Total posts: 385
-->
@Yassine
That's not what a necessary being is, by definition.
A being is only necessary IF there is no other possible explanation. Stephen Hawking articulated a possible explanation for the universe whereby the laws of physics explain everything, negating the need for a creator.
Being unable to think of another explanation does not mean one does not exist. Until all other possibilities are eliminated, a creator is a possibility, not a necessity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@vi_777
Just saying that existence is complex.now that u mention, it is n maybe it isn't. it would again vary from one to the other.
Existence is the most complex thing in existence.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Hi Zed, do you think that a commune is an example of communism? A commune being defined as "a group of people living together and sharing possessions and responsibilities".
If yes, then do you think that any communes have ever been successful?
Perhaps communism works best with very small populations.
Created:
Posted in:
For me as an individual, two things are true with 100% certainty. The universe exists and I exist. Everything else is a likeliness based on a probability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I didn't vote for Trump.
There is hope for you after all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Experts don't lose elections.
Your expert has lost half of the elections in which he has run.
Created:
Posted in:
"Russian state TV aired nude photos of Melania Trump shortly after the 2024 U.S. presidential election".
This was reported on numerous social media sites and verified by Snopes, the fact-checking website.
Some are suggesting that the timing of this is Putin's way of sending a message to Trump - that he is in charge.
Does anyone think this is not a message from Putin?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
An equal world would have equal measures of apathy.
Since 1% of the world own over half of the world’s wealth, I’m guessing that most of the other 99% would disagree with you.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
A universe that was equal would have no natural mechanisms to change for the better.
Do you believe that a universe with more inequality would create more happiness?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If you do not trust experts or science, who or what do you trust to convey information that is true?
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Would you say that humanity should move from planet to planet in order to colonize, reproduce and drain the planet of it's resources, then repeat, in perpetuity?
Created:
Posted in:
Does anybody else "glue" the last remaining piece of a soap bar to the new one ensuring that none of it is wasted? I just did that a few minutes ago.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
I don't think it is knowledge.Then what is?
Facts.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Is that actually knowledge and is it rational?Yes, smooth transition.
I think that it is rational only in the sense that it is reasonable to want to believe it. I don't think it is knowledge.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
When I previously argued the validity of free will I pointed out that the opposing view meant that people would be considered "clockwork oranges". Biological in nature but mechanical in function. The opposition was fine with that distinction. That is where hard determinism leads to.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
If Determinism negates freedom to act and Free Will is an illusion, then you deny the very basis of reason, the idea that "something subjective can be rational" is an illusion and the very idea that you could "decide" is negated, it is incoherent to say you are "undecided".
Fair enough. What do you consider to be the basis of reason?
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
I appreciate the response. I'm going to quote you the next time I argue in favor of free will.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Knowledge is rational two
Is knowledge rational if it is not true? Or is it then not considered knowledge? There are many that claim to have knowledge the 2020 election was rigged. Is that actually knowledge and is it rational?
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
This post negates every single one of your previous posts in this thread.
I don't see it that way. My posts were to show that something subjective can be rational. Knowledge was never mentioned, nor was causal agency. As I said, I am undecided on the issue.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
it is reasonable to accept as an objective fact that we are morally responsible causal agents.
What you say makes sense but there are many who would challenge that premise saying that due to deterministic cause and effect, free will is an illusion and we are ultimately not causal agents. To be a causal agent, one would need to create an uncaused cause. I am undecided as I haven't been able to disprove that notion. How do you respond to the assertion that any action you take is due not to a choice, but to the realization of your preferences which you did not choose but were created through cause and effect from external forces (genetics, environment, society, etc).
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
How can any “facts, data, and information” be verified “independently” of “experience”?
Feel free to lose the word "experiences" from the definition. That was a dictionary definition. I really haven't given much thought to the concept of objective knowledge.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Do you think that mathematical knowledge is objective knowledge?
If, by objective knowledge, you mean facts, data, and information that can be verified independently of personal opinions or experiences, then yes.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
In the argument between instinct and thought, instinct usually wins.
No, it doesn't. ;-)
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Honestly, at this point, I feel like Michael Palin arguing with John Cleese in the Argument Clinic.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
That is a fact.And your display of that fact is representative of the ad populum fallacy. That is a fact.
It is not a fallacy. It is a fact. It is either true or untrue. That fact verifies the existence of a specific value. Even if only one person wanted to be alive, that value would still exist.
That is irrelevant.No what’s irrelevant is you making emotional appeals to make a logical argument, that’s inherently fallacious.
If you wish to define self-preservation as an emotion, that is fine with me. That is a descriptive term. It doesn't interfere with the logic and reasonableness of the argument. It doesn't nullify the existence of the fact.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
I’m not really a nihilist, ever heard of devils advocate?
I know you're not a nihilist. Imagine if you were. You and every nihilist practicing your described philosophy would be dead unless they actually wanted to be alive.
Their is no rule
The rule is that virtually all living organisms want to remain alive. That is a fact.
So are suicide bombers rational? Because their morality says that’s the right thing to do.
That is irrelevant. 100% adherence to a particular morality is not required for it to exist.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Are you suggesting that it is unreasonable, illogical and irrational to want to remain alive?Because I’m arguing in favor of nihilism I’ll say yes because life is meaningless.
Nihilism is irrelevant to my argument. You even contradict your own argument by remaining alive. Even if you did mean what you say, you would be the exception to the rule. That rule is that virtually all living organisms want to remain alive. For most people, it is reasonable, logical and rational to want to remain alive. It i s therefore reasonable, logical and rational to have morality to make that want possible. Morality is inherently subjective so, in conclusion, something subjective can be rational.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Are you suggesting that it is unreasonable, illogical and irrational to want to remain alive?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
The purpose of morality is to enable people to live cooperatively in groups and is, therefore, logical, reasonable and rational.You’re only saying this due to your emotional appeal of your life, which isn’t logical at all in fact it’s fallacious.
Wrong. I'm saying this because it is reasonable and logical to wish to live cooperatively in groups because it is almost impossible to live completely alone with no benefits of society.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
nothing subjective is rational
I have given this a little more thought and now find this statement to be incorrect. To be rational, a thing needs a reasonable or logical explanation. The purpose of morality is to enable people to live cooperatively in groups and is, therefore, logical, reasonable and rational.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You are entitled to your opinion, however illogical it may be. That refers to each response in your previous post.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.
Equality may never be achieved but one can always strive to attain it. That way you are making the world more equal. That should be the goal. Nothing is perfect but that doesn't mean it can't be better. Don't make better the enemy of perfect.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Of course, the line of text that you responded to had an accompanying five lines.Ha Ha...Such was your subjective objective.
I objected to multiple subjects and subjectively found an objective by responding to only one subject.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
They that decided that everything was purposeless and committed suicide, saw purpose in their actions.
Finding purpose in purposelessness. Priceless.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
This means nothing if you’re a nihilist who thinks otherwise.
And...?
I’m arguing in favor of nihilism so most people are irrelevant.
Fair enough. I acknowledge your philosophy though I disagree with it because your values as a nihilist are not in accordance with mine. To me, most people are relevant. Please don't ask me why or this could go on forever.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
That’s redundant, what reason is there to have a survival instinct?
I'm not a scientist but there is probably an evolutionary reason. And apropos of nothing, according to Wikipedia, self-preservation is thought by some to be the basis of rational and logical thought and behavior.
Everyone that has committed suicide isn’t living comfortably.
Sad but true. I, however, was speaking of most people.
Like going to heaven? I agree.
I would certainly not be dismissive of your purpose. It will keep you from being included in the previous category of people.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
What rational support do you have for that claim? Because if there’s nothing waiting for me on the other side I see no reason to care if I live or die.
There are many reasons to want to live. Survival instinct is the main reason. Self-preservation is considered universal among all living organisms. As for living comfortably in a society, we wouldn't be living in communities if it weren't beneficial.
if there’s nothing waiting for me on the other side I see no reason to care if I live or die.
That can be resolved by having a purpose in life.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
That would make non-religious morality itself irrational. I understand that you believe in a religious objective morality. But...
Perhaps some values should not be considered subjective such as valuing one's own life (for most it would be impossible not to) or wanting to live in a civil society (it is extremely difficult to live alone with no societal comforts and assistance). This would be in accordance with Wylted's "prime morals" or what I call "prime values". It is logical and rational to want to live and live comfortably. Morals are necessary to accomplish that when living among others, making those morals rational.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
nothing subjective is rational
That is an interesting claim, I'd never thought about it before. You may be right. However...
Sticking with the topic of morality, would it not be logical and rational to create a moral code that is aligned with one's values or does the fact that one's values are subjective make them and a moral code irrational?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
@Double_R
“Anyone who is not treated with the same deference as everyone else is by definition being treated unfairly.”
Two additional questions - would you say that literally everyone is treated unfairly as no two people are treated with the exact same deference? They may be treated similarly, but not the same. People treat people differently when considering who is morally deserving of what, which includes rewards and punishments. Or do those things accurately balance the scales when deference is not equal?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
morals seem to have a more social function and values are personal
Completely agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I would say that values represent what is important to you. Morals inform the choices and actions one makes while trying to attain or maintain those values. My take is that values precede morals, not the other way around. I don't think it is substantively accurate to say that because I believe murder is wrong, I therefore value human life even though it might be technically accurate to say that. More accurate is to say that because I value human life, murder should be wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
This might seem like a semantic disagreement but I would replace the term "prime morals" with "prime values". Values are what determine morality. If you value this, then you should or should not do that. It is true that most people value human life and as a consequence, believe that it is wrong to murder. Based on your definition of objective, you could say that objective morality exists because most people share the same prime values.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Would you say that all morality is objective or just some aspects of it such as your aforementioned "prime morals"?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Regardless of whether they think morality is objective or subjective, I think most people have a difficult time in some situations deciding which course of action is the morally correct one to pursue.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
To say that morality is both objective and complicated sounds contradictory. Or do you mean that even though a given moral action to be taken is objective, it can be very difficult to discern?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
something’s are either right or wrong regardless of what one thinks.
What are those things? Is all morality objective or just some things?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Do you consider values and morals to be the same thing?
No, I don't. In a nutshell, values relate to our wants and needs; morals relate to the means (choices, actions), by which, we attain them.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
But then, one mans morality is another's immorality...Such is subjective data processing.
That pretty much sums it up.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Yes through heaven or hell, the moral actions are rewarded in heaven and the immoral actions are punished in hell.
Since I can't say one way or another if that is true, I have nothing meaningful so say in response.
Created: