Re: Murder and free will
Thank you for dialoging, you have formulated your conclusions in a much clearer and precise way, but I'm afraid it's still not near enough. You continue to make unjustified assumptions and try to base your logic off of those assumptions. Since your conclusions rest upon the truthness of the assumptions, until you can prove them you have not made any progress.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can you be getting better at making unjustified assumptions? Can you really define a "good" unjustified assumption and a "better" one?
[/ QUOTE ]
The assumption remains the same. That observations we make reflect the reality. I never changed my assumption. I am referring to our ability to make better observations. It is true that my assumption is unjustified.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're just begging the question. I'm asking you how you can know if your assumptions are better or good and you respond by saying "That observations we make reflect the reality" but you have yet to prove that observations are indeed accurate reflections of reality, which is the question I'm asking.
[ QUOTE ]
However, there is a way to prove that my assumption is wrong. If it is proven that my assumption is wrong, I will have to change my assumption. But your premise cannot be proven to be wrong. Once you accept it you are stuck with it, because the underlying logic prohibits you from looking at different assumptions. I think, my assumption gives me more freedom and offers me greater flexibility.
[/ QUOTE ]
This amounts to saying:
1)Observations are reliable
2)This can be proven wrong
3)Therefore, observations are "better"
1)You still haven't proven 1 true. You have merely continued to beg the question by assuming it without justification.
2)How would you prove an observation false. How do you convince someone that there is no pink elephant sitting on the test if thats what his observations tell him?
3)How does falsifiability make something "better" or "worse." Do you need the flexibility to believe that 2+2 can equal 5 in order for 2+2 to equal 4? You continue to make irrational assumptions.
[ QUOTE ]
Not formally. However I can try and make a case. Every one living on Earth came from a long line of survivers. It appears that in order to survive, a desire to survive proved to be useful. Therefore, most of us have inherited a strong desire to survive from our ancestors. This desire is not a learned logical construct. It is something we are born with. Even as babies we cry because we want our caregivers to tend to our survival needs.
[/ QUOTE ]
To summarize
1) Everyone living on earth came from a long line of survivors
Can you prove this? It seems like quite the claim and it is crucial to your point, but in order to prove it you must somehow examine every person living on earth and their "line" and show that it fits the definition of "long" and "survivors"
2) It appears that in order to survive, a desire to survive proved to be useful.
This is the very question I'm asking you to prove!
3)This desire is not a learned logical construct. It is something we are born with. Even as babies we cry because we want our caregivers to tend to our survival needs.
More unjustified assumptions. Can you prove that survival is not learned by logical construct? Can you prove that it is something we are "born with"? Can you prove that babies cry because they want caregivers to tend to our survival needs?
Thus far you've made unjustified assumption after unjustified assumption.
[ QUOTE ]
If a desire to survive is beneficial for survival, than those who have it will have an advantage over those who do not have it. There will be more people surviving among those who want to survive. According to my observations, a majority of people have desire to survive. Are your observations different? Do you know of anyone whose observations are different?
[/ QUOTE ]
Unjustified assumptions:
1)Those who have a desire for survival have an advantage over those who do not. There will be more people surviving among those who want to survive
You have yet to define what a "desire for suvival" is, and now it seems like you define "advantage" as surviving. So now you've run the loop: who survives? Those that have a desire for survival. Who has a desire for survival? Those that survive! If you define the terms like that, yes it's true, but then you can go no further. your loop is closed and you cannot go from "survive" means "violence is wrong"
[ QUOTE ]
According to my observations, a majority of people have desire to survive. Are your observations different? Do you know of anyone whose observations are different?
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you talking about a "majority of people" in a small sense (just those you know?) Even so, did you ask every single one of them that you knew? If you define it as "those that survive" then ok, all people have that trait by their being alive, but how can you step from "all people are people" to "people shouldn't be killed" ? Plus I deny that observations on their own can be reliable (which you have still yet to prove) so your observations are still unjustified assumptions.
[ QUOTE ]
Let us suppose that we do not know how to record past observations and experiences. That means that we also do not know how to record this conversation. But I was able to read this conversation multiple times. I was able to read it, because it was recorded. Therefore it follows that we do know how to record past observations and experiences.
[/ QUOTE ]
1) Assume we do not know how to record observations
2) That means that we also do not know how to record this conversation
3) But I was able to read this conversation multiple times
4) I was able to read it, because it was recorded.
5) Therefore it follows that we do know how to record past observations and experiences.
Wait, so how can you use step 4 to disprove step 1? What if the conversation was directly implanted in your brain everytime you thought you were reading it? No recording, no record, just repeated implanting. I'm not saying this is true, just that your conclusion does not logically follow from your premises. Thus, more unjustified assumptions.
[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally, reading and writing is a technology. There was a time when people did not know how to read and write.
The word of god would be unavailable to these people in the same form as it is available to you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, since the Word of God is not a "book" but the knowledge contained therein, yes it would be in a differnt form, but that doesn't mean it still wasn't the same.
[ QUOTE ]
The point was that in order to obtain knowledge, one must try and do some observations. It is no use to ask god for knowledge. One must do some work. If you do not learn or experiment, god will not magically put knowledge in your head. Observe, formulate model, try to predict future observations, fail, change your model and observe some more. This is how knowledge is obtained.
[/ QUOTE ]
But thats the point we're trying to prove here. You're saying that observations provide knowledge. I deny it. You've asked for a reason for my knowledge and I've given it. You have yet to justify yours.
[ QUOTE ]
I am typing this message on a computer. Two hundred years ago no one knew a thing about computers. Now, most people do know something. Some know quite a bit. You know how to type on a computer, and many other things about computers.
Where did this knowledge come from? It is an additional knowledge that was not available in the past. We did not lose any knowledge available in the past. Therefore, we have more knowledge now than we had in the past.
[/ QUOTE ]
More unjustified assumptions:
1) Two hundred years ago no one knew a thing about computers.
Can you prove this?
2) Now, most people do know something.
But I'm questioning your very ability to know something for sure, how can you possibly make this claim? You continue to make logical deductions off a premise that you have yet to justify.
3) We did not lose any knowledge available in the past.
Can you prove this?
[ QUOTE ]
But Paul wrote many things that he knew in the bible. If you read the bible and see the things that Paul wrote, can you not assume that Paul knew these things? Just give me an example of the thing that you definitely know about god, but think it is unlikely that Paul knew that. For example, did Paul know that all knowledge in your head is put their by god's direct intervention?
[/ QUOTE ]
But all the Bible gives me is a lower bound on Paul's knowledge. I do not know if he's logically followed every word to it's necessary conclusion, some of which he wrote about, but maybe some of which he didn't.
I would say yes Paul did know that every piece of knowledge in his head was soveignly put there by God, because it is off of his writings that I base that statement. Paul says explicitly in Acts 17:28 "In him we live and move and have our being" with "him" referencing to God.
[ QUOTE ]
I have no certain knowledge about god. I can look at the evening sky and see stars twinking there. I can look at Hubble telescope pictures and see some close ups. I can learn about spectral analysis, and read about our best guesses at what the stars are made of. Do you think that the computer you use exists?
[/ QUOTE ]
But have you proven that what you see corresponds to reality? Not yet. Do you know stars even exist?
Yes, God has granted me the soveign knowledge that the computer I'm typing on exists. He has granted you the same knowledge for your own computer, but you deny Him.
|