They're fully responsible for their own actions, including going to war and following orders. — S
But it's certainly not lawless, is it? Humans came up with a huge amount of "martial law", from warriors' codes of honour to the Geneva Conventions... — WerMaat
The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) would like a word with you. — Terrapin Station
War is not a complete state of lawlessness — god must be atheist
Self-actualization as in Jesus or Jann Arden, like in how to be successful class in high school? Passion is a drive toward something, a compulsion — whollyrolling
Love isn't an emotion, it's a biological commitment to mating for life. It might raise emotions within us, but it's based on something primal. — whollyrolling
If our attention, or awareness, in a moment is focused on something that isn't love then how can we claim to be in love? — Edward
Sometimes I wonder whether you do the opposite to me on purpose. I analyse the argument, think about it critically, and offer up criticism. You just smile and offer vague praise. — S
So back to your claim. If theism should deserve to be in the table of philosophy, it requires to be under the same level of scrutiny as every other field. However, as long as theists continue with flaws in their reasoning with biases and fallacies, that's not possible. You can't have the cake and eat it too. — Christoffer
And you need to change your argument if there are valid counter-arguments. — Christoffer
One thing at a time. We were talking about Pascal's argument, as paraphrased by you. I was not ready to move on to a different, possibly related argument. — S
That criticism was not a criticism of theism. How could you even think that? It was specifically a criticism of Pascal's argument, as paraphrased by you. — S
Is this going to get a proper response or not? You changed the subject to a different argument, and instead of addressing the logical problem, you just saw it as a personal attack and responded in kind. — S
Yet you have the nerve to suggest that you're in pursuit of the truth. Don't you think that it's immoral to lie? — S
You changed the subject to a different argument, and instead of addressing the logical problem, you just saw it as a personal attack and responded in kind. And then when I question why you responded in this way, instead of responding properly, I just get more personal attacks. — S
And properly dealing with scrutiny? — S
No it doesn't, and I don't. — S
Theism isn't treated as a fallacy, the logic of many arguments by theists are not logical or rational. The inability to see the flaws in reasoning, the cognitive biases, the fallacies when trying to prove the existence of God, the existence of the supernatural etc. is so high within theism compared to atheism that it should be a red flag towards theists to "get in the game" instead of accepting flawed reasoning. Most of the time, basic philosophical methods are abandoned in favor of evangelism. In philosophical terms, that kind of reasoning does not deserve to be respected. Philosophy needs harder scrutiny for the arguments, which seems more acceptable to atheists than theists. — Christoffer
Do you appreciate the difference between “Philosophy of Religion” and “Theology”? Don’t pull the wool over your own eyes, this is a philosophy forum so to assume authority of theism here is a no starter, sorry.
Philosophy of Science is the analysis of religion without the presumption of belief in any said ‘god’. Atheism was a term used by the religious to sully someone’s name; funny thing is people started to take it more and more as a compliment :) — I like sushi
God created the universe. It is impossible to create anything infinite (because you would never finish doing so) so the universe must be finite. — Devans99
If God is somehow non-material then possibly he could have some form of 'metaphysical infinity' but it seems unlikely; it seems counter to common sense. — Devans99
My last post relies on a strict definition of division. It should actually be possible to take a finite part of an infinite whole... sorry. — Devans99
So Jesus is not infinite and Jesus is a part of God. That means God cannot be infinite (because ∞ / 2 = ∞; IE any division of infinity is itself infinity). That or the whole concept of infinity is wrong. — Devans99
The question then arises how did an infinite Jesus then fit in a finite sized human body? — Devans99
Ha, that's funny. That poor excuse of an argument could be used for practically anything, so it falls flat on it's face. — S
It's clear to me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, and if you were only willing to believe, then it would be clear to you, too. And anyone who doesn't believe as I do just doesn't understand, given the vagueness of the evidence. — S
So Jesus is a 'portion' of God rather than the whole of God. So Jesus is not a faithful copy of God - the part is not equal to the whole. By creating Jesus, God has subdivided himself, rather than created a copy of himself. — Devans99
That says more than what you are saying, but each religion further defines "God" according to their traditions. — Noah Te Stroete
Omnipotence - Could God create a copy of himself? If he did create a copy of himself, he would no longer be omni-potent, so we can conclude God is effectively not omni-potent. — Devans99
Omniscience - To know everything about one’s self requires memory storage larger than one’s self so it is not possible to even know everything even about one’s self. — Devans99
Omnibenevolent - This requires infallibility which in turn requires perfect information (omniscience) before making decisions. — Devans99
There is no evidence to suggest the first cause is the God of any of the conventional religions though nor is there evidence to support the characteristics of God assigned by conventional religion — Devans99
By all accounts I'm a reductive physicalist. I call it phenomena. — Terrapin Station
There you go, You have a dog! But most importantly, is that the sperm cell carries with it the genes of your past dog (I am so sorry for your loss), but the point is that, comes with this huge step in Biological Science, is a question of morals. — Athen Goh
Im usually sceptical to theories thike that, — Anirudh Sharma
If people didn't have such thick skulls, we would be able to hear each other's mental voice very clearly. — Bitter Crank
i mean we haven't yet worked out the working of the "mind", so how do you upload it and expect a mind to be uploaded. In the future, maybe if we figure out how it all works, it might be possible. — Anirudh Sharma
But you said "There's no such thing as mind." There is if we're saying there are thoughts, awareness and illusions. Those are mental phenomena. — Terrapin Station
Who was indubitably wrong? You are contradicting yourself. How is "existing" and "being wrong" mutually exclusive? How would you know that someone else is wrong? What does it mean to be "wrong"? — Harry Hindu
How do fictional characters come into existence? — Harry Hindu
Using the term, "universe" the way you do is incoherent and more artful rather than accurate. — Harry Hindu
Numbers are processed by computers and can be processed by other animals. A number is an arbitrary symbol that refers to the sum of members in a category. This is what the symbols mean for humans because that is what most humans have learned to associate these scribbles and sounds with. Other animals can see and hear these scribbles and sounds and learn to associate anything with them. Animals learn to go where they have found more abundant food in the past. Computers can be programmed to interpret numbers in incalculable ways. The CPU in your computer is a super-powered calculator. — Harry Hindu
"I think, therefore I might be". — whollyrolling