This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 257258259 260261 ... 502
7741
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:25:27 PM »
So, would voluntary extinction count as a form of genocide? No. I don't even know how you could contrive that.
Well I know you and I think that. I want to see what they say.
7742
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:23:35 PM »
It wouldn't be voluntary, it'd be forced. That's the only way for it to be possible.
That's not true; it's logically possible for a species to voluntarily go extinct. There's no contradiction there. So, would voluntary extinction count as a form of genocide?
7743
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:21:17 PM »
Not having kids = Genocide.
K.
Telling a species to stop reproducing is pretty much genocide, yes. Who are you to decide whether they should exist or not?
Is an entire species voluntarily going extinct through abstinence genocide?
7744
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:06:54 PM »
Fuckign OBONGO and his faggot gay hippies wont let us stop the muslims
Easily my favourite new member.
7745
« on: February 04, 2015, 02:39:36 PM »
I just watched the video.
These cunts. . .
They must die.
7746
« on: February 04, 2015, 02:36:15 PM »
Saw it. They really outdid themselves with the editing, did a great job.
This is actually worryingly accurate.
7747
« on: February 04, 2015, 02:33:27 PM »
Yeah yeah ISIS is the embodiment of evil and all that jazz, but let's not get caught in the hype. This happens every single day in Africa, Mexico, South America, China. Yet we only seem to care when it's near oil.
I agree that people don't care as much as they should about those instances, but it's quite clear they don't represent the same moral-cultural threat that ISIS do.
7748
« on: February 04, 2015, 01:28:27 PM »
There's a clear demarcation between humanities subjects and STEM subjects in our society which, really, ought to look ridiculous on the face of it. STEM subjects are about the external world, reality; the humanities are about ourselves as experiencing and motivated agents. All human activity necessarily flourish from our capacity to act, to the fullest degree, as experiencing and motivated agents. And to boil it down even further: it all comes from philosophy. There is always an initial and necessary presupposition, perspective, conjecture (whatever you want to call it) which precedes our effective operation within reality. Indeed, humans themselves are merely reality personified, literally.
Understanding philosophy as the basis of all knowledge and understanding--especially epistemology and ethics--seems fundamental to me in the quest for establishing ourselves as the best, most informationally-rich agents we can be. When I see William Lane Craig debating with the likes of Lawrence Krauss, the latter's disdain for philosophy is both enraging and disappointing. I obviously agree with Krauss, but seeing Craig undermine him with his better grasp of philosophy is irritating. It's not even out of my agreement with Krauss; it's about spreading open inquiry on the best possible foundation.
If scientists were more aware of the work of Karl Popper, of postpositivism and critical rationalism--along with all the baggage like logical positivism, falsificationism, the problem of induction, the problem of demarcation et cetera--then I really do think our science and our society would improve in some quite serious ways. Of course, extending this to beyond scientists--teaching epistemology and ethics as a requirement in schools--could help to create a more rational, empirically-minded and emotionally balanced populace.
After all, science is merely philosophy manifest.
7749
« on: February 04, 2015, 12:20:51 PM »
Well, not really. Obviously, two broken legs is worse than one broken leg, and so forth. The idea, as you've been forced to repeat ad nauseam to the ignorant, is that all disutility in accumulation tends to outweigh decisively all that could be considered utility in the world. I actually realised the problem with that point after I posted it, but I thought I'd let you have a stab at it. I'd amend it from all suffering is equal to the aggregate nature of disutility is static to antinatalists. Also, you used the plural there--how many other anti-natalists other than myself have you spoken to? Or read the works of? I'm nowhere near as clued up on antinatalist philosophy as you are, of course, which is why I'm engaging in this discussion. I have, however, read a bit of Schopenhauer. I don't know where you got the idea that all disutility is equal in magnitude from, but it couldn't have been from me. Yeah, like I said above, I'd amend it to the aggregate nature of disutility being static, in that it will always outweigh utility. This assumes that, after we've finally augmented our lives to such an extent that we'll never suffer to any excruciating or gratuitous degree, that life is still something that ought to be experienced by everyone. Not to mention, it's extremely vague--you'd have to outline how to prevent literally every type of significant disutility in order to show that it all can be prevented, because right now, the very notion seems kind of... if not bogus, then totally unfeasible. I just have to ask--what, precisely, will make it worth it in the end? It's not enough to prevent bad shit, you realize. It's good--but now your task lies with justifying the imposition. I don't need to show how every form of significant disutility could be abolished individually. Experience and emotion necessarily lies in neurology and states of the brain--which are manipulable without question. All forms of disutility have a proximate material cause, which can be altered. Why should we continue to keep pulling the unborn from the perfect, sublime, comfy realm that is nonexistence? You can't reasonable qualify non-existence in such ways. I disagree, for pretty much the reasons stated above. After you get significant disutility out of the picture (however it is we manage that), that's not going to remove all the conflict and the bullshit in the world. It does, necessarily. Assuming neurological manipulation actually affects how we experience the world (duh, unless somebody's a fucking Platonist or something--but who listens to Platonists), then it's possible to remove the causes of conflict and bullshit. You'll never be able to remove all forms of conflict, since some have utility, but zero-sum conflicts (war, for instance) could absolutely be abolished. And your examples of people being fucking retarded and rejecting ideas on some ad hominem basis could, also, be abolished. I like the idea of quantifying levels of comfort/discomfort, but you need more than two parameters. I'm willing to concede that, but it doesn't knock-down the fundamental idea that disutility isn't necessarily static, and will more than likely change in the future. You gotta be talking about some crazily advanced technology--practically science fiction. Which is highly probable in the long-run.
7750
« on: February 04, 2015, 12:04:20 PM »
So why doesn't he just show up and prove it?
I actually don't have problem with that. The question is why God allowed so poor a formulation of his nature in scripture, when it is vital--if not essential--for salvation.
7751
« on: February 04, 2015, 10:38:19 AM »
ITT: Semantics wars
Semantics aren't necessarily pointless. There's a lot of value in determining the actual position other people take in a discussion, and topics of logic are by definition topics of semantics.
The definition of omnipotence isn't really subjective though, is it?
There are contenders for the official definition though. With a concept like omnipotence there is only qualitatively good or bad, not factually correct. Turkey's revision is a legitimate answer to my logical conundrum, it's just part of another discussion.
7752
« on: February 04, 2015, 10:36:26 AM »
Well, scripture never describes God as specifically omnipotent; I think it would be hard for people back then to think in those terms. He's described as all-powerful, almighty, and having power over all things, but is simultaneously said to be unable/unwilling to do certain things. So, I'd take it with a grain of salt.
If people's conceptions of omnipotence in such times are subject to criticism and revision now, I see no justification for taking anything else without a grain of salt--up to and including the existence of a creator deity. That isn't to say you specifically don't behave sceptically, you do, but I find it hard to believe that God couldn't communicate his omnipotence in sucj a way as to make sense in the very literature which is supposed to have the highly significant property of illuminating the path of 'salvation'.
7753
« on: February 04, 2015, 10:07:34 AM »
Except not every Islamic is not an extremest unlike the Nazi party which the whole thing was extremest.
Who mentioned extremism? You can't be an extreme Nazi (well, you can, but it'd be difficult) because extremism literally means being on the extremities. The problem with Nazism, as with Islam, is fundamentalism. And fundamentalism is only a problem if the fundamentals are a problem.
7754
« on: February 04, 2015, 10:03:28 AM »
they do more and work harder?
First of all that's an assumption that's probably false. Second of all its not just about how "hard" you work, it's about how much value you facilitate. The labour of the executive is obviously worth more than that of worker.
7755
« on: February 04, 2015, 09:56:44 AM »
I feel I should restate the fact that I am not, and indeed cannot, disproving the existence of a creator deity. "God exists" is a synthetic proposition with empirical content not falsifiable by logic alone. Indeed, analytic propositions and deduction can only tell us about the relations between certain ideas.
All my argument shows is that our conception of an omnipotent God (defined as A being able to perform B if and only if B is a logically possible state of affairs) is necessarily contradictory and therefore, by definition, not possible. All this shows is that either our conception of God or ommipotence is necessarily wrong and must be revised to some degree.
Turkey's conception of omnipotence, which is increasingly popular but poorly formulated--largely due to the sheer similarity--essentially factors God into the equation and defines omnipotence as A being able to do B if and only if A doing B is a logically coherent situation. I think this has its own problems, and I'm not convinced its entirely commensurate with Scripture, but that's not the conception of omnipotence being disproved.
7756
« on: February 04, 2015, 02:09:18 AM »
ITT People debating the meaning of a word
M8 do u even Wittgenstein That's 70pc of all philosophy.
7757
« on: February 04, 2015, 01:28:34 AM »
All disutility, to the anti-natalists, is equal in magnitude and moral "transgression". Well, not really. Obviously, two broken legs is worse than one broken leg, and so forth. The idea, as you've been forced to repeat ad nauseam to the ignorant, is that all disutility in accumulation tends to outweigh decisively all that could be considered utility in the world. Because all life is is a zero-sum game. There is no goal one could possibly contrive that would make life ultimately worth continuing, in my eyes, by any wild stretch of the imagination. Not immortality, not utopia--nothing.
You can't do a dance so cool that it justifies the holocaust, metaphorically speaking. So no, there's still some nuance, which is really the whole idea. The bad apples are more poisonous than the good apples are pure.
Also, you used the plural there--how many other anti-natalists other than myself have you spoken to? Or read the works of?This, seems to me, to be false. It is worth quantifying disutility into at least two categories: significant disutility, and standard disutility. I would have a lot more than that, but you know, I see where you're going, and I certainly don't contest it. To be honest, I don't know where you got the idea that all disutility is equal in magnitude from, but it couldn't have been from me.
My argument relies on the fundamental premise that the abolition of significant disutility is possible, via technology. This assumes that, after we've finally augmented our lives to such an extent that we'll never suffer to any excruciating or gratuitous degree, that life is still something that ought to be experienced by everyone. Not to mention, it's extremely vague--you'd have to outline how to prevent literally every type of significant disutility in order to show that it all can be prevented, because right now, the very notion seems kind of... if not bogus, then totally unfeasible. I just have to ask--what, precisely, will make it worth it in the end? It's not enough to prevent bad shit, you realize. It's good--but now your task lies with justifying the imposition.
Why should we continue to keep pulling the unborn from the perfect, sublime, comfy realm that is nonexistence? Because it doesn't suck here anymore? Okay... what makes it good, though?
In such an instance whereby significant disutility is not a potentiality, yet both kinds of utility are potentialities, it actually becomes more moral to strive for the continuation of the species with the expressed goal of eliminated significant disutility. I disagree, for pretty much the reasons stated above. After you get significant disutility out of the picture (however it is we manage that), that's not going to remove all the conflict and the bullshit in the world. Do you think I wanna live on a planet where a bunch of numbnut fuckwits disregard my ideas, for instance, based on some physical quality that I have? Or is that sort of thing considered significant disutility, and that wouldn't even happen? See, the fact that I can ask questions like that, muddying up your scale, shows that your scale for utility lacks function. I like the idea of quantifying levels of comfort/discomfort, but you need more than two parameters.
So, we have this fundamental disagreement where you believe all significant disutility is preventable if we just continue to improve technology (which we will, of course), but I remain skeptical--for, even if it ended up being the case, there's nothing about life, even without its follies, that should compel anyone to want to live it, and the question of "was it worth it" still needs to be answered. You gotta be talking about some crazily advanced technology--practically science fiction.
You'll have your response in several hours' time, when I finish college.
7758
« on: February 03, 2015, 07:34:41 PM »
God's nature is divine, and his omnipotence is characterized by that nature. Assume that there was a second omnipotent being (for all I know, there could be) -- I don't think it's inconsistent to say that God's omnipotence is defined by his divinity, or holiness, or whatever you want to say, but also say that another omnipotent being's power could be defined by something else, which we'd need some basis to describe. I don't really want to go down that rabbit hole, but all I [think] I'm saying is that omnipotence doesn't necessitate divinity, and neither does divinity necessitate omnipotence, so it's not tautological.
Okay, that makes sense.
7759
« on: February 03, 2015, 07:23:23 PM »
. . .
Would it be fair to say, therefore, that your conception of God's omnipotence is God doing whatever is logically possible within his nature? God cannot do any action which is a logical possibility because is leads to contradictions, but you remedy this by saying God cannot lie (despite this being a logical possibility) because it isn't within God's nature to lie. Therefore, the nature of A makes it logically inconsistent for it to perform B?
So, God can't create an immovable object, because it isn't within his nature to do so?
Yeah, I have so far avoided using the phrase "in his nature" because that typically results in eye rolls and dismissing the argument. I see it as valid, but it also feels like a lazy way out of a discussion of logic. But yeah, I think Aquinas would also have used that phrasing. He does say that God's omnipotence is derived from and characterized by his nature. And that's where you get arguments that try to frame those contradictions and possible-impossibilities such as God lying or sinning as illogical.
Isn't that just tautological, though? 1. God's "nature" is omnipotent. 2. Omnipotence is doing whatever is logically possible within God's nature. What is God's nature? 1. God's nature is omnipotent. . .
7760
« on: February 03, 2015, 07:16:38 PM »
. . .
Would it be fair to say, therefore, that your conception of God's omnipotence is God doing whatever is logically possible within his nature? God cannot do any action which is a logical possibility because is leads to contradictions, but you remedy this by saying God cannot lie (despite this being a logical possibility) because it isn't within God's nature to lie. Therefore, the nature of A makes it logically inconsistent for it to perform B? So, God can't create an immovable object, because it isn't within his nature to do so?
7761
« on: February 03, 2015, 06:46:03 PM »
. . .
I think I've spotted the discrepancy here actually. I am using Aquinas's definition of omnipotence, which is that A (being omnipotent) can perform B if and only if B is a logically consistent conception of a certain state of affairs. Under this paradigm, a maker making something he cannot lift isn't contradictory and thus I can set out a number of premises which lead to an essential falsification of Aquinas's idea of omnipotence. You're using a more modern and restricted definition of omnipotence which is that A can perform B if and only if "A does B" is a logically consistent 'set'. In which case, it avoids the problem of God being able to perform contradictory logical possibilities, since it factors God into the equation itself. I don't particularly like it, but I'm willing to concede the logical validity of your argument here. The question of whether God can turn blue into green is not the same as my own position, however, as that really is logically impossible. Everything I've set out is a logically possible state of affairs, but you're used a definition which is revised down in scope, essentially. But at this point, whether or not God can turn blue into green is a non-question, since we've worked out the divergence >.>
7762
« on: February 03, 2015, 06:22:35 PM »
This isn't my, or really any theologian's definition So why did you say: I agree with your general idea of omnipotence: it's the unlimited power to enact change within the limits of the laws of logic and physics. It's the definition of theologians from Aquinas to Swinburne.
7763
« on: February 03, 2015, 06:09:10 PM »
The universe is omnipotent, in fact.
False. Omnipotence necessitates agency.
7764
« on: February 03, 2015, 05:58:53 PM »
So you can argue all day that god can't do all that is logically possible, and I'd agree.
So he is, in fact, not omnipotent and my argument is logically sound?
Great.
I don't think your argument is sound, and I disagree with your definition of omnipotence. At that point it's just semantics; "god isn't omnipotent but can basically do anything he wants with some minor restrictions", I'm not sure what that accomplishes.
I'm using exactly the same definition you are. The fact that God says to himself "Oh, I won't do this" doesn't at all negate the contradiction in having the capacity to do obviously contradictory things.
7765
« on: February 03, 2015, 05:55:07 PM »
The fact that it's a contradiction is the whole point of the argument. He can either be omnipotent and have a capacity to do all that is logically possible (which is necessarily inconsistent) or he isn't omnipotent. So you can argue all day that god can't do all that is logically possible, and I'd agree.
So he is, in fact, not omnipotent and my argument is logically sound? Great.
7766
« on: February 03, 2015, 05:48:18 PM »
But doesn't this assume that gOD's strength is bound by the laws he created and additionally exists at a constant level?
Omnipotence can either be conceived absolutely (which is patently false; God can't make a four-sided triangle) or can be either bound by logic, which is still inconsistent because there are some logical possibilities which exist which blatantly contradict one another.
7767
« on: February 03, 2015, 05:43:26 PM »
But it's not truthful for a single being to state it is two separate things
I didn't claim that, nor am I using the absolutist definition of being able to do anything. There is no logical inconsistency in either proposition that it's possible to truthfully state one thing, which necessarily negates its counterfactual. Therefore, omnipotence as conceived as being able to do all that is logically possible is, in face, incoherent. There are things which are logically possible (thus able to be performed by God) and at the same time contradictory. If God cannot both truthfully claim two statements which contradict each other (which are two logically possible actions) he cannot be omnipotent. The idea of omnipotence as absolute action within logical possibility still falls at the same hurdle, it's just slightly more concealed. If you want to refute me, you have to show that the entire list of logically possible actions is actually consistent.
7768
« on: February 03, 2015, 05:27:04 PM »
It's a shame Turkey and Gojira are religious. They're such smart dudes.
Goji isn't religious.
7769
« on: February 03, 2015, 05:25:19 PM »
I agree with your general idea of omnipotence: it's the unlimited power to enact change within the limits of the laws of logic and physics.
Then we needn't use the rocks; it still runs into the same problem which, generally, is Russell's Paradox. You need only list of all the logically possible actions to find that such a list would also be inconsistent. It is logically possible to both truthfully state your name is Yahweh and truthfully state your name is not Yahweh, and yet doing one clearly negates a capacity to do the other.
7770
« on: February 03, 2015, 05:11:45 PM »
P4: It is logically possible to create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by its own maker (from P3).
This
Also, you're going to want to show why that's logically impossible if you want to defend the principle of omnipotence. Omnipotence necessarily relies on unrestricted comprehension, which is nonsensical. The list of what God can do can either be complete (assuming a capacity to perform all logical possibilities) or consistent--never both.
Pages: 1 ... 257258259 260261 ... 502
|
Show Posts