04 Mar 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeI don't agree that of necessity ethical systems have to be rule based. There was a really interesting discussion in a thread a few months ago about ethics which touched on utilitarianism where bbarr demonstrated to me that it is problematic. There are a number of threads to the thread which you might find interesting but skip the first 5 or so pages, the part about Utilitarianism starts on page 12, post 14 - where I made three posts in succession, the post to start with is the last of the three: Thread 161485
No you are wrong, on all counts.
Morality is about creating rules and systems of behaviour and conduct that
create societies that maximise the wellbeing of the people in those societies.
It's about how sentient beings treat other sentient beings, and other creatures
and their shared environment generally.
Given that it becomes obvious that we ...[text shortened]... be possible.
They therefore are not, and cannot be, the product of a morally superior being.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
04 Mar 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI may well have not been clear on this point, but I said "...creating rules and systems of behaviour..."
I don't agree that of necessity ethical systems have to be rule based. There was a really interesting discussion in a thread a few months ago about ethics which touched on utilitarianism where bbarr demonstrated to me that it is problematic. There are a number of threads to the thread which you might find interesting but skip the first 5 or so pages, t ...[text shortened]... osts in succession, the post to start with is the last of the three: Thread 161485
emphasis on the systems.
04 Mar 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeI spent most of the time which I spent on that post digging out the relevant parts of the other thread. I wanted to emphasise the point and although I realised that you had the "and systems" statement but couldn't really be bothered to rephrase the sentence by then as it had already taken quite a long time finding the other thread and the entry points and it's the statements about utilitarianism that interest me more. The maximisation statement implies utilitarianism, which is basically defined in terms of maximising or minimising some utility function, in your case "human well-being" is the utility function to be maximised. Other ethical systems do not necessarily maximise anything, it isn't an automatic part of an ethical system.
I may well have not been clear on this point, but I said "...creating rules [b]and systems of behaviour..."
emphasis on the systems.[/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by RBHILLAs I said, the word "slave" has a pretty much totally negative connotation in modern US society. So I probably would not take the offer, if the word "slave" was used.
sonship a question for you? if you were going to become homeless and live on the street and someone said to you come and be my slave for 7 years and then I will help you get back on your feet would you do it? I personally would.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou asked me that before. I ignored you before.
Please explain this. What do I appear to have lied about?
If you don't remember you using that argument to debate against Fine Tuning and Intelligent Design in the universe for life, then you just don't remember.
If you want to go dig up those old exchanges and vindicate that you didn't use that argument, then go ahead and weasel your way out. I saw you utilizing such a probability argument to debate Fine Tuning.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
05 Mar 15
Originally posted by RBHILLOne of the things I have been considering is how much reason the Israelites had to trust God that He had all of their well-being in mind.
sonship a question for you? if you were going to become homeless and live on the street and someone said to you come and be my slave for 7 years and then I will help you get back on your feet would you do it? I personally would.
They had seen Him save them from the harshest slavery in Egypt.
They had seen Him deliver them from Pharaoh and the Egyptian army.
They had seen impossible odds overcome in a great deliverance.
They had every reason to trust that the laws God were giving them had their well-being in view - man, woman, and children.
Though I would admit some laws as revealing a no nonsense view of immorality, still everything about what they had just been through with God should have encouraged them that God was just.
Egypt was called by Yahweh as "the house of bondage" and "the iron furnace". God knew what human bondage and harsh slavery were.
05 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonshipNo sonship, you have made the accusatory claim and so it is up to you to dig out the old thread and justify your claim. If you aren't prepared to that then you've presented no evidence. What is more, and although I do remember stuff about dice from that thread as well, it may not have been twhitehead who was using the argument, I can't remember who was. So, in that case, you will have been making reckless accusations at best. At worst you've made a false one. So you'd better substantiate your claim or withdraw it or you'll have broken one of the ten commandments.
You asked me that before. I ignored you before.
If you don't remember you using that argument to debate against Fine Tuning and Intelligent Design in the universe for life, then you just don't remember.
If you want to go dig up those old exchanges and vindicate that you didn't use that argument, then go ahead and weasel your way out. I saw you utilizing such a probability argument to debate Fine Tuning.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by DeepThought
No sonship, you have made the accusatory claim and so it is up to you to dig out the old thread and justify your claim. If you aren't prepared to that then you've presented no evidence. What is more, and although I do remember stuff about dice from that thread as well, it may not have been twhitehead who was using the argument, I can't remember who was ...[text shortened]... better substantiate your claim or withdraw it or you'll have broken one of the ten commandments.
No sonship, you have made the accusatory claim and so it is up to you to dig out the old thread and justify your claim. If you aren't prepared to that then you've presented no evidence.
There are 99 posts so far in this thread.
Read back through them and tell me who accused who of being a liar first.
I wrote in response to twhitehead's puzzlement at my mentioning his argument -
" Now you appear to me to be the liar " or some wording virtually similar to that.
I wrote:
Now you appear to me as the liar.
Now you come along posturing objectivity saying I have to go back and run through that thread. Twhitehead called me a liar. I responded about a matter that he now appeared to me as the liar.
You took his word for it, I suppose, apart from rigorous evidence.
I saw no demand by you for documentation from him.
Now I'm suppose to be impressed that you "objectively" require fair play from me to do so ?
Nope.
He can say (in essence) " sonship you lied to me " and I can said afterward (in essence) " hold it, it appears that YOU lied to me now ".
You do the research if you think you're being so even handed and objective about it.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
05 Mar 15
Who made the first charge of liar here ?
twhitehead:
It wasn't a crack at all. I am dead serious. It has been explained to you in the past, yet you brought it up recently in a thread. I explained it again and instead of admitting your error you tried to brush it off and left. Hence my conclusion that you will probably bring it up some time in the future being non-the wiser (or just an unashamed liar).
In the subsequent post to that remark, I wrote, after referring to an old discusion, as he also did:
Now you appear to me as the liar.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Right before this comment that he appeared to me to be the liar, I wrote the following -
I may remember some minor adjustment here or there from any number of contrarians here. Maybe you had some valid point about science changing and still being good science.
The precise exchanges I do not recall.
I recalled enough of various discussions we have had hear on Science, when it related to talks about ID, to say
Maybe you had some valid point about science changing and still being good science.
I can discriminate between possible good science and Scientism as worldview for invalidating the existence of God.
I think as we move more into the 21rst Century the advances of science will more and more obviate that a Mind is behind the design of creation.
In this thread I have been arguing about the morality of slavery as to its limitations as ordained in the Old Testament laws.
05 Mar 15
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipIt was the thread on fine tuning I was thinking of. It's on the basis of the contents of that thread that your lie accusation stands or falls. Although I did look back through this thread some way, clearly not far enough - some of the exchanges were quite tedious. I would point out that twhitehead's post gave an either or condition. Either you will be none the wiser or you will be a liar. Which, while I don't agree with his post, isn't an outright accusation of lying, especially in view of the parentheses. Since you said "Now you appear to me as the liar." I'll withdraw my point.
Who made the first charge of liar here ?
twhitehead:
It wasn't a crack at all. I am dead serious. It has been explained to you in the past, yet you brought it up recently in a thread. I explained it again and instead of admitting your error you tried to brush it off and left. Hence my conclusion that you will probably bring it up some time i ...[text shortened]... ng to an old discusion, as he also did:
[quote] Now you appear to me as the liar.
I don't agree with the statement of his that you've quoted because I don't think that the arguments presented, or at least those of them that I read, would have been particularly convincing to a theist. So there's no reason for you to change your mind, and the none the wiser charge really isn't based on anything other than your refusal to agree with a debating opponent's post. Given your apparent level of emotional commitment to your faith you're hardly likely to agree to the arguments given. The most anyone can ask is that you (or whoever else) understands their position.
As an aside, I don't think that fine tuning arguments are particularly useful for someone attempting to prove the existence of God. Firstly, what they indicate is a problem with the theory and it is the theory that requires tuning to fit the universe, not the universe to fit the theory. From a physicist's point of view it's good news as it means there's work to be done - from a theist's point of view it doesn't really present a useful argument because there's something similar to begging the question going on. But suppose there really is a fine tuning problem. Imagine one of those display cupboards that have all the crockery on display. The plates are balanced on their edges on shelves and there's a thin wooden strip to prevent them sliding off. We can imagine a badly made one where if the plates aren't balanced on their edges just so they all fall down and break. What does that say about the carpenter? Apply this to the universe.
06 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonshipIt is very bad form to accuse someone of lying then refuse to explain where they lied.
You asked me that before. I ignored you before.
If you don't remember you using that argument to debate against Fine Tuning and Intelligent Design in the universe for life, then you just don't remember.
I recall an argument related to what you wrote, but what you wrote just doesn't make sense, hence my suggestion you might have made a typo.
If you want to go dig up those old exchanges and vindicate that you didn't use that argument, then go ahead and weasel your way out. I saw you utilizing such a probability argument to debate Fine Tuning.
Yes, I used a probability argument to debate fine tuning. I have not denied doing so.
What did I lie about?
Originally posted by sonshipYes, I accused you of being a liar first. And I was clear about what I was accusing you of lying about, and I am ready to justify the claim further if you wish.
Read back through them and tell me who accused who of being a liar first.
The fact that I accused you first does not automatically make it OK for you to make false claims about me being a liar, nor does it make it excusable for you to refuse to justify such claims or even point out where you think I lied.
As far as I can tell you are accusing me of lying when I asked you to explain a sentence you wrote that I think doesn't make sense. I suggested you might have a typo. Do you think I was lying that I thought you might have a typo?
I have gone back and looked at it again and again and it still looks like it contains a typo:
Tell us all about the probability of a dice sitting on six being one as a good argument against fine tuning.
It just doesn't make sense to me. What am I missing?
[edit]OK, I've read it a few more times, and I think I know what you are getting at. I probably argued that when you throw a die and it lands on six, then the after the fact probability of it being six is one. So maybe your sentence doesn't have a typo, but I honestly could not understand it at first, and merely asked for clarification. I did not lie.