The Problems With Ethical Relativism (18 Viewers)

[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.

And the minute I write this down I get called up by some French lady and I'm forced to have an entire conversation in French.

Talk about karma.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Hist]

Well of course there's a difference, but I don't think there is a fixed definition of natural vs. supernatural. And even if there was, it doesn't affect how you define god.

it does all of the effect just be patient with me

 

[Martin]

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.

Yes, I have seen zero apples. There are zero apples on my desk right now. What is the difficulty?

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.

I gave an example earlier about windshield wipers. Was that also not hard to understand?

 

[Dinsdale]

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

I believe he's got a point here. Metaphysics isn't science. It's impossible to talk about god in a scientifical way, because you can't make any scientifical statements about it.

 

[Seven]

I believe he's got a point here. Metaphysics isn't science. It's impossible to talk about god in a scientifical way, because you can't make any scientifical statements about it.

Ah, but here's the tricky part. It's not just about science. It's about ratio. And ratio does play a part in metaphysics. And ratio, again, is a manmade product. Ratio is what we built our science on remember.

 

[Dinsdale]

Yes, I have seen zero apples. There are zero apples on my desk right now. What is the difficulty?

Right. There are no apples there. So how can you count them? It's just as abstract as counting infinite apples, but for some reason "zero apples" is trivial for you.

I gave an example earlier about windshield wipers. Was that also not hard to understand?

No. The property velocity of your wipers can't reach infinity. And if it could, you already explained how it would look like. Like Seven said, the math isn't out there. It's just something we use to describe what we see.

 

[*aca*]

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?

My point was that your definition still does not explain anything. Yes, could could be a being that moves through 4 dimensions. God could be a creature living in the black hole. God could be invisible old man sitting on top of your shoulder only when none can see him and is undetectable. What does that explain? What you said is not a definition of physically interpretable god. Anything that reacts with the real world leaves a trace. It is an ad hock concoction that uses discoveries/definitions/tools of science to fit bring imaginary being into "possible" existence. You start with a "god". That is not a starting hypothesis that is about to be tested.

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

if it exist, it is natural. I repeat we have no other frame of reference but natural world.

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.

science infers things from observable evidence. Science (and as you mentioned, i think, already) especially physics & maths deal with some abstract notions that are often very hard to understand (especially to this feeble brain of mine ). The point is that all those are tool that explain the world around us. They are used for make predictions based on current knowledge and prior experiments. IF it works it is kept until better explanation is discovered.

Saying god moves through 4 dimensions is not falsifiable and provides are with no explanation. We still don't have one positive characteristic of these creature. It is not even a hypothesis. It is, as i said, an ad hock definition that would fit the god in the gaps of knowledge section.

No need for the patronizing tone, sir.

this was not meant for anything you said sorry if it came out that way. I was referring to JR pulling out cosmological and other dead beat arguments that have been trashed away with years ago.

 

[Martin]

Right. There are no apples there. So how can you count them? It's just as abstract as counting infinite apples, but for some reason "zero apples" is trivial for you.

The difference is I can see zero apples, I can understand the dichotomy of present vs absent. I cannot see infinitely many apples, I cannot understand that quantity.

No. The property velocity of your wipers can't reach infinity. And if it could, you already explained how it would look like.

Exactly, and that's incomprehensible to me. I can't picture it, I can't understand it.

 

[Dinsdale]

Ah, but here's the tricky part. It's not just about science. It's about ratio. And ratio does play a part in metaphysics. And ratio, again, is a manmade product. Ratio is what we built our science on remember.

The existence of god is discussed rationally in metaphysics.

 

[Martin]

And no, I cannot understand the concept of negative amounts of apples if that's coming up next.

 

[Nenz]

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.

Interesting credentials, Seven. I wonder if racial slurs win over juries.

 

[*aca*]

The existence of god is discussed rationally in metaphysics.

the problem with metaphysics is that you can not assign true or false to any of idea you can come up in metaphysics.

so, yes, it can create some interesting conversations, but ultimately it leads to sophistry of thought and nothing more.

 

[*aca*]

ok real life is kicking in.

I'll try to visit again

 

[Seven]

The existence of god is discussed rationally in metaphysics.

I know. And it shouldn't be.

Interesting credentials, Seven. I wonder if racial slurs win over juries.

I usually take some stuff to get really riled up and then I beat the shit out of them. I do pop a shoulder in the process every once in a while.

 

[Dinsdale]

And no, I cannot understand the concept of negative amounts of apples if that's coming up next.

How about 1/3 apple?

The math isn't out there, it's just a pair of glasses we wear to observe things.

the problem with metaphysics is that you can not assign true or false to any of idea you can come up in metaphysics.

so, yes, it can create some interesting conversations, but ultimately it leads to sophistry of thought and nothing more.

Yes that's true. At this level you can never reach a conclusion. But by using ratio you can discuss the plausibility of a statement, I think.

My opinion is that claiming god exists or claiming he doesn't exist, are both pretentious.

 

[Martin]

My opinion is that claiming god exists or claiming he doesn't exist, are both pretentious.

Provided this god hypothesis is an intelligible one to begin with, which I claim it isn't.

 

[Seven]

Provided this god hypothesis is an intelligible one to begin with, which I claim it isn't.

Well surely God cannot exist within the realm of ratio.

 

[Martin]

Well surely God cannot exist within the realm of ratio.

Your fancy prep school education is too much for a public school kid like me.

 

[Dinsdale]

Provided this god hypothesis is an intelligible one to begin with, which I claim it isn't.

Do you think there can be said anything intelligible about the beginning of our universe?

 

[Seven]

Your fancy prep school education is too much for a public school kid like me.

Ratio stems from the subject. It's human. It's our tool to see the world. It's like a language, a code. Anything that doesn't fit in that code, doesn't make sense and is not rational. "Culo" means something in Italian, but it doesn't in English.

Our code isn't designed to see God. So you can't use that code to say there is one.