Total Posts:97|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The FJ Interview

ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 2:11:33 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
FJ agreed to submit to questions from me. He is free to ask me questions also.
We have both agreed to answer all questions put to us. Either of us can quit at any time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FJ, I need to know where you stand, so my first questions will be only to determine what your positions are on issues. The next will be questions about those positions.

1. Do you believe there is any action which is immoral under any circumstance?
2. Do you believe abortion as is allowed under US law is a moral wrong?
3. Do you have any beliefs which contradict scientific evidence?
4. Would it be correct to say that your view is that there exists nothing other than the material world?
5. Do you believe that logic can be evidence?
6. Do you agree that the character in the Bible known as "Jesus" never existed?
7. Would you agree that the trait of omniscience attributed to God contradicts the doctrine of free will?
8. Do you personally believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?
9. Do you believe hard atheism is rational?
10. Have you ever had a sense of wonder or of awe?

Thanks.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 2:26:52 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 2:11:33 PM, ethang5 wrote:
FJ agreed to submit to questions from me. He is free to ask me questions also.
We have both agreed to answer all questions put to us. Either of us can quit at any time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FJ, I need to know where you stand, so my first questions will be only to determine what your positions are on issues. The next will be questions about those positions.

1. Do you believe there is any action which is immoral under any circumstance?
2. Do you believe abortion as is allowed under US law is a moral wrong?
3. Do you have any beliefs which contradict scientific evidence?
4. Would it be correct to say that your view is that there exists nothing other than the material world?
5. Do you believe that logic can be evidence?
6. Do you agree that the character in the Bible known as "Jesus" never existed?
7. Would you agree that the trait of omniscience attributed to God contradicts the doctrine of free will?
8. Do you personally believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?
9. Do you believe hard atheism is rational?
10. Have you ever had a sense of wonder or of awe?

Thanks.

I think these are reasonable questions, and I would like to see your answers to them as well.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 2:49:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 2:11:33 PM, ethang5 wrote:
FJ agreed to submit to questions from me. He is free to ask me questions also.
We have both agreed to answer all questions put to us. Either of us can quit at any time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FJ, I need to know where you stand, so my first questions will be only to determine what your positions are on issues. The next will be questions about those positions.

1. Do you believe there is any action which is immoral under any circumstance?

Yes.

2. Do you believe abortion as is allowed under US law is a moral wrong?

No.

3. Do you have any beliefs which contradict scientific evidence?

Potentially. I am not aware of all published and researched fields, and this particular question gets dicey in sciences like psychology.

4. Would it be correct to say that your view is that there exists nothing other than the material world?

Yes.

5. Do you believe that logic can be evidence?

I would appreciate greater clarity on this question. Are you referring to the process of logical deduction?

6. Do you agree that the character in the Bible known as "Jesus" never existed?

I believe the character known in the Bible as Jesus never existed as described.

7. Would you agree that the trait of omniscience attributed to God contradicts the doctrine of free will?

No.

8. Do you personally believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?

Yes.

9. Do you believe hard atheism is rational?

Yes.

10. Have you ever had a sense of wonder or of awe?

Yes.

Thanks.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 3:23:37 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 2:11:33 PM, ethang5 wrote:
FJ agreed to submit to questions from me. He is free to ask me questions also.
We have both agreed to answer all questions put to us. Either of us can quit at any time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I wsould like to participate in this quiz.---

FJ, I need to know where you stand, so my first questions will be only to determine what your positions are on issues. The next will be questions about those positions.

1. Do you believe there is any action which is immoral under any circumstance?
Yes
2. Do you believe abortion as is allowed under US law is a moral wrong?
No, abortion is not a moral question.
3. Do you have any beliefs which contradict scientific evidence?
Perhaps and perhaps not, scientific evidence spans an enormous collection of knowledge.
4. Would it be correct to say that your view is that there exists nothing other than the material world?
Yes
5. Do you believe that logic can be evidence?
No
6. Do you agree that the character in the Bible known as "Jesus" never existed?
The magic man called Jesus in the bible never existed as history attests.
7. Would you agree that the trait of omniscience attributed to God contradicts the doctrine of free will?
Omniscience is unattainable for an active intellect.
8. Do you personally believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?
Almost certainly.
9. Do you believe hard atheism is rational?
Atheism is the rejection of man's claim that gods exist, What is hard or soft about that?
10. Have you ever had a sense of wonder or of awe?
I am constantly in awe and my sense of wonder is not assuaged regardless my age.
Thanks.
You're welcome.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 3:30:13 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 2:11:33 PM, ethang5 wrote:
FJ agreed to submit to questions from me. He is free to ask me questions also.
We have both agreed to answer all questions put to us. Either of us can quit at any time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ill answer these also. Feel free to pick it apart if you like.

FJ, I need to know where you stand, so my first questions will be only to determine what your positions are on issues. The next will be questions about those positions.

1. Do you believe there is any action which is immoral under any circumstance?
Yes.
2. Do you believe abortion as is allowed under US law is a moral wrong?
No.
3. Do you have any beliefs which contradict scientific evidence?
No. I have suspicions that are not backed by direct hard evidence but that is why they remain suspicions.
4. Would it be correct to say that your view is that there exists nothing other than the material world?
Would need a definition of "material world" to answer effectively. I believe there are things, like quantum entanglement, that cannot be explained by current science. If the question really is if there is consciousness and/or intelligence outside of physical minds, I am agnostic on that since there seems to be evidence that could be interpreted as pointing to it but there is no empirical evidence that proves it.
5. Do you believe that logic can be evidence?
No because that would be like saying a computer can compute without data. No evidence - no data. Computation is not data.
6. Do you agree that the character in the Bible known as "Jesus" never existed?
He most likely existed in my opinion and have no reason to believe otherwise. I don't think his existence has any impact on me any more than the existence of Joseph Smith however.
7. Would you agree that the trait of omniscience attributed to God contradicts the doctrine of free will?
If the future is known, then it cannot be changed. If the future cannot be changed, I'm not sure how free will would matter. Bell's Theorem seems to indicate that free will is a reality.
8. Do you personally believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?
It is statistically improbable that life does not exist elsewhere in the universe.
9. Do you believe hard atheism is rational?
If by hard you mean close-minded, then no. I go where the evidence and logic goes so I am always open to new ideas, even if they are counter-intuitive. I question and analyze my beliefs often. I try to be careful about assumptions.
10. Have you ever had a sense of wonder or of awe?
Yes, often.

Thanks.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 7:14:07 PM
Posted: 5 months ago

1. Do you believe there is any action which is immoral under any circumstance?

No, I don't believe in absolute morality.

2. Do you believe abortion as is allowed under US law is a moral wrong?

No.

3. Do you have any beliefs which contradict scientific evidence?

Probably, but I don't know what they might be.

4. Would it be correct to say that your view is that there exists nothing other than the material world?

No, but it also wouldn't be correct to say I believe in a non-material world.

5. Do you believe that logic can be evidence?

Not on it's own.

6. Do you agree that the character in the Bible known as "Jesus" never existed?

I accept there may have been a historical Jesus, but I don't believe he existed as described by the Bible.

7. Would you agree that the trait of omniscience attributed to God contradicts the doctrine of free will?

The answer is speculation built on conjecture. It doesn't interest me much either way.

8. Do you personally believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?

I think it is possible.

9. Do you believe hard atheism is rational?

I don't believe claiming certainty without evidence is rational.

10. Have you ever had a sense of wonder or of awe?

Sure.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Chaosism
Posts: 2,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 7:39:36 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 7:14:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:

Man, FaustianJustice has a lot of DDO accounts to answer his interview so many times! ;P
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 7:40:56 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 7:39:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/14/2016 7:14:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:

Man, FaustianJustice has a lot of DDO accounts to answer his interview so many times! ;P

Lol, I thought the questions were interesting.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 10:14:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 7:39:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/14/2016 7:14:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:

Man, FaustianJustice has a lot of DDO accounts to answer his interview so many times! ;P

Sssh! I just forgot the password to my RR account!
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 11:13:57 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 7:39:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/14/2016 7:14:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:

Man, FaustianJustice has a lot of DDO accounts to answer his interview so many times! ;P

Funny. But I appreciate that others answered. It's interesting to see what other people believe, and how those beliefs differ among people of the same general belief group.

Everyone seems to have answered sincerely and honestly (from their POV).
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 11:42:56 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 2:49:30 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/14/2016 2:11:33 PM, ethang5 wrote:

FJ agreed to submit to questions from me. He is free to ask me questions also.
We have both agreed to answer all questions put to us. Either of us can quit at any time.

1. Do you believe there is any action which is immoral under any circumstance?

Yes.

1a. So could we say you believe in some form of objective morality?

2. Do you believe abortion as is allowed under US law is a moral wrong?

No.

2a. So you would agree that the mothers reason for the abortion does not affect morality of the abortion itself?

3. Do you have any beliefs which contradict scientific evidence?

Potentially. I am not aware of all published and researched fields, and this particular question gets dicey in sciences like psychology.

3a. Fair answer. It seems clear then that you would abandon any belief you held which you later found to be contradictory to scientific evidence?

4. Would it be correct to say that your view is that there exists nothing other than the material world?

Yes.

4a. Do you agree that humans are conscious?
4b. If yes, are you then saying that the matter comprising our bodies is conscious?

5. Do you believe that logic can be evidence?

I would appreciate greater clarity on this question. Are you referring to the process of logical deduction?

Yes.

6. Do you agree that the character in the Bible known as "Jesus" never existed?

I believe the character known in the Bible as Jesus never existed as described.

6a. Do you think the authors of the Gospels (not the entire Bible) fabricated his life story or do you think they were deluded and believed what they wrote?

7. Would you agree that the trait of omniscience attributed to God contradicts the doctrine of free will?

No.

7a. Do you believe humans have free will? The ability to choose what they will, and that choice is limited only by the natural world and their abilities, and that no external consciousness is secretly manipulating it?

8. Do you personally believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?

Yes.

8a. Why do you believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?

9. Do you believe hard atheism is rational?

Yes.

9a. Would it be true to say you believe that there exists positive evidence that there is no God?

10. Have you ever had a sense of wonder or of awe?

Yes.

10a. Can you tell us one of the more profound moments in your life when you experienced wonder or awe?

Thanks.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 11:49:02 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 3:23:37 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/14/2016 2:11:33 PM, ethang5 wrote:
FJ agreed to submit to questions from me. He is free to ask me questions also.
We have both agreed to answer all questions put to us. Either of us can quit at any time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I wsould like to participate in this quiz.---

Feel free, but it isn't a quiz in that it is not possible to "fail"

1. Do you believe there is any action which is immoral under any circumstance?
Yes
2. Do you believe abortion as is allowed under US law is a moral wrong?
No, abortion is not a moral question.

Don't you think all actions have a moral dimension?

3. Do you have any beliefs which contradict scientific evidence?
Perhaps and perhaps not, scientific evidence spans an enormous collection of knowledge.
4. Would it be correct to say that your view is that there exists nothing other than the material world?
Yes
5. Do you believe that logic can be evidence?
No
6. Do you agree that the character in the Bible known as "Jesus" never existed?
The magic man called Jesus in the bible never existed as history attests.
7. Would you agree that the trait of omniscience attributed to God contradicts the doctrine of free will?
Omniscience is unattainable for an active intellect.

Ok, but would you say it theoretically contradicts Free will?

8. Do you personally believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?
Almost certainly.
9. Do you believe hard atheism is rational?
Atheism is the rejection of man's claim that gods exist, What is hard or soft about that?

Sorry, I assumed a certain knowledge level in the person the question was directed to.

10. Have you ever had a sense of wonder or of awe?
I am constantly in awe and my sense of wonder is not assuaged regardless my age.
Thanks.
You're welcome.

Your graciousness is refreshing.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 12:01:54 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 3:30:13 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 2:11:33 PM, ethang5 wrote:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ill answer these also. Feel free to pick it apart if you like.

Funny thing to say. These are only questions birthed from sincere curiosity. The goal here is not to trick you or "evaluate" your answers.

1. Do you believe there is any action which is immoral under any circumstance?
Yes.
2. Do you believe abortion as is allowed under US law is a moral wrong?
No.
3. Do you have any beliefs which contradict scientific evidence?
No. I have suspicions that are not backed by direct hard evidence but that is why they remain suspicions.

3.1 Do you believe life originally sprung from non-life?

4. Would it be correct to say that your view is that there exists nothing other than the material world?
Would need a definition of "material world" to answer effectively. I believe there are things, like quantum entanglement, that cannot be explained by current science. If the question really is if there is consciousness and/or intelligence outside of physical minds, I am agnostic on that since there seems to be evidence that could be interpreted as pointing to it but there is no empirical evidence that proves it.

4.1 So your answer is you don't know?

5. Do you believe that logic can be evidence?
No because that would be like saying a computer can compute without data. No evidence - no data. Computation is not data.

5.1 But computation is not logic. Ok. Let us say you concluded that a closed box held in it a round object because of the way it rolled within the box as you tilt it. Would your logical deduction that there was a ball in the box be evidence of a ball in the box?

6. Do you agree that the character in the Bible known as "Jesus" never existed?
He most likely existed in my opinion and have no reason to believe otherwise. I don't think his existence has any impact on me any more than the existence of Joseph Smith however.

lol. Surprising thing to say, as Jesus' comments and beliefs influenced the world profoundly. Aren't you American or western?

7. Would you agree that the trait of omniscience attributed to God contradicts the doctrine of free will?
If the future is known, then it cannot be changed.

Why? What is the logic behind this claim?

If the future cannot be changed, I'm not sure how free will would matter. Bell's Theorem seems to indicate that free will is a reality.
8. Do you personally believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?
It is statistically improbable that life does not exist elsewhere in the universe.
9. Do you believe hard atheism is rational?
If by hard you mean close-minded, then no. I go where the evidence and logic goes so I am always open to new ideas, even if they are counter-intuitive. I question and analyze my beliefs often. I try to be careful about assumptions.
10. Have you ever had a sense of wonder or of awe?
Yes, often.

Thanks.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 12:15:04 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 7:14:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:

Hi Skep. Nice to see you are posting from your account again.

1. Do you believe there is any action which is immoral under any circumstance?

No, I don't believe in absolute morality.

1.2 Do you believe morality exists at all?

2. Do you believe abortion as is allowed under US law is a moral wrong?

No.

3. Do you have any beliefs which contradict scientific evidence?

Probably, but I don't know what they might be.

3.2 Would you consciously hold any beliefs which contradict scientific evidence?

4. Would it be correct to say that your view is that there exists nothing other than the material world?

No, but it also wouldn't be correct to say I believe in a non-material world.

4.2 I don't see the middle position.

5. Do you believe that logic can be evidence?

Not on it's own.

5.2 With what then can logic be evidence?

6. Do you agree that the character in the Bible known as "Jesus" never existed?

I accept there may have been a historical Jesus, but I don't believe he existed as described by the Bible.

7. Would you agree that the trait of omniscience attributed to God contradicts the doctrine of free will?

The answer is speculation built on conjecture. It doesn't interest me much either way.

The "rules" for answering were stipulated in the OP. If the questions don't interest you, and you will not abide by the "rules", please don't clutter up the thread. Just skip them.

8. Do you personally believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?

I think it is possible.

9. Do you believe hard atheism is rational?

I don't believe claiming certainty without evidence is rational.

9.2 Would it be correct to say that you would consider sincere, self-discribed hard atheists to be irrational?

10. Have you ever had a sense of wonder or of awe?

Sure.

Thanks,

As a personal favor? If you could not let the other person who sometimes posts using your account post to this thread, I would be grateful.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 12:50:50 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
FJ agreed to submit to questions from me. He is free to ask me questions also.
We have both agreed to answer all questions put to us. Either of us can quit at any time.

1. Do you believe there is any action which is immoral under any circumstance?

Yes.

1a. So could we say you believe in some form of objective morality?

"Some form" is hard to tack down. I believe everyone can ID what a wrong is, however I realize that some people view morality as a math equation, and that doing a wrong for a greater good justifies/rights the wrong. I also know that some people will feel what I think is wrong isn't wrong at all. In appreciation of how others might feel on how wrong something might be, I can't say morality is objective.


2. Do you believe abortion as is allowed under US law is a moral wrong?

No.

2a. So you would agree that the mothers reason for the abortion does not affect morality of the abortion itself?

I would say it does, but that doesn't effect the laws as written and their morality. The law as written allows for various motives, but does not endorse any. Abortion laws strike me as attempts at defining personhood and viability. With regards to your initial question, It would be like asking if gun laws are moral as written. The legislated act can be used for various purposes (legality not withstanding). Also, given the nature of the various different state laws regarding abortion, I am having to engage in that 'math' of morality I mentioned earlier. In Texas, abortions can require a trans vaginal ultrasound. That in California would be illegal, as its coerced penetration of the body with a foreign object without consent.

3. Do you have any beliefs which contradict scientific evidence?

Potentially. I am not aware of all published and researched fields, and this particular question gets dicey in sciences like psychology.

3a. Fair answer. It seems clear then that you would abandon any belief you held which you later found to be contradictory to scientific evidence?

That is a fair assessment, yes, though I would be interested in knowing what the frailty of the abandon position was, and how it was able to persist.

4. Would it be correct to say that your view is that there exists nothing other than the material world?

Yes.

4a. Do you agree that humans are conscious?

Yes.

4b. If yes, are you then saying that the matter comprising our bodies is conscious?

I am assuming by "conscious" you mean "self aware". The "matter" in our bodies has several instinctual functions, the more complex it gets (culminating in a neural network) the more the matter can become aware and process. If you look at the body as a series of "If/than/else" processes, consciousness could never be established, but with the ability of memory comes the ability to learn, and then anticipate resulting in awareness.

5. Do you believe that logic can be evidence?

I would appreciate greater clarity on this question. Are you referring to the process of logical deduction?

Yes.

No, the process itself cannot be used as evidence as it is only as good as the postulates such deductions can come from.

6. Do you agree that the character in the Bible known as "Jesus" never existed?

I believe the character known in the Bible as Jesus never existed as described.

6a. Do you think the authors of the Gospels (not the entire Bible) fabricated his life story or do you think they were deluded and believed what they wrote?

Like most characters, I believe that some aspects of his life were embellished, some aspects were made up, and some aspects were written true to observation.

7. Would you agree that the trait of omniscience attributed to God contradicts the doctrine of free will?

No.

7a. Do ...it? (question Re Free will and humans having it).

Yes.


8. Do you personally believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?

Yes.

8a. Why do you believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?

Life on earth is derived from what we feel are fairly common elements, and we have found various other planets that could potentially support life as we know it around similar stars. All the ingredients are there, its not unreasonable to think life might develop.

9. Do you believe hard atheism is rational?

Yes.

9a. Would it be true to say you believe that there exists positive evidence that there is no God?

No.

10. Have you ever had a sense of wonder or of awe?

Yes.

10a. Can you tell us one of the more profound moments in your life when you experienced wonder or awe?

Mostly when I was young, and saw street magicians/up close magicians engaging in their trade. As of late, it comes from feats of human acrobatics and ability, and the appreciation of honing their skills.

Thanks.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 2:44:00 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 12:50:50 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

1. Do you believe there is any action which is immoral under any circumstance?

Yes.

1a. So could we say you believe in some form of objective morality?

"Some form" is hard to tack down. I believe everyone can ID what a wrong is, however I realize that some people view morality as a math equation, and that doing a wrong for a greater good justifies/rights the wrong. I also know that some people will feel what I think is wrong isn't wrong at all. In appreciation of how others might feel on how wrong something might be, I can't say morality is objective.

1b. Then in what way can you say some actions are always morally wrong? Do you mean they are wrong only to you? What is it which makes an action always morally wrong? What moral law are you basing that on?

2. Do you believe abortion as is allowed under US law is a moral wrong?

No.

2a. So you would agree that the mothers reason for the abortion does not affect morality of the abortion itself?

I would say it does, but that doesn't effect the laws as written and their morality. The law as written allows for various motives, but does not endorse any. Abortion laws strike me as attempts at defining personhood and viability.

2b. My question was to the act itself, not the law allowing the act. If you say the act of abortion (as allowed under US law) is not immoral, then the mother's reason for the abortion plays no part in determining whether the act itself is moral or immoral. Agree or disagree?

If you disagree, then you initial answer to #2 is contradictory to your position here.

3. Do you have any beliefs which contradict scientific evidence?

Potentially. I am not aware of all published and researched fields, and this particular question gets dicey in sciences like psychology.

3a. Fair answer. It seems clear then that you would abandon any belief you held which you later found to be contradictory to scientific evidence?

That is a fair assessment, yes, though I would be interested in knowing what the frailty of the abandon position was, and how it was able to persist.

3b. Naturally. Have you ever abandoned a belief because you found it contradicted scientific evidence?

4. Would it be correct to say that your view is that there exists nothing other than the material world?

Yes.

4a. Do you agree that humans are conscious?

Yes.

4b. If yes, are you then saying that the matter comprising our bodies is conscious?

I am assuming by "conscious" you mean "self aware".

Yes. Close enough.

The "matter" in our bodies has several instinctual functions, the more complex it gets (culminating in a neural network) the more the matter can become aware and process. If you look at the body as a series of "If/than/else" processes, consciousness could never be established, but with the ability of memory comes the ability to learn, and then anticipate resulting in awareness.

4c. So you agree then that the matter in our bodies, the electrons, neutrons, and protons are self-aware? Since you believe there exist nothing other than the material world, I want to know what the "you" that is conscious and aware is. According to you, It must be the matter. Thus you must admit that matter, arranged a certain way, can be aware. Have I misstated your position?

5. Do you believe that logic can be evidence?

I would appreciate greater clarity on this question. Are you referring to the process of logical deduction?

Yes.

No, the process itself cannot be used as evidence as it is only as good as the postulates such deductions can come from.

5a. So in the box and ball example I give to another in this thread, your reasoning and conclusion that there is a ball in the box is not evidence that a ball is in the box?

6. Do you agree that the character in the Bible known as "Jesus" never existed?

I believe the character known in the Bible as Jesus never existed as described.

6a. Do you think the authors of the Gospels (not the entire Bible) fabricated his life story or do you think they were deluded and believed what they wrote?

Like most characters, I believe that some aspects of his life were embellished, some aspects were made up, and some aspects were written true to observation.

6b. Were the authors aware of the embellishments and made up parts or not?

7. Would you agree that the trait of omniscience attributed to God contradicts the doctrine of free will?

#7 dropped because you seem to be logical and non-contradictory here.

8. Do you personally believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?

Yes.

8a. Why do you believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?

Life on earth is derived from what we feel are fairly common elements, and we have found various other planets that could potentially support life as we know it around similar stars. All the ingredients are there, its not unreasonable to think life might develop.

8b. Thus you believe that life spontaneously developed.

8c. Is there any scientific evidence for this belief? The building blocks for life being present is not evidence that life did spontaneously develop, only that it could. Do you know of any scientific evidence that it did?

9. Do you believe hard atheism is rational?

Yes.

9a. Would it be true to say you believe that there exists positive evidence that there is no God?

No.

9b. Then how is hard atheism rational? Believing something which has no evidence is generally considered an irrational act.

10. Have you ever had a sense of wonder or of awe?

Yes.

10a. Can you tell us one of the more profound moments in your life when you experienced wonder or awe?

Mostly when I was young, and saw street magicians/up close magicians engaging in their trade. As of late, it comes from feats of human acrobatics and ability, and the appreciation of honing their skills.

I thought when I asked for a more profound moment you would come up with something transcendental. Street magicians? You were a kid then so I can understand the wonder. But looking back now on your life, that is your pick of a more profound moment?

Will drop #10 as either you have had no moment of true wonder or awe, or you are unwilling to share any you have had, as is your right.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 remain.

Thanks.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 2:49:19 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 12:01:54 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 3:30:13 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 2:11:33 PM, ethang5 wrote:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ill answer these also. Feel free to pick it apart if you like.

Funny thing to say. These are only questions birthed from sincere curiosity. The goal here is not to trick you or "evaluate" your answers.

1. Do you believe there is any action which is immoral under any circumstance?
Yes.
2. Do you believe abortion as is allowed under US law is a moral wrong?
No.
3. Do you have any beliefs which contradict scientific evidence?
No. I have suspicions that are not backed by direct hard evidence but that is why they remain suspicions.

3.1 Do you believe life originally sprung from non-life?

This has never been observed but it would certainly appear that way. What has been observed is the universe's tendency to self organize - https://en.wikipedia.org...

4. Would it be correct to say that your view is that there exists nothing other than the material world?
Would need a definition of "material world" to answer effectively. I believe there are things, like quantum entanglement, that cannot be explained by current science. If the question really is if there is consciousness and/or intelligence outside of physical minds, I am agnostic on that since there seems to be evidence that could be interpreted as pointing to it but there is no empirical evidence that proves it.

4.1 So your answer is you don't know?

To know means you have the necessary data to categorize the subject as knowledge. Since I am an empiricists, I only claim to know things that have sufficient data to analyze. If some data exists but if it is still insufficient to come to a solid conclusion, then I can merely suspect at best. Since there are many things that do not have direct empirical evidence, there are many things no person can know, including me.

5. Do you believe that logic can be evidence?
No because that would be like saying a computer can compute without data. No evidence - no data. Computation is not data.

5.1 But computation is not logic. Ok. Let us say you concluded that a closed box held in it a round object because of the way it rolled within the box as you tilt it. Would your logical deduction that there was a ball in the box be evidence of a ball in the box?

The effects of the ball rolling in the box is data (evidence). Based on that empirical evidence, one can compute that it is most likely a cause of a ball rolling in the box.

6. Do you agree that the character in the Bible known as "Jesus" never existed?
He most likely existed in my opinion and have no reason to believe otherwise. I don't think his existence has any impact on me any more than the existence of Joseph Smith however.

lol. Surprising thing to say, as Jesus' comments and beliefs influenced the world profoundly. Aren't you American or western?

Yes, religions affect the society around them. Both Mormonism and Islam are growing rapidly and have an influence also. Islam certainly affects the Western world. I was referring specifically to my own worldview and how it impacts how I conduct myself.

7. Would you agree that the trait of omniscience attributed to God contradicts the doctrine of free will?
If the future is known, then it cannot be changed.

Why? What is the logic behind this claim?

Because if the future is changed, it wasn't known in the first place. For example, lets say you knew you were going to go to the store tomorrow. If you don't go to the store, you never originally knew. If you knew you weren't going to go to the store, then the future was never changed.

If the future cannot be changed, I'm not sure how free will would matter. Bell's Theorem seems to indicate that free will is a reality.
8. Do you personally believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?
It is statistically improbable that life does not exist elsewhere in the universe.
9. Do you believe hard atheism is rational?
If by hard you mean close-minded, then no. I go where the evidence and logic goes so I am always open to new ideas, even if they are counter-intuitive. I question and analyze my beliefs often. I try to be careful about assumptions.
10. Have you ever had a sense of wonder or of awe?
Yes, often.

Thanks.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 3:06:26 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 12:15:04 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 7:14:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:

Hi Skep. Nice to see you are posting from your account again.

1. Do you believe there is any action which is immoral under any circumstance?

No, I don't believe in absolute morality.

1.2 Do you believe morality exists at all?

Yes.

2. Do you believe abortion as is allowed under US law is a moral wrong?

No.

3. Do you have any beliefs which contradict scientific evidence?

Probably, but I don't know what they might be.

3.2 Would you consciously hold any beliefs which contradict scientific evidence?

No, my views are informed by evidence. To hold a position contrary to known evidence would be irrational.

4. Would it be correct to say that your view is that there exists nothing other than the material world?

No, but it also wouldn't be correct to say I believe in a non-material world.

4.2 I don't see the middle position.

I wouldn't presume to make a claim that existence is strictly material even though I've not seen any evidence to the contrary.

5. Do you believe that logic can be evidence?

Not on it's own.

5.2 With what then can logic be evidence?

Objective observations.

6. Do you agree that the character in the Bible known as "Jesus" never existed?

I accept there may have been a historical Jesus, but I don't believe he existed as described by the Bible.

7. Would you agree that the trait of omniscience attributed to God contradicts the doctrine of free will?

The answer is speculation built on conjecture. It doesn't interest me much either way.

The "rules" for answering were stipulated in the OP. If the questions don't interest you, and you will not abide by the "rules", please don't clutter up the thread. Just skip them.

Very well.

8. Do you personally believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?

I think it is possible.

9. Do you believe hard atheism is rational?

I don't believe claiming certainty without evidence is rational.

9.2 Would it be correct to say that you would consider sincere, self-discribed hard atheists to be irrational?

If they are claiming all gods absolutely do not exist (without evidence) then yes, I would consider it irrational.

10. Have you ever had a sense of wonder or of awe?

Sure.

Thanks,

As a personal favor? If you could not let the other person who sometimes posts using your account post to this thread, I would be grateful.

As always, I am the only person to respond from this account.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 3:17:09 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 2:49:19 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 12:01:54 PM, ethang5 wrote:

1. Do you believe there is any action which is immoral under any circumstance?
Yes.
2. Do you believe abortion as is allowed under US law is a moral wrong?
No.
3. Do you have any beliefs which contradict scientific evidence?
No. I have suspicions that are not backed by direct hard evidence but that is why they remain suspicions.

3.1 Do you believe life originally sprung from non-life?

This has never been observed....

Science is observation and experimentation. Why would you believe something which has NEVER been observed or demonstrated in a scientific experiment?

..but it would certainly appear that way.

How does it "appear" that way?

What has been observed is the universe's tendency to self organize - https://en.wikipedia.org...

Science says in a closed system like the universe, entropy (anti-organization) will steadily and always increase.

4. Would it be correct to say that your view is that there exists nothing other than the material world?
Would need a definition of "material world" to answer effectively. I believe there are things, like quantum entanglement, that cannot be explained by current science. If the question really is if there is consciousness and/or intelligence outside of physical minds, I am agnostic on that since there seems to be evidence that could be interpreted as pointing to it but there is no empirical evidence that proves it.

4.1 So your answer is you don't know?

To know means you have the necessary data to categorize the subject as knowledge. Since I am an empiricists, I only claim to know things that have sufficient data to analyze. If some data exists but if it is still insufficient to come to a solid conclusion, then I can merely suspect at best. Since there are many things that do not have direct empirical evidence, there are many things no person can know, including me.

Ok, so you aren't a materialist.

5. Do you believe that logic can be evidence?
No because that would be like saying a computer can compute without data. No evidence - no data. Computation is not data.

5.1 But computation is not logic. Ok. Let us say you concluded that a closed box held in it a round object because of the way it rolled within the box as you tilt it. Would your logical deduction that there was a ball in the box be evidence of a ball in the box?

The effects of the ball rolling in the box is data (evidence). Based on that empirical evidence, one can compute that it is most likely a cause of a ball rolling in the box.

This contradicts you claim that logic cannot be evidence.

6. Do you agree that the character in the Bible known as "Jesus" never existed?
He most likely existed in my opinion and have no reason to believe otherwise. I don't think his existence has any impact on me any more than the existence of Joseph Smith however.

lol. Surprising thing to say, as Jesus' comments and beliefs influenced the world profoundly. Aren't you American or western?

Yes, religions affect the society around them. Both Mormonism and Islam are growing rapidly and have an influence also. Islam certainly affects the Western world. I was referring specifically to my own worldview and how it impacts how I conduct myself.

And yet you spend so much time of your time here trying to discredit Jesus. I think He has a huge impact on your worldview and how you conduct yourself.

7. Would you agree that the trait of omniscience attributed to God contradicts the doctrine of free will?
If the future is known, then it cannot be changed.

Why? What is the logic behind this claim?

Because if the future is changed, it wasn't known in the first place. For example, lets say you knew you were going to go to the store tomorrow. If you don't go to the store, you never originally knew. If you knew you weren't going to go to the store, then the future was never changed.

If the future cannot be changed, I'm not sure how free will would matter. Bell's Theorem seems to indicate that free will is a reality.

So consider this. You go back in time and see your mom agree to a date with your dad. How does your knowledge of that after you come back to the present affect whether her choice to say yes was free ? God's omniscience means He saw our choices and is not back here with us in the present. How does his simply knowing affect our choices? It doesn't.

8. Do you personally believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?
It is statistically improbable that life does not exist elsewhere in the universe.
9. Do you believe hard atheism is rational?
If by hard you mean close-minded, then no. I go where the evidence and logic goes so I am always open to new ideas, even if they are counter-intuitive. I question and analyze my beliefs often. I try to be careful about assumptions.
10. Have you ever had a sense of wonder or of awe?
Yes, often.

Thanks.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 3:55:10 PM
Posted: 5 months ago

1. Do you believe there is any action which is immoral under any circumstance?

Yes.

1a. So could we say you believe in some form of objective morality?

"Some form" is hard to tack down. I believe everyone can ID what a wrong is, however I realize that some people view morality as a math equation, and that doing a wrong for a greater good justifies/rights the wrong. I also know that some people will feel what I think is wrong isn't wrong at all. In appreciation of how others might feel on how wrong something might be, I can't say morality is objective.

1b. Then in what way can you say some actions are always morally wrong?

I can't think of any time in which rape/child molestation could be viewed as 'right'. Its a purely selfish action against some one else.

Do you mean they are wrong only to you?

They are wrong to a lot of people, but I believe your question did ask what "I believe" with regards to an action, that being yes, to me, it can never be right no matter how prettily dressed. To others, such might not be the case, making objectivity hard to find.

What is it which makes an action always morally wrong? What moral law are you basing that on?

When the action is of appreciable detriment to another.

2. Do you believe abortion as is allowed under US law is a moral wrong?

No.

2b. My question was to the act itself, not the law allowing the act. If you say the act of abortion (as allowed under US law) is not immoral, then the mother's reason for the abortion plays no part in determining whether the act itself is moral or immoral. Agree or disagree?

I snipped now that clarity is achieved, however my concerns about personhood remain. An abortion at 1 month to me holds no moral complication at all, however at 7 months it becomes a different argument. To me a 1 month fetus simply is not a person, and has no specific rights. I am not sure if that answers your question, but should at least give you an idea as to how I am thinking on the matter.

3. Do you have any beliefs which contradict scientific evidence?

Potentially. I am not aware of all published and researched fields, and this particular question gets dicey in sciences like psychology.

3a. Fair answer. It seems clear then that you would abandon any belief you held which you later found to be contradictory to scientific evidence?

That is a fair assessment, yes, though I would be interested in knowing what the frailty of the abandon position was, and how it was able to persist.

3b. Naturally. Have you ever abandoned a belief because you found it contradicted scientific evidence?

Yes. I had an idea of what I thought should happen, and later found such was not the case at all and have altered my habits for it.

4. Would it be correct to say that your view is that there exists nothing other than the material world?

Yes.

4a. Do you agree that humans are conscious?

Yes.

4b. If yes, are you then saying that the matter comprising our bodies is conscious?

The "matter" in our bodies has several instinctual functions, the more complex it gets (culminating in a neural network) the more the matter can become aware and process. If you look at the body as a series of "If/than/else" processes, consciousness could never be established, but with the ability of memory comes the ability to learn, and then anticipate resulting in awareness.

4c. So you agree then that the matter in our bodies, the electrons, neutrons, and protons are self-aware?

Not individually.

Since you believe there exist nothing other than the material world, I want to know what the "you" that is conscious and aware is.

Ah. What makes for "me" is a series of biological processes that refer to experience, anticipate needs, and evaluate circumstances. These processes are thousands of different regulatory aspects of a living body that culminate into what we conceptualize into a persona. As to "how" that all ties together, I admit, I have no idea. I have an idea on the matter, as to how various lab studies have seen how the brain fires with response to stimuli, but couldn't tell you how those processes merge.


5. Do you believe that logic can be evidence?

I would appreciate greater clarity on this question. Are you referring to the process of logical deduction?

Yes.

No, the process itself cannot be used as evidence as it is only as good as the postulates such deductions can come from.

5a. So in the box and ball example I give to another in this thread, your reasoning and conclusion that there is a ball in the box is not evidence that a ball is in the box?

No, my conclusion would not be evidence. It would be testimony to a likely conclusion, but not specifically evidence. Evidence is independent of my involvement.

6. Do you agree that the character in the Bible known as "Jesus" never existed?

I believe the character known in the Bible as Jesus never existed as described.

6a. Do you think the authors of the Gospels (not the entire Bible) fabricated his life story or do you think they were deluded and believed what they wrote?

Like most characters, I believe that some aspects of his life were embellished, some aspects were made up, and some aspects were written true to observation.

6b. Were the authors aware of the embellishments and made up parts or not?

The made up parts, yes.


8. Do you personally believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?

Yes.

8a. Why do you believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?

Life on earth is derived from what we feel are fairly common elements, and we have found various other planets that could potentially support life as we know it around similar stars. All the ingredients are there, its not unreasonable to think life might develop.

8b. Thus you believe that life spontaneously developed.

Yes.

8c. Is there any scientific evidence for this belief? The building blocks for life being present is not evidence that life did spontaneously develop, only that it could. Do you know of any scientific evidence that it did?

No hard evidence, no. But based on how life seems to trend here on earth, age of speciation, such a conclusion is not unreasonable, and we still have what I consider a "transitory" life form from simple matter to life.

9. Do you believe hard atheism is rational?

Yes.

9a. Would it be true to say you believe that there exists positive evidence that there is no God?

No.

9b. Then how is hard atheism rational? Believing something which has no evidence is generally considered an irrational act.

Not if there is no counter evidence, as hard atheist suggest. I don't believe little green Martians exist. They "could". However there is no evidence to this, nothing to really suggest this (as far as Martians go), ergo, I don't believe it, and due to that, affirm that Martians (as described by being little green humanoids) don't exist.

10. Have you ever had a sense of wonder or of awe?

I don't think I can immediately think of anything that might meet the criteria you set regarding "profound" and being in wonder or awestruck. Should I think of something, I will revisit.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 remain.

Thanks.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 4:14:47 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 3:17:09 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:49:19 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 12:01:54 PM, ethang5 wrote:

1. Do you believe there is any action which is immoral under any circumstance?
Yes.
2. Do you believe abortion as is allowed under US law is a moral wrong?
No.
3. Do you have any beliefs which contradict scientific evidence?
No. I have suspicions that are not backed by direct hard evidence but that is why they remain suspicions.

3.1 Do you believe life originally sprung from non-life?

This has never been observed....

Science is observation and experimentation. Why would you believe something which has NEVER been observed or demonstrated in a scientific experiment?

I don't "believe". As I said previously, I "suspect".

..but it would certainly appear that way.

How does it "appear" that way?

Because evidence would indicate before there was life, there was no life (obviously). Currently, there is no empirical evidence that would indicate how that happened. I am open to the idea that there is a creative force and/or consciousness in the universe but that is Deism and would do nothing to further the argument of a specific religious doctrine as being wholly true.

What has been observed is the universe's tendency to self organize - https://en.wikipedia.org...

Science says in a closed system like the universe, entropy (anti-organization) will steadily and always increase.

Entropy is a factor that drives self organization, which is substantiated by things like crystal formation. The interplay between entropy and self organization is explained further at https://www.youtube.com...

4. Would it be correct to say that your view is that there exists nothing other than the material world?
Would need a definition of "material world" to answer effectively. I believe there are things, like quantum entanglement, that cannot be explained by current science. If the question really is if there is consciousness and/or intelligence outside of physical minds, I am agnostic on that since there seems to be evidence that could be interpreted as pointing to it but there is no empirical evidence that proves it.

4.1 So your answer is you don't know?

That's correct. There are things that I don't know and things that are unknowable and sometimes they are the same thing.

To know means you have the necessary data to categorize the subject as knowledge. Since I am an empiricists, I only claim to know things that have sufficient data to analyze. If some data exists but if it is still insufficient to come to a solid conclusion, then I can merely suspect at best. Since there are many things that do not have direct empirical evidence, there are many things no person can know, including me.

Ok, so you aren't a materialist.

Correct.

5. Do you believe that logic can be evidence?
No because that would be like saying a computer can compute without data. No evidence - no data. Computation is not data.

5.1 But computation is not logic. Ok. Let us say you concluded that a closed box held in it a round object because of the way it rolled within the box as you tilt it. Would your logical deduction that there was a ball in the box be evidence of a ball in the box?

The effects of the ball rolling in the box is data (evidence). Based on that empirical evidence, one can compute that it is most likely a cause of a ball rolling in the box.

This contradicts you claim that logic cannot be evidence.

The evidence is that there is something that seems to feel to be rolling in the box. Logic says spheres roll therefore it must be a ball. If there was no evidence of anything rolling in the box, logic would not conclude there was a ball rolling in the box. It all starts with evidence before anything can be concluded.

6. Do you agree that the character in the Bible known as "Jesus" never existed?
He most likely existed in my opinion and have no reason to believe otherwise. I don't think his existence has any impact on me any more than the existence of Joseph Smith however.

lol. Surprising thing to say, as Jesus' comments and beliefs influenced the world profoundly. Aren't you American or western?

Yes, religions affect the society around them. Both Mormonism and Islam are growing rapidly and have an influence also. Islam certainly affects the Western world. I was referring specifically to my own worldview and how it impacts how I conduct myself.

And yet you spend so much time of your time here trying to discredit Jesus. I think He has a huge impact on your worldview and how you conduct yourself.

I promote critical thought. I believe ideas like religions and conspiracy theories are diametrically opposed to the concept of critical thought.

7. Would you agree that the trait of omniscience attributed to God contradicts the doctrine of free will?
If the future is known, then it cannot be changed.

Why? What is the logic behind this claim?

Because if the future is changed, it wasn't known in the first place. For example, lets say you knew you were going to go to the store tomorrow. If you don't go to the store, you never originally knew. If you knew you weren't going to go to the store, then the future was never changed.

If the future cannot be changed, I'm not sure how free will would matter. Bell's Theorem seems to indicate that free will is a reality.

So consider this. You go back in time and see your mom agree to a date with your dad. How does your knowledge of that after you come back to the present affect whether her choice to say yes was free ? God's omniscience means He saw our choices and is not back here with us in the present. How does his simply knowing affect our choices? It doesn't.

If the future is already known, then the choice was predestined and cannot be changed. In that scenario, there is no effective difference between free will and no free will. If the outcome would be the same either way, then I'm not sure why the existence of free will would matter.

8. Do you personally believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?
It is statistically improbable that life does not exist elsewhere in the universe.
9. Do you believe hard atheism is rational?
If by hard you mean close-minded, then no. I go where the evidence and logic goes so I am always open to new ideas, even if they are counter-intuitive. I question and analyze my beliefs often. I try to be careful about assumptions.
10. Have you ever had a sense of wonder or of awe?
Yes, often.

Thanks.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 10:37:52 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 3:55:10 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

1. Do you believe there is any action which is immoral under any circumstance?

Yes.

1a. So could we say you believe in some form of objective morality?

"Some form" is hard to tack down. I believe everyone can ID what a wrong is, however I realize that some people view morality as a math equation, and that doing a wrong for a greater good justifies/rights the wrong. I also know that some people will feel what I think is wrong isn't wrong at all. In appreciation of how others might feel on how wrong something might be, I can't say morality is objective.

1b. Then in what way can you say some actions are always morally wrong?

I can't think of any time in which rape/child molestation could be viewed as 'right'. Its a purely selfish action against some one else.

Do you mean they are wrong only to you?

They are wrong to a lot of people, but I believe your question did ask what "I believe" with regards to an action, that being yes, to me, it can never be right no matter how prettily dressed. To others, such might not be the case, making objectivity hard to find.

What is it which makes an action always morally wrong? What moral law are you basing that on?

When the action is of appreciable detriment to another.

I understand. You are telling me your personal tastes and calling those tastes "morality". Sorry, I thought we were talking about right and wrong independent of what you think. We can dispose of #1.

2. Do you believe abortion as is allowed under US law is a moral wrong?

No.

2b. My question was to the act itself, not the law allowing the act. If you say the act of abortion (as allowed under US law) is not immoral, then the mother's reason for the abortion plays no part in determining whether the act itself is moral or immoral. Agree or disagree?

I snipped now that clarity is achieved, however my concerns about personhood remain. An abortion at 1 month to me holds no moral complication at all, however at 7 months it becomes a different argument. To me a 1 month fetus simply is not a person, and has no specific rights. I am not sure if that answers your question, but should at least give you an idea as to how I am thinking on the matter.

The question has nothing to do with the fetus or its age.

2c. Can the mother's reason for the abortion play any part in determining whether the act itself is moral or immoral?

Possible answers:
A1 - Yes, the mothers reason for having an abortion can sometimes make the abortion immoral.
A2 - No, the mothers reason for having an abortion has no baring on the morality of the abortion.
A3 - Abortions are never immoral.

3. Do you have any beliefs which contradict scientific evidence?

You contradict this in #8. We can dispose of #3

4. Would it be correct to say that your view is that there exists nothing other than the material world?

Yes.

4a. Do you agree that humans are conscious?

Yes.

4b. If yes, are you then saying that the matter comprising our bodies is conscious?

The "matter" in our bodies has several instinctual functions, the more complex it gets (culminating in a neural network) the more the matter can become aware and process. If you look at the body as a series of "If/than/else" processes, consciousness could never be established, but with the ability of memory comes the ability to learn, and then anticipate resulting in awareness.

4c. So you agree then that the matter in our bodies, the electrons, neutrons, and protons are self-aware?

Not individually.

But still, it is the matter itself you are claiming is aware. Right?

Since you believe there exist nothing other than the material world, I want to know what the "you" that is conscious and aware is.

Ah. What makes for "me" is a series of biological processes that refer to experience, anticipate needs, and evaluate circumstances.

4d. So the "me" to which you refer is not the matter itself but the process?

5. Do you believe that logic can be evidence?

I would appreciate greater clarity on this question. Are you referring to the process of logical deduction?

Yes.

No, the process itself cannot be used as evidence as it is only as good as the postulates such deductions can come from.

5a. So in the box and ball example I give to another in this thread, your reasoning and conclusion that there is a ball in the box is not evidence that a ball is in the box?

No, my conclusion would not be evidence. It would be testimony to a likely conclusion, but not specifically evidence. Evidence is independent of my involvement.

5b. If evidence is independent of your involvement you can never gain evidence. This does not seem coherent.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 12:24:56 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I understand. You are telling me your personal tastes and calling those tastes "morality". Sorry, I thought we were talking about right and wrong independent of what you think. We can dispose of #1.

Only if you assume I cannot suffer, identify suffering, or people cannot identify their suffering to me.

2. Do you believe abortion as is allowed under US law is a moral wrong?

No.

2b. My question was to the act itself, not the law allowing the act. If you say the act of abortion (as allowed under US law) is not immoral, then the mother's reason for the abortion plays no part in determining whether the act itself is moral or immoral. Agree or disagree?

I snipped now that clarity is achieved, however my concerns about personhood remain. An abortion at 1 month to me holds no moral complication at all, however at 7 months it becomes a different argument. To me a 1 month fetus simply is not a person, and has no specific rights. I am not sure if that answers your question, but should at least give you an idea as to how I am thinking on the matter.

The question has nothing to do with the fetus or its age.

2c. Can the mother's reason for the abortion play any part in determining whether the act itself is moral or immoral?

A1 - Yes, the mothers reason for having an abortion can sometimes make the abortion immoral.

However this is time dependent, something you are not wanting to recognize.


3. Do you have any beliefs which contradict scientific evidence?

You contradict this in #8. We can dispose of #3

Oh? I wasn't aware science has disproven life on every planet in the universe. There is no specific evidence for or against life being on the various planets which exploration has found. The possibility is present, there is plenty of possibility out there, and there is no evidence to the contrary. Should we gather further info, such a belief can change.

4. Would it be correct to say that your view is that there exists nothing other than the material world?

Yes.

4a. Do you agree that humans are conscious?

Yes.

4b. If yes, are you then saying that the matter comprising our bodies is conscious?

The "matter" in our bodies has several instinctual functions, the more complex it gets (culminating in a neural network) the more the matter can become aware and process. If you look at the body as a series of "If/than/else" processes, consciousness could never be established, but with the ability of memory comes the ability to learn, and then anticipate resulting in awareness.

4c. So you agree then that the matter in our bodies, the electrons, neutrons, and protons are self-aware?

Not individually.

But still, it is the matter itself you are claiming is aware. Right?

When taken together into process, yes, such matter becomes aware of itself.

Since you believe there exist nothing other than the material world, I want to know what the "you" that is conscious and aware is.

Ah. What makes for "me" is a series of biological processes that refer to experience, anticipate needs, and evaluate circumstances.

4d. So the "me" to which you refer is not the matter itself but the process?

Well, without the matter there would't be a me, and without the specific process there wouldn't be a me either. At least in the same fashion.

5. Do you believe that logic can be evidence?

No, my conclusion would not be evidence. It would be testimony to a likely conclusion, but not specifically evidence. Evidence is independent of my involvement.

5b. If evidence is independent of your involvement you can never gain evidence. This does not seem coherent.

Were evidence contingent upon your involvement, anything could be evidence for anything, and only that which you involve yourself with would be evidence.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 12:26:12 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 3:55:10 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

6. Do you agree that the character in the Bible known as "Jesus" never existed?

I believe the character known in the Bible as Jesus never existed as described.

6a. Do you think the authors of the Gospels (not the entire Bible) fabricated his life story or do you think they were deluded and believed what they wrote?

Like most characters, I believe that some aspects of his life were embellished, some aspects were made up, and some aspects were written true to observation.

6b. Were the authors aware of the embellishments and made up parts or not?

The made up parts, yes.

So the authors of the Gospels knew (were aware that) their stories were false, or at least, not wholly true. We can dispose of #6

8. Do you personally believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?

Yes.

8a. Why do you believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?

Life on earth is derived from what we feel are fairly common elements, and we have found various other planets that could potentially support life as we know it around similar stars. All the ingredients are there, its not unreasonable to think life might develop.

8b. Thus you believe that life spontaneously developed.

Yes.

8c. Is there any scientific evidence for this belief? The building blocks for life being present is not evidence that life did spontaneously develop, only that it could. Do you know of any scientific evidence that it did?

No hard evidence, no. But based on how life seems to trend here on earth, age of speciation, such a conclusion is not unreasonable, and we still have what I consider a "transitory" life form from simple matter to life.

So though all scientific observation shows that life comes only from life, and all experimentation to date confirms this, and you admit there is no hard evidence for life coming from non-life, you still prefer to believe the claim going against all scientific observation to date which has no evidence in support of it? This contradicts your claim in #3

We can dispose of #8.

9. Do you believe hard atheism is rational?

Yes.

9a. Would it be true to say you believe that there exists positive evidence that there is no God?

No.

9b. Then how is hard atheism rational? Believing something which has no evidence is generally considered an irrational act.

Not if there is no counter evidence, as hard atheist suggest. I don't believe little green Martians exist. They "could". However there is no evidence to this, nothing to really suggest this (as far as Martians go), ergo, I don't believe it, and due to that, affirm that Martians (as described by being little green humanoids) don't exist.

You have been irrational. In your example of little green martians, you do NOT believe a claim because there is no supporting evidence FOR it. In hard atheism, you go further and make a positive claim that there is no God. In the case of the Martian, you admit they "could" exist, with your positive claim about God, you claim to know He does NOT exist. These are different things. One a a refusal to believe due to a lack of evidence for, the other is a choice to believe because there is no evidence against.

Thus you do indeed believe at least one thing which contradicts clear scientific evidence. We can dispose of #9.

10. Have you ever had a sense of wonder or of awe?

I don't think I can immediately think of anything that might meet the criteria you set regarding "profound" and being in wonder or awestruck. Should I think of something, I will revisit.

No problem.

2, 4, and 5 remain.

Thanks.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 12:49:27 PM
Posted: 5 months ago


8. Do you personally believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?

Yes.

8a. Why do you believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?

Life on earth is derived from what we feel are fairly common elements, and we have found various other planets that could potentially support life as we know it around similar stars. All the ingredients are there, its not unreasonable to think life might develop.

8b. Thus you believe that life spontaneously developed.

Yes.

8c. Is there any scientific evidence for this belief? The building blocks for life being present is not evidence that life did spontaneously develop, only that it could. Do you know of any scientific evidence that it did?

No hard evidence, no. But based on how life seems to trend here on earth, age of speciation, such a conclusion is not unreasonable, and we still have what I consider a "transitory" life form from simple matter to life.

So though all scientific observation shows that life comes only from life, and all experimentation to date confirms this, and you admit there is no hard evidence for life coming from non-life,

Aside from that transitory thing I mentioned, and how life trends from simple to complex.

you still prefer to believe the claim going against all scientific observation to date which has no evidence in support of it? This contradicts your claim in #3


We can dispose of #8.

9. Do you believe hard atheism is rational?

Yes.

9a. Would it be true to say you believe that there exists positive evidence that there is no God?

No.

9b. Then how is hard atheism rational? Believing something which has no evidence is generally considered an irrational act.

Not if there is no counter evidence, as hard atheist suggest. I don't believe little green Martians exist. They "could". However there is no evidence to this, nothing to really suggest this (as far as Martians go), ergo, I don't believe it, and due to that, affirm that Martians (as described by being little green humanoids) don't exist.

You have been irrational. In your example of little green martians, you do NOT believe a claim because there is no supporting evidence FOR it. In hard atheism, you go further and make a positive claim that there is no God. In the case of the Martian, you admit they "could" exist, with your positive claim about God, you claim to know He does NOT exist. These are different things. One a a refusal to believe due to a lack of evidence for, the other is a choice to believe because there is no evidence against.

If you insist. They could exist, in as much is there is a Mars, there is a humanoid, there is the color green, etc. It bears no logical contradiction on the matter. God not existing flies in the face of everything we understand regarding matter, minds, ability, it rely on no example to correlate, and may have traits defined to it, seemingly at will. Its existence is defined by philosophy as opposed to testing, or worse, existing due to simple incredulity of how things might be.

Now, on the matter of this particular question: if there exists no evidence of something, does claiming that something to not exist seem rational or irrational? I don't mean tangental correlation, I mean straight up nothing about the declaration of existence of this thing comports with reality as understood.

Thus you do indeed believe at least one thing which contradicts clear scientific evidence. We can dispose of #9.

.. clear... scientific evidence... of ... God. If you insist.

10. Have you ever had a sense of wonder or of awe?

I don't think I can immediately think of anything that might meet the criteria you set regarding "profound" and being in wonder or awestruck. Should I think of something, I will revisit.

No problem.

2, 4, and 5 remain.

Thanks.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 12:55:34 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 4:14:47 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:17:09 PM, ethang5 wrote:

3.1 Do you believe life originally sprung from non-life?

This has never been observed....

Science is observation and experimentation. Why would you believe something which has NEVER been observed or demonstrated in a scientific experiment?

I don't "believe". As I said previously, I "suspect".

..but it would certainly appear that way.

How does it "appear" that way?

Because evidence would indicate before there was life, there was no life (obviously).

How is that obvious? Science even has a theory about the universe having no beginning.

Currently, there is no empirical evidence that would indicate how that happened.

Yet you believe you know how it happened.

I am open to the idea that there is a creative force and/or consciousness in the universe but that is Deism and would do nothing to further the argument of a specific religious doctrine as being wholly true.

No one is trying to "further the argument of a specific religious doctrine". I'm saying you believe things which contradict clear science. All science points to the fact life only comes from life. You ignore all scientific observation and experimentation in order to keep this belief.

What has been observed is the universe's tendency to self organize - https://en.wikipedia.org...

Science says in a closed system like the universe, entropy (anti-organization) will steadily and always increase.

Entropy is a factor that drives self organization, which is substantiated by things like crystal formation. The interplay between entropy and self organization is explained further at https://www.youtube.com...

I will conclude you don't know what entropy is.

Ok, so you aren't a materialist.

Correct.

5. Do you believe that logic can be evidence?
No because that would be like saying a computer can compute without data. No evidence - no data. Computation is not data.

5.1 But computation is not logic. Ok. Let us say you concluded that a closed box held in it a round object because of the way it rolled within the box as you tilt it. Would your logical deduction that there was a ball in the box be evidence of a ball in the box?

The effects of the ball rolling in the box is data (evidence). Based on that empirical evidence, one can compute that it is most likely a cause of a ball rolling in the box.

This contradicts you claim that logic cannot be evidence.

The evidence is that there is something that seems to feel to be rolling in the box. Logic says spheres roll therefore it must be a ball. If there was no evidence of anything rolling in the box, logic would not conclude there was a ball rolling in the box. It all starts with evidence before anything can be concluded.

Science does not start with evidence. It starts with the search for evidence. You contradict yourself badly in #5.

6. Do you agree that the character in the Bible known as "Jesus" never existed?
He most likely existed in my opinion and have no reason to believe otherwise. I don't think his existence has any impact on me any more than the existence of Joseph Smith however.

lol. Surprising thing to say, as Jesus' comments and beliefs influenced the world profoundly. Aren't you American or western?

Yes, religions affect the society around them. Both Mormonism and Islam are growing rapidly and have an influence also. Islam certainly affects the Western world. I was referring specifically to my own worldview and how it impacts how I conduct myself.

And yet you spend so much time of your time here trying to discredit Jesus. I think He has a huge impact on your worldview and how you conduct yourself.

I promote critical thought. I believe ideas like religions and conspiracy theories are diametrically opposed to the concept of critical thought.

Ok, but the point here is that your claim that Jesus' existence has no impact on your worldview and how you conduct yourself is clearly untrue.

7. Would you agree that the trait of omniscience attributed to God contradicts the doctrine of free will?
If the future is known, then it cannot be changed.

Why? What is the logic behind this claim?

Because if the future is changed, it wasn't known in the first place. For example, lets say you knew you were going to go to the store tomorrow. If you don't go to the store, you never originally knew. If you knew you weren't going to go to the store, then the future was never changed.

If the future cannot be changed, I'm not sure how free will would matter. Bell's Theorem seems to indicate that free will is a reality.

So consider this. You go back in time and see your mom agree to a date with your dad. How does your knowledge of that after you come back to the present affect whether her choice to say yes was free ? God's omniscience means He saw our choices and is not back here with us in the present. How does his simply knowing affect our choices? It doesn't.

If the future is already known, then the choice was predestined and cannot be changed.

This doesn't follow. It simply doesn't logically follow. There is no necessary connection between my knowing a choice, and that choice being predestined.

In that scenario, there is no effective difference between free will and no free will. If the outcome would be the same either way, then I'm not sure why the existence of free will would matter.

But free will is not based on what I know or don't know. Neither is it affected by what I know or don't know. You have not shown how it is affected by me merely knowing.

You say because it cannot be changed if it is known, but it is known because it happened. Things which have already happened of course cannot be changed. Thus my knowing has no effect on the choice at all.

8. Do you personally believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?
It is statistically improbable that life does not exist elsewhere in the universe.

I included this question because I like to show atheists how they often deny the implications of their own beliefs. If the evolutionist says life started spontaneously, and is a natural occurrence, then it would be ludicrous not to expect the universe to be teeming with life. As you say, it would be statistically improbable.

But then ask any evolutionist what it would mean if life on Earth was the only life in the universe, and he will insist that life developing spontaneously is still his belief and that his belief would not be affected at all if life was found to be only on Earth.

If life is never found in the universe, atheists will have to account for why that is, as the implication of their beliefs demand a universe teeming with life.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 1:14:13 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 12:24:56 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
I understand. You are telling me your personal tastes and calling those tastes "morality". Sorry, I thought we were talking about right and wrong independent of what you think. We can dispose of #1.

Only if you assume I cannot suffer, identify suffering, or people cannot identify their suffering to me.

Not connected. Suffering as a "standard" for morality is subjective and ad-hoc. Suffering can be good. Suffering to one can be pleasure to another. You are giving me your personal tastes. Nothing wrong with that except that you pretend that that is what morality is.

2. Do you believe abortion as is allowed under US law is a moral wrong?

No.

2b. My question was to the act itself, not the law allowing the act. If you say the act of abortion (as allowed under US law) is not immoral, then the mother's reason for the abortion plays no part in determining whether the act itself is moral or immoral. Agree or disagree?

I snipped now that clarity is achieved, however my concerns about personhood remain. An abortion at 1 month to me holds no moral complication at all, however at 7 months it becomes a different argument. To me a 1 month fetus simply is not a person, and has no specific rights. I am not sure if that answers your question, but should at least give you an idea as to how I am thinking on the matter.

The question has nothing to do with the fetus or its age.

2c. Can the mother's reason for the abortion play any part in determining whether the act itself is moral or immoral?

A1 - Yes, the mothers reason for having an abortion can sometimes make the abortion immoral.

However this is time dependent, something you are not wanting to recognize.

I have recognized it, which is why I said, " framed under US law, which stipulates legal times. But that still has nothing to do with the mothers reason. If she aborts after the set legal time, here action becomes illegal, not necessarily immoral. And even if it became immoral, it would be immoral because of the time violation, not her reason for the abortion.

3. Do you have any beliefs which contradict scientific evidence?

You contradict this in #8. We can dispose of #3

Oh? I wasn't aware science has disproven life on every planet in the universe. There is no specific evidence for or against life being on the various planets which exploration has found.

I am not talking about whether life exists elsewhere, but whether you believe things which you know contradict scientific evidence.

4. Would it be correct to say that your view is that there exists nothing other than the material world?

Yes.

4a. Do you agree that humans are conscious?

Yes.

4b. If yes, are you then saying that the matter comprising our bodies is conscious?

The "matter" in our bodies has several instinctual functions, the more complex it gets (culminating in a neural network) the more the matter can become aware and process. If you look at the body as a series of "If/than/else" processes, consciousness could never be established, but with the ability of memory comes the ability to learn, and then anticipate resulting in awareness.

4c. So you agree then that the matter in our bodies, the electrons, neutrons, and protons are self-aware?

Not individually.

But still, it is the matter itself you are claiming is aware. Right?

When taken together into process, yes, such matter becomes aware of itself.

Since you believe there exist nothing other than the material world, I want to know what the "you" that is conscious and aware is.

Ah. What makes for "me" is a series of biological processes that refer to experience, anticipate needs, and evaluate circumstances.

4d. So the "me" to which you refer is not the matter itself but the process?

Well, without the matter there would't be a me, and without the specific process there wouldn't be a me either. At least in the same fashion.

But there could exist the all matter, like a few seconds after you die, and there still would be no "you". So does the "you" reside in the matter or the process?

5. Do you believe that logic can be evidence?

No, my conclusion would not be evidence. It would be testimony to a likely conclusion, but not specifically evidence. Evidence is independent of my involvement.

5b. If evidence is independent of your involvement you can never gain evidence. This does not seem coherent.

Were evidence contingent upon your involvement, anything could be evidence for anything, and only that which you involve yourself with would be evidence.

I did not say "contingent". Evidence must be gotten. And a round, soft rolling thing in the box, which is logically deduced to be a ball, IS evidence that there is a ball in the box. Einstein did much the same thing with gravity waves. He arrived at empirical truth using logic alone. It was not proof, but it was evidence.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 1:53:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 1:14:13 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/17/2016 12:24:56 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
I understand. You are telling me your personal tastes and calling those tastes "morality". Sorry, I thought we were talking about right and wrong independent of what you think. We can dispose of #1.

Only if you assume I cannot suffer, identify suffering, or people cannot identify their suffering to me.

Not connected. Suffering as a "standard" for morality is subjective and ad-hoc. Suffering can be good. Suffering to one can be pleasure to another. You are giving me your personal tastes. Nothing wrong with that except that you pretend that that is what morality is.

Ad-hoc infers on the fly or without reason. Those "Can"s you illustrate generally have special exception to them as well. Suffering "can" be good, typically when the sufferer has an outcome in mind, meaning it would be of their decision. Same with pleasure/suffering. Again, those can be identified and relayed.

For something to be objective regarding morality, it would need to be independent of a mind or conscience.


2. Do you believe abortion as is allowed under US law is a moral wrong?

No.

2b. My question was to the act itself, not the law allowing the act. If you say the act of abortion (as allowed under US law) is not immoral, then the mother's reason for the abortion plays no part in determining whether the act itself is moral or immoral. Agree or disagree?

I snipped now that clarity is achieved, however my concerns about personhood remain. An abortion at 1 month to me holds no moral complication at all, however at 7 months it becomes a different argument. To me a 1 month fetus simply is not a person, and has no specific rights. I am not sure if that answers your question, but should at least give you an idea as to how I am thinking on the matter.

The question has nothing to do with the fetus or its age.

2c. Can the mother's reason for the abortion play any part in determining whether the act itself is moral or immoral?

A1 - Yes, the mothers reason for having an abortion can sometimes make the abortion immoral.

However this is time dependent, something you are not wanting to recognize.

I have recognized it, which is why I said, " framed under US law, which stipulates legal times. But that still has nothing to do with the mothers reason. If she aborts after the set legal time, here action becomes illegal, not necessarily immoral. And even if it became immoral, it would be immoral because of the time violation, not her reason for the abortion.

There are examples that run counter to those postulates.

3. Do you have any beliefs which contradict scientific evidence?

You contradict this in #8. We can dispose of #3

Oh? I wasn't aware science has disproven life on every planet in the universe. There is no specific evidence for or against life being on the various planets which exploration has found.

I am not talking about whether life exists elsewhere, but whether you believe things which you know contradict scientific evidence.

So what does science contradict, exactly?

4. Would it be correct to say that your view is that there exists nothing other than the material world?

Yes.

4a. Do you agree that humans are conscious?

Yes.

4b. If yes, are you then saying that the matter comprising our bodies is conscious?

The "matter" in our bodies has several instinctual functions, the more complex it gets (culminating in a neural network) the more the matter can become aware and process. If you look at the body as a series of "If/than/else" processes, consciousness could never be established, but with the ability of memory comes the ability to learn, and then anticipate resulting in awareness.

4c. So you agree then that the matter in our bodies, the electrons, neutrons, and protons are self-aware?

Not individually.

But still, it is the matter itself you are claiming is aware. Right?

When taken together into process, yes, such matter becomes aware of itself.

Since you believe there exist nothing other than the material world, I want to know what the "you" that is conscious and aware is.

The intereaction of the various processes in the brain. The knitting of these processes is what we call a "you", or personality or a me, etc.

Ah. What makes for "me" is a series of biological processes that refer to experience, anticipate needs, and evaluate circumstances.

4d. So the "me" to which you refer is not the matter itself but the process?

Well, without the matter there would't be a me, and without the specific process there wouldn't be a me either. At least in the same fashion.

But there could exist the all matter, like a few seconds after you die, and there still would be no "you". So does the "you" reside in the matter or the process?

Processes, though it sounds like you are asking which penny in 100 makes it a dollar.

5. Do you believe that logic can be evidence?

No, my conclusion would not be evidence. It would be testimony to a likely conclusion, but not specifically evidence. Evidence is independent of my involvement.

5b. If evidence is independent of your involvement you can never gain evidence. This does not seem coherent.

Were evidence contingent upon your involvement, anything could be evidence for anything, and only that which you involve yourself with would be evidence.

I did not say "contingent". Evidence must be gotten. And a round, soft rolling thing in the box, which is logically deduced to be a ball, IS evidence that there is a ball in the box. Einstein did much the same thing with gravity waves. He arrived at empirical truth using logic alone. It was not proof, but it was evidence.

... as I stated. You just described testimony to a likely conclusion. He made observations, he compared to the past what similar observations might do, could do, can't do, and arrived at a conclusion. All of that was independent of him. His specific conclusion didn't make anything or change anything regarding reality, nothing was added so is not evidence.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 3:04:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 1:53:43 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/17/2016 1:14:13 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/17/2016 12:24:56 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

I understand. You are telling me your personal tastes and calling those tastes "morality". Sorry, I thought we were talking about right and wrong independent of what you think. We can dispose of #1.

Only if you assume I cannot suffer, identify suffering, or people cannot identify their suffering to me.

Not connected. Suffering as a "standard" for morality is subjective and ad-hoc. Suffering can be good. Suffering to one can be pleasure to another. You are giving me your personal tastes. Nothing wrong with that except that you pretend that that is what morality is.

Ad-hoc infers on the fly or without reason.

No, Ad-hoc means chosen on the fly, as in unprincipled. And that is exactly what your argument is.

Those "Can"s you illustrate generally have special exception to them as well.

That is my point to YOU. The cans refer to your argument of suffering. Someone else could have picked "profit" instead of suffering. Or tolerance. Or peace. Suffering just happens to be your taste of choice.

Suffering "can" be good, typically when the sufferer has an outcome in mind, meaning it would be of their decision. Same with pleasure/suffering. Again, those can be identified and relayed.

So what. The same can be said for any choice, profit, peace, tolerance, or technology. None of them is morality.

For something to be objective regarding morality, it would need to be independent of a mind or conscience.

No. But lets not leave your position and move to another. You said that rape is "always" wrong. Is that an objective moral law or not?

2. Do you believe abortion as is allowed under US law is a moral wrong?

No.

2b. My question was to the act itself, not the law allowing the act. If you say the act of abortion (as allowed under US law) is not immoral, then the mother's reason for the abortion plays no part in determining whether the act itself is moral or immoral. Agree or disagree?

I snipped now that clarity is achieved, however my concerns about personhood remain. An abortion at 1 month to me holds no moral complication at all, however at 7 months it becomes a different argument. To me a 1 month fetus simply is not a person, and has no specific rights. I am not sure if that answers your question, but should at least give you an idea as to how I am thinking on the matter.

The question has nothing to do with the fetus or its age.

2c. Can the mother's reason for the abortion play any part in determining whether the act itself is moral or immoral?

A1 - Yes, the mothers reason for having an abortion can sometimes make the abortion immoral.

However this is time dependent, something you are not wanting to recognize.

I have recognized it, which is why I said, " framed under US law, which stipulates legal times. But that still has nothing to do with the mothers reason. If she aborts after the set legal time, here action becomes illegal, not necessarily immoral. And even if it became immoral, it would be immoral because of the time violation, not her reason for the abortion.

There are examples that run counter to those postulates.

Give us an example where abortion is immoral due to the mother's reason for it.

3. Do you have any beliefs which contradict scientific evidence?

You contradict this in #8. We can dispose of #3

Oh? I wasn't aware science has disproven life on every planet in the universe. There is no specific evidence for or against life being on the various planets which exploration has found.

I am not talking about whether life exists elsewhere, but whether you believe things which you know contradict scientific evidence.

So what does science contradict, exactly?

Your belief that life sprang from non-life.

4. Would it be correct to say that your view is that there exists nothing other than the material world?

Yes.

4a. Do you agree that humans are conscious?

Yes.

4b. If yes, are you then saying that the matter comprising our bodies is conscious?

The "matter" in our bodies has several instinctual functions, the more complex it gets (culminating in a neural network) the more the matter can become aware and process. If you look at the body as a series of "If/than/else" processes, consciousness could never be established, but with the ability of memory comes the ability to learn, and then anticipate resulting in awareness.

4c. So you agree then that the matter in our bodies, the electrons, neutrons, and protons are self-aware?

Not individually.

But still, it is the matter itself you are claiming is aware. Right?

When taken together into process, yes, such matter becomes aware of itself.

Since you believe there exist nothing other than the material world, I want to know what the "you" that is conscious and aware is.

The intereaction of the various processes in the brain. The knitting of these processes is what we call a "you", or personality or a me, etc.

Ah. What makes for "me" is a series of biological processes that refer to experience, anticipate needs, and evaluate circumstances.

4d. So the "me" to which you refer is not the matter itself but the process?

Well, without the matter there would't be a me, and without the specific process there wouldn't be a me either. At least in the same fashion.

But there could exist the all matter, like a few seconds after you die, and there still would be no "you". So does the "you" reside in the matter or the process?

Processes, though it sounds like you are asking which penny in 100 makes it a dollar.

No. False analogy. Your consciousness is not like pennies in a dollar. Every 100 pennies will make a dollar. All your matter does not necessarily make "you". If it is not the matter which is conscious, then it must be the process. But that which is aware exists. And since you claim nothing other than matter exists, then it must be the atoms which are aware and conscious. Yet another example of atheists not willing to accept the implications of their own beliefs.

5. Do you believe that logic can be evidence?

No, my conclusion would not be evidence. It would be testimony to a likely conclusion, but not specifically evidence. Evidence is independent of my involvement.

5b. If evidence is independent of your involvement you can never gain evidence. This does not seem coherent.

Were evidence contingent upon your involvement, anything could be evidence for anything, and only that which you involve yourself with would be evidence.

I did not say "contingent". Evidence must be gotten. And a round, soft rolling thing in the box, which is logically deduced to be a ball, IS evidence that there is a ball in the box. Einstein did much the same thing with gravity waves. He arrived at empirical truth using logic alone. It was not proof, but it was evidence.

... as I stated. You just described testimony to a likely conclusion. He made observations, he compared to the past what similar observations might do, could do, can't do, and arrived at a conclusion. All of that was independent of him. His specific conclusion didn't make anything or change anything regarding reality, nothing was added so is not evidence.

So evidence is that which changes reality?

Is this comment true or false?
Einstein arrived at empirical truth using logic alone. That logic was not proof, but it was evidence.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 3:31:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I understand. You are telling me your personal tastes and calling those tastes "morality". Sorry, I thought we were talking about right and wrong independent of what you think. We can dispose of #1.

Only if you assume I cannot suffer, identify suffering, or people cannot identify their suffering to me.

Not connected. Suffering as a "standard" for morality is subjective and ad-hoc. Suffering can be good. Suffering to one can be pleasure to another. You are giving me your personal tastes. Nothing wrong with that except that you pretend that that is what morality is.

Ad-hoc infers on the fly or without reason.

No, Ad-hoc means chosen on the fly, as in unprincipled. And that is exactly what your argument is.

I think you are confusing disdain for said principles with having no principle.

Those "Can"s you illustrate generally have special exception to them as well.

That is my point to YOU. The cans refer to your argument of suffering. Someone else could have picked "profit" instead of suffering. Or tolerance. Or peace. Suffering just happens to be your taste of choice.

Suffering "can" be good, typically when the sufferer has an outcome in mind, meaning it would be of their decision. Same with pleasure/suffering. Again, those can be identified and relayed.

So what. The same can be said for any choice, profit, peace, tolerance, or technology. None of them is morality.

So then what is morality that can have an identifiable standard set to it?

For something to be objective regarding morality, it would need to be independent of a mind or conscience.

No. But lets not leave your position and move to another. You said that rape is "always" wrong. Is that an objective moral law or not?

Yes, to me. As I stated previously, and you are echoing, other people can add it up differently.

2. Do you believe abortion as is allowed under US law is a moral wrong?

No.

I snipped now that clarity is achieved, however my concerns about personhood remain. An abortion at 1 month to me holds no moral complication at all, however at 7 months it becomes a different argument. To me a 1 month fetus simply is not a person, and has no specific rights. I am not sure if that answers your question, but should at least give you an idea as to how I am thinking on the matter.

The question has nothing to do with the fetus or its age.

2c. Can the mother's reason for the abortion play any part in determining whether the act itself is moral or immoral?

A1 - Yes, the mothers reason for having an abortion can sometimes make the abortion immoral.

However this is time dependent, something you are not wanting to recognize.

I have recognized it, which is why I said, " framed under US law, which stipulates legal times. But that still has nothing to do with the mothers reason. If she aborts after the set legal time, here action becomes illegal, not necessarily immoral. And even if it became immoral, it would be immoral because of the time violation, not her reason for the abortion.

There are examples that run counter to those postulates.

Give us an example where abortion is immoral due to the mother's reason for it.

Killing for killing's sake, though that again is time dependent. At 1 month, its not immoral. At 7 it is.

3. Do you have any beliefs which contradict scientific evidence?

You contradict this in #8. We can dispose of #3

So what does science contradict, exactly?

Your belief that life sprang from non-life.

So you find the hypothesis of abiogenisis to be... what, exactly?

Science hasn't found a cure for cancer, either. Does that mean such can't exist? Or that belief in one is irrational?

4. Would it be correct to say that your view is that there exists nothing other than the material world?

Yes.

4a. Do you agree that humans are conscious?

Yes.

4b. If yes, are you then saying that the matter comprising our bodies is conscious?

The ....wareness.

4c. So you agree then that the matter in our bodies, the electrons, neutrons, and protons are self-aware?

Not individually.

But still, it is the matter itself you are claiming is aware. Right?

When taken together into process, yes, such matter becomes aware of itself.

Since you believe there exist nothing other than the material world, I want to know what the "you" that is conscious and aware is.

The intereaction of the various processes in the brain. The knitting of these processes is what we call a "you", or personality or a me, etc.

Ah. What makes for "me" is a series of biological processes that refer to experience, anticipate needs, and evaluate circumstances.

4d. So the "me" to which you refer is not the matter itself but the process?

Well, without the matter there would't be a me, and without the specific process there wouldn't be a me either. At least in the same fashion.

But there could exist the all matter, like a few seconds after you die, and there still would be no "you". So does the "you" reside in the matter or the process?

Processes, though it sounds like you are asking which penny in 100 makes it a dollar.

No. False analogy. Your consciousness is not like pennies in a dollar.

I agree, its not like the pennies, its like being called a dollar.

Every 100 pennies will make a dollar. All your matter does not necessarily make "you".

How said matter is arranged, does, however, which as I have stated, is part and parcel to the process. Without that specific matter, it very while might be a different me.

If it is not the matter which is conscious, then it must be the process. But that which is aware exists.

Conceptually, sure. But such awareness is dependent upon the sum of its parts.

And since you claim nothing other than matter exists, then it must be the atoms which are aware and conscious. Yet another example of atheists not willing to accept the implications of their own beliefs.

... Only if you read partial statements. A consciousness as stated cannot exist without its processes, nor the matter. Changing any of that changes the consciousness, asking where it specifically resides is akin to asking where in pennies the dollar is. If you don't count (process) its not a dollar. If there is no pennies (matter) its not a dollar.

5. Do you believe that logic can be evidence?

No, my conclusion would not be evidence. It would be testimony to a likely conclusion, but not specifically evidence. Evidence is independent of my involvement.

5b. If evidence is independent of your involvement you can never gain evidence. This does not seem coherent.

Were evidence contingent upon your involvement, anything could be evidence for anything, and only that which you involve yourself with would be evidence.

I did ..but it was evidence.

... as I stated. You just described testimony to a likely conclusion. He made observations, he compared to the past what similar observations might do, could do, can't do, and arrived at a conclusion. All of that was independent of him. His specific conclusion didn't make anything or change anything regarding reality, nothing was added so is not evidence.

So evidence is that which changes reality?

Part of reality independent of involvement.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...