Jump to content
Obscure_Trash

Religion

Recommended Posts

But the thing is that if I had made a decision - either way - I would have no way to be certain in advance what the actual result of that decision would be. It might not be what you might expect. To be extreme - the mother's buggy might slip and fall in front of the train anyway and take everyone out including herself; a fire truck might come around the corner and hit the train.... There are ALWAYS unintended consequences to every action.

 

Also there are passages that god sent and created evil. So therefore, evil came from god. A perfect being cannot create something imperfect. A benevolent being cannot create malevolence.

Says who ? Maybe for perfection we NEED evil as a balance.

Edited by fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post
But the thing is that if I had made a decision - either way - I would have no way to be certain in advance what the actual result of that decision would be. It might not be what you might expect. To be extreme - the mother's buggy might slip and fall in front of the train anyway and take everyone out including herself; a fire truck might come around the corner and hit the train.... There are ALWAYS unintended consequences to every action.

 

 

Says who ? Maybe for perfection we NEED evil as a balance.

Except in that case, the results would not be your doing. It's actions that are moral or not moral, not the unforeseen consequences of those actions. If you act to save the passengers on the train, only to have them die anyway because of someone else's actions, whether deliberate or unintentional, their deaths are no longer your responsibility. You acted morally, and the consequences are unrelated to your actions.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Says who ? Maybe for perfection we NEED evil as a balance.

Not as much that, but perhaps. I'm asking though, beings isn't god portrayed by himself and a lot of people as benevolent? I'm not disagreeing with you I'm just suggesting, if god was a benevolent/perfect being then that would mean he deliberately ensured that sin would enter to world to create a "balance" an unnecessary one at that, beings that this would make people so corrupt?

Edited by BlightWyvern

Share this post


Link to post

We gave you a clear, by-the-definition ultimatum. You only have time to save A: a trainload of people or B: A mother and her child. Doing nothing results in both deaths. Which option is morally correct? Save the train, the mother and son die. Save the mother and son, the train passengers die. You chose to do nothing and let many people die when it could have been avoided. In the words of GLaDOS, "You monster."

Edited by PrinceVertigo

Share this post


Link to post
Lets take another example then, shall we? A train is running loose down a track towards an interchange. If you take no action, then multiple adults on a level crossing will be killed. You have the option to change the points at the interchange, but doing so will cause the train to run over a single mother with her child in a pram.

 

The logical, rational thing to do would be to change the points, would it not? Sparing the lives of multiple productive adults in place of a single adult and an unproductive child. But would you do it? And would taking that action be moral?

No and probubbly, but why do I care again? Unless there's some way to get both, I'm not gonna bother to do anything

Share this post


Link to post

Self preservation and group preservation are rational and those were exactly what I was describing. Don't pin you not understanding on me not describing it properly. It's about survival and that is exactly what I outlined here.

 

Rationality is simply logic and reasoning. It's looking at the possible outcomes of an action to see how it affects others. If you aren't able to determine weither an action is rational or not, it further proves the point that humans are irrational.

 

Let's take the example of killing someone in self defense. Well, if you do not kill them, what happens? You'll die. Others will die. There will probably be a man hunt of police trying to track down this individual. It'll be a waste or resources and life.

If you kill them, what will happen? In exchange for one death, others wont have died. You'll live. The investigation by the police will be limited. That is a rational killing. The course of action has the least amount of resources wasted.

 

See? Rational thinking. No emotions required, just logic and reasoning.

Are there universal laws of logic? How do you know your reasoning is valid?

Edited by philpot123

Share this post


Link to post

There are probably mothers and sons and daughters and dads and all sorts of people on that train. I would probably try to save the train full of people if I couldn't do something to save both.

Share this post


Link to post

Are there universal laws of logic? How do you know your reasoning is valid?

What's your reasoning for this? If you have one, how do you know your reasoning is valid? xP

Edited by BlightWyvern

Share this post


Link to post

You know, in the panic of the moment, the majority of people here would freeze up, what was rational wouldn't matter, they'd pick one and spend the rest of their life trying to rationalize it to themselves, whether they were correct or not. And maybe there are some of you who would do exactly as you say rationally and without regret, but no one shall know for certain until it has happened

Share this post


Link to post

Are there universal laws of logic? How do you know your reasoning is valid?

The Law of Identity

The Law of Non-Contradiction

The Law of Excluded Middle

 

 

Laws of Logic

Basic Logic sequences

 

Are these what you are looking for? Reasonings can be verified just like Calculus problems. It's all about Ps and Qs. The world is just one big mathematical proof.

Share this post


Link to post
The Law of Identity

The Law of Non-Contradiction

The Law of Excluded Middle

 

 

Laws of Logic

Basic Logic sequences

 

Are these what you are looking for? Reasonings can be verified just like Calculus problems. It's all about Ps and Qs. The world is just one big mathematical proof.

Logic is always interesting and fun to play with. One thing to remember, though is that those equations use variables - and if you are not using the same starting references as me, we will come to very different conclusions.

 

For example, what is 3x4? Some would say 12, others might say 14, others might say B, and still others might say 22. All are correct answers, depending on what base you use for counting (10, 8, 16, 5).

 

What you consider to be chaos may be smooth functionality to me, and vice versa. What do you use as an absolute reference? Yourself, as you are in the center of everything you experience? How then do you related to others who come from a very different place? And if not yourself, then what? How do you know you can rely on it as an absolute standard reference?

Share this post


Link to post

Logic is always interesting and fun to play with.  One thing to remember, though is that those equations use variables - and if you are not using the same starting references as me, we will come to very different conclusions.

 

For example, what is 3x4?  Some would say 12, others might say 14, others might say B, and still others might say 22.  All are correct answers, depending on what base you use for counting (10, 8, 16, 5).

 

What you consider to be chaos may be smooth functionality to me, and vice versa.  What do you use as an absolute reference?  Yourself, as you are in the center of everything you experience?  How then do you related to others who come from a very different place?  And if not yourself, then what?  How do you know you can rely on it as an absolute standard reference?

If 3x4 equals anything but 12, you have some serious math-related problems. 3 times 4 is ONLY EVER going to equal 12. I'm in Calculus 2 and never has 3x4 ever equaled anything but 12. You might want to review your times tables.

 

The point of logic is that, like a mathematical proof, it must be proven 100% of the time. 1+1 will ALWAYS equal 2. You're trying to argue semantics here but logic has very strict principles and must be proved, otherwise it is false. The absolute reference is its validity and soundness. No matter how you use it, logic is meant to ensure that whenever you multiply 3x4, you get 12. Otherwise, it is not logical.

Share this post


Link to post

Are there universal laws of logic? How do you know your reasoning is valid?

Past a certain point, does it matter? Do we absolutely need some sort of ulterior being to compare our values to in order for them to be valid, or can we just observe cause, action, and effect? Because, really, in the end, that's all that matters.

 

The point of logic is that, like a mathematical proof, it must be proven 100% of the time. 1+1 will ALWAYS equal 2. You're trying to argue semantics here but logic has very strict principles and must be proved, otherwise it is false. The absolute reference is its validity and soundness. No matter how you use it, logic is meant to ensure that whenever you multiply 3x4, you get 12. Otherwise, it is not logical.

 

Are we arguing logic in terms of humans? It's quite possible for logic to lead to two or more different conclusions, depending on what you weigh more and why. Humans and situations aren't as clear-cut as computer systems or numbers.

Edited by High Lord November

Share this post


Link to post

If 3x4 equals anything but 12, you have some serious math-related problems. 3 times 4 is ONLY EVER going to equal 12. I'm in Calculus 2 and never has 3x4 ever equaled anything but 12. You might want to review your times tables.

 

The point of logic is that, like a mathematical proof, it must be proven 100% of the time. 1+1 will ALWAYS equal 2. You're trying to argue semantics here but logic has very strict principles and must be proved, otherwise it is false. The absolute reference is its validity and soundness. No matter how you use it, logic is meant to ensure that whenever you multiply 3x4, you get 12. Otherwise, it is not logical.

You might want to learn to count in a base other than 10. Then you might pick up on my real calculation error, that 3x4 should be C (not B, because A is 10) in base 16. But I'm not very familiar with counting in base 16, so I'm more prone to making an error there. In base 8, 3x4 becomes 14 (1x8 +4x1); in base 5, it becomes 22 (2x5 + 2x1). And if you apply more advanced equations, the numbers become even more difficult to follow.

 

My point is that the point of reference that you start from is critical to how you interpret something. What you consider order may be total chaos to me, and vice versa. I do not care what universal logic you use; if you start upside down or backwards relative to me, your reasoning will not carry me in the same absolute direction as it will you. That is why I keep asking what your absolute reference is.

 

You can think of it as orientation in a space defined by infinite dimensions. If everyone must have the same absolute reference, how is it defined? And if it is difficult to describe someone in terms of that absolute reference, should we be terrified of them or interested to learn about them?

 

Once the reference is known, then the scaling/counting base becomes the next question. Some like to work with imaginary numbers, some always describe things in a negative direction, some always use positive, some encompass both positive/negative, and some like to go off in infinite directions. You've said you use chaos/order; does it matter if someone uses preservation of furry critters as their measure? Or if someone uses how actions impact feelings, instead of how it impacts herd survivability? Definitely.

 

In the train scenario, if the people on the train do not know what is coming but the mother and child can see it, someone trying to prevent fear might destroy the train instead. Trains have been stopped to rescue kittens, causing the inconvenience of hundreds of people. Some argued that the kittens should just have been run over. What does the chaos theory say about those kittens?

Edited by Awdz Bodkins

Share this post


Link to post

You might want to learn to count in a base other than 10.  Then you might pick up on my real calculation error, that 3x4 should be C (not B, because A is 10) in base 16.  But I'm not very familiar with counting in base 16, so I'm more prone to making an error there.  In base 8, 3x4 becomes 14 (1x8 +4x1); in base 5, it becomes 22 (2x5 + 2x1).  And if you apply more advanced equations, the numbers become even more difficult to follow.

 

My point is that the point of reference that you start from is critical to how you interpret something.  What you consider order may be total chaos to me, and vice versa.  I do not care what universal logic you use; if you start upside down or backwards relative to me, your reasoning will not carry me in the same absolute direction as it will you.  That is why I keep asking what your absolute reference is. 

 

You can think of it as orientation in a space defined by infinite dimensions.  If everyone must have the same absolute reference, how is it defined?  And if it is difficult to describe someone in terms of that absolute reference, should we be terrified of them or interested to learn about them?

 

Once the reference is known, then the scaling/counting base becomes the next question.  Some like to work with imaginary numbers, some always describe things in a negative direction, some always use positive, some encompass both positive/negative, and some like to go off in infinite directions.

But no matter what base you are using, the answers are still equal. That's like saying the cup is half full is not equal to the cup is half empty. You're saying that with different bases, you'll get different answers. But those answers are all equal and simply expressed in different matters.

 

In base 10, we have 12. In base 3, we have 110. But those are still the same thing and that's the point. They're different languages used to express the same term. Using a different language does not make the meaning of the word any different. Blue=Azul=Bleu.

 

You're trying to prove that the point of reference somehow makes the numbers different when they aren't. You're argument is, in fact, the exact OPPOSITE of what you are trying to prove since using these different language terms gives you the same relative answer. You need a better example of this point of reference you keep talking about since this math base only furthers my point that you'll get the same answer if you derive things logically. What you're trying to say now is that Blue does not equal Azul when they have the same meaning, only expressed in different words.

 

I've already stated that humans are irrational creatures capable of rational thoughts. Whenever I talk about logic, I cast aside my human emotions to answer the problem. Emotions are not logical. You cannot use them in a logic argument. Without emotions, it doesn't matter if the person getting killed is a child or an adult or whatever. All that matters is the number of people who die as a result of the options and choosing the one with less wasted resources. Even if those resources are kittens.

Edited by pudding

Share this post


Link to post

But no matter what base you are using, the answers are still equal. That's like saying the cup is half full is not equal to the cup is half empty. You're saying that with different bases, you'll get different answers. But those answers are all equal and simply expressed in different matters.

 

In base 10, we have 12. In base 3, we have 110. But those are still the same thing and that's the point. They're different languages used to express the same term. Using a different language does not make the meaning of the word any different. Blue=Azul=Bleu.

 

You're trying to prove that the point of reference somehow makes the numbers different when they aren't. You're argument is, in fact, the exact OPPOSITE of what you are trying to prove since using these different language terms gives you the same relative answer. You need a better example of this point of reference you keep talking about since this math base only furthers my point that you'll get the same answer if you derive things logically. What you're trying to say now is that Blue does not equal Azul when they have the same meaning, only expressed in different words.

 

I've already stated that humans are irrational creatures capable of rational thoughts. Whenever I talk about logic, I cast aside my human emotions to answer the problem. Emotions are not logical. You cannot use them in a logic argument. Without emotions, it doesn't matter if the person getting killed is a child or an adult or whatever. All that matters is the number of people who die as a result of the options and choosing the one with less wasted resources.

But the language absolutely matters if you are going to communicate with someone.

 

So I interpret what you say as, your god (what you revere most) is human life, and you will always choose whatever preserves the most human lives.

 

How do you factor in quality of life to that? If the people on the train were all suffering from stage 4 cancer, would that make a difference in whether or not you wipe out the mother and child? Or is that a bad example, because in terms of preserving human life, terminally ill cancer patients are a waste of resources already?

Edited by Awdz Bodkins

Share this post


Link to post

What's your reasoning for this? If you have one, how do you know your reasoning is valid? xP

I'm not the one making logic claims and value judgments at the moment, I'm just asking questions ^.^ but if you'd like to know what I consider the basis for all human reason, you're welcome to PM me and I can discuss it further.

 

The Law of Identity

The Law of Non-Contradiction

The Law of Excluded Middle

 

 

Laws of Logic

Basic Logic sequences

 

Are these what you are looking for? Reasonings can be verified just like Calculus problems. It's all about Ps and Qs. The world is just one big mathematical proof.

I'm aware of what the laws of logic are, I was trying to determine whether or not you believed they exist and are universal. Based on your response, I'll assume yes and work from there. It's lovely that you believe in logic, that makes conversation so much easier. If these laws of logic are universal and immutable, that is they apply to everyone and don't change from person to person, where did they come from? Also, are the laws of logic physical or non-physical? You seem to believe they exist, but can you touch them or see them?

 

Past a certain point, does it matter? Do we absolutely need some sort of ulterior being to compare our values to in order for them to be valid, or can we just observe cause, action, and effect? Because, really, in the end, that's all that matters.

While you're observing cause, action, and effect, how do you know you can trust your observations?

Edited by philpot123

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not the one making logic claims and value judgments at the moment, I'm just asking questions ^.^ but if you'd like to know what I consider the basis for all human reason, you're welcome to PM me and I can discuss it further.

Oh whoops. Didn't read the past couple posts. x3. Perhaps then.

Share this post


Link to post
Oh whoops. Didn't read the past couple posts. x3. Perhaps then.

Not a problem! I'm usually going around making those types of assertions, so your assumption was reasonable wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post

But the language absolutely matters if you are going to communicate with someone.

 

So I interpret what you say as, your god (what you revere most) is human life, and you will always choose whatever preserves the most human lives.

 

How do you factor in quality of life to that?  If the people on the train were all suffering from stage 4 cancer, would that make a difference in whether or not you wipe out the mother and child?  Or is that a bad example, because in terms of preserving human life, terminally ill cancer patients are a waste of resources already?

Mmmmm no. Not even close. I think I've said this before but I am a Nihilist. This means that I think that no matter what humans or anything else do, we will never accomplish anything worthwhile. We won't make an impact on the universe and nothing we can ever hope to accomplish will do anything meaningful. This applies for everything, not just humans.

 

But more than anything, I do not want this opinion. It's the one I have but I hate it with ever fiber of my being. What I value most of all is resources because I hope that something out there can actually accomplish something something of value and leave some sort of impact on the universe.

 

 

Throwing additional factors into the train factor is meaningless. What if the people on the train were all criminals? What if the baby was going to turn into a serial killer? These are things you can't possibly know and must evaluate at face value. I see multiple lives vs two lives. Not specifically human lives, just lives. The greater number of lives outweighs the lesser.

 

My grandfather had stage 4 lung cancer and lived for five years with it. During that time, he never stopped working until a week before he died. He made millions of dollars working. He functioned better than quite a few younger, healthier people I know. Your argument here about human life is like saying that... old people are a waste of resources because they aren't as physically fit as others and will likely die before others when there are many elderly people who are fitter than younger people these days (Especially with out obesity problem in America). Was his life worth less than someone else because of his age? Because of his illness? Because of things you couldn't possibly know just by looking at him?

 

~~~

 

Laws of logic are not subjected to the whims of individuals. They exist outside of the individual mind-frame and instead views are subjected to them (Instead of them being subjected to views). They have always existed (like other laws) and were simply discovered and defined in terms that humans understand. It is not like humans invented logic and before that it didn't exist. They existed always and humans simply translated them into words they can understand and comprehend. In short; they did not come from anywhere. They always existed.

Share this post


Link to post

Laws of logic are not subjected to the whims of individuals. They exist outside of the individual mind-frame and instead views are subjected to them (Instead of them being subjected to views). They have always existed (like other laws) and were simply discovered and defined in terms that humans understand. It is not like humans invented logic and before that it didn't exist. They existed always and humans simply translated them into words they can understand and comprehend. In short; they did not come from anywhere. They always existed.

"They have always existed." Wow. You're sounding almost like you believe in a deity, you're just calling it logic.

 

Did the laws of logic preexist before the universe's beginning, or was there ever a point when they did not exist? How do you know these laws of logic exist?

Edited by philpot123

Share this post


Link to post

"They have always existed." Wow. You're sounding almost like you believe in a deity, you're just calling it logic.

 

Did the laws of logic preexist before the universe's beginning, or was there ever a point when they did not exist?

You misunderstand. Matter has always existed and it is not a deity. Here is an example of logic:

Matter cannot be created from nothing. (Scientific law)

We have matter now. (Observable fact)

Therefore, matter must have always existed.

 

 

I believe in a theory where our universe is in a constant state of swelling and cooling. It grows hot and expands (Our current state) until it expands so far that it begins to cool. In its cooling, it begins to retreat back into its original state. It condenses, grows hot and then explodes again.

 

Basically, multiple big-bangs happening in an indefinite loop because matter always existed.

 

Logic began with matter, as did the concept of attraction and repulsion. These are things that do not rely on humans to be created. They are not cars or toys to be altered at a whim. They are laws of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Mmmmm no. Not even close. I think I've said this before but I am a Nihilist. This means that I think that no matter what humans or anything else do, we will never accomplish anything worthwhile. We won't make an impact on the universe and nothing we can ever hope to accomplish will do anything meaningful. This applies for everything, not just humans.

 

But more than anything, I do not want this opinion. It's the one I have but I hate it with ever fiber of my being. What I value most of all is resources because I hope that something out there can actually accomplish something something of value and leave some sort of impact on the universe.

 

 

Throwing additional factors into the train factor is meaningless. What if the people on the train were all criminals? What if the baby was going to turn into a serial killer? These are things you can't possibly know and must evaluate at face value. I see multiple lives vs two lives. Not specifically human lives, just lives. The greater number of lives outweighs the lesser.

 

My grandfather had stage 4 lung cancer and lived for five years with it. During that time, he never stopped working until a week before he died. He made millions of dollars working. He functioned better than quite a few younger, healthier people I know. Your argument here about human life is like saying that... old people are a waste of resources because they aren't as physically fit as others and will likely die before others when there are many elderly people who are fitter than younger people these days (Especially with out obesity problem in America). Was his life worth less than someone else because of his age? Because of his illness? Because of things you couldn't possibly know just by looking at him?

 

~~~

 

Laws of logic are not subjected to the whims of individuals. They exist outside of the individual mind-frame and instead views are subjected to them (Instead of them being subjected to views). They have always existed (like other laws) and were simply discovered and defined in terms that humans understand. It is not like humans invented logic and before that it didn't exist. They existed always and humans simply translated them into words they can understand and comprehend. In short; they did not come from anywhere. They always existed.

I really do not relate to your perspective at all. I feel like I'm asking how someone in spells in Chinese or hieroglyphs (a picture-based language that does not use letters).

 

You don't think human life is to be revered, but you revere resources, which in the train example you seem to define as human lives. What then do you consider to be these resources? How do you determine what is a resource and what is not?

 

Interesting, the "always existed" paradox is one of the defining facets of God. So I guess your god is truly logic.

Share this post


Link to post

You misunderstand. Matter has always existed and it is not a deity. Here is an example of logic:

Matter cannot be created from nothing. (Scientific law)

We have matter now. (Observable fact)

Therefore, matter must have always existed.

 

 

I believe in a theory where our universe is in a constant state of swelling and cooling. It grows hot and expands (Our current state) until it expands so far that it begins to cool. In its cooling, it begins to retreat back into its original state. It condenses, grows hot and then explodes again.

 

Basically, multiple big-bangs happening in an indefinite loop because matter always existed.

 

Logic began with matter, as did the concept of attraction and repulsion. These are things that do not rely on humans to be created. They are not cars or toys to be altered at a whim. They are laws of the universe.

You're genuinely the first person I've ever interacted with who has confessed the eternal existence of matter so readily. I thought you guys were gone after secular origins theories developed.

 

That's a nice syllogism, a little deviant from the typical aristotelian model but workable. I guess you didn't see my edit, so I'll ask again. How do you know that logic exists? For all I know your syllogism makes as much since as the sky is brown, monkeys wear hats, therefore egg. How am I to discern the existence of these eternal, immaterial things?

 

Logic "began with" matter? You're saying that something immaterial came from that which is material, something universal came from that which is particular, and something immutable came from something which is in a "constant state of swelling and cooling." All of which are logical impossibilities. Shew. Or perhaps you simply mean that logic began at the same time as matter - that is, didn't have a beginning at all. If that's the case, I'll wait for you to clarify before any more questions.

Edited by philpot123

Share this post


Link to post

Matter cannot be created from nothing. (Scientific law)

We have matter now. (Observable fact)

Therefore, matter must have always existed.

The thing about that scientific law is, it's not really provable. We do not currently know of any way to create matter from nothing. The reality we know depends on conservation of energy. However, by matter/energy merely existing, it raises many, many more questions.

 

If there must be a net neutral energy balance in the universe, what is the opposite of matter (don't just say "antimatter", define/characterize it)? Is there an opposite for every type of energy? How many different forms can it take, that we have not yet discovered? How did the energy split come to be? Could someone/something have created matter from nothing, by also forming antimatter at the same time?

Edited by Awdz Bodkins

Share this post


Link to post


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.