Mindfire
Istar
I fail to see the problem with the only force morality having being what we give it, it's the same thing with money afterall...
Economics is imperfect too. Thus the existence of poor people.
I fail to see the problem with the only force morality having being what we give it, it's the same thing with money afterall...
The problem with science isn't science itself, but the human mind. There are just some things that the human mind simply can not grasp. Temporal paradoxes (Paradoxi?) being one of them. Just because we can't comprehend the explanation doesn't mean that there isn't an explanation.
- Man possess a conscience.
- There was A begining
- There will be AN end.
- Man is aware, and thus responsible for his actions.
- Man seeks justice when wrong has been done to him/her.
- There is a purpose to life.
- Mankind is rational (or strives to be rational).
- Man possess a conscience.
- There was A begining
- There will be AN end.
- Man is aware, and thus responsible for his actions.
- Man seeks justice when wrong has been done to him/her.
- There is a purpose to life.
- Mankind is rational (or strives to be rational).
Only problematic if you believe in scientific reductionism.
And while even cosmologists now hypothesize that time had a starting point, and may have an ending point, that doesn't actually preclude a time-before-time.
I'm not sure what "scientific reductionism" is.
I believe that claims should be supported by evidence. If there is insufficient evidence for me to provisionally accept a claim, then I (provisionally) reject that claim.
I'm not aware of any other approach to the world that makes any sense.
Can I ask, what if I'm willing to kill and then accept the consequences which society imposes on me? What's to prevent me from saying, "Society says that if I kill and rape and murder, they're going to execute me. Well, then I agree to those terms." Is there any logical argument which can be made to explain why I should not do such a thing?
2) Hm... if you count the big bang then yes, though I kinda think that there was something before it.
Alright, I want to jump in on this. Before we continue down this endless wormhole I would like to see what parameters we all agree on. Allow me to list some observations about the nature of man and his condition. This is to applied to mankind in general:
- Man possess a conscience.
- There was A begining
- There will be AN end.
- Man is aware, and thus responsible for his actions.
- Man seeks justice when wrong has been done to him/her.
- There is a purpose to life.
- Mankind is rational (or strives to be rational).
Can we agree to these parameters before we continue on this topic? I would like to join in, but the way its been done is chaotic.
I don't know of any evidence that supports 3, and I don't consider it reasonable to accept it axiomatically.
I generally follow the same approach. Where it becomes interesting with religion is that people feel there are personal ways of "knowing" that can't be communicated to others. So even though someone may not be able to offer you evidence, they view their own experience and ways of knowing as evidence sufficient unto them. So it's an impasse.
There is "evidence" for it. Any of the various oscillating universe models support this. But it isn't proven, of course.
It actually doesn't have to be an impasse, if the person with the non-communicable "knowing" accepts the premise that non-communicable knowing is useless for purposes of convincing anyone else.
Sorry, you're right; I was mis-thinking. As I recall, the current reigning model is of the open-ended universe declining to maximum entropy. Could be wrong.
Even if we do accept 3, I'm not sure how it affects morality, though (in other words, I'm not sure why Ankari thinks it needs to be accepted in order for us to have a discussion).
Economics is imperfect too. Thus the existence of poor people.
Presumably if you've decided that you're okay with the consequences, there probably aren't any arguments that will change your mind. I mean, I could go over all the plausible arguments you might make to someone to convince them that they shouldn't rape and murder, and a person could (theoretically) validly disagree with all of them.