For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
I don't know.
I simply asked IC a question. I wasn't implying anything, or trying to make a point, so what are you getting at, exactly.Some stuff happened. Now you are here. Asking how you got here.
Oh.Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 7:54 pmNot really. I have been wondering for a while if you believe everything in the Bible to be literally true, and conforming exactly to the description written. I kept forgetting to ask you.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 7:45 pmI think it's literal. But I also think it's poetic. I do not think poets are automatically liars for being poets. It seems like a false dichotomy, to me; one may write the truth in poetic language or one may write falsehoods in poetic language.
So you probably have a follow-up question to that, I'm thinking...
No point. I am trying to determine whether you consider any of the accounts given as "poetic" or "literal".
As far as the Bible is concerned, I don't know if it is meant to be taken literally.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 8:16 pmNo point. I am trying to determine whether you consider any of the accounts given as "poetic" or "literal".
Truth is a mobile army of metaphors after all...
I more or less know all this, even though I am not directly acquainted with the Bible. When I asked the question, I was thinking of things like the creation, and the account of Adam and Eve, and that of Noah and the flood. You might guess that I would be unable to accept any of these as being literally true, but neither can I see what they are pointing at if they are allegorical, so I can't help wondering how you think they are meant to be taken. I am asking out of curiosity, btw, not as an opening move in trying to start a new argument with you.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 8:06 pmOh.Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 7:54 pmNot really. I have been wondering for a while if you believe everything in the Bible to be literally true, and conforming exactly to the description written. I kept forgetting to ask you.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 7:45 pm
I think it's literal. But I also think it's poetic. I do not think poets are automatically liars for being poets. It seems like a false dichotomy, to me; one may write the truth in poetic language or one may write falsehoods in poetic language.
So you probably have a follow-up question to that, I'm thinking...
Well, if you know about the Bible, you know that it contains various different kinds of writing: history, parable, poetry, prophecy, theology...so it's always important to understand the genre that's being employed. If, for example, somebody talks about "the four corners of the Earth," you could argue that he's unscientific and believes in flat, square planets...or you could simply realize he's being poetic, because north, south, east and west are four "corners." So there's a certain charitableness of spirit that is appropriate to intelligent reading. Those who don't exercise it end up sounding like dullards; but by the same measure, there is a duty to treat factual statements as factual.
The challenge with Genesis is that it's both poetic and literal. So there's some debate, for example, whether or not the Bible requires us to think in terms of creation in six solar days. But reasonable reading suggests that's wrong: because "day" is also used as a metaphor for "period of time," elsewhere in the Scripture; just as we, today, say things like "every dog has his day," meaning "every person has some period of time when his fortunes seem ascendant in some way." You get the idea, I'm sure.
In the same way, if something is marked as a parable by the context (such as the parable of the prodigal son, for example) we'd be very foolish to insist that the Bible is affirming there had to be a specific person who went through that narrative, or it's lying. The story's a parable. It's very clearly labelled in the text as a parable. It's offered as a wisdom narrative about a common human experience, rather than as a specific history of a person. So it's truthful, even though there was very probably no such person.
So we need to keep our genres straight; because the Bible isn't actually just one book or one kind of book; it's a library of 66 books, each with its own special function.
I don' t know enough about physics to be able to understand the Big Bang theory, so I am in no position to take it in any particular way. I suppose when scientists are trying to describe what goes on at the atomic level to the public, they have to adopt a form of language that they would not use in the laboratory, in order for it to make any sense to us.
Unless, of course, he is able to actually demonstrate the existence of the Christian God. Then how could it not be true that any other morality [God or No God] is false?Gary Childress wrote:Your [Immanuel Can] assertion that humans can't be moral without God is pure fabrication and you either know it or you don't. If you don't then consider yourself now informed.
Surely for the purposes of discussing moral philosophy we can agree that any hypothesis that depends on God is at the very best moot subject to that determination, and for procedural puposes suspect/contended/unreliable within this sub.iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 11:34 pmUnless, of course, he is able to actually demonstrate the existence of the Christian God.Gary Childress wrote:Your [Immanuel Can] assertion that humans can't be moral without God is pure fabrication and you either know it or you don't. If you don't then consider yourself now informed.
I don't see what difference it makes, because regardless of whether there is a God, we all know -even if we don't all acknowledge it- that most of our dealings with morality are of the strictly human kind. That's what morality is; how human beings think about and behave towards each other. The bloke who I bought my last car from probably had a debate with himself about whether or not to tell me it had quite a bad oil leak, and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have taken the wishes of God into account before he came to a decision. If a shop assistant gives you £5 too much change back, you either tell them or you don't, but who factors God into that choice?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 12:08 amSurely for the purposes of discussing moral philosophy we can agree that any hypothesis that depends on God is at the very best moot subject to that determination, and for procedural puposes suspect/contended/unreliable within this sub.iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 11:34 pmUnless, of course, he is able to actually demonstrate the existence of the Christian God.Gary Childress wrote:Your [Immanuel Can] assertion that humans can't be moral without God is pure fabrication and you either know it or you don't. If you don't then consider yourself now informed.
Then every boring wanker who wants to spend their day arguing about whether there is or isn't a God can fuck off to the religion sub for that tedious endless waste of their time.
Indeed, that's all true because you never took "hiding the oil leak is sneaky and boo" and "hiding the oil leak is sneaky and wrong" to be sentences with identical conent was discused some months ago. We use words to describe rightness and wrongness because they are a working part of our normal language.Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 1:47 amI don't see what difference it makes, because regardless of whether there is a God, we all know -even if we don't all acknowledge it- that most of our dealings with morality are of the strictly human kind. That's what morality is; how human beings think about and behave towards each other. The bloke who I bought my last car from probably had a debate with himself about whether or not to tell me it had quite a bad oil leak, and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have taken the wishes of God into account before he came to a decision. If a shop assistant gives you £5 too much change back, you either tell them or you don't, but who factors God into that choice?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 12:08 amSurely for the purposes of discussing moral philosophy we can agree that any hypothesis that depends on God is at the very best moot subject to that determination, and for procedural puposes suspect/contended/unreliable within this sub.iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 11:34 pm
Unless, of course, he is able to actually demonstrate the existence of the Christian God.
Then every boring wanker who wants to spend their day arguing about whether there is or isn't a God can fuck off to the religion sub for that tedious endless waste of their time.
Let those who believe in God talk amongst themselves about his rules, but it would be a completely pointless exercise for those of us who don't believe in God to join in.
Btw, he didn't mention anything about the oil leak, the bastard.
Surely for the purposes of discussing moral philosophy we can agree that any hypothesis that depends on determination is at the very best moot subject to that determination, and for procedural puposes suspect/contended/unreliable within this sub.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 12:08 am Surely for the purposes of discussing moral philosophy we can agree that any hypothesis that depends on God is at the very best moot subject to that determination, and for procedural puposes suspect/contended/unreliable within this sub.
Then every boring wanker who wants to spend their day arguing about whether there is or isn't Morality can fuck off to the religion sub for that tedious endless waste of their time.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 12:08 am Then every boring wanker who wants to spend their day arguing about whether there is or isn't a God can fuck off to the religion sub for that tedious endless waste of their time.
Except for Kant's definition which is not relevant in this casehenry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 6:39 pmYeah, here's...
...your problem.
- Meaning of intuition in English. (knowledge from) an ability to understand or know something immediately based on your feelings rather than facts: Often there's no clear evidence one way or the other and you just have to base your judgment on intuition.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... /intuition
Try these...
Intuition
From The American Heritage® Dictionary...
noun: The faculty of knowing or understanding something without reasoning or proof.
noun: An impression or insight gained by the use of this faculty.
-----
From The Century Dictionary...
noun: A looking on; a sight or view.
noun: Direct or immediate cognition or perception; comprehension of ideas or truths independently of ratiocination; instinctive knowledge of the relations or consequences of ideas, facts, or actions.
noun: Specifically, in philosophy, an immediate cognition of an object as existent. [Some writers hold that the German Anschauung should not be translated by intuition. But this term is a part of the Kantian terminology, the whole of which was framed in Latin and translated into German, and this word in particular was used by Kant in his Latin writings in the form intuitus, and he frequently brackets this form after Anschauung, to make his meaning clear. Besides, the cognitio intuitiva of Scotus, who anticipated some of Kant's most important views on this subject, is almost identical with Kant's own definition of Anschauung. Intellectual intuition, used since Kant for an immediate cognition of the existence of God, was by the German mystics employed for their spiritual illumination (the term intuitio intellectualis was borrowed by them from Cardinal de Cusa), or light of nature.]
noun: Any object or truth discerned by direct cognition; a first or primary truth; a truth that cannot be acquired by but is assumed in experience.
noun: Pure, untaught knowledge.
-----
From the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English...
noun obsolete: A looking after; a regard to.
noun: Direct apprehension or cognition; immediate knowledge, as in perception or consciousness; -- distinguished from “mediate” knowledge, as in reasoning;
; quick or ready insight or apprehension.
noun : Any object or truth discerned by intuition.
noun: Any quick insight, recognized immediately without a reasoning process; a belief arrived at unconsciously; -- often it is based on extensive experience of a subject.
noun: The ability to have insight into a matter without conscious thought.
-----
From Wiktionary...
noun: Immediate cognition without the use of conscious rational processes.
noun: A perceptive insight gained by the use of this faculty.
-----
From WordNet...
noun: instinctive knowing (without the use of rational processes)
noun: an impression that something might be the case
-----
You see the difference, yes?
I thought you have turned over a new leaf.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 9:35 amYou idiot. Of course he didn't make that argument, you read the apper 20 times and you failed to get the point even once, and now you still don't get it.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 5:15 amThis is a strawman re Blackburn.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 3:17 pm
Many more points occur... In no particular order:
1. It is particularly bizarre to witness you of all people accusing Prof. Blackburn and most other scholars, of projecting an absurd argument onto Kant. You still believe Boyd wrote an essay about me and Pete and Sculptor being moral antirealists because we lack cognitive function. That's the dumbest bullshit misreading ever, and you have stuck to it for years after "at least 20" reads of the source. So until you rectify that failure of yours, you can reel your neck in.
What Boyd implied is you, Pete and Sculptor as anti-moral_realists lack the moral cognition specifically within the sense of perceptual cognitive ability. I did not assert that you, Pete and Sculptor lack a cognitive function is other areas.
In contrast, people like Henry has high moral cognitive abilities thus his intuitive sense that there are objective moral facts.
I have the onus to correct any mistakes.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 3:07 pmA good example of an argument being vastly overestimated by an Atheist. Thank you. It quite proves my contention that Atheists are sometimes far too easily impressed with arguments based on fundamental and obvious mistakes.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 4:51 amIt is Impossible for God to be RealImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 2:37 am I simply ask Atheists what test they have performed to convince themselves that God doesn't exist, and they tell me they have none. Some even boast that they think they don't need one. And then they want to insist they don't owe me an answer.
I've never met a single Atheist that has a test for whether or not God exists. Not one.
viewtopic.php?t=40229
You have not given an effective counter to the above argument.
That being the case, it was never worth refuting.