The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Dre89]

I don't know if that video is quite applicable, since it seems we are arguing something a little different, but I can see where you are coming from.

I agree with what you are saying for the most part, that is why I argue science is empirical in nature, because it runs on the presupposition that observation and experience are the key ways, if not the only ways, to arrive at an accurate conclusions. The thing is, that is intrinsically how we operate anyway, unconsciously and consciously. Science is just a more rigorous methodology and sphere of knowledge to employ in ensuring a higher level of quality in the observations made and thus (hopefully) the conclusions reached.

The thing I'm trying to say is that, inherently, all of our arguments, and ideas of how to formulate arguments, are based on the presupposition that observation are an accurate (or the most accurate we can achieve) reflection of the world. We do it, consciously and unconsciously, from the moment we are born, until the day we die. Other forms of life operate, live, and die on that very principal as well.

Science is simply an out branching of that presupposition. It essentially goes "well, if observation and experience are worth anything, here is the best way to utilize them and minimize their imperfections". Which is why I say that to doubt science and the scientific method, is to really throw doubt on whether observations and experience do lead us to any meaningful conclusions.

However, once you start doing that, you fall into the issue of how do we establish or hold anything to be true if the most basic of sensory inputs cannot be trusted? It is an argument that self-destructs itself since our whole mind (and thus, our ideas) is predicated on those very tenants.

Of course, being imperfect, our observations and experiences are often imperfect as well, leading to imperfect conclusions. But, science has done the best job of being able to have those imperfections play off each other to produce the most comprehensive, accurate, and predictive body of knowledge in all human endeavors.

My issue is that pretty much every other argument or methodology has to kowtow to the whole "observation is actually helpful" presumption (if just for the sake that your reading of them actually was accurate comprehension of them), but then some do not honestly follow it out and contradicts it.

As to whether we can use observation to prove science is meritorious, I believe you can, rather like using words to write a critique, or flowery appreciation, of language. The use of observation is a tool we are always employing anyway, so to make ask of an evaluation of something without it is a contradictory task. It's literally something we can not perform, as it is an innate function of being human (a live one, at least).

This might be a little rambly, since I'm pretty tired, lol. If I repeat myself a lot, my bad.

But I think you're missing the point here.

No one is doubting the credibility of science.

The point is, the claim that only science can conclude truths is faulty, because you used non-scientific reasoning to conclude that science arrives at truths. Considering that a line of reasoning separate to science has just concluded a truth, it's wrong to claim only science can prove truths.

This is why saying "We should only believe in God if there's emprical evidence for Him" is so fallcious. There was no empirical evidence that empirical methodology concludes truth, that's the same as using the Bible to conclude that the Bible is true.

So ironically, the people who would doubt science, if they were consistent with their logic, are those who argue that only science can conclude truths, becuase you can't use science to conclude that science conludes truths, so then they would have to doubt science.

Think of it like a fideist saying that only the Bible can tell us truths. If asked "well how do you know the Bible tells us truths?" He can't use the Bible as a premise, because that's being circular. To be consistent with his reasoning, he would then have to doubt the Bible, because he cannot call on another line of reasoning to validate the Bible, because he's just said all other lines of reasoning aside from the Bible are invalid.

You have to understand this isn't an attack on science, it's an attack on scientism, which if anything (and ironically) is actually more of a philosophy than a scientific theory.

What's even more ironic is that this over-centralising on science in modern philosophy was actually a result of a philosophial movement in the Enlightenment Period, further strengthening my point.

 

[Sucumbio]

The point is, the claim that only science can conclude truths is faulty, because you used non-scientific reasoning to conclude that science arrives at truths.

I've kinda side-stepped this in the past, but I'm feeling frisky.

So, ok... I'm going to write this in another way to hopefully aid in deconstructing it.

"[Science] is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world."

"[Logic] is the study of arguments."

"[Truth] is the state of being in accord with a particular fact or reality, or being in accord with the body of real things, real events or actualities."

So in essence, Science cannot conclude Truth by itself. Science + Logic, can.

This is why saying "We should only believe in God if there's emprical evidence for Him" is so fallcious. There was no empirical evidence that empirical methodology concludes truth, that's the same as using the Bible to conclude that the Bible is true.

This is where I get confused...

Let's take "What goes up must come down." You (assuming you're on Earth, of course) throw something into the air, and it comes back down to the ground. This is empirically true, because you can see it going up, and coming back down. This is scientifically true because of gravity. The scientific explanation (which extends from the Law of Conservation) employs mathematics and logic. So in this particular example, empiricism, science, and logic have all explained the Truth of the statement "what goes up must come down." In this case the quickest arrival at truth is through straight empirical data i.e. throwing objects one after the other into the air and seeing them all fall back down. The science is more to explain -how- this is happening, not that it is happening. We can see it's happening. We need science to explain how.

So to generalize, empirical evidence tells us what, science tells us how, or why.

"God does not exist because there is no empirical evidence."

Means: God does not exist because there's nothing physical for us to see, there's no "what." If there was, science may be able to explain how, or why.

One difficulty is that even though it's quicker to arrive at Truth by Empiricism, normally, it's not always Truth. For instance, determining that the moon orbits the Earth, and not the other way around. To the naked eye, you can't tell the difference. But science has proven that the moon does indeed orbit the Earth, not the other way around. So in this case, seeing is not enough to arrive at Truth, you have to use Science to be correct.

 

[Reaver197]

But I think you're missing the point here.

No one is doubting the credibility of science.

The point is, the claim that only science can conclude truths is faulty, because you used non-scientific reasoning to conclude that science arrives at truths. Considering that a line of reasoning separate to science has just concluded a truth, it's wrong to claim only science can prove truths.

This is why saying "We should only believe in God if there's emprical evidence for Him" is so fallcious. There was no empirical evidence that empirical methodology concludes truth, that's the same as using the Bible to conclude that the Bible is true.

So ironically, the people who would doubt science, if they were consistent with their logic, are those who argue that only science can conclude truths, becuase you can't use science to conclude that science conludes truths, so then they would have to doubt science.

Think of it like a fideist saying that only the Bible can tell us truths. If asked "well how do you know the Bible tells us truths?" He can't use the Bible as a premise, because that's being circular. To be consistent with his reasoning, he would then have to doubt the Bible, because he cannot call on another line of reasoning to validate the Bible, because he's just said all other lines of reasoning aside from the Bible are invalid.

You have to understand this isn't an attack on science, it's an attack on scientism, which if anything (and ironically) is actually more of a philosophy than a scientific theory.

What's even more ironic is that this over-centralising on science in modern philosophy was actually a result of a philosophial movement in the Enlightenment Period, further strengthening my point.

Urgh, that's not what I was saying, but I was tired, so maybe I wasn't as clear as I thought I was.

What I'm trying to say is that, inherently, our brain, and thus our reasoning, is empirical. I'm claiming there is no non-empirical way to reason.

Literally, the only way we glean arguments and information is through feedback via our senses, and the experience we accrue whether it is the "experience" hard coded in our genes or the experience of living our lives.

If there is any other way our brains can absorb information, I would like to know about it.

Even mathematics, and the logic associated with that, must first be demonstrated to us as being correlative to the world as kids.

The issue is then that to claim that "you can't use empirical reasoning to prove empirical reasoning" isn't so straight forward, because that is all we essentially have as a mental tool for both our conscious and our considerably more complex and influential unconscious.

To then postulate that "I don't think empirical reasoning works, what else could?" is to use empirical reasoning to disprove empirical reasoning. It's a catch-22 of human consciousness. How do you use your observations and experiences to show you can't use your observations and experiences?

I also don't know how calling science a philosophy is ironic. It is a philosophy, but so is pretty much everything else that has anything to do with how we interact with the world or gain knowledge. It's a tautology.

 

[Sieguest]

I see what you're driving at. Let me make sure I get this straight.
You are saying that everything is based on past experience, and since empirical methods of reasoning rely on past experience that everything we do is empirically based.

The only problem I see with this is that empirical methods of reasoning are strictly limited to this. It's so natural to use rational thought after making observations that we misconceive these two things as one in the same thing.

As an example, I'll use that response you made to another one of my examples:

How do we determine there is a girl, or a person named Guest, or the implications of the word “brother”, and the usage normally associated with it, other than through using our senses and experience? Plus, the rationality of it is informed by our experience with the usage of the word “brother”, and the situation in which it is employed (which you have to use observation to even see).

We know there is a person named Guest because we see this person and at some point in the past, he may have told us his name. As I said, I don't deny that we use empirical thinking, but we can't tie empirical thinking together without non-empirical thinking as I'll show below.

The idea of "brother" in yours and my case is from past experience, but how did the people who came up with the word "brother" get the idea of it's implications and uses? There was no prior experience of the word to be associated with. That seems to be the problem with most empirical methodology. It can't explain how we dealt with "firsts" in the world.


As another example with the past experience idea, lets take the idea of conditioning. If someone gets shocked for reaching out for an apple enough times, eventually they associate reaching out for apples with getting shocked. Now without breaking that down it looks like it confirms exactly what you said about empiricism being at the base of all this because the person is using past experience, but consider this:

The first time this happens:
1. Person reaches for apple.
2. Person gets shocked.
There's no past experience to go from. The person can make these observations:
"I reached for an apple"
"I was shocked"
That's all the person can say right now.

Second Time
1. Person reaches for apple.
2. Person is shocked.
The person can only make the same observations he/she made last time:
"I reached for an apple"
"I was shocked"

Third Time:
1. Person reaches for apple
2. Person is shocked
Once more they make the same observations.
"I reached for an apple"
"I was shocked"

nth time:
1. Person reaches for apple
2. Person is shocked
The person makes the same observations:
"I reached for an apple"
"I was shocked"
The person by this time uses past experience to make another observation
"Every time I reached for an apple I was shocked"
However, without the use of logic, he can't piece two and two together and say
"Every time I reached for an apple I was shocked. Being shocked brings me pain. Therefore reaching for an apple brings me pain. Pain means something unwanted is happening to me, so I don't want to experience pain. Therefore I should not reach for apples because they bring me pain."

All the "therefore"s show how non-empirical thinking binds together pieces of empirical thinking. If I just went with everything the person experienced during this time I would get.
1."I reached for an apple"
2."I was shocked"
3."Every time I have reached for the apple I have been shocked"
The person cannot say this:
"Every time I reach for an apple I will be shocked" Sure the person is using past experience, but the person is also using probability, which is mathematics. He's also having to use logic to piece together the first two observations along with the third observations to make the conjecture about what will happen in a future occurrence which he/she has not made an observation of yet. That also explains exactly why math and logic are non-empirical.

How do you know what an error in logic is without your experience and observation of facts and other arguments?

How did people recognize errors in logic when they first came up, they didn't have past experience to use.

I don't deny that science has an empirical base, I do deny that it's the only base. Consider Calculus, if Calculus only had a base in Algebra then you can't completely solve every problem. Such as find the derivative of the line that is the altitude of triangle CAT. The connection tying the two before you try to hit me with my post being irrelevant is that both problems start at the same step. Science starts at observation, and that Calculus problem starts at an Algebra step. But pure observation and experience can't solve the scientific question because you'll just have facts and nothing to piece them together; just as in the Calculus problem if you used only algebra, then you can't find the altitude of triangle CAT so you can't solve the problem.

 

[Dre89]

Reaver we're not saying that the use of philosophical logic permits doubt of science, because that would be illogical.

As Guest said, humans are also designed to use reason.

For example, the world may only be 400 years old, and given us the illusion of it existing for billions of years.

If we accept that there is no illusion, then science can prove that the world has in fact existed for billions of years. But science can't tell us whether there was an illusion or not, it's our pure reason which concludes it is more logical to believe there is no illusion at play.

The example above indicates that the premise that our perception correlates accurately to an external world or reality comes from pure reason, and then from where we use science to attain various truths about that external world.

So again, no one here has anything against science, we're just saying it isn't the only thing that concludes truth.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I think you guys are missing the point of what Dre's saying, and the point is well taken.


Basically, prove that your senses are giving you correct information. Anyone?

 

[Reaver197]

I see what you're driving at. Let me make sure I get this straight.
You are saying that everything is based on past experience, and since empirical methods of reasoning rely on past experience that everything we do is empirically based.

The only problem I see with this is that empirical methods of reasoning are strictly limited to this. It's so natural to use rational thought after making observations that we misconceive these two things as one in the same thing.

That’s the thing. Does not the idea of “rational thought” take predication in there being observations and experiences to work on and from? After all, how does one form a thought, and determine a rational one, without calling upon a store of experience and observations to shape it and give it context?

Also, pointedly, the seat of what we call “rational thought”, the prefrontal cortex, was shaped by evolutionary “experiences” (so to speak), honing it into the tool it is today. Regardless, the brain still operates on levels of feedback, via stimuli and other neurons. There is always a level of receiving information and feedback, which is essentially the point of empiricism.

We know there is a person named Guest because we see this person and at some point in the past, he may have told us his name. As I said, I don't deny that we use empirical thinking, but we can't tie empirical thinking together without non-empirical thinking as I'll show below.

The idea of "brother" in yours and my case is from past experience, but how did the people who came up with the word "brother" get the idea of it's implications and uses? There was no prior experience of the word to be associated with. That seems to be the problem with most empirical methodology. It can't explain how we dealt with "firsts" in the world.

Actually, I beg to differ. I think empiricism does not fail to account to dealing with new or novel ideas. It simply says that we use the observations and experiences we receive to inform our thinking and development of knowledge. We are perfectly free to organize and combine together the observations and experiences we have of different things into a novel idea or action.

In fact, the brain itself works in this fashion.

http://neuronarrative.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/this-is-your-brain-on-the-edge-of-chaos/

It is structured in such a way that the neural networks of the brain are arranged into what is called a “critical state” of organization. It is a system that teeters on the edge of order, barely holding itself from collapsing into disorder and utter randomness. This allows the brain to achieve, on one-hand, a level of structure and orderliness so that it can keep its information coherent, but allows it the dynamic function of being able to make connections and synthesize together information that would otherwise not be linked up in a more rigidly structured system.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=500

This is also evident in the fact that the brain often gets influenced by factors that would otherwise make little to no sense for a particular decision making process.

http://www.ratracetrap.com/the-rat-...isions-anchoring-and-arbitrary-coherence.html

Between those phenomena, I believe it is evident that empiricism can deal with “firsts” and novel ideas. However, as should be obvious, there is a caveat to the benefits of such a capricious system, since it becomes very easy to be misled, or produce faulty decisions and conclusions. That is why we need a more methodical system such as science, to ensure that we can maximize its useful nature, while minimizing the misleading parts.

As another example with the past experience idea, lets take the idea of conditioning. If someone gets shocked for reaching out for an apple enough times, eventually they associate reaching out for apples with getting shocked. Now without breaking that down it looks like it confirms exactly what you said about empiricism being at the base of all this because the person is using past experience, but consider this:

The first time this happens:
1. Person reaches for apple.
2. Person gets shocked.
There's no past experience to go from. The person can make these observations:
"I reached for an apple"
"I was shocked"
That's all the person can say right now.

Second Time
1. Person reaches for apple.
2. Person is shocked.
The person can only make the same observations he/she made last time:
"I reached for an apple"
"I was shocked"

Third Time:
1. Person reaches for apple
2. Person is shocked
Once more they make the same observations.
"I reached for an apple"
"I was shocked"

nth time:
1. Person reaches for apple
2. Person is shocked
The person makes the same observations:
"I reached for an apple"
"I was shocked"
The person by this time uses past experience to make another observation
"Every time I reached for an apple I was shocked"
However, without the use of logic, he can't piece two and two together and say
"Every time I reached for an apple I was shocked. Being shocked brings me pain. Therefore reaching for an apple brings me pain. Pain means something unwanted is happening to me, so I don't want to experience pain. Therefore I should not reach for apples because they bring me pain."

All the "therefore"s show how non-empirical thinking binds together pieces of empirical thinking. If I just went with everything the person experienced during this time I would get.
1."I reached for an apple"
2."I was shocked"
3."Every time I have reached for the apple I have been shocked"
The person cannot say this:
"Every time I reach for an apple I will be shocked" Sure the person is using past experience, but the person is also using probability, which is mathematics. He's also having to use logic to piece together the first two observations along with the third observations to make the conjecture about what will happen in a future occurrence which he/she has not made an observation of yet. That also explains exactly why math and logic are non-empirical.

This might be the case, if we could only process a single train of thought at a time. Thankfully, that is not the case, and in actuality we have a very multi-faceted brain, that preforms all sorts of calculations and processes simultaneously amongst all its respective parts and networks.

Not only do we have a section of the brain that seems to activate in response to causal events (http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/4136/), but when the person reached forward with the intention of grabbing the apple, activating a set of neural networks, but then got shocked, activating another, other neurons and neural networks will link the two sets together, so that when one fires, the other will fire in sympathy. The two events then become bound together, literally, in our mind, though generally weakly at first, since it only happened once. But with each subsequent repetition, the bond will become stronger, therefore leading to a stronger association between the two events. All in response to stimuli and our experience with it.

The very idea of using probability is based upon experience and observation, especially in this case. You are using the experience and observations you have accrued in this situation to inform expected experiences in the future. They wouldn’t be of much use if they couldn’t inform future decisions. You quickly learn as a child, from feedback and genetic predisposition, to be on the lookout for patterns in the stimuli we receive. This would be a case of that.

You also didn’t show any reasoning for why math and logic are non-empirical, but rather that math and logic takes place of empirical reasoning in your example, but they do not. How else do you determine what is mathematically and logically palatable, other than through experience and feedback, often from using them incorrectly at first?

How did people recognize errors in logic when they first came up, they didn't have past experience to use.

I don't deny that science has an empirical base, I do deny that it's the only base. Consider Calculus, if Calculus only had a base in Algebra then you can't completely solve every problem. Such as find the derivative of the line that is the altitude of triangle CAT. The connection tying the two before you try to hit me with my post being irrelevant is that both problems start at the same step. Science starts at observation, and that Calculus problem starts at an Algebra step. But pure observation and experience can't solve the scientific question because you'll just have facts and nothing to piece them together; just as in the Calculus problem if you used only algebra, then you can't find the altitude of triangle CAT so you can't solve the problem.

Because, people never experience things in a vacuum, they have other people and a dynamic environment. These will all feedback into adjusting our experience with using and handling logic. Do we not all make logical mistakes at times? Yet, if logic was not answerable to observation and experience, how would we ever fix them?

Also, there is the fact that people can, and often do, make judgements on bad logic, known or unknown. However, it will soon come to be rectified by the experience they receive after attempting to employ that logic in a given situation, and it resulting in an unexpected or unfavorable conclusion. It would then cause them to have to realize that something about the logical tree they used was off or wrong entirely (whether they deduce the correct part or not and fix it beneficially is a whole other story though).

The distinction between algebra and calculus is purely an arbitrary one, something simply set in place by teachers and mathematicians. One that you have picked up, ironically enough, through experience. It’s all math, with all the same underlying principals; there is no clean distinction between where “algebra” or “geometry” ends, and “calculus” begins. That’s just a false dichotomy.

The piecing together of facts is something that is achieved by the nature of the brain, which is, convolutedly, shaped and wired by the very acquisition of them, due to the structure of it. It is this nature of plasticity that makes it so hard to tell where the end between nature and nurture is in that argument.

Reaver we're not saying that the use of philosophical logic permits doubt of science, because that would be illogical.

As Guest said, humans are also designed to use reason.

For example, the world may only be 400 years old, and given us the illusion of it existing for billions of years.

If we accept that there is no illusion, then science can prove that the world has in fact existed for billions of years. But science can't tell us whether there was an illusion or not, it's our pure reason which concludes it is more logical to believe there is no illusion at play.

The example above indicates that the premise that our perception correlates accurately to an external world or reality comes from pure reason, and then from where we use science to attain various truths about that external world.

So again, no one here has anything against science, we're just saying it isn't the only thing that concludes truth.

We are “designed” to use reason by virtue of the fact that evolutionary feedback dictated its usefulness to survive; in essence, the “experience” of creatures before us led to the development of our current sense of reason. Our use of logic is founded and tempered by experience.

If we had grown up in a world where it is commonly accepted that there is something beyond what we can immediately see, we wouldn’t find it logically unacceptable to buy into it as well, as it so happens in many areas around the world with regards to heavens and hells. How else could reason be so capricious, if it does not get influenced by the observation and experience that we obtain from the world.

There is also nothing to say that logically palatable necessarily means it is true. Like, with children and Santa Claus. How do you demonstrate logic leads to to truth other than observing it does?

Also, you seem to be talking as if there are “truths” definitively known and arrived at. There really isn’t at all, just simply approximations that have corresponding levels of accuracy and how probable they are.

I think you guys are missing the point of what Dre's saying, and the point is well taken.


Basically, prove that your senses are giving you correct information. Anyone?

There isn’t any definitive way to “prove” that senses give accurate or correct information, but when taken in collaboration of others, we can start to setting how probable it is if everyone ascertains them a particular way.

The issue is, as I’ve stated before, that this also drags up that the notion that the senses giving correct information is disprovable. But that raises the paradox of using the brain to disprove senses through the use of its senses.

Here’s a metaphor that might help explain my stance.

Say you have a computer, and you tell this computer “figure out how you calculate things”. The computer performs calculations, can look at other computers calculating, and then comes back with the result that it computes, and so do other computers, through binary. Then you go “but, hey, you used binary to compute you used binary, you can’t do that.” “You have to use something other than binary to prove you use binary”. The poor computer then can’t do anything. You are asking something that is literally impossible for it to comply to.

A similar thing to say would be to go to humans and say “you use carbon-based neurons to reason and gain knowledge, how do you prove that carbon-based neurons can accurately gauge or be reflective of the world?”.

It’s pretty much a meaningless question to ask, since it can’t be taken anywhere or have anything done with it. Either it is true, or it's false and the very act of positing that question gets undermined.

Edit: I hope this doesn't just lead to longer and longer posts, lol.

Also, this. http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2039

 

[adumbrodeus]

There isn’t any definitive way to “prove” that senses give accurate or correct information

You should've stopped right there, all you were really doing was just proving my point more, and your admission is here.

but when taken in collaboration of others, we can start to setting how probable it is if everyone ascertains them a particular way.

Which is again, entirely dependent on our senses giving us correct information.



This isn't a mark against science, which is fundamentally a practical methodology designed to give us results which are useful in the world, however once you get into the philosophy, it starts to break down because there is no way to prove that anything beyond me exists, because it all relies on the senses giving us correct information, which not only is unconfirmable independent of our senses themselves, but it is known that our senses lie to us in a number of cases, including in consistent ways.




This is also the reason why in your computer metaphor, we wouldn't use the computer itself to prove that it's calculations are mathematically correct, rather we would do 3 things:

1. Figure out whether binary is mathematically valid to use.

2. Figure out whether there's any mechanical failures in the computer.

3. Examine the computer's programming to figure out if it's method for using binary to perform calculations and represent numbers is mathematically correct (which actually breaks down in a variety of situations, especially when we're dealing with floating point numbers, but that's a different topic).

This is because we cannot know if the computer has an error that simply occurs in a consistent manner, and therefore will not be revealed when the computer is used to examine itself.



Again, this is a topic totally suited for philosophy because everything beyond "I think therefore I am" breaks down without the assumption that our senses are truthful. So, once we make that core assumption, science works. However, it's worth noting that said assumption isn't really a scientific or logical assumption to make, rather it's a practical concession to the world around us.

 

[Sucumbio]

Basically, prove that your senses are giving you correct information. Anyone?

It's funny but I actually dropped out of my philosophy class on day 2 when this question was posed. It annoyed the **** out of me. I mean, seriously, all you have to do is jump in front of a train to know that it hurts (or kills). That IS what you're asking, right? Or hold a lit match to your finger? Bite on your hand... kick a book case with no shoes on.... Any number of self tests.

"Well then, the pain is an illusion..."

Says the man about to get my foot where his face used to be. If you can't live with the result (i.e. getting hit by a train would normally kill you) then it HAS to be real, right? And to a lesser extent, breaking ones arm because you stuck it out the bus window and it nailed a stop sign... I mean, where do you even try to draw a philosophical line? Philosophy has to give way to practicality at some point, or it's pointless. We can wonder all we want about things, but once you're dead, you're dead, so I for one won't be jumping in front of any speeding trains just to see if I'm real, or the train is real. I know it is, and you do too.

 

[Dre89]

The pain may just be in your mind though, therefore pain is no proof of things existing outside if the mind.

 

[Reaver197]

You should've stopped right there, all you were really doing was just proving my point more, and your admission is here.



Which is again, entirely dependent on our senses giving us correct information.



This isn't a mark against science, which is fundamentally a practical methodology designed to give us results which are useful in the world, however once you get into the philosophy, it starts to break down because there is no way to prove that anything beyond me exists, because it all relies on the senses giving us correct information, which not only is unconfirmable independent of our senses themselves, but it is known that our senses lie to us in a number of cases, including in consistent ways.




This is also the reason why in your computer metaphor, we wouldn't use the computer itself to prove that it's calculations are mathematically correct, rather we would do 3 things:

1. Figure out whether binary is mathematically valid to use.

2. Figure out whether there's any mechanical failures in the computer.

3. Examine the computer's programming to figure out if it's method for using binary to perform calculations and represent numbers is mathematically correct (which actually breaks down in a variety of situations, especially when we're dealing with floating point numbers, but that's a different topic).

This is because we cannot know if the computer has an error that simply occurs in a consistent manner, and therefore will not be revealed when the computer is used to examine itself.



Again, this is a topic totally suited for philosophy because everything beyond "I think therefore I am" breaks down without the assumption that our senses are truthful. So, once we make that core assumption, science works. However, it's worth noting that said assumption isn't really a scientific or logical assumption to make, rather it's a practical concession to the world around us.

This is something I should've said sooner, but we're essentially talking about Godel's Incompleteness Theorems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

My point is that, yes, since we are (our brains' are) inherently dependent upon our senses (external stimuli) and experiences to function, there are certain undecidable propositions that arise from it, and issues of being able to determine the consistency and effectiveness of the system with itself. There is no doubt that our sense are imperfect, and that our brain performs imperfect calculations. That’s not what I’m arguing against.



What I am arguing against is this notion that we can ever reason, think, or perform any function that isn’t dependent upon stimuli and feedback. Every action or thought we make is made, consciously or no, with the built-in assumption that our senses do provide at least some level of accurate feedback.

Even our sense of “self” is dependent upon the workings of the brain, receiving feedback from other portions of the brain, and from the nerves along our body. So, if we were to undermine our senses and the ability to interpret them, we literally wouldn’t be able to trust our conception of a “self”. We wouldn’t be able to even trust what we read or write without that assumption.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98580&page=1

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9019-watching-the-brain-switch-off-selfawareness.html

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/125/8/1808.full

However, in a vein similar to the anthropic principal, we can take some confidence in the accuracy of our senses, because if they weren’t accurate at all, or too highly capricious, we wouldn’t even be here to reflect upon them, since our ancestors would’ve probably died out due to their inability to navigate or properly react to anything in the world.



The interesting thing about the computer metaphor was that I chose it because, in the workings of the basic components, computers operate like we do. Either our neurons fire (1), or they do not (0). We are essentially employing binary operations ourselves in the development of mathematics of the binary operations of computers.



I do not think it’s simply a practical philosophical concession that is made. It is something that is intrinsic to the very operations of living beings. We don’t make a choice when we’re born that “hey, everything I see and hear might not be actually real or representative, but I might as well go along with it because, what else can I do?”.

Animals operate in that way as well, and for what I know, I don’t think they have the mental capacity to even conceive such a philosophical stance. It’s just a build up of the basic “action - reaction” dichotomy in the world.



All I started off trying to put forth, though, was that our brain and its functions (logic, reason, etc) are based upon it’s intrinsic structure of needing stimuli and feedback to operate, and that it is empirical in nature. Sure there are “truths” (however that is judged to be) that we cannot reach because of it, but we do what we can with the system we have, which is pretty successful, all things considered.

The thing I’m trying to dissuade is the sense that we can arrive to “truths” outside of this empirical basis, because we don’t even have a system to recognize them as such. Plus, for all things considered, there are considerably more ways to conceive of things that are erroneous than true or correct. Like, there is only one correct answer to the question 2+2, but a pretty much unending multitude of wrong answers.

Chances are, arriving to what is claimed to be a “truth” outside of empiricism will more than likely be an erroneous statement (how else do you verify it is or is not?). So, it would take, in my opinion, an unreasonable amount of faith to presume such a statement is true with no way to verify it is so.



Edit: Also, a friend of mine sent me this link of what I think is an excellent argument of why, even if you could somehow assert the existence of the Christian god, why the author (and I) would still refuse to worship such a heinous deity.

http://groups.google.com/group/net.religion/msg/30925fd2c9a20cbd?pli=1

 

[KrazyGlue]

You should've stopped right there, all you were really doing was just proving my point more, and your admission is here.

Well of course he can't prove senses give correct information. I mean, if we don't assume that to be true, nothing at all can be "proven", as we've discussed before.

 

[jaswa]

Edit: Also, a friend of mine sent me this link of what I think is an excellent argument of why, even if you could somehow assert the existence of the Christian god, why the author (and I) would still refuse to worship such a heinous deity.

http://groups.google.com/group/net.religion/msg/30925fd2c9a20cbd?pli=1

To be honest I didn't read the whole thing, but a third of the way through was more than enough to establish his viewpoint. I'm sorry, but his points don't convince me, he seems to have a warped perspective.

How can you honestly say that God is immoral? If anyone is to define morals it is an omnipotent and omnibenevolent entity. Just because he doesn't fit in A HUMAN BEING'S personal moral code doesn't diminish his morality.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

We are born into sin and act against God's rule throughout our lives. We are destined to hell by default. But Jesus offers eternal life. The Christian message is one of Salvation not of anti-****ation.

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[Reaver197]

To be honest I didn't read the whole thing, but a third of the way through was more than enough to establish his viewpoint. I'm sorry, but his points don't convince me, he seems to have a warped perspective.

How can you honestly say that God is immoral? If anyone is to define morals it is an omnipotent and omnibenevolent entity. Just because he doesn't fit in A HUMAN BEING'S personal moral code doesn't diminish his morality.

Don't be close-minded, read the whole thing. You might just discover some of the answers to the questions you ask.

How would you feel if people only read a third of what you wrote, then dismissed it out of hand anyway?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

We are born into sin and act against God's rule throughout our lives. We are destined to hell by default. But Jesus offers eternal life. The Christian message is one of Salvation not of anti-****ation.

Who destined us to hell by default? God? If so, that's immoral. I don't care whether it's fine by his moral code. I'm going to judge the morality of his actions, by my moral standards, because if his moral standards agree with sending people into his eternal torture chamber, and flooding the world to kill everyone, then I think it's fair to say that his moral standards are found wanting of morality.

 

[jaswa]

Who destined us to hell by default? God? If so, that's immoral. I don't care whether it's fine by his moral code. I'm going to judge the morality of his actions, by my moral standards, because if his moral standards agree with sending people into his eternal torture chamber, and flooding the world to kill everyone, then I think it's fair to say that his moral standards are found wanting of morality.

Got to study for a maths test tomorrow, so will make this brief.

Because of Adam and Eve's disobedience of God, sin travels down the male line. We all disobey God in our life. We are all predisposed to hell because of original sin and our own actions. What we do will never measure up to God's standard of PERFECTION. However Jesus was conceived of God, not man, and was blameless in God's sight. Therefore his atoning sacrifice means something when he took the punishment for all sin. Through Jesus' death we are offered salvation.

That's nice that you think he's immoral - be perfect then people might follow your instructions.

A lot of people could probably do with googling 'Christian doctrine' at the least, so they atleast know our views...

 

[Sucumbio]

well everyone's already said their bit, and it's their reaction that's exactly why this:

We are born into sin and act against God's rule throughout our lives. We are destined to hell by default. But Jesus offers eternal life. The Christian message is one of Salvation not of anti-****ation.

is NOT true (anymore).

The sacrifice of Jesus absolved all people of "original sin." It also opened the gates of Heaven (since the time it was closed when Adam and Eve were cast from paradise) for all time. The reason that "none may come to the Father but by me" is not because you're already destined for Hell and need to seek Salvation. It's because there is literally no other way to pass on to Heaven without the proper rite of passage, which is to love God. There are technically other rites, holy sacraments, but the utmost import one is to love. The Christian message therefore is less one of Salvation, and more one of Love.

"This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." (John 15:12)

Expanding upon this there is the Universal Moral Law

1. The Law Of Love
2. The Ten Commandments
3. The Golden Rule

"First, love God your Creator more than anything
else. Then, love all other people the same as you
love yourself."
(Based on Matthew 22:35-40, restated in Mark
12:28-31 and Luke 10:25-28. The idea of all people
as neighbors is explained in Luke 10:29-37)
"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord
thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy mind. This is the first and great
commandment." (Matthew 22:37-38 KJV)
"And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang
all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:39-40 KJV)

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

1. "Do not put anything ahead of God your Creator."
2. "Do not make or worship idols."
3. "Do not take the name of God in vain."
4. "Take one day of complete rest each week, in honor of God."
5. "Honor your father and your mother."
6. "Do not commit murder."
7. "Do not commit adultery."
8. "Do not steal."
9. "Do not tell lies against anyone."
10. "Do not covet other people's possessions."

THE GOLDEN RULE
"Treat Others As You Would Like To Be Treated."
(Based on Matthew 7:12, restated in Luke 6:31)
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men
should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is
the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12 KJV)

Lastly, there are the other commandments of Jesus.

Spoiler

The Other Commandments Of Jesus
1. "FORGIVE EVERYBODY OF ALL THEIR OFFENSES AGAINST YOU."
(Forgive, and be forgiven.)
As you forgive other people, God will forgive you.

"And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our
debtors." (Matthew 6:12 KJV)
"And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have
ought against any: that your Father also which
in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.
"But if ye do not forgive, neither will your
Father which is in heaven forgive your
trespasses." (Mark 11:25-26 KJV)

2. "YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN."
Being "born again" means casting off the spirit of the
flesh and taking on the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit,
Who is given by the grace of God to those who believe
in Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God, risen
from the dead.

"Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born
again." (John 3:7 KJV)
3. "ABIDE IN ME, AND LET ME ABIDE IN YOU."

When you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour,
His Holy Spirit moves into your heart. He actually lives
in you, and you live in Him.
"Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear
fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more
can ye, except ye abide in me." (John 15:4 KJV)

4. "LET PEOPLE SEE YOUR GOOD WORKS." (Do not hide your light
under a basket.)
"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see
see your good works, and glorify your Father which is
in heaven." (Matthew 5:16 KJV; see also Matthew 5:15)
5. "END DISPUTES QUICKLY."
"Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art
in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary
deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee
to the officer, and thou be cast into prison."
(Matthew 5:25 KJV)
6. "WHATEVER CAUSES YOU TO SIN, GET RID OF IT."
"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and
cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that
one of thy members should perish, and not that thy
whole body should be cast into hell.
"And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and
cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that
one of thy members should perish, and not that thy
whole body should be cast into hell."
(Matthew 5:29-30 KJV)
7. "DO NOT SWEAR OATHS AT ALL."
"But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by
heaven; for it is God's throne:

"Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by
Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

"Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou
canst not make one hair white or black.

"But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay:
for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."

(Matthew 5:34-37 KJV)
8. "DO NOT RETURN OFFENSE FOR OFFENSE." (Turn the other cheek.)
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an
eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but
whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn
to him the other also."
(Matthew 5:38-39 KJV)
9. "GIVE WHAT PEOPLE ASK OF YOU, AND GIVE MORE THAN IS REQUIRED."
(Go the extra mile.)

"And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take
away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

"And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with
him twain.

"Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would
borrow of thee turn not thou away."
(Matthew 5:40-42 KJV)

10. "LOVE YOUR ENEMIES AND THOSE WHO WORK AGAINST YOU."

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them
that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and
pray for them which despitefully use you, and
persecute you;

"That ye may be the children of your Father which is
in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil
and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on
the unjust."

(Matthew 5:43-45 KJV)
11. "GIVE TO THE POOR TO PLEASE GOD, NOT TO GAIN APPROVAL
FROM OTHER PEOPLE."
"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to
be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your
Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 6:1 KJV)
12. "PRAY PRIVATELY AND SIMPLY, NOT TO IMPRESS OTHER PEOPLE."
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are:
for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the
corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I
say unto you, They have their reward.

"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when
thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret;
and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do:
for they think that they shall be heard for their much
speaking."

(Matthew 6:5-7 KJV)

13. "MAKE YOUR PRAYERS BE LIKE THE LORD'S PRAYER."
After this manner therefore pray ye:
Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done in earth,
As it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
As we forgive our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil:
For thine is the kingdom,
And the power,
And the glory,
For ever.
Amen.
(Matthew 6:9-15 KJV)

14. "WHEN YOU FAST, DO IT SECRETLY, NOT FOR SHOW."
"Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad
countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may
appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their
reward." (Matthew 6:16)

15. "STORE UP YOUR TREASURES IN HEAVEN, NOT ON EARTH."

"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and
rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

"But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither
moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break
through nor steal:

"For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."
(Matthew 6:19-21)
16. "DO NOT WORRY ABOUT YOUR MATERIAL NEEDS."

"Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what
ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body,
what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the
body than raiment?

"Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they
reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth
them. Are ye not much better than they?"

(Matthew 6:25-26 KJV)
17. "DO NOT WORRY ABOUT THE FUTURE."
"Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall
take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day
is the evil thereof." (Matthew 6:34 KJV)
18. "MAKE GOD YOUR HIGHEST PRIORITY, AND HE WILL TAKE CARE OF
ALL YOUR NEEDS."
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his
righteousness; and all these things shall be
added unto you." (Matthew 6:33 KJV)
19. "DO NOT JUDGE OTHER PEOPLE." (Judge not, lest ye be judged.)
"Judge not, that ye be not judged.

"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with
what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

(Matthew 7:1-2 KJV)
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and
said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first
cast a stone at her. (John 8:7 KJV)

20. "DO NOT GIVE HOLY THINGS TO DOGS OR CAST YOUR PEARLS
BEFORE SWINE."
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye
your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under
their feet, and turn again and rend you."
(Matthew 7:6 KJV)


21. "ASK GOD FOR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO HAVE." (Seek, and ye
shall find.)
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find;
knock, and it shall be opened unto you:" (Matthew 7:7 KJV)
22. "FEED THE HUNGRY, CLOTHE THE NAKED, SHELTER THE HOMELESS,
COMFORT THOSE IN DISTRESS."


"Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come,
ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for
you from the foundation of the world:

"For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty,
and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

"Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I
was in prison, and ye came unto me.
(Matthew 25:34-36 KJV)
23. "FOLLOW THE NARROW PATH TO LIFE." (Enter by the narrow gate.)
The wide gate is the gate you simply stumble through, when you
are not paying attention.

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad
is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be
which go in thereat:

"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which
leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
(Matthew 7:13-14 KJV)
24. "BEWARE OF FALSE PROPHETS."
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."
(Matthew 7:15 KJV)

25. "EXERCISE POWER OVER UNCLEAN SPIRITS."

"And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples,
he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out,
and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease."
(Matthew 10:1 KJV)
"Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast
out devils: freely ye have received, freely give."
(Matthew 10:8 KJV)
26. "LOVE LITTLE CHILDREN, DO NOT DESPISE THEM."
"Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones;
for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do
always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven."
(Matthew 18:10 KJV)

27. "DO NOT TAKE THE TITLES 'MASTER' OR 'FATHER' FOR YOURSELF."
"But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master,
even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one
is your Father, which is in heaven.

"Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master,
even Christ.

"But he that is greatest among you shall be your
servant.

"And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased;
and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted."
(Matthew 23:8-12 KJV)
28. "RESOLVE DISPUTES IN AN ORDERLY WAY, LIKE THIS . . . "

"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee,
go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone:
if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

"But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one
or two more, that in the mouth of two or three
witnesses every word may be established.

"And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto
the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let
him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."
(Matthew 18:15-17 KJV)
29. "DO NOT OPPOSE OTHER BELIEVERS IN CHRIST WHO ARE NOT IN YOUR
GROUP."
"And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one
casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not
us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

"But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man
which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly
speak evil of me.

"For he that is not against us is on our part."
(Mark 9:38-40 KJV)
30. "HAVE TOTAL FAITH IN GOD FOR EVERYTHING."

"And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in
God.

"For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say
unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast
into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but
shall believe that those things which he saith shall
come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.

"Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye
desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them,
and ye shall have them."
(Mark 11:22-24 KJV)
31. "BE LIKE THE GOOD SAMARITAN." (Go, and do likewise.)
"Then Jesus said unto him, Go, and do thou
likewise." (Luke 10:37b KJV)
This was in reference to the Parable Of The
Good Samaritan, who helped and took care of
a man who had been attacked by robbers.
(See Luke 10:30-35)

32. "LOVE OTHER PEOPLE AS I HAVE LOVED YOU"
"This is my commandment, That ye love one another,
as I have loved you." (John 15:12 KJV)
NOTE: This one commandment summarizes
all the others.
33. "EAT BREAD AND DRINK WINE IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME."
"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and
gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given
for you: do this in remembrance of me. Likewise also
the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new
testament in my blood, which is shed for you."
(Luke 22:19-20 KJV)
34. "WASH ONE ANOTHER'S FEET."
The full meaning of this dramatic command is for us
to care for each other's needs as if they were our own.
He also wants us literally to wash each other's feet.
"If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye
also ought to wash one another's feet." (John 13:14 KJV)
35. "BE MERCIFUL."
"Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful."
(Luke 6:36 KJV)
" . . . for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil."
(Luke 6:35b KJV)

36. "GO AND TEACH ALL NATIONS, BAPTIZING THEM."
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto
the end of the world." Amen. (Matthew 28:19-20 KJV)
37. "KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS."
"If you love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15 KJV)
38. "BE PREPARED FOR YOUR MASTER TO RETURN."
"Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh
at an hour when ye think not." (Luke 12:40 KJV)

 

[Dre89]

I'm pretty sure were still supposed to have original sin despite the fact Jesus came down for us.

 

[Reaver197]

I didn't realize perfection also included being hypocritical.

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[jaswa]

Tick to Dre.

Gates of heaven aren't open. L2Hades.

No other rites can give you salvation Sucumbio, that's the Catholics missinterpretation of Scripture (incoming rage).

Plus you guys are all analysing it from your own worldly view, not from God's perspective.

How exactly is God hypocritical?

What would be an appropriate punishment for sin?

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Tick to Dre.

I'm assuming you mean "dre is right?"

Gates of heaven aren't open. L2Hades.

Er... That's greek.

No other rites can give you salvation Sucumbio, that's the Catholics missinterpretation of Scripture (incoming rage).

Can you clarify this a little?

Plus you guys are all analyzing it from your own worldly view, not from God's perspective.

Then what would be god's perspective?

How exactly is God hypocritical?

He's suposed to be nice, though putting "default" as "evil" isn't exactly nice.

What would be an appropriate punishment for sin?

Death row, then capital pnishment.




So you're saying stillborn children go to hell?

 

[KrazyGlue]

Plus you guys are all analysing it from your own worldly view, not from God's perspective.

There's no way to do that.

So you're saying stillborn children go to hell?

According to Dante, they only go to the first circle of hell, where there is no torture, but they have no hope. But yeah, it's still hell. And everybody who died before Jesus was born is there as well.

Of course, Dante's Inferno isn't an official source; I don't know what the actual scripture implies.

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[Sucumbio]

oh my.

ok, so babies that are either stillborn, or have not been baptized, or who are born out of wedlock, etc. etc. all those poor little souls! they go to purgatory (for which there is no technical evidence for in the bible, it's part of catechism and yes, Catholic interpretation). Purgatory is -temporary-. It's where you are cleansed of anything that would otherwise bar you from heaven. The only time you go to hell proper is if you've committed a mortal sin (not to be confused with a "deadly" sin, such as gluttony, etc.). Also you can get fast-tracked to heaven for lack of a better term, if enough prayers are offered up on your behalf. Surely a loving God will hear your prayers for your stillborn child.

Tick to Dre.

By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin". As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence"). -Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)

In essence humans are not automatically evil or bear any responsibility for the fall. Our very nature (that we can die, that we can sin, that we can be fooled) is what's in play, and that's nothing to be ashamed of, or feel you need salvation from.

Gates of heaven aren't open. L2Hades.

Do what, now? Anyway...

Luke 23:43 (KJV)

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

According to Orthodox Christians, this implies that the gates of Heaven were opened when Jesus died on the cross, and the "good thief" (the guy that was being crucified alongside him) was the first to enter.

No other rites can give you salvation Sucumbio, that's the Catholics missinterpretation of Scripture (incoming rage).

I don't follow this comment. I was listing Jesus' "commandments" of which technically there is only one, but there are also several edicts and proclamations made by him, words to live by so to speak. The holy sacraments are not necessary to enter heaven, but they go a long way to making it happen. But in the end, so long as you love yourself and everyone around you, the same as you'd love Jesus, you're cool.

Plus you guys are all analysing it from your own worldly view, not from God's perspective.

Again I don't follow. Are you somehow suggesting you are able to know God's perspective?

How exactly is God hypocritical?

They're saying that an all-loving God couldn't possibly allow his most beloved creation to suffer for eternity simply because they fell prey to their own inadequacy with which they were built (by him) in the first place. Can you counter this point?

What would be an appropriate punishment for sin?

2 Corinthians 5:21

God made him who had no sin to be sina for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

This is where Salvation is key. By accepting Christ as your lord and savior, you are promised eternal rest in Heaven. There is no appropriate punishment for sin, because Christ has already sacrificed himself for your sins. All you need to do is accept him and your soul is "saved." Anything we humans could come up with would be trivial compared to the wrath of God. It's a common mistake to think of God as infinitely loving and that's it. He is also Righteous, and as such, has high expectations of his creation to be obedient. Committing deadly sins will result in some time in purgatory, though the ones who commit mortal sins will not pass GO, not collect 200, you're gonna burn for that.

 

[El Nino]

The example above indicates that the premise that our perception correlates accurately to an external world or reality comes from pure reason, and then from where we use science to attain various truths about that external world.

So again, no one here has anything against science, we're just saying it isn't the only thing that concludes truth.

Basically, prove that your senses are giving you correct information. Anyone?

Just to clarify (don't know if it's been mentioned or not), but science doesn't attempt to find philosophical truths. The scientific methodology is applicable to observable phenomena only. Something that is proven enough times is considered a Law, and scientific laws =/= philosophical truths.

If light is the truth and the reflection of light an observable phenomenon, science deals with the reflection primarily, though sometimes the reflection can lend clues about the light if we're talking about the heavily theoretical sciences.

Though it does beg the question: If your senses are giving you incorrect information, where did your senses receive that information from? If there is correct information out there that you do not receive in any way shape or form (the implication here being that it does not shape our reality in any way or else it would be detected by our senses), does it matter to us?

Okay, that's enough ****ing for me tonight.

 

[jaswa]

Again bogged down with uni work, so I'll try cover a few points quickly.

@puu:
Who are you to say the punishment is inappropriate? God rejects you for your life time of rejecting him.

@Dark Horse:
Hades is mentioned in the bible, you're showing ignorance here by claiming the term was only used by ancient greeks (the New Testament wasn't written in Greek or anything...)

We have the Bible, which is God's word, so we can formulate what his perspective is. I've already stated it - his benchmark is perfection which none of us measure up to.

There's verses about how those whom have never heard God's word etc. will be judged according to their will/conscience. I think we can leave it in the hands of the creator of the universe to make a fair and just decision on this one. Plus Dre might be able to help me out - we're not even real people 'till we're 7 or something like that...

@Sucumbio:
Not going to go into each point, but to the Catholics my main question is, was Jesus sacrifice enough? The Bible tells us it is, yet they think they can get a bit of their purgatory on, they have to fulfill sacraments etc. Off the top of my head, 1 Peter 3:18, and I've given you Ephesians 2:8-10 before.

Also, does paradise equate with heaven?

Some more questions to think over
Did Jesus go to hell for the sin he took on the cross? What does faith in a Christian context mean? (thought I'd throw this in to see responses - since so many people have it wrong)

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Because of Adam and Eve's disobedience of God, sin travels down the male line. We all disobey God in our life. We are all predisposed to hell because of original sin and our own actions. What we do will never measure up to God's standard of PERFECTION. However Jesus was conceived of God, not man, and was blameless in God's sight. Therefore his atoning sacrifice means something when he took the punishment for all sin. Through Jesus' death we are offered salvation.

I'm sorry, I think this is ridiculous. We are held responsible for things we didn't do? Okay... that's like saying we should put the son of a murderous father on trial for having a murderous father. What kind of morality is that? A very bad one.

That's nice that you think he's immoral - be perfect then people might follow your instructions.

I'm not asking anyone to follow my instructions. I'm justifying why I think the actions of God are immoral.

Who are you to say the punishment is inappropriate? God rejects you for your life time of rejecting him.

He is a rational human being.

We have the Bible, which is God's word, so we can formulate what his perspective is. I've already stated it - his benchmark is perfection which none of us measure up to.

Yeah, so he says he's perfect, and because he's perfect he can't be wrong so he's perfect?

I'd just like to say that, judging God by his own moral standards is always going to give the result that he is perfect in the moral sense. This is because it is he himself who creates the moral code and bases it on himself, because he deems himself perfect. In short, I believe that to be a case of circular logic. That is why, in order to judge the morality of God, we must examine him from a different perspective.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

@Dark Horse:
Hades is mentioned in the bible, you're showing ignorance here by claiming the term was only used by ancient greeks (the New Testament wasn't written in Greek or anything...)

Ugh, I wish I could Ctrl+F my bible x_x

Care to show me where it is in the bible?

We have the Bible, which is God's word, so we can formulate what his perspective is.

Yet sucumbio used the bible, and you still claimed we weren't seeing it from god's perspective.

I've already stated it - his benchmark is perfection which none of us measure up to.

Sorry, can you clarify this?

There's verses about how those whom have never heard God's word etc. will be judged according to their will/conscience.

According to will? For what?

I think we can leave it in the hands of the creator of the universe to make a fair and just decision on this one.

So you're saying that "Hey, everyone starts out heading toward hell" Is fair?

Plus Dre might be able to help me out - we're not even real people 'till we're 7 or something like that...

Wut.

 

[Dre89]

I know the Catholic Church maintains that a child that dies at 7 or under automatically goes to Heaven, though I'm not sure if they need to have been baptised or not.

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[KrazyGlue]

We have the Bible, which is God's word, so we can formulate what his perspective is. I've already stated i

I've always wondered about this. Whenever us modern people see something in the bible that is horrible by our modern moral standards, the immediate response is either "oh, you just have to interpret this a certain way [*cough* so that it doesn't sound bad *cough*]" or "oh, God is so far superior to us that we can't understand his moral decisions". Well if we can't correctly interpret or understand the "bad" parts of the bible, why can we do so for the "good" parts? Why do we even try to understand any of it? What if our soul goes up to the gates of heaven and God says "Ha, just ****ing with you! Actually, you COMPLETELY missed the point of all that stuff in the bible. Now go to hell!"

 

[adumbrodeus]

I need to catch up on this discussion but:


DANTE IS NOT THE VIEW OF THE CHURCH!


That was a view of hell created by a particular writer that was actually in pretty deep **** with the church at the time.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I know lol, I was just bringing up an interesting anecdote.

 

[Sucumbio]

@Sucumbio:
Not going to go into each point, but to the Catholics my main question is, was Jesus sacrifice enough? The Bible tells us it is, yet they think they can get a bit of their purgatory on, they have to fulfill sacraments etc. Off the top of my head, 1 Peter 3:18, and I've given you Ephesians 2:8-10 before.

Yes, it was enough to save your immortal soul for automatic ****ation to limbo. Remember the gates of Heaven were closed to all souls after the fall of Adam and Eve. Jesus' sacrifice alleviates this particular issue. Before his sacrifice literally everyone that died before him had a soul drifting in limbo, with no hope. He fixed this. God was so moved by his death that he retracted his decision to bar human's souls from entrance into Heaven.

That said, the holy sacraments are by Catholic standard necessary to fulfill in order to remain righteous. These are derived from various portions of the New Testament, such as Baptism. Then there's the faith vs works argument which most catholic students get confused over until they're much older. But by no means was Jesus' sacrifice enough to guarantee you won't go to hell regardless of how you live your life. It ONLY guarantees that IF you live your life following the righteous path, that your soul will be ABLE to go to Heaven (because the gates aren't locked anymore).

Also, does paradise equate with heaven?

Of course.

Did Jesus go to hell for the sin he took on the cross?

No. Jesus ascended to heaven after the resurrection and now sits at his Father's side until the day he returns.

What does faith in a Christian context mean? (thought I'd throw this in to see responses - since so many people have it wrong)

Faith with a capital "F" is accepting that Jesus is your lord and savior.

 

[Lore]

That said, the holy sacraments are by Catholic standard necessary to fulfill in order to remain righteous. These are derived from various portions of the New Testament, such as Baptism. Then there's the faith vs works argument which most catholic students get confused over until they're much older. But by no means was Jesus' sacrifice enough to guarantee you won't go to hell regardless of how you live your life. It ONLY guarantees that IF you live your life following the righteous path, that your soul will be ABLE to go to Heaven (because the gates aren't locked anymore).

I'm not going to jump into this, but...

According to this bit, I guess you could say that the doors are unlocked, but you won't be able to push them open unless you live a life of faith, etc? That's just the image that came to my mind after reading this, and I just wanted to make sure that I understood you right before I continued to read the rest of the debate.

Carry on.

Anyway, I apologize for not posting in here lately. I've been really busy, but I'll hopefully be able to post more now.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

It is? I always thought you would have to commit an evil to get barred, otherwise you're in.

 

[Dre89]

For Protestants, you need to have faith, but you don't need to do good deeds.

For Catholics, you need to do good deeds, so I think the idea is that a good hearted atheist would still be accepted.