Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[PureX]

Originally posted by 1Way My understanding of the word “certain”, or “certainty”, is that it is a variable, just like the word you used, “probability”. Some things are more or less “certain”; and some things are more or less “probable”. I thought that I sufficiently clarified this by saying that we did not say “absolutely certain”.

If the word "certainty" does not define an infinite, such as an "absolute certainty", then your whole "contradiction" idea falls apart. My original point was that we human beings can't be absolutely certain that what we believe we "know" is true, is true. The reason for this is that we know that we don't know all that there is to be known, and because we don't possess ALL knowledge, we can't ever be sure how the knowledge that we don't possess would change or effect what we think we do know. Therefor, what we think we do know can never be fully assured. As long as we are not omniscient, we cannot be absolutely certain of anything.

If your definition of the word "certain" does not include "absolute certainty", then so be it. But if it does not, then certainty is a relative value (and I guess I have to agree with you that it is), and your claim that being uncertain would mean that we "can't know anything" is also untrue. Thus your imagined "contradiction" doesn't exist, because it relies on the absolute extreme.

Originally posted by 1Way I was not using irrational extremes to play the fool. I simply applied your own concept to see if it is viable or not and found that it denies itself.

It does not "deny itself" unless you twist the meaning of words to their absolute extreme, which you have now just claimed they do not imply.

Originally posted by 1Way A world with no certainty would certainly mean that there would be nothing certain,...

But you just stated yourself that the word "certainty" does not imply the absolute. So a world without certainty would NOT mean that NOTHING is certain, it would only mean that it would be relatively uncertain.

Originally posted by 1Way ....yet we supposedly just established one certainty, which is that everything is uncertain.

But you just stated yourself that certainty is not absolute, so whatever certainty has been established, it doesn't rule out all uncertainty.

Originally posted by 1Way ... But everything can not be uncertain if one thing is certain.

They can if certainty is not absolute, but is only relative, as you pointed out at the outset of your own post.

Originally posted by 1Way So that view can’t be true since there would be at least one certainty as the foundation for this world where everything is uncertain, so this view is self-contradictory and thus cannot be true.

It's you who are contadicting yourself by applying an absolute meaning to the word certainty, and then claiming that if it's absolutely certain, it would cancel out it's own claim.

The flaw in all this is the "absolute". If one claims that absolutes absolutely do not exist, they are contradicting their own claim. And this is the argument people who believe in absolutes try so desperately to force relativists into making. But in fact relativists are NOT making that claim, and never were. A relativist CAN'T make that claim, in fact. All the relativist claims is that we can't KNOW if something is absolute or not. The claim "we can't know if absolutes exist" is not the claim "we know absolutes do not exist". In your effort to make the first claim appear to be the second, so that it would contradict itself, you had to interject an absolute to render it contradictory, and so have in fact just managed to prove the relativist's claim true.

And yes, the "mask" comment on my last post was meant to be a joke.

 

[heusdens]

Even when all things that exists, are relative, we have to consider change and eternity (the world being in eternal motion) to be the only absolutes.

 

[tenkeeper]

You can't buck
The Master of creation
For all you will know
Is futile frustration
In the attempt
No one is exempt
From this fact

 

[RogerB]

I'm a little stunned at how poorly Zak is doing. I expected a better battle. Bob's form, style, and content are soundly beating Zak's.

 

[ZroKewl]

ATTENTION SIR KNIGHT!!!

ATTENTION SIR KNIGHT!!!

ATTENTION SIR KNIGHT!!!

I have posted a thread wanting to truly be able to understand what you and other theists mean when you share your belief in Absolute Morality -- Absolute Right & Wrong. Pastor Bob uses this as evidence that God exists. I would truly and sincerely like to understand what you both (and others) mean when you say that an action can be "absolutely right" or "absolutely wrong".

In order to understand what you mean, I have started this thread with a series of questions that I think will most likely clear up this confusion once and for all. I think the debate you had with Zakath and the one that Pastor Bob is having now show that there is a misunderstanding of what you mean by "absolute morality" and what Zakath and others think. Maybe not, but it looks that way.

If you (and/or other well versed theists who believe in "absolute morality") could PLEASE take the time to answer my questions and perhaps help some people (christian & non-christians both) understand this, that would be EXTREMELY APPRECIATED!!!

Thank You!
--ZK

 

[Zakath]

ZroKewl,

Check your links fella. I think you may be pointing to a different thread than you intended...

 

[ZroKewl]

Originally posted by Zakath
ZroKewl,

Check your links fella. I think you may be pointing to a different thread than you intended...

Indeed. Thanks, buddy.

 

[Zakath]

You're welcome.

 

[heusdens]

Theism and lies.

God speaking to man, that God is there and created the heaven and the earth, is of course a baseless assertion, if God in the first place fails to exist which would mean that all written doctrines about the "word of God" would rely on mere lies. Lies because the truth, which as we all know is not "in the mind" but in our objective world, in and all around us, give no indiication and even no hope for any indication ever, that such a Deity can have existence, that is objective existence independend and outside of one's mind.

Of God we can only know about in the form of principles or ideas or concepts, which as we know, do not make it into the world as objective entities. Instead, ideas and principles are mere abstractions, residing entirely within our minds, taken from the outside objective reality, despite all theist claims to the contrary.

The objective world, on the other hand, does not need us to belief in it, to pray for it, or to endorese it, cause the world makes it existence clear to us through all our senses, states itself positvely, and negates it's own negation.

Theists and theism only finds victims in people, who despite the evidence the world is realy there, doubt this existence, and want to find hope of "better worlds" beyond the known and only truthfull, realy existing world. We can however not find real comfort, hope or sitisfaction in imaginations of after-worlds, which puts us to the task making this world a better place for anyone.

In this way theism deceives many that after having lead a miserable life, one can find "comfort" in an after-world. This is what theism is realy for, fool people that they would have to just "wait" for them to have a better place in heaven, and not take action in the only real world, for creating themselves a better place, for fighting poverty, exploitation, illness, and suffering.

Since there is only this world, and we have only this life, we are urged to reflect on it and act in it in a different way, even if that means struggling for your rights.

 

[heusdens]

Re: ATTENTION SIR KNIGHT!!!

Re: ATTENTION SIR KNIGHT!!!

Originally posted by ZroKewl
ATTENTION SIR KNIGHT!!!

I have posted a thread wanting to truly be able to understand what you and other theists mean when you share your belief in Absolute Morality -- Absolute Right & Wrong. Pastor Bob uses this as evidence that God exists. I would truly and sincerely like to understand what you both (and others) mean when you say that an action can be "absolutely right" or "absolutely wrong".

In order to understand what you mean, I have started this thread with a series of questions that I think will most likely clear up this confusion once and for all. I think the debate you had with Zakath and the one that Pastor Bob is having now show that there is a misunderstanding of what you mean by "absolute morality" and what Zakath and others think. Maybe not, but it looks that way.

If you (and/or other well versed theists who believe in "absolute morality") could PLEASE take the time to answer my questions and perhaps help some people (christian & non-christians both) understand this, that would be EXTREMELY APPRECIATED!!!

I don't think the issue is wether one should KNOW about Absolute Morality or any other theistic interpretation of morality, the only real issue is TO ACT ACCORDINGLY.

If the so-called christian world had done so in the past, the holocaust would not have happened.

If all christians have so much knowledge about morality, THEN WHY DIDN'T THEY ACT ACCORDINGLY?

Morality is not what you THINK but what you DO!

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by heusdens
Theism and lies.

What demon has you?

 

[Zakath]

One, like mine, that you cannot exorcise, Jay. It's called knowledge.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Freak
What demon has you?

The conviction that knowledge about the real world, is demonstratable and testable in the world. The world provides for us the knowledge and tests about all the truths that can be found.

Which is to say I don't pretend that I can know everything, and build up "truth" from my mind only, or by spoken or written word, to know truth for mankind means that one has to test one's concept in mind, with the objective reality outside and independend of one's mind.

Who is to say who is right about gravity for example, Newton or Einstein? What is the arbiter there? Reality itself, of course! Einstein was proved right by performing an observation that sucessfully proved the predictions of Einstein were right, and those of Newton wrong. Although in the ordinary cases, both the predictions of Newton and Einstein about gravity yield the same numerical result, the test performed during a sun eclipse and measuring the bending of light by a distant star, proved Einstein right.

When we have the world itself to find for truth, why do we need the "word of God" then?

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by heusdens

When we have the world itself to find for truth, why do we need the "word of God" then?

Unlike you I'm not a scientific religionist that is bound merely to science. I draw truth from general revelation, Scripture, Natural Law, reason, and science.

 

[Soulman]

Dave said,

ANY grouping of neurons with sensory input has a certain level of consciousness to it. Thought and consciousness are DRIVEN by sensory input.

I appreciate the distinction you’re making. Prior to the development of neurons, there was no consciousness. But, how does this solve the problem of matter without consciousness becoming matter with consciousness? You are saying, “neurons did it,” but neurons themselves are composed of unconscious matter. Neurons may explain the mechanics of consciousness, or how consciousness “works,” but neurons cannot explain themselves. At some point neurons didn’t exist, and at some point neurons “appeared.” You have explained consciousness by attributing consciousness to neurons, but substituting one word for another (neurons for consciousness) does not solve the problem of where the consciousness generating capacity of neurons came from in the first place, other than falling back on the grand catch-all explanation of “evolution” (atheists have their catch-all, theists have theirs). The argument moves back a step further (from consciousness to neurons to…?), but you don’t have to be an atheist to accept the fact that neurons exist and are necessary for consciousness. Theists accept the reality of neurons, the same way theists accept the reality of arms and legs. Theists do not “deny” the reality of neurons, or consciousness. Theists reject what amounts to the atheist’s statement of faith that “Evolution Did It.”

Perhaps you’d agree that describing how consciousness “works” doesn’t prove anything, one way or the other. I’m not sure if anyone here is arguing about the mechanics of consciousness. The question seems to be how inert matter organized itself and moved from an unconscious state to a conscious state. Atheists say, “evolution did it.” Theists say, “God did it.” Atheists reject the alternative of theism, not because a creator doesn’t make sense or is theoretically impossible, but because they believe that a creator isn’t necessary. An atheist can say, “this is how consciousness might have happened without God,” or “this is how consciousness might have happened through evolution,” without having to prove their case. That isn’t science. That’s philosophy.

Soulman

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Freak
Unlike you I'm not a scientific religionist that is bound merely to science. I draw truth from general revelation, Scripture, Natural Law, reason, and science.

I am not a religionist, in that I don't see any reason for why there could be a deity, and since we never found or will find any evidence for the existence of deities, I ignore theistic interpretations of reality, since they have no factual meaning.

What do you do when a religious interpretaion of reality conflicts with a scientific interpretation? Or do you think science and theism can go together?

 

[Soulman]

Dave,

I said,

This is a retread of the spontaneous regeneration argument: Consciousness and mind “appears” where consciousness did not previously exist.

And you said,

That's not what I said. That is how you tried to reinterpret it.

Well, gee whiz, is it not true that at one point consciousness did NOT exist, and at another point consciousness DID exist? How complicated do you have to make this? Life and consciousness evolved from lifeless, unconscious matter. Is this what you believe, or hypothesize to be true, or not?

Soulman

 

[Soulman]

Dave,

I asked,

Is evolution in the habit of including extra bells and whistles such as “self-consciousness” when a stripped down, instinct-driven model will do the job?

And you said,

Yes. Evolution gave us peacock feathers and multi-colored baboon butts. It gave us short-curly afro-hair, and long, fine hair. It gives some of us 6 fingers and some of us vestigial tails. These bells and whistles appear, often without any use at all, until the environment changes, or a migration to a new environment, and suddenly they have a use. Your poor understanding of how natural selection works may explain the weakness of your analogy.

Dave, as far as you know, peacock feathers and multi-colored baboon butts could very well BE stripped down models of peacocks and baboons. My mistake may be in understanding that evolution seeks maximum efficiency, and therefore “avoids” wasting energy. You are saying (to use my expression) that “bells and whistles” appear useless, until the environment changes. Do you mean to say that an apparently “useless” feature will evolve (over hundreds of thousands or millions of years) in anticipation of changes in the environment? Maybe you said too much, but you seem to be saying that “bells and whistles” and apparently useless features are predictive adaptations to a future environment (again, possibly millions of years removed) the organism couldn’t possibly be aware of, no less physically prepare for. Pretty good trick, huh?

Soulman

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by heusdens
I am not a religionist.

You fooled us. Ha! FYI--you're a scientific religionist.

What do you do when a religious interpretaion of reality conflicts with a scientific interpretation?

*sigh* What do you do when scientific interpretation conflicts with spiriutal reality?

Or do you think science and theism can go together?

Yes.

 

[Soulman]

Dave,

You said,

That all depends on how robust your definition of "self conscious" is. I prefer to use the term consciousness to describe what a brain does when it thinks and responds to it's environment, and "self aware" to describe the complex conceptual understanding of knowing the difference between one's self and a mere image or reflection of one's self, and how that self fit into a larger group of other individuals. I'm not even sure if that's a good enough description.

I think this is an adequate definition or description of consciousness/self-consciousness, as far as it goes. A “continuum of consciousness,” apparent in and common to every creature with a brain, is not a problem for the theist. Smaller, less complex brains, dependent on relatively less sensory stimulation, will generate “smaller” levels of awareness or consciousness than larger, more complex brains with relatively more sensory stimulation. I think we can agree that there is a continuum of consciousness, without having to nit-pick one another to death over all the particulars.

At this point, we reach what I can only call a philosophical impasse. Is this continuum of consciousness the product of natural selection? Or is this continuum of consciousness the creation of a Supreme Being? I’m not attempting to argue that a Supreme Being is necessary as an explanation. I would argue, however, that the hypothesis of natural selection is not “more scientific,” but rather that the hypothesis of natural selection itself becomes “necessary” once the hypothesis of a Supreme Being is rejected. In other words, when the possibility of a Supreme Being is rejected, there is nowhere else to go but down, or back, evolutionarily speaking, in search of a naturalistic explanation.

There is nothing inherently “illogical” about a Supreme Being creating the universe, or creating species to inhabit this universe, or creating a continuum of consciousness among the species, regulated by brain size and/or complexity. Theists may not be able to “prove” the existence of a Supreme Being to the satisfaction of the atheist, but neither can atheists prove that a Supreme Being does not exist, nor can atheists prove their own hyposthesis. Atheism has merely erected a competing explanation; an explanation that becomes necessary when the possibility of a Supreme Being is denied. Natural selection is not a “better” explanation. Once the hypothesis of a Supreme Being is rejected, natural selection is, by default, the only “other” explanation.

Soulman