Do you believe in God?

[LeMansAid]

Sadly, having an invisible being allegedly watching a heart beat is a poor substitute for two way communication with humanity.

But it's potentially a good excuse for genocide, since nobody can verify either the watcher or the incriminating nature of the heartbeat. Even cardiologists can't figure out who is evil enough to be killed.

Or you could take that as I'm sure you know it was intended. Would that be the same road you'd go down in a "Do you believe in love?" thread? It's hard enough getting any sense out of SCJ as it is, without adding unneeded extra semantic twists.

 

[dylansan]

Without a higher moral standard established by God, validity is determined by individual or collective popular opinion, since all men are of equal moral authority.

Validity is not determined by popular opinion. Neither in mathematics nor morality is validity determined by popular opinion.

Great, you can tell that to the guy who believes you're a problem and need to be eliminated.

Logic doesn't stop people from doing actions. It simply means it can be determined if the actions were justified. In the same way that logic doesn't prevent someone from adding 2 and 2 and getting 5, but we can still tell him he's done it wrong.

If you think morals and Math are the same, I'm afraid sooner or later you are in for a big surprise.

Considering I already acknoledged that equating the two would be, and I quote, "ridiculous," I would urge you to read more carefully. Math and morality are similar in some ways and different in others. I've given multiple analogies between the two and you have yet do demonstrate why it doesn't apply other than vague references to the fact that they are different...

Perhaps you have heard the phrase, "figures don't lie, but liars figure".
Maybe that will clue you in.

Like that.

How about you specify exactly how math and morality differ (as I've already asked you to). Keep in mind that all that's required for them to be objective and independently evaluated is that they are based on logic.. which they both are. So what is the difference between them and how does that prevent morals from being objective while math remains objective? Please answer with something more substantial than "they are different."

See my post to Scaff concerning the acceptable logic approaches.

I have. In my opinion none of the discussion has to do with pluralism and I don't know why you brought it up.

Maybe it would help you to to clarify what is actually being claimed. I haven't been following along too much but it seems you think Scaff is claiming Jesus definitely did not say it, while Scaff thinks you claim he definitely did (if I'm even correctly remembering what this is about). In any case, I think it's probably clear there's nothing conclusive either way, but using that quote as if Jesus said it is a bit pointless.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

go on somewhere

I can't even tell if I should take offence to that.

Top tip if you want people to take you seriously: Use proper grammar and punctuation.

 

[jimipitbull]

Without god nothing would exist and if you die and believe in god you will go to heaven but if you don't then your going down under the ground.

I live down under. I don't speak for all Australians, but many of us prefer science over christian beliefs.

 

[Mike458]

Without god nothing would exist and if you die and believe in god you will go to heaven but if you don't then your going down under the ground.

No.

Prove it. Please. Enlighten me.

 

[huskeR32]

Sorry, but I have to inject this here.
Apparently you don't know much about people.
Everyone uses their own brand of logic to one degree or another.
If they didn't we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I'm thinking we need a new policy. Whenever you misuse a word, your entire post is ignored until you acknowledge the mistake and correct it. I'm tiring very quickly of your long, rambling posts that are ultimately complete bollocks because you can't be bothered to know the definition of the words you use.

There aren't different "brands" of logic. Logic does not vary from person to person, or from situation to situation. It isn't subjective, and it does not bend to the whims of people.

This has been pointed out to you multiple times, but you just flip the bird as you roar right past, screaming at the top of your lungs that up is brown and red is salty. Nothing you say makes any sense if you don't use words for their proper meaning.

 

[Imari]

Personally, I find that Halal logic is far more effective.

Yes, the Japanese have a reputation for quality, but the effectiveness of Sony and Panasonic logic is far inferior.
The Euros do all right I suppose. There's a lot to be said for Ferrari logic, although it is a bit flashy. And Royal logic is an old standby that most find agreeable.
But don't even get me started on American logic. Once they were at the top of their game, but you could find your arse with both hands using McDonalds logic. And while Apple logic looks pretty, it's all show and no go.

800 years on, the Muslims are still getting it right and showing the world how it's done.

 

[FoRiZon]

Personally, I find that Halal logic is far more effective.

Yes, the Japanese have a reputation for quality, but the effectiveness of Sony and Panasonic logic is far inferior.
The Euros do all right I suppose. There's a lot to be said for Ferrari logic, although it is a bit flashy. And Royal logic is an old standby that most find agreeable.
But don't even get me started on American logic. Once they were at the top of their game, but you could find your arse with both hands using McDonalds logic. And while Apple logic looks pretty, it's all show and no go.

800 years on, the Muslims are still getting it right and showing the world how it's done.

Are those actually sarcasm or not?

 

[JKgo]

@Imari .....You so mean...

 

[Imari]

Are those actually sarcasm or not?

They are in no way intended to be facetious. I am a firm supporter of Muslim manufacturers of logic. I think that they're at least a decade ahead of the competition in research and development.

It's simply capable of so much more. Today I have used mine to cook breakfast, kill a pigeon, fly to work, uncreate the universe, and make love to an inimitable complaint. Can you do that with McDonald's logic? I rather think not.

 

[Scaff]

Yes it is an assumption, however a common concept among most religions.

An assumption that in this case it totally incorrect, but you chose to disagree all the same.

Generally yes, but also somewhat open to interpretation.

Only the last part is, and even that needs the assumption that gods exists to be open to interpretation.

I had absolutely nothing to do with the writing of accepted examples and approaches for proving a negative.

They are quotes from whoever did write them.

And to contrary they are clear and concise.

No you've taken elements from the source and mangled them together how you feel fit, that's not quoting.

Yes and it also states:

"the burden of proof lies with those seeking to remove consideration for one or more possible truths."

Which requires the first part "When we have no evidence favoring either proposition, we must suspend belief in both." to be true before you can use that, the first part is not true in this example, because evidence does exist for one and not the other, however.......

Significant as to what?

.....you keep ignoring it. Which doesn't make it go away.

You are entitled to that approach if you so desire.
I would only add that the evidence supports an inconsistency or suspicion, and thats all.
Likewise I am entitled to mine.
Accordingly, I will leave you with the burden of proof to remove consideration for one or more possible truths.

That we have evidence favoring one over the other removes that requirement and places it on you.

Now who is redefining?
So under your preponderance of evidence, if you were seen in the vicinity of a crime scene, that means you commited the crime?

You are.

When you add a word that doesn't appear at any time in your source material and utterly changes the framework of it then you are redefining it.

There is nothing misleading about it. Thats precisely the category of this examination.
It's certainly not a legal procedure.

You sir are a walking bag of contraction, you just tried to use legal conditions to (incorrectly) prove a point and within seconds the state "It's certainly not a legal procedure"!

 

[GBO Possum]

Or you could take that as I'm sure you know it was intended. Would that be the same road you'd go down in a "Do you believe in love?" thread? It's hard enough getting any sense out of SCJ as it is, without adding unneeded extra semantic twists.

Yes, fair enough. I was frustrated that SCJ had diverted the "conversation" from my contention that frank and open communication is a two-way street, which, while being an integral part of human relationships, is beyond the capability of any gods.

 

[JKgo]

.... For all you non-theists out there...

 

[Mike458]

.... For all you non-theists out there...

View attachment 365608

Only when they shove it in our face...

 

[JKgo]

@Mike458 ..."faces".

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Direct mention of Jesus in non-Christian writings, except as third- or fourth-hand accounts.

Possibly court records of his trial.

The usual.

Typically, it will be difficult to prove or disprove the exact teachings, so settling for clear historical record of the man outside of Christian lore is, at least, a start.

While all of that is a start, it doesn't answer the question.

If we're talking about major influences on culture, we start to look at culture as a whole, and not centered around Western Europe... the Chinese would have something to say to you about time frames.

Europe was the specific territory mentioned for reasons already discussed.
Likewise a myriad of influences contributed to that regions developement over the last 1500 or so years.
However Christianity can easily be judged the most influential over that time frame.

No. There is only logical and illogical. There are people who use logic, and people who use faulty logic. I am fully aware that people use faulty reasoning. It's part of my job to correct that.

If both people are using logic but arrive at different conclusions, then one is starting from faulty axioms.

According to a whole lot of people. Including Christ.

Yes and according to Christ the only non faulty axioms, are in him and God the Father.

Confucius predates Christ. By quite a few centuries.

It is perfectly possible to derive the Golden Rule without the concept of God.

Unless he borrowed from Jesus retroactively?

Possibly as you say, but in reality it was established through claimed higher authority.

You cannot call an argument logical and then say it wasn't the result of logic. Sorry. You don't get to redefine words at whim.

As I've said, logic is a process, and either the process is correct or faulty.

If you want to assume man is perfect in his actions, judgements, and interpretations of
what is logical and what isn't.
Sorry, but that's easily proven an illogical assumption.
And therein is the big question.
Who decides what is correct and what is faulty?
Again without the higher authority aspect, it is subject to man's interpretation.
Which will put you back to different brand's of logic, and not higher based absolutes upon which to determine the faulty axiom.
What you are failing to recognize, is logic is subject to and totally dependant on interpretation, and who is doing the interpreting.

And even then, even if the process is correct, if the axioms are both unproveable and untrue, then the whole line of reasoning is suspect.

Of course, slavery is incompatible with Christian principles, in general, but it isn't incompatible with Hebraic principles, which is why it isn't mentioned in the Commandments.

People rationalize this as being: Slavery was different then... well... yes and no. There were those who were debt slaves (which isn't much different from sweatshop slaves today), but indentured and forced slavery was still rampant at that time.

If Christian values are incompatible with slavery, with polygamy, and with a number of things mentioned in the Bible, what then, makes the Bible an immutable source of God's word?

A perfect God would get the message right, the first time out, without a need to correct or alter it with a New Deal.

Again I believe you are failing to consider the possibility that "getting it right" is a process, that must work within the parameters of Dominion and autonomy.
Likewise "getting it right the first time" is the process for us, not God.
BTW he did get it right the first time, but we didn't.
So now we are still in the process, wherein each person shall determine their own course, or fate if you will and choose between God's axioms or some other.

 

[DQuaN]

BTW he did get it right the first time, but we didn't.

So why the big flood then?

 

[Dotini]

The Flood:

(A) 200 rebellious angels set up shop on Earth, fathered monstrous children from human women, and taught the men agriculture, astronomy, warfare and other technologies. God brought the flood to destroy all that. Thanks to another less rebellious angel, Noah, God's plan took a turn.

(B) Or else it is a collective memory, encoded in myth and literature, of a global climate change occurring at the end of the last ice age.

 

[Imari]

...faulty axioms...

Does anyone find it amusing when people completely misuse words, or does everyone find it as annoying as me?

For those playing along at home, an axiom cannot be faulty. By definition, it is a statement that cannot be proven and is assumed to be true for the sake of the inferences derived from it. Sometimes those inferences are extremely useful, like when they give us math and morals.

Saying that an axiom is faulty is right up there with saying truth isn't always true. It's retarded.

 

[niky]

In this sense, it refers to those ideas regarded as such, but which can be proven to be false.

 

[dylansan]

Who decides what is correct and what is faulty?

Who decides what is correct and what is faulty in math? Maybe once you can answer that you'll understand.

 

[Danoff]

If you want to assume man is perfect in his actions, judgements, and interpretations of
what is logical and what isn't.
Sorry, but that's easily proven an illogical assumption.
And therein is the big question.
Who decides what is correct and what is faulty?
Again without the higher authority aspect, it is subject to man's interpretation.
Which will put you back to different brand's of logic, and not higher based absolutes upon which to determine the faulty axiom.
What you are failing to recognize, is logic is subject to and totally dependant on interpretation, and who is doing the interpreting.

Quiz time!

Premise 1) If A then B
Premise 2) A

Conclusion?

I say B. In saying that, there is no subjectivity, no interpretation, no brand of logic, no person's judgement. It's just right.

Now, let's say you say "not B". Is logic faulty now? We have a disagreement over what is the logical conclusion, is logic broken?


Let's try again

Premise 1) 1+1

Conclusion?

I say 2. In saying that, there is no subjectivity, no interpretation, no brand of logic, no person's judgement. It's just right.

Now, let's say you say "3". Is math faulty now? We have a disagreement over what is the mathematical conclusion, is math broken?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Validity is not determined by popular opinion. Neither in mathematics nor morality is validity determined by popular opinion.Logic doesn't stop people from doing actions. It simply means it can be determined if the actions were justified. In the same way that logic doesn't prevent someone from adding 2 and 2 and getting 5, but we can still tell him he's done it wrong.Considering I already acknoledged that equating the two would be, and I quote, "ridiculous," I would urge you to read more carefully. Math and morality are similar in some ways and different in others. I've given multiple analogies between the two and you have yet do demonstrate why it doesn't apply other than vague references to the fact that they are different...Like that.

Math is a system of inherent exacts or absolutes.
Morals are not, unless they are added.
And as I contend, for them to be absolutes they must come from higher authority.
Otherwise again, they are subject to interpretation, or popular opinion.

How about you specify exactly how math and morality differ (as I've already asked you to). Keep in mind that all that's required for them to be objective and independently evaluated is that they are based on logic.. which they both are. So what is the difference between them and how does that prevent morals from being objective while math remains objective? Please answer with something more substantial than "they are different."

See above

I have. In my opinion none of the discussion has to do with pluralism and I don't know why you brought it up.

If you go back and follow the line of conversation, it should be readily apparent.

I haven't been following along too much.........

I think I can agree with that.

but it seems you think Scaff is claiming Jesus definitely did not say it, while Scaff thinks you claim he definitely did (if I'm even correctly remembering what this is about). In any case, I think it's probably clear there's nothing conclusive either way, but using that quote as if Jesus said it is a bit pointless.

Again you need to go back and follow the line of conversation.
That should clarify it for you.

I'm thinking we need a new policy. Whenever you misuse a word, your entire post is ignored until you acknowledge the mistake and correct it. I'm tiring very quickly of your long, rambling posts that are ultimately complete bollocks because you can't be bothered to know the definition of the words you use.

There aren't different "brands" of logic. Logic does not vary from person to person, or from situation to situation. It isn't subjective, and it does not bend to the whims of people.

Well I've asked several times.
Who is deciding whats logical and and what isn't?
Who is this perfect superhuman that you speak of, that can make those exacting decisions.

An assumption that in this case it totally incorrect, but you chose to disagree all the same.

You know I'm not the only disagreeable fellow here sometimes.

Only the last part is, and even that needs the assumption that gods exists to be open to interpretation.

I agree.

I might ought to frame that answer.

No you've taken elements from the source and mangled them together how you feel fit, that's not quoting.

Since I did not write them, how could I mangle them?

Which requires the first part "When we have no evidence favoring either proposition, we must suspend belief in both." to be true before you can use that, the first part is not true in this example, because evidence does exist for one and not the other, however.......


.....you keep ignoring it. Which doesn't make it go away.

I'm not ignoring it.
I have clearly maintained there is evidence of an inconsistency in the current available documentation.

That we have evidence favoring one over the other removes that requirement and places it on you.

We do disagree on this one.

You are.

When you add a word that doesn't appear at any time in your source material and utterly changes the framework of it then you are redefining it.

Hardly.
If you will notice the wording, which I did not write BTW, clearly states "evidence".
Now since no other "exclusive" qualifiers are used, the term is obviously "inclusive".
Which would include all forms of evidence.

You sir are a walking bag of contraction, you just tried to use legal conditions to (incorrectly) prove a point and within seconds the state "It's certainly not a legal procedure"!

In terms of category yes somewhat.
It was chosen more for comparitive effect over condradiction in category.
Even so, "evidence" still requires preponderance for interpretation and evaluation whether legal or otherwise in category.

 

[dylansan]

Math is a system of inherent exacts or absolutes.
Morals are not, unless they are added.
And as I contend, for them to be absolutes they must come from higher authority.
Otherwise again, they are subject to interpretation, or popular opinion.

Any statement which can be phrased such that it either true or false, is absolute in the same sense any math statement is absolute.

Logic is used to determine whether statements are true or false. Statements like "1 + 1 = 2" or "any number times three is zero" can be evaluated with logic the same way statements like "Everyone has the right to life" or "a gay man has no right to life" can be evaluated.

All that is required is a set of axioms. Why do I get the impression you could not name the axioms that form the foundation of math, despite your claim that it is inherently absolute? Do you know the axioms morality is founded on? @Danoff has demonstrated his knowledge on these topics in the human rights thread, and I know that he's already explained this stuff to you. He's being very gracious continuing to discuss these things. I know I would get tired of it.

If you go back and follow the line of conversation, it should be readily apparent.

I read what you were responding to and that was enough to make it clear you do not understand what logical pluralism is, or you just wanted to use that word to describe something else entirely. In any case, you said in the absence of evidence it makes sense to assume both propositions are true. That is neither correct nor an example of pluralism, as you described it.

Again you need to go back and follow the line of conversation.
That should clarify it for you.

Your conversation with Scaff has strayed far from the original topic. I was merely trying to clarify what the conversation was about and what the claims were. I prefer to clarify, whereas apparently you would rather obfuscate.


I also find it odd that you are responding to these posts in a weird order. I already had another post up there which answered questions you made in this one. Why didn't you respond to it, or @Danoff's post?

 

[Imari]

Let's try again

Premise 1) 1+1

Conclusion?

I say 2. In saying that, there is no subjectivity, no interpretation, no brand of logic, no person's judgement. It's just right.

Now, let's say you say "3". Is math faulty now? We have a disagreement over what is the mathematical conclusion, is math broken?

To be fair, since axioms were just mentioned you can get a different answer by specifying different mathematical axioms. The logic doesn't change, but the operators can. However, since everyone knows how "plus" is expected to work, this would be the logical equivalent of redefining words to make them mean what you want them to mean.

Now I know that I've seen someone who does that regularly, I just can't remember their name...

 

[huskeR32]

Well I've asked several times.
Who is deciding whats logical and and what isn't?

Anybody who cares to.

Who is this perfect superhuman that you speak of, that can make those exacting decisions.

This mindset is very telling. Your faith has you conditioned to always rely on an outside authority to guide you. You can't accept that humans are capable of deriving their own morality, because you don't accept that humans are really capable of much of anything at all. Everything you do, you think it's god's will using you as a tool. It bums me out that you sell yourself (or all of us, really) short like that.

Being logical doesn't require perfection. It requires an open mind, the ability to recognize inconsistent thoughts, and the willingness to change when you see that inconsistency in yourself.

We're all going to make mistakes, to make illogical choices. Some of us seek those moments out, and turn them into opportunities to grow and learn. Others ignore them, and keep the cruise control on, set to "old book of myths knows best."

 

[JKgo]

Your faith has you conditioned to always rely on an outside authority to guide you. You can't accept that humans are capable of deriving their own morality, because you don't accept that humans are really capable of much of anything at all. Everything you do, you think it's god's will using you as a tool. It bums me out that you sell yourself (or all of us, really) short like that.

....Thank you. Give this man a cookie! Only if other side listened to this....sigh.

 

[Scaff]

You know I'm not the only disagreeable fellow here sometimes.

And other than a passive aggressive dig that means what exactly?

Lets make it simple, you are wrong in regard to Buddhism having a deity.

Since I did not write them, how could I mangle them?

Please cite them exactly as written.

I'm not ignoring it.
I have clearly maintained there is evidence of an inconsistency in the current available documentation.

And how much evidence do we have for the words that were added were spoken by Jesus (aside from the fact that his existence in the first place can't be proven and is supported by minimal evidence outside of the Bible)?

We do disagree on this one.

Then you clearly either don't understand the requirement "When we have no evidence favoring either proposition, we must suspend belief in both." or you have evidence that Jesus said these words.

Hardly.
And how much evidence
If you will notice the wording, which I did not write BTW, clearly states "evidence".
Now since no other "exclusive" qualifiers are used, the term is obviously "inclusive".
Which would include all forms of evidence.

Then why did you state "It does not conclusively prove he said it, or didn'tsay it."?

It clearly doesn't require conclusive evidence, yet you insert that as a requirement (and in doing so redefine it).

You are right (as I have been saying all along) that it includes all forms of evidence, the evidence for mortal men adding the line is significant, the evidence that those mortal men were divinely influenced to do so is non-existent. If you disagree then provide this evidence.

In terms of category yes somewhat.
It was chosen more for comparitive effect over condradiction in category.
Even so, "evidence" still requires preponderance for interpretation and evaluation whether legal or otherwise in category.

A simple yes it was a contraction would have done, your 'word salad' attempt to justify it doesn't help make it look like anything else.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Quiz time!

Premise 1) If A then B
Premise 2) A

Conclusion?

I say B. In saying that, there is no subjectivity, no interpretation, no brand of logic, no person's judgement. It's just right.

Now, let's say you say "not B". Is logic faulty now? We have a disagreement over what is the logical conclusion, is logic broken?


Let's try again

Premise 1) 1+1

Conclusion?

I say 2. In saying that, there is no subjectivity, no interpretation, no brand of logic, no person's judgement. It's just right.

Now, let's say you say "3". Is math faulty now? We have a disagreement over what is the mathematical conclusion, is math broken?

Well Danoff, if morals could be calculated the same as math, you might be on to something.
But of course they cannot.
Math comes with it's own exacts.
Morals don't.
Morals have to be calculated without the benefit of numbers.
There is one thing they do have in common.
There is only one right answer.
But the exacts have to be added to determine it.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Well Danoff, if morals could be calculated the same as math, you might be on to something.
But of course they cannot.
Math comes with it's own exacts.
Morals don't.
Morals have to be calculated without the benefit of numbers.
There is one thing they do have in common.
There is only one right answer.
But the exacts have to be added to determine it.

He's not talking about morals, he's talking about logical reasoning, which is absolute.