Zone1 Why does anything matter?

[ding]

I can't tell you what I'm seeing since I'm seeing nothing. If you enter a dark room, is there a couch in the corner? Maybe but you see no evidence for it.

If that were true you wouldn't unequivocally state the creator is not moralistic or providential. You would state you don't know if the creator is moralistic and providential. You are lying to yourself.

Disagree. Society often administers the consequences of individual actions.

It almost sounds as if you are agreeing that there are consequences for choices. But that you believe your creator has nothing to do with it.

That's because you choose to ignore the nature of existence which he created. You fail to understand that everything - good or bad - is connected. You get confused because you don't understand how truth is discovered or how error can't stand. All of which are products of a self assembling, self compensating existence which was create by your creator.

Alpha Centauri and I are both part of the universe but our connections are negligible.

Sure, but there is still a connection. All matter was created when your creator created existence. That you can't understand the role stars played in creating beings that know and create is your problem.

Don't buy it. Not all choices lead to equal outcomes but not all equal choices lead to equal outcomes. Seems pretty random to me. I've been lucky but I might get hit by lightning regardless of my choices.

That's because you don't understand how probabilities and distributions work. It's because of your bias that try to deny rules because of exceptions. The reality is that often times when one deviates from the standard he gets away with it. So he does it over and over until he has normalized his deviance from the standard, until the universe provides his predictable surprise to teach him why the standard exists. He is free to keep repeating his mistakes but he is not free from suffering the consequences of his mistakes. His lessons will keep being brought to him until he learns from it. This is your creator's perfect self assembling, self compensating creation which teaches us that he is moralistic and providential.

 

[alang1216]

And morals are clear because morals are based upon logic just like all standards are based upon logic.

Was Jefferson and other slave owners immoral? Was Genghis Khan immoral when he sacked Baghdad? Is logic universal?

 

[alang1216]

If that were true you wouldn't unequivocally state the creator is not moralistic or providential. You would state you don't know if the creator is moralistic and providential. You are lying to yourself.

I don't know if the creator is moralistic, I only know I see no evidence of such.

It almost sounds as if you are agreeing that there are consequences for choices. But that you believe your creator has nothing to do with it.

That's because you choose to ignore the nature of existence which he created. You fail to understand that everything - good or bad - is connected. You get confused because you don't understand how truth is discovered or how error can't stand. All of which are products of a self assembling, self compensating existence which was create by your creator.

Sure, but there is still a connection. All matter was created when your creator created existence. That you can't understand the role stars played in creating beings that know and create is your problem.

That's because you don't understand how probabilities and distributions work. It's because of your bias that try to deny rules because of exceptions. The reality is that often times when one deviates from the standard he gets away with it. So he does it over and over until he has normalized his deviance from the standard, until the universe provides his predictable surprise to teach him why the standard exists. He is free to keep repeating his mistakes but he is not free from suffering the consequences of his mistakes. His lessons will keep being brought to him until he learns from it. This is your creator's perfect self assembling, self compensating creation which teaches us that he is moralistic and providential.

You could be right of course, I just don't see the connections like you do. It is probably impossible for me to accept that an intelligence created something 13+ billion years ago knowing it would lead to me. Too many random/butterfly events in between.

 

[ding]

No, that is reverse engineering. If I'm successful it follows that I engaged in successful behaviors. Duh. If the universe were moralistic, everyone who engaged in the same behaviors would be successful and that I don't buy.

No. That is logic and common sense. It’s literally the reason you teach your children to do the correct things and don’t teach them it doesn’t matter what they do.

You have a nasty habit of arguing exceptions and ignoring distributions.

 

[ding]

Was Jefferson and other slave owners immoral? Was Genghis Khan immoral when he sacked Baghdad? Is logic universal?

They certainly weren't moral even if they believed slavery was wrong. They would have been hypocrites. Yes, I believe it is entirely likely that Genghis Khan was immoral. I don't see how logic can't be universal.

But what exactly do you believe this proves?

 

[ding]

I don't know if the creator is moralistic, I only know I see no evidence of such.

And you don't know the creator isn't moralistic or providential, right?

 

[ding]

You could be right of course, I just don't see the connections like you do. It is probably impossible for me to accept that an intelligence created something 13+ billion years ago knowing it would lead to me. Too many random/butterfly events in between.

You keep saying random but it's not random. Chaotic, yes. Random, no.

Why does time matter? What would it take for you to believe in a creator? What would it take for you to believe the creator is moralistic and providential? Because maybe there is no evidence you will accept.

 

[alang1216]

They certainly weren't moral even if they believed slavery was wrong. They would have been hypocrites. Yes, I believe it is entirely likely that Genghis Khan was immoral. I don't see how logic can't be universal.

But what exactly do you believe this proves?

Genghis is beloved in Mongolia, I doubt they would think him immoral. Morality depends on time and space, it is hardly universal. Logic may be universal but yours is flawed if you think there is a single, logical morality.

 

[alang1216]

You keep saying random but it's not random. Chaotic, yes. Random, no.

Without perfect knowledge, chaos is indistinguishable from randomness.

Why does time matter? What would it take for you to believe in a creator? What would it take for you to believe the creator is moralistic and providential? Because maybe there is no evidence you will accept.

I will accept any convincing evidence. So far you've offered nothing convincing but, of course, I may be too unintelligent to understand it.

 

[ding]

Without perfect knowledge, chaos is indistinguishable from randomness.

Only if you suspend cause and effect. I don't have to distinguish chaos from randomness. I only have to know that the laws of nature which describe existence aren't random. Which means you are confusing chaos for randomness.

I will accept any convincing evidence. So far you've offered nothing convincing but, of course, I may be too unintelligent to understand it.

There is no evidence you will accept as proven by your inability to name one single thing that would convince you. I'm not here to play twenty questions.

 

[ding]

Genghis is beloved in Mongolia, I doubt they would think him immoral. Morality depends on time and space, it is hardly universal. Logic may be universal but yours is flawed if you think there is a single, logical morality.

I'm sure there were times he wasn't. People are complex. No one is all good or all bad. Again... morals are standards and standards exist for logical reasons. Even when people behaved immorally in the past there were those who knew they were wrong. You can't hang your hat on the consensus of a society.

 

[ding]

I may be too unintelligent to understand it.

That may be a possibility but I suspect it's arrogance. It would be one thing to say I haven't convinced you but to not be able to say what would convince you is a horse of another color. You are so certain you can't be wrong (i.e. arrogance) that you dismiss everything off hand without any real justification. I know this because you can't say what you would accept. Because if you did, then I would know what justification you value. But there is no justification you value because there is nothing that will convince you. Not because it's not reasonable or doesn't make sense, but because you are so certain you can't be wrong (arrogant).

 

[alang1216]

That may be a possibility but I suspect it's arrogance. It would be one thing to say I haven't convinced you but to not be able to say what would convince you is a horse of another color. You are so certain you can't be wrong (i.e. arrogance) that you dismiss everything off hand without any real justification. I know this because you can't say what you would accept. Because if you did, then I would know what justification you value. But there is no justification you value because there is nothing that will convince you. Not because it's not reasonable or doesn't make sense, but because you are so certain you can't be wrong (arrogant).

You're the who pointed out my lack of intelligence but any obviously supernatural evidence would convince me. What that might be I can't imagine.

 

[ding]

You're the who pointed out my lack of intelligence but any obviously supernatural evidence would convince me. What that might be I can't imagine.

No. Even that wouldn't convince you. You reject the supernatural acts performed by Jesus Christ based on nothing more than a ridiculous telephone game error of embellishments which has no basis in reality and dismiss a ton of historical evidence that shows it was an historical event. So, no. Even that wouldn't convince you.

 

[alang1216]

No. Even that wouldn't convince you. You reject the supernatural acts performed by Jesus Christ based on nothing more than a ridiculous telephone game error of embellishments which has no basis in reality and dismiss a ton of historical evidence that shows it was an historical event. So, no. Even that wouldn't convince you.

It might if I saw it with my own eyes. Fourth hand information, not so much.

 

[ding]

It might if I saw it with my own eyes. Fourth hand information, not so much.

Unless it's the only explanation for all of the evidence that makes sense. Which is where I got to.

 

[alang1216]

Unless it's the only explanation for all of the evidence that makes sense. Which is where I got to.

Both the information AND the evidence is fourth-hand (or thereabouts)

 

[ding]

Both the information AND the evidence is fourth-hand (or thereabouts)

And yet you use the exact same information to arrive at your telephone game, embellished, error argument. But what you don't use is the timing of when Jesus was worshiped as God or the Jewish texts which collaborate the veracity of the NT texts.

So while we are both using mostly the same information, you dismiss that evidence and make up an argument that is diametrically opposed to the evidence.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Or you can recognize man's innate drive to seek God. Where you might see differences, I see similarities.

You seem to be arguing that you have more wisdom than ancient men and that you value searching for evidence to discover new things. If that were true you would be looking for similarities and not differences because looking for similarities is how you discover the patterns which identifies something new. If you are only looking for differences then you aren't looking for something new, you are looking for what something isn't. Looking for something that isn't, isn't looking for something new.

Because of natural dualism, religion is innate to humanity, as humans are cognitively predisposed to believe in gods, supernatural agents, and an afterlife

Looking for God -

 

[forkintheroad7]

All Catholics should watch this debate

Actually, I think everyone should regardless of religion