Yeah, it’s a valid logical inference, but it’s a proof that comes up with two diametrically opposed conclusions if you use two different but equally valid premises(you’ve never come up with a valid reason for preferring one over the other). How useless is that? I’m rejecting the argument because of this.
Also, it’s a bit ingenuous to say that what you’re saying is provable, without mentioning this major flaw…
I (and others) have indeed come up with “valid” reasons for preferring one over the other. What you have failed to do is explain how it can be that that which cannot not exist possibly does not exist — a necessary presumption for adopting the opposing premise.
But I did mention it. What I said exactly was, " In fact, it is provable that the possibility of Its existence compels the actuality of Its existence". Perhaps you read carelessly.
Simple. That which cannot not exist has not been proven to exist in actuality, except by definition- by a tautology. You can only posit that there is such a being. If there is, then it exists in all possible worlds, if it doesn’t exist in any one possible world, then it doesn’t exist at all. All or nothing. This is all the MOP proves. I can’t understand why some people want to show this as proof that there is NE or God, when it doesn’t.
You’re mistaken. Definitions prove nothing. The proof is derived from inference, using the rules of the system (System 5).
Nonsense. The MOP proves nothing of the sort. It proves that if it is possible that God exists, then God exists in actuality.
It is not proof of NE at all. That is a different proof. It too has been shared here.
Yes, but the difference is that “right” and “wrong” are opinions. Either we are only physical, or we are dual in nature, or we are only spiritual, or some other option; this is not an opinion, so one’s preferral for one option isn’t a factor. Maybe I misinterpreted your use of the word “prefer”; if so, I apologize.
Sidebar: Even in the case of “right” and “wrong” I don’t quite understand “preferring” one or the other. I have many moral beliefs that I’d prefer not to have as they make my life more difficult, but I have reached my conclusions and cannot change them.
Precisely. Your proof is no proof, as you define your terms. It is merely a tautology.
No, it doesn’t. Like what I mentioned earlier, you have given no compelling reason to choose between the two different premises.
Even Pete Suber himself would laugh out loud at that.
Aside from the one I’ve given already (your bizarre decision to ignore it notwithstanding), there is another: your preferred premise is a substantive denial of a positive ontological proposition. That is, the negation of both the modal and the term resolve to the positive: ~(<>~A) AND ~(~<>A) -> <>A.
True, I see the difference. Yet Since the fact of which of these things is true is beyond our ability to determine at the present time, then by prefer I mean which conclusion I tend to favor until more evidence is available. I don’t mean choose one regardless of any evidence. It’s chooseing which theory you lean toward while still recognizeing the final conclusion has yet to be determined.
Does that make more sense?
really, what are the reasons for these actions?
It has been pointed out to me that evolution has nothing to say on questions of morality. In that case the comparison between other species and man in the area of conscious choice seems inappropriate. Interersting though.
However ME Earlier:
Hmmm, from Mother Thresa tending the lepers to genocide in Africa the spectrum of our choices seem to me {as in just my opinion} to go far beyond survival of the species and procreation.
Priceguy
Since neither of those choices nessecarlly reflect intelligence I assume you mean the ability to make a conscious choice is a side effect of our superior intelligence. Is that correct?
I think what Jesus was teaching wasn’t “worship me”. He was the living example of what mankind can become by listening to that still small voice I mentioned earlier. By discarding the illusion and living the truth.
Do you see the civil rights movements as a collective effort?
Thought about it. There are too many variables.
Male lions and bears kill cubs that they did not father to bring the female back into estrus in order to mate with her and pass on his genes. Mice and rats do it when overcrowded, probably due to stress. We’re not sure about crows or dolphins, but with dolphins it probably is the mating thing again.
We weren’t discussing evolution. You seemed to be saying humans were the least cooperative and least moral species in the present day. We are in fact one of the most cooperative, as Priceguy pointed out.
My opinion is that morals are innate pre-programming of the brain with rules that have been created by mutation and natural selection. If we didn’t have these rules (e.g. if we killed everyone we met on first sight), we would have been less successful. Because we have these rules we are still around. The ten commandments are just one (rather poor) way of putting some of them into words. No bible or religion or god is necessary.
Do you think that we have a conscious choice to make and that lions or bears don’t, and therefore we can have morals and they can’t? I suspect it as just as “immoral” to them to eat cubs that they fathered as it is “moral” to eat cubs they didn’t.
[QUOTE]
Earlier you said,
The explanations you’ve just given seem to be about survival to me. I’ve seen dogs kill some of their pups when the litter is too big. They do this to insure the survival of the others and themselves.
I’m not sure how I seemed to be saying that. I said nothing of the kind. You must have read a lot into my comments that wasn’t there.
The problem with that theory IMHO is that we don’t all have the same innate mutated and naturally selected rules.
Yes, thats pretty much how I see it. Animals for the most part operate on instinct and evolutionary established traits. Humans have these traits as well but also the intelligence and awareness to make conscious and fequently unconscious decisions. I think instinct best describes the lions actions.
Yes, and then I did misinterpret your use of the word “prefer”, and I do apologize. May I ask what evidence caused you to favour the conclusion in question?
What did he do that was so great? And how do you know, considering the scarcity of sources?
I suppose so. I also see the resistance to the civil rights movement as a collective effort.
Kindly give it another go. I think your answer to that question would lay bare our differences.
Yep. With intelligence comes that ability. To be absolutely honest, I believe that with intelligence comes the appearance of that ability, but that doesn’t matter for the purpose of this discussion.
He saved my life. I can see how that might be no big deal to you, but it impressed the hell out of me.
Actually, if you step out of this artificial Land of Atheism and ask around, and you’ll find quite many sources. He has saved the lives of lots of people.
Oh dear, it’s boot-strapping witnessing.
No offence Lib, but doesn’t so much of your argument on this topic strike you at all as arbitrary? The whole discussion on essences, for example, has meaning to you only because you have assigned it a particular meaning that you favour. Essentialism has about the same validity as Freud’s or Jung’s (highly arbitrary) systems. In fact, I would guess that anything short of physicalism is extremely difficult to discuss in such absolute terms because of the arbitrary nature of even the most well-throught systems (dualism? Well, we certainly have evidence of the physical, now where is the hypotehtical other half of a dualist system?).
How did God save your life? How did you know that it was god? And is it conceivable to you that it was not in fact god? That you may be mistaken on this subject? If the last answer is “yes”, don’t you think you should stop your typically snide view of points of view that rely less on faith and belief than yours obviously does? If, on the other hand, the answer is “no”, please explain how your certitude is rational as opposed to irrational (i.e., based on a powerfully emotional belief but ultimately arbitrary or similarly invalid in any system external to your own conviction).
I’m not sure I’m comfortable with that. I mean, we’ve only just met. :o
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
Try and explain this more closely. There is a soul/body-duality, and because we put too much emphasis on the body part, we create the moral/immoral duality which didn’t exist before?
QUOTE]
1 We are just these physical bodies
2 We are bodies with a spirit or soul
3We are soul or spirits that temporarily use bodies.
Which is true and which is just a perception {an untruth} that we act on as if it were the truth. If we believe our physical bodies are our prime identity and reality then our decisions are made accordingly. If we believe we are soul, that also will change how we make our choices. By belief I don’t mean a casual belief as in maybe, maybe not, I mean conviction such as “Fire is hot and can burn me”
On the SDMBs you’ll see statements that since we have no evidence then it’s arbitrary and irrelevant. I maintain that even without evidence, without proof of which of these satements is more true, we operate under the assumption of one of them.
If premise 1 is the truth then all spirtuality is just supersition to make us feel better.
If premise 3 is the truth then most of us are laboring within an illusion.
I don’t think we can be neutral on this. Because we must make choices, consciously or unconsciously we decide which premise we will operate under.
Moving forward based on a premise we believe to be the truth is how all human progress is made.
So, I believe 3 to be closest to the truth. as well as
as soul we are connected to God and each other in reality. We may operate as if this isn’t true but it remains a fundamental and eternal truth of who we really are. It’s like cells in the same body operating as if each was a seperate body. When we injure each other or ourselves we injure the body we are part of instead of nurturing it.
In God and soul there is no duality. It is what it is. Much like your comments about evolution. Our false perceptions don’t change the qualities of God. We simply limit ourselves within them until we let them go in favor of the truth.
Because we see ourselves as seperate from God and from each other we have developed duality to deal with this percieved seperation. Good bad Moral and immoral. When we finally awaken to our true selves as soul we won’t need that duality any longer. We will see it as part of the illusion we once embraced.
Well then, gut reaction, No I don’t think a child would invent these concepts.
I think a being would be drawn to certain things. Love as Liberal suggested.
I think it would be a sense of good or bad, true and untrue even without a concept of those labels.
The variables are enormous. Is the child cared for even without these labels?
Does it have food and shelter? Is it reated kindly, or unkindly, or somewhere in the middle. The variables make it seem an impossible suggestion to me.
[QUOTE]
He lived the truth which is described as premise three above.
There isn’t enough evidence for me to conclusively know. The story of Jesus may be wholly or partially fictional. The premise of his life and the truth it points to is not.
Exactly and the difference is what premise 3 is all about.