Who says that God must’ve directly installed sensors (faulty or not) in His creatures?
You’re still presuming certain definitions for “morality” and “justice” that are nevertheless arbitrary - because all definitions are arbitrary.
Is it arbitrary that the definition of “hats” is the same as the defintion of “hat” but pluralized? Is it arbitrary that words ending in “-ology” pertain to the study of something?
Strictly speaking, yes.
No way man. The definitions of words are determined by previous usage, etymological relations to older languages, and grammatical rules. Definitions can be stipulative - like the way Mises uses the term “rational.” And the word chosen to represent a certain concept can often be an arbitrary choice - I might call something “awesome” or I might call it “cool” and there is no inherent reason why I choose one over the other. But to say that all definitions are arbitrary is just a demonstrably false claim.
I understand your point, but I wouldn’t use an unqualified phrase like “the definition”. That to me implies that there’s an objectively correct definition of a word. There is no such thing. There are only different definitions. Certainly the meanings commonly or traditionally associated with different words in a given language are based on previous meanings associated with them, etymologies, and grammatical relations. But one is not objectively bound to use only and exactly those meanings for those words.
Thinking about it a bit more, I think I’m just taking your point further - that the word chosen to represent a certain concept is always an arbitrary choice, because it’s an arbitrary choice whether to even agree with common word usage.
If I said “the price,” would it imply to you that I mean there’s and objectively correct price of an object?
Obviously one is able to use various meanings for the same word, but thats a far cry from claiming that all definitions are arbitrary. I understand the general point you’ve been trying to make, and it just isn’t very significant. We are already so imbedded in culture and language that it makes no sense to call definitions arbitrary. The rules of chess are also arbitrary in the sense that they could’ve been otherwise, but when someone moves a knight diagonally by one space, we say “thats not how a knight moves.” Likewise, when people are speaking English, and someone uses the term “extraverted” to mean “popular” or “confrontational” to mean “assertive” (my roommate does this), we say they are using those terms wrongly - “thats not what those words mean.” Otherwise, it would be impossible to ever reach an understanding: everyone word used to justify the arbitrary definition of the previous word would in turn need to be justified and so on.
No way man. The definitions of words are determined by previous usage, etymological relations to older languages, and grammatical rules. Definitions can be stipulative - like the way Mises uses the term “rational.” And the word chosen to represent a certain concept can often be an arbitrary choice - I might call something “awesome” or I might call it “cool” and there is no inherent reason why I choose one over the other. But to say that all definitions are arbitrary is just a demonstrably false claim.
Good point. There is no such thing as an arbitrary definitions or words. When something, say a “chair” exists it exists for our purpose. And when we enter into anything with meaning there is no such thing as “arbitrary” words - there are only necessary words. A picture, word, or symbol that is unecessary for our puroses (or rules, game, etc) has no meaning.
There is no such thing as nihilistic skepticism as an “ultimate” position - and furthermore, nothing is to say “questioning things” is better than going about an approach like trying to figure out a “resolution to a conclusion”. The fndamentals of any action, shows “purpose”, “meaning”, “what is necessary” or whatever you want to call it - there is probably a better way to put this.
“So you claim that an bunch of grapes is sloppy but a bbq pork sandwich isnt?”
No, I say that a bunch of USELESS organs and diseases, humans catch everyear because of imperfection of our bodies is kinda sloppy design.
“this statement requires support. How do you purport to know how long it would have taken the universe to reach its current state in the absence of Divinity?”
Occam’s Razor? If you want to assert, that there exist super mega smart supreme being and claim, that he created imperfect creatures, with an average lifetime of 75 years (which in the universe scale is shorter than an eye blink), then surely, that statement requires EXTRAORDINARY evidence, not just pure assertion. I am ok with your belief, but I am not ok with claiming, that your belief is an objective truth. If you don’t say that, then we have nothing to argue about. Or do you?
“Among other things, you appear to assume that God must necessarily have been working as fast as He possibly could, rather than doing things solely according to His schedule. It is no concern to me whatsoever that God has been “working too slowly” for your liking.”
His schedule must be very very long then.. He probably takes a vacation once in a million years, which last few billions of years…But that’s funny assertion, keep going.
“argumentum ad populum. Try again.”
Yes, that was argument ad populum. Partly. Because what you asserted was that NO ONE has performed a rebutal of divine intervention to human affairs. So I rebuted your assertion with another assertion. Still, mine has some truth, because there were countless debunkings of such things and you claimed that no one did it. So if you weren’t convinced, that’s another matter. There are many people who are not convinced that some individuals landed on the Moon, and if I said, that it was proven beyond reasonable doubt and millions people believe and know that, would that be argument ad populum, srsly? Try again yourself.
“the Bible refers to a round Earth (proverbs 8:27). You need to go to sunday school.”
The bible refers to many things I am not going to find for your pleasure because I do not have time, but if you insist, I can point you to this website http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html enjoy and learn. Seems that you never read the Bible with an open mind.
“actually the Garden of Eden is the period in human history where humans existed in harmony with creation in what we now refer to as aboriginal societies. So the science supports the Bible here too.”
I won’t try to debunk this, because I am now laughing on the floor.
“do you think you could reference the scripture where the earth is dated? Or is it a matter of interpretation, and I am expected to take an atheist’s interpretation of scripture as more authoritative than the interpretations of people who actually, you know, read the Bible?”
There are enough errors in the Bible (see above, the link) so I can let this slide. Keep it. Still, Bible is a work of fiction and human imagination, nothing more.
“I have a passing familiarity with some texts, and I cant seem to recall any meaningful internal contradictions. Regardless, you could find contradictions in every extant religious text on the planet, and it would not support your series of ridiculous claims.”
If it has a contradiction, maybe your God is not so perfect and supreme, after all. Actually, He/She reminds me an ordinary human being. Only psychotic.
“so I am wondering how God could murder someone, even theoretically. Wouldnt that require reference to a moral standard? From whence came these morals by which you claim to judge the divine? Right now it seems like an obfuscatory means of saying “I DONT LIKE IT!” your incomprehension of a deity that demands obedience would seem indicative of your own unfamiliarity with religious texts (its a common theme).”
Oh, morality. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
“scientists tended to adhere to the steady state theory until science discovered evidence to support the theology.”
what? Theology? Ok, I think I have enough of your assertions.. Time to give me some arguments, or I’m an Easter Bunny.
“I’m sorry, what was the evidence again? All I saw was your refusal to engage.”
Engage in religious sophistics? You havene’t provided any evidence so far, only assertions.
“Precedence in every respect. You are wasting my time with your willful refusal to countenance entire portions of the English language. I cant be the only person who knows how to google a word and click on links”
It is YOU who is wasting my time with bare assertions and childish imagination. If I wanted a religious conversation, I would go to christian forum. Here I expect some respect for logic and rational arguments. If you insist, I can stop this debate.
“Regardless, I have satisfactorily defined the term.”
you “defined” it using equally ambiguous words that are mere assertions.
“am I to understand, then, that you reject the causality axiom?”
I don’t reject it, I just think it’s unsufficient to explain the nature of the universe.
“are you an austrian?”
No I am not. I agree with most ideas of Austrian ideology, but I am not the one. I am just skeptical anarchist.
“are you claiming that evolution is directed by God? Because I always thought it was automatic. Also, why would God be concerned with what is “easiest”? Are you defining God to be someone that is lazy?”
lol, so wait, God is only responsible for the universe, and biology is just automation? Who made this “automation” then if not your God? Some other being? Seems that you got lost in your own lala land.
“first of all, I dont claim that the existence of God necessarily depends on His intervention in evolutionary processes. Thats part of your theology/religion, not mine, please dont ask me to accept it.”
So you are more like a deist? Then why do you even bother defending Bible, which is a theistic God’s inspiration?
“at least you finally came clean and admitted what is really the issue here. Your preferences.”
As if you are not bound by them and are guided by holy spirit, haha. Sorry, pal, you’re just a selfish human. Selfish in a good way.
That’s what I am trying to explain to malachi
Ha, I referenced you because I’d figure you’d actually get it.
I am pretty sure that I use all my organs. Since when does the fact that humans are imperfect (which EVERYONE KNOWS BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE!1!!1!1!!1!eleventy!!!) prove or disprove anything? God designed those diseases, duh, and a sinful lifestyle will get you sick. So what is your point, sir?
first of all, I asserted definitions, these are prior assumptions before any argument can occur. I need your consent to the definitions of the terms before we can debate the consistency, rationality, or existence of the articles to which they refer.
secondly, you anthromorphize when you measure anything in orbital periods. I can use years and eons and days and such, because all of that is in revealed religion. But when you, as an atheist and scientist, expect me to take any time period as arbitrarily long or short, you inject a human element where one is unnecessary. Furthermore, your use of any time period that you have not measured yourself is unscientific, we now know that atomic decay is a variable and so many published estimates of these dates are nothing more than articles of faith. So if you want to tell me just how old the universe is, and how you came by this knowledge, feel free.
And third, my belief is an objective truth to you, because it exists outside of your head. You are the one who claims that it is impossible to define terms, then gets all bent out of shape when I do it.
yes, if your argument for assertion:humans landed on the moon was that “it had been proven beyond reasonable doubt because millions of people believe it” that would be argumentum ad populum and fallacious reasoning and therefore bunk. So, try again. Millions of true believers do not make a lie into a truth.
thanks dude! Have you heard about Christ? And how he died for your sins?
nonsense. Morality is adherence to a divinely created standard. This is an objective characteristic of a well-designed universe, where good actions bring good long term effects, and bad acts bring bad long term effects. This has been observed throughout time and history, in addition to being documented in the Bible (“you shall reap what you sow” and the golden rule). This (morality is “good behavior” according to God) is another definition (“bare assertion” as you like to put it) that we must establish in order to discuss the properties of the object. There is no dilemma. I skipped a bunch of stuff, I am glad I made you laugh, laughter is good for the soul. Let me know if I missed anything you expected me to take seriously. Yay intrnts!
I am pretty sure I said nothing like that. What is your argument?
maybe I wish you would make some cogent arguments instead of airing out some vendetta against a belief system (my belief system, I am a Christian) that you quite literally do not even understand. Why worry about my motives?
of course. But I dont allow my sinful, human desire to exist in a unniverse where I am ontologically supreme to delude me into believing that that is in fact the case.
@Autolykos
I guess humans could have faulty sensors. BUT THEN HOW COULD WE TRUST REVEALED TRUTHS???
When you guys are done fist bumping, could you explain to me what that “bare assertion” has to do with either defining the terms of the debate or asserting the validity thereof? It seems more like…proselytizing.
What do you think of the radical skeptical argument, that you cannot rely on your own senses, because the only way to justify your senses would be via an appeal to senses, which is infinite regress?
(I admit the religious use this inconsistently. They only use it to attack rationalism, and never point to that to see an empty tomb, one must have valid senses, to read the bible, one must have valid senses, and to validly pass the bible from generation to generation, one must have valid senses. )