- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
29 Mar 10
KM- Say what? I thought you had conceded that believing in OMFs and also believing that we live in an amoral universe was contradictory?
that wasn't a concession, I volunteered that I think this is so. But that wasn't the contradiction you seemed to be describing. Rather, as LJ pointed out, you seemed to be suggesting that it would be somehow contradictory for an atheist to believe in OMFs.
Otherwise, me being an atheist and recognising the contradiction between OMFs and an amoral universe, need not be the reason why I don't believe in OMFs. So your statement:
"Probably because you recognise , as I do , the contradiction I am describing." makes no sense unless you think the real contradiction is an atheist who believes in OMFs.
My experience is that most full on atheists believe that we live in an amoral universe.
Then you should get out more 🙂
29 Mar 10
3 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterI keep asking you this. What external reality are atheist OMFs supposed to be rooted in? As far as I can see neither you or sharky actually know.
KM SAID-- It's one thing to have a belief in OMFs but it's another to also believe that external reality is supportive of those OMFs and that they are based in the fundamental truths of existence.
LEMON SAID - See above. You are simply drawing on a notional mistake. If OMFs exist, then they simply are part of "external reality".
KM RESPONDS---- model to debate other than something you call "external reality " , whatever this may be.
I know you keep asking this; and I keep responding to it; and yet somehow you don't seem to get it, falling prey to some sort of notional mistake. Recall that I already stated the following:
"If OMFs exist, then they are, in and of themselves, part of reality. After all, they would be entities, they would be extant. And if (as you yourself maintain) they are brute, then they need not be "based" on [or "rooted" in] anything."
As I also hinted, you can keep on pretending that your further step of "rooting" moral facts in God somehow makes your view superior to the hypothetical atheistic view we are also considering; but, actually, this further step of yours has many complications and is explanatorily impotent.
So far you have given me no model to debate other than something you call "external reality " , whatever this may be.
You're the one who used "external reality", remember? Geez, I mean, notice how in the quotes you gave between us, yours refers to external reality and then mine employs the same phrase in quotes to make it clear that I am mirroring your own usage. At any rate, the point is, this hypothetical atheist believes that moral properties and moral facts are simply part of "external reality", perhaps in some brute fashion. So, it does no good for you to respond that this atheist has somehow failed to "root" such properties and facts in external reality; or for you to respond that this atheist has somehow failed to check that "external reality is supportive" of such properties and facts.
29 Mar 10
Originally posted by LemonJello"If OMFs exist, then they are, in and of themselves, part of reality. After all, they would be entities, they would be extant. And if (as you yourself maintain) they are brute, then they need not be "based" on [or "rooted" in] anything."
[b]I keep asking you this. What external reality are atheist OMFs supposed to be rooted in? As far as I can see neither you or sharky actually know.
I know you keep asking this; and I keep responding to it; and yet somehow you don't seem to get it, falling prey to some sort of notional mistake. Recall that I already stated the following:
"If O ...[text shortened]... to check that "external reality is supportive" of such properties and facts.[/b]
---------------------lemon--------------------------
This is bizarre.
You tie yourself up in intellectual knots that prevent you from seeing the simple truth in front of you.
They either exist or they don't - if they exist what are they?
Please bear in mind that the title of this thread is "what is real?".
You think you have answered the question but you have not. It's all philosobabble when it comes down to it. Reality is reality. The Theistic claim is that morality is as real (if not more so) than gravity or quarks.
Anything that is brute has to be based in something real otherwise it cannot exist. Even if it exists on the back of it own existence and is uncaused (ie God) - it still exists.
Surely you are not saying that Atheist OMFs are based on nothing at all other than a theory?
Please rid yourself of this philosobabble and start thinking existentially. You need to turn the page , I'm on Chapter 3 over here and it's time you caught up.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
29 Mar 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe Theistic claim is that morality is as real (if not more so) than gravity or quarks.
"If OMFs exist, then they are, in and of themselves, part of reality. After all, they would be entities, they would be extant. And if (as you yourself maintain) they are brute, then they need not be "based" on [or "rooted" in] anything."
---------------------lemon--------------------------
This is bizarre.
You tie yourself up in intellectual kn ...[text shortened]... You need to turn the page , I'm on Chapter 3 over here and it's time you caught up.
Theologibabble.
Reality is reality.
Tautology of the week award goes to....
30 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterThey either exist or they don't - if they exist what are they?
"If OMFs exist, then they are, in and of themselves, part of reality. After all, they would be entities, they would be extant. And if (as you yourself maintain) they are brute, then they need not be "based" on [or "rooted" in] anything."
---------------------lemon--------------------------
This is bizarre.
You tie yourself up in intellectual kn You need to turn the page , I'm on Chapter 3 over here and it's time you caught up.
Yes, you're right: either it is the case that OMFs exist or it is not the case that OMFs exist. "If they exist what are they?" you ask. Well, if OMFs exist, they are OMFs; they are what they are. Now we are more or less just trading tautologies back and forth.
The Theistic claim is that morality is as real (if not more so) than gravity or quarks.
Bitchin'. Of course, atheists can claim that morality is real, too.
Anything that is brute has to be based in something real otherwise it cannot exist. Even if it exists on the back of it own existence and is uncaused (ie God) - it still exists.
You lost me with the first sentence.
Surely you are not saying that Atheist OMFs are based on nothing at all other than a theory?
You lost me again.
Do you want to take another stab at this post of yours? Beyond the tautologies, which are simply vacuous and offer nothing, there's not much here that makes sense.
30 Mar 10
Originally posted by LemonJelloWell, if OMFs exist, they are OMFs; they are what they are
[b]They either exist or they don't - if they exist what are they?
Yes, you're right: either it is the case that OMFs exist or it is not the case that OMFs exist. "If they exist what are they?" you ask. Well, if OMFs exist, they are OMFs; they are what they are. Now we are more or less just trading tautologies back and forth.
The Theistic c ...[text shortened]... ogies, which are simply vacuous and offer nothing, there's not much here that makes sense.
-----lemon------------------
So they are what then? Physical forces? Entities? Demi-gods? Biological/genetic forces?
I suppose you might be saying that they are an idea or a concept and that makes them "real" ?
When you say "they are what they are" it just begs the question doesn't it?
So - Are OMFs just a concept in men's minds ? Or are they part of external reality?
You still seem to baulk from this question , however , I suspect that you realise how important the answer might be.
A Theist would say that morality is part of external reality and not JUST an idea in men's minds.
What say ye?
30 Mar 10
Originally posted by Lord SharkKM- The Theistic claim is that morality is as real (if not more so) than gravity or quarks.
[b]The Theistic claim is that morality is as real (if not more so) than gravity or quarks.
Theologibabble.
Reality is reality.
Tautology of the week award goes to....[/b]
SHARK - Theologibabble.
-------------------------------------------------------
Maybe so , but at the very least the Theist has put his neck on the block about OMFs and definitively claimed OMFs are real and part of an external reality.
Theism pins it's colours to the mast about morality and unequivocally places morality in the realm of the real , the realm of external reality. It even claims that one day OMFs will be vindicated and all men will be held accountable to them.
I don't see how atheism of any form can go beyond morality just being one man's opinion against another , unless it also puts it head on the block and states what aspect of external reality OMFs belong to.
30 Mar 10
Originally posted by LemonJelloBitchin'. Of course, atheists can claim that morality is real, too.
[b]They either exist or they don't - if they exist what are they?
Yes, you're right: either it is the case that OMFs exist or it is not the case that OMFs exist. "If they exist what are they?" you ask. Well, if OMFs exist, they are OMFs; they are what they are. Now we are more or less just trading tautologies back and forth.
The Theistic c ...[text shortened]... ogies, which are simply vacuous and offer nothing, there's not much here that makes sense.
------lemon-----------
And I have never said they can't . What I am asking is what do they mean by "real" ?
Can you answer this question?
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
30 Mar 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterMaybe so , but at the very least the Theist has put his neck on the block about OMFs and definitively claimed OMFs are real and part of an external reality.
KM- The Theistic claim is that morality is as real (if not more so) than gravity or quarks.
SHARK - Theologibabble.
-------------------------------------------------------
Maybe so , but at the very least the Theist has put his neck on the block about OMFs and definitively claimed OMFs are real and part of an external reality.
Theism pins ...[text shortened]... it also puts it head on the block and states what aspect of external reality OMFs belong to.
If you call alluding to an unfalsifiable implausible supernatural being whose largely indescribable nature has as a brute fact that it is moral in a particular way 'putting your neck on the block', then I'm afraid the atheist has done that better because they been parsimonious.
Theism pins it's colours to the mast about morality and unequivocally places morality in the realm of the real , the realm of external reality.
Wait a minute, I thought god's nature was part of god, not the natural world! How did god inscribe morality into the world? Are they Physical forces? Entities? Demi-gods? Biological/genetic forces? Oh wait, you don't know do you 🙂
I don't see how atheism of any form can go beyond morality just being one man's opinion against another , unless it also puts it head on the block and states what aspect of external reality OMFs belong to.
But I told you one example. Ethical abstract universals. Is it not a fact that C = pi x D? then why can't it be a fact that KPFFIW?
Does your description of how OMFs are written in to the universe have more detail? Less I'd say.
31 Mar 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo - Are OMFs just a concept in men's minds ? Or are they part of external reality?
Well, if OMFs exist, they are OMFs; they are what they are
-----lemon------------------
So they are what then? Physical forces? Entities? Demi-gods? Biological/genetic forces?
I suppose you might be saying that they are an idea or a concept and that makes them "real" ?
When you say "they are what they are" it just begs the question doesn' ...[text shortened]... orality is part of external reality and not JUST an idea in men's minds.
What say ye?
You still seem to baulk from this question , however , I suspect that you realise how important the answer might be.
I know it's asking of you a lot, but if you look back one whole page in this thread, I very clearly stated "If OMFs exist, then they simply are part of 'external reality'." Now, I know you read this because, in fact, you quoted it back to me later on the same page. So, WTF is your problem?
31 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterMan, you're like a brick wall. I've already answered the question. Feel free to re-read through the thread again.
Bitchin'. Of course, atheists can claim that morality is real, too.
------lemon-----------
And I have never said they can't . What I am asking is what do they mean by "real" ?
Can you answer this question?
This is really starting to feel like a waste of my time. Mainly, what I felt was at issue was your claim that, somehow, atheists are logically committed to the idea that "morality is not real". You have not supported this claim of yours in any way, shape, or form. You failed to support it even when you were offered the floor to just show us all the demonstration. And, you have been offered counter arguments and counterexamples. And these counter offerings were intended to get you to see that your claim is false, even when we restrict the term "real" to everything that you yourself require of it. At this point, I'm not sure how to help you any further, if I have helped you at all.
06 Apr 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterWow, this is a train wreck. Have you read even an introductory text in moral philosophy? Yikes!
If one argues that God is not real because he is the product of evolution drives and the human imagination , then what stops one from going the whole hog and throwing out "morality" and "values" as well?
Surely , if we take the first step (and throw out God) then we logically need to take the second step and recognise that morality itself is not " ...[text shortened]... stians of having an illusionary coping system designed to make one feel "better".
06 Apr 10
Originally posted by bbarryet it spawned a thread 200 posts wide.
Wow, this is a train wreck. Have you read even an introductory text in moral philosophy? Yikes!
i find that more fascinating than a dude jumping from issue to issue circumventing all logic. wait, did i say jumping? i ment he opens wormholes, embarks in a pink unicorn shaped space ship and tunnels through the fabric of logic and reason.
the fact that people pay attention to him should be more interesting.
07 Apr 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadto easy though. mere level 1 debating practice at best.
The topics he is wrestling with are often interesting. I find that poking holes in his logic can be educational.
when you jump from dismissing god to dismissing what god stands for you tearing the fabric of logic in a brutal way. not only illogical but insulting towards humanity, and even god. he is basically saying that he is only following morals to appease god. if god wouldn't exist, he would be a bastard.