The Problems With Ethical Relativism (8 Viewers)

[Raz]

I'm studying electrical engineering, but I've had a quantum physics course this semester so I've seen some of the modern physics concepts in class, but most of this stuff I've just discovered somewhere else or figured out myself. Not that I know much about it lol. You can't even begin to imagine how crazy modern physics is.

I can't grasp it, but I can imagine it, since I'm interested in this stuff, and have spent some time looking into it. Very interesting stuff I may add.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Dinsdale]

so ad-hoc explanation.

You have an idea of a superior, supernatural being and then you try to fit what we know about the world into complying to the being that we have an idea about.

Its all backwards.

You're really confusing me here. You're asking for a possible explanation of how a god could exist, and when you get a physically interpretable one, you simply reject it because it corresponds with our notion of spacetime (that's what you mean by 'the world' I assume). And if someone gives an explanation that doesn't correspond with those notions, you're rejecting it because it's not physically interpretable. Sounds like a closed loop to me.

If you're calling this ad hoc, then why aren't you so critical towards every scientifical hypothesis? Are you anti-science too?

There is not such a think as supernatural. IF we KNOW about it, it is natural because we have no other means of knowing or other kind of referen point but natural world.

puting exist and supernatural togethert is an oxymoron.


of course, immagination can run wild

Whatever, I just suggested a frame in which a creator can exist. Don't care at all how you call that frame.

Sure they are, but it goes like this.

- Gunter, it's zeems we hapf discovered ze nature ov a black hole.
- Wat iz it?
- According my celculationz ze mass of ze black hole is infinite.
- Say again?
- Infinite. You can observe zis on page 324 of meine small proof.

That's what Einstein was all about it, wasn't it? "If you think you have problems with mathematics, you should see mine." They plug in their physical observations into formulas and crank away. Out comes an answer that in terms of math is completely sane. But when applied back onto the physical world noone knows what it means. I have absolutely no sense of a singular yet infinite mass, it's absurd!

These notions of infinity and singularity are not first observed in the world and then used in mathematics. If you could find an infinite mass in the world (and probably build a museum around it), that would be something else. But we've never seen these things, and we don't really understand them either, even if they exist in math.

I know that, you've just repeated what I've already said. Can't directly observe, but used to describe things we observe. This method has been quite succesful before, because it does describe what's going on. And if you're not okay with it, you're not okay with physics and almost all science either.

this is just beating the dead horse thousand times over....

No need for the patronizing tone, sir.

 

[Fred]

As soon as the discussion turned from philosophy to physics, this thread got boring.

I fuckin hate physics.

 

[Dinsdale]

As soon as the discussion turned from philosophy to physics, this thread got boring.

I fuckin hate physics.

It's rather about metaphysics than physics imo.

 

[Seven]

As soon as the discussion turned from philosophy to physics, this thread got boring.

I fuckin hate physics.

IMO it's not entirely fair either. If you're going to talk physics, Juve Revolution automatically has to quit the debate. There is no way he can say anything meaningful about either God or an objective moral standard in a physics discussion.

 

[Raz]

IMO it's not entirely fair either. If you're going to talk physics, Juve Revolution automatically has to quit the debate. There is no way he can say anything meaningful about either God or an objective moral standard in a physics discussion.

Wouldn't that be the case in any rational discussion? He is trying to prove that god exists with rational methods, which i don't think it is possible, since god is all about believing, and that is not rational.

 

[Dinsdale]

This isn't strict physics anyway. It's not like we're making mathematical deductions or something. No preknowledge needed.

 

[Seven]

Wouldn't that be the case in any rational discussion? He is trying to prove that god exists with rational methods, which i don't think it is possible, since god is all about believing, and that is not rational.

Yes, it is the case in any rational discussion. You can't rationally prove there is a God and because Juve Revolution sees a God as strictly necessary for an objective moral standard there can be no discussion here. The basis isn't there so this discussion is void of meaning.

Sorry, JR.

 

[Martin]

I know that, you've just repeated what I've already said. Can't directly observe, but used to describe things we observe. This method has been quite succesful before, because it does describe what's going on. And if you're not okay with it, you're not okay with physics and almost all science either.

But the difference is we don't say "X is infinite" as a way to describe some unknown thing X. And saying it's infinite, not even with regards to infinite in what measure, isn't exactly much of a description.

Now black holes, mysterious as they are, are actually detected through other means. So to describe them as infinite is not a very good description because it's really hard to understand, but at least we know we're talking about something detectable.

God is by definition undetectable. To that we add infinite. Great, still tells me nothing.

So yea, not the same thing.

 

[rounder]

IMO it's not entirely fair either. If you're going to talk physics, Juve Revolution automatically has to quit the debate. There is no way he can say anything meaningful about either God or an objective moral standard in a physics discussion.

Wrong. Two arguments that support the existence of God including the Kalam Cosmological argument and the 'fine tuning' argument are both arguments that have very much to do with physics.

Wouldn't that be the case in any rational discussion? He is trying to prove that god exists with rational methods, which i don't think it is possible, since god is all about believing, and that is not rational.

But I have given you rational reasons for why I believe in God, you haven't been able to prove them wrong, or even marginally reject them in an intelligible way. All you have done so far is say " God is irrational " ; yet you have given absolutely nothing that proves this statement.

To believe that God does not exist is a belief nonetheless, thus by following your logic, atheism is just as irrational as theism.

Yes, it is the case in any rational discussion. You can't rationally prove there is a God and because Juve Revolution sees a God as strictly necessary for an objective moral standard there can be no discussion here. The basis isn't there so this discussion is void of meaning.

Sorry, JR.

You can't prove anything, you can't prove evolution, the Big Bang theory, or the theory of relativity. So what? I am provding rational arguments for the existence of God, and they are all logically sound. You, like Razielist have done nothing but debunk them for no apparent reason whatsoever.

I don't really expect any more from you to be perfectly honest.

 

[Raz]

Like Martin said, god by definition is undetectable, so all is left is belief in god, and that is not rational.

 

[Seven]

Wrong. Two arguments that support the existence of God including the Kalam Cosmological argument and the 'fine tuning' argument are both arguments that have very much to do with physics.

But I have given you rational reasons for why I believe in God, you haven't been able to prove them wrong, or even marginally reject them in an intelligible way. All you have done so far is say " God is irrational " ; yet you have given absolutely nothing that proves this statement.

To believe that God does not exist is a belief nonetheless, thus by following your logic, atheism is just as irrational as theism.

You can't prove anything, you can't prove evolution, the Big Bang theory, or the theory of relativity. So what? I am provding rational arguments for the existence of God, and they are all logically sound. You, like Razielist have done nothing but debunk them for no apparent reason whatsoever.

I don't really expect any more from you to be perfectly honest.

The Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution are not in the same category. We see evolution happening right in front of us. The Big Bang not so much. Your so called rational arguments all end with: there has to be a God. That's not the conclusion of a rational argumentation.

God is not a rational thing. And I will tell you why (mind you, this is something that almost every christian in Europe knows ever since Kant came along and I'm surprised that you don't). Ratio is natural. It is something that is inherent to man. It is the way we see the world. Physics is a theory we use to somewhat control the world. We mathematically calculate the amount of pressure something can bear, but do you really think that there are numbers in there? There aren't. Yet the theory works. It's functional. That doesn't mean there is some objective truth behind it all. We don't know why pressure has to exist. We don't know why there's gravity. Science is human, not divine. Science is about function, not about meaning.

Notice those last ideas? God has no place in a scientific discussion, because God is not something we can grasp. We designed a theory to make this world understandable, not the next.

Jeez.

P.S.: dare I say it? Should I say it? I'm going to say it: science is... subjective.

 

[rounder]

You don't even know what arguments I'm talking about.

 

[Seven]

Although that's a quality comeback, it doesn't matter after my last post. It effectively destroys every hope you can ever have to talk about God in a rational discussion.

 

[rounder]

Although that's a quality comeback, it doesn't matter after my last post. It effectively destroys every hope you can ever have to talk about God in a rational discussion.

I don't believe you are that close-minded, perhaps partially ignorant, but closed mindedness is the ultimate symbol of idiocy. I will ignore that statement for now.

I suggest you take some time to watch this debate. I challenge you to logically refute all of Craig's arguments. http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B63CB08920219506&search_query=dr+craig

If you can logically prove all of Craig's points wrong, then I will officially admit defeat.

 

[Seven]

I don't care. It doesn't matter. You can't use a process that is manmade to explain something divine. You can't use a process that is designed to explain how this world works to explain the meaning of the next. Any attempt to do so is a waste of time. Read my post again.

The stuff from Craig is grand and all, but before you looked into that, you really should have read Kant first.

 

[rounder]

Stop deluding yourself aleady, and stop acting like you know everything, you clearly don't. Your post proves nothing at all, I'm only asking you to hear this man out and you refuse.

There's really no point in arguing with someone like you. You already have made up your mind and nothing on earth will ever change it, it's actually quite pathetic. I hope you don't get into debates too often; your type of mentality really defeats the purpose.

 

[Seven]

I get into debates all the time and I usually win them. I'm a historian who is trying to get a law degree and who speaks four languages. It should make me a fine debater. A better one than you anyway. Read my post again. You can't use science (= manmade process to see how stuff works) to talk about God (=divine and more a question of "why?"). It's really simple, JR.

 

[rounder]

I'm not using science, I'm using metaphysical arguments. That's all anyone can do really. I suggest you listen to them.

 

[Dinsdale]

But the difference is we don't say "X is infinite" as a way to describe some unknown thing X. And saying it's infinite, not even with regards to infinite in what measure, isn't exactly much of a description.

No, who said that anyway? I'm talking about saying "quantitative property X of entity Y is infinite" to describe something. By the way, zero is just as abstract as infinite. Ever seen zero apples? Yet we use zero very often to describe something.

Now black holes, mysterious as they are, are actually detected through other means. So to describe them as infinite is not a very good description because it's really hard to understand, but at least we know we're talking about something detectable.

God is by definition undetectable. To that we add infinite. Great, still tells me nothing.

So yea, not the same thing.

It's not hard to understand at all. The gravity at the centre of a black hole is said to be infite, because nothing can espace from it, no matter how fast it goes. Abstract: yes. Meaningless: no.