[deleted]

What are you to say that god demands a Particular objective.

Also animals do exit without a brain The sponge

Humans are not naturally born to do Evil. It may be influence through survival but isn’t something innate. Human cannot exist without a brain with our current function. But if we were to function like a sponge it would be different.

If god exist he would want the best for us otherwise he wouldn’t of created us for evil deeds.

Instead he could’ve of created us without a brains.

Interestingly, Judas is alleged to have had "seven days of secret sayings". I suspect that, at least occasionally, "secret sayings" means meditative experience.

You define morality as "the normative of collaborating to achieve joint goals." It is that "which we do in pursuit of a joint goal, by definition." My first concern is that this system denies agency, the existential decision to act or not act -- perhaps out of empathy for anything from a cat in a tree to the ecosphere, perhaps out of commitment to an internalized rationale of worth or value, perhaps out of some other impulse -- but still within a lonely philosophical and psychological framework of "rightness" that does not have its source in "collaborating to achieve joint goals" – as Camus, or perhaps a Theravada monk, Daoist poet or alienated "lying flat" (tang ping) Chinese intellectual, might propose.

"It is morally wrong to hold malicious attitudes toward other people even when we don’t act on those attitudes "

This is a huge and unfounded claim in the article. It is not at all clear that thought-crime should be considered a valid moral concept.

Most of these are not issues that involve science, and that you present them as if they are shows only your own misunderstanding of them.

>More guns create more gun related crime and death, while gun restrictions have reduced them, historically.

More cars create more car related deaths. So too more swimming pools create more swimming pool related deaths. That is not a reason to impose more restrictions on cars or swimming pools.

>Societies with legal safe abortion have better health outcomes for women and longer life expectancies.

Societies with slavery have better health outcomes and longer life expectancies for slave owners. That doesn't make slavery right.

>The big governments of socialist democracies in Scandinavia and Northern Europe report happier people because they are free from worry living in an interdependent society that provides the necessary Healthcare and Education that are bankrupting people here and enable entrepreneurs there.

Ah, so you think other countries should aim for higher levels of ethnic homogeneity, such as Denmark. And cull their population down to 14 people per square kilometer, to match Norway?

And so on.

I'm not sure it would.

In your mind (I assume), I am a disembodied online persona. There is no evidence that the sufficient cause of these words is an actual human being.

Say, I claim that the person causing this persona had received 5 shots but that the person spent time every day with their 97-old parent. They express concern that becoming infected might endanger their parent's life. That person's brain would seem to have some Neurons that achieve motivational salience that associate looking after the welfare of a parent as a high-priority value. Say an advanced fMRI could confirm this description.

What would that tell you about what you or anyone else in the world "should" do?

Thanks for your thoughts most of which we are on the same page with 👌☺️

Hi there , thanks a lot 👌☺️

Surely you see that many of our ideas of better or worse are constructions? For the person seeking enlightenment going into refuge and isolation is better. For someone else it might be getting more friends. For another it's faith in God.

Let's say there's an alien species looking at us and considering us detrimental to the planet and potentially our solar system. Let's say they look at our self destruction with joy and a sense of justice. Does that possibility not prove there is no objective bad?

[deleted]

You're absolutely right about the counterargument that I'm going to make but I don't think that your rebuttal is sound. How else can we understand "change for the better" except as creating personal habits or relationships which more consistently produce happiness than suffering?

Our conscious faculty was very much shaped by hunting in community by plan. That movement from hunting to agriculture would free the mind for thoughts of self, ... seems likely.

I was searching for truth and looking for literal truth, so i left the Church at an early age. When i decided to look at Christianity, in order to debunk the lies, i found the only way I could continue was figuratively: if woman was made "from Adam's rib", then a literal reading was out. ... However! if removing a "rib" from Adam made Eve then, i can work with that figuratively; cuz if someone showed me the particular mutation event that created mammalian gender, i might just say something like that. Only later did i learn that the hebrew precluded my reading; to late, what's done is done.

In October of 2000, on an e-mail list called Alexandria, i was chatting with people about mythology and the nature of idea and such, and started an ajin with a Rabbi from Calgary. After a day or two meditating on Kabbalah i started seeing little flashes of light. Now, full disclosure, I'm a chronic weed smoker. It was dry that summer and for the time of the discussion and ajin i did not partake; about two months. Just before my experience, we got some weed and i had some.

It was a week long meditative experience. I'm not given to visions or hallucinations. This was on and off like a tap, like someone threw a switch. I first found myself in a verdant valley, the next day inside the Trojan horse, the next burried under Roman cobblestones. Seven days; i had no idea such a thing was possible.

Articulating the nature of consciousness is difficult. Constraining it to us human individuals is all too easy. If the Church is a body, then maybe truth is a person. Maybe. There's no need for the supernatural; only for unconstrained sense-ability. I vote binding energy for the solution to the hard problem of consciousness. I think there's a driving function/transfer function relationship between the cortex and the rest of the brain, and my experience is what happens when the transfer function drives; i was a spectator, a witness.

That doesn't follow logically at all. For instance, it is mostly bad from the perspective of said subject, but maybe not from a different perspective. Also, suffering can be an important signal to ourselves that something is amiss. So you might say "but then we try to solve the suffering so then we prove that suffering is bad because we want to get rid of it". Well, you could argue that, but you could also argue that without the suffering we wouldn't change for the better. The suffering is a means to an end. Without it we wouldn't know there was some kind of (subjective) problem.

It's bad for any subject, therefore it's objectively bad insofar as subjectivity exists

I was just thinking in terms of first man, first woman. Surely there was enlightened "first" who not only became self aware, but also aware of something bigger than himself or herself. I don't know that the obvious evidence of cultural advancement would have instantly flowed freely. Heck, many may have thought such a person was crazy.

This is a very human-centred argument. You can make the world a lot better without making the experience of any single human any better. Things like saving the sea floor from trawling, protecting habitat in remote places, there are a lot of important things we need to do that won't help any individual humans very much, or even groups of humans. I want to live in a better world, that doesn't necessarily mean better (or worse) for any particular humans. I can pick up some litter in a forest, that is an inconvenience for me and doesn't help anyone, but it does make the world a better place.

Hi. What you say works well in the pragmatic sense. But I'd say that we can still find arguments to support that Christianity is also true.

I wouldn't worry about philosophy finding certainty and replacing faith - it's not going to happen. To be very strict, certainty is only found in pure logic and mathematics. For everything else, truth is at best only reasonable or probable. And true faith is not blind but supported by reason. It is "the act of believing and behaving based on knowledge that is not certain yet reasonable".

Hi. I agree with pretty much everything you said. The argument on its own has holes. I can give you an answer that stands outside of the argument though.

Each individual Christian claim either falls under the set of topics that (1) can be found with natural reason alone (which includes science), or (2) needs to be supported by divine revelation such as the Bible.

If (1), then the argument stands. If (2), then fortunately arguments can be made to defend that the Bible is a reliable source: If all the verifiable claims from a source or method are verified to be true, then, by induction, it is reasonable to conclude that the remaining unverifiable claims from that same source or method are also true.

As an analogy: If all the planets we have observed so far are round, then it is reasonable to predict that the next planet we discover will also be round.

Hi. I responded in the other post.

>everything is Subject to change, if necessary

Even if that is true, it doesn't mean the topic is not objective. A topic can be objective yet can still change. E.g. The Earth is round in 2022. Maybe it will be flat once it get hits by a meteor; but the first statement is still objectively true.

​

>Your conclusion has absolutely no weight if you cant prove the premises. ( So like the best sounding chord, i cannot imagine a superior religion.)

All arguments should start with observation of the natural world, but they don't have to end with observation. If I put 2 spoons in an empty box and then another 2 spoons, I conclude with certainty that there are 4 spoons in the box. This could be verified with observation but it doesn't need to be.

​

>There is a possibility that there are no Truths.

Is it true that "there is a possibility that there are no truths"? The statement must refer to reality, otherwise it is just meaningless or is merely expressing our feelings and nothing more.

To put same point in a different way: Either object A exists in reality or it doesn't. If we say "Object A exists" and "Object A does not exist", one of those two statements must necessarily be true; i.e. it aligns with reality.

​

>"I will argue why Christianity is more reasonable than the other religions."
Sounds to me like saying Santana is better than Gary Moore, and i will show you why.

"Reasonable" does not mean "it makes sense to me"; it is similar to "probable" without the need to be quantified, and it means it is more likely to be true than not.

The inductive presentation of the problem of evil. Like, the existence of evil doesn't disprove God, as my article shows, but the existence of a LOT of evil is supposed to PROBABLY disprove God? Like, how stupid can you be? And notice all of the assumptions made in that Stanford link. There's just so much evil and no use for evil! Well, my post demonstrates that there is a use for evil.

It, the inductive presentation of the problem of evil, is just so stupid. It reduces the logical analysis of the issue to a tantrum. Like, evil doesn't disprove God, so let's just whine.

Most people on the internet, yeah, but that doesn't mean I'm not meticulously discriminating. It means that the internet population is what it is.

It needs water! Come on, man!

Life demands death. Life demands nourishment from other living organisms. It is not a matter of justification it just is a fact of life. It is sad but still it must be done. If an animal continued to decimate your garden (which is filled with living organisms) to the point of killing your chance to survive. You could die or kill the animal. Would you eat the animal or use it as compost? Death can be viewed as a cruel master no one can claim to avoid, or another part of the life process, the next step so to speak..