How did you reach your conclusion

[☭proletarian☭]

your vantage point does not change the mountain, only your understanding of it.

Yet the mountain doesn't exist until someone sees the world in which it resides.

Physics will really fuck with your philosophy.

No, objective. It exists whether we want it to, see it, experience it or not.

Not quite. Look up the double slit experiment, probability waves, and the significance of the observer in the collapsing of that wave into a single reality. As I said, physics will fuck with your philosophy.

It's existence is not dependent on our subjective knowledge or observation of it.

Wave function collapse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Otherwise, nothing would exist beyond our own experience

You cannot know whether anything exists beyond your own experience.

. There would be no reason to explore for nothing would exist there to find. It is independent of us.

It becomes a mission both of discovery and possibly creation (at least, if the current models hold true )

 

[Big Fitz]

Odd that you should get you all that yet your god allows African children to die for the want of a glass of clean water.

That's not God's fault. That's a sin damaged world for you. Or if you must blame someone, it's Man's fault. Why aren't YOU giving them clean water?

 

[Big Fitz]

Not quite. Look up the double slit experiment, probability waves, and the significance of the observer in the collapsing of that wave into a single reality. As I said, physics will fuck with your philosophy.

Physics =/= Philosophy. Thou shalt not mix the two safely.

You cannot know whether anything exists beyond your own experience.

Ahhh, but if someone else experiences it and does not tell me, does it not exist?

The concept of an 'experience based reality' is debunked by the "Peek-a-Boo" experiments you and your parents went through when you were 4 months old.

It becomes a mission both of discovery and possibly creation (at least, if the current models hold true )

Why? By the very nature of your belief here, it can't exist without you making it exist. So technically..... you're to blame for how bad the world is then? I'll stick with 'the truth is objective, our view is subjective'. Occam's Razor.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

wait, who made the serpent?

 

[Big Fitz]

wait, who made the serpent?

Ahhh the manufacturer is responsible for the individual doing bad things argument. Gotcha.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Not quite. Look up the double slit experiment, probability waves, and the significance of the observer in the collapsing of that wave into a single reality. As I said, physics will fuck with your philosophy.

Physics =/= Philosophy. Thou shalt not mix the two safely.

Philosophy should be a logical search for an understanding iof the nature of things; it should gladly incorporate what knowledge physics can offer.

You cannot know whether anything exists beyond your own experience.

Ahhh, but if someone else experiences it and does not tell me, does it not exist?

The concept of an 'experience based reality' is debunked by the "Peek-a-Boo" experiments you and your parents went through when you were 4 months old.

Again, go look up the experiments. BTW, you're still observing the universe outside of your own self during a game of peek-a-boo.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

wait, who made the serpent?

Ahhh the manufacturer is responsible for the individual doing bad things argument. Gotcha.

Hey, if those that did evil are made in God's image, then God must be evil. If god is perfect, then his creation must be perfect per the same standard.

 

[Big Fitz]

Philosophy should be a logical search for an understanding iof the nature of things; it should gladly incorporate what knowledge physics can offer.

But without the leap of faith that there can be things beyond our understanding... supernatural if you will... you cannot always understand what is natural. Where is the scientific method without the question 'Why?' Logic is not the end all/be all for all things. It is a tool that must be used in its proper context and usage. To force it beyond it's limits is just as wrong as ignoring it.

Again, go look up the experiments. BTW, you're still observing the universe outside of your own self during a game of peek-a-boo.

Why? I've never said that my view of the universe isn't flawed. I am saying that my view of the universe does not CHANGE the universe for it is independent of me, and my consciousness. Thank you for allowing me to illustrate my point. I've not looked at it, yet it exists.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

But without the leap of faith that there can be things beyond our understanding... supernatural if you will... you cannot always understand what is natural.

1)Faith is mutually exclusive with reason

2)Did you just claim that you must believe in the supernatural to understand that which is natural?

Where is the scientific method without the question 'Why?'

Science doesn't ask 'why' in the philosophical sense of meaning or purpose, but merely as it relates to causation, affect, and interaction. Any question as meaning or why things should be one way instead of another 9such as Hawking's question regarding why the universe should go through the trouble oof existing at all) falls to philosophy.

Logic is not the end all/be all for all things. It is a tool that must be used in its proper context and usage. To force it beyond it's limits is just as wrong as ignoring it.

Logic is the only source of meaningful understanding.

Why? I've never said that my view of the universe isn't flawed. I am saying that my view of the universe does not CHANGE the universe for it is independent of me, and my consciousness.

And the experiments cast doubt on your assertion.

. I've not looked at it, yet it exists.

You have no way of knowing whether it exists or not.

 

[amrchaos]

So, you don't think you're smart enough to not commit crimes if left to your own devices?

Actually, prolat, morality/ethics must be taught else the individual is left wandering confused and blind. Stumbling in and out of trouble and slowly understanding why they were placed into such problems to begin with.

We may not know the consequences of our actions until AFTER we performed the act. This is one of the underlining arguement for the teaching of a religion to children.

Or, if you prefer the New Atheists Propaganda--that is one of the reasons for indoctrinating/brainwashing children.


(There maybe more add-ons. For some reason I do not feel I am communicating the point exactly--amrchaos)

 

[☭proletarian☭]

So, you don't think you're smart enough to not commit crimes if left to your own devices?

Actually, prolat, morality/ethics must be taught else the individual is left wandering confused and blind.

ethics must be taught/agreed upon; morality is a natural instinct.

We may not know the consequences of our actions until AFTER we performed the act.

That's not morality, it's changing our actions based- not on any sense of right and wrong- but on whether the end result is desirable. You're arguing that tuning an engine after a modification causes it to overheat is an exercise in morality.

 

[Foxfyre]

Odd that you should get you all that yet your god allows African children to die for the want of a glass of clean water.

That's not God's fault. That's a sin damaged world for you. Or if you must blame someone, it's Man's fault. Why aren't YOU giving them clean water?

Well said.

Who is to say that the creationists are not right that a perfect God made a perfect world? But in order to give us the gift of ability to love and experience joy, we had to have free will and ability to experience the absence of love and experience the opposite of joy. Without such ability we are nothing more than robots without ability to choose or alter our programming in any way. However, because we have ability to choose, we have ability to choose that which harms us and/or others--my definition of sin. And each incident of sin makes that which was perfect imperfect.

Africa has perhaps the greatest store of natural resources in the world, yet harbors some of the world's poorest people. You're right that this is not God's fault but the fault of the strong looking to their own interests at the expense of the weak. That too is sin and we see that horrendous results of it.

 

[Big Fitz]

1)Faith is mutually exclusive with reason

2)Did you just claim that you must believe in the supernatural to understand that which is natural?

1. No, I disagree.

2. No, I said it can HELP us understand the natural at times. Qualified statement.

Science doesn't ask 'why' in the philosophical sense of meaning or purpose, but merely as it relates to causation, affect, and interaction. Any question as meaning or why things should be one way instead of another 9such as Hawking's question regarding why the universe should go through the trouble oof existing at all) falls to philosophy.

Thank you. I was wondering if you'd catch that. Science is not the study of 'why' but rather the study of 'how'. That is the reason why I do not agree with much of your assessment. Since science does not deal in why, it should not be the basis for the question.

Logic is the only source of meaningful understanding.

I disagree. Logic is not an infinite philosophical tool.

And the experiments cast doubt on your assertion.

I doubt it.

You have no way of knowing whether it exists or not.

You're right! I don't! LOL. And yet to your experience, it exists. Therefore it is independent of my experience for it to exist. Proving my point. Oh wait... you're not going to trot out the 'collective unconsciousness' argument are you??? Cause if you are, we've no further reason to discuss this.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Therefore it is independent of my experience for it to exist.

You're still assuming it exists at all.

I suggest looking up logical positivism (the foundation of my philosophical perspective)

 

[Big Fitz]

Who is to say that the creationists are not right that a perfect God made a perfect world? But in order to give us the gift of ability to love and experience joy, we had to have free will and ability to experience the absence of love and experience the opposite of joy. Without such ability we are nothing more than robots without ability to choose or alter our programming in any way. However, because we have ability to choose, we have ability to choose that which harms us and/or others--my definition of sin. And each incident of sin makes that which was perfect imperfect.

Ahhhhhh... I love this point.

It's what helped me to understand the reason for "why" we exist (assuming the Bible is true). Without free will, true love is not possible. We must have the untainted choice to choose freely to love God, otherwise it is spiritual coercion and thereby invalidates the basic premise of love.

Now, how we came to this situation of existence is a much longer, bigger story and as Prol is so fond of pointing out, based totally on MY understanding of reality. But then again, It'd exist whether I believed in it or not.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

e must have the untainted choice to choose freely to love God, otherwise it is spiritual coercion and thereby invalidates the basic premise of love.

And saying 'love me or I'll throw you into lava and let you burn forever' isn't spiritual cooercion that invalidates the basic premise of that 'love'?

You just deconstructed the entire Abrahamic religion in all its forms.

 

[amrchaos]

So, you don't think you're smart enough to not commit crimes if left to your own devices?

Actually, prolat, morality/ethics must be taught else the individual is left wandering confused and blind.

ethics must be taught/agreed upon; morality is a natural instinct.

We may not know the consequences of our actions until AFTER we performed the act.

That's not morality, it's changing our actions based- not on any sense of right and wrong- but on whether the end result is desirable. You're arguing that tuning an engine after a modification causes it to overheat is an exercise in morality.

I was talking in reference to some one that is ignorant of the consequences of their actions. This is entirely possible.

Yes--tuning an engine after a modification causes it to overheat is an exercise in morality can be considered an exercise in learning a response and could be considered a form of technical morality. But this is only due to the fact that the mechanic may not have realized that the engine needed tuning AFTER the modification.

This, in my opinion, is how ethics/moral laws are formed. First, consequences due to mistakes or caluclated results from others learned. Then it is codified as advice/warnings for those that follow in the "teachers/thinkers" footsteps.


Where do you think these moral laws/ethics come from. Intuition is great, but intuition is based on either past experience or subconscious calculations related to the subject.

If one lacks the past experience, then your subconscious is left to process a judgement based on the information gleaned from experiences that is related to the situation at hand. Sometimes you can come up with the correct response, sometimes you will not.

Thus there is a bit of radomness in this process. To correct this, you need more experiences/lessons so that your judgement through intuition can be precise. But this involves learning, either firsthand or through the experiences of others, what should be considered.

Learning firsthand can be time consuming and annoying
Learning from the experiences of others is actually much quicker, and depending on the teacher/thinker, it is also possible to pick up a method of how to analyze similiar situations.

Thus it is my opinion that ethics/morality is taught. Either through first hand experience, or through the lessons of others. Intuition relies on this as well.

 

[pladecalvo]

That's not God's fault.

If your god allows them die when he can prevent it, then it becomes his responsibility.

Or if you must blame someone, it's Man's fault.

At the end of the day, your god allegedly has the power to end all suffering here and now....in an instant. Failure to do that leads to the thoughts of Epicurus.

Why aren't YOU giving them clean water?

I have spent many years working voluntarily with the starving in Somalia, Darfur, Mozambique and Ethiopia.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Yes--tuning an engine after a modification causes it to overheat is an exercise in morality

This, in my opinion, is how ethics/moral laws are formed. First, consequences due to mistakes or caluclated results from others learned. Then it is codified as advice/warnings for those that follow in the "teachers/thinkers" footsteps.

Ethics are formed out of mutual desire. We don't want to be raped, so we agree not to rape eahother and to act together against anyone who rapes any of us. Ethics (can) become laws and give rise to complex legal systems.

Where do you think these moral laws/ethics come from. Intuition is great, but intuition is based on either past experience or subconscious calculations related to the subject.

see: the moral instinct; evolutionary altruism; social contract

 

[Big Fitz]

e must have the untainted choice to choose freely to love God, otherwise it is spiritual coercion and thereby invalidates the basic premise of love.

And saying 'love me or I'll throw you into lava and let you burn forever' isn't spiritual cooercion that invalidates the basic premise of that 'love'?

You just deconstructed the entire Abrahamic religion in all its forms.

No, you assume much.