Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 1:54 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 11:12 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 11:27 pm"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth."

Do you have any objective source other than the Bible to corroborate this?

Science. Observation. Spiritual experience. Reason. Mathematics. Archaeology. Those are good companions when one is making a decision.

Well, as Polanyi, who's Science, Faith and Society you cite approvingly said, all knowledge is personal. The only person you have convinced in over ten years is yourself. Science is the processing of observation - you can see things and measure. How you interpret what you see is entirely subjective. Spiritual experience is obviously personal. Reason starts with personal premises. Mathematics doesn't prove anything except more mathematics, and archaeology shows comprehensively that the Biblical account of creation is true. So that's a no.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 1:54 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 11:12 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 11:27 pmLet's start at the start.

I did suggest this, but at the time you were less in favour.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 12:39 pmIf we want to start at the real beginning, the beginning of my "establishing" of things was the gospels, not Genesis.

Anyway...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 11:27 pm"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth."

Do you have any objective source other than the Bible to corroborate this?

Science.

Don't trust science, whatever you do.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 2:15 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 1:54 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 11:12 am Do you have any objective source other than the Bible to corroborate this?

Science. Observation. Spiritual experience. Reason. Mathematics. Archaeology. Those are good companions when one is making a decision.

Well, as Polanyi, who's Science, Faith and Society you cite approvingly said, all knowledge is personal.

Scientific knowledge, of course: that's what he's speaking of. But "personal" doesn't, according to Polanyi" mean "feelings" or "unreliable" or "relativistic," or "merely perspectival," far less "untrustworthy." What Polanyi's pointing out is that all knowing involves personal commitment of the knower. In other words, here is no position of arid Cartesian detachment that a person can have, but he can genuinely know things by investing actively in participation with them. But Polanyi was a great practitioner and believer in science. He was not dissing knowing or its association with science.

How you interpret what you see is entirely subjective.

That's very different from what Polanyi argued. He would have said the opposite. That's why he used the word "personal" rather than "subjective" or "relativistic." He was very deliberate about that. And I have to ask, did you read him, or are you just riffing off what you (erroneously) suppose his title might imply?

Spiritual experience is obviously personal.

Yes, quite so. But not less reliable because of that.

Reason starts with personal premises.

Of course. Reason is the disciplining by logic of empirical observations and theoretical beliefs. But what of that? It's part of the package. You wouldn't want to advocate going without reason, would you?

Mathematics doesn't prove anything except more mathematics,

You'll find that's not true at all, I'm afraid.

You're right that math is a closed system of symbols: and that might lead you to suggest what you do. But you're quite wrong to suppose that the deductions yielded by math have such an irrelevant relation to the empirical world. If what you were saying were true, there would be no discipline such as engineering: for math would be irrelevant to bridge-building, hydrodynamics or cosmological calculation. And it very clearly is highly applicable to those real-world situations. In fact, it's indispensible there.

And math tells us with absolute certainty that there had to be a cosmic beginning. That's logically inescapable. So math is actually very helpful in proving the Creation event.

...and archaeology shows comprehensively that the Biblical account of creation is true.

I think you meant to express doubt or cynicism about the archaological findings. But that's unwarranted. Perhaps you had some specific finding in mind? Or perhaps you meant that when archaeology shows that the events God told us about really happened, that it wouldn't count, for some reason?

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 2:29 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 1:54 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 11:12 am
I did suggest this, but at the time you were less in favour.
Anyway...
Do you have any objective source other than the Bible to corroborate this?

Science.

Don't trust science, whatever you do.

Yes. Always trust the Anthony Faucis of the world. They're "the Science."

On a tangential note, there's a Biblical principle that says basically, "if you rebuild something you just destroyed, you prove you screwed up." (Gal. 2:18). So we should ask the people who believed in "the Science" of the COVID panic, "Where are your masks now? What happened to social distancing now? Where are your endless 'vaccinations' now? Where did the ventillators go? Where are the closed businesses, churches and schools now? Where are the extra hospital beds and temporary emergency facilities you built? Why are you now acting like COVID was no more than a bad case of the flu? How is it that you, who claimed to be "the Science" have so reversed yourselves, as we see manifested before us today?

Answer: what we were sold as "the Science" was actually no more than an appeal to phony authority and bad information. So "science," small "s" is a very good thing: but what gets called today, "the Science," as in the phrase "follow the Science" is generally a crock of mendacious political rubbish. And the proof is what the Faucis of the world are doing right now.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 3:20 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 2:29 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 1:54 pm
Science.

Don't trust science, whatever you do.

Yes. Always trust the Anthony Faucis of the world. They're "the Science."

On a tangential note, there's a Biblical principle that says basically, "if you rebuild something you just destroyed, you prove you screwed up." (Gal. 2:18). So we should ask the people who believed in "the Science" of the COVID panic,

It's Covid rant time again, I see.

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 4:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 3:20 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 2:29 pm

Don't trust science, whatever you do.

Yes. Always trust the Anthony Faucis of the world. They're "the Science."

On a tangential note, there's a Biblical principle that says basically, "if you rebuild something you just destroyed, you prove you screwed up." (Gal. 2:18). So we should ask the people who believed in "the Science" of the COVID panic,

It's Covid rant time again, I see.

Not a "rant." And I don't care about COVID. Just pointing out an obvious fact, as well as the manifest abuse of the word "Science."

We get lied to with that word all the time, as Fauci et al are certainly demonstrating right in front of us, right now. So when people invoke "the Science," we always need to ask, "What do you mean by 'the Science'?"

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 4:19 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 4:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 3:20 pm Yes. Always trust the Anthony Faucis of the world. They're "the Science."

On a tangential note, there's a Biblical principle that says basically, "if you rebuild something you just destroyed, you prove you screwed up." (Gal. 2:18). So we should ask the people who believed in "the Science" of the COVID panic,

It's Covid rant time again, I see.

Not a "rant." And I don't care about COVID.

No, of course you don't.

We get lied to with that word all the time, as Fauci et al are certainly demonstrating right in front of us,

Just in case somebody missed it.

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 4:33 pm

We get lied to with that word all the time, as Fauci et al are certainly demonstrating right in front of us,

Just in case somebody missed it.

Thanks. You've made my point in big print. A little "overkill," maybe; but appreciated, nonetheless.

So you said that you use science to corroborate your beliefs about creation.

And now you trash science.

Must make sense to someone.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 9:18 pm

Yes, for mere mortals, that can an important distinction to make.

On the other hand, in choosing those behaviors, you first have to be caught doing them, right? Whereas the Christian God is said to be omniscient. And "down here" if you are caught breaking the law you can be sent to prison. Whereas with God you can end up suffering excruciating torment in Hell for all of eternity.

Point number 1 to settle is whether it is the business of people to know about the sexual activities of others.

That's your point number one. Mine is to note that down through ages and across the globe, human communities have configured that social necessity into any number of ofttimes conflicting folkways, mores, customs, traditions and laws.

Then the part where, what, philosophers pin down the most rational sexual behavior?

Again, this will all generally revolve around one or another historical and cultural intertwining of might makes right, right makes might and/or democracy and the rule of law. And for each of us as individuals the part that revolves in turn around dasein and the Benjamin Button Syndrome.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 9:18 pm And it seems that it is appropriate to some degree in order to protect children and others from molestation, rape and harassment.
Can that be agreed on?

Up to a point, for all practical purposes, sure. But ultimately you are convinced that there are certain behaviors here that are, what, necessarily wrong because there is an objective morality pertaining to human sexuality and these behaviors are inherently irrational and immoral?

For some here, no doubt, that includes masturbation, adultery, incest, homosexuality, transgenders, fornication, sister wives, fetishes, S and M, miscegenation and on and on and on.

Edit:

Let's focus in on masturbation...

"Today, Roman Catholic (including Eastern Catholic), Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and some Protestant Christians consider masturbation to be a sin. Many Protestant churches in Northern and Western Europe and some Protestant churches in Northern America and in Australia/New Zealand see masturbation as not a sin." wiki

And this:

https://www.joinrelay.app/blog/will-i-g ... eated%20us.

Note to IC:

Please peruse the arguments made above and get back to us on what a True Christian is obligated to subscribe to.

Or else?

Really, in your view, is masturbation a sin able to send you packing for Hell?

And how is it not important that mere mortals pin this down with so much at stake on both sides of the grave?

Point number 1 to settle is whether it is the business of people to know about the sexual activities of others.

That's your point number one. Mine is to note that down through ages and across the globe, human communities have configured that social necessity into any number of ofttimes conflicting folkways, mores, customs, traditions and laws.

Why would you need to note that when everybody already knows it and nobody is disputing it???

And it seems that it is appropriate to some degree in order to protect children and others from molestation, rape and harassment.
Can that be agreed on?

Up to a point, for all practical purposes, sure.

Good.

Then the aim of the discussion is to consider what amount of monitoring of people's sexual activity is appropriate and how it might be done.

Let's focus in on masturbation...

Okay, you and IC go at it.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 10:44 pm

Point number 1 to settle is whether it is the business of people to know about the sexual activities of others.

That's your point number one. Mine is to note that down through ages and across the globe, human communities have configured that social necessity into any number of ofttimes conflicting folkways, mores, customs, traditions and laws.

Why would you need to note that when everybody already knows it and nobody is disputing it???

Huh?

Maybe I'm missing your point here, but mine is that any number of moral objectivists [God or No God] subsume these "ofttimes conflicting folkways, mores, customs, traditions and laws" pertaining to human sexuality into their own dogmatic assessment of the One True Path.

Some people are disgusted by sexual behaviors that others revel in. Then what, Mr. Philosopher?

And it seems that it is appropriate to some degree in order to protect children and others from molestation, rape and harassment.
Can that be agreed on?

Up to a point, for all practical purposes, sure. But ultimately you are convinced that there are certain behaviors here that are, what, necessarily wrong because there is an objective morality pertaining to human sexuality and these behaviors are inherently irrational and immoral?

For some here, no doubt, that includes masturbation, adultery, incest, homosexuality, transgenders, fornication, sister wives, fetishes, S and M, miscegenation and on and on and on.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 10:44 pmGood.

Then the aim of the discussion is to consider what amount of monitoring of people's sexual activity is appropriate and how it might be done.

That's your aim, perhaps, but mine revolves more around philosophers, using the tools at their disposal, exploring the extent to which, re those like Kant, they can discern what is categorically and imperatively moral or immoral pertaining to sex.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 10:58 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 5:47 am 1. The killing of humans [especially impulsively and arbitrary] is a moral issue.

No. it's not - unless we assume (in this case) moral wrongness. So this premise begs the question.

How could you deny this simple fact?
I don't agree with the point that morality is critically related to right or wrong because these two terms are too loose, i.e. like 'one man's meat is another man's poison'.
I define morality as the management of evil [to eliminate or prevent] to enable its related good to emerge.
The 'killing of humans by humans' is an evil act.
Therefore the 'killing of humans by humans' is a moral issue that must be dealt with.
To resolve this moral issue, we need recognize it is objective moral facts so to act as a standard and guide for moral progress, i.e. zero killing of humans or keeping it to the optimum minimum.

2. Malignant psychopaths who kill humans [immoral] on impulse has some sort of damaged or abnormal brain the the majority.

This is a factual assertion with a truth-value, but no moral entailment.

3. Scientists had linked psychopathy its basis to the neural set up in the physical brain, thus this objective.

Ditto the above.

Ditto the above.
When the above biological and psychological facts are inputted into a moral FSERC, it emerges as an objective moral fact.

4. When the problem of malignant psychopathy is cured, correspondingly we would have resolved a moral issue re killing of humans.

Question-begging, as in 1.

I have explained 'a-million' times how scientific facts can be imputed and converted to moral facts via an objective human-based FSERC.

5. In this specific case, morality is objective.

Bollocks. You don't understand the how a deductive argument works. I recommend a logic 101 course or simple text.

Don't try to argue with kindi stuff [1+1=2] here.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 11:33 am Bollocks. You don't understand the how a deductive argument works. I recommend a logic 101 course or simple text. Here's your invalid and unsound argument.

P1 X is a moral issue.
P2 To reduce the incidence of X is to resolve this moral issue.
C Therefore, in the case of X, morality is objective.

The missing moral premise is: X is morally wrong/bad/wicked. And the fact that you offer this ridiculous argument demonstrates your philosophical and logical incompetence.

Strawman again - the '>million' times

My argument [non-syllogistic] is this;

• 1. What is objective is a resultant from a human-based FSERC [grounded on a collective of humans]. [argued elsewhere]
  
  2. X is a confirmed scientific fact via the scientific FSERC, thus objective. [biology, neuroscience, psychology]
  
  3. When X [scientific fact] is inputted into a moral FSERC [1] it follows as an objective moral fact.
  
  4. Therefore X [originally a scientific fact] is an objective moral fact [i.e. a moral issue].

In the above 4 follows from 3, 2 and I i.e. deductive.

You keep constructing strawman[s] because you cannot understand [not agree with] my argument; plus because you are trapped in an ideology from an evolutionary default, i.e. very primal and primitive thinking.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2024 3:59 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 11:33 am Bollocks. You don't understand the how a deductive argument works. I recommend a logic 101 course or simple text. Here's your invalid and unsound argument.

P1 X is a moral issue.
P2 To reduce the incidence of X is to resolve this moral issue.
C Therefore, in the case of X, morality is objective.

The missing moral premise is: X is morally wrong/bad/wicked. And the fact that you offer this ridiculous argument demonstrates your philosophical and logical incompetence.

Strawman again - the '>million' times

My argument [non-syllogistic] is this;

• 1. What is objective is a resultant from a human-based FSERC [grounded on a collective of humans]. [argued elsewhere]
  
  2. X is a confirmed scientific fact via the scientific FSERC, thus objective. [biology, neuroscience, psychology]
  
  3. When X [scientific fact] is inputted into a moral FSERC [1] it follows as an objective moral fact.
  
  4. Therefore X [originally a scientific fact] is an objective moral fact [i.e. a moral issue].

In the above 4 follows from 3, 2 and I i.e. deductive.

You keep constructing strawman[s] because you cannot understand [not agree with] my argument; plus because you are trapped in an ideology from an evolutionary default, i.e. very primal and primitive thinking.

1 You say this is non-syllogistic, but that the conclusion is deductive. Make your mind up.

2 Your P1 is false, so the argument is unsound. End of story.

3 Your P3 is laughable. 'A scientific fact 'inputted' a moral 'FSERC' is outputted as a moral fact.'

4 The terms 'moral fact' and 'moral issue' are not synonymous.