God is Love

[Girchuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Fortunately for me, I am not in a minority, otherwise my life would be in great danger and so would be the lives of many others.


[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know if you're in the minority or not? Additionally, you make an assumption that:

If one does not agree with the majority view, then one's life is in danger.

Can you prove this?



[/ QUOTE ]
This specifically referred to my personal belief that killing humans is wrong. Obviously, if the majority of humans believe that killing others is not wrong, than there will be more killings and my life will be in danger relatively to the present state.

[ QUOTE ]

Not all people value the same things I value. I accept that. As long as we can co-exist without violence, I cannot complain that your views are different from mine.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why does coexisting without violence be necessary for you not to complain? How are you all of a sudden justified in complaining about coexisting without violence? Is this a judgement that you make upon others? If so, then you refute yourself and imply that there is a universal qualification (namely a coexistance without violence) that makes something just or injust. If not then even if you complain, so what? You're supposed to coexist without violence right?


[/ QUOTE ]
No, coexistance without violence is again my personal preference. However, it is also my personal preference that no violence is directed at me. If violence is directed at me, my personal preference is violated, and I have to decide whether I want to do something about it. There is nothing universal about my personal preferences.
[ QUOTE ]


No. I am unable to make you feel the same as I feel. However, if your system of values is such that I have to die, we will inevitably reach violent disagreement. Either your system will be changed, or mine. Or one of us will die.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why would it necessarily reach a violent disagreement? It seems like you could kill yourself and solve the problem. No more disagreement. **note** I am not asking you to kill yourself, merely giving an alternative possibility to something you claim is "necesary"


[/ QUOTE ]
Because I do not want to be killed or kill myself. It has nothing to do with right and wrong. Problems of right and wrong are subordinate to my survival.
[ QUOTE ]


I will need a very good argument for this. I do not deny that it would be possible to convince me but in this case it would be very difficult


[/ QUOTE ]

The point of my arguement was that your logic does not necessarily lead to your conclusion. You claim that humans are the most complex thing you know and killing them reduces the complexity to your knowledge (which, to your opinion is a bad thing). I point out that it's merely your knowledge, so if someone could see that killing humans increases the complexity of their observation, then they would be justified in killing. Is that correct?


[/ QUOTE ]
Justified in whose view? Remember, I do not believe that there is a universal standard.
[ QUOTE ]

No, I said that in my view killing is wrong. I made no universal statements. If it is possible to persuade me that killing is not wrong that would also remove these extremely unpleasant emotions, my views would be changed.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was merely pointing out that your emotions (being as they are illogical) do not provide any grounds upon which you can say "killing is wrong." But you use the statement "killing is wrong" to support your arguement against "violence." If your emotions are irrational, why should other people accept them as support against violence? What gives your emotions any more validity than others? If I get weird kicks out of killing people, are my actions justified by my emotions?


[/ QUOTE ]
Justified in whose view? Certainly in yours. Definitely not in mine. This is exactly what I mean. If you want to kill me, we will necessarily come to a violent disagreement because you want to do something to me that I do not want you to do to me. If you wanted to kill yourself, we would not be necessarily in violent disagreement.

[ QUOTE ]

I have a pretty convincing (at least to me) evidence that on the subject of killings, many people agree with me. This evidence is that killing humans is illegal most everywhere in the world. If most people disagreed, these laws prohibiting killing of humans would be changed.
I cannot say for sure that this will not change in the future. I cannot even say for sure that my own views will not change in the future.


[/ QUOTE ]

More unjustified assumptions:

1)Killing humans is illegal most everywhere in the world

Can you prove this?


[/ QUOTE ]
This is not an easy task. This proof is possible by exhaustive listing of laws pertaining to killing of humans in different countries. There are about two hundred different countries. I concede that at this time I do not have time and resources necessary to complete this proof.

[ QUOTE ]

2)If most people disagreed with a law, it would be changed.

Can you prove this?


[/ QUOTE ]
This is the essence of democracy. If a majority disagrees with the law, it demands that the law is changed. The process of changing the law is very complex, but laws do get changed. For example, adultery laws that used to be on the books in all states no longer exist.

[ QUOTE ]

One point I would like to see addressed specifically is:

How can you establish "what is popular opinion is 'good' or 'right'"?

Do you have to resort to popular opinion to establish that statement? If yes, what if popular opinion changes on that issue? If no, then why don't you use the proof for establishing "what is popular opinion is 'good' or 'right' " to prove everything else? If no, what if popular opinion decides that the original assumption you used to prove "what popular opinion decides is 'right' or 'good' " is wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

If something is wrong in popular opinion, it does not mean that you have to agree. It means that if you act as if you do not agree, there are likely unpleasant consequences for you. The popular opinion is formally documented in laws. When popular opinion changes, laws also change. This is why it is convenient for me to estimate what is right and wrong in popular opinion by looking at the current laws.

[udontknowmickey]

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.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

How do you know if you're in the minority or not? Additionally, you make an assumption that:

If one does not agree with the majority view, then one's life is in danger.

Can you prove this?


[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, if the majority of humans believe that killing others is not wrong, than there will be more killings and my life will be in danger relatively to the present state.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, it is not obvious. You continue to beg the very question i'm asking you to prove. How do you know if you are in the minority or not? How do you know that being in the minority means bloodshed?

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Why does coexisting without violence be necessary for you not to complain? How are you all of a sudden justified in complaining about coexisting without violence? Is this a judgement that you make upon others? If so, then you refute yourself and imply that there is a universal qualification (namely a coexistance without violence) that makes something just or injust. If not then even if you complain, so what? You're supposed to coexist without violence right?


[/ QUOTE ]
No, coexistance without violence is again my personal preference. However, it is also my personal preference that no violence is directed at me. If violence is directed at me, my personal preference is violated, and I have to decide whether I want to do something about it. There is nothing universal about my personal preferences.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you can complain, but there is no justification for people to listen to you because it's all up to personal preference. People will listen to you if they want, and people won't listen to you if they don't. Why do you say Nazi Germany was wrong then? You shouldn't use violence to enforce a belief in non-violence right?

[ QUOTE ]


Because I do not want to be killed or kill myself. It has nothing to do with right and wrong. Problems of right and wrong are subordinate to my survival.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you prove this? You're once again begging the very question I asked you to prove. Why do you value human life? Why should questions of right and wrong be subordinate to your survival.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

The point of my arguement was that your logic does not necessarily lead to your conclusion. You claim that humans are the most complex thing you know and killing them reduces the complexity to your knowledge (which, to your opinion is a bad thing). I point out that it's merely your knowledge, so if someone could see that killing humans increases the complexity of their observation, then they would be justified in killing. Is that correct?


[/ QUOTE ]
Justified in whose view? Remember, I do not believe that there is a universal standard.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so human life is valuable only if people want it to be. Why complain about Nazi Germany? They're only doing what they've personally justified. You hold no authority, nor does the rest of the world hold any authority to impose your views on being just onto them. The USA should issue an apology.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

1)Killing humans is illegal most everywhere in the world

Can you prove this?


[/ QUOTE ]
This is not an easy task. This proof is possible by exhaustive listing of laws pertaining to killing of humans in different countries. There are about two hundred different countries. I concede that at this time I do not have time and resources necessary to complete this proof.


[/ QUOTE ]

So if you are unable to do this, why should your conclusions be true at all? The rest of your arguement is irrelevant if it's based upon that assumption that is not true.

I'd also like to point out that not only do you have to find an exhaustive listing of all laws, you need to make sure that those laws are in effect right this very instant and haven't changed. Not only do you need to examine all laws, but all village agreements, house agreements, and anything else that may be a "law" in the sense of an authoritative agreement.

Since you cannot justify this assumption, the rest of your arguement falls to pieces.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

One point I would like to see addressed specifically is:

How can you establish "what is popular opinion is 'good' or 'right'"?

Do you have to resort to popular opinion to establish that statement? If yes, what if popular opinion changes on that issue? If no, then why don't you use the proof for establishing "what is popular opinion is 'good' or 'right' " to prove everything else? If no, what if popular opinion decides that the original assumption you used to prove "what popular opinion decides is 'right' or 'good' " is wrong?


[/ QUOTE ]

If something is wrong in popular opinion, it does not mean that you have to agree. It means that if you act as if you do not agree, there are likely unpleasant consequences for you. The popular opinion is formally documented in laws. When popular opinion changes, laws also change. This is why it is convenient for me to estimate what is right and wrong in popular opinion by looking at the current laws.


[/ QUOTE ]

But you're begging the very question again. I'm asking you how you know what popular opinion is, and you say laws. I ask how you know what laws are, and you say it's popular opinion.

"If something is wrong in popular opinion it does not mean that you have to agree."

So now you're discounting popular opinion at all. So what if it's popular opinion that killing is wrong. You've lost all binding authority on moral judgement on anything and everything. Why should you expect people to play fair? Why should you expect people to not cut in line? Why should you expect people to obey T&C of party poker?

But yet you do. You expect people to not kill you. You expect people to on a general sense be fair to one another. You are dissapointed, sometimes annoyed when someone rudely shoves you aside. You are angry when people collude playing poker.

Maybe you don't do all these things and they are random statements that you can prove false (seeing as I cannot prove it either way). But what I'm saying is that if you do assume those things, if you do react in a similar way, that is consistant with an ultimate authority and moral judge of right and wrong, and you are refuting your own worldview.

[udontknowmickey]

The original statement:

[ QUOTE ]


What you describe is what I meant by "irrational skepticism." If you make the statement that "the universe is unintelligible" That is an intelligent statement about the universe, and thus is self-contradictory, it cannot logically stand. Now of course, you can deny logic, but this needs to be logically sound itself in order to stand "logic is false" means "logic is true" (now that you throw out the laws of logic). But if you say there is some possibility of knowledge, then it is necessary to presuppose the entire biblical worldview.


[/ QUOTE ]

Responding to each statement you have made in response:

1)Logic does not need to be ultimate form of knowledge that you suppose that it must.

Umm ok. I am unclear as to what you mean by "ultimate form of knowledge." Could you clarify this? This confusion is reflected in my responses to your other statements, so do forgive me if I misunderstand what you're saying.

2)I take a Kantian view and think that we cannot have ultimate knowledge about existence as a whole, but instead we use the human faculty of reason to make sense of the world as best we can.

I'm saying that apart from God there is no sense. You cannot do "as best you can" because you don't know what is true or false apart from God soveign will.

3)It is not contradictory to believe that humans use rationality to understand existence but that existence itself is not fully comprehendible by the human rational faculty.

I agree. I never said existence was fully comprehendible, but just that the only way for existence to be comprehendible in part or whole is the soveignty of God.

4) I do not presuppose that the universe is bound by logic -- it appears you do -- but I do think that human knowledge of the universe is bound by logic.

I must say I am having trouble understanding the difference between what you mean by the statements "the universe is not bound by logic" but "human knowledge of the universe is bound by logic". could you explain this?

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
The original statement:

What you describe is what I meant by "irrational skepticism." If you make the statement that "the universe is unintelligible" That is an intelligent statement about the universe, and thus is self-contradictory, it cannot logically stand. Now of course, you can deny logic, but this needs to be logically sound itself in order to stand "logic is false" means "logic is true" (now that you throw out the laws of logic). But if you say there is some possibility of knowledge, then it is necessary to presuppose the entire biblical worldview.


[/ QUOTE ]

Responding to each statement you have made in response:

[ QUOTE ]
1)Logic does not need to be ultimate form of knowledge that you suppose that it must.

Umm ok. I am unclear as to what you mean by "ultimate form of knowledge." Could you clarify this? This confusion is reflected in my responses to your other statements, so do forgive me if I misunderstand what you're saying.

[/ QUOTE ]


***I used the term ultimate form of knowledge because you seem to think that logic must represent truth and falsity in their Platonic form. Logic is the main tool humans have to understand existence. However, I do not think that since something is logically true that is is true in the Platonic sense. In short, existence itself is irrational and not bound by logic. Human understanding is bound by logic, and therefore is not an ultimate form of understanding because it is only superficial truth and falsity that we perceive.


[ QUOTE ]
2)I take a Kantian view and think that we cannot have ultimate knowledge about existence as a whole, but instead we use the human faculty of reason to make sense of the world as best we can.

I'm saying that apart from God there is no sense. You cannot do "as best you can" because you don't know what is true or false apart from God soveign will.

[/ QUOTE ]

***We do know what is true and false by utilizing our tool for understanding the world: logic. I stated we understand the world as best we can since logic itself cannot fully describe existence since logic does not represent truth and falsity in Platonic form. However, within human experience, the truth and falsity that can be determined by logic is both good enough and all we have.


[ QUOTE ]
3)It is not contradictory to believe that humans use rationality to understand existence but that existence itself is not fully comprehendible by the human rational faculty.

I agree. I never said existence was fully comprehendible, but just that the only way for existence to be comprehendible in part or whole is the soveignty of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

***You make no argument here. You simply state your opinion. Having read my epistemological views, you can see that I disagree with your opinion.


[ QUOTE ]
4) I do not presuppose that the universe is bound by logic -- it appears you do -- but I do think that human knowledge of the universe is bound by logic.

I must say I am having trouble understanding the difference between what you mean by the statements "the universe is not bound by logic" but "human knowledge of the universe is bound by logic". could you explain this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I already have answered this question above, but I will summarize. Humans come to know the world through our faculty of logic. Existence itself is not fully bound by logic. Essentially, we are the people in Plato's cave, with logic being the lens through which we view the shadows on the wall, which are representative of reality, but only in a very limited sense. We do come to know the world partially through logic, but it is only a shadow of all that is actually there. I have no problem with that. It appears to me to be a universal characteristic of Christians that they do have a problem with that.

[Girchuck]

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
I am obliged to admit that my core assumption is not justified. Maybe humans are not smart enough to justify it, or maybe it is wrong altogether. I have not seen any evidence pointing to the fact that my assumption is wrong. Until them I am going to use it.

[ 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 ]
I have failed to communicate. My assumption never changed. It is not justified and remains not justified. Technology based on this assumption does improve, thus more better observations are possible. No finite amount of observations will logically justify my core assumption as far as I understand.

[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]
I admit that I cannot prove that 1 is true.

[ QUOTE ]

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?
/quote]
You do need to prove an observation false. You need to prove that the whole sum of observations accumulated up to this day is wrong.
[ QUOTE ]

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 ]
Better is subjective. If I didn't know how to figure out 2+2 I would go with the core assumption that didn't logically prohibit me from looking at other core 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"


[/ QUOTE ]
My definition of surviver is very simple. Somebody who survived long enough to procreate is a surviver. My definition of long can be as long as you want it to be up to the time of the first procreating lifeform.
[ QUOTE ]

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!


[/ QUOTE ]
There is no proof. There is evidence in favor. For example, most people have self-preservation instinct.
[ QUOTE ]

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?


[/ QUOTE ]
Babies do not know logic. Babies behave in a way that enhances their chance to survive. If babies didn't cry they would be more likely to be neglected.

[ 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 ]
I didn't think of this. But this is not a different unjustified assumption, it is the same one. I assume that my observations reflect reality.

[ 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 ]
Can you think of a form it would take if it was not recorded in a book? Do you have any evidence that people who had no bible received the knowledge contained there in a different form?

[ 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 ]
This is the critical point of our disagreement. You deny that observations provide knowledge. I observe that without some work you never obtain any knowledge. In order to obtain the knowledge in the bible, you had to read it, and hear what other people thought about it and argue and learn logic to argue. How did you learn logic? Did you know logic when you were a baby? Logic is a tool. There are other tools, which you didn't know how to use, and then you learned. You had to work to learn, if you didn't work, no knowledge would be implanted in your head.
[ 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?



[/ QUOTE ]
I have no evidence that people had any knowledge about computers 200 years ago. Until I have some evidence, I am going to insist they they did not.

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.


[/ QUOTE ]

You always get me there. As long as you deny my core premise, I cannot claim anything that you would consider valid.
[ QUOTE ]

3) We did not lose any knowledge available in the past.

Can you prove this?


[/ QUOTE ]
Even I see that this is a weak part of my argument. We might've lost some knowledge. Whatever was not recorded.
[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

But can you write an addendum to the bible that Paul couldn't write? Can anyone living today do it?
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
And you deny my unjustified assumption, so we are even. Why is god keep granting all this udvanced knowledge on us? If the new discoveries continue at the same rate, we might discover ways to prolong life indefinitely. I wonder if that would change everything.

[Girchuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

How do you know if you're in the minority or not? Additionally, you make an assumption that:

If one does not agree with the majority view, then one's life is in danger.

Can you prove this?


[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, if the majority of humans believe that killing others is not wrong, than there will be more killings and my life will be in danger relatively to the present state.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, it is not obvious. You continue to beg the very question i'm asking you to prove. How do you know if you are in the minority or not? How do you know that being in the minority means bloodshed?


[/ QUOTE ]
Lets see. I think it is wrong to kill, so I don't. You think it is wrong to kill so you don't. Hitler thinks it is not wrong to kill, so he does. This is how it is now. We have two non-killers and one killer.
Now lets change my view.
Now I don't think it is wrong to kill, so I do. Now we have two killers and one non-killer.
In which scenario is your life in less danger? the first or the second? Now expand this to include the rest of humanity. That is all.
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Why does coexisting without violence be necessary for you not to complain? How are you all of a sudden justified in complaining about coexisting without violence? Is this a judgement that you make upon others? If so, then you refute yourself and imply that there is a universal qualification (namely a coexistance without violence) that makes something just or injust. If not then even if you complain, so what? You're supposed to coexist without violence right?


[/ QUOTE ]
No, coexistance without violence is again my personal preference. However, it is also my personal preference that no violence is directed at me. If violence is directed at me, my personal preference is violated, and I have to decide whether I want to do something about it. There is nothing universal about my personal preferences.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you can complain, but there is no justification for people to listen to you because it's all up to personal preference. People will listen to you if they want, and people won't listen to you if they don't. Why do you say Nazi Germany was wrong then? You shouldn't use violence to enforce a belief in non-violence right?


[/ QUOTE ]
By people did listen to me about Nazi Germany. People in the rest of the world that is. They had to because their life was in danger and they did not want to die. If Nazis stayed within their borders, they'd be able to do what they want but they didn't.
[ QUOTE ]


Because I do not want to be killed or kill myself. It has nothing to do with right and wrong. Problems of right and wrong are subordinate to my survival.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you prove this? You're once again begging the very question I asked you to prove. Why do you value human life? Why should questions of right and wrong be subordinate to your survival.


[/ QUOTE ]
I cannot prove this. In my value system my survival is ranked higher than following a system of right and wrong. I require no proof for myself, and if you want to adopt a similar value system, you will need to come up with your own proof if you need it.
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

The point of my arguement was that your logic does not necessarily lead to your conclusion. You claim that humans are the most complex thing you know and killing them reduces the complexity to your knowledge (which, to your opinion is a bad thing). I point out that it's merely your knowledge, so if someone could see that killing humans increases the complexity of their observation, then they would be justified in killing. Is that correct?


[/ QUOTE ]
Justified in whose view? Remember, I do not believe that there is a universal standard.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so human life is valuable only if people want it to be. Why complain about Nazi Germany? They're only doing what they've personally justified. You hold no authority, nor does the rest of the world hold any authority to impose your views on being just onto them. The USA should issue an apology.


[/ QUOTE ]
Because Nazi Germany tried to force other people to die. They encountered resistance and were destroyed. Nazi Germany does not have any authority do dictate my views either. Yet they tried. And we couldn't reach a compromise. So we fought. No apologies.
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

1)Killing humans is illegal most everywhere in the world

Can you prove this?


[/ QUOTE ]
This is not an easy task. This proof is possible by exhaustive listing of laws pertaining to killing of humans in different countries. There are about two hundred different countries. I concede that at this time I do not have time and resources necessary to complete this proof.


[/ QUOTE ]

So if you are unable to do this, why should your conclusions be true at all? The rest of your arguement is irrelevant if it's based upon that assumption that is not true.

I'd also like to point out that not only do you have to find an exhaustive listing of all laws, you need to make sure that those laws are in effect right this very instant and haven't changed. Not only do you need to examine all laws, but all village agreements, house agreements, and anything else that may be a "law" in the sense of an authoritative agreement.

Since you cannot justify this assumption, the rest of your arguement falls to pieces.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'll make a less global statement. Killing humans is illegal in my state and neighboring states. Therefore, in my immediate surrounding people seem to hold a majority opinion that killing humans is wrong. Is that ok?
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

One point I would like to see addressed specifically is:

How can you establish "what is popular opinion is 'good' or 'right'"?

Do you have to resort to popular opinion to establish that statement? If yes, what if popular opinion changes on that issue? If no, then why don't you use the proof for establishing "what is popular opinion is 'good' or 'right' " to prove everything else? If no, what if popular opinion decides that the original assumption you used to prove "what popular opinion decides is 'right' or 'good' " is wrong?


[/ QUOTE ]

If something is wrong in popular opinion, it does not mean that you have to agree. It means that if you act as if you do not agree, there are likely unpleasant consequences for you. The popular opinion is formally documented in laws. When popular opinion changes, laws also change. This is why it is convenient for me to estimate what is right and wrong in popular opinion by looking at the current laws.


[/ QUOTE ]

But you're begging the very question again. I'm asking you how you know what popular opinion is, and you say laws. I ask how you know what laws are, and you say it's popular opinion.


[/ QUOTE ]
Laws are formally recorded versions of popular opinion. Laws are available to learn for everyone. Laws are useful to estimate popular opinion.
[ QUOTE ]

"If something is wrong in popular opinion it does not mean that you have to agree."

So now you're discounting popular opinion at all. So what if it's popular opinion that killing is wrong. You've lost all binding authority on moral judgement on anything and everything. Why should you expect people to play fair? Why should you expect people to not cut in line? Why should you expect people to obey T&C of party poker?


[/ QUOTE ]
It is my point that going against popular opinion is very inconvenient and sometimes dangerous. Therefore, you will always be influenced by popular opinion. I have no expectations that people will always play by the rules they didnot invent or adopt themselves. I have a remedy against people not playing by the rules. It is a practical matter, not a matter of moral authority.
[ QUOTE ]

But yet you do. You expect people to not kill you. You expect people to on a general sense be fair to one another. You are dissapointed, sometimes annoyed when someone rudely shoves you aside. You are angry when people collude playing poker.


[/ QUOTE ]
Being fair to one another leads to a society that I like better. I observe that many people are conditioned to be fair. I don't mind that at all. I don't care how people arrive at valuing fair play. I do care about reducing the incentive to not be fair. Fortunately we have a nice self-regulating society, and people cannot afford to be unfair often. Killers are removed from the society, so that I don't have to deal with them a lot. Colluders get detected and have their profits confiscated. Rude people encounter people who are violent towards rude people. It is not a perfect society, but we are not perfect beings.
[ QUOTE ]

Maybe you don't do all these things and they are random statements that you can prove false (seeing as I cannot prove it either way). But what I'm saying is that if you do assume those things, if you do react in a similar way, that is consistant with an ultimate authority and moral judge of right and wrong, and you are refuting your own worldview.

[/ QUOTE ]
I only react to something that threatens me. If accidentally I react in a way similar to a way a proponent of universal moral code would, that doesn't mean I agree that there is a universal moral code.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]

The original statement:

What you describe is what I meant by "irrational skepticism." If you make the statement that "the universe is unintelligible" That is an intelligent statement about the universe, and thus is self-contradictory, it cannot logically stand. Now of course, you can deny logic, but this needs to be logically sound itself in order to stand "logic is false" means "logic is true" (now that you throw out the laws of logic). But if you say there is some possibility of knowledge, then it is necessary to presuppose the entire biblical worldview.


[/ QUOTE ]

You said:
[ QUOTE ]

<snipping all of my statements>


I used the term ultimate form of knowledge because you seem to think that logic must represent truth and falsity in their Platonic form. Logic is the main tool humans have to understand existence. However, I do not think that since something is logically true that is is true in the Platonic sense. In short, existence itself is irrational and not bound by logic. Human understanding is bound by logic, and therefore is not an ultimate form of understanding because it is only superficial truth and falsity that we perceive.


***We do know what is true and false by utilizing our tool for understanding the world: logic. I stated we understand the world as best we can since logic itself cannot fully describe existence since logic does not represent truth and falsity in Platonic form. However, within human experience, the truth and falsity that can be determined by logic is both good enough and all we have.


***You make no argument here. You simply state your opinion. Having read my epistemological views, you can see that I disagree with your opinion.


I think I already have answered this question above, but I will summarize. Humans come to know the world through our faculty of logic. Existence itself is not fully bound by logic. Essentially, we are the people in Plato's cave, with logic being the lens through which we view the shadows on the wall, which are representative of reality, but only in a very limited sense. We do come to know the world partially through logic, but it is only a shadow of all that is actually there. I have no problem with that. It appears to me to be a universal characteristic of Christians that they do have a problem with that.


[/ QUOTE ]

I still am having kind of a hard time comprehending what exactly you mean, so please forgive my ignorance. I have not read up on Kant at all. What is "Platonic logic"? I'm guessing its a reference to Plato but I have not formally studied logic so I don't know what it is.

I guess I'll explain my position and make my best guesses to yours, and if you could correct and expound on anything I get wrong regarding yours that would be really helpful.

For me:

Knowledge is a collection of prepositions (if you disagree with this we can talk about it, but that is my operating definition). God, by His nature knows all prepositions (and also knows the truth or falsity of all prepositions, but that can also be expressed by a preposition.). He grants us knowledge by His soveign will. Logic is the mechanism by which God thinks and forms the world (if you can put him in a temporal sense, which you cannot). We, being made in the image of God think logically as well.

My best guess as to your position is that: Existence (aka the universe and everything in it as well as any non-corpreal things) cannot be bound by this definition of knowledge (either it defined by prepositions, or it can be partially defined by prepositions but cannot be wholly defined by prepositions), but we as humans can only think using that definition because... well just because. (You'll have to clarify this)

I guess where I'm still confused is where you make the assumption that the universe cannot be expressed by logic since logic is all we know. We cannot interact with this non-logical aspect if it indeed exists, and we cannot gain any knowledge nor prove anything about it. I'm wondering what impact this "non-logical" aspect of the universe can have since it seems like it cannot, and does not, impact us.

That's where I'm at right now, if you could expound a little on your terminology (and correct me where I misrepresent you) that would be really helpful. Thanks.

PS this board has done wonders for my logical thinking abilities (though my poker game is shot).

[udontknowmickey]

I think we've both said all we've wanted to say. This is just my "sum it all up" post, and you're welcome to respond to it as well as sum up your views in a final post, but I will not respond unless you specifically request me to.

First off, thank you for remaining cordial and willing to respond throughout, as well as listening to a few of my requests along the way. I really appreciate it and it is a far cry from how some discussions on this topic turn out.

Throughout the series of posts, I have sought to demonstrate that the Christian worldview is rationally self-consistant and your worldview is not.

It basically began with some questions you asked me:

"Why is it that you are unmoved by potential destruction of billions of lives? Do you not value human life? "

Out of this we explored why I value human life and why you value human life. My view, being founded upon the Bible, has been consistant with the rest of Scripture, whereas your view degrades down into "personal opinion" based off of "observations." You also made appeals to popular opinion but have been unable to demonstrate at any point how one could know popular opinion without resorting to arbitrary tautoulogys like "popular opinion is represented in laws, and laws are representitive of popular opinion." Later on you also disowned popular opinion as a grounding for how one could judge right versus wrong because in your view there was no absolute right or wrong. This leaves you without a leg to stand on when you question me as to "why don't you value human life" because you no longer can make an implied "it's bad to not value human life" statement.

You are left with the statement "according to me Nazis were wrong, but that may not be true according to everyone" with a conclusion that "therefore there is no measuring stick to measure up Nazi Germany against to judge them right or wrong."

I on the other hand will opening state that God is our measuring stick against which we can judge Nazi Germany against, and Nazi Germany is found clearly wanting and thus is wrong in the absolute and moral stance.

We also got into a discussion of knowledge. You began by saying that our knowledge is growing exponentially. I challenged you on point after point and you eventually retreated back into "my observations are reliable" which after I challenged you again on that, you were unable to justify or provide a rational explanation for why that is true. This leads you unable to give any conclusive logical reasoning for almost anything since you cannot start from true premises since your implied premise is always "my observations are reliable".

I thus have demonstrated that your worldview is at it's roots irrational and unjustifiable. You borrow from my worldview in making judgements about knowledge, about violence, murder, death, love, all of which your worldview cannot give support for.

I urge you therefore to cast of irrationality and seek shelter under Christ, the divine Logos, from which Logic flows. Without Him (or assuming Him) you are unable to prove anything. Your logic, founded upon an unjustifiable premise leads nowhere conclusive. I ask you to repent of your sin of idolotry, setting yourself up as God, and acknowledge your Creator, for by Him and through Him you have meaning and purpose.

"The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life"

He calls you and offers eternal life. If you find yourself desperate for meaning, rationality, and security then cling onto Him, call to Him, repent, and He has promised that He will deliver you.