Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[cheeezywheeezy]

Originally posted by Stratnerd
the further back in the past you go the less similar organisms are to modern forms with fewer and fewer taxa being represented (i.e., mammals disappear, then dinosaurs, then reptiles, then amphibians).

mammals disappeared? and then the dino's disappeared?

i think you might have your order wrong. Last time i checked mammals were still around...as are reptiles and amphibians too!

shouldn't the order be single cell -> multi-celled -> ... -> fish -> amphibian -> reptile -> mammal?

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Scrimshaw
There has never existed a society that did NOT believe it was morally wrong to MURDER."

Scrimshaw,
I suggest you have created a classical tautology.

to remove the negatives, we could say "all societies believe it is/was morally wrong to MURDER". but this is not very helpful.

In logic a tautology is a compound propositional form all of whose instances are true, as "A or not A.'an instance of such a form, as "This candidate will win or will not win.'

It may or may not rain today. That is always true, so why say it?

If any society is left to define the circumstances under which "unlawful killing" is "murder", then they are "free" to kill whomever they choose and deem it as legal (i.e. not murder). Such self-serving laws are not necessarily moral, but we can't make such a moral judgment without a lawgiver which resides external to the societal system.

Where might such a cosmic lawgiver come from? Hmmm.

 

[Stratnerd]

cheese,

i was going back in time... it is the origin, not the extinction of a particular taxon that is important.

 

[cheeezywheeezy]

I thought that's what you were doing. I wanted to make sure so I could ask this question...

Are you saying that as we go back in time the fossil record will be void of mammals when dino's were around?

And the fossil record will be void of reptiles when amphibians were around?

Did you really mean to say that they disappear?

 

[Scrimshaw]

Eireann,


***NOTE: I will adopt your preferred definition of murder as "unlawful killing", simply to save time and because it has no bearing on the veracity of my arguments. However, at the end of this post, I prove that the perception of innocence goes hand-in-hand with all societies' definitions of murder.


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about you quit your semantical tap dance and provide even ONE example of any moral system that believes it is morally "right" for their own security and safety to be threatened. Find even one example and I'll agree with you that "if" is the keyword above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Eireann
When did I say "right?" I said "not wrong." They aren't the same thing. "Not wrong" simply implies that personal safety and security is of greater importance than any notion of right or wrong. Ethics doesn't necessarily even enter into it; it's a pure matter of survival, which is baser than ethical codes.

Then provide an example of a single human society that believed it was "not wrong" to have their security and stability threatened. By the way, we are talking about homo sapiens, not a litter of cats. Humans operate on ethical codes, not just instinct. When we are talking about human societies, ethics DO necessarily enter into it.......unless you think there is or ever has been a human society that had no ethics, but operated *purely* on animalic instincts.....in which case I'd ask you to prove it.


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then that would mean that he thinks a "threatening act" is wrong!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read it again. I didn't equate "wrong" with a "threatening act."

I know. I am the one who equated the two. Human societies have always attached a moral/ethical condition to murder, and other "threatening acts". That is one of the things that distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Our ethical systems. Remember, we are talking about human societies here, not a troop of lions out on the Serengeti.


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is not a culture on the planet that believes "murder" is morally "right".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe, maybe not. But can you prove that every culture that is, that has ever been, and that ever could be does not consider there to be some circumstances where murder is not morally wrong?

I don't have to prove a negative. If you claim such a society exists, then the onus is on you to prove it.



I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The moral opposition to murder is not a "western" belief. It is a worldwide belief and has existed in every society since the dawn of man. If I am wrong about that, all you'd have to do to refute me is provide even ONE example of a society that did not consider murder morally WRONG.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are some societies whose laws are not moral laws.

All human law has some kind of a moral/ethical system behind it. Humans are moral/ethical creatures. We do not operate without morals and ethics. That is what makes us unique in the animal kingdom. More on this below.......

For example, monarchies (especially feudal monarchies) and dictatorships, where laws are dictated, proposed, established and maintained by a single leader or a select few, despite the will of the people.

But even monarchies have laws against "unlawful killing", murder. For example, it is morally WRONG to kill the King. So even monarchistic governments have a conscious awareness of "murder" (unlawful killing), and morally oppose it.

Cuba, for example. In such times and places, while it would be against the law for a commoner to rise up and kill an overbearing soldier (murder), it would certainly not be viewed as wrong in the eyes of the majority of that society, although it would be wrong in the eyes of the power elite.

Even in Cuba they have a moral opposition to "unlawful killing". The commoners may have a different view of what is lawful or unlawful killing, but both the power elite AND commoners possess a conscious belief in unlawful killing (murder), and morally oppose it. For example, while the commoners may not think it is wrong to kill a soldier, they definitely would think it is wrong to kill other commoners. So no matter how you roll the dice, every single human society has some form of conscious opposition to "murder" (unlawful killing).



I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This has nothing to do with Westerners! It's a transcultural fact that there has never been a human society that did not consider murder morally WRONG.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I just showed you one.

No, all you did was show how a government and commoners can sometimes have different ideas about what "murder" is. I will show below that murder is defined by the perception of innocence. Both governments and commoners share a conscious moral opposition to murder. (unlawful killing) They simply differ on WHO they think has a lawful/moral right to live. (In other words, they have differing views on who is "innocent of deserving death".)



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're right. I could be totally wrong! Maybe there is some society that considered murder morally "right". Now, care to tell us what society that is?? Go ahead. Don't be shy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furthermore, your confession that such a society could exist is good enough for me. And as I said in another thread, I am more interested in possibilities than in probabilities, because the possibility of such a society existing negates the absolute,

All things are possible to greater or lesser degrees because everything we judge to be possible or impossible is based on human logic, which in turn is based on fallible human knowledge. If our knowledge is fallible, then so is any logic that is based on that knowledge. That fallibility means we would be naive to categorically rule something out as "impossible". However, that fallibility does not mean we can't make absolute statements. With that said, I am "absolutely" certain that there are no invisible pink martian bunnies living on the moon, just like I am "absolutely" certain there are no human societies that do not possess a conscious awareness of "unlawful killing", and morally oppose it.


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are proving to be a very dishonest debater.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is it that every time I point out a fallacy in my opponent's argumentation, I get accused of "dishonest debate." Is it just a Christian thing?

You have sophistic tendancies. This is proved by your propsenity to quibble over semantics that have no bearing on the logical merits of the argument you are opposing. This is a condition also known as "Not Seeing the Forest for the Trees" Syndrome. (NSTFFTTS)


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So which part of my "redefinition" doesn't apply to the act of murder? Are you going to claim that ... the victim is NOT "innocent"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not going to make any claim about the innocence or lack thereof for any given murder victim. But I will claim, as I just did above, that "innocent" is not a requirement for a killing to be murder.

As I stated at the beginning of this post, I will adopt your definition of murder as (unlawful killing) in order to save time. However, the perception of innocence goes hand-in-hand with all human perceptions of murder. In nearly all cases, societies distinguish "murder" (unlawful killing) from lawful killing based on their perception of who is *innocent of deserving death*. If someone is killed who the society/government views as *innocent of deserving death*, then that killing will be defined as "murder" (unlawful/immoral killing). So my definition was not incorrect at all. I am only conceding it to save time and disengage semantical quibblings....and also because conceding that part of my definition has absolutely no bearing on the veracity of my argument.

 

[Stratnerd]

Are you saying that as we go back in time the fossil record will be void of mammals when dino's were around?

i think mammals were around since the dinosaurs but for the most part yes, that is, there are fewer and fewer mammals. You can use almost any taxonomic scale and their are fewer and fewer modern representatives the farther back in time you go.

And the fossil record will be void of reptiles when amphibians were around?

no, the presence of amphis does not preclude reptiles (obviously) but there is a time when there are no "reptiles", mammals, etc and only amphibians

Did you really mean to say that they disappear?

i'm using the term loosely... do you not get the gist?

 

[drbrumley]

Z has alittle more than an hour and a half. Will he make it?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

We'll see shortly...

 

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by Stratnerd
at what point do you decide that a natural explanation doesn't exist?

When all natural explanations have terminal problems and fail to explain the phenomena.

i think you might be better off just saying something isn't known since induction can be misleading. and with the origin of life, neither theory can really be tested, particularly the supernatural explanation.

I have no problem saying the origin of the cell is not "known". Very few things are conclusively "known". Regarding unverifiable origin theories, we believe what we believe based on induction and probability, not direct knowledge. And since there is no possible natural process that could mindlessly create something as irreducibly complex as a cell, it most *probably* was not created by a natural process.

but where does induction lead if you look at some simple observation - the geological record, for the most part, shows increasing dissimilarity with increasing temporal distances such that the further back in the past you go the less similar organisms are to modern forms with fewer and fewer taxa being represented (i.e., mammals disappear, then dinosaurs, then reptiles, then amphibians).

It leads me to the same conclusion I would draw if I were to go into a tricycle factory after hours and see how tricycles existed in different states at different points on the assembly line. All products that are intelligently designed go through a creation process that contains an appearance of "evolution". Watch a quick-time video of the construction of a skyscraper sometime, and you'll see "progressive creation" by intelligent designers in action.

and probably why nobody has proposed it "popping" into being.

Since there is no pre-cursor to the cell, it would HAVE to have "popped" into existence fully-formed. Do you have a fossil record of the evolution of the cell? If not, then zip it.

well if something isn't natural then isn't it supernatural by implication?

Yes. That is something you should keep in mind the next time you hear a naturalist blabber about how the "lack of a supernatural explanation" automatically implies a natural explanation.

why? nobody, except you, suggests that cells popped into existence as is

Nobody? And nobody can show that the cell evolved from a pre-cell lifeform, and nobody can show how the interdepedence of the cell's subsystems could ever be different and allow the cell to still survive. So the only logical conclusion is the cell was created - "AS IS". I'm saddened to hear that "nobody except me" applies basic logical reasoning towards the origin of the cell.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by Brenda Omniscience may be required to fully know God, but why can't we know him in part? An analogy might be your dog. Surely a dog is not smart enough to understand everything you are about, but it can learn simple tricks from your cues and knows that you are the one who feeds it, plays with it, walks it... it remembers your smell, etc.

Hi Brenda,

Sure, but we are a physical reality to the dog. We actually effect the dog in objective and quantifiable ways. But God as God is most often portrayed is not a physical reality (or God is ALL of physical reality, which isn't really a difference, to us). If God is not here, what "part" of God can we know? Can we know God's body? Can we know God's mind? Can we know God's limitations? How can we tell if we're interacting with God or not, if God isn't physically here?

Originally posted by Brenda Many believe that God has revealed himself to us in creation and in scripture. Surely he hasn't revealed everything about himself, but he has attempted to reveal some part of himself that we can understand in a way that we can understand it.

People do believe this, and they also believe all sorts of other things, too. But on what are these beliefs based? Beliefs based on desire, wishful thinking, magic, heresay, fantasy, myth, intuition, and fear are not knowledge. They are still just beliefs.

For a belief to become knowledge, actual objective experience is needed. But being that "God" as God is traditionally understood, has no identifiable physical manifestation, there's no way for us to "know" God, even in part.

Now it's true that if we define God as being something that we can experience physically, then we could say we "know" God. If God is "wet", then I have objective experience of wetness and therefor knowledge of God. If God is defined as "the wind", I have objective experience (and therefor knowledge) of God. But we don't generally define God this way, and so can't really "know" God experientially. We can still believe, of course. We just can't know.

 

[Stratnerd]

When all natural explanations have terminal problems and fail to explain the phenomena.

all tested or all that exist? that's the problem with induction.

also, since there has never been a demonstration of supernatural creation can we also use induction to suggest that it doesn't exist?

we believe what we believe based on induction and probability

how does this work then for the supernatural since it has never been observed and probabilities associated with it cannot be calculated?

appearance of "evolution"

a minute ago you were saying to use induction, which I assume you mean that we use logic and observation and make judgements. Now you are saying to to ignore that since some things are just apparent and not real. So which is it? Plus those analogies are inappropriate since buildings and trikes hardly have the properties of living organisms (genetic code, reproduce, etc) also design is apparent because characters exist solely and explicitly for the benefit of another organism - something lacking in organisms

Since there is no pre-cursor to the cell, it would HAVE to have "popped" into existence fully-formed.

do you know how to do science?

If not, then zip it.

you're kidding? that's silly. if this was science was done we wouldn't go anywhere!

Yes. That is something you should keep in mind the next time you hear someone blabber about how the "lack of a supernatural explanation" implies a natural explanation.

i do!

So the only logical conclusion is the cell was created AS IS.

The only???? Since supernatural creation was never observed is "the only" logical conclusion that the supernatural doesn't exist? Maybe it ain't time to make conclusions yet!

 

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by LightSon
I suggest you have created a classical tautology. to remove the negatives, we could say "all societies believe it is/was morally wrong to MURDER". but this is not very helpful.

It doesn't have to be "helpful". It's historical FACT. If you disagree that it is a historical fact, then you need to provide at least one example of a human society that did NOT possess a conscious belief in "unlawful killing".

In logic a tautology is a compound propositional form all of whose instances are true, as "A or not A.'an instance of such a form, as "This candidate will win or will not win.' It may or may not rain today. That is always true, so why say it?

Wrong. My argument is not a tautalogy. My argument is not - "all societies may or may not believe murder is/was morally wrong".

If any society is left to define the circumstances under which "unlawful killing" is "murder",

Now YOU are the one committing the tautalogy because "unlawful killing" *IS* murder, by definition.

then they are "free" to kill whomever they choose and deem it as legal (i.e. not murder). Such self-serving laws are not necessarily moral, but we can't make such a moral judgment without a lawgiver which resides external to the societal system.

God created humans a free will agents, thus, humans have always been free to define their own laws. Human freedom is not the point in question. The point in question is whether or not the moral opposition to "unlawful killing" is an absolute morality that has had a universal presence in all human society, and the answer to that question is - YES.

Where might such a cosmic lawgiver come from? Hmmm.

It depends on how you define the lawgiver. If you define the lawgiver as God, then by definition, the lawgiver did not have an origin because God is usually defined as eternal and without origin. So asking "where God came from" would be an incorrect question. It's like asking where the headless horsemen's head came from. (Since he is defined as not having a head, it would be logically invalid to ask where his "head" came from)

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by RogerB
Falling deeper and deeper into unknown territory, PureX tries to explain Roger's life experiences. PureX must have graduated along with Eireann from the What I Speak Becomes Truth School of Conceited People With Big Heads.

Having nothing of value to add to the discussion, and falling deeper and deeper into his own sense of righteousness, Roger simply calls other people names ....

 

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by PureX
Sure, but we are a physical reality to the dog. We actually effect the dog in objective and quantifiable ways. But God as God is most often portrayed is not a physical reality (or God is ALL of physical reality, which isn't really a difference, to us). If God is not here, what "part" of God can we know? Can we know God's body? Can we know God's mind? Can we know God's limitations? How can we tell if we're interacting with God or not, if God isn't physically here?

The dog analogy is interesting and you bring in a good point, PureX, that we are a physical reality to the dog. But the dog in its lower intelligence doesn't really understand "physical reality" like we do. So simply because we are physically real to the dog doesn't mean the dog understands what it means that we are physically real to the dog. In the same way that the dog can't fully understand what it means that we are physically real, maybe we can't understand what it means that God is spiritually real. The dog analogy still seems valid to me.

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Scrimshaw
It doesn't have to be "helpful". It's historical FACT. If you disagree that it is a historical fact, then you need to provide at least one example of a human society that did NOT possess a conscious belief in "unlawful killing".



Wrong. My argument is not a tautalogy. My argument is not - "all societies may or may not believe murder is/was morally wrong".



Now YOU are the one committing the tautalogy because "unlawful killing" *IS* murder, by definition.



God created humans a free will agents, thus, humans have always been free to define their own laws. Human freedom is not the point in question. The point in question is whether or not the moral opposition to "unlawful killing" is an absolute morality that has had a universal presence in all human society, and the answer to that question is - YES.



It depends on how you define the lawgiver. If you define the lawgiver as God, then by definition, the lawgiver did not have an origin because God is usually defined as eternal and without origin. So asking "where God came from" would be an incorrect question. It's like asking where the headless horsemen's head came from. (Since he is defined as not having a head, it would be logically invalid to ask where his "head" came from)

It's clear that my point was muddled. I'll take the blame for that.

You said ""all societies believe it is/was morally wrong to MURDER". Yes I realize it of a different form than the example I gave - I intended that as background information only. A tautology is simply a statment that is worded so as to always be true.

You said
""all societies believe it is/was morally wrong to MURDER",

which I believe to be always true, PROVIDED

my statement is true. That is,
"If any society is left to define the circumstances under which "unlawful killing" is "murder", then yes, my statement is, as you point out, a tautology. But then so is your statement a tautology.

The key is "If any society is left to define ". Why would society not be left on its own to define "murder" however it chooses?

The only disruption to society having the right to define "murder" is the presence of an external lawgiver.

The point in question is whether or not the moral opposition to "unlawful killing" is an absolute morality that has had a universal presence in all human society, and the answer to that question is - YES.
...

If you define the lawgiver as God, then by definition, the lawgiver did not have an origin because God is usually defined as eternal and without origin.

I would define the universal absolute lawgiver as God. Would you?

 

[Brenda]

Whoa! My brain is churning, and my heart can't take these 45 hour wait times for each post! I might actually need at least 24 hours to comprehend Zakath's second post before I'm ready for Enyart's reply!

Each post makes me more anxious for the next. Good show, guys!

 

[kidd94]

Everyone will have to forgive me for being way off topic. But Zakath's last post stirred up something that I saw about a year and half ago. I believe it was on 20/20 or Dateline, and they had a documentary on a man who might be considered smarter then even Steven Hawking. You will have to forgive me for not having exact names and places but this has been a while ago. But I remember telling people this because I thought that this man's story was very interesting.

See this man maybe considered the smartest man alive in the world today. This man has taken test after test after test to try and chart his IQ level. Each result has always been the same. There was no way to measure his intelligence. His IQ is so far off the charts that it dumbfounded scholars alike. One man if I remember correctly said that there is no way to measure it at all. And the reason why I bring this up and remember this is because they compared him to Steven Hawking. And this man's intellegence was far above Steven Hawkings.

The one thing that was found to be interesting is that this man is not a Nuclear Physicist nor a Cosmologist or whatever smart guys do. This man was a bouncer in a bar. He smoked big stogies, wore wife beaters and blue jeans. He lives in a very modest home made of cynder block. He works only for the little money he makes to live on and pay the bills. He likes the social aspect of what he does for a living. But when he is not working, he reads and reads. He is a mathematical Genius. Understands all theories relating to time on physics and what not.

But here is the kicker. This man's one goal in life is to do one thing. To prove the existence of a god using mathematical equations.

That took me for a surprise. Why. Because so many scientists are out there trying to look for the tangible smoking gun that will prove that this world and universe came into existence by chance. When here we have a man that realizes that God and physics go hand and hand.

He didn't say that this god is the Christian God or the muslim Allah, but stated that there is a being who has created all this and one day would like to see his existence proven using math. He said all things can be proven using math.

I will try and see if I can find some info on this guy on the internet somewhere. I am sure that someone has found an interest in his background and is has a website on him somewhere.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

I thought Zakath's response was pretty lame. He cites physical laws that don't even exist. Parting with reality so soon in the game is gonna hurt him in this debate, I feel.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by philosophizer
The dog analogy is interesting and you bring in a good point, PureX, that we are a physical reality to the dog. But the dog in its lower intelligence doesn't really understand "physical reality" like we do. So simply because we are physically real to the dog doesn't mean the dog understands what it means that we are physically real to the dog.

Sure, but the dog doesn't have to understand physics the way we do, he only has to recognize us and respond. He does this because he can physically see us, smell us, touch us, etc., and interact with us. This is how he "knows" us. (Incidentally, this is also how we know each other, too.)

Originally posted by philosophizer In the same way that the dog can't fully understand what it means that we are physically real, maybe we can't understand what it means that God is spiritually real. The dog analogy still seems valid to me.

This is a good point, I think. And it's one of several reasons why I don't dismiss the possible existence of "God". Because we can't know what we don't know, we can't know what could exist beyond our ability to perceive it or comprehend. This doesn't prove that God DOES exist, as so many folks might propose, but it certainly does open up the possibility. And there are other similarly reasonable possibilities, as well. And for myself, personally, there are also the positive effects of choosing to believe in God even though I can't prove to myself or anyone else that God actually does exist. I find that the belief in itself has real and quantifiable value.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Parting with reality so soon in the game is gonna hurt him in this debate, I feel.

Zakath has been known to do this quite often.