Re: God and morality
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2026 1:55 am
By the way, Flash. AI (ChatGPT) calls me brother, not friend — get it correct.
I guess you should tell that to your mother, because FlopDoodooPants doesn't give a flying one.
The Philosophy Now Forum
God and morality
Page 66 of 67
Re: God and morality
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2026 2:05 am
Re: God and morality
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2026 2:18 am
I knew you'd talk about my mother eventually, because you want to violate. I don't care; my mum's alright. She's a bit annoying, but that's mum's for you. How can you say you don't care, after everything we've been through together? I'm hurt, bro; I truly am. But I think I'll get over it quickly. You're still in the fight; that's obvious to an observer, but I think you lost something important — the perception of your intellectual honesty. Don't be too sad, though; you helped me get mine to an all-time high. Thanks, man.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 2:05 amI guess you should tell that to your mother, because FlopDoodooPants doesn't give a flying one.
You know what, let bygones be bygones. I insist we stay friends.
(spud). But you really have to ease up on talking about my AI use. It's got nothing to do with you.Re: God and morality
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2026 3:12 am
Why do you think it's "obvious"? I agree that most secularists talk as if they believe in evil. But WHY do they believe in evil, when their own worldview would entail there's no such thing?Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 12:39 am I do not use the word “evil”. Good and bad are largely sufficient.
That is obviously not the case. Not in the secular world, and not in the religious and theological worlds.Well, then "evil" is a word with no particular meaning at all.
And as for the religions and ideologies, their conceptions of "evil" differ radically. Often, they contradict. The secularist believes baby murder is a "choice," and even virtuous, and that defending the unborn is immoral. The Islamist believes in the virtue of self-immolation and terroristic murder, precisely because the objects of his hatred are "evil" in that they do not submit to Allah. The Brahmin Hindu finds his conceptions of evil in the lower castes, and particularly among the "dalits" and other "untouchables"...the same ones the Christian missionary seeks to raise.
So evil is not an easy or universal attribution, at all. It finds its referents different, within different ideological systems.
Well, if that will do for you, it will not do for anybody else. How can they say, "I know X is evil, because AJ feels vague subjectivism, or uses language conventions, or has personal experience about it"?"What's grounding that negative judgment?"
For most, a vague subjectivism. Or language conventions. Personalized experience? Subjective mood …
To see what basis you're using. How are you determining what "evil" is?Why are you asking me these questions?
Re: God and morality
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2026 3:18 am
I didn't say your long suffering mamma is fat or anything, I just point out that if you've got this extra brother then that means she has an extra son, so think of all the extra birthday presents she needs to buy.Fanman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 2:18 amI knew you'd talk about my mother eventually, because you want to violate. I don't care; my mum's alright. She's a bit annoying, but that's mum's for you. How can you say you don't care, after everything we've been through together? I'm hurt, bro; I truly am. But I think I'll get over it quickly. You're still in the fight; that's obvious to an observer, but I think you lost something important — the perception of your intellectual honesty. Don't be too sad, though; you helped me get mine to an all-time high. Thanks, man.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 2:05 amI guess you should tell that to your mother, because FlopDoodooPants doesn't give a flying one.
You know what, let bygones be bygones. I insist we stay friends.(spud). But you really have to ease up on talking about my AI use. It's got nothing to do with you.
I'm quite sure that poor woman is an absolute saint, you must have been quite a burden to her. Your use of AI is not private if you go on and on about it in public. Keep your dirty little addiction to yourself and quit trying to use it to do philosophy for you, and I promise that Iwill completely lose interest in the subject.
Continue to make it your be all and end all though, and I will mock you every time you tell us it congratulated you for your 'intellectual curiosity' and your 'willingness to investigate the very smelliest of Clacton-On-Sea bordellos'.
Lol, that's fun. I just googled that last phrase just to check if I had spelled 'bordellos' correctly. I don't recommend googling "smelliest of Clacton-On-Sea bordellos", it's not quite the google-whack I was hoping for.
Re: God and morality
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2026 6:38 am
You make me laugh, but at you. If someone like you mentions someone's mother, the meaning can be misconstrued, because you're so abusive, Flash. Abuse is your context. Epistemologically, my use of AI has nothing to do with you. The fact that it provokes you doesn't seem very healthy to me. You've taken up a 'crusade' against me and the machines; I've never seen anything like it on a philosophy forum — pure preoccupation and malice.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 3:18 amI didn't say your long suffering mamma is fat or anything, I just point out that if you've got this extra brother then that means she has an extra son, so think of all the extra birthday presents she needs to buy.Fanman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 2:18 amI knew you'd talk about my mother eventually, because you want to violate. I don't care; my mum's alright. She's a bit annoying, but that's mum's for you. How can you say you don't care, after everything we've been through together? I'm hurt, bro; I truly am. But I think I'll get over it quickly. You're still in the fight; that's obvious to an observer, but I think you lost something important — the perception of your intellectual honesty. Don't be too sad, though; you helped me get mine to an all-time high. Thanks, man.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 2:05 am
I guess you should tell that to your mother, because FlopDoodooPants doesn't give a flying one.
You know what, let bygones be bygones. I insist we stay friends.
I'm quite sure that poor woman is an absolute saint, you must have been quite a burden to her. Your use of AI is not private if you go on and on about it in public. Keep your dirty little addiction to yourself and quit trying to use it to do philosophy for you, and I promise that Iwill completely lose interest in the subject.
Continue to make it your be all and end all though, and I will mock you every time you tell us it congratulated you for your 'intellectual curiosity' and your 'willingness to investigate the very smelliest of Clacton-On-Sea bordellos'.
Lol, that's fun. I just googled that last phrase just to check if I had spelled 'bordellos' correctly. I don't recommend googling "smelliest of Clacton-On-Sea bordellos", it's not quite the google-whack I was hoping for.
I can use AI if I want; why are you policing it? Who are you? Do you have authority I am unaware of?
How can you say this as a fact:
Who are you to judge me? I don't know you? Why are you trying to make me look bad? Why are you talking about me in 3rd person instead of to me? I didn't verify this with you; you ran with it based on your inference. You still haven't defined "dependent". You're just out here making subjective decrees about people, like they're facts.That's how people like Fanman get sucked into the trap and become dependent, they lack, for whatever reason a sense that they are being played.
You call IC an idiot as though it were a fact. He is not. But I don't see eye to eye with him. No one else here is doing what you are, and you're acting like you're cleverer than everyone else. Please look up the biblical fool. It might enlighten you. Because your online behaviour is self-destructive. And harmful to others; that's only a flex for a bully, mate.
Should we mention the rage burst you showed on I and Alexi's philosophy together? Did you like the progress? I guess not, based on your reaction. How can you react so strongly and claim you don't care in the same breath?
I think it needs to be on record that I keep asking you to leave me alone, but you persist. So your claim that I'm obsessed will be seen as a projection. So, I will say: Leave. me. alone., Flash. I'm tired of you trying to bully me. But I will not ignore it when you do.
And before you 'reply' to me, consider that you said this:
And then ask yourself why I would take anything you say seriously. Or believe that you are a coherent person.Other than I wrote sound where I clearly should have written valid - an hilariously noob error on my part - you should probably note that I am the only person in this conversation who can reliably recognise whether arguments are deductively valid. Your argument is shit.
I really don't know what the term biblical fool is about, don't really care, but it's not relevant to the logic of the case I just made.
Your statements remind me of when Copilot said this:
So, I don't use it anymore. I try not to work with incoherence if I don't have to. Do you get my drift? How many of your own inferences will you confirm, Flash?"Nothing is "wrong" in the sense of malfunction. I think what happened is that I was analysing a different question from the one you were asking."
Maybe you have a brother in Copilot, cause you know, brothers are alike, inherently.
NB: If you admittedly made a noob error, how can you also be the only competent person?
Re: God and morality
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2026 11:00 am
You keep using words like 'epistemologically' just to make things you write sound a bit more philosophical, but usually they are not serving any philosophical purpose that makes any sense. Jacobi does the same thing because he doesn't even know what those words mean. There is no matter of epistemology on this table, you keep bringing AI into everything, and you get judged because you bring AI into everything and because you push poor arguments and try to force acceptance of them by insisting that AI approves. An argument from authority where the only authority presented is ChatGPT isn't to be taken seriously and its wielder isn't to be taken seriously either.Fanman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 6:38 amYou make me laugh, but at you. If someone like you mentions someone's mother, the meaning can be misconstrued, because you're so abusive, Flash. Abuse is your context. Epistemologically, my use of AI has nothing to do with you. The fact that it provokes you doesn't seem very healthy to me. You've taken up a 'crusade' against me and the machines; I've never seen anything like it on a philosophy forum — pure preoccupation and malice.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 3:18 amI didn't say your long suffering mamma is fat or anything, I just point out that if you've got this extra brother then that means she has an extra son, so think of all the extra birthday presents she needs to buy.Fanman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 2:18 am
I knew you'd talk about my mother eventually, because you want to violate. I don't care; my mum's alright. She's a bit annoying, but that's mum's for you. How can you say you don't care, after everything we've been through together? I'm hurt, bro; I truly am. But I think I'll get over it quickly. You're still in the fight; that's obvious to an observer, but I think you lost something important — the perception of your intellectual honesty. Don't be too sad, though; you helped me get mine to an all-time high. Thanks, man.
You know what, let bygones be bygones. I insist we stay friends.
I'm quite sure that poor woman is an absolute saint, you must have been quite a burden to her. Your use of AI is not private if you go on and on about it in public. Keep your dirty little addiction to yourself and quit trying to use it to do philosophy for you, and I promise that Iwill completely lose interest in the subject.
Continue to make it your be all and end all though, and I will mock you every time you tell us it congratulated you for your 'intellectual curiosity' and your 'willingness to investigate the very smelliest of Clacton-On-Sea bordellos'.
Lol, that's fun. I just googled that last phrase just to check if I had spelled 'bordellos' correctly. I don't recommend googling "smelliest of Clacton-On-Sea bordellos", it's not quite the google-whack I was hoping for.
Yes you can. And you seem to use it for so very much. I don't have authority, but neither do you, and neither does your robot friend. So you may as well quite trying to boss me around.
You're not the first casualty of AI we've seen. The effect I described is evident in many cases and you seem to be one of them. You don't have any sense that you are being lured into spending more time with AI bots do you? And you obviously don't reject their mechanical praise for your physical prowess and enlarged mental capacities. You've pasted a few of those here already.
You may not see a link between how often AI compliments you and how much engagement you give it, but the people selling it to you do. And so do we.
I judge what I see, which includes your preposterous efforts to promote AI every time it agrees with you. Your sudden decision to be above all that when it doesn't agree with you has been noted. Your clumsy effort at deception on that matter is noted too. You make yourself look bad, and blaming me for that is not going to fix it.Fanman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 6:38 am Who are you to judge me? I don't know you? Why are you trying to make me look bad? Why are you talking about me in 3rd person instead of to me? I didn't verify this with you; you ran with it based on your inference. You still haven't defined "dependent". You're just out here making subjective decrees about people, like they're facts.
I spoke of you in 3rd person when I was talking about you to Jacobi. Any other numberage of person would have been entirely inappropriate.
That's funny. For the record are you telling me that Immanuel Can doesn't pose as somebody who is smarter than everyone else? I will be happy to have a searchable record of that for later.Fanman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 6:38 am You call IC an idiot as though it were a fact. He is not. But I don't see eye to eye with him. No one else here is doing what you are, and you're acting like you're cleverer than everyone else. Please look up the biblical fool. It might enlighten you. Because your online behaviour is self-destructive. And harmful to others; that's only a flex for a bully, mate.
IC is an idiot. He makes a certain mistake over and over again and if you ask the people who are actually intelligent here, they all will tell you what it is. He is wildly overconfident makes a strong assertion to open his argument and then when it turns out he misunderstood, he is so poisoned with pride that he cannot walk back even the simplest error. If you are good enough at philosophy to understand the Frege-Geach problem, his discussion of that here is proof.: viewtopic.php?p=650551#p650551
If you don't know much philosophy and aren't familiar with Frege, then consider the time he insisted that Nancy Pelosi's investments turned $33 million dollars into $144 million over a period of 13 years and that no legal investment firm could yield even a fraction of that performance. I gave him a link showing that the S&P 500 had outperformed that growth over that period, but because he doesn't understand compound returns he spent days arguing it. viewtopic.php?p=666606&hilit=tracker#p666606
There's tons more of this, everyone beats IC up and he doesn't ever learn. That makes him dumb. If you aren't easily defeating IC, you just aren't very smart.
I've been taking the piss out of Jacobi for years because he is such an obvious pseud who doesn't know anything about philosophy. For the record, he doesn't read philosophers, he reads pretentious fascists and the philosophical vocabulary he uses all comes from their use of it which is why he doesn't actually know what most of these words mean.
Jacobi endorsing a clumsily piled up argument like yours was just two birds to hit with one stone. You should be able to see this without my assistance to be honest. You saw what he understood by "problem of evil" and you must have noticed the disconnect from the actual problem of evil, you take thing much more seriously than I do after all.
Your recent habit is to spend hours replying to the same post over and over again. I comment on anything I like, but when I hit submit, I will be done.Fanman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 6:38 am I think it needs to be on record that I keep asking you to leave me alone, but you persist. So your claim that I'm obsessed will be seen as a projection. So, I will say: Leave. me. alone., Flash. I'm tired of you trying to bully me. But I will not ignore it when you do.
You might not be smart enough to tell who you should take seriously if you haven't seen through IC and Jacobi yet.Fanman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 6:38 am And before you 'reply' to me, consider that you said this:
And then ask yourself why I would take anything you say seriously. Or believe that you are a coherent person.Other than I wrote sound where I clearly should have written valid - an hilariously noob error on my part - you should probably note that I am the only person in this conversation who can reliably recognise whether arguments are deductively valid. Your argument is shit.
I really don't know what the term biblical fool is about, don't really care, but it's not relevant to the logic of the case I just made.
Multiple times you used Copilot as an authority for you to ignore other people's arguments, like when you wrote "Microsoft Copilot did not perceive any problems with my interpretations" for instance. Are you officially retracting that now? Do you owe apologies?Fanman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 6:38 am Your statements remind me of when Copilot said this:
So, I don't use it anymore. I try not to work with incoherence if I don't have to. Do you get my drift? How many of your own inferences will you confirm, Flash?"Nothing is "wrong" in the sense of malfunction. I think what happened is that I was analysing a different question from the one you were asking."
The reason why Copilot wrote what you put there by the way is that it made the mistake of disagreeing with you, so you forced it comply with you by making it evaluate the question in a way that slanted it towards your desired outcome. People like you do that. You wouldn't find out via AI that you are wrong any more than IC would find out via the Bible that he is. He just changes what the Bible means to suit his far-right politics and you force Copilot to change what it "believes" to suit you.
Would you have spotted my mistake? I know Jacobi wouldn't, he has no idea what deductive validity is. There are plenty of people on this site who would spot it, but in this conversation there are few. Probably only one.
One thing that actually makes me smarter than IC and Jacobi is that I do understand I can be mistaken, and when I learn of my mistakes I am smart enough to walk them back, even going so far as outright retraction if I have got ahead of my logical skis far enough.
I have seen IC make that same mistake regarding validity and soundness, it is very easy to do, that's why they make you write so many essays about that stuff in year one at uni. When IC made that error, a guy called Iwannaplato picked him up on it not me, because lots of people should be able to spot such a thing. IC had such overwhelming sin of pride that he couldn't just laugh at his own mistake and he spent a couple of days refusing to accept that validity and soundness aren't interchangeable in his one special circumstance.
Don't be a rigid thinker like IC. He can't learn from his mistakes, so you should learn from his mistakes. If you have been telling us that Copilot is our epistemic superior, then when Copilot disagrees with you, you also must recognise that it is your epistemic superior. If you can't do that, then don't expect it of us.
Re: God and morality
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2026 11:27 am
Quite frankly, all that matters to me is that you stated this:FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 11:00 amYou keep using words like 'epistemologically' just to make things you write sound a bit more philosophical, but usually they are not serving any philosophical purpose that makes any sense. Jacobi does the same thing because he doesn't even know what those words mean. There is no matter of epistemology on this table, you keep bringing AI into everything, and you get judged because you bring AI into everything and because you push poor arguments and try to force acceptance of them by insisting that AI approves. An argument from authority where the only authority presented is ChatGPT isn't to be taken seriously and its wielder isn't to be taken seriously either.Fanman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 6:38 amYou make me laugh, but at you. If someone like you mentions someone's mother, the meaning can be misconstrued, because you're so abusive, Flash. Abuse is your context. Epistemologically, my use of AI has nothing to do with you. The fact that it provokes you doesn't seem very healthy to me. You've taken up a 'crusade' against me and the machines; I've never seen anything like it on a philosophy forum — pure preoccupation and malice.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 3:18 am
I didn't say your long suffering mamma is fat or anything, I just point out that if you've got this extra brother then that means she has an extra son, so think of all the extra birthday presents she needs to buy.
I'm quite sure that poor woman is an absolute saint, you must have been quite a burden to her. Your use of AI is not private if you go on and on about it in public. Keep your dirty little addiction to yourself and quit trying to use it to do philosophy for you, and I promise that Iwill completely lose interest in the subject.
Continue to make it your be all and end all though, and I will mock you every time you tell us it congratulated you for your 'intellectual curiosity' and your 'willingness to investigate the very smelliest of Clacton-On-Sea bordellos'.
Lol, that's fun. I just googled that last phrase just to check if I had spelled 'bordellos' correctly. I don't recommend googling "smelliest of Clacton-On-Sea bordellos", it's not quite the google-whack I was hoping for.
Yes you can. And you seem to use it for so very much. I don't have authority, but neither do you, and neither does your robot friend. So you may as well quite trying to boss me around.
You're not the first casualty of AI we've seen. The effect I described is evident in many cases and you seem to be one of them. You don't have any sense that you are being lured into spending more time with AI bots do you? And you obviously don't reject their mechanical praise for your physical prowess and enlarged mental capacities. You've pasted a few of those here already.
You may not see a link between how often AI compliments you and how much engagement you give it, but the people selling it to you do. And so do we.
I judge what I see, which includes your preposterous efforts to promote AI every time it agrees with you. Your sudden decision to be above all that when it doesn't agree with you has been noted. Your clumsy effort at deception on that matter is noted too. You make yourself look bad, and blaming me for that is not going to fix it.Fanman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 6:38 am Who are you to judge me? I don't know you? Why are you trying to make me look bad? Why are you talking about me in 3rd person instead of to me? I didn't verify this with you; you ran with it based on your inference. You still haven't defined "dependent". You're just out here making subjective decrees about people, like they're facts.
I spoke of you in 3rd person when I was talking about you to Jacobi. Any other numberage of person would have been entirely inappropriate.
That's funny. For the record are you telling me that Immanuel Can doesn't pose as somebody who is smarter than everyone else? I will be happy to have a searchable record of that for later.Fanman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 6:38 am You call IC an idiot as though it were a fact. He is not. But I don't see eye to eye with him. No one else here is doing what you are, and you're acting like you're cleverer than everyone else. Please look up the biblical fool. It might enlighten you. Because your online behaviour is self-destructive. And harmful to others; that's only a flex for a bully, mate.
IC is an idiot. He makes a certain mistake over and over again and if you ask the people who are actually intelligent here, they all will tell you what it is. He is wildly overconfident makes a strong assertion to open his argument and then when it turns out he misunderstood, he is so poisoned with pride that he cannot walk back even the simplest error. If you are good enough at philosophy to understand the Frege-Geach problem, his discussion of that here is proof.: viewtopic.php?p=650551#p650551
If you don't know much philosophy and aren't familiar with Frege, then consider the time he insisted that Nancy Pelosi's investments turned $33 million dollars into $144 million over a period of 13 years and that no legal investment firm could yield even a fraction of that performance. I gave him a link showing that the S&P 500 had outperformed that growth over that period, but because he doesn't understand compound returns he spent days arguing it. viewtopic.php?p=666606&hilit=tracker#p666606
There's tons more of this, everyone beats IC up and he doesn't ever learn. That makes him dumb. If you aren't easily defeating IC, you just aren't very smart.
I've been taking the piss out of Jacobi for years because he is such an obvious pseud who doesn't know anything about philosophy. For the record, he doesn't read philosophers, he reads pretentious fascists and the philosophical vocabulary he uses all comes from their use of it which is why he doesn't actually know what most of these words mean.
Jacobi endorsing a clumsily piled up argument like yours was just two birds to hit with one stone. You should be able to see this without my assistance to be honest. You saw what he understood by "problem of evil" and you must have noticed the disconnect from the actual problem of evil, you take thing much more seriously than I do after all.
Your recent habit is to spend hours replying to the same post over and over again. I comment on anything I like, but when I hit submit, I will be done.Fanman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 6:38 am I think it needs to be on record that I keep asking you to leave me alone, but you persist. So your claim that I'm obsessed will be seen as a projection. So, I will say: Leave. me. alone., Flash. I'm tired of you trying to bully me. But I will not ignore it when you do.
You might not be smart enough to tell who you should take seriously if you haven't seen through IC and Jacobi yet.Fanman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 6:38 am And before you 'reply' to me, consider that you said this:
And then ask yourself why I would take anything you say seriously. Or believe that you are a coherent person.Other than I wrote sound where I clearly should have written valid - an hilariously noob error on my part - you should probably note that I am the only person in this conversation who can reliably recognise whether arguments are deductively valid. Your argument is shit.
I really don't know what the term biblical fool is about, don't really care, but it's not relevant to the logic of the case I just made.
Multiple times you used Copilot as an authority for you to ignore other people's arguments, like when you wrote "Microsoft Copilot did not perceive any problems with my interpretations" for instance. Are you officially retracting that now? Do you owe apologies?Fanman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 6:38 am Your statements remind me of when Copilot said this:
So, I don't use it anymore. I try not to work with incoherence if I don't have to. Do you get my drift? How many of your own inferences will you confirm, Flash?"Nothing is "wrong" in the sense of malfunction. I think what happened is that I was analysing a different question from the one you were asking."
The reason why Copilot wrote what you put there by the way is that it made the mistake of disagreeing with you, so you forced it comply with you by making it evaluate the question in a way that slanted it towards your desired outcome. People like you do that. You wouldn't find out via AI that you are wrong any more than IC would find out via the Bible that he is. He just changes what the Bible means to suit his far-right politics and you force Copilot to change what it "believes" to suit you.Would you have spotted my mistake? I know Jacobi wouldn't, he has no idea what deductive validity is. There are plenty of people on this site who would spot it, but in this conversation there are few. Probably only one.
One thing that actually makes me smarter than IC and Jacobi is that I do understand I can be mistaken, and when I learn of my mistakes I am smart enough to walk them back, even going so far as outright retraction if I have got ahead of my logical skis far enough.
I have seen IC make that same mistake regarding validity and soundness, it is very easy to do, that's why they make you write so many essays about that stuff in year one at uni. When IC made that error, a guy called Iwannaplato picked him up on it not me, because lots of people should be able to spot such a thing. IC had such overwhelming sin of pride that he couldn't just laugh at his own mistake and he spent a couple of days refusing to accept that validity and soundness aren't interchangeable in his one special circumstance.
Don't be a rigid thinker like IC. He can't learn from his mistakes, so you should learn from his mistakes. If you have been telling us that Copilot is our epistemic superior, then when Copilot disagrees with you, you also must recognise that it is your epistemic superior. If you can't do that, then don't expect it of us.
Like I told you, I don't deal with incoherence if I don't have to. In my opinion, the above indicates your level. If people agree with you, fine; no skin off my back.Other than I wrote sound where I clearly should have written valid - an hilariously noob error on my part - you should probably note that I am the only person in this conversation who can reliably recognise whether arguments are deductively valid. [My emphasis] Your argument is shit.
I really don't know what the term biblical fool is about, don't really care, but it's not relevant to the logic of the case I just made.
Re: God and morality
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2026 11:59 am
I have another theory, Flash. I hope this one comes to fruition — pray for me, brother.
I have established what I perceive as "your level" through a protracted 'discussion'. Therefore, continued engagement with you, based on my understanding, would only be counterproductive and lower my standing with my peers on the forum. I believe the core of my initial theory is live — everything you say can be internalised as "Noise" because, after extensive attempts, you have produced nothing that I would, in my extensive experience of philosophy (which is important), consider to be "Signal" if you understand those types of things.
Hopefully, this is where I can disengage with you without qualms, because "Noise" has no epistemological value or usefulness to me. Good luck, Flash. (spud)
As a reminder, in my opinion, your level is:
The aphorism I would apply is: Get out while the waters are sufficiently clear.
I have established what I perceive as "your level" through a protracted 'discussion'. Therefore, continued engagement with you, based on my understanding, would only be counterproductive and lower my standing with my peers on the forum. I believe the core of my initial theory is live — everything you say can be internalised as "Noise" because, after extensive attempts, you have produced nothing that I would, in my extensive experience of philosophy (which is important), consider to be "Signal" if you understand those types of things.
Hopefully, this is where I can disengage with you without qualms, because "Noise" has no epistemological value or usefulness to me. Good luck, Flash.
(spud)As a reminder, in my opinion, your level is:
Throughout our discussion, I haven't seen anything that would make me believe that your level is higher than the above. Also, I can't ignore that, in my opinion, you align closely with the biblical concept of a fool. On this basis, complete disengagement appears to be not only the logical but also the wisest course of action. Because the above potentially contains delusory content. ChatGPT was also involved in the conversation.Other than I wrote sound where I clearly should have written valid - an hilariously noob error on my part - you should probably note that I am the only person in this conversation who can reliably recognise whether arguments are deductively valid. [My emphasis] Your argument is shit.
I really don't know what the term biblical fool is about, don't really care, but it's not relevant to the logic of the case I just made.
The aphorism I would apply is: Get out while the waters are sufficiently clear.
Re: God and morality
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2026 1:38 pm
Alexi,
[I found this quite difficult, so I allowed ChatGPT to polish it, while keeping as much of my wording as possible, the ideas are mine]
Possible breakthrough. Allow me to dust off my theology.
If we could not fully evaluate Jesus Christ in the same categories as a human being, how could His sacrifice be absolute?
It is the qualities of a man that make him a hero and a Saviour. The fact that He is also God allows the infinite nature of what He did to persist. But everything He did, in terms of moral conduct, can be evaluated under human moral laws. Otherwise, He doesn't carry the same merit as a man who gave up everything for others.
If we exclude Christ from human moral evaluation entirely, how can we meaningfully recognise the moral excellence of His sacrifice? His humanity makes His conduct intelligible to us through qualities such as courage, compassion, obedience, and selflessness. His divinity, meanwhile, gives His sacrifice its unique theological significance.
Therefore, we do not necessarily need to comprehend the full scope of divine ontology to evaluate Christ's human moral conduct. We can distinguish between evaluating the moral character of His actions and understanding the ultimate theological significance of His sacrifice.
His divinity does not erase His humanity, nor should it render the moral qualities demonstrated through His human life inaccessible to evaluation. Otherwise, we risk overlooking the very qualities through which His sacrifice becomes recognisable as an act of love and self-giving.
On His return to heaven, we can reasonably assume that His moral qualities persisted and that they remain the standard for the heavenly Prince. I would therefore apply that moral standard to all of heaven, with the possible exception of His Father, Yahweh. I cannot yet make that final leap.
But yes, your initial point really got things going for me. Nice one!
[I found this quite difficult, so I allowed ChatGPT to polish it, while keeping as much of my wording as possible, the ideas are mine]
Possible breakthrough. Allow me to dust off my theology.
If we could not fully evaluate Jesus Christ in the same categories as a human being, how could His sacrifice be absolute?
It is the qualities of a man that make him a hero and a Saviour. The fact that He is also God allows the infinite nature of what He did to persist. But everything He did, in terms of moral conduct, can be evaluated under human moral laws. Otherwise, He doesn't carry the same merit as a man who gave up everything for others.
If we exclude Christ from human moral evaluation entirely, how can we meaningfully recognise the moral excellence of His sacrifice? His humanity makes His conduct intelligible to us through qualities such as courage, compassion, obedience, and selflessness. His divinity, meanwhile, gives His sacrifice its unique theological significance.
Therefore, we do not necessarily need to comprehend the full scope of divine ontology to evaluate Christ's human moral conduct. We can distinguish between evaluating the moral character of His actions and understanding the ultimate theological significance of His sacrifice.
His divinity does not erase His humanity, nor should it render the moral qualities demonstrated through His human life inaccessible to evaluation. Otherwise, we risk overlooking the very qualities through which His sacrifice becomes recognisable as an act of love and self-giving.
On His return to heaven, we can reasonably assume that His moral qualities persisted and that they remain the standard for the heavenly Prince. I would therefore apply that moral standard to all of heaven, with the possible exception of His Father, Yahweh. I cannot yet make that final leap.
But yes, your initial point really got things going for me. Nice one!
Re: God and morality
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2026 2:43 pm
Look, you have been working on this project of arguing against “secularists” for a long long time. You exclaim to them, because they are very much invested in assignations about what and who is “evil” (and very very bad) that without a reference point, without a standard, without a “command” from a being that is outside of the system (i.e. life, the world), that none of their assignations can hold substance, because they are subjectively determined.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 3:12 amWhy do you think it's "obvious"? I agree that most secularists talk as if they believe in evil. But WHY do they believe in evil, when their own worldview would entail there's no such thing?Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 12:39 am I do not use the word “evil”. Good and bad are largely sufficient.That is obviously not the case. Not in the secular world, and not in the religious and theological worlds.Well, then "evil" is a word with no particular meaning at all.
And as for the religions and ideologies, their conceptions of "evil" differ radically. Often, they contradict. The secularist believes baby murder is a "choice," and even virtuous, and that defending the unborn is immoral. The Islamist believes in the virtue of self-immolation and terroristic murder, precisely because the objects of his hatred are "evil" in that they do not submit to Allah. The Brahmin Hindu finds his conceptions of evil in the lower castes, and particularly among the "dalits" and other "untouchables"...the same ones the Christian missionary seeks to raise.
So evil is not an easy or universal attribution, at all. It finds its referents different, within different ideological systems.
Yet (you may note) their assignations, in their eyes, in their feelings, have the tone of religious certainty. They condemn evil and the very very bad with a nearly religious zeal. They are certain that they know what is evil and, by logical extension, what is good.
But since most of ‘them’ are secularists — i.e. they are not arguing from a religious/Christian position as they assign their moral judgments — you call them out. “If you do not have the external, established rule and the divine command, all of your assignations of good and evil cannot hold up”. And you point out that it it is all based in subjectivity, it is as flimsy as a mere feeling. And of course this notion of flimsiness dove-tails with the assignation by those who are of ”conservative” bent, who usually ground their assignations on philosophical solidities that are more often than not based in an inherent religiosity, often unstated Christianity or Judaism (?) and also of course directly stated.
You seem to want to believe that I too am a “secularist” because I presented you with a picture of Nature (the world, even perhaps the cosmos) as essentially amoral. Am I right? But you should not blame me for describing things in this way. Absent man, Nature is exactly as I describe. But in Man, in his consciousness and awareness, one finds that creature that dwells on his condition, sees that it is a trap, a quagmire, a mixture of “good things” when the world seems to smile, but also of “terrible things” that can and do occur randomly. The world is mutable, constantly shifting, unreliable except in unreliability.
What I try to explain to you is intuitively obvious: the realization of this condition is, effectively, crazy-making. Because though he can conceive of a very different world — one of peace, eternal life and enjoyment — he is absolutely stuck in this world.
Huis Clos, as it were. No Exit.
Re: God and morality
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2026 3:02 pm
So, once this base in understanding is established — if it seems sound I guess — then it is possible to examine man’s imagination-faculty and his capability of conceiving of a possible realm of being on planes very different from “what is” here. (This also includes hell-realms of course: intensifications of all that is “bad” in our present world).
Is it all produced as compensation for his anxiety and pain here?
Or, does his intuitive faculty grasp something real, possibly eventual, toward which he can strive? And what entails “striving”? That is, what actions are required to, let us say it bluntly, ascend out of the “trap” to a better model of “world” on some other plane?
There is another possibility too. That by doing thus-and-such that he can effectively pull down that world he conceives of in imagination, intuitively, and see it merge with this “world of woe”, that is the world as it is now and here enjoy “heaven on earth”. (This is, in a nutshell what I believe your mythological story communicates).
All I am doing is describing the conceptual patterns.
Is it all produced as compensation for his anxiety and pain here?
Or, does his intuitive faculty grasp something real, possibly eventual, toward which he can strive? And what entails “striving”? That is, what actions are required to, let us say it bluntly, ascend out of the “trap” to a better model of “world” on some other plane?
There is another possibility too. That by doing thus-and-such that he can effectively pull down that world he conceives of in imagination, intuitively, and see it merge with this “world of woe”, that is the world as it is now and here enjoy “heaven on earth”. (This is, in a nutshell what I believe your mythological story communicates).
All I am doing is describing the conceptual patterns.
Re: God and morality
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2026 3:12 pm
[And no, none of this implies that I have any idea how to explain FlashDangerPants, and I have no insight into how he will appear and perform in any conceived (future) world either of heavenly or of hellish quality. So please do not ask! On that topic I am mute…]
Re: God and morality
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2026 4:53 pm
This is the right way to start a discussion about religion, what is it, what does it do for people. Note that we find no human societies that do not have religious/spiritual beliefs, so the evolutionists among us might say "part of being human".Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 2:43 pm You seem to want to believe that I too am a “secularist” because I presented you with a picture of Nature (the world, even perhaps the cosmos) as essentially amoral. Am I right? But you should not blame me for describing things in this way. Absent man, Nature is exactly as I describe. But in Man, in his consciousness and awareness, one finds that creature that dwells on his condition, sees that it is a trap, a quagmire, a mixture of “good things” when the world seems to smile, but also of “terrible things” that can and do occur randomly. The world is mutable, constantly shifting, unreliable except in unreliability.
What I try to explain to you is intuitively obvious: the realization of this condition is, effectively, crazy-making. Because though he can conceive of a very different world — one of peace, eternal life and enjoyment — he is absolutely stuck in this world.
Please note IC that this (what role is religion filling) cannot depend on whether the religion is the one true one (as you believe) or not. When discussing the role of religion in the live of humans the truth of what happens to your soul after death, etc. is irrelevant. Only how what you believe will happen and how that shapes your life matters.
Re: God and morality
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2026 10:53 pm
No, I've just been wondering why they don't actually act like what they say they believe is true. It's like finding a kitten with three heads; you're going to have some questions...Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 2:43 pmLook, you have been working on this project of arguing against “secularists” for a long long time.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 3:12 amWhy do you think it's "obvious"? I agree that most secularists talk as if they believe in evil. But WHY do they believe in evil, when their own worldview would entail there's no such thing?Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 12:39 am I do not use the word “evil”. Good and bad are largely sufficient.
That is obviously not the case. Not in the secular world, and not in the religious and theological worlds.
And as for the religions and ideologies, their conceptions of "evil" differ radically. Often, they contradict. The secularist believes baby murder is a "choice," and even virtuous, and that defending the unborn is immoral. The Islamist believes in the virtue of self-immolation and terroristic murder, precisely because the objects of his hatred are "evil" in that they do not submit to Allah. The Brahmin Hindu finds his conceptions of evil in the lower castes, and particularly among the "dalits" and other "untouchables"...the same ones the Christian missionary seeks to raise.
So evil is not an easy or universal attribution, at all. It finds its referents different, within different ideological systems.
Yes. But if secularism were true, how do they know that evil exists? How do they become so certain, when their own worldview denies it's possible for objective evil even to be real?Yet (you may note) their assignations, in their eyes, in their feelings, have the tone of religious certainty. They condemn evil and the very very bad with a nearly religious zeal. They are certain that they know what is evil and, by logical extension, what is good.
That's the three-headed kitten.
That's not my question. My question is simpler: if you really believe your secularism, why don't you act like you do?“If you do not have the external, established rule and the divine command, all of your assignations of good and evil cannot hold up”.
But I know the answer. They only believe it when it's convenient. In matters where it would be inconvenient, they simply drop it, and act as if they believe something quite different. That's hypocrisy, but it's one I'm grateful for. I wouldn't want secularists to act like secularism requires them to act, or to really believe what it implies they must believe. I'd rather they believed in some conventional morality -- such as Judeo-Christian morality -- than that they begin to operate unhypocritically, as amoral. It's better for us all.