Okay, I am bowing out of this discussion. This is really, really sad that at this point in time, there can are people who believe the universe doesn't have order.

Folks here is your problem. Education for technology has not resulted in people having a good understanding of reality, and there is no point in arguing with them. Their religious belief is the poison that is being questioned. They are sure they know truth and won't question what is true. We are in serious trouble!

We derive order from our own understanding of the universe. The universe is independent of order. What would be a disordered universe? By saying the universe has order, it's implying that a creator created the universe. The universe wasn't created.

Im not sure how to respond to any of that. Im glad that my questions amuse you, but you didnt really address anything I said.
You arent really offering anything of substance, the words are just empty assertions. You could replace “god” with any gibberish word and lose nothing from your statements.
Also, did you just state with pride that you were banned for being frustrating? That doesnt sound like a good thing. — DingoJones

Oh dear, I didn't think my thoughts were that different. :worry:

Oh yes, I was banned from a science forum for speaking of god as I speak of god and it hurt a lot. Whenever I get excited about an argument and start having one realization after another, and become euphoric as my sense of enlightenment grows, I get banned. That is a huge crash from my euphoric state of being. For you to say I don't make any sense is disheartening, but at least I am not worried about you banning me, and you ask questions! What a gift those questions are. I try to say things that make people question what they think, but I am not doing so well when it is taken as gibberish.

There is no substance to an abstract. Reach out your hand and try to pull a 4 out of the sky. Do you pay attention to math and things like string theory? That is where this crazy thinking begins with the Greeks and math. The Sumerians and Egyptians were much better at math than the Greeks, but then some geek Greeks like Archimedes, Democritus, Diophantus, Eratosthenes, Euclid, Hipparchus, Heron Of Alexandria, Ptolemy and Pythagoras began playing with math concepts. They advanced math from practical mathematics to abstract concepts. The ideal and universal truth. The triangular shape is not just what you make with a rope and use as a tool, but on earth, the moon, and Mars a triangle is a triangle. That is a quantum leap of intelligence. It is abstract, not concrete.

With math, we can know the unknowable. I have college lectures where a professor can talk about math and knots for hours. With math, we can learn of DNA and the universe. I am not a mathematician, but I read books and listen to lectures explaining how math can be used, and why we believe this and that. I wish I were young with a more pliable brain and had a math coach who could help me understand the mysteries of math. Math is about so much more than numbers! The book "A Beginner's Guide to Constructing the Universe" gives a very different understanding of god than holy books. Each number, 1 through 10 represents a concept of nature. With this knowledge, we have cured more evil than religions have. To know god is to understand how the universe works and this is pretty important to our survival and good moral judgment.

We may be on the verge of another math breakthrough that will radically change our perception of reality. Math has changed and changed since we first began thinking in terms of numbers. As math changes so does our understanding of reality change. When someone says the universe is not ordered, I can not deal with that. It is like telling a Christian there is no god. To see reality through math is a very different perspective that trying to understand it by reading a holy book.

Yes, but living things depend on facts to survive. — AppLeo

So...? I don't see the supposed relevance of that to what I said.

Why?

How is it not wrong to accept a truth without evidence? I understand that people judge things different because of different values, but it doesn't make their judgments correct. — AppLeo

Oh god. Those are some big assumptions from you. To be clear, we're talking about ethical statements or statements reflecting a value judgement, because that's what, "Inexcusable!", makes it.

For starters, let's not call it a truth, because there are positions which don't accept that such statements are true or even truth-apt. Once you've ruled them out with a sound argument, and we are agreed on that, then we can call it a truth.

It's wrong from your perspective if you base what's wrong on that criterion. But there is nothing forcing anyone to apply that criterion.

And you have yet to make the case for correct/incorrect being appropriate here.

Aesthetics is subjective, sure. But ethics? I disagree. — AppLeo

It's fine to disagree, but you should be more careful in how you approach this topic. You seem to just rush in head first with a shit load of controversial assumptions as if they're established fact!

There is an objective morality. The standard of value that all individuals have is their own lives. Life is the most important value. Which means that everything that propels an individual's life forward is moral, and everything that doesn't is immoral. Reason, which is fundamental to the survival of your life, must be an objective moral value. It cannot be subjective. — AppLeo

These are just a string of bald assertions.

It's fine to disagree, but you should be more careful in how you approach this topic. You seem to just rush in head first with a shit load of controversial assumptions as if they're established fact! — S

What about them isn't factual?

These are just a string of bald assertions. — S

How?

AppLeo
37
We derive order from our own understanding of the universe. The universe is independent of order. What would be a disordered universe? By saying the universe has order, it's implying that a creator created the universe. The universe wasn't created. — AppLeo

If the universe was not created, why does it appear to be our reality? Of course, there is the Hindu explanation that this is all a dream and when the dreamer wakes up, it all starts over again. Our reality could be a hologram or multi-dimensional and what we perceive could be only a tiny part of what is. For sure it is all energy and at the atomic level, the rules of physics are not the same as the rules we have thought hold the universe together. but we can use those laws of physics to create and destroy. That gives us evidence for believing in them.

Laugh, instead of questioning if there is a god, should we be questioning if there is a manifested reality? My perceptions could be all wrong, but I perceive a created universe, and that I can follow the laws and get good outcomes, or violate the laws and get bad outcomes. For there to be a manifest reality there are laws of physics that give it order. At least for the universe I perceive, all depends on those laws and order.

Of course, if our sun slipped into another dimension, it would take at least 8 minutes for the darkness to reach us and without its gravity, we would no longer be held in an orbit around it. Then our argument about of if the universe was created and if it has order or not, wouldn't really matter. :lol:

What about them isn't factual? — AppLeo

The burden doesn't lie with me.

How? — AppLeo

What? Do you know what a bald assertion is? How am I supposed to explain how except by saying that they fit the description? I can't really do much in this situation. Can you show me where in your post that these big claims were accompanied by a supporting argument?

The universe is real and evident; it just wasn't created. Existence can't be created from nonexistence.

So life isn't the most important value? And reason isn't mandatory to furthering one's life?

So life isn't the most important value? And reason isn't mandatory to furthering one's life? — AppLeo

That's not how this works. If you want to continue this exchange, then you'll have to put in a lot more effort. Otherwise I'll bring it to an end.

If you're going to claim that life is the most important value, and that reason is mandatory to furthering one's life, then you'll need to a) explain the supposed relevance to what we've said beforehand, and b) if they're relevant, attempt to justify them.

Do not throw loaded questions at me or try to shift the burden. And do not ignore what I've written: quote me and address it.

Im not saying you dont make sense, im saying that the terms you are using dont have any meaning. They are just placeholders for a concept you cant define or explain or know anything about. Thats functionally the same as saying nothing at all.
Also, didnt say you were speaking gibberish, Im saying that a gibberish word with no meaning could function equally well as the one you are using (god etc).
Its difficult to see why your explanations should be called god at all.

I understand what you meant by subjective. I asked because you seemed to be making a distinction between some morals and the morals being discussed ”...here...” and I was curious about how you made that distinction. It appears you do not. — DingoJones

Yes, I wasn't being that specific. I meant these sorts of issues about these kinds of judgement. This would just be one example.

We can reasonably argue the universe is ordered and therefore there must be a god. — Athena

I strongly doubt you can make even a halfway reasonable argument for this.

Life is the most important value if you want to live life. People who disagree don't interest me because they obviously don't care about themselves or the lives of others. This is for people who choose life. How do you pursue life properly? With reason. Why? Because you must live in accordance to reality and the only way to do this is with reason. You must observe with your senses and then use logic to make non-contradictory conclusions of reality. If you don't live in accordance to reality you destroy your ability to live happily and fully. For example, someone who believes in the after-life wastes their time and energy worshipping a God that doesn't even exist. Or a terrorist who believes he'll be rewarded in the after-life if he blows himself up. Or a hungry person who thinks that if preys to to a God that doesn't exist will deliver him food. Or someone who wishes and lives as if reality is a certain way when it is not. This is not a matter of judgment but of fact. There is a right and wrong if you care about your life. People who hold values based on faith or selflessness are incorrect, which means religious people hold the wrong values. People can only hold differing values as long as those values are aligned with their rational self-interest. Someone may value music and another person may value engineering, but they are both values that increase the quality of an individual's life. Religion asks you to accept a morality that is selfless, meaning a duty to your fellow brothers, and without reason because God and religious morality must be accepted without evidence or the use of logic.

Debate on the value of religion is one debated even by those who do believe in a higher power. Historically speaking, religion can be seen to be the most effective cause of human unity. Regardless of the original intentions of religion, religion has fueled conquest, death, peace, safety, and belonging. Religions are a set of precedents that each culture lives by. Religions soak up the moral fiber of a culture, and is the medium through which people choose to subscribe to said religion. Human power of belief is the strongest power in the world. In one case, a native American tribe told stories of wise men getting togeather in masses, believing that they could move a mountain, and moving that mountain with their belief. Ancient stories of monsters whose existance came from the negative emotions of humans are present all over the world. I am personally inspired by the studies of qi, and how our thoughts can effect our energy. Religion's power is in its belief, and without religion, humans may have anguished under the weight of intellect.

Im not sure how to respond to any of that. Im glad that my questions amuse you, but you didnt really address anything I said.
You arent really offering anything of substance, the words are just empty assertions. You could replace “god” with any gibberish word and lose nothing from your statements.
Also, did you just state with pride that you were banned for being frustrating? That doesnt sound like a good thing. — DingoJones

I know, right? Her posts are too long and rambling, and full of disordered thinking and wishy washy notions. Lacking in succinctness, lacking in substance, lacking in logic. I think I can see why she was banned.

Im not convinced as of yet that Athena is lacking in substance and logic, the succinctness I agree on though. She said she gets excited, and she seems to be operating from a fairly idiosyncratic basis...im trying to figure it out but Im not sure its a suspension of reason or anything like that.

Historically speaking, religion can be seen to be the most effective cause of human unity. — Reverie of Renaissance

It may be accurate to say, for instance, that Christianity is the most effective cause of Christian unity. It would be quite inaccurate to say that Christianity, or any other form of religion, is the most effective cause of human unity. Religion may successfully unify those within a group, but this unity does not extend beyond the in-group. This is a very important aspect to realize.

Religions soak up the moral fiber of a culture, and is the medium through which people choose to subscribe to said religion. — Reverie of Renaissance

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here but this is clearly false. If religions absorbed the moral fiber of a culture then religions would only express that [good?] moral fiber. And people subscribe to religions for a variety of reasons.

Religion poisons everything?! — OP

Bit late to the party, but here's my two cents...

If by religion he means the religions he knows (Christianity, and judeo-christian religions) then i would tend to agree. If he means all religions, then I'd disagree.

Religion is supposed to be a veneration of the highest values in a given society, a veneration of all that is good… Judeo-Christian religions specifically tend to focus on life-denying values, but not all religions before were like that.

We are social creatures, and religion probably plays a vital role in a flourishing society. As philosophers we tend to pride ourselves on standing outside the masses, on our individualism… but ultimately I think, individualism is merely a solution to a bad situation, and far from the pinacle of what we can achieve, and as such nothing to be all that proud of really.

I don't think that you're quite comprehending where our disagreement lies, and I'm doubting that this back and forth dialogue is going to work out well. Parts of that block of text from you reverts to a normative framework, rather than a meta-framework, and kind of preaches to the choir. You may just as well have expressed, "Yay life! Yay reason! Boo religion!". I could echo that expression, as it resonates with me. You're merely assuming your own simplistic meta-framework where there's a true and a false, right and a wrong, correct and incorrect, then asserting that it's the former with regards to what you're claiming, and the latter for everyone else who judges it differently, in accordance with some imaginary objective standard, which is actually just your own.

Im not convinced as of yet that Athena is lacking in substance and logic, the succinctness I agree on though. She said she gets excited, and she seems to be operating from a fairly idiosyncratic basis...im trying to figure it out but Im not sure its a suspension of reason or anything like that. — DingoJones

I'm not convinced as yet that it's worth the effort of engaging with to such an extent. You know when you look over a post and think to yourself, "Oh my god, what a muddle! Where do I even begin?"...? Maybe you're more kind and patient than me. I'm more of the "don't suffer fools gladly" type.

So mysticism and death can be considered good things by some people because there is no objective right and wrong. That's my understanding from you.

We can take out the word "Christian" and put in the words, Hindu, Buddist, Jew, Muslim, Taoist. Are you as willing to honor these people as you want us to honor Christians, or does the term bigot apply only when speaking of non-believers and Christians? — Athena

Try taking out the word Christian in your sentence and insert black people and see how it reads

s. However, a problem comes up when they are arguing with an atheist who may have a math and science foundation of knowledge because their foundation of knowledge is so different. — Athena

You don't really believe this do you, it's a joke right.

You know there are Christians who avoid math and science because they don't want to put the effort into learning math and science, so your logic that what I said is false has to be an emotional response not your reasoned response. In general, people avoid learning math and science, even professors. This becomes a problem when people who have at least some understanding of math and science are arguing with those who do not. Their argument cannot be based in logical because they are not working with the same foundation of knowledge. — Athena

Wow - sometimes all you can say is wow.

So mysticism and death can be considered good things by some people because there is no objective right and wrong. That's my understanding. — AppLeo

Of course they can be considered good things by some people. They can be considered good things by some people regardless of whether or not there's an objective right and wrong. And they wouldn't even necessarily be mistaken in considering them as such if there were an objective right and wrong. You'd have to make a further argument for that.

If you were to ask me whether I consider them to be good things, then I would answer that, like you, I do not. However, unlike you, I don't try to justify that for which there is no reasonable basis for justification. I don't try to make out that my judgement is reflective of an objective standard. It's a judgement which stems from my values. Values are not objective. Values are based on how we emotionally connect. I emotionally connect with reason, I value it, so that's what influences my judgement. And I value it over and above other considerations in certain circumstances. But not everyone is like me. Others might care more about what gives them peace of mind, and what helps them cope with life, and as a result believe something unreasonable. I wouldn't simply say that they're wrong (as a value judgement), at least not without a subtext whereby if you were to read between the lines, you would know that I only meant wrong in accordance with my set of values and priorities.

I agree generally, but the benifit of the doubt has delivered the goods too many times for me to not give the person a good, fair chance.

Mysticism and death is bad. I don't understand how they are good things. They are objectively bad. Why would we want to live in a world where humans don't value life, and pursue mysticism instead of reason to understand reality. People who don't value life and don't hold reason as an absolute are people who make the world worse, not only for themselves, but for everybody else. Your kind of thinking is the reason why people can justify doing horrible things. Because there is no right or wrong. Because there is no morality, people can do whatever it is they please because, "it's my values there is no right and wrong."

Mysticism and death is bad. I don't understand how they are good things. They are objectively bad. — AppLeo

Can you explain how they are objectively bad? Of course I generally know what you mean by saying that "death is bad" and I agree on an emotional level, but I don't know how you can claim this is true on an objective level.

Mysticism is good, btw, because it may help us to see beyond the duality of good/bad or life/death and in so doing relieve the anxieties these dualities may produce in us.

Because life is good if you want to live. That's just a fact. How do you live life if you don't your life? And why would anyone not want to value their life? Makes no sense.

Mysticism is objectively bad because it's the acceptance of something as truth without evidence or proof. It's even worse when people accept something as truth when it contrasts with what is evident or proven already. Accepting truths without evidence is detrimental to one's life in all cases. It's not a matter of what you value.

Because life is good if you want to live. That's just a fact. How do you live life if you don't your life? And why would anyone not want to value their life? Makes no sense. — AppLeo

It's also a fact that people value things that are not normally considered "good." For example, there are thousands of nuclear weapons in the world, so they must be valued in some way, but few people would say they are good things. Less dramatically, people who smoke, drink, and have a poor diet typically value their lives, yet they continue to consume these things regardless of how they negatively impact their health.

Also, it makes perfect sense that someone might strive to lessen the value they put on their life because it might reduce existential anxiety.

Mysticism is objectively bad because it's the acceptance of something as truth without evidence or proof. — AppLeo

That's not what mysticism is. Please consult a dictionary.

It's also a fact that people value things that are not normally considered "good." For example, there are thousands of nuclear weapons in the world, so they must be valued in some way, but few people would say they are good things. Less dramatically, people who smoke, drink, and have a poor diet typically value their lives, yet they continue to consume these things regardless of how they negatively impact their health. — praxis

I'm not talking about that. I'm saying that to value life and to use reason is to be objective.

That's not what mysticism is. Please consult a dictionary. — praxis

That is what mysticism is.