Ikonboard » Printable Version of Topic » What best describes your moral philosophy

Forum: Politics
Topic: What best describes your moral philosophy
started by: ic0n0

Posted by ic0n0 on Jul. 23 2002,06:11

So how do you live your lives

Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 23 2002,14:55

ugh.

Posted by jim on Jul. 23 2002,14:58

Huh?

Posted by Wolfguard on Jul. 23 2002,15:00

wtf?

Posted by Necromancer on Jul. 23 2002,15:38

yeah so you obviously know what i voted.

Posted by Crafty Butcher on Jul. 23 2002,17:01

hey you missed out the Scientologists! surely if this place proves anything it's that even fuckwits have a right to be heard. and flamed.

btw if there /are/ any scientologists here please send me all your money.

Posted by Beldurin on Jul. 23 2002,17:52

non-denominational christian spiritualist.

Does that make sense? No? Of course not, it's religion...by definition it can't make sense.

The other night while driving 11.5 hours straight through the night to Gulf Shores, I semi-scientifically proved the existence of God to a buddy of mine. Wish I'd written it down, it took a lot of work to come up with. Maybe one of these days I'll get around to writing it out and post it just to piss you guys off.

Posted by lykosis on Jul. 23 2002,17:57

gulf shores?

Posted by Beldurin on Jul. 23 2002,18:10

Alabama...about 10-20 miles from the Florida border...went down for a 4-day vacation a few weeks ago.

Posted by lykosis on Jul. 23 2002,18:12

gulf shores has brown water...pensacola has green/blue/clear water. why go to gulf shores?

Posted by Wolfguard on Jul. 23 2002,18:18

Quote (Beldurin @ 23 July 2002,12:52)

I semi-scientifically proved the existence of God to a buddy of mine. Wish I'd written it down, it took a lot of work to come up with. Maybe one of these days I'll get around to writing it out and post it just to piss you guys off.

like i can prove god cant be trusted using only the "facts" at hand.

god created adam and eve and put them in the garden. Told them not to eat the fruit of this one tree.

he turns his back for a few minutes and eve listens to some snake and eats the fruit. eve brings some back for adam and he eats it. This proves that man can not be trusted.

since man is made in the image of god...

Posted by ic0n0 on Jul. 23 2002,19:13

Beldurin i would like to your proof, i mean decrates makes a good proof but it' still wrong becasue it's illogical.

Posted by ic0n0 on Jul. 23 2002,19:19

P1 - The cause must be at least as perfect as the effect.

P2 - The idea of God must have a cause.

P3 - The idea of God is of a perfect being.

C1 - The idea of God is itself perfect (If the idea is of something perfect, the idea itself is perfect).

P4 - I am not perfect.

C2 - I cannot be the cause of my idea of God.

C3 - Something else must exist to be the cause of my idea of God.

C4 - By P1, this thing must be at least as perfect as my idea of God.

P5 - Only God is at least as perfect as my idea of God.

C5 - God must exist.

P1 is not particularly clear in its meaning. What does "perfect" mean here? What are Descartes’ criteria for perfection in such a general proposition? And are there degrees of being perfect? Normal usage of the term "perfect" is for a quality that is instantiated or it is not, as in a perfectly straight line. Either a line is perfectly straight or it is not. We do not use the term to indicate matters of degree, hence we don’t say things like "Line A is more perfectly straight than line B." Perfection is a two-valued function, not a continuous variable. Something is either perfect in some regard (by some criteria for perfection) or it is not. We do, on the other hand, talk of degrees of imperfection, as in the degree of deviation of a curved line from a straight line. Since P1 is not clear in its meaning, it cannot be, by Descartes’ own criteria for self-evidence, self-evidently true.

P2 is, by Descartes’ Causal Principle "Something cannot come from nothing," true only if his idea of God has not come about, that is, if it has not always existed. If it has always existed, then, like Descartes’ God, it does not require a cause. To ask if Descartes’ idea of God has always existed is to ask if Descartes’ mind has always existed. Can Descartes know with certainty that his mind has not always existed? He may lack memories of such a long existence, but a lack of memory proves nothing. Descartes probably cannot remember anything from his first two years of infancy. Does that prove he didn’t exist then? And Descartes cannot make use of birth certificates, county records, testimony of his parents, and other external-to-his-mind sources because he has yet to prove the existence of a world external to his mind. Descartes has not proven that his mind and this idea of God in his mind have not always existed, so the truth status of P2 is questionable.

P3 , Descartes’ concept of God, is, for Descartes’, a self-evident given, and I suggest we give him the benefit of the doubt here and play along with him.

C1 is rather strange. Descartes is trying to show that he is not perfect enough to be the cause of his idea of God. P1 tells us that Descartes, being imperfect, cannot be the cause of anything more perfect than he, himself, is, so he certainly cannot be the cause of God. But Descartes can conclude that he cannot be the cause of his idea of God only if this idea itself is more perfect than Descartes. So the question becomes, if an idea is about something perfect, does that necessarily mean that we must, via some rule of logic, attribute perfection to the idea? How about a photograph of something perfect, say a snowflake. Is the photograph perfect because it’s topic is perfect? We don’t normally talk about ideas as being perfect (other than meaning well suited to some desired end), though we may characterize some ideas as true or correct. But does "true" always mean "perfect?" I may have the idea of a pimple on my nose, and if I actually have a pimple on my nose, then my idea is true. But, is there some rule of logic that requires I attribute perfection to my idea of the pimple on my nose? If so, I would like to know what rule of logic dictates this. Someone please tell me. Descartes hasn’t. I haven’t come across any such rule in the philosophical literature. Now, I might chose to call true ideas perfect ideas. I’m free to do so if I want to for some reason, but am I logically bound to do so? I might call ideas of perfect forms perfect ideas, but am I logically bound to do so or is this just a matter of semantics, that is, how you or I or Descartes chooses to use to word "perfect" in relation to ideas?

Even if we were to feel compelled to attribute perfection to such ideas, does that necessarily mean that the possessor of such ideas is less perfect than the ideas themselves? Presumably, Descartes could exist without such ideas in his mind, but could they exist without his mind? And if one thing exists dependently upon another but the latter thing exists independently of the former thing, then is not the independent thing more perfect (of a less conditional existence) than the dependent thing? Descartes often reasons in just this way. For Descartes, actual existence is more perfect than existence merely as an idea. Indeed, Descartes’ third proof of God’s existence depends on this. Since Descartes, though imperfect, is at least as real as any of his ideas, perhaps he is also at least as perfect as any of his ideas. Can he be sure otherwise?

P4, I, "Descartes, am not perfect." I suggest we agree with Descartes on this one. (I know I’m not perfect.)

C2,"I cannot be the cause of my idea of God." This conclusion follows from P4, P1 and C1. Since there is uncertainly in P1 and C1, there is uncertainty in C2 and everything else that follows, including C5 ,"God must exist." (An argument is only as strong as its weakest link.) While God might exist and might be the cause of Descartes’ idea of God, Descartes fails to prove that this must be so.

Posted by Beldurin on Jul. 23 2002,19:36

ic0n0, you rock.

I simply used the scientific principle of disproving the opposite of what you're trying to prove, so I went about detailing the absurdity of the theory that everything leading up to the development of an organism that can question the nature of its own existence is an accident.

I'm not exactly Descartes

Posted by TheTaxMan on Jul. 24 2002,00:34

(circular reasoning)

Posted by demonk on Jul. 24 2002,01:16

Flawed assumptions.

Posted by Wiley on Jul. 24 2002,04:49

Quote (Wolfguard @ 23 July 2002,10:18)

god created adam and eve and put them in the garden. Told them not to eat the fruit of this one tree.
he turns his back for a few minutes and eve listens to some snake and eats the fruit. eve brings some back for adam and he eats it. This proves that man can not be trusted.
since man is made in the image of god...

This makes me think ...why was God so damn over-protective of apples and not his people? When the hell in time could snakes talk? Why didn't Adam know something was up when his chick brought him some food? And if we are all made in Gods image then do you think that he also likes hookers and beer?

And just WTFWJD?? I'm guessing he would turn some more water to wine and try to drink himself into forgetting that his dad didn't save his ass from the Romans. If Jesus was on Ricki Lake I'm sure he'd have some abandonment issues going on.

Does anybody else find it strange that the bible doesn't give anywhere near the moral insight that you find in an episode of the Simpsons?

Posted by Beastie Dr on Jul. 24 2002,05:03

"If I met Jesus, we'd drink and smoke weed together."
-Mike Tyson

Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 24 2002,05:45

Quote

being created in ones image does not imply having all the same characteristics/attributes/flaws

I have an apple.
I draw a picture of an apple, but the color is off
the picture was made in the image of the apple
by your logic, the apple's color must be off originally.

this leads to circular logic, because if the apple's color is off originally then the picture's color would not be off, etc.

Posted by demonk on Jul. 24 2002,06:18

Thank you for that wonderful example in circular reasoning! That is how most of us "non believers" feel when the "believers" try to convince us. It all circular reasoning, or based on one simple idea that the Bible is completely infawlable (which has been proven wrong on many things many times). That's why we just can' accept it. We can see the holes and just can't lie to ourselves about our feelings. Personally, I would like to believe since it would make life easier to live and help in other areas. But, as Shakspear said, "To thy own self be true". I can't pretend to believe when I know deep down that I do not. That's why I'm an agnostic.

Posted by Beldurin on Jul. 24 2002,06:30

Quote (demonk @ 24 July 2002,00:18)

I used to think I was an agnostic, until someone gave me something other than the dictionary definition of an agnostic. He said, "an agnostic is just an atheist who's too much of a coward to admit it." That shut me up for a while.

As for believing that the Bible is infallible, you've been talking to the wrong people. It wasn't written by God or by Jesus. It was written by men, and men make mistakes. Perhaps they wrote the truth as they saw it, but that doesn't make it absolute, now does it? That's one of the reasons I label myself as I do. I'll admit that you can't really prove that there's a God. That's why it's called faith for a reason, people.

However, I've seen "proof" in my life that there is a higher power at work, and I don't think that I'm lying to myself. You may choose not to belive me, or in it, and that's fine. I don't belittle people who do not belive in God, so don't belittle me.

Posted by Marauder on Jul. 24 2002,06:34

Two words: Merciful Justice

Posted by joelthegreat on Jul. 24 2002,10:16

Fuck a listic balls...why can't I vote in any polls anymore...god damn ikonboard. I think detonate.net's broke, Jesus could you pass the duct tape?