CreateDebate


TruthAnalyst's Waterfall RSS

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

we would be unable to interpret our emotional state

Who is to say that? We might have a different word for the feeling if we had never felt pain, but the feeling would still exist. Those reactions would still happen, and we would feel the same thing.

You're clearly not a physics major, darkness is defined as the absence of light, and vice vearsa, go check.

You are saying light is defined as the absence of darkness? I'm sorry but that is simply wrong.

http://library.thinkquest.org/27356/p_index.htm - "Light is... electromagnetic radiation that can be detected by the human eye."

http://physics.info/light/ - "Light is a transverse, electromagnetic wave that can be seen by humans."

Light is an actual thing, darkness is the absence of it. Light doesn't require darkness to exist.

Well you only feel that way because you know what its like to not exist, otherwise there'd simply be no way of knowing we exist, its all aboit contrast.

How can I know what it's like to not exist? I've never experienced not existing(If I had, I would have had to exist to experience it).

The reality is though pain cannot exist with joy.

1 - This isn't technically what the debate is about.

2 - Pain is your body's response to harm or potential harm. We don't need to have experienced joy to be able to experience pain. The body is setup to automatically transmit information from nerve endings to the brain.

An emotion is a biochemical process. It happens independently.

Light doesn't require darkness to exist. If light exists, it exists solely because it exists. We could still have the chemical reactions for happiness without ever experiencing sadness.

2 points

Debt is nothing more or less than the irresponsible management of money. Governments can go into debt for many reasons, but it usually boils down to trying to oversee too many things, being too involved in other countries' affairs(especially militarily), and flawed ideals that can't be supported.

For instance, welfare programs. Everyone agrees that having something to help people who are struggling is good as an idea, but what if you can't pay for it? No government can take care of all its citizens, nor should it. By attempting to provide welfare to everyone, a government takes money from some and gives it to others(while wasting or losing some of it along the way). This can cause catastrophic results by causing those who are doing well to fall into the needy category.

2 points

School doesn't fulfill essential needs for every person as they grow up. It only serves as a basic foundation of knowledge, learning, and social skills. A well-rounded person, however, needs to develop much more that can't be taught inside schools.

Work ethic, financial responsibility, moral and religious values, freedom and creativity... are just examples of what aren't effectively fostered in a school environment. Too much rigidity shackles a young mind.

It's a simple matter of self-image. Those who are concerned how others think of them can be swayed to follow the stereotypes of what is 'manly' and what isn't.

Those who are concerned with living life to its fullest have a tendency to make those kinds of decisions for themselves.

In other words, you either decide whether it is by yourself, or you allow others to decide for you.

3 points

I would recommend trying to argue without demeaning people or their arguments. Respectful, rational arguments are more productive.

My point was, the answer is unknowable. One position we can take in relation to it then, is similar to Pascal's Wager. If we cannot empirically determine if free will exists, then it would be best to wager that it does.

There is no way to ontologically determine the existence of free will.

0 points

Free will doesn’t mean ‘the ability to choose.’ It means that the choices being made are independent and random.

Here's your problem Coldfire, you don't understand what free will is.

Free will: free and independent choice; voluntary decision; the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free+will]

You shouldn't use Wikipedia as a source for definitions in a debate. Even so, the wiki definition doesn't say 'free from all kinds of restraints', so it doesn't support your position regardless.

Neither should you downvote(if it's you doing it) an argument simply because you don't agree with it. Voting up/down should be in relation to the argument, not the position of the argument.

Free will is the ability to choose for yourself. Having external forces that can be considered doesn't eliminate free will. I have the choice to either comply or try to defend myself if someone pulls a weapon on me.

I personally only down-vote for rude arguments, spam, or arguments so poorly written that they can't be understood.

I would never down-vote someone simply because I disagree with them. I think we should all try to maintain the integrity of respectful debate.

No. It exists in similar areas as I argued earlier, and it also exists in the framework that we create in society.

What makes the God of the Bible any more valid than the God of any other people?

The God of the bible is love. Would a loving parent only give the truth to some of his children?

2 points

Joy: the emotion of great delight or happiness caused by something exceptionally good or satisfying.

Imagine there is a new gaming system that you never heard any news about, never even new existed, and suddenly you are given it as a present. If you are into that sort of thing, you would be very excited about having something new, and it would bring happiness and entertainment to you, without you ever having felt the lack of not having that system.

Happiness is an inherent trait all humans are capable of. Babies start to laugh and smile at a very young age, naturally. There is no suffering required to feel joy or happiness.

However, it can be said that pain and suffering can cause us to appreciate joy more, but it is not a requisite.

There is no need to demean philosophical discussion Coldfire. We owe much of what we are to philosophy.

Yes, free-will is the natural thought. If we don't have it, then many of us are decided in some way to think that we do. Rationally it is a better concept to exist than otherwise, as it allows more for society to exist in its current form than otherwise. If there were no free will, then the thought of us punishing people for breaking the rules of society becomes an unbearable burden. Why should we punish anyone for doing something if they don't have control?

You say people would be more responsible if they realized how much their decisions affect others, but how could a person be more responsible unless they had the free will to choose to be so?

Consequences to actions caused by an external force do exist, but not in the sense of individual responsibility.

Your example of having a gun to the head actually argues in favor of free will. If it weren't for free will, you wouldn't be able to choose to save your life by complying. Besides, not everyone chooses to comply simply because someone shows force. Many people choose to train and arm themselves to be able to defend themselves.

sure you could choose either or, but there is still the outcome of either dying or losing money; both can be considered a consequence, and the conclusion you arrive at is dependent on what you value more, not “free will.”

You said yourself, we can choose. We choose based off of what we value(our lives), but the reasons for making a choice don't change the fact that we are still making a choice. Free will doesn't mean you make some random choice in every situation.

I never said it is free will vs. fate. It is free will vs. no free will. You can call it fate, or reaction, or reflex, or anything else, but the truth is it has to be will, or no will.

You are the one creating a false dichotomy between free-will and informed decisions. People make decisions based off of experience, and we call that trait wisdom. You can exercise free will wisely.

I definitely understand the correlation between education and the tendency to dismiss mainstream religion, most religion, in my experience, contains irrational teachings that aren't really based in their religious texts. I personally think a larger majority of higher-educated individuals would believe if less religions held onto these false ideas, and instead interpreted scriptures in a more rational(less traditional) way.

One reason why I truly believe we'll have more believers in the future is due to Dark Matter and Dark Energy. From everything I have experienced in this world, I expect it to be more likely that they mirror our current matter and energy, rather than being more like neutrinos that just seem to be everywhere. I really think that if we discover a way to measure and detect the two, we will find that there is much more to each person that we first thought.

I think when we understand each other better, we essentially agree with each other's reasoning. Your experiences have led you to agnostic atheism, and mine have led me to a different understanding. If we had different experiences, we could each stand completely in the others' shoes.

Part of the confusion when talking about atheism is always how to define it. I imagine it will become more concrete in the future, but now it seems half define it as strong atheism and half define it as weak... and half define it as both :P

But like I said, I have more of an expectation that future findings will lead us toward theism/spirituality than otherwise. Perhaps agnostic theist will become the norm.

My point is, it is the differences in the two people, the differences in the way they are raised, that cause them to be different. With two male twins, neither gains an advantage from being male.

Equality absolutely is an ideology, but it is an ideology that best fits society as a whole. It is possible for us to create equality where it otherwise wouldn't exists by agreeing to certain things.

You could argue that males are generally stronger than females, so if you have two equal candidates for an administrative assistant, one female and one male, you might prefer the male over the female. Rules of equality tell us that if the physical strength isn't really an issue, then it shouldn't be compared. Hence, we create equality that otherwise wouldn't exist.

3 points

I will present a very weak 'yes' here, because I have seen the effects of violent video games on children.

However, it is a weak 'yes' because I think this is more a factor of poor parenting than the influence of video games. Good parents don't allow their children to be consumed by games, good parents make sure their children understand the difference between games and real life, and ensure they don't get involved in too violent of games for their age.

0 points

Equality certainly exists, you just have to compare similar to similar.

For example, consider two male twins. They grow up in the same place, go to the same schools, eat the same food, etc...

As far as the 'male' trait is concerned, they are perfectly equal. You can't say one is stronger than the other because he's a male. The differences only come from different traits, such as different genes, different personal experiences, etc...

Therefore, total equality doesn't exist, but general equality does exist in comparable areas.

I certainly understand and respect your point about there being less that is supernatural. More knowledge doesn't necessarily move us away from God however. If we understood everything about God and how he operates, then God wouldn't be supernatural, but would still exist.

I guess you're saying a topic isn't fully explored unless we also explore inter-related topics, and I can agree with that about the Big Bang. :D

Why?

Currently, we have two basic scenarios. The possibility of the universe being created without a catalyst(no possibility for God), and the possibility of the universe being created with a catalyst(possibility for God). If we learned that a catalyst is required, it would remove an infinite number of non-catalyst possibilities, therefore making it more likely that an intelligent catalyst is the explanation. Similarly, if we learned that a catalyst couldn't have been involved, it would completely remove the possibility for an intelligent catalyst.

Impossible/possible

Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks for correcting me :) Just like the catalyst scenario, proving that reanimation is possible eliminates the possibility of Christ's story being impossible, thereby making the story more likely to be true, even if we haven't figured out how it could have happened back then.

no valid reason to believe in it outside of faith...

Just as importantly, there is no valid reason to dismiss it as a possibility. Subjectively, we believe based off of experience. Objectively, and what we present as universal, verifiable truth, we shouldn't make any such limits. If you are referring to atheism in the 'weak atheism'(agnostic) sense, then there isn't too much of an issue. But referring to atheism is the strong sense, there is no valid reason to objectively dismiss something as a possibility. True science must be approached objectively.

So, would you say that it is incorrect (at least possibly) to conceive of God as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omnitemporal, etc.?

I believe that omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnitemporal are poor translations, and aren't included in the original Greek or Hebrew. As such, we should at least be open to the possibility of a better translation. Saying God is omnipotent with no restrictions opens the door for paradox(Can he create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?), where 'most powerful) doesn't require paradox by definition.

However, I don't know if there is the same problem with omniscient, omnibenevolent... I see no reason for there to be a limit to those.

I appreciate the discussion :)

1 - Chill out friend :)

2 - One of the points of a community debate is to get the total community input, even if the same point is made more than once.

There is no way for us to know 100% if free will exists or not. There is no way for us to know 100% if we exist or not. Maybe tomorrow the butterfly that is dreaming about us will wake up and our universe will end...

However, if we set aside the extreme-philosophic, the rational conclusion is that we do have free will. Imagine a society with the consensus that there was no free will. If that decision was made(not made, since there would be no will, but decided for us), there would be no consequence for any actions.

It's better for us to live in a society with responsibility, so we can work together for the common good.

2 points

There is no empirical test that we can do to prove this one way or another. We must understand that religious subjects are subjective, not objective. Objective things, we can test scientifically and show results. Subjective things are personal. Experiences are subjective.

Does that make our experiences any less real? Not necessarily. It is simply important to distinguish between what can and can't be objectively proven.

It's ridiculous to say we are running out of things to guess about when we haven't even seen 96% of the universe that exists within 50-billion light years, nor have we seen anything further out than that. We are nowhere near close to running out of things to guess about. That was my point.

Quantum mechanics is a very new and unproven branch of science. It could be completely wrong for all we know. But, on the other hand, we might learn a lot from it. Time will tell. If it leads us to other universes, planes, or dimensions, then that will only multiply the amount of things we have to guess about.

What I was saying was that if we understand it 100%, we will know what the cause is, the catalyst as you say.

No, we could understand the Big Bang theory and still not know the cause. It doesn't address the cause, so proving the Big Bang doesn't prove the cause(or lack of). It goes back to that first moment, but not a second before.

Our space-time exists inside the Big Bang, so to speak. Inside the area in which the 'banged' material is expanding. Outside of that, our space-time doesn't apply, but that has nothing to do with the existence of time outside of our universe. Imagine an infinite expanse of nothingness that our universe is expanding into. It makes sense that if 1 universe like ours can exist in that nothingness, that multiple universes can and should also exist.

Tell me, aside from the definition of God, why is it more likely that the catalyst be intelligent than not?

You missed my point. I didn't say the catalyst would more likely be intelligent than not. What I said was, the requirement of a catalyst makes the likelihood of an intelligent catalyst more likely than not requiring a catalyst. It could be non-intelligent or destroyed in the creation, but in that situation intelligence is more likely if a catalyst is required.

That would depend on the method used.

Not at all. Proving that it is impossible at all makes the story more likely to be true. You assume that if we only knew one way to do it, and that wasn't available at the time, that it would be the only way to do it.

We have 96% of the universe that we can't detect. Most of it is energy. Who is to say that we can't use that energy to perform miracles? Perhaps we will learn that Dark Matter and Dark Energy mirror the matter and energy we can see(in other words, spiritual bodies and spiritual energy).

Again, one can't say that because God has no limits. Seems mighty convenient to make sure that the definition of an entity automatically eliminates all attempts to investigate or disprove it.

Not necessarily. The Judeo-Christian God is 'almighty'. The Hebrew word for almighty means 'most powerful'. It doesn't necessarily mean 'able to do anything'. 'Able to do anything that can be done' would be a better translation, but that doesn't come across well if you substitute it every time in the Bible.

Science is the best process we currently have for discovering truth. When we look out into deep space, we see everything moving away from us at increasing speeds.

It follows scientifically that there either is, or was at some point, sufficient force to cause this separation. Following backwards, the only explanations for this expansion are Dark Energy and something along the lines of a Big Bang. The Big Bang theory is simply our best explanation currently.

However, there is no reason to think that, if the universe was created with a Big Bang, that such a truth would exclude God from being the Creator. Imagine it this way. Let's say we prove the Big Bang possible by compacting energy into a tiny point, releasing it in a vacuum, and observing a sort of mini-universe taking shape. That would basically prove the Big Bang was possible as an explanation.

However, if we could take energy, compact it, and release it in a vacuum, who is to say that God couldn't have done the same thing to create our universe?

We may never know, but it is fun to try and figure it out.

The Big Bang theory doesn't state creation from nothing.

It states that all of the mass-energy in the universe was compacted into a very small point, and exploded from there.

Supporting Evidence: Big Bang Theory Explained(NASA) (map.gsfc.nasa.gov)

Again, sorry. Ignore the crappy post from the crappy computer with the crappy mouse.


1 of 2 Pages: Next >>

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