Physical and chemical changes of substances can be observed, tested and reproduced by anyone anytime. Philosophical matters cannot be. You are that the discussions were having go back hundreds of years? I’m humble and honest enough to aknowledge that I will have the ability to end it once and for all.
Yes, I have. Not enough to write or speak fluently though.
Then layout the philosophical case for the metaphysical existence of a God or absolute morality. You are saying a lot without saying anything. Yes, I get it. You cant be 100% certain on anything. Yes I get it, philosophy exists and not everything is science. Ok. Great. Join the discussion. We are discussing our beliefs and why we believe them. This is getting really old and boring.
WHY do you believe what you do. HOW do you come to that conclusion.
I dont need to be lectured on the fact that no one is 100% certain on anything and that these are questions that span the ages of humanity.
Yeah, I noticed.
Decorum only arises from a widespread hue and cry.
Start something.
I do appreciate your decorum.
It is all very speculative. I’m personally convinced there will never anything amounting to a proof. Even if one day a scientist or group of scientists create life in the lab, that is a far cry from it happening in the vastness of our atmosphere with the random movement of the wind and the waves. Is the origin of life a miracle? Possibly. I couldn’t claim it for certain.
I’m personally convinced there will be. If we created life in a lab via simple chemicals and electromagnetic forces, that would prove that self replicating molecules CAN be created via natural processes. While that alone isnt 100% proof of it happening on earth, it is certainly more evidence and philosophically reasonable to assign a higher, more certain probability on it as what happened. In my opinion, of course
It’s funny too that I agree that philosophically speaking no beliefs are 100% certain, in the descartian sense, but even field theory / quantum theory is moving into probability waves, where reality is described as a probability output…especially when you get into crazier theories like no boundary proposal
I’m not looking to lecture you or anyone. Just trying to have conversation. I’m fully aware and respect that others have views different from my own. Regarding how I came to my views I thought I indicated it in earlier posts, at least to some extent. I don’t have what one would call a fully defined worldview per say. I guess I would call it more of a generic theism? Not sure if that is the best way of putting it? I spent years of my life reading as much as I could. Listening and reading many debates on these issues. I tried to read as much from an atheistic perspective as well as a Theistic perspective. From the Theistic perspective the author I found most influential was Ravi Zacharias. If you are looking for a well thought out reasoned view from a Christian perspective I would recommend him. Well I’m getting too tired as well, so that’s all I’ve got for now.
1 Like
Thanks and sorry I was getting impatient as I thought we were talking in circles too much
Where did I say neither had a choice?
You claimed 99% of the difference between them was due to context (which you obviously can’t prove). So 1% was due to volition. Also how do you view Ted Bundy?
I remember seeing the “do you lock your doors at night” YouTube video…seemed like he dodged the question. But for the sake of discussion, you did say did you not that absolute morality is the primary motivation for your belief in general theism?
Because volition is constrained by context.
You think you have absolute freedom of choice, but you don’t.
A simple example.
You’re taking a college course- there are 30students in the class and 30 seats in the classroom.
The first student to arrive can sit in any of the 30 seats. His/her volition is constrained by the number of desks (I suppose he/she could also stand).
The next student’s volition is even more constrained, and so on and so on.
The funny thing is, there are more constraints on choice than just the number of desks. You can actually write a mathematical formula as to how the desks will fill up- it’s called emergent behavior.
It’s why fish swim in schools without any one of them being the “leader”.
Why people crossing the street becomes a pattern that can be modeled, even though no one is telling you how and where to cross.
Simple constraints lead to complex behaviors…most of the time we’re completely unaware of what those constraints are.
An interesting thought experiment on the idea of knowledge of God…
Let us pretend that a child is born and placed in room. It is raised in that room with no knowledge of the outside world other than the people tasked with taking care of them. The idea of a deity is never spoken of around them, and they have no access to religious texts of any kind.
The question is this…is it possible for that person to live thier entire lives based merely on the premise of respect for the rights of others (which, without the idea of deity, is no longer a question of morals, but one of respect)? What I mean by that is that the child would be raised to not cause harm to the caregivers not because its the morally correct thing to do, but because it would violate the rights of the caregiver…things like that.
Also, another question that comes from this…would that person be doomed to eternity in Hell for not recognizing a god they never had any knowledge of? Without the opportunity to accept or deny Christ, what comes of that soul?
It reminds me of a line in a movie…I think it was Samuel L. Jackson who said, “There three kinds of information. There are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. That means there is ■■■■ you know you know, ■■■■ you know you don’t know, and ■■■■ you don’t even know you don’t know.”
How could one be held responsible for the last category, and if you can’t be, doesn’t it negate the idea of knowing or not knowing God?
Hmm I’d say some of the kindest things I’ve seen from people have been from young children. Of course, they get wild and mean too, but I think even very young children have an instinctual feeling of what’s right and wrong. I dont see why morality cant be instinctual in the same way that fear is. Even the most savage of predators display altruism to protect their offspring.
The Catholic Catechism teaches:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
In the same way, those who have not heard of God at all still have God’s law imprinted on their hearts. If they respond to this, they too may achieve salvation.
Emphasis mine…well that didn’t work, now did it? lol
How would one seek out something they have no knowledge of?
That is answered in the second part of my response, isn’t it? We all have a heart (or conscience). How well did that person follow what he knew to be good/right? That, of course, is for God to judge, as He knows the circumstances of that individual’s life.
But that doesn’t answer the question I asked, now does it?
If you take the Catechism at face value, it directly implies that one still has to seek out God with a sincere heart. That part comes before the part about being moved by grace and the dictates of thier conscience.
Is that to say that if a person does good things they are inherently seeking God even if they don’t know it…and if so, isn’t that kind of a cop out to the whole quest for a relationship with God to begin with?
So I ask again…how do you seek that which you know nothing of?
