Beorn
Permabanned
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 5,005
But this is a conclusion based on an argument that assumes that "God exists" in the first place. Until you prove that your statement has no meaning.
We currently have no proof either way.
My point is that the two belief systems have two very different results. In one Truth and beauty exist in the other everything just is and beauty is just a name for biologically driven preferences and not a thing that exists independent of humans.
The issue with that line of reasoning is that 1) you assume that reason go for absolutes when that's actually more generally the view theists have about 'rational people'.
For reason to be worth a damn it must rest on truthful presumptions which require absolutes. If you don't believe in any absolutes I fail to see why you would take any meaningful position on the matter.
Unprovable would also apply to any of your claims, the difference is, no matter how unreliable the information we have is; models based on some possibly unreliable information (maybe our sense lie or we are manipulated etc etc.) is still infinitely more reliable than claims made with no information backing it.
I think you are misapplying what I'm saying. I'm not saying claims are unprovable I'm saying our basic functions our unreliable in themselves. What we sense and know the very process of data collection is marred with uncertainty. I addressed this with you before in the link provided above.
So claims with what you call "information" backing them are not more reliable than any other claim.
On a side note, attacking thesis 1 doesn't make thesis 2 true, common fallacy.
I never said I'm right because you're wrong.
And that's bad .. why ?
The point is there is no bad.
It's like saying that pedophiles don't exist because I don't like the idea.
But, that would be true. In a sense it wouldn't exist. The word pedophile is totally wrapped up in value judgements. One would never use the word on a an older male chimp molesting a young male chimp. So if nobody liked the idea of pedophilia the value driven concept would vanish, even if men continued to molest young boys and girls.
Also the whole bit about god being necessary for values etc is silly. Your whole line of argument is based upon the assumption that things can only have one 'function' at a time while everyday life shows that's never the case (same for the link you gave me).
Ever heard about relativity ?
This is completely confusing. How does my argument rest on the idea that everything must have one function at a time?
And if one looks at the supposed 'word of God' (abraham based religions) the rules and lessons aren't even consistent with each other.
Yes, they are. You don't want to challenge me here.