CreateDebate


Mack's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Mack's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

You make me sick.

I haven't actually seen Solo yet, but the other nine, from best to worst:

1. Empire Strikes Sack; easily the greatest sequel in movie history and near flawless in every respect, 9.5/10

2. New Hope; just a classic story, 8.5/10

3. Force awakens; it did steal a lot from the original film, but all in all a good experience, 7/10

4. Return of the Jedi, Ewoks ruined star wars and much of the film was dull, but the duel at the end was good enough to salvage this movie for me, 6.9/10

5. Last Jedi, better than I expected, but not very compelling. I've forgotten most of it already. The casino scene in the middle was horrible. 6.75/10

6. Attack of the clones; it did alright I guess, Dooku was underdeveloped, if he'd had a presence in the previous film he could have been quite interesting. Obi wan was the saving grace of this movie and the other prequels. 6.5/10

7. Revenge of the Sith; there were at least 5 light-saber duels in this movie, which was ridiculous. Again, Grevious was underdeveloped. Barely a 6/10

8. Rogue one. Just boring. Characters were all awful. A couple good Vader scenes, but that's it. 6/10

9. Phantom menace. Jar Jar Binks plagues my nightmares. Enough said. 5/10

1 point

Why should I have to do that???????????????????????????????????????

1 point

Naturalism can explain non material things like the concept of a president. This is explained by humans evolving, and then creating the idea of a president. Another example of a non material thing is a number like 4. The number 4 is a concept that describes natural material things.

1 point

"No, moron, naturalism is what I said. Materialism is the denial of all non-material things”."

But you seem to think naturalism is the denial of all non material things. You earlier said: "Your naturalism cannot account for it either. The fact that you admit things exist that are not material is a refutation of atheism [naturalism in your eyes]."

"Atheism = naturalism"

What about Buddhists? When did we go over this?

1 point

I don't see why it needs a capital letter. To me that implies a religious affiliation.

1 point

I no longer have any idea what you're talking about..........................

1 point

Your link doesn't really support your argument, and considering that the guy was using the word in everyday language, it should be interpreted that way, not in a strict mathematical way.

"I don't need to Google the definition. Round means circular, and circles exist in 2 dimensions. When you go around something what do you do? Do you traverse it in a circle or do you traverse it in a sphere? If King Arthur's round table had been a sphere I imagine it would have made meetings quite difficult."

The context of the usage of the word matters, none of that proves the word round is exclusive to 2D objects. Words can have multiple meanings.

1 point

Round is not exclusive to 2D. You need only google the definition. I think "round" could even apply to an oblate spheroid, as it is shaped like a sphere.

1 point

When I sad "some sort of being" I meant some sort of self aware or conscious being, not just something that exists.

1 point

"Naturalism is the believe that all of reality can be explained by natural means alone, so yes it is, mental midget."

You are confusing materialism with naturalism. A non material thing, such as a concept like being president, can arise naturally. Materialism is the thing that says everything is material.

"And since atheism denies the supernatural as an explainariom, it is left with naturalism, making all atheists naturalists."

Atheism is not a belief, and actually doesn't deny the supernatural as an explanation. For example, most Buddhists are atheists because they do not believe in any deity.

"Take Philosophy 101 and, until then, shut up."

:) Actually, I have taken philosophy 101, and I can tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about.

1 point

To say something is known to truth or heard by it implies that the truth is some sort of being, and I see no reason to believe that on the basis of what has been said in this debate so far.

1 point

That is not naturalism, I suggest you do your research before making wild claims.

Atheism is also not the same thing as naturalism.

2 points

I believe the truth exists, and that it is no more than the way in which things truly exists. There are true answers to questions etc, but this definitely has no weird implications that there is something out there that hears your prayers.

Mack(531) Clarified
1 point

"Nothing could exist unless it exists in Truth, so God is clearly omnipotent, that is, the source of all influence, and thus the creator of all things."

Could you explain this reasoning more clearly? I don't see how the it follows that God is clearly omnipotent if nothing could exists unless it exists in truth.

"The Truth is the highest good, and all good things come from The Truth. God is clearly omnibenevolent, the source of all good."

Why do you say that the truth is the highest good?

Can this "Truth" hear people's prayers?

1 point

This Truth/God that you speak of, is it akin to an omnipotent or benevolent creator of the universe?

2 points

That's a ridiculous statement. There are plenty of natural things we can't test in a lab. It doesn't mean they don't exist. For example, I can't provide a lab test that demonstrates Donald Trump is the president of the US.

What proof would you accept of somebodies intelligence over a website anyways? I can't take you to a physical lab so that you can watch me take an IQ test or something. Tell me exactly what I should do to satisfy you.

I have already provided you with some solid evidence (which would be to look at my previous posts on this website).

2 points

You're being kinda ridiculous. I don't know what lab experiment would prove it, but I am convinced by reason, you may even be able to find examples of that on this site, and hopefully you'll be able to decide whether or not you think I'm intelligent by reading other arguments I've made.

Why are your questions posed only at atheists?

1 point

I am a rational and somewhat intelligent atheist! Not sure if you want me to somehow prove that.

1 point

I don't know truth from fiction for sure.

I base my beliefs on science and reason, but at the end of the day I can never be absolutely sure my beliefs are true.

May I ask how you rationally know truth from fiction?

2 points

It seems obvious to me that all of our 'decisions' are predetermined, for multiple reasons, and in this sense I don't believe in free will.

One could take a more 'compatibilist' stance (I think that's what it's called) where we choose a more relevant definition of free will: This definition could be something along the lines of "Having free will means that if you wanted to to do something else you could have." Basically this means that we behave in the way we want to, so for all intents and purposes we are free.

This is an interesting way to think about it and I haven't made up my mind yet as to whether this is an acceptable definition. One of my problems with it is that I want a definition of free will that allows people with free will to be morally responsible for their actions (assuming objective morality exists, etc), but I also don't think someone who is criminally insane should be considered morally responsible for their actions, and I'm pretty sure under this definition they would be.

Also, I'm not sure fatalism is what you're arguing for. It's hard to define, but fatalism might be described as the view that you cannot escape your destiny no matter what you do (even if you have the freedom to choose your own actions, circumstances will conspire so that something specific will happen to you no matter what you do.) I don't think it's really a respected academic view.

2 points

"Without space, time does not exist. Hence, time is part of space."

That reasoning is wrong. Take this example: Without humans, laws do not exist, therefore laws are a part of humans. This is clearly bad reasoning.

1 point

So far as I know, time is not a dimension of space, it is its own type of dimension. Space and time are linked, but they are not the same thing.

Coming from a first year physics major who knows a bit of special relativity but not much else.

1 point

Well hey, if you want to play me you can find Mackapaka on chess.com . I suggest playing against the computer a couple times first to familiarize yourself with some basic tactics. It tells you how good your moves were and what better moves would have been. It's quite a fun game to get into.

1 point

That's probably true, and I can imagine some people on here cheating. At least the winner will know if it was fair and square or not. Still, if anybody wants to play me I'm game.

1 point

I think I might have heard something like this in the movie the pursuit of happyness:

I would like to think freedom is the right to pursue happiness in life so long as it doesn't infringe on other's right to do the same. I know it's not a rigorous definition, but it sounds nice.

1 point

"Creative thinking, invention, innovation etc. are not what you may think. The human mind cannot actually create an idea from scratch. In order to "create" you must combine or alter known concepts and elements. Human "creativity" works by making connections between things which are impressed upon the brain through our senses, in other words the brain needs input before it can make new neural connections and form ideas. Thought works through pattern recognition, you cannot create a new idea in a literal sense because all ideas come from external input."

Well yeah, that's what creativity/originality is. Putting things/ideas together in a way not previously thought of. You can create a new idea by putting things together in your mind just as an artist can create a new painting by putting paint on the canvas. Something can still be new even if its parts are old.

1 point

"what is constantly moving forward, constantly passing itself, and speeds up whenever you slow down?"

I don't think time fits that description. How does it "pass itself," and how does it speed up when you slow down (because I don't think that's what relativity states if that's how you meant it).

Mack(531) Clarified
1 point

"Damn, haven't you heard of general relativity you scientifically illiterate block head?"

Are you hinting it's something to do with relativity?

You said darkness was close, it's not something to do with black holes is it? I don't see how that would fit.

1 point

Is it something to do with a wave??????????????????????????????????????

1 point

Nice...........................................................................

2 points

Electric ( and maybe magnetic) fields, or electromagnetic force (and maybe weak and strong nuclear force)?

Is there anything that can move (or to be more accurate, accelerate in an inertial reference frame) without being forced?

1 point

It's not something like information is it? I'm still not sure how to define information, and I don't think it can travel faster than light. I'm guessing people are wrong to interpret this as a physics question?

Edit: In some ways information can travel faster than light, but I feel like it's not what you're getting at.

1 point

Homosexuality is being attracted to the same sex.

One's gender is not the same thing as one's sex, so if gender is a social construct, biological sex would still not be, so homosexuality could exist.

I don't see a contradiction in these two ideas. Whether either is true, I don't really know or care.

2 points

The claim that you can't know for sure about anything not going on inside of your mind seems plausible, but that you are the only existent thing requires too many assumptions and is not supported by any evidence as far as I know.

1 point

Somehow I don't think this is the place to be asking complex physics questions.

Any answer you get here will be bullshit, or the result of a quick google search (probably still bullshit). It's hardly likely that someone will give an answer worthy of a Nobel prize on createdebate.com.

Mack(531) Clarified
1 point

"It's funny you say that, because I think that literally everything is a paradox and every truth comes with it's polar opposite."

Google defines a paradox as: "a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true."

The way I normally think of a paradox is the situation that arises when two (or more) premises that seem obviously true seem to obviously contradict each other.

In that sense, yes, as you put forward in your first argument (the clarification I requested), the very existence of existence itself is a paradox. I will grant that.

This doesn't imply that the paradox can't be resolved. We live in the real world, and I think this means there must be a resolution to every paradox, otherwise the world would be logically inconsistent. Is that what you believe, that the world is inconsistent?

A paradox would be resolved if at least one of the premises is actually false, or if it is actually possible for the premises to be true without contradiction.

"That makes no sense, especially as an argument for God...."

I agree with you about God, so I won't argue.

"The way I see it nature (i.e reality) is what defines what is "logical". And mother nature is telling me that she doesn't make any bloody sense and that true logic is the opposite of logic. Logic is illogical."

I think this relates to the idea of necessary and contingent truths. A statement like "all bachelors are unmarried" (given appropriate definitions of the words) is necessarily true (couldn't have been otherwise), while one like "the Earth exists" is a contingent truth (could have been otherwise). Similarly I think there are logical truths and natural truths. Statements like "all bachelors are unmarried" would seemingly be true regardless of nature (or rather, it would be impossible for nature to defy this), while some thing like "the Earth exists" would be determined by nature. I don't see how logic is dependent on nature or defined by nature.

"We have a fabric underlying everything we see made of microscopic paradox balls (particles) that pop in and out of existence randomly and only take specific trajectories when they are observed."

Skipping ahead to your last line, these quantum things are paradoxical, but we search for a resolution to this paradox. We haven't found one, but to assume that we never will is not a justified assumption to make, if that is what you are implying.

Mack(531) Clarified
2 points

Thank you for clarifying, I just thought you could mean there was a paradox in some other way.

With regards to your argument I will say this:

Firstly, there must be some loophole in what you've said, because of course the universe does somehow exist (at least it seems reasonable to believe the universe does exist, though some might disagree). I don't think paradoxes (at least of this sort) can actually exist in reality, by their very definition. The task is now to find the loophole.

Well there are some possible answers:

-Many people believe in some sort of un-caused first cause, like a God (I never know when I should use a capital 'G,' but certain members of this site will freak if I don't). This would be a supernatural being, so they wouldn't necessarily be bound by natural laws like cause and effect (which I think seems to be a natural law rather than a logical law).

-Physics around the Big Bang gets really weird, and we simply can't trust our intuition about the nature of cause and effect and time and all those things when it comes to that. For example, I don't think it makes sense to say "before existence." Given the weirdness it makes sense to withhold judgment, even if you're an expert in the subject.

-Closed time loops are another idea, but I think they seem a bit 'ad hoc,' i.e. goofy and just made up to get out of a tight spot.

-I think there are other explanations, but I don't recall them at the moment.

1 point

Alright, I'm a first year physics student at university, and if there's one things I've learned it is that people who don't REALLY understand physics (myself included) shouldn't be arguing about things like this. Maybe you actually have a PhD in physics or something, in which case, you can dismiss what I am saying.

Either way, you're in the wrong place. The website 'Physics stack exchange' is where you want to go if you really want a serious answer to a question like this.

1 point

Alright, I'm a first year physics student at university, and if there's one things I've learned it is that people who don't REALLY understand physics (myself included) shouldn't be arguing about things like this. Maybe you actually have a PhD in physics or something, in which case, you can dismiss what I am saying.

Either way, you're in the wrong place. The website 'Physics stack exchange' is where you want to go if you really want a serious answer to a question like this, though I suspect you won't.

To answer your question, I can't prove anything other than entropy exists because I lack sufficient understanding of physics.

1 point

Can you explain why you are asking this? I assume you have some reason to think it is a paradox?

2 points

I think maybe the reason that you have to take math in school, even stuff that you don't use in everyday life, is that they don't want people who will do jobs that require math to slip through the cracks. In other words; if you didn't have to do math then lots of people who would become physicists or engineers or whatever would never become those things since they opted out of math at an early age. Sucks for you, I know, but it's better for society as a whole if we don't miss the people with those skills.

1 point

All it means is that it could have been possible for life to form on mars, especially in the past, because the right ingredients are there. NOT that there is or ever was life on mars. We don't know if there is or especially if there was because we haven't really looked enough.

1 point

Pretty sure you're a troll too...........................................................

1 point

But it's not like there are thousands of white Einsteins, and I see you've completely ignored the rest of my last argument explaining why it might be the case that there are other factors than intelligence at play.

Your three truths thing is just a joke.

Mack(531) Clarified
1 point

I think you mean battlefield 'V'. I think it's pretty dumb too, but it's their game so they can do what they want with it. I'm not going to buy it anyways (mainly because it doesn't look like a good game though).

1 point

In no particular order:

1. Star wars, episodes IV & V (Films)

2. Splinter cell, specifically Chaos theory. (Games)

3. Catch 22 (book)

4. Lord of the rings + the Hobbit (Books & Films)

5. Battlefield 3 & 4 (Games)

6. Peep Show (Sitcom)

7. The X-Files (the old TV series (those recent ones mostly sucked))

8. The Terminator (only the original film)

9. The original Mad Max (film)

10. My sex life (fantasy)

1 point

It's really your decision, but here's an idea nobody ever mentions:

If you feel guilty about your carnivorous habits leading to animals being killed, but you also don't want to stop eating meat, just eat less meat! You'll still be reducing the amount of meat consumption, and therefore animal slaughtering, just not by as much. It's a good compromise I think.

1 point

Why can't we just be nice for the sake of being nice? Suits me just fine. I hope you aren't being nice only because of what you think God says.

I don't believe things can be objectively morally right or wrong.

A question for you: are things (a) right/wrong just because God says they are, or are they (b) right/wrong because of some objective morality that doesn't come from God? If (a), then your morality seems arbitrary. If (b), God isn't required for your morality to exist.

1 point

"That's not quite true, because while it is true that many blacks are smarter than many whites there has NEVER been a black person in recorded history who can be called a "genius" compared to white geniuses like Einstein and Tesla. This suggests that blacks can't reach the level of intelligence that the white race can."

1. You can google 'black geniuses' and find plenty of black people who have been valuable scientists, though not on the level of (einstein, tesla and co.)

2. In the past it was simply much less likely for a black person to go down the path to become a scientist for all sorts of race related problems other than intelligence (higher poverty rates preventing education, cultural differences, and discrimination) even if they had potential.

3. This wouldn't imply that it is impossible for a black "genius" to exist, just that it is less likely.

Why do you care so much?

1 point

Of course black people can be as smart as white people, all it takes to prove that is to find one black person who is smarter than one white person. Surely you will concede that?

While it may be true that the average intelligence of white people is higher than that of black people, and while it may be true that this is due to genetics rather than something like lower quality education (I haven't actually looked at the studies because I don't care), that does not imply that being black automatically limits your intelligence. It does not exclude the possibility that plenty of black people can be as smart as the smartest white people.

You could claim from those statistics that a random black person is more likely than not to be less intelligent than a random white person, but that is not the same as the claim in question here, and it doesn't really matter.

(oops, meant to post on other side of debate)

1 point

If he was hitting the back of her head with reasonable force than it was unnecessarily dangerous. He should have just held her head down. Everything up to there was fine though.

1 point

Yes, because consciousness is just about awareness. We may be incorrect in our perception of reality, but we are still aware of something. We still have a perception of reality (it's just wrong), which I think constitutes consciousness. I don't see how us being a piece of computer code is any different from us being biological organisms when it comes to consciousness.

2 points

So, if objective moral laws exist than moral rights exists too.

First, I'll just say that I don't believe in objective moral laws, though I am sort of on the fence right now.

Could we know what these moral laws are? I think that depends. If, say, objective moral laws are dictated to us by some all knowing deity (that we know can't lie to us) then I suppose we might be able know.

Otherwise I don't think we could know what they are (If we didn't know what they are, we also probably wouldn't know that they even exist). The only reason I say that we wouldn't know is that I can't think of a method we could use to determine them with certainty.

Assuming that we cannot know what the objective moral laws are then I think you are right that moral rights couldn't have much relevance to us.

This doesn't mean I think we should descend into anarchy or something though; legal rights seem to work pretty well at keeping society organised, (and we can at least usually agree on what they are) which helps the most people be happy, which most people just intuitively think is a good thing. That's enough for me, we don't need to know what moral rights are to have the happiest possible people. (I know we don't actually have the happiest possible people, but we try)

Note that legal rights are not always a reliable way to help the most people be happy - slavery was perfectly legal for example, and in fact it was only people's perception of what moral rights were what changed that (I don't know any american history, so that's just what I've inferred from the tidbits of information I've heard about it, feel free to tell me the slaves were freed for other reasons).

Legal rights are often based off of what we think are moral rights, but for the most part they work towards our shared goal of happiness. We just make do with our limited knowledge of what moral rights are (if they even exist).

I realize the second half of what I've written in this response is probably full of holes - I'm tired and I find this particular subject quite hard to express my thoughts on. I hope it offers some insight.

2 points

I didn't bother to read you sources, but here's what I think of the question:

I think it would be wrong for people to judge you for your beliefs (you can see my debate titled "Can having a certain belief be morally right or wrong?" for more detail), because you can't help it.

People can still judge whether those beliefs are right/wrong, and I think it's okay for them to try and convince you that you are wrong, so long as they don't blame you for what you couldn't help.

(Also, I'm sure the environment you grow up in plays a part in determining your beliefs too, but the question is still the same)

1 point

The total energy level in the universe could actually be equal to or less than zero, as my source mentioned. (There can exists negative energies, cancelling out positive energies) Energy is a confusing term in physics, to give you some idea of how it isn't just some innate property of something take this: Kinetic energy = 0.5mv^2 (half mass times the velocity squared (at speeds far below the speed of light)), but velocity is relative. From the reference frame of a stationary observer (on the sidewalk) the kinetic energy is higher than from the reference frame of another car driving alongside the first car. Energy is relative, which allows for the total energy in the universe to be zero. Some energies can be negative (not kinetic energy though, as far as I know)

The Big Bang is just the name given to the initial expansion of the universe, it doesn't actually state that there was nothing 'before' that singularity, your source is misleading.

The biggest problem with the using God as an explanation is that you then have to explain why he even existed in the first place, which is just as hard, if not harder to explain, as you cannot conduct any experiment or do any science to answer that question.

Sometimes we just have to accept that we can't yet answer a question. It makes no sense to choose an explanation that we aren't at all sure about, like God. I still see no way in which your argument is different from the argument that lightning was caused by God(s) by people in older times. They probably said the exact same things you are saying.

(Aside: The following isn't really an argument against God, just an interesting thing; the hypothesis of God has no predictive power, so it cannot be tested scientifically, which mean it can basically never be disproved.)

Also, I'll stop arguing about the use of the word confidently but for the record I am confident that I used it correctly.

1 point

I have no idea what you're talking about here. My original use of the word "confidently" was perfectly acceptable.

1 point

You don't know that the energy was created by the big bang. It is true that we don't know exactly why this energy exists, if it isn't totally equal to zero (which is a possibility), but The quantum 'fluctuation' ideas do offer some hope of an explanation in the future.

Why don't you consider God to be a way of saying "well something weird happened here and then you have a universe?" Seems just as weird to me, even weirder in fact, as it hasn't been observed.

1 point

The source says: "You may be hesitant to believe that the total energy in the universe is constant because there appears to be so much of it, or because science seems to indicate that the universe is expanding. There are stars, planets, galaxies, globular clusters - everywhere, matter and energy seem to exist, and it's constantly rushing off in all directions. But for starters, the expansion of the universe doesn't have to take more energy - as the universe expands, the distances between stars or galaxies increases, and thus the gravitational energy between them decreases to compensate. And more importantly, thermodynamics doesn't state what value the total energy should have. It could be a huge, but constant, number (this is what's known as an "open" universe, where the amount of matter/energy in the universe exceeds a certain "cut-off" density: see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/denpar.html). .) It could be, as most physicists now believe, zero (this is called a "flat" universe, where the matter density in the universe is equal to the cut-off density). It could be negative, even (a "closed" universe, where the amount of matter is less than the cut-off density). It could be anything, but whatever value it is now, it was at the very beginning! According to physics, all of the matter and energy in the universe now existed in some form at the Big Bang."

Which answers your thing about energy.

1 point

The big bang theory does not state that something came from nothing.

"The evidence I'm examining is the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. And under my theory, God created the time-space dimension along with the Laws of Thermodynamics. Therefore, He is not controlled by those Laws."

http://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/askaphysicist/physics-answer.cfm?uid=20120221015143

The above reading may help to clarify some things.

"So someone needs to challenge my theory if you want to beat it. I'm waiting."

I don't have to beat it, I just have to show that it's not a good theory. Science isn't about who comes up with the first explanation, it's about the best explanation. I have told you why I think God isn't that.

Mack(531) Clarified
1 point

"That’s not true scientists disagree on that"

I carefully used the word "confidently" to indicate that disagreement.

I agree with your other statements.

1 point

"Ummmm why not? The Universe began, didn't it? And before that, there was nothing... soo....."

Because saying that the universe began doesn't necessarily make sense as there would have been no concept of time 'before,' not to mention, we don't know if there are other universes, or if there was 'always' something. The fact that we don't understand the physics is enough for me to say we aren't certain if there was something from nothing.

"Of course it doesn't. But the theory of God answers the most questions in the best way, and therefore is the best theory. That's how science works."

"When someone was like "ooh what is lightning? ... I dunno - must be God! Praise the Lord!" that was the "God of the Gaps" which is not what I'm using for the BB. In contrast, I come up with the theory of God after examining evidence and striking down the various possible theories (which, I can't help but notice, you have none of) by process of elimination"

What evidence do you examine? What possible theories do you strike down? You don't need to name them all, just a few, as I'm not quite sure what you mean.

The hypothesis of God doesn't answer most questions in the best way, as it has to make huge assumptions, and it raises new questions about God. It also needs supportive evidence.

1 point

"How in the world do you get something from nothing without a God?"

It is true that we can't yet confidently explain how we can get something from nothing without God. This does not mean that God is the correct explanation.

Firstly, I don't think we can say for sure that we did get something from nothing in the first place.

Even if we did, there is a difference between saying "God is the only explanation we have" and saying "God is the only explanation possible."

Your reasoning assumes that we could never possibly explain the Big Bang without God, but I see no evidence that this is necessarily true. It was once thought that we could never explain lightning without a God. Your argument is similar to that and it is flawed for the same reason.

Mack(531) Clarified
1 point

"I personally don't believe in the Big Bang theory, because of the fact that "The theory states that about 13.7 billion years ago all the matter in the Universe was concentrated into a single incredibly tiny point. This began to enlarge rapidly in a hot explosion, and it is still expanding today." (BBC news)"

Why does that make you not believe in the big bang theory? (Remember that the big bang theory doesn't claim to know why the big bang happened, just that it did.)

Mack(531) Clarified
1 point

Obviously, if rights don't exist nobody has the right to say anything. I did not say that rights don't exist.

2 points

First we must define what rights are. I will start with google's definition:

Right: A moral or legal entitlement to have or do something. [1]

I think it is fair to say that legal entitlements to have or do something exist. They vary depending on the country and one's circumstances but they clearly exist. This is boring though. Moral rights are a more interesting topic.

What exactly is a moral entitlement to do something?

Interestingly, google's (and other dictionary's) definition of 'entitlement' is "the fact of having a right to something." The definition of 'rights' is circular! They aren't defined in terms of something else, so we're going to have to make up a definition of what it means to be (morally) entitled to something, before deciding if such 'rights' exist.

Here is what I think it means to be morally entitled to have or do something (since I am basically making up a definition, I can give no strong argument to support it):

I think it is necessary that (A): the act of doing (or acquiring, having, etc) this thing (let it be labelled 'X') is not considered morally wrong. I think it is also necessary that (B): to deny somebody 'X' (when they desire or need it) would be considered morally wrong. If (A) & (B) are true, I think one is morally entitled to 'X.' 'X' would be a moral right.

To make this a more convincing definition, try substituting the words "moral/morally" for "legal/legally." I think this would make a pretty good definition for legal rights, and as moral rights are analogous to legal rights [1], I think it is therefore reasonable to accept my definition of moral rights. If you like you could think of moral rights as legal rights, but based on moral laws, rather than the law of man.

(Of course I'm no lawyer, so I could have missed something in my definition of legal rights - if anyone has a suggestion it could be added?)

Unfortunately this definition opens up a whole new can of worms when we move on to the main question of whether moral rights exist. For (A) & (B) to be true, objective moral laws (at least, laws concerning 'X') must exist. This has been debated numerous times here before, so I won't bother here.

My answer to the question will be this: If objective moral laws exist, then moral rights exist. If objective moral laws do not exist, moral rights don't exist.

(I had to choose a side to come down on, so I just chose the most empty side)

2 points

No political label neatly sums up my beliefs, so I avoid using them so that I don't give anybody the wrong impressions.

Mack(531) Clarified
1 point

Some of these alleged miracles seem to be pretty specific to certain religions, to use an obvious example, if Jesus really did rise from the dead that would seem to support Christianity more than 'pastafarianism.' That's why I think certain religions are more likely to be true than 'pastafarianism.'

I didn't intend for my original little comment to be some strong statement.

2 points

"No , you’re the one limiting it now to “miracles “ involving a god , your argument is circular as in .......we are talking about miracles involving a god and any such events must be from a god .....That’s your argument and it’s circular"

My argument is this:

(1). There have been numerous reports of miracles.

(2). There is a chance that some of those miracles actually happened.

(3). If some of those miracles actually happened there is a chance that they were due to a deity.

Therefore, (4) there is a chance that there is a deity.

"There you go again as in .... if a “miracle “ takes place it’s proof of a god. Totally circular argument"

I am not even saying that a miracle is proof of a deity, I'm just saying of one definitely occurred there would be a chance that it was due to a deity.

"You don’t believe yet you do believe there is a chance ???"

Yes. If I toss ten coins in a row, I don't believe they will all land on heads, but I do believe there is a chance.

"Weak evidence is worthless"

That's a blind assertion.

"For something to constitute a miracle, it must be unearthly, like "a violation of the laws of nature". However, once observed, such occurrences become both earthly and must be explained by the laws of nature. So by the very virtue of happening, a miracle is no longer a miracle."

That simply isn't true. If something breaks the laws of nature, then, by definition, it isn't natural. That counts as supernatural, like a miracle. Trying to define miracles out of existence will get you nowhere here.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence or as Hitchens put it That which is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof"

If a miracle were to be proved to have happened it would be extraordinary evidence. Also, I am not asserting miracles have happened, just that there is a chance that they have. There is a chance that they have simply because we can't prove that they haven't.

"Really , as in your continuous claims that if you cannot explain something well godidit , now that’s circular"

I never said anything like that.

"Yes google says that so what ?"

Given that you seem to care about the definition of the word 'miracle,' I thought a definition might be relevant.

"Yes and for god and ghosts but what does that prove exactly ?"

It proves that your definition is not the only accepted way to interpret the word 'miracle.'

"Mere speculation on your part , and if in the past where’s your proof?"

It seems a reasonable assumption to say that there is a chance that there are circumstances we have't experienced before.

You have repeatedly misrepresented what I have said and I will not waste any more of my time arguing with you.

1 point

PE and fitness are different. Fitness is good for health, but PE where you learn to play sports isn't helpful for most people, so shouldn't be required. It's a really stressful thing for people who aren't good at sports. Fitness would involve general exercise, and is something that will help people in life.

1 point

PE and fitness are different. Fitness is good for health, but PE where you learn to play sports isn't helpful for most people, so shouldn't be required. It's a really stressful thing for people who aren't good at sports. Fitness would involve general exercise, and is something that will help people in life.

1 point

"What has belief in a god got to do with a miracle claim, many have claimed miraculous powers without a god belief"

Given that we are talking about miracles in the context of deities, I thought it was obvious that we were only interested in relevant miracles, i.e, ones that (if they actually happened) would be pretty strong evidence for a deity.

"But you say to believe in miracle claims one must believe in a deity"

Sure, but I don't believe in miracle claims, I just believe there is a chance that some may be true.

"Since the dawn of time not 1 in several billion believers has produced a shred of evidence to support a god belief, that does for me."

Not one has produced a shred of convincing evidence, but there are shreds of weak evidence, miracles. (and maybe some other things I can't think of right now)

Not to mention, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There are probably plenty of things that we don't yet have evidence for that may still turn out to be true.

"Now that’s circular , well done you"

It's not circular because I have shown above that your reasoning is circular.

"Interesting you know the opinion of the human race"

I'm know that the human race can't prove that every claim of a miracle ever made was fake.

"It’s not and let’s put the final nail in your coffin , a miracle, by definition, is an event that is impossible to occur under known circumstances. If it occurs, it is not a miracle. Do you get that ? In general, a miracle is only a seemingly extraordinary event that cannot, under present circumstances and scientific knowledge, be readily explained. Bear in mind that eclipses were a miracle not long ago."

Using google's definition, a miracle is "an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency." Other dictionaries have similar definitions. To say a miracle is impossible under known circumstances concerns currently known circumstances. Currently unknown circumstances may occur in the future (or may have occurred in the past but not be widely known). If Jesus did in fact rise from the dead after three days through divine power any reasonable person would count that as a miracle. It is possible that if there is something that seems like a miracle (as eclipses did) could be explained by science we don't yet understand, but it is also possible it could be an act of a deity.

1 point

"I didn't say the laws "disprove " miracles I said the laws of the Universe do not get suspended to allow such , my reasoning is not circular it's a perfectly logical position"

Well, to say that the laws of nature can't be suspended is circular reasoning, for the reasons I stated.

"Yes I assume that and now you as an atheist assume there is a god to allow you to make your claim , so you're no longer an atheist ? Also by claiming my arguments are circular and my reasoning is redundant only makes you appear like other childish members of C D"

So you assume that no deity exists when you argue against miracles? That's an obvious example of circular reasoning.

I don't assume there is a deity, I don't assume there isn't one, and I assume it is possible that there is one. Do you think it is possible that there is a deity? If not, why?

I'm claiming your arguments are circular because they are. I don't see what this has to do with being childish.

"Why do you keep saying "we" why not "I" to use we is fallacious"

Because I'm not talking about me, I'm talking about the human race. When I say we can't be certain, I mean it is impossible for any of us to prove that every miracle claim is fake.

"Funny that isn't it that some miracles according to you are not even worth reporting, whys that?"

I don't see how you got that from what I said where you quoted me.

1 point

You seem to think that miracles are necessarily impossible, i.e, that it isn't possible that they are possible. We do no t know if they are possible, but it seems reasonable to think that the world could have been (and may be) in such a state as to allow miracles and deities. If there is an all powerful deity (which is the thing in question) then they wouldn't be restrained by the laws of nature. Saying that the laws of nature disprove miracles is circular reasoning. You have to assume that no deity exists in order to say that miracles can't happen, which makes your reasoning redundant.

I don't have to name one that isn't fake, I just have to name one that we can't be certain is fake. Here: The Fatima sun miracle, as I think I mentioned before. Now it's possible this one can be proven to be fake, but I'm 100�rtain that there hasn't been a formal investigation into every little claim that someone saw a miracle somewhere at some point.

1 point

"certain people actually believe the FSM exists and why is their claim any less valid than the other ?"

Because they have less evidence for their claim. "Valid" is the wrong word here, there aren't really degrees of validity, better to use something like "believable."

"But there’s not even a “ little bit of evidence “"

There is, even some random person saying that they saw a miracle counts as weak evidence if it can't be disproved. You certainly can't disprove every claim of seeing a miracle.

"I’ve told you repeatedly when we talked about miracle claims that any so called “ weak evidence “ is worthless regarding a miracle claim , for one to even believe such one has to allow for the ridiculous idea that the laws of the Universe have to temporarily put on hold to allow such to happen , you think that there could be a chance of this no matter how remote that chance is ?"

Of course, there is no way for us to know if it's possible, so as far as we (humans) are concerned there is a chance.

"Total shift of your position try it again and insert what we are addressing as in miracle claims , doesn’t work so well does it ?"

I will try:

Weak evidence that I a deity exists: Some person reports seeing a miracle.

Flawed evidence that a deity exists: My car is blue.

See how the weak evidence makes the conclusion [that a deity exists] ever so slightly more likely, but the flawed evidence is completely useless?

Works just fine.

"As in worthless .

Miracle :

A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws.[2] Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (especially a deity), magic, a miracle worker, a saint or a religious leader.

Let’s say that you , me and a believer are invited to a demonstration of a “ miracle “ the miracle worker appears on stage and levitates , the believer says “ hallelujah it’s a miracle “ you say “ It must be a trick but it’s possible however remotely that it may be a miracle “

I say “Its a trick and I can explain it “

We each have observed an event and drawn different conclusions all you and the believer have is an account of an event and anything else is merely an opinion as your conclusions are based on flawed assumptions, my opinion is the only one based on actual evidence"

But if you can disprove it that means it is flawed evidence, not weak evidence. You aren't claiming that you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that every single miracle claim ever made is completely fake, are you?

1 point

"But if it’s flawed you think it’s better than none ?"

Oops, I made a typo in the sentence you quoted. I said: "Yes. That doesn't mean I think the thing the evidence is contributing isn't flawed." I meant to say: "Yes. That doesn't mean I think the thing the evidence is contributing to isn't flawed." I'm not talking about flawed evidence, just weak evidence. There is a difference.

To rephrase that (in terms of a deity), I could say: "That doesn't mean I think a deity exists, just that the weak evidence for a deity makes it seem more likely a deity exists than FSM, for which there is no evidence at all.

"How can we evaluate something if we have no evidence for it ?"

If there is no evidence for something than it's just dumb to believe in it. If there is a little bit of evidence, it's still dumb to believe in it, just ever so slightly less so.

"Flawed evidence is worthless , how it’s better than none is beyond me"

Flawed evidence ii worthless, if we know it to be flawed, but weak evidence is not synonymous with flawed evidence.

Here's an everyday example:

Weak evidence that I had a bad night's sleep: I yawn a bit more than usual the next day.

Flawed evidence that I had a bad night's sleep: My car is blue.

See how the weak evidence makes the conclusion ever so slightly more likely, but the flawed evidence is completely useless? I'm saying that reports of miracles are like the weak evidence.

1 point

"I’m saying you are like the majority totally unqualified to assess miracle claims"

I don't see why I need to be qualified to say what I'm saying.

"It has as we are talking about miracle claims"

The fact that it was flawed has no relevance because I said nothing that implied it wasn't flawed.

"I know but you seem to think any evidence is better that none and must be given credit"

Yes. That doesn't mean I think the thing the evidence is contributing isn't flawed.

"You didn’t , you stated "It was more likely to be true than if there hadn't been any evidence." Remember now ?"

Yes, which (if you actually read the sentence) is what I have been saying all along. I don't know what you're reading. I said "It [Sai Baba thing] was more likely to be true than if there hadn't been any evidence [for Sai baba thing]." This clearly states that some evidence is better than none.

1 point

"Despite my giving you the accepted definition ....ok"

For something to be more probable than something else, it must have a higher chance than that something else. That is all.

"Because you like the majority most likely fall victim to miracle claims"

This statement makes no sense.

"But there was strong evidence for Sai Babas miracle claims and it was flawed"

This has no relevance. I said nothing that implied it wasn't flawed.

"So now no evidence for something is even better than flimsy evidence ......."

I said the exact opposite of that. I think you are deliberately misinterpreting my arguments.

Reelly.

1 point

"So are you happy with the definition of probable now ?"

Very happy. I'm not sure what you think it means though.

"So you don’t see how evidence of an everyday event might be assessed differently to claims of the miraculous ?"

Of course some things about the way we asses them are different, but why does the particular thing we were talking about only apply to everyday events.

"They are people who disagree with you on this and would claim to have “ evidence “"

I wasn't aware people actually believed in FSM. I know there is an official religion here in NZ for it, but the 'believers' don't actually believe it as far as I was aware. Either way, there are definitely more pieces of weak evidence for some deity than for FSM.

"They’re not , 100 million people believe Sai Baba was a miracle worker , I as in one disagree , yet I’m right but they had“evidence”which going on your assertions I should have accepted was more likely to be true"

It was more likely to be true than if there hadn't been any evidence.

"Really."

O really???

Mack(531) Clarified
1 point

"Well that’s what the term means"

No, it just means more likely than it was previously.

"For ordinary everyday things yes , for miracle claims no"

Why are miracle claims different?

"Surely no one ever puts forward a case of a statue moving based on nothing ?"

Of course not, but this is analogous to believing in FSM, as there is no evidence at all. Believing in a deity is like believing in moving statues after hearing a story of one.

"Why would I even give any credence to miracle claims ?"

You shouldn't if there isn't sufficient evidence, but they are still more likely to be true with weak evidence than without, no matter how ridiculous.

"Really?"

Really.

Mack(531) Clarified
1 point

"it’s the quality of seeming reasonable or probable."

So plausibility is the level of probability and reasonableness of something, right.

Hold on... Do you think when I say "more probable" that I mean more likely than not? I just mean that the addition of flimsy evidence increases the chance from, say, 0.000001 to, say, 0.01 - Not that it makes it more likely than not. I think the level of plausibility is extremely low for both FSM and a deity.

Isn't ever so slightly more reasonable to believe in moving statues based on hearsay rather than based on nothing at all? I don't see how you can dispute that.

Mack(531) Clarified
1 point

Plausibility is about the likelihood of something being true. It is a matter of probability.

I am not suggesting coming to conclusions based on anecdotal evidence, I am simply saying that something is more probable to be true if there is some evidence for it than if there is none. (Assuming there is no contradictory evidence)

By serious, I mean not a joke, metaphor, or allegory (like some stories in the bible) etc.

I am not saying we should take things seriously based on flimsy evidence, just that flimsy evidence is better than none.

Mack(531) Clarified
1 point

It's just a matter of probability. Any evidence, no matter how weak, is better than no evidence. A talking ass is more likely to exist if there is a serious report of one then if there isn't. Anecdotal evidence, while sucky, is still stronger than no evidence.

1 point

Yes, I agree with that. I thought some people might find this argument easier to accept when it wasn't directly about free will.

Mack(531) Clarified
1 point

One account that pops to mind is the "Fatima sun miracle," and I'm sure there is an endless list of miracles that people have claimed to have experienced. For instance, all the miracles mentioned in various holy books. I do not claim there is hard evidence, just some quite weak anecdotal evidence. Of course I do not believe in miracles, but what I am saying is that the mere existence of stories of miracles makes the existence of some deity more likely than that of FSM (flying spaghetti monster).

1 point

One thing that irks me about my own argument is that you might have influence over your environment. You could decide to go to university, for example, and learn, but even then you can't help the way your brain interprets what you are told. It might be fair to blame someone for never trying to expose themselves to new information (like say, an evolutionist arguing with a creationist), but in the case of, say, liberals vs conservatives, the personal attacks aren't really about that, so the main point of my argument mostly stands. Most personal attacks I see are more like: "You believe it's okay to do 'X!?' That's evil, you're evil." That doesn't seem as related to whether somebody has tried to expose themselves to new information or not.

Mack(531) Clarified
1 point

I believe them to be slightly more plausible because there are at least some accounts of miracles (not enough to be convincing) that increase the probability that some deity exists, but there's no shred of evidence to suggest FSM exists.

1 point

Yeah, in that very specific circumstance the young man has extra knowledge about the risk of his actions, so is guilty. I don't know if the law would see it that way though.

1 point

No, there was practically no way for the man to know his actions would risk another's death.

1 point

Most atheists I know do not claim that there is no God, rather that there is no rational reason to believe in God. It is as hard to prove that no deities exist as it is to prove that there is no "flying spaghetti monster" somewhere in the universe (to use a common example).

If a clear definition of God is provided one can attempt a disproof, sometimes a redutio ad absurdum, where we find a contradiction. Here's one argument:

(1). The Abrahamic God has given us free will.

(2). The Abrahamic God knows what we will do in the future.

Premise (1) contradicts premise (2), therefore (3); The God of the bible cannot exist.

I'm not actually 100% convince by this argument, and even if it works, it doesn't prove no God can exist.

A similarly structured argument, which I'm sure you've heard is the argument from evil. I can't be bothered to go over it here, and it doesn't entirely convince me either.

I hold the position that there is no reason to believe any deity exists, and no reason to believe that one doesn't. Therefore I treat them as being only slightly more plausible than the flying spaghetti monster.

2 points

It is possible that this is just correlation and not causation. It could be that the type of people who become atheists/agnostics are also the type of people not to break the law. This (on its own) doesn't mean that believing in God causes immoral behavior or anything like that.

In my experience it depends on the person, not their religious beliefs.

Mack(531) Clarified
1 point

Interesting indeed. This does make the assumptions seem unjustified.

Mack(531) Clarified
1 point

I believe the mask is doing the down-voting.

One of the stated assumptions of the argument is that it is possible for such a simulation to be built, and I can understand if you dispute that assumption. Frankly I don't know enough about computer science to decide on that.

The simulators are subjected to the same probability, but I don't see the problem. There is still a probability that they are not simulated. There would exist many more simulated than not simulated beings if (3) is accepted, but that is fine, as there would still be at least one not simulated civilization, they just wouldn't know if they were the ones.

1 point

Occam's razor favors the simpler explanation over the more complex one only when there isn't compelling reason to believe the more complex one. To use Occam's razor as a counterargument here is to beg the question - to assume that there isn't compelling reason to believe this argument (or to assume that the argument isn't sound). Also, the simulation hypothesis as it is used here isn't intended as an explanation, it is simply a conclusion about the way the world is through reason.

I agree that it doesn't make much difference if we are simulated, I think we would still be 'real,' in a sense, but that is irrelevant to whether the argument works.

I don't see how it is another version of the ontological argument (which I think is sucky argument). It is of the same style of reasoning - a priori / armchair reasoning, yes, but that doesn't make it flawed in the same way.

0 points

Although it may seem quite speculative, that doesn't mean it is wrong. I find it hard to believe either (1) or (2), so I guess I'm left with (3). I don't see a fourth option, and I think the reasoning and assumptions are acceptable.

1 point

I agree with what you say; the mind seems to be purely due to physical things. If the brain (and other physical things) are sufficient for our minds then there is no reason to assume the existence of any non physical element in the absence of evidence.

Would you agree that if we had all the necessary skills and technology to replicate a human brain and body (physically identical to a human) it would have a mind just like ours?

I have to write an essay on this "mind - brain identity theory" (or some other similar topic), and I thought it would be interesting to get a different perspective from you guys.

1 point

If by atheism you mean the belief that no deity exists and if by faith you mean believing something without evidence:

It depends on why someone believes something. If you believe there is a god (or that there isn't) based on some sort of argument then it isn't really a matter of faith, it is a matter of reason. The only faith involved might be in one's own ability to reason, which is true of both sides.

If your belief isn't based on argument but rather a feeling (or something irrational) then it takes a big amount of faith either way.

Most sensible atheists (to the best of my knowledge) don't go around arguing that there is no deity, they just argue that it is irrational to believe in one. This doesn't require much faith.


1 of 7 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]