God does exist. Itelligent design in the Universe is prof of God.

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Revisiting the long-lost topic:

The Theory of Evolution explains how things that appear to our very limited and stunted minds to be engineered... aren't. Anyone is free to point at it and say, "God did that!". It affects nothing. It adds no useful understanding or information, no useful predictions, and explains nothing.

 

[ding]

Revisiting the long-lost topic:

The Theory of Evolution explains how things that appear to our very limited and stunted minds to be engineered... aren't. Anyone is free to point at it and say, "God did that!". It affects nothing. It adds no useful understanding or information, no useful predictions, and explains nothing.

You mean other than giving purpose to existence?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Revisiting the long-lost topic:

The Theory of Evolution explains how things that appear to our very limited and stunted minds to be engineered... aren't. Anyone is free to point at it and say, "God did that!". It affects nothing. It adds no useful understanding or information, no useful predictions, and explains nothing.

You mean other than giving purpose to existence?

It doesn't do that. You have a hard time separating theism from dogma. Which is to be expected.

 

[ding]

Revisiting the long-lost topic:

The Theory of Evolution explains how things that appear to our very limited and stunted minds to be engineered... aren't. Anyone is free to point at it and say, "God did that!". It affects nothing. It adds no useful understanding or information, no useful predictions, and explains nothing.

You mean other than giving purpose to existence?

It doesn't do that. You have a hard time separating theism from dogma. Which is to be expected.

By definition it does. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional.

 

[Grumblenuts]

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose.

Correct. It wasn't. Obviously. Else you'd have some compelling scientific evidence to show otherwise. You don't. Get over it. No "intentional purpose" need apply. No matter how much that makes you cry.

Just as it doesn't matter if our parents planned us or had us by accident. We march on the same.

 

[Blues Man]

Morals are relative.

I couldn't be happier for you to believe that too.

Just remember the next time you are quarreling with someone who has wronged you that you remember that. That way you won't expect them to agree with you.

I am at a point in my life where I do not think I would be quarreling with anyone for any reason.

Good luck with that.

No need for luck.

I have not "quarreled" with anyone in well over a decade.

The definition of quarrel is a heated argument or disagreement, typically about a trivial issue and between people who are usually on good term.

We disagree on a daily basis and you are arguing that I should see it your way. Your behaviors clearly indicate you do believe in absolute truth despite your argument otherwise.

You really don't need to school me on definitions.

I do not find our discourse to be heated. it may be trivial but it is also enjoyable. I don't really care if you ever see things my way. And I don't believe in absolutes at all.

I'm of the mind that everything exists on a continuum. So I know that killing another person isn't always wrong or evil. I know that there will always be a percentage of the population that are criminals and victimizers. I accept these things as unavoidable so I do not judge or at least I try not to. There was a time in my life where I stole food so I wouldn't go hungry and unless you know what it's like to know you won't eat unless you steal it's easy to judge people for doing that.

Even in Buddhism it is spoken that there are 4 noble truths. But there are many ways to interpret that. There is also the doctrines of the 8 rights of the noble path.

But again there are many ways to interpret those.

I use my desire not to intentionally cause suffering to be the frame of reference I use when interpreting these concepts. I do not accept any of them as absolutes because by doing so I am contradicting the idea that impermanence applies to everything.

That sounds eerily like you believe there is only one way to look at it.

Funny I specifically said there are many ways to interpret the Buddhist doctrine.


What I chose as my path is based on my interpretation I do not tell anyone that my path is the only one. There are many roads to a great city.

Which in and of itself is an absolute. You have alleged there is no single way which is an absolute statement.

No it's the realization that there is no single way. There isn't even a single destination.

My path is my choice not yours not anyone else's so it cannot be an absolute it is 100% relative to me, my experiences, my desires and my determination of the type of life I want to lead.

If that was an absolute or iow, perfect, complete, entire, I would have to say that it is the way everyone else should follow because it is the only one.

So it's a universal truth that there is no single way.

I never said that. But it is a fact that not every person walks the same path and some even have a different destination in mind than others. So for there to be just one absolute way then all the other people who follow a different path must be wrong. I don't believe that.

There is a path for anyone but it doesn't have to be the same path for everyone therefore there is no universal path

MAny people choose to walk the path set out for them by a religion religion. Don't confuse popularity with universality.

 

[Blues Man]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

So you're changing your tune again.

Did you not say the math does not exist?

If it does not exist it cannot be discovered can it?

Exact right triangles are a man made construct. So the math describing them is a man made construct

There is no reason to think the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Never changed my tune. You take things out of context cause you have nothing else.

I love how hard you are trying to prove this.

Einstein did not invent E=mc^2. He discovered it.

I quoted you verbatim.

And you still deny you said it

Math is a human invention as a way to represent what we see.

You are confusing math and what math was invented to describe.

There is nothing to prove that the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours

Man discovered math. Man did not invent math. Math is universal. Same for logic, science, music, etc.

you are confusing math with the things it was invented to describe.

No. I'm not. E=mc^2 wasn't invented. It was discovered. Einstein could not make it be anything he wanted it to be like Apple could with its iPod. So E=mc^2 isn't an invention, it is a mathematical reality that describes a physical phenomenon. The physical phenomenon and the math that describes it were discovered.

The math that describes the relationship between matter and energy is a human invention.

You are confusing the math with the things it is being used to describe.

So I invented that if A=B and B=C then A=C?

Mathematics was invented to describe observed phenomenon in the natural world.

Like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a body due to gravity.

It is a representation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itself.

So... if A=B and B=C then A=C was invented and not discovered?

All you are doing is saying A =A

Not much of a "discovery" is it ?

Logic is nothing but a system invented by humans to examine human reasoning.

Is that your way of saying the transitive law was discovered?

No it was invented when man invented a system of correct inference AKA logic

You said it wasn't much of a discovery though, right? You didn't say it was no discovery.

It's not a "discovery" to say A=A

Do you know what sarcasm is?

But it's not saying A=A. It is comparing three different things. A, B and C.

No it isn't

because we have a definition for the concept represented by the = sign.

If A =B then B and A are the same thing so you are not comparing different things but rather you are giving the same thing different names.

Let's say A is a house and B is a diamond ring and C is a Lamborghini. Are they all the same thing?

Like I said we have defined the meaning of the = sign.

if you do not use the = sign then you are not giving different names to the same thing.

So you are arguing that a house and a diamond ring and a Lamborghini are all the same things?

I guess since you believe you can make logic be anything you want that makes sense to you.

No. I never once said that or tried to prove it.

And what you are doing is playing with language and that is not logic.

You were the one who said they were the same thing to justify that math is an invention. I am the one who said the transitive law was discovered and not created by man but exists unto itself just as logic does because the transitive law is based upon logic.

Where did I say a house and a diamond ring are the same thing? The entire if A=B and B=C then A=C statement is based on certain assumptions. If you change those assumptions or ignore then then the rule breaks down.

Logic is a human invention as a system of correct inference.

Math was invented by humans to describe observed phenomena

There is no reason to think the mathematics or logic of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Logic, like math is discovered. You can't make them be anything you want them to be. Just like you can't make right and wrong be anything you want them to be.

The rules of logic have been set down in the past and expanded by different cultures throughout history.

The system of rules was made by men and is a product of the human mind and are therefore uniquely human.

Logic isn't something floating out in the ether like hydrogen atoms

Logic is based upon truth and truth is based upon objectivity. Truth and logic are discovered through objectivity.

Truth. Obviously your truth and my truth are not the same thing.

a statement can only be true if we all agree on the definition of the terms used.

So now i suppose that there is some ultimate source of the definitions of all terms waiting to be "discovered " too right?

I never realized truth was a popularity contest.

Truth like logic exists unto itself and are discovered.

It is.

We can't even agree if the statement "Killing people is wrong" is true or not.

Killing people is wrong. Sometimes people choose to do wrong because it is the lesser of two evils. Not because they think it's right to kill.

So then the killing of a person for any reason should have the same consequences but it doesn't because we have subjectively rationalized when it is acceptable to kill.

And if evil in not extant as you have said how can once choose between a lesser or a greater evil if neither exists?

Think of evil as the absence of good but we use the word evil as a literary convenience.

Good is not an entity either.

Good is a value judgement.

These are human constructs

Good & evil, right & wrong are artifacts of intelligence. At the heart of this construct is the concept of fairness. Each pair is a side of the same coin; good/evil, right/wrong, fair/unfair. So there are two sides but only one coin. One side is the extant side. It's what exists. The other side is the negation of what exists. For example... evil is the absence of good, wrong is the absence of right and unfair is the absence of fairness. But for man to have any of these constructs he has to know what good and right and fair means. And not surprisingly he does. Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth. If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Black and white huh?

That's it.

We are living in a world that is nothing but shades of gray and we define what is good or evil.

And is there ever really a complete absence of good? A serial killer might take care of his invalid mother or feed the stray cats in his neighborhood so if there is just a little good then he cannot be evil right?

A soldier who is sent to kill is doing "good" as judged by society but what if he enjoys the killing as much as the serial killer? Does that make the soldier evil?

Standards exist for logical reasons. When we deviate from standards and normalize our deviance from the standards, eventually the reason the standards existed will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered.

I notice you didn't answer my questions.

So which human being had the authority to tell every other human being that was to come after him what these standards are?

Or are these absolute standards from a magical source like you think music is?

They were already addressed previously.

Truth is it's only authority. You are free to suffer the consequences of following lesser standards. Not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That's your authority.

Standards are based upon logic. God loves logic. He is logic.

I follow my own standards for my own reasons.

For one to believe there is an absolute standards one must concede there is an absolute authority.

This is where we disagree. The evolution of human behavior is completely bound to the evolution of society.

You are free to follow whatever standard you like. You are not necessarily free to avoid the consequences of your actions. That's the moral law at work. Same goes for societies. Logic and truth are the absolutes.

Society sets the consequences for the actions of people in it. We've already established that killing another person can result in no consequences at all which is proof that we as a society do not think that killing a person is always wrong.

Yes, to some degree society does set consequences but there are other consequences as well. Not every violation of standards are violations of societal laws. But that doesn't change the fact that even when society set no consequences there were still people who believed they should. Standards aren't based upon popular vote. Standards are based upon logic and reality. No fringe argument will ever change that fact.

What other consequences?

If I commit a crime and face no societal consequences what other consequences are there?

Cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc.

Those aren't consequences those are chosen actions

Correct. Actions which have consequences.

You claimed they were consequences

No, you couldn't connect the dots. The consequences to those actions - which are not illegal - should be obvious.

Ok here we go again.

I find myself having to remind you of your own words.

I asked you

"If I commit a crime and face no societal consequences what other consequences are there?"

You answered

"Cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc."

These are not cosequences

Dude, I already addressed this. You are just looking for a fight.

\So pointing out your own words to you is looking for a fight?

BTW I'm still waiting for you to send me a copy of your DINGtionary so I can keep up with your ever changing definitions

After it was already explained, yes. I'm sorry you couldn't connect the dots. I thought the consequences of cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc. are self evident. And since I don't see you arguing that cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc. have no consequences then I believe the consequences are self evident.

And those are not crimes.

You answered the question I asked regarding what other consequences are there if I do not get charged with a crime by listing behaviors that are neither crimes nor consequences.

So did you not understand the question?

I did understand the question. You didn't understand the answer.

So tell me how are those behaviors listed consequences for a person not punished for killing another person because in that instance society didn't think killing another person was wrong?

I already explained it to you.

If I commit a violation of some universal code of morals but the society I live in does not think it was a crime so therefore I face no societal consequences , what other consequences are there?

It's probabilistic in nature. Often times you will get away with it but normalization of deviance eventually leads to predictable surprises. So unless you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, you must believe that as a rule there will be positive and negative consequences to behaviors and actions.

And what are those consequences ?

To your absolute moral code killing a person is always wrong. We know this is not true of society.

If I kill a person and the society in which I live finds that in this instance that killing a person was not wrong and society imposes no consequences on me for that act what other consequences are there?

Let's take cheating on a spouse for example; divorce, loss of trust, cynicism, emotional distress on all parties especially the children, financial distress, loss of nuclear family, despair, drug use, alcoholism, etc.

If you want to believe there is no such thing as cause and effect or that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, be my guest.

So it is your contention that if I kill a person and the society I live in decides I committed no crime and exacts no punishment that I will drink and do drugs to excess, cheat on my wife, get divorced and ruin my children's lives?

No. I gave an example of something that wasn't against the law. The clue was, Let's take cheating on a spouse for example.

Again... If you want to believe there is no such thing as cause and effect or that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, be my guest.

So you are not answering the question I asked you.

Why won't you answer it?

Ok, let's say you kill someone in self defense. The consequences would most likely you would feel sick to your stomach the moment after you killed him which is how you would know it was the lesser of two evils and not morally justified. You would have to live with that the rest of your life. Of which the consequences could be despair, alcoholism, second guessing, drug addiction, divorce, etc.

Unless of course you are a sociopath. Then you would feel very little and would probably kill again in an effort to feel something.

Now if you aren't a sociopath and justified your actions as moral, you have just incrementally moved your moral bar further away from being moral and would be more apt to kill again even if the need to kill was questionable because you have become morally corrupt.

You assume much.

If I do not believe killing in self defense is wrong or "evil" why would I fell sick? Is it preferable that I stand there and let another person kill me or my wife? If a stood idly by and let a person murder my wife because killing a person is wrong, my moral stance would be no comfort and living with the fact that my wife was murdered because of my inaction would be far worse punishment. So I could kill that person and not feel as if I did anything wrong.

Again... if you justify it as morally good there will be negative consequences whereas if you justify it as the lesser of two evils and openly ask for forgiveness the power it holds upon you is released. The guy is dead and your wife is safe either way.

I never said it was "good" or "evil" but it is justifiable with no other qualifier needed. Our society does not consider killing in self defense to be wrong in fact we tend to see self defense up to and including the use of deadly force to be a natural right.

And who would I ask forgiveness from? The guy was going to kill my wife I don't need his forgiveness.

The subject is morals. The question is are they absolute or relative. Yours are relative. Mine are absolute.

So you would let a person murder you husband or wife because it is an absolute moral law that killing another person is evil?

Why do I doubt that?

I never said that. I said I wouldn't justify it as moral or good. It would be the lesser of two evils.

I never said it was a good or an evil or right or wrong. But it is accepted by society that killing in self defense or defense of another is not unacceptable therefore not immoral.

But I believe saving my wife's life is the correct path for me and even though I abhor violence I am not a pacifist.

I did. This is a discussion on right and wrong.

The OP is not about right and wrong.

And once again there is no black and white right or wrong.

Good, evil , right , wrong are all subjective value judgments and as we have seen do not apply to every situation equally.

 

[ding]

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose.

Correct. It wasn't. Obviously. Else you'd have some compelling scientific evidence to show otherwise. You don't. Get over it. No "intentional purpose" need apply. No matter how much that makes you cry.

Just as it doesn't matter if our parents planned us or had us by accident. We march on the same.

You mean like the physical, biological and moral laws of nature?

I beg to disagree about it not mattering. Purpose matters.

 

[ding]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

So you're changing your tune again.

Did you not say the math does not exist?

If it does not exist it cannot be discovered can it?

Exact right triangles are a man made construct. So the math describing them is a man made construct

There is no reason to think the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Never changed my tune. You take things out of context cause you have nothing else.

I love how hard you are trying to prove this.

Einstein did not invent E=mc^2. He discovered it.

I quoted you verbatim.

And you still deny you said it

Math is a human invention as a way to represent what we see.

You are confusing math and what math was invented to describe.

There is nothing to prove that the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours

Man discovered math. Man did not invent math. Math is universal. Same for logic, science, music, etc.

you are confusing math with the things it was invented to describe.

No. I'm not. E=mc^2 wasn't invented. It was discovered. Einstein could not make it be anything he wanted it to be like Apple could with its iPod. So E=mc^2 isn't an invention, it is a mathematical reality that describes a physical phenomenon. The physical phenomenon and the math that describes it were discovered.

The math that describes the relationship between matter and energy is a human invention.

You are confusing the math with the things it is being used to describe.

So I invented that if A=B and B=C then A=C?

Mathematics was invented to describe observed phenomenon in the natural world.

Like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a body due to gravity.

It is a representation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itself.

So... if A=B and B=C then A=C was invented and not discovered?

All you are doing is saying A =A

Not much of a "discovery" is it ?

Logic is nothing but a system invented by humans to examine human reasoning.

Is that your way of saying the transitive law was discovered?

No it was invented when man invented a system of correct inference AKA logic

You said it wasn't much of a discovery though, right? You didn't say it was no discovery.

It's not a "discovery" to say A=A

Do you know what sarcasm is?

But it's not saying A=A. It is comparing three different things. A, B and C.

No it isn't

because we have a definition for the concept represented by the = sign.

If A =B then B and A are the same thing so you are not comparing different things but rather you are giving the same thing different names.

Let's say A is a house and B is a diamond ring and C is a Lamborghini. Are they all the same thing?

Like I said we have defined the meaning of the = sign.

if you do not use the = sign then you are not giving different names to the same thing.

So you are arguing that a house and a diamond ring and a Lamborghini are all the same things?

I guess since you believe you can make logic be anything you want that makes sense to you.

No. I never once said that or tried to prove it.

And what you are doing is playing with language and that is not logic.

You were the one who said they were the same thing to justify that math is an invention. I am the one who said the transitive law was discovered and not created by man but exists unto itself just as logic does because the transitive law is based upon logic.

Where did I say a house and a diamond ring are the same thing? The entire if A=B and B=C then A=C statement is based on certain assumptions. If you change those assumptions or ignore then then the rule breaks down.

Logic is a human invention as a system of correct inference.

Math was invented by humans to describe observed phenomena

There is no reason to think the mathematics or logic of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Logic, like math is discovered. You can't make them be anything you want them to be. Just like you can't make right and wrong be anything you want them to be.

The rules of logic have been set down in the past and expanded by different cultures throughout history.

The system of rules was made by men and is a product of the human mind and are therefore uniquely human.

Logic isn't something floating out in the ether like hydrogen atoms

Logic is based upon truth and truth is based upon objectivity. Truth and logic are discovered through objectivity.

Truth. Obviously your truth and my truth are not the same thing.

a statement can only be true if we all agree on the definition of the terms used.

So now i suppose that there is some ultimate source of the definitions of all terms waiting to be "discovered " too right?

I never realized truth was a popularity contest.

Truth like logic exists unto itself and are discovered.

It is.

We can't even agree if the statement "Killing people is wrong" is true or not.

Killing people is wrong. Sometimes people choose to do wrong because it is the lesser of two evils. Not because they think it's right to kill.

So then the killing of a person for any reason should have the same consequences but it doesn't because we have subjectively rationalized when it is acceptable to kill.

And if evil in not extant as you have said how can once choose between a lesser or a greater evil if neither exists?

Think of evil as the absence of good but we use the word evil as a literary convenience.

Good is not an entity either.

Good is a value judgement.

These are human constructs

Good & evil, right & wrong are artifacts of intelligence. At the heart of this construct is the concept of fairness. Each pair is a side of the same coin; good/evil, right/wrong, fair/unfair. So there are two sides but only one coin. One side is the extant side. It's what exists. The other side is the negation of what exists. For example... evil is the absence of good, wrong is the absence of right and unfair is the absence of fairness. But for man to have any of these constructs he has to know what good and right and fair means. And not surprisingly he does. Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth. If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Black and white huh?

That's it.

We are living in a world that is nothing but shades of gray and we define what is good or evil.

And is there ever really a complete absence of good? A serial killer might take care of his invalid mother or feed the stray cats in his neighborhood so if there is just a little good then he cannot be evil right?

A soldier who is sent to kill is doing "good" as judged by society but what if he enjoys the killing as much as the serial killer? Does that make the soldier evil?

Standards exist for logical reasons. When we deviate from standards and normalize our deviance from the standards, eventually the reason the standards existed will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered.

I notice you didn't answer my questions.

So which human being had the authority to tell every other human being that was to come after him what these standards are?

Or are these absolute standards from a magical source like you think music is?

They were already addressed previously.

Truth is it's only authority. You are free to suffer the consequences of following lesser standards. Not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That's your authority.

Standards are based upon logic. God loves logic. He is logic.

I follow my own standards for my own reasons.

For one to believe there is an absolute standards one must concede there is an absolute authority.

This is where we disagree. The evolution of human behavior is completely bound to the evolution of society.

You are free to follow whatever standard you like. You are not necessarily free to avoid the consequences of your actions. That's the moral law at work. Same goes for societies. Logic and truth are the absolutes.

Society sets the consequences for the actions of people in it. We've already established that killing another person can result in no consequences at all which is proof that we as a society do not think that killing a person is always wrong.

Yes, to some degree society does set consequences but there are other consequences as well. Not every violation of standards are violations of societal laws. But that doesn't change the fact that even when society set no consequences there were still people who believed they should. Standards aren't based upon popular vote. Standards are based upon logic and reality. No fringe argument will ever change that fact.

What other consequences?

If I commit a crime and face no societal consequences what other consequences are there?

Cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc.

Those aren't consequences those are chosen actions

Correct. Actions which have consequences.

You claimed they were consequences

No, you couldn't connect the dots. The consequences to those actions - which are not illegal - should be obvious.

Ok here we go again.

I find myself having to remind you of your own words.

I asked you

"If I commit a crime and face no societal consequences what other consequences are there?"

You answered

"Cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc."

These are not cosequences

Dude, I already addressed this. You are just looking for a fight.

\So pointing out your own words to you is looking for a fight?

BTW I'm still waiting for you to send me a copy of your DINGtionary so I can keep up with your ever changing definitions

After it was already explained, yes. I'm sorry you couldn't connect the dots. I thought the consequences of cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc. are self evident. And since I don't see you arguing that cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc. have no consequences then I believe the consequences are self evident.

And those are not crimes.

You answered the question I asked regarding what other consequences are there if I do not get charged with a crime by listing behaviors that are neither crimes nor consequences.

So did you not understand the question?

I did understand the question. You didn't understand the answer.

So tell me how are those behaviors listed consequences for a person not punished for killing another person because in that instance society didn't think killing another person was wrong?

I already explained it to you.

If I commit a violation of some universal code of morals but the society I live in does not think it was a crime so therefore I face no societal consequences , what other consequences are there?

It's probabilistic in nature. Often times you will get away with it but normalization of deviance eventually leads to predictable surprises. So unless you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, you must believe that as a rule there will be positive and negative consequences to behaviors and actions.

And what are those consequences ?

To your absolute moral code killing a person is always wrong. We know this is not true of society.

If I kill a person and the society in which I live finds that in this instance that killing a person was not wrong and society imposes no consequences on me for that act what other consequences are there?

Let's take cheating on a spouse for example; divorce, loss of trust, cynicism, emotional distress on all parties especially the children, financial distress, loss of nuclear family, despair, drug use, alcoholism, etc.

If you want to believe there is no such thing as cause and effect or that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, be my guest.

So it is your contention that if I kill a person and the society I live in decides I committed no crime and exacts no punishment that I will drink and do drugs to excess, cheat on my wife, get divorced and ruin my children's lives?

No. I gave an example of something that wasn't against the law. The clue was, Let's take cheating on a spouse for example.

Again... If you want to believe there is no such thing as cause and effect or that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, be my guest.

So you are not answering the question I asked you.

Why won't you answer it?

Ok, let's say you kill someone in self defense. The consequences would most likely you would feel sick to your stomach the moment after you killed him which is how you would know it was the lesser of two evils and not morally justified. You would have to live with that the rest of your life. Of which the consequences could be despair, alcoholism, second guessing, drug addiction, divorce, etc.

Unless of course you are a sociopath. Then you would feel very little and would probably kill again in an effort to feel something.

Now if you aren't a sociopath and justified your actions as moral, you have just incrementally moved your moral bar further away from being moral and would be more apt to kill again even if the need to kill was questionable because you have become morally corrupt.

You assume much.

If I do not believe killing in self defense is wrong or "evil" why would I fell sick? Is it preferable that I stand there and let another person kill me or my wife? If a stood idly by and let a person murder my wife because killing a person is wrong, my moral stance would be no comfort and living with the fact that my wife was murdered because of my inaction would be far worse punishment. So I could kill that person and not feel as if I did anything wrong.

Again... if you justify it as morally good there will be negative consequences whereas if you justify it as the lesser of two evils and openly ask for forgiveness the power it holds upon you is released. The guy is dead and your wife is safe either way.

I never said it was "good" or "evil" but it is justifiable with no other qualifier needed. Our society does not consider killing in self defense to be wrong in fact we tend to see self defense up to and including the use of deadly force to be a natural right.

And who would I ask forgiveness from? The guy was going to kill my wife I don't need his forgiveness.

The subject is morals. The question is are they absolute or relative. Yours are relative. Mine are absolute.

So you would let a person murder you husband or wife because it is an absolute moral law that killing another person is evil?

Why do I doubt that?

I never said that. I said I wouldn't justify it as moral or good. It would be the lesser of two evils.

I never said it was a good or an evil or right or wrong. But it is accepted by society that killing in self defense or defense of another is not unacceptable therefore not immoral.

But I believe saving my wife's life is the correct path for me and even though I abhor violence I am not a pacifist.

I did. This is a discussion on right and wrong.

The OP is not about right and wrong.

And once again there is no black and white right or wrong.

Good, evil , right , wrong are all subjective value judgments and as we have seen do not apply to every situation equally.

The conversation we were having was.

Your statement that there is no black or white right or wrong is a black and white statement about right and wrong.

Subjective for you maybe, but then again there's your actions which belie your beliefs.

 

[Blues Man]

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose.

Correct. It wasn't. Obviously. Else you'd have some compelling scientific evidence to show otherwise. You don't. Get over it. No "intentional purpose" need apply. No matter how much that makes you cry.

Just as it doesn't matter if our parents planned us or had us by accident. We march on the same.

Exactly.

It doesn't matter how we got here it only matters what we do while we are here.

We arrived after the origin of the universe we will be gone before the universe ends. Our entire existence is relative

 

[ding]

Morals are relative.

I couldn't be happier for you to believe that too.

Just remember the next time you are quarreling with someone who has wronged you that you remember that. That way you won't expect them to agree with you.

I am at a point in my life where I do not think I would be quarreling with anyone for any reason.

Good luck with that.

No need for luck.

I have not "quarreled" with anyone in well over a decade.

The definition of quarrel is a heated argument or disagreement, typically about a trivial issue and between people who are usually on good term.

We disagree on a daily basis and you are arguing that I should see it your way. Your behaviors clearly indicate you do believe in absolute truth despite your argument otherwise.

You really don't need to school me on definitions.

I do not find our discourse to be heated. it may be trivial but it is also enjoyable. I don't really care if you ever see things my way. And I don't believe in absolutes at all.

I'm of the mind that everything exists on a continuum. So I know that killing another person isn't always wrong or evil. I know that there will always be a percentage of the population that are criminals and victimizers. I accept these things as unavoidable so I do not judge or at least I try not to. There was a time in my life where I stole food so I wouldn't go hungry and unless you know what it's like to know you won't eat unless you steal it's easy to judge people for doing that.

Even in Buddhism it is spoken that there are 4 noble truths. But there are many ways to interpret that. There is also the doctrines of the 8 rights of the noble path.

But again there are many ways to interpret those.

I use my desire not to intentionally cause suffering to be the frame of reference I use when interpreting these concepts. I do not accept any of them as absolutes because by doing so I am contradicting the idea that impermanence applies to everything.

That sounds eerily like you believe there is only one way to look at it.

Funny I specifically said there are many ways to interpret the Buddhist doctrine.


What I chose as my path is based on my interpretation I do not tell anyone that my path is the only one. There are many roads to a great city.

Which in and of itself is an absolute. You have alleged there is no single way which is an absolute statement.

No it's the realization that there is no single way. There isn't even a single destination.

My path is my choice not yours not anyone else's so it cannot be an absolute it is 100% relative to me, my experiences, my desires and my determination of the type of life I want to lead.

If that was an absolute or iow, perfect, complete, entire, I would have to say that it is the way everyone else should follow because it is the only one.

So it's a universal truth that there is no single way.

I never said that. But it is a fact that not every person walks the same path and some even have a different destination in mind than others. So for there to be just one absolute way then all the other people who follow a different path must be wrong. I don't believe that.

There is a path for anyone but it doesn't have to be the same path for everyone therefore there is no universal path

MAny people choose to walk the path set out for them by a religion religion. Don't confuse popularity with universality.

You are still making an absolute statement by arguing that is the only way to see this. Truth is not a popularity contest. Truth is universal. See the definition of reality.

 

[ding]

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose.

Correct. It wasn't. Obviously. Else you'd have some compelling scientific evidence to show otherwise. You don't. Get over it. No "intentional purpose" need apply. No matter how much that makes you cry.

Just as it doesn't matter if our parents planned us or had us by accident. We march on the same.

Exactly.

It doesn't matter how we got here it only matters what we do while we are here.

We arrived after the origin of the universe we will be gone before the universe ends. Our entire existence is relative

Purpose goes to what we do while we are here.

 

[Blues Man]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

So you're changing your tune again.

Did you not say the math does not exist?

If it does not exist it cannot be discovered can it?

Exact right triangles are a man made construct. So the math describing them is a man made construct

There is no reason to think the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Never changed my tune. You take things out of context cause you have nothing else.

I love how hard you are trying to prove this.

Einstein did not invent E=mc^2. He discovered it.

I quoted you verbatim.

And you still deny you said it

Math is a human invention as a way to represent what we see.

You are confusing math and what math was invented to describe.

There is nothing to prove that the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours

Man discovered math. Man did not invent math. Math is universal. Same for logic, science, music, etc.

you are confusing math with the things it was invented to describe.

No. I'm not. E=mc^2 wasn't invented. It was discovered. Einstein could not make it be anything he wanted it to be like Apple could with its iPod. So E=mc^2 isn't an invention, it is a mathematical reality that describes a physical phenomenon. The physical phenomenon and the math that describes it were discovered.

The math that describes the relationship between matter and energy is a human invention.

You are confusing the math with the things it is being used to describe.

So I invented that if A=B and B=C then A=C?

Mathematics was invented to describe observed phenomenon in the natural world.

Like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a body due to gravity.

It is a representation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itself.

So... if A=B and B=C then A=C was invented and not discovered?

All you are doing is saying A =A

Not much of a "discovery" is it ?

Logic is nothing but a system invented by humans to examine human reasoning.

Is that your way of saying the transitive law was discovered?

No it was invented when man invented a system of correct inference AKA logic

You said it wasn't much of a discovery though, right? You didn't say it was no discovery.

It's not a "discovery" to say A=A

Do you know what sarcasm is?

But it's not saying A=A. It is comparing three different things. A, B and C.

No it isn't

because we have a definition for the concept represented by the = sign.

If A =B then B and A are the same thing so you are not comparing different things but rather you are giving the same thing different names.

Let's say A is a house and B is a diamond ring and C is a Lamborghini. Are they all the same thing?

Like I said we have defined the meaning of the = sign.

if you do not use the = sign then you are not giving different names to the same thing.

So you are arguing that a house and a diamond ring and a Lamborghini are all the same things?

I guess since you believe you can make logic be anything you want that makes sense to you.

No. I never once said that or tried to prove it.

And what you are doing is playing with language and that is not logic.

You were the one who said they were the same thing to justify that math is an invention. I am the one who said the transitive law was discovered and not created by man but exists unto itself just as logic does because the transitive law is based upon logic.

Where did I say a house and a diamond ring are the same thing? The entire if A=B and B=C then A=C statement is based on certain assumptions. If you change those assumptions or ignore then then the rule breaks down.

Logic is a human invention as a system of correct inference.

Math was invented by humans to describe observed phenomena

There is no reason to think the mathematics or logic of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Logic, like math is discovered. You can't make them be anything you want them to be. Just like you can't make right and wrong be anything you want them to be.

The rules of logic have been set down in the past and expanded by different cultures throughout history.

The system of rules was made by men and is a product of the human mind and are therefore uniquely human.

Logic isn't something floating out in the ether like hydrogen atoms

Logic is based upon truth and truth is based upon objectivity. Truth and logic are discovered through objectivity.

Truth. Obviously your truth and my truth are not the same thing.

a statement can only be true if we all agree on the definition of the terms used.

So now i suppose that there is some ultimate source of the definitions of all terms waiting to be "discovered " too right?

I never realized truth was a popularity contest.

Truth like logic exists unto itself and are discovered.

It is.

We can't even agree if the statement "Killing people is wrong" is true or not.

Killing people is wrong. Sometimes people choose to do wrong because it is the lesser of two evils. Not because they think it's right to kill.

So then the killing of a person for any reason should have the same consequences but it doesn't because we have subjectively rationalized when it is acceptable to kill.

And if evil in not extant as you have said how can once choose between a lesser or a greater evil if neither exists?

Think of evil as the absence of good but we use the word evil as a literary convenience.

Good is not an entity either.

Good is a value judgement.

These are human constructs

Good & evil, right & wrong are artifacts of intelligence. At the heart of this construct is the concept of fairness. Each pair is a side of the same coin; good/evil, right/wrong, fair/unfair. So there are two sides but only one coin. One side is the extant side. It's what exists. The other side is the negation of what exists. For example... evil is the absence of good, wrong is the absence of right and unfair is the absence of fairness. But for man to have any of these constructs he has to know what good and right and fair means. And not surprisingly he does. Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth. If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Black and white huh?

That's it.

We are living in a world that is nothing but shades of gray and we define what is good or evil.

And is there ever really a complete absence of good? A serial killer might take care of his invalid mother or feed the stray cats in his neighborhood so if there is just a little good then he cannot be evil right?

A soldier who is sent to kill is doing "good" as judged by society but what if he enjoys the killing as much as the serial killer? Does that make the soldier evil?

Standards exist for logical reasons. When we deviate from standards and normalize our deviance from the standards, eventually the reason the standards existed will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered.

I notice you didn't answer my questions.

So which human being had the authority to tell every other human being that was to come after him what these standards are?

Or are these absolute standards from a magical source like you think music is?

They were already addressed previously.

Truth is it's only authority. You are free to suffer the consequences of following lesser standards. Not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That's your authority.

Standards are based upon logic. God loves logic. He is logic.

I follow my own standards for my own reasons.

For one to believe there is an absolute standards one must concede there is an absolute authority.

This is where we disagree. The evolution of human behavior is completely bound to the evolution of society.

You are free to follow whatever standard you like. You are not necessarily free to avoid the consequences of your actions. That's the moral law at work. Same goes for societies. Logic and truth are the absolutes.

Society sets the consequences for the actions of people in it. We've already established that killing another person can result in no consequences at all which is proof that we as a society do not think that killing a person is always wrong.

Yes, to some degree society does set consequences but there are other consequences as well. Not every violation of standards are violations of societal laws. But that doesn't change the fact that even when society set no consequences there were still people who believed they should. Standards aren't based upon popular vote. Standards are based upon logic and reality. No fringe argument will ever change that fact.

What other consequences?

If I commit a crime and face no societal consequences what other consequences are there?

Cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc.

Those aren't consequences those are chosen actions

Correct. Actions which have consequences.

You claimed they were consequences

No, you couldn't connect the dots. The consequences to those actions - which are not illegal - should be obvious.

Ok here we go again.

I find myself having to remind you of your own words.

I asked you

"If I commit a crime and face no societal consequences what other consequences are there?"

You answered

"Cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc."

These are not cosequences

Dude, I already addressed this. You are just looking for a fight.

\So pointing out your own words to you is looking for a fight?

BTW I'm still waiting for you to send me a copy of your DINGtionary so I can keep up with your ever changing definitions

After it was already explained, yes. I'm sorry you couldn't connect the dots. I thought the consequences of cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc. are self evident. And since I don't see you arguing that cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc. have no consequences then I believe the consequences are self evident.

And those are not crimes.

You answered the question I asked regarding what other consequences are there if I do not get charged with a crime by listing behaviors that are neither crimes nor consequences.

So did you not understand the question?

I did understand the question. You didn't understand the answer.

So tell me how are those behaviors listed consequences for a person not punished for killing another person because in that instance society didn't think killing another person was wrong?

I already explained it to you.

If I commit a violation of some universal code of morals but the society I live in does not think it was a crime so therefore I face no societal consequences , what other consequences are there?

It's probabilistic in nature. Often times you will get away with it but normalization of deviance eventually leads to predictable surprises. So unless you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, you must believe that as a rule there will be positive and negative consequences to behaviors and actions.

And what are those consequences ?

To your absolute moral code killing a person is always wrong. We know this is not true of society.

If I kill a person and the society in which I live finds that in this instance that killing a person was not wrong and society imposes no consequences on me for that act what other consequences are there?

Let's take cheating on a spouse for example; divorce, loss of trust, cynicism, emotional distress on all parties especially the children, financial distress, loss of nuclear family, despair, drug use, alcoholism, etc.

If you want to believe there is no such thing as cause and effect or that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, be my guest.

So it is your contention that if I kill a person and the society I live in decides I committed no crime and exacts no punishment that I will drink and do drugs to excess, cheat on my wife, get divorced and ruin my children's lives?

No. I gave an example of something that wasn't against the law. The clue was, Let's take cheating on a spouse for example.

Again... If you want to believe there is no such thing as cause and effect or that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, be my guest.

So you are not answering the question I asked you.

Why won't you answer it?

Ok, let's say you kill someone in self defense. The consequences would most likely you would feel sick to your stomach the moment after you killed him which is how you would know it was the lesser of two evils and not morally justified. You would have to live with that the rest of your life. Of which the consequences could be despair, alcoholism, second guessing, drug addiction, divorce, etc.

Unless of course you are a sociopath. Then you would feel very little and would probably kill again in an effort to feel something.

Now if you aren't a sociopath and justified your actions as moral, you have just incrementally moved your moral bar further away from being moral and would be more apt to kill again even if the need to kill was questionable because you have become morally corrupt.

You assume much.

If I do not believe killing in self defense is wrong or "evil" why would I fell sick? Is it preferable that I stand there and let another person kill me or my wife? If a stood idly by and let a person murder my wife because killing a person is wrong, my moral stance would be no comfort and living with the fact that my wife was murdered because of my inaction would be far worse punishment. So I could kill that person and not feel as if I did anything wrong.

Again... if you justify it as morally good there will be negative consequences whereas if you justify it as the lesser of two evils and openly ask for forgiveness the power it holds upon you is released. The guy is dead and your wife is safe either way.

I never said it was "good" or "evil" but it is justifiable with no other qualifier needed. Our society does not consider killing in self defense to be wrong in fact we tend to see self defense up to and including the use of deadly force to be a natural right.

And who would I ask forgiveness from? The guy was going to kill my wife I don't need his forgiveness.

The subject is morals. The question is are they absolute or relative. Yours are relative. Mine are absolute.

So you would let a person murder you husband or wife because it is an absolute moral law that killing another person is evil?

Why do I doubt that?

I never said that. I said I wouldn't justify it as moral or good. It would be the lesser of two evils.

I never said it was a good or an evil or right or wrong. But it is accepted by society that killing in self defense or defense of another is not unacceptable therefore not immoral.

But I believe saving my wife's life is the correct path for me and even though I abhor violence I am not a pacifist.

I did. This is a discussion on right and wrong.

The OP is not about right and wrong.

And once again there is no black and white right or wrong.

Good, evil , right , wrong are all subjective value judgments and as we have seen do not apply to every situation equally.

The conversation we were having was.

Your statement that there is no black or white right or wrong is a black and white statement about right and wrong.

Subjective for you maybe, but then again there's your actions which belie your beliefs.

It isn't a black or white statement because there is no or in it.

And what do you know of my actions?

 

[ding]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

So you're changing your tune again.

Did you not say the math does not exist?

If it does not exist it cannot be discovered can it?

Exact right triangles are a man made construct. So the math describing them is a man made construct

There is no reason to think the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Never changed my tune. You take things out of context cause you have nothing else.

I love how hard you are trying to prove this.

Einstein did not invent E=mc^2. He discovered it.

I quoted you verbatim.

And you still deny you said it

Math is a human invention as a way to represent what we see.

You are confusing math and what math was invented to describe.

There is nothing to prove that the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours

Man discovered math. Man did not invent math. Math is universal. Same for logic, science, music, etc.

you are confusing math with the things it was invented to describe.

No. I'm not. E=mc^2 wasn't invented. It was discovered. Einstein could not make it be anything he wanted it to be like Apple could with its iPod. So E=mc^2 isn't an invention, it is a mathematical reality that describes a physical phenomenon. The physical phenomenon and the math that describes it were discovered.

The math that describes the relationship between matter and energy is a human invention.

You are confusing the math with the things it is being used to describe.

So I invented that if A=B and B=C then A=C?

Mathematics was invented to describe observed phenomenon in the natural world.

Like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a body due to gravity.

It is a representation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itself.

So... if A=B and B=C then A=C was invented and not discovered?

All you are doing is saying A =A

Not much of a "discovery" is it ?

Logic is nothing but a system invented by humans to examine human reasoning.

Is that your way of saying the transitive law was discovered?

No it was invented when man invented a system of correct inference AKA logic

You said it wasn't much of a discovery though, right? You didn't say it was no discovery.

It's not a "discovery" to say A=A

Do you know what sarcasm is?

But it's not saying A=A. It is comparing three different things. A, B and C.

No it isn't

because we have a definition for the concept represented by the = sign.

If A =B then B and A are the same thing so you are not comparing different things but rather you are giving the same thing different names.

Let's say A is a house and B is a diamond ring and C is a Lamborghini. Are they all the same thing?

Like I said we have defined the meaning of the = sign.

if you do not use the = sign then you are not giving different names to the same thing.

So you are arguing that a house and a diamond ring and a Lamborghini are all the same things?

I guess since you believe you can make logic be anything you want that makes sense to you.

No. I never once said that or tried to prove it.

And what you are doing is playing with language and that is not logic.

You were the one who said they were the same thing to justify that math is an invention. I am the one who said the transitive law was discovered and not created by man but exists unto itself just as logic does because the transitive law is based upon logic.

Where did I say a house and a diamond ring are the same thing? The entire if A=B and B=C then A=C statement is based on certain assumptions. If you change those assumptions or ignore then then the rule breaks down.

Logic is a human invention as a system of correct inference.

Math was invented by humans to describe observed phenomena

There is no reason to think the mathematics or logic of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Logic, like math is discovered. You can't make them be anything you want them to be. Just like you can't make right and wrong be anything you want them to be.

The rules of logic have been set down in the past and expanded by different cultures throughout history.

The system of rules was made by men and is a product of the human mind and are therefore uniquely human.

Logic isn't something floating out in the ether like hydrogen atoms

Logic is based upon truth and truth is based upon objectivity. Truth and logic are discovered through objectivity.

Truth. Obviously your truth and my truth are not the same thing.

a statement can only be true if we all agree on the definition of the terms used.

So now i suppose that there is some ultimate source of the definitions of all terms waiting to be "discovered " too right?

I never realized truth was a popularity contest.

Truth like logic exists unto itself and are discovered.

It is.

We can't even agree if the statement "Killing people is wrong" is true or not.

Killing people is wrong. Sometimes people choose to do wrong because it is the lesser of two evils. Not because they think it's right to kill.

So then the killing of a person for any reason should have the same consequences but it doesn't because we have subjectively rationalized when it is acceptable to kill.

And if evil in not extant as you have said how can once choose between a lesser or a greater evil if neither exists?

Think of evil as the absence of good but we use the word evil as a literary convenience.

Good is not an entity either.

Good is a value judgement.

These are human constructs

Good & evil, right & wrong are artifacts of intelligence. At the heart of this construct is the concept of fairness. Each pair is a side of the same coin; good/evil, right/wrong, fair/unfair. So there are two sides but only one coin. One side is the extant side. It's what exists. The other side is the negation of what exists. For example... evil is the absence of good, wrong is the absence of right and unfair is the absence of fairness. But for man to have any of these constructs he has to know what good and right and fair means. And not surprisingly he does. Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth. If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Black and white huh?

That's it.

We are living in a world that is nothing but shades of gray and we define what is good or evil.

And is there ever really a complete absence of good? A serial killer might take care of his invalid mother or feed the stray cats in his neighborhood so if there is just a little good then he cannot be evil right?

A soldier who is sent to kill is doing "good" as judged by society but what if he enjoys the killing as much as the serial killer? Does that make the soldier evil?

Standards exist for logical reasons. When we deviate from standards and normalize our deviance from the standards, eventually the reason the standards existed will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered.

I notice you didn't answer my questions.

So which human being had the authority to tell every other human being that was to come after him what these standards are?

Or are these absolute standards from a magical source like you think music is?

They were already addressed previously.

Truth is it's only authority. You are free to suffer the consequences of following lesser standards. Not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That's your authority.

Standards are based upon logic. God loves logic. He is logic.

I follow my own standards for my own reasons.

For one to believe there is an absolute standards one must concede there is an absolute authority.

This is where we disagree. The evolution of human behavior is completely bound to the evolution of society.

You are free to follow whatever standard you like. You are not necessarily free to avoid the consequences of your actions. That's the moral law at work. Same goes for societies. Logic and truth are the absolutes.

Society sets the consequences for the actions of people in it. We've already established that killing another person can result in no consequences at all which is proof that we as a society do not think that killing a person is always wrong.

Yes, to some degree society does set consequences but there are other consequences as well. Not every violation of standards are violations of societal laws. But that doesn't change the fact that even when society set no consequences there were still people who believed they should. Standards aren't based upon popular vote. Standards are based upon logic and reality. No fringe argument will ever change that fact.

What other consequences?

If I commit a crime and face no societal consequences what other consequences are there?

Cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc.

Those aren't consequences those are chosen actions

Correct. Actions which have consequences.

You claimed they were consequences

No, you couldn't connect the dots. The consequences to those actions - which are not illegal - should be obvious.

Ok here we go again.

I find myself having to remind you of your own words.

I asked you

"If I commit a crime and face no societal consequences what other consequences are there?"

You answered

"Cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc."

These are not cosequences

Dude, I already addressed this. You are just looking for a fight.

\So pointing out your own words to you is looking for a fight?

BTW I'm still waiting for you to send me a copy of your DINGtionary so I can keep up with your ever changing definitions

After it was already explained, yes. I'm sorry you couldn't connect the dots. I thought the consequences of cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc. are self evident. And since I don't see you arguing that cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc. have no consequences then I believe the consequences are self evident.

And those are not crimes.

You answered the question I asked regarding what other consequences are there if I do not get charged with a crime by listing behaviors that are neither crimes nor consequences.

So did you not understand the question?

I did understand the question. You didn't understand the answer.

So tell me how are those behaviors listed consequences for a person not punished for killing another person because in that instance society didn't think killing another person was wrong?

I already explained it to you.

If I commit a violation of some universal code of morals but the society I live in does not think it was a crime so therefore I face no societal consequences , what other consequences are there?

It's probabilistic in nature. Often times you will get away with it but normalization of deviance eventually leads to predictable surprises. So unless you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, you must believe that as a rule there will be positive and negative consequences to behaviors and actions.

And what are those consequences ?

To your absolute moral code killing a person is always wrong. We know this is not true of society.

If I kill a person and the society in which I live finds that in this instance that killing a person was not wrong and society imposes no consequences on me for that act what other consequences are there?

Let's take cheating on a spouse for example; divorce, loss of trust, cynicism, emotional distress on all parties especially the children, financial distress, loss of nuclear family, despair, drug use, alcoholism, etc.

If you want to believe there is no such thing as cause and effect or that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, be my guest.

So it is your contention that if I kill a person and the society I live in decides I committed no crime and exacts no punishment that I will drink and do drugs to excess, cheat on my wife, get divorced and ruin my children's lives?

No. I gave an example of something that wasn't against the law. The clue was, Let's take cheating on a spouse for example.

Again... If you want to believe there is no such thing as cause and effect or that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, be my guest.

So you are not answering the question I asked you.

Why won't you answer it?

Ok, let's say you kill someone in self defense. The consequences would most likely you would feel sick to your stomach the moment after you killed him which is how you would know it was the lesser of two evils and not morally justified. You would have to live with that the rest of your life. Of which the consequences could be despair, alcoholism, second guessing, drug addiction, divorce, etc.

Unless of course you are a sociopath. Then you would feel very little and would probably kill again in an effort to feel something.

Now if you aren't a sociopath and justified your actions as moral, you have just incrementally moved your moral bar further away from being moral and would be more apt to kill again even if the need to kill was questionable because you have become morally corrupt.

You assume much.

If I do not believe killing in self defense is wrong or "evil" why would I fell sick? Is it preferable that I stand there and let another person kill me or my wife? If a stood idly by and let a person murder my wife because killing a person is wrong, my moral stance would be no comfort and living with the fact that my wife was murdered because of my inaction would be far worse punishment. So I could kill that person and not feel as if I did anything wrong.

Again... if you justify it as morally good there will be negative consequences whereas if you justify it as the lesser of two evils and openly ask for forgiveness the power it holds upon you is released. The guy is dead and your wife is safe either way.

I never said it was "good" or "evil" but it is justifiable with no other qualifier needed. Our society does not consider killing in self defense to be wrong in fact we tend to see self defense up to and including the use of deadly force to be a natural right.

And who would I ask forgiveness from? The guy was going to kill my wife I don't need his forgiveness.

The subject is morals. The question is are they absolute or relative. Yours are relative. Mine are absolute.

So you would let a person murder you husband or wife because it is an absolute moral law that killing another person is evil?

Why do I doubt that?

I never said that. I said I wouldn't justify it as moral or good. It would be the lesser of two evils.

I never said it was a good or an evil or right or wrong. But it is accepted by society that killing in self defense or defense of another is not unacceptable therefore not immoral.

But I believe saving my wife's life is the correct path for me and even though I abhor violence I am not a pacifist.

I did. This is a discussion on right and wrong.

The OP is not about right and wrong.

And once again there is no black and white right or wrong.

Good, evil , right , wrong are all subjective value judgments and as we have seen do not apply to every situation equally.

The conversation we were having was.

Your statement that there is no black or white right or wrong is a black and white statement about right and wrong.

Subjective for you maybe, but then again there's your actions which belie your beliefs.

It isn't a black or white statement because there is no or in it.

And what do you know of my actions?

You saying right and wrong is not black or white is an absolute statement.

 

[Blues Man]

Morals are relative.

I couldn't be happier for you to believe that too.

Just remember the next time you are quarreling with someone who has wronged you that you remember that. That way you won't expect them to agree with you.

I am at a point in my life where I do not think I would be quarreling with anyone for any reason.

Good luck with that.

No need for luck.

I have not "quarreled" with anyone in well over a decade.

The definition of quarrel is a heated argument or disagreement, typically about a trivial issue and between people who are usually on good term.

We disagree on a daily basis and you are arguing that I should see it your way. Your behaviors clearly indicate you do believe in absolute truth despite your argument otherwise.

You really don't need to school me on definitions.

I do not find our discourse to be heated. it may be trivial but it is also enjoyable. I don't really care if you ever see things my way. And I don't believe in absolutes at all.

I'm of the mind that everything exists on a continuum. So I know that killing another person isn't always wrong or evil. I know that there will always be a percentage of the population that are criminals and victimizers. I accept these things as unavoidable so I do not judge or at least I try not to. There was a time in my life where I stole food so I wouldn't go hungry and unless you know what it's like to know you won't eat unless you steal it's easy to judge people for doing that.

Even in Buddhism it is spoken that there are 4 noble truths. But there are many ways to interpret that. There is also the doctrines of the 8 rights of the noble path.

But again there are many ways to interpret those.

I use my desire not to intentionally cause suffering to be the frame of reference I use when interpreting these concepts. I do not accept any of them as absolutes because by doing so I am contradicting the idea that impermanence applies to everything.

That sounds eerily like you believe there is only one way to look at it.

Funny I specifically said there are many ways to interpret the Buddhist doctrine.


What I chose as my path is based on my interpretation I do not tell anyone that my path is the only one. There are many roads to a great city.

Which in and of itself is an absolute. You have alleged there is no single way which is an absolute statement.

No it's the realization that there is no single way. There isn't even a single destination.

My path is my choice not yours not anyone else's so it cannot be an absolute it is 100% relative to me, my experiences, my desires and my determination of the type of life I want to lead.

If that was an absolute or iow, perfect, complete, entire, I would have to say that it is the way everyone else should follow because it is the only one.

So it's a universal truth that there is no single way.

I never said that. But it is a fact that not every person walks the same path and some even have a different destination in mind than others. So for there to be just one absolute way then all the other people who follow a different path must be wrong. I don't believe that.

There is a path for anyone but it doesn't have to be the same path for everyone therefore there is no universal path

MAny people choose to walk the path set out for them by a religion religion. Don't confuse popularity with universality.

You are still making an absolute statement by arguing that is the only way to see this. Truth is not a popularity contest. Truth is universal. See the definition of reality.

It's the way I see it.

I have never once said it's the way you have to see it. And As I said the fact is that people do walk different paths so that alone should give you some reason to think that there are more paths to walk than just one that is "right"

 

[Blues Man]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

So you're changing your tune again.

Did you not say the math does not exist?

If it does not exist it cannot be discovered can it?

Exact right triangles are a man made construct. So the math describing them is a man made construct

There is no reason to think the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Never changed my tune. You take things out of context cause you have nothing else.

I love how hard you are trying to prove this.

Einstein did not invent E=mc^2. He discovered it.

I quoted you verbatim.

And you still deny you said it

Math is a human invention as a way to represent what we see.

You are confusing math and what math was invented to describe.

There is nothing to prove that the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours

Man discovered math. Man did not invent math. Math is universal. Same for logic, science, music, etc.

you are confusing math with the things it was invented to describe.

No. I'm not. E=mc^2 wasn't invented. It was discovered. Einstein could not make it be anything he wanted it to be like Apple could with its iPod. So E=mc^2 isn't an invention, it is a mathematical reality that describes a physical phenomenon. The physical phenomenon and the math that describes it were discovered.

The math that describes the relationship between matter and energy is a human invention.

You are confusing the math with the things it is being used to describe.

So I invented that if A=B and B=C then A=C?

Mathematics was invented to describe observed phenomenon in the natural world.

Like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a body due to gravity.

It is a representation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itself.

So... if A=B and B=C then A=C was invented and not discovered?

All you are doing is saying A =A

Not much of a "discovery" is it ?

Logic is nothing but a system invented by humans to examine human reasoning.

Is that your way of saying the transitive law was discovered?

No it was invented when man invented a system of correct inference AKA logic

You said it wasn't much of a discovery though, right? You didn't say it was no discovery.

It's not a "discovery" to say A=A

Do you know what sarcasm is?

But it's not saying A=A. It is comparing three different things. A, B and C.

No it isn't

because we have a definition for the concept represented by the = sign.

If A =B then B and A are the same thing so you are not comparing different things but rather you are giving the same thing different names.

Let's say A is a house and B is a diamond ring and C is a Lamborghini. Are they all the same thing?

Like I said we have defined the meaning of the = sign.

if you do not use the = sign then you are not giving different names to the same thing.

So you are arguing that a house and a diamond ring and a Lamborghini are all the same things?

I guess since you believe you can make logic be anything you want that makes sense to you.

No. I never once said that or tried to prove it.

And what you are doing is playing with language and that is not logic.

You were the one who said they were the same thing to justify that math is an invention. I am the one who said the transitive law was discovered and not created by man but exists unto itself just as logic does because the transitive law is based upon logic.

Where did I say a house and a diamond ring are the same thing? The entire if A=B and B=C then A=C statement is based on certain assumptions. If you change those assumptions or ignore then then the rule breaks down.

Logic is a human invention as a system of correct inference.

Math was invented by humans to describe observed phenomena

There is no reason to think the mathematics or logic of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Logic, like math is discovered. You can't make them be anything you want them to be. Just like you can't make right and wrong be anything you want them to be.

The rules of logic have been set down in the past and expanded by different cultures throughout history.

The system of rules was made by men and is a product of the human mind and are therefore uniquely human.

Logic isn't something floating out in the ether like hydrogen atoms

Logic is based upon truth and truth is based upon objectivity. Truth and logic are discovered through objectivity.

Truth. Obviously your truth and my truth are not the same thing.

a statement can only be true if we all agree on the definition of the terms used.

So now i suppose that there is some ultimate source of the definitions of all terms waiting to be "discovered " too right?

I never realized truth was a popularity contest.

Truth like logic exists unto itself and are discovered.

It is.

We can't even agree if the statement "Killing people is wrong" is true or not.

Killing people is wrong. Sometimes people choose to do wrong because it is the lesser of two evils. Not because they think it's right to kill.

So then the killing of a person for any reason should have the same consequences but it doesn't because we have subjectively rationalized when it is acceptable to kill.

And if evil in not extant as you have said how can once choose between a lesser or a greater evil if neither exists?

Think of evil as the absence of good but we use the word evil as a literary convenience.

Good is not an entity either.

Good is a value judgement.

These are human constructs

Good & evil, right & wrong are artifacts of intelligence. At the heart of this construct is the concept of fairness. Each pair is a side of the same coin; good/evil, right/wrong, fair/unfair. So there are two sides but only one coin. One side is the extant side. It's what exists. The other side is the negation of what exists. For example... evil is the absence of good, wrong is the absence of right and unfair is the absence of fairness. But for man to have any of these constructs he has to know what good and right and fair means. And not surprisingly he does. Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth. If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Black and white huh?

That's it.

We are living in a world that is nothing but shades of gray and we define what is good or evil.

And is there ever really a complete absence of good? A serial killer might take care of his invalid mother or feed the stray cats in his neighborhood so if there is just a little good then he cannot be evil right?

A soldier who is sent to kill is doing "good" as judged by society but what if he enjoys the killing as much as the serial killer? Does that make the soldier evil?

Standards exist for logical reasons. When we deviate from standards and normalize our deviance from the standards, eventually the reason the standards existed will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered.

I notice you didn't answer my questions.

So which human being had the authority to tell every other human being that was to come after him what these standards are?

Or are these absolute standards from a magical source like you think music is?

They were already addressed previously.

Truth is it's only authority. You are free to suffer the consequences of following lesser standards. Not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That's your authority.

Standards are based upon logic. God loves logic. He is logic.

I follow my own standards for my own reasons.

For one to believe there is an absolute standards one must concede there is an absolute authority.

This is where we disagree. The evolution of human behavior is completely bound to the evolution of society.

You are free to follow whatever standard you like. You are not necessarily free to avoid the consequences of your actions. That's the moral law at work. Same goes for societies. Logic and truth are the absolutes.

Society sets the consequences for the actions of people in it. We've already established that killing another person can result in no consequences at all which is proof that we as a society do not think that killing a person is always wrong.

Yes, to some degree society does set consequences but there are other consequences as well. Not every violation of standards are violations of societal laws. But that doesn't change the fact that even when society set no consequences there were still people who believed they should. Standards aren't based upon popular vote. Standards are based upon logic and reality. No fringe argument will ever change that fact.

What other consequences?

If I commit a crime and face no societal consequences what other consequences are there?

Cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc.

Those aren't consequences those are chosen actions

Correct. Actions which have consequences.

You claimed they were consequences

No, you couldn't connect the dots. The consequences to those actions - which are not illegal - should be obvious.

Ok here we go again.

I find myself having to remind you of your own words.

I asked you

"If I commit a crime and face no societal consequences what other consequences are there?"

You answered

"Cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc."

These are not cosequences

Dude, I already addressed this. You are just looking for a fight.

\So pointing out your own words to you is looking for a fight?

BTW I'm still waiting for you to send me a copy of your DINGtionary so I can keep up with your ever changing definitions

After it was already explained, yes. I'm sorry you couldn't connect the dots. I thought the consequences of cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc. are self evident. And since I don't see you arguing that cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc. have no consequences then I believe the consequences are self evident.

And those are not crimes.

You answered the question I asked regarding what other consequences are there if I do not get charged with a crime by listing behaviors that are neither crimes nor consequences.

So did you not understand the question?

I did understand the question. You didn't understand the answer.

So tell me how are those behaviors listed consequences for a person not punished for killing another person because in that instance society didn't think killing another person was wrong?

I already explained it to you.

If I commit a violation of some universal code of morals but the society I live in does not think it was a crime so therefore I face no societal consequences , what other consequences are there?

It's probabilistic in nature. Often times you will get away with it but normalization of deviance eventually leads to predictable surprises. So unless you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, you must believe that as a rule there will be positive and negative consequences to behaviors and actions.

And what are those consequences ?

To your absolute moral code killing a person is always wrong. We know this is not true of society.

If I kill a person and the society in which I live finds that in this instance that killing a person was not wrong and society imposes no consequences on me for that act what other consequences are there?

Let's take cheating on a spouse for example; divorce, loss of trust, cynicism, emotional distress on all parties especially the children, financial distress, loss of nuclear family, despair, drug use, alcoholism, etc.

If you want to believe there is no such thing as cause and effect or that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, be my guest.

So it is your contention that if I kill a person and the society I live in decides I committed no crime and exacts no punishment that I will drink and do drugs to excess, cheat on my wife, get divorced and ruin my children's lives?

No. I gave an example of something that wasn't against the law. The clue was, Let's take cheating on a spouse for example.

Again... If you want to believe there is no such thing as cause and effect or that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, be my guest.

So you are not answering the question I asked you.

Why won't you answer it?

Ok, let's say you kill someone in self defense. The consequences would most likely you would feel sick to your stomach the moment after you killed him which is how you would know it was the lesser of two evils and not morally justified. You would have to live with that the rest of your life. Of which the consequences could be despair, alcoholism, second guessing, drug addiction, divorce, etc.

Unless of course you are a sociopath. Then you would feel very little and would probably kill again in an effort to feel something.

Now if you aren't a sociopath and justified your actions as moral, you have just incrementally moved your moral bar further away from being moral and would be more apt to kill again even if the need to kill was questionable because you have become morally corrupt.

You assume much.

If I do not believe killing in self defense is wrong or "evil" why would I fell sick? Is it preferable that I stand there and let another person kill me or my wife? If a stood idly by and let a person murder my wife because killing a person is wrong, my moral stance would be no comfort and living with the fact that my wife was murdered because of my inaction would be far worse punishment. So I could kill that person and not feel as if I did anything wrong.

Again... if you justify it as morally good there will be negative consequences whereas if you justify it as the lesser of two evils and openly ask for forgiveness the power it holds upon you is released. The guy is dead and your wife is safe either way.

I never said it was "good" or "evil" but it is justifiable with no other qualifier needed. Our society does not consider killing in self defense to be wrong in fact we tend to see self defense up to and including the use of deadly force to be a natural right.

And who would I ask forgiveness from? The guy was going to kill my wife I don't need his forgiveness.

The subject is morals. The question is are they absolute or relative. Yours are relative. Mine are absolute.

So you would let a person murder you husband or wife because it is an absolute moral law that killing another person is evil?

Why do I doubt that?

I never said that. I said I wouldn't justify it as moral or good. It would be the lesser of two evils.

I never said it was a good or an evil or right or wrong. But it is accepted by society that killing in self defense or defense of another is not unacceptable therefore not immoral.

But I believe saving my wife's life is the correct path for me and even though I abhor violence I am not a pacifist.

I did. This is a discussion on right and wrong.

The OP is not about right and wrong.

And once again there is no black and white right or wrong.

Good, evil , right , wrong are all subjective value judgments and as we have seen do not apply to every situation equally.

The conversation we were having was.

Your statement that there is no black or white right or wrong is a black and white statement about right and wrong.

Subjective for you maybe, but then again there's your actions which belie your beliefs.

It isn't a black or white statement because there is no or in it.

And what do you know of my actions?

You saying right and wrong is not black or white is an absolute statement.

It's just the opposite.

We decide what is right or wrong. What's right for you may be wrong for me. Therefore no one thing can be absolutely right or absolutely wrong.

You are saying that right and wrong are determined outside of the human experience.

 

[ding]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

So you're changing your tune again.

Did you not say the math does not exist?

If it does not exist it cannot be discovered can it?

Exact right triangles are a man made construct. So the math describing them is a man made construct

There is no reason to think the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Never changed my tune. You take things out of context cause you have nothing else.

I love how hard you are trying to prove this.

Einstein did not invent E=mc^2. He discovered it.

I quoted you verbatim.

And you still deny you said it

Math is a human invention as a way to represent what we see.

You are confusing math and what math was invented to describe.

There is nothing to prove that the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours

Man discovered math. Man did not invent math. Math is universal. Same for logic, science, music, etc.

you are confusing math with the things it was invented to describe.

No. I'm not. E=mc^2 wasn't invented. It was discovered. Einstein could not make it be anything he wanted it to be like Apple could with its iPod. So E=mc^2 isn't an invention, it is a mathematical reality that describes a physical phenomenon. The physical phenomenon and the math that describes it were discovered.

The math that describes the relationship between matter and energy is a human invention.

You are confusing the math with the things it is being used to describe.

So I invented that if A=B and B=C then A=C?

Mathematics was invented to describe observed phenomenon in the natural world.

Like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a body due to gravity.

It is a representation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itself.

So... if A=B and B=C then A=C was invented and not discovered?

All you are doing is saying A =A

Not much of a "discovery" is it ?

Logic is nothing but a system invented by humans to examine human reasoning.

Is that your way of saying the transitive law was discovered?

No it was invented when man invented a system of correct inference AKA logic

You said it wasn't much of a discovery though, right? You didn't say it was no discovery.

It's not a "discovery" to say A=A

Do you know what sarcasm is?

But it's not saying A=A. It is comparing three different things. A, B and C.

No it isn't

because we have a definition for the concept represented by the = sign.

If A =B then B and A are the same thing so you are not comparing different things but rather you are giving the same thing different names.

Let's say A is a house and B is a diamond ring and C is a Lamborghini. Are they all the same thing?

Like I said we have defined the meaning of the = sign.

if you do not use the = sign then you are not giving different names to the same thing.

So you are arguing that a house and a diamond ring and a Lamborghini are all the same things?

I guess since you believe you can make logic be anything you want that makes sense to you.

No. I never once said that or tried to prove it.

And what you are doing is playing with language and that is not logic.

You were the one who said they were the same thing to justify that math is an invention. I am the one who said the transitive law was discovered and not created by man but exists unto itself just as logic does because the transitive law is based upon logic.

Where did I say a house and a diamond ring are the same thing? The entire if A=B and B=C then A=C statement is based on certain assumptions. If you change those assumptions or ignore then then the rule breaks down.

Logic is a human invention as a system of correct inference.

Math was invented by humans to describe observed phenomena

There is no reason to think the mathematics or logic of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Logic, like math is discovered. You can't make them be anything you want them to be. Just like you can't make right and wrong be anything you want them to be.

The rules of logic have been set down in the past and expanded by different cultures throughout history.

The system of rules was made by men and is a product of the human mind and are therefore uniquely human.

Logic isn't something floating out in the ether like hydrogen atoms

Logic is based upon truth and truth is based upon objectivity. Truth and logic are discovered through objectivity.

Truth. Obviously your truth and my truth are not the same thing.

a statement can only be true if we all agree on the definition of the terms used.

So now i suppose that there is some ultimate source of the definitions of all terms waiting to be "discovered " too right?

I never realized truth was a popularity contest.

Truth like logic exists unto itself and are discovered.

It is.

We can't even agree if the statement "Killing people is wrong" is true or not.

Killing people is wrong. Sometimes people choose to do wrong because it is the lesser of two evils. Not because they think it's right to kill.

So then the killing of a person for any reason should have the same consequences but it doesn't because we have subjectively rationalized when it is acceptable to kill.

And if evil in not extant as you have said how can once choose between a lesser or a greater evil if neither exists?

Think of evil as the absence of good but we use the word evil as a literary convenience.

Good is not an entity either.

Good is a value judgement.

These are human constructs

Good & evil, right & wrong are artifacts of intelligence. At the heart of this construct is the concept of fairness. Each pair is a side of the same coin; good/evil, right/wrong, fair/unfair. So there are two sides but only one coin. One side is the extant side. It's what exists. The other side is the negation of what exists. For example... evil is the absence of good, wrong is the absence of right and unfair is the absence of fairness. But for man to have any of these constructs he has to know what good and right and fair means. And not surprisingly he does. Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth. If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Black and white huh?

That's it.

We are living in a world that is nothing but shades of gray and we define what is good or evil.

And is there ever really a complete absence of good? A serial killer might take care of his invalid mother or feed the stray cats in his neighborhood so if there is just a little good then he cannot be evil right?

A soldier who is sent to kill is doing "good" as judged by society but what if he enjoys the killing as much as the serial killer? Does that make the soldier evil?

Standards exist for logical reasons. When we deviate from standards and normalize our deviance from the standards, eventually the reason the standards existed will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered.

I notice you didn't answer my questions.

So which human being had the authority to tell every other human being that was to come after him what these standards are?

Or are these absolute standards from a magical source like you think music is?

They were already addressed previously.

Truth is it's only authority. You are free to suffer the consequences of following lesser standards. Not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That's your authority.

Standards are based upon logic. God loves logic. He is logic.

I follow my own standards for my own reasons.

For one to believe there is an absolute standards one must concede there is an absolute authority.

This is where we disagree. The evolution of human behavior is completely bound to the evolution of society.

You are free to follow whatever standard you like. You are not necessarily free to avoid the consequences of your actions. That's the moral law at work. Same goes for societies. Logic and truth are the absolutes.

Society sets the consequences for the actions of people in it. We've already established that killing another person can result in no consequences at all which is proof that we as a society do not think that killing a person is always wrong.

Yes, to some degree society does set consequences but there are other consequences as well. Not every violation of standards are violations of societal laws. But that doesn't change the fact that even when society set no consequences there were still people who believed they should. Standards aren't based upon popular vote. Standards are based upon logic and reality. No fringe argument will ever change that fact.

What other consequences?

If I commit a crime and face no societal consequences what other consequences are there?

Cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc.

Those aren't consequences those are chosen actions

Correct. Actions which have consequences.

You claimed they were consequences

No, you couldn't connect the dots. The consequences to those actions - which are not illegal - should be obvious.

Ok here we go again.

I find myself having to remind you of your own words.

I asked you

"If I commit a crime and face no societal consequences what other consequences are there?"

You answered

"Cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc."

These are not cosequences

Dude, I already addressed this. You are just looking for a fight.

\So pointing out your own words to you is looking for a fight?

BTW I'm still waiting for you to send me a copy of your DINGtionary so I can keep up with your ever changing definitions

After it was already explained, yes. I'm sorry you couldn't connect the dots. I thought the consequences of cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc. are self evident. And since I don't see you arguing that cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc. have no consequences then I believe the consequences are self evident.

And those are not crimes.

You answered the question I asked regarding what other consequences are there if I do not get charged with a crime by listing behaviors that are neither crimes nor consequences.

So did you not understand the question?

I did understand the question. You didn't understand the answer.

So tell me how are those behaviors listed consequences for a person not punished for killing another person because in that instance society didn't think killing another person was wrong?

I already explained it to you.

If I commit a violation of some universal code of morals but the society I live in does not think it was a crime so therefore I face no societal consequences , what other consequences are there?

It's probabilistic in nature. Often times you will get away with it but normalization of deviance eventually leads to predictable surprises. So unless you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, you must believe that as a rule there will be positive and negative consequences to behaviors and actions.

And what are those consequences ?

To your absolute moral code killing a person is always wrong. We know this is not true of society.

If I kill a person and the society in which I live finds that in this instance that killing a person was not wrong and society imposes no consequences on me for that act what other consequences are there?

Let's take cheating on a spouse for example; divorce, loss of trust, cynicism, emotional distress on all parties especially the children, financial distress, loss of nuclear family, despair, drug use, alcoholism, etc.

If you want to believe there is no such thing as cause and effect or that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, be my guest.

So it is your contention that if I kill a person and the society I live in decides I committed no crime and exacts no punishment that I will drink and do drugs to excess, cheat on my wife, get divorced and ruin my children's lives?

No. I gave an example of something that wasn't against the law. The clue was, Let's take cheating on a spouse for example.

Again... If you want to believe there is no such thing as cause and effect or that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, be my guest.

So you are not answering the question I asked you.

Why won't you answer it?

Ok, let's say you kill someone in self defense. The consequences would most likely you would feel sick to your stomach the moment after you killed him which is how you would know it was the lesser of two evils and not morally justified. You would have to live with that the rest of your life. Of which the consequences could be despair, alcoholism, second guessing, drug addiction, divorce, etc.

Unless of course you are a sociopath. Then you would feel very little and would probably kill again in an effort to feel something.

Now if you aren't a sociopath and justified your actions as moral, you have just incrementally moved your moral bar further away from being moral and would be more apt to kill again even if the need to kill was questionable because you have become morally corrupt.

You assume much.

If I do not believe killing in self defense is wrong or "evil" why would I fell sick? Is it preferable that I stand there and let another person kill me or my wife? If a stood idly by and let a person murder my wife because killing a person is wrong, my moral stance would be no comfort and living with the fact that my wife was murdered because of my inaction would be far worse punishment. So I could kill that person and not feel as if I did anything wrong.

Again... if you justify it as morally good there will be negative consequences whereas if you justify it as the lesser of two evils and openly ask for forgiveness the power it holds upon you is released. The guy is dead and your wife is safe either way.

I never said it was "good" or "evil" but it is justifiable with no other qualifier needed. Our society does not consider killing in self defense to be wrong in fact we tend to see self defense up to and including the use of deadly force to be a natural right.

And who would I ask forgiveness from? The guy was going to kill my wife I don't need his forgiveness.

The subject is morals. The question is are they absolute or relative. Yours are relative. Mine are absolute.

So you would let a person murder you husband or wife because it is an absolute moral law that killing another person is evil?

Why do I doubt that?

I never said that. I said I wouldn't justify it as moral or good. It would be the lesser of two evils.

I never said it was a good or an evil or right or wrong. But it is accepted by society that killing in self defense or defense of another is not unacceptable therefore not immoral.

But I believe saving my wife's life is the correct path for me and even though I abhor violence I am not a pacifist.

I did. This is a discussion on right and wrong.

The OP is not about right and wrong.

And once again there is no black and white right or wrong.

Good, evil , right , wrong are all subjective value judgments and as we have seen do not apply to every situation equally.

The conversation we were having was.

Your statement that there is no black or white right or wrong is a black and white statement about right and wrong.

Subjective for you maybe, but then again there's your actions which belie your beliefs.

It isn't a black or white statement because there is no or in it.

And what do you know of my actions?

You saying right and wrong is not black or white is an absolute statement.

It's just the opposite.

We decide what is right or wrong. What's right for you may be wrong for me. Therefore no one thing can be absolutely right or absolutely wrong.

You are saying that right and wrong are determined outside of the human experience.

"It's just the opposite" is another absolute statement.

You can't make an argument without making an absolute statement and having the expectation that everyone else should agree.

 

[ding]

You are saying that right and wrong are determined outside of the human experience.

I am saying that right and wrong is determined by logic. That standards exist for a reason. And when a standard is lowered the reason the higher standard existed in the first place is discovered.

Everything is made manifest by mind.

 

[ding]

We decide what is right or wrong.

What's right for you may be wrong for me.

Therefore no one thing can be absolutely right or absolutely wrong.

Are literally all absolute statements.

You can't make an argument without making an absolute statement. It is your expectation that everyone should agree with your absolute statements that proves you believe in absolute truth.

 

[Blues Man]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

So you're changing your tune again.

Did you not say the math does not exist?

If it does not exist it cannot be discovered can it?

Exact right triangles are a man made construct. So the math describing them is a man made construct

There is no reason to think the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Never changed my tune. You take things out of context cause you have nothing else.

I love how hard you are trying to prove this.

Einstein did not invent E=mc^2. He discovered it.

I quoted you verbatim.

And you still deny you said it

Math is a human invention as a way to represent what we see.

You are confusing math and what math was invented to describe.

There is nothing to prove that the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours

Man discovered math. Man did not invent math. Math is universal. Same for logic, science, music, etc.

you are confusing math with the things it was invented to describe.

No. I'm not. E=mc^2 wasn't invented. It was discovered. Einstein could not make it be anything he wanted it to be like Apple could with its iPod. So E=mc^2 isn't an invention, it is a mathematical reality that describes a physical phenomenon. The physical phenomenon and the math that describes it were discovered.

The math that describes the relationship between matter and energy is a human invention.

You are confusing the math with the things it is being used to describe.

So I invented that if A=B and B=C then A=C?

Mathematics was invented to describe observed phenomenon in the natural world.

Like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a body due to gravity.

It is a representation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itself.

So... if A=B and B=C then A=C was invented and not discovered?

All you are doing is saying A =A

Not much of a "discovery" is it ?

Logic is nothing but a system invented by humans to examine human reasoning.

Is that your way of saying the transitive law was discovered?

No it was invented when man invented a system of correct inference AKA logic

You said it wasn't much of a discovery though, right? You didn't say it was no discovery.

It's not a "discovery" to say A=A

Do you know what sarcasm is?

But it's not saying A=A. It is comparing three different things. A, B and C.

No it isn't

because we have a definition for the concept represented by the = sign.

If A =B then B and A are the same thing so you are not comparing different things but rather you are giving the same thing different names.

Let's say A is a house and B is a diamond ring and C is a Lamborghini. Are they all the same thing?

Like I said we have defined the meaning of the = sign.

if you do not use the = sign then you are not giving different names to the same thing.

So you are arguing that a house and a diamond ring and a Lamborghini are all the same things?

I guess since you believe you can make logic be anything you want that makes sense to you.

No. I never once said that or tried to prove it.

And what you are doing is playing with language and that is not logic.

You were the one who said they were the same thing to justify that math is an invention. I am the one who said the transitive law was discovered and not created by man but exists unto itself just as logic does because the transitive law is based upon logic.

Where did I say a house and a diamond ring are the same thing? The entire if A=B and B=C then A=C statement is based on certain assumptions. If you change those assumptions or ignore then then the rule breaks down.

Logic is a human invention as a system of correct inference.

Math was invented by humans to describe observed phenomena

There is no reason to think the mathematics or logic of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Logic, like math is discovered. You can't make them be anything you want them to be. Just like you can't make right and wrong be anything you want them to be.

The rules of logic have been set down in the past and expanded by different cultures throughout history.

The system of rules was made by men and is a product of the human mind and are therefore uniquely human.

Logic isn't something floating out in the ether like hydrogen atoms

Logic is based upon truth and truth is based upon objectivity. Truth and logic are discovered through objectivity.

Truth. Obviously your truth and my truth are not the same thing.

a statement can only be true if we all agree on the definition of the terms used.

So now i suppose that there is some ultimate source of the definitions of all terms waiting to be "discovered " too right?

I never realized truth was a popularity contest.

Truth like logic exists unto itself and are discovered.

It is.

We can't even agree if the statement "Killing people is wrong" is true or not.

Killing people is wrong. Sometimes people choose to do wrong because it is the lesser of two evils. Not because they think it's right to kill.

So then the killing of a person for any reason should have the same consequences but it doesn't because we have subjectively rationalized when it is acceptable to kill.

And if evil in not extant as you have said how can once choose between a lesser or a greater evil if neither exists?

Think of evil as the absence of good but we use the word evil as a literary convenience.

Good is not an entity either.

Good is a value judgement.

These are human constructs

Good & evil, right & wrong are artifacts of intelligence. At the heart of this construct is the concept of fairness. Each pair is a side of the same coin; good/evil, right/wrong, fair/unfair. So there are two sides but only one coin. One side is the extant side. It's what exists. The other side is the negation of what exists. For example... evil is the absence of good, wrong is the absence of right and unfair is the absence of fairness. But for man to have any of these constructs he has to know what good and right and fair means. And not surprisingly he does. Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth. If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Black and white huh?

That's it.

We are living in a world that is nothing but shades of gray and we define what is good or evil.

And is there ever really a complete absence of good? A serial killer might take care of his invalid mother or feed the stray cats in his neighborhood so if there is just a little good then he cannot be evil right?

A soldier who is sent to kill is doing "good" as judged by society but what if he enjoys the killing as much as the serial killer? Does that make the soldier evil?

Standards exist for logical reasons. When we deviate from standards and normalize our deviance from the standards, eventually the reason the standards existed will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered.

I notice you didn't answer my questions.

So which human being had the authority to tell every other human being that was to come after him what these standards are?

Or are these absolute standards from a magical source like you think music is?

They were already addressed previously.

Truth is it's only authority. You are free to suffer the consequences of following lesser standards. Not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That's your authority.

Standards are based upon logic. God loves logic. He is logic.

I follow my own standards for my own reasons.

For one to believe there is an absolute standards one must concede there is an absolute authority.

This is where we disagree. The evolution of human behavior is completely bound to the evolution of society.

You are free to follow whatever standard you like. You are not necessarily free to avoid the consequences of your actions. That's the moral law at work. Same goes for societies. Logic and truth are the absolutes.

Society sets the consequences for the actions of people in it. We've already established that killing another person can result in no consequences at all which is proof that we as a society do not think that killing a person is always wrong.

Yes, to some degree society does set consequences but there are other consequences as well. Not every violation of standards are violations of societal laws. But that doesn't change the fact that even when society set no consequences there were still people who believed they should. Standards aren't based upon popular vote. Standards are based upon logic and reality. No fringe argument will ever change that fact.

What other consequences?

If I commit a crime and face no societal consequences what other consequences are there?

Cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc.

Those aren't consequences those are chosen actions

Correct. Actions which have consequences.

You claimed they were consequences

No, you couldn't connect the dots. The consequences to those actions - which are not illegal - should be obvious.

Ok here we go again.

I find myself having to remind you of your own words.

I asked you

"If I commit a crime and face no societal consequences what other consequences are there?"

You answered

"Cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc."

These are not cosequences

Dude, I already addressed this. You are just looking for a fight.

\So pointing out your own words to you is looking for a fight?

BTW I'm still waiting for you to send me a copy of your DINGtionary so I can keep up with your ever changing definitions

After it was already explained, yes. I'm sorry you couldn't connect the dots. I thought the consequences of cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc. are self evident. And since I don't see you arguing that cheating on your wife, abusing drugs or alcohol, etc. have no consequences then I believe the consequences are self evident.

And those are not crimes.

You answered the question I asked regarding what other consequences are there if I do not get charged with a crime by listing behaviors that are neither crimes nor consequences.

So did you not understand the question?

I did understand the question. You didn't understand the answer.

So tell me how are those behaviors listed consequences for a person not punished for killing another person because in that instance society didn't think killing another person was wrong?

I already explained it to you.

If I commit a violation of some universal code of morals but the society I live in does not think it was a crime so therefore I face no societal consequences , what other consequences are there?

It's probabilistic in nature. Often times you will get away with it but normalization of deviance eventually leads to predictable surprises. So unless you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, you must believe that as a rule there will be positive and negative consequences to behaviors and actions.

And what are those consequences ?

To your absolute moral code killing a person is always wrong. We know this is not true of society.

If I kill a person and the society in which I live finds that in this instance that killing a person was not wrong and society imposes no consequences on me for that act what other consequences are there?

Let's take cheating on a spouse for example; divorce, loss of trust, cynicism, emotional distress on all parties especially the children, financial distress, loss of nuclear family, despair, drug use, alcoholism, etc.

If you want to believe there is no such thing as cause and effect or that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, be my guest.

So it is your contention that if I kill a person and the society I live in decides I committed no crime and exacts no punishment that I will drink and do drugs to excess, cheat on my wife, get divorced and ruin my children's lives?

No. I gave an example of something that wasn't against the law. The clue was, Let's take cheating on a spouse for example.

Again... If you want to believe there is no such thing as cause and effect or that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, be my guest.

So you are not answering the question I asked you.

Why won't you answer it?

Ok, let's say you kill someone in self defense. The consequences would most likely you would feel sick to your stomach the moment after you killed him which is how you would know it was the lesser of two evils and not morally justified. You would have to live with that the rest of your life. Of which the consequences could be despair, alcoholism, second guessing, drug addiction, divorce, etc.

Unless of course you are a sociopath. Then you would feel very little and would probably kill again in an effort to feel something.

Now if you aren't a sociopath and justified your actions as moral, you have just incrementally moved your moral bar further away from being moral and would be more apt to kill again even if the need to kill was questionable because you have become morally corrupt.

You assume much.

If I do not believe killing in self defense is wrong or "evil" why would I fell sick? Is it preferable that I stand there and let another person kill me or my wife? If a stood idly by and let a person murder my wife because killing a person is wrong, my moral stance would be no comfort and living with the fact that my wife was murdered because of my inaction would be far worse punishment. So I could kill that person and not feel as if I did anything wrong.

Again... if you justify it as morally good there will be negative consequences whereas if you justify it as the lesser of two evils and openly ask for forgiveness the power it holds upon you is released. The guy is dead and your wife is safe either way.

I never said it was "good" or "evil" but it is justifiable with no other qualifier needed. Our society does not consider killing in self defense to be wrong in fact we tend to see self defense up to and including the use of deadly force to be a natural right.

And who would I ask forgiveness from? The guy was going to kill my wife I don't need his forgiveness.

The subject is morals. The question is are they absolute or relative. Yours are relative. Mine are absolute.

So you would let a person murder you husband or wife because it is an absolute moral law that killing another person is evil?

Why do I doubt that?

I never said that. I said I wouldn't justify it as moral or good. It would be the lesser of two evils.

I never said it was a good or an evil or right or wrong. But it is accepted by society that killing in self defense or defense of another is not unacceptable therefore not immoral.

But I believe saving my wife's life is the correct path for me and even though I abhor violence I am not a pacifist.

I did. This is a discussion on right and wrong.

The OP is not about right and wrong.

And once again there is no black and white right or wrong.

Good, evil , right , wrong are all subjective value judgments and as we have seen do not apply to every situation equally.

The conversation we were having was.

Your statement that there is no black or white right or wrong is a black and white statement about right and wrong.

Subjective for you maybe, but then again there's your actions which belie your beliefs.

It isn't a black or white statement because there is no or in it.

And what do you know of my actions?

You saying right and wrong is not black or white is an absolute statement.

It's just the opposite.

We decide what is right or wrong. What's right for you may be wrong for me. Therefore no one thing can be absolutely right or absolutely wrong.

You are saying that right and wrong are determined outside of the human experience.

"It's just the opposite" is another absolute statement.

You can't make an argument without making an absolute statement and having the expectation that everyone else should agree.

Saying that more than one choice exists is a fact. And I don't care if you agree with me or not. How many times do I have to tell you that?

I have never once said anyone "should" agree with me. In fact I never tell anyone they "should" do anything because I have absolutely no authority to do so. And neither do you.