in fact I am sure you won’t; however it is certainly more complete, better supported, and can be better justified than “Magik man dunnit”
-->
@Tarik
you’re just injecting the necessity as an unfounded assertion in order to be able to assume your own conclusion…That’s not how logic works you can’t prove a negative, so if you can make sense of it all then by all means go ahead the floor is yours (and it has been for quite some time now).
Oops edit.
Asking you to provide justification of why some higher power is required in order for emotional responses to exist is not asking you to “prove a negative”. It’s the opposite.
Pointing out that you are defaulting to assuming a higher power is required - and using this as a basis to conclude higher power, is also not asking you to “prove a negative”.
There is no basis to the claim; you are simply attempting to shift the burden of proof - either through irony or projection - is exactly the thing you’re complaining about.
-->
@Ramshutu
Asking you to provide justification of why some higher power is required in order for emotional responses to exist is not asking you to “prove a negative”. It’s the opposite.
That’s not what I was referring to, I was referring to
On what basis do you think having emotions “doesn’t make sense” without a greater authority.
That’s a negative question, a positive one would be on what basis do you think having emotions DOES make sense without a greater authority, but that shifts the burden of proof on YOU.
-->
@Tarik
Asking you to provide justification of why some higher power is required in order for emotional responses to exist is not asking you to “prove a negative”. It’s the opposite.That’s not what I was referring to, I was referring toOn what basis do you think having emotions “doesn’t make sense” without a greater authority.That’s a negative question, a positive one would be on what basis do you think having emotions DOES make sense without a greater authority, but that shifts the burden of proof on YOU.
A.) You’re making a positive claim; that emotion is dependent on a higher authority - then asking me to disprove it by asking me how emotion can work without it.
This is just silly word play to avoid you having to actually justify why you think emotion is dependent on higher authority.
You’re just engaging in silly wordplay to shift your burden of proof.
I mean on what planet is it my burden to explain the world is not dependent on a God you are asserting, and haven’t shown explains the world?
B.) I did actually explain it a few posts ago…
-->
@Ramshutu
A.) You’re making a positive claim; that emotion is dependent on a higher authority - then asking me to disprove it by asking me how emotion can work without it.
No I’m not (although that’s what I believe) I claimed it makes logical sense to have them if a higher authority tells us to, that’s separate from the claim your accusing me of.
B.) I did actually explain it a few posts ago…
No you haven’t and if you did you diluted your other arguments by asserting I had the burden of proof when in reality you did (hence the so called explanation you’ve yet to provide).
-->
@Tarik
No I’m not (although that’s what I believe) I claimed it makes logical sense to have them if a higher authority tells us to, that’s separate from the claim your accusing me of.
Yes - that’s a positive claim - very closely related, so you’re largely splitting hairs: with the latter trying to shift the burden to me to disprove the claim.
No you haven’t and if you did you diluted your other arguments by asserting I had the burden of proof when in reality you did (hence the so called explanation you’ve yet to provide).
No, I have. I covered it pretty well in post 97.
-->
@Ramshutu
very closely related
No it’s not, it’s a conditional positive claim that one can only deny once accepting the condition, you still haven’t and if you did your claim would look like it DOESN’T make logical sense to have emotions if a higher authority tells us to, is that what you believe?
No, I have. I covered it pretty well in post 97.
That’s not what I was referring to, I was referring to an answer to this POSITIVE question
But why would we emote if there’s no greater authority telling us to do so?
In which you responded with a question of your own, but to make it easier on yourself (assuming you attempt an answer) ignore the latter half of it.
-->
@Ramshutu
But why would we emote if there’s no greater authority telling us to do so?Why is a greater authority required in order to tell us to emote?
My thought exactly. I don't follow how human emotion points to an authority greater than humanity.
-->
@Tarik
very closely relatedNo it’s not, it’s a conditional positive claim that one can only deny once accepting the condition, you still haven’t and if you did your claim would look like it DOESN’T make logical sense to have emotions if a higher authority tells us to, is that what you believe?No, I have. I covered it pretty well in post 97.That’s not what I was referring to, I was referring to an answer to this POSITIVE questionBut why would we emote if there’s no greater authority telling us to do so?In which you responded with a question of your own, but to make it easier on yourself (assuming you attempt an answer) ignore the latter half of it.
Okay, this is frankly getting absurd. I’m starting to get the impression that you dont understand the concept of burden. Let me assist you in the context of this conversation:
We have emotions: and they presumably have some sort of cause.
If I state emotions are caused by Chuck Norris’ pubic hair: that’s a positive claim.
If I state that “But why would we emote if there’s no Chuck Norris’s pubic hair telling us to do so?”, that’s also is a question that implicitly presumes that positive claim; and is simply sneaky wordplay to avoid my burden of proof.
If I said my rationale for assuming emotions are based on Chuck Norris’s pubic hair was others inability to explain them otherwise - against an argument for ignorance.
You’re issue here is you can’t simply throw out questions that imply a positive claim - like you’re doing - it’s lazy and intellectually dishonest.
What you’re sound now, is simply haggling and word play to try and argue a question that is based on assuming a positive claim is not a positive claim because the question is phrased as a negative is not how positive claims work.
So, the bottom line here is; we can go one of two ways.
1.) you can acknowledge you have made the positive claim, and attempt to justify it (as I actually did sort the converse positive claim in post 97 - which I see you miraculously avoided) - which I suspect you won’t, as normal people with good arguments typically tend to try and offer justifications when pressed.
2.) You can stick with the claim that the claim wasn’t a positive one and that I have burden of proof: to which my reply would be.
“But why would we emote if there’s no greater authority telling us to do so?”
Given your argument, and given this is phrased identically to your claim; you now have the burden to show otherwise.
Given that it’s pretty obvious at how the world would fall apart overnight if this type of argument didn’t have the burden to justify - can we just stick with 1; and please just give me a justification on why in earth you think emotion requires a higher power?
-->
@Ramshutu
We have emotions: and they presumably have some sort of cause.
Except no one is disputing the cause of emotions, the dispute is whether or not we should have them.
What you’re sound now, is simply haggling and word play to try and argue a question that is based on assuming a positive claim is not a positive claim
No, and I already addressed this in my previous post (you either intentionally avoided it or misunderstood it) I also acknowledged that my question assumed a positive claim but I answered that positive claim with a negative response (see #87) the disconnect here is you still feel that warrants an extra question, and sorry to break it to you but that’s just not how logic works.
-->
@Tarik
Data input, processing and output.
That which means we function as we do.
Everything presented in this thread, by all participants, was subject to this process.........Irrespective of primary data sources.
Anyone's assumption to know something unprovably greater is simply an unprovable assumption.....Data output based upon acquired unprovable data, all internal and individually reprocessed......In short, a personal opinion or idea.
-->
@Tarik
We have emotions: and they presumably have some sort of cause.Except no one is disputing the cause of emotions, the dispute is whether or not we should have them.
That’s what I’m talking about - you’re really just splitting hairs here
What you’re sound now, is simply haggling and word play to try and argue a question that is based on assuming a positive claim is not a positive claimNo, and I already addressed this in my previous post (you either intentionally avoided it or misunderstood it) I also acknowledged that my question assumed a positive claim but I answered that positive claim with a negative response (see #87) the disconnect here is you still feel that warrants an extra question, and sorry to break it to you but that’s just not how logic works.
Now you appear to just be Arguing in circles: as you’re response in 87 was a non sequitor - which I pointed out and fromwhich all this nonsense really kicked off; based upon asserting your position a claim: framing a positive claim as a negative question doesn’t shift your burden - not how logic works. It’s just words play
If I asked why else would we emote other than Chuck Norris’ pubic hair. You questioned it, and I responds “it wouldn’t make sense any other way”, that’s a ridiculous, dismissive, non response that tries to shift the burden by implicitly asserting the positive claim that Chuck Norris’ pubic hair is a reasonable explanation for people emoting.
Seriously though; what is it with religious people going out of their way to try and not explain their position?
-->
@zedvictor4
That which means we function as we do.
But why do you choose to function as you do?
-->
@Ramshutu
That’s what I’m talking about - you’re really just splitting hairs here
No I’m not, there’s a difference between what causes emotions and saying we shouldn’t have them, the former is an issue of science (which I’m no expert in so I won’t even bother arguing it) and the latter is an issue from within. Your inability to see that difference is why we’re not making any progress. My argument is conditional so it’s not arguing for or against religion, it’s my belief that if the universe is loving and caring then so should the humans that live in it but if the universe is cold and uncaring then vice versa because after all aren’t we extensions of the universe?
I’m not even going to respond to the other stuff because we went in circles with that enough already.
-->
@Tarik
No I’m not, there’s a difference between what causes emotions and saying we shouldn’t have them, the former is an issue of science and the latter is an issue from within. Your inability to see that difference is why we’re not making any progress. My argument is conditional so it’s not arguing for or against religion, it’s my belief that if the universe is loving and caring then so should the humans that live in it but if the universe is cold and uncaring then vice versa because after all aren’t we extensions of the universe?
I have been talking about the exact specific thing you are:
“But why would we emote if there’s no greater authority telling us to do so?”
I have solely been talking about why we emote.
I have described this as “why”, or “cause”, but I’m talking about this statement.
What you’re doing, is taking ambiguity in the language I’m using and presuming I am talking about something other than what I am - this is splitting hairs.
I’m not injecting anything else; I’m talking about your claim; that you appear to be doing everything you can to evade.
I’m not even going to respond to the other stuff because we went in circles with that enough already.
Actually no: I’m trying to continually bring you back to the issue you keep avoiding - that you’re asserting things and shifting the burden of proof; You keep trying to deflect from this issue, you have gone around in a circle, whilst I am still making the same point:
“But why would we emote if there’s no greater authority telling us to do so?”
Let’s illustrate how intellectually bankrupt this is:
“But why would we emote if there’s no Chuck Norris pubes telling us to do so?”
“Why are Chuck Norrises pubes required in order for us to emote?”
“Because it wouldn’t make sense to do it otherwise.”
The Chuck Norris pube response is shifting the burden of proof, and an absurd non sequitor. Nothing has been established or justified: and no amount of pleading or wordplay can shift the burden of proof about Chuck norrises pubes to the person who is not invoking them.
This is why your argument is logically bankrupt; and so far you’ve just been systematically evading, dropping responses and have been resorting to parroting.
The bottom line is you either have burden of proof to disprove that Chuck Norris’ pubes - not a “greater authority” alone explains why we emote - or you have burden of proof to show your higher authority alone can can explain why we emote - you can’t have both.
Which is it, pubes or proof?
-->
@Ramshutu
What you’re doing, is taking ambiguity in the language I’m using and presuming I am talking about something other than what I am - this is splitting hairs.
Fact of the matter is the language your using is distinct from the language I am and the recognization of that distinction is why it’s not ambiguous or hair splitting for that matter.
Side note: Your way too hung up on the (greater authority) half of my question where you lose sight of the question itself (which I’ve said already) to make it easier on yourself answer this why do you emote? Forget I mentioned anything about a higher authority, it seems the more variables I add the more confused you get which leads to assumptions that I’m not even claiming.
-->
@Tarik
Fact of the matter is the language your using is distinct from the language I am and the recognization of that distinction is why it’s not ambiguous or hair splitting for that matter.
No - it’s splitting hairs.
The distinction between the two would only matter if I’m making argument contingent on the ambiguity in that language in some way - which would be a straw man - but I’m not. I’m not attacking your claim, I’m attacking your burden shifting (which you still are unable to defend)
The language you’re objecting to, is not to paraphrase or misrepresent what you’re talking about - but is just me referring to your claim. I’m fairly explicit about it throughout.
That’s what makes it splitting hairs.
Side note: Your way too hung up on the (greater authority) half of my question where you lose sight of the question itself (which I’ve said already) to make it easier on yourself answer this why do we emote? Forget I mentioned anything about a higher authority.
I’m hung up about the burden shifting of your claim - upon which the greater authority aspect is central.
If I forget you mentioned anything about a higher authority - then you’re entire argument that you were making - with reference to Nihilism falls apart. And considering that the question was not an academic discussion of the root of our emotions, your question would be an off topic side track irrelevant to what was being discussed.
But if you’re really interested in an answer to that question - look at my post 97; where I gave you an answer, which you then ignored - and then a few posts later told me I hadn’t made - only to then ignore it again; leading you to claim now I’m “hung up” one part of the question and that I should try and answer the question… I mean seriously.
-->
@Ramshutu
Or to summarize, we give things meaning because of a complex learned behaviour response mediated by emotions that have evolved to constrain and promote behaviours beneficial to overall group survival.
You don’t need to love people to survive, there’s plenty of hateful people that are still alive.
-->
@Tarik
hu·man·ism
noun
- an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.
-->
@Tarik
Just to be clear here: when you go through other people’s arguments - repeatedly chop out parts of their argument you don’t like, continually ignore key elements they bring to your attention: and finally drop all of the original objections - only to change the subject onto something else, it doesn’t appear conducive to a good faith argument.
I will presume you have simply conceded all points up to now, rather than assuming your engaging in bad faith.
You don’t need to love people to survive, there’s plenty of hateful people that are still alive.
That’s not my argument, nor an inference from my argument. Indeed, it is a complete misrepresentation of what I said - which renders your complaint a straw man.
I am not saying that people you need love to survive; but that we have “emotions that have evolved to constrain and promote behaviours beneficial to overall group survival.”
So in this respect, while we don’t need love to survive: the emotion simply helps to promote behaviour that is beneficial to group survival - which is true.
Feels of love for your family, and children; helps promote behaviour that is beneficial to your survival, your genetic legacy and consequently the group you’re in.
-->
@Ramshutu
So in this respect, while we don’t need love to survive: the emotion simply helps to promote behaviour that is beneficial to group survival - which is true.
Why should we care about overall groups?
-->
@Tarik
Why should we care about overall groups?
So you’re agreeing that you were shifting the burden of proof, splitting hairs, arguing in circles- and engaging in a straw man in your last post, right?
-->
@Ramshutu
No, are you agreeing that you can’t justify caring about overall groups without a greater authority figure telling us to do so?