'It', the fact, doesn't seem reliant on you, but no one claimed it was.
— Isaac

When people say things like "it's raining", they mean that they have a belief that it's raining (in this case, one they're very confident in ,one with good justifications. — john27

I found it contradictory because if one views "it's raining" separate from its factual counterpart, and solely as a mode of expression, it is reliant on the speaker to be true. However, "it's raining" is not reliant on belief.

They may well be the same, but since they are not the same by logical necessity, you'd have to provide an argument to support your position. — Isaac

Could you elaborate on this logical necessity? I still don't fully understand why one must refer to them as different..

What I'm asking is for you to fill in some of the gaps in the model you're espousing. If an expression (as say, "it's raining") has a meaning outside of the various uses to which that expression is put, where should we look to find it, and on what grounds can that source claim primacy of other sources of meaning? — Isaac

I assume by the various uses you mean its uses in a linguistical context. However, how could I find a mode of expression without a speaker and a listener? If I did, I would only be referring to the belief independent/not mode of expression part of 1+1=2 or "it's raining."

Christians would consider themselves flawed, it being part of Christian doctrine. You're not the one who can save them, either. So, don't feel too bad about it. — Ciceronianus

Thats not what I meant by flawed, and I think you know that.

Truth without coherence or consistency? Lewis is pointing out the consequences of certain christian dogma. Your response to what he says - growth or stagnation - is over to you. — Banno

I'm not sure I follow.

Nevertheless, this discussion just missed the mark for me. I apologize, I got a bit heated. I'll see myself out.

You don't have to be here. But there might be more courage in staying than walking away. — Banno

I'm unconvinced. Where is the pursuit of truth? Where is my philosophical growth? What courage does it take to fester in these sorts of grand generalizations? Most christians that I know of haven't even heard of Epicurus, so why are we generalizing these complex ideological implications when their view on the matter is so much more simpler/contained? To me it just seems like senseless bullying. We know that Christianity is flawed-that doesn't mean the people are.

Are you aware of the ancient “economy of the soul”? That the soul is divided into a dwelling together of reason and the passions? — Leghorn

I would have to say that I was not aware of this ancient economy. Could you elaborate?

Not that old. Fairly young, perhaps incredibly young by some standards.

...is far beyond you now—now that you perceive that a human being, through the application of reason, can overcome the greatest adversities that fortune might inflict upon him? — Leghorn

Not yet!

The application of reason takes effort-a will, or a want to overcome. Mediocrity however is already innately a part of my character. Why would I take effort to change, when I can simply apply what I have? Perhaps I wouldn't be able to fully overcome a great adversity, however so long as I can manage it averagely, that would be ok with me.

Ok, I'm just going to gather my courage and say it: This discussion is stupid.
It's rude, untenable, and quite frankly uninteresting. Moral character is not decided by religion, it's decided by the person. Please tread carefully before assuming through "logic" that all christians are evil, or are of bad moral character.

There's folk as will give aid to the homeless, not because they wish to avoid torture, but because it is the right thing to do. — Banno

There are also christians out there who believe similarly I would think.

And it was god who set up this arrangement.

On this account god has behaved abysmally.

Or the christian account is incorrect. — Banno

So it would seem.

This answer can also be related to @emancipate. I do agree with the both of you, but I still think it wouldn't be fair to call it unjust. Who knows? Maybe he has a killer argument for why He chose this Punishment. If the question isn't in relation to us, its really hard to assess things like good and evil.

Edit: Oh wait, it is in relation to us because it's attacking the worthy of worship bit. I missed that. Oops. My bad, sometimes I skim through the questions too quickly. If it demands whether He is worthy of worship to us, then yeah I would agree that it is unjust.

Probably the most controversial and well known part of that debate has been whether different populations have the same intelligence potentials. — Qmeri

Well I would say theres a general distaste for those who believe different populations have different intellectual potentials because there is a bias that...er, an inherent conflict of interest is fuelling their reasoning.

'It', the fact, doesn't seem reliant on you, but no one claimed it was. — Isaac

When people say things like "it's raining", they mean that they have a belief that it's raining (in this case, one they're very confident in ,one with good justifications. — Isaac

I can't help but find this contradictory. Am I looking at this wrong?

Determining that meaning is not, by necessity, the same as determining why or how the fact expressed obtains. — Isaac

I don't understand. By what necessity is it not the same as how a fact obtains?

I'm claiming that the meaning is determined by the full expression, in context. It requires a speaker and a listener, and it has no meaning at all out of context. — Isaac

I don't fully understand... Do you mean to say that 1+1=2, as a mode of expression, has no meaning if theres no context?

If you think it has a meaning outside of any language game it might form part of, then you'd have to say where we look to find that meaning. In what does the meaning inhere? — Isaac

What meaning does 1+1=2 contain as a mode of expression? I must admit I'm a little confused...

[

Could you join the dots any further. I don't see how you not being the centre of the universe determines what "1+1=2" means. — Isaac

When did I say that I determine that 1+1=2? My whole point is that:

I can believe 1+1 is 2, and believe that it is correct; that doesn't change the fact its an axiomatic statement independent of belief. — john27

because I am insignificant in its apparent truth. it is not reliant on me, or anyone whatsoever.

It seems to. Why do you think it doesn't? — Isaac

Because I'm not the center of the universe.

it is positively possible that the supposed fact is currently enacted. — john27

It is more or less possible that a fact (it is raining, it is snowing) is happening, is being conducted.

I can believe 1+1 is 2, and believe that it is correct; that doesn't change the fact its an axiomatic statement independent of belief.

If it was a belief, they would pose it as an opinion such as: I think it is raining. — john27

This is meant to describe that my statement of truth is based on my belief; that in my opinion it is positively possible that the supposed fact is currently enacted.

Well you're right about that, but nevertheless I would still be careful calling His punishment unjust...
For really, how could we know?

People have a confusing tendency to say "I believe X" when exhibiting doubt or a granting concession that one might be wrong - the very opposite qualities to the supposed meaning of "belief".

Also, a person's spoken beliefs often belie their actions. — sime

Is that so... The more you know.

Likewise, "I think it is raining" would mean that his assertion is reliant on his belief. I think thats what I was trying to get across.

Oh, I see. Oops.

Christians hold that the person who inflicts this unjust punishment - God - is worthy of worship. — Banno

How do we know that the punishment is unjust?

No, you believe it is raining.

When people say things like "it's raining", they mean that they have a belief that it's raining (in this case, one they're very confident in ,one with good justifications. — Isaac

I would disagree. Its raining is an axiomatic statement based on an independent variable. That is, it is independent from belief. If it was a belief, they would pose it as an opinion such as: I think it is raining. Calling water falling from the sky a "good justification" for a belief that it is, in fact raining is a bit of an understatement.

I'm confused on the use of mind here...Mostly because from what I can gather rational allows the perception for/realizes the mind, and then the mind verifies the rational?

One of these sensations is called reason - when I suppose my reality is true because I'm feeling it with my mind. — Ergo sum

Aristotelian Golden Mean principle to prove the point: there are 3 possibilities (2 extremes and, in between, only 1 right/correct way). Think of Goldilocks (too hot, just right, too cold) and also the Buddhist Madhyamaka. — Agent Smith

How would this tackle a sort of ends justify the means approach? e.g If you needed to visit your grandmother in another country, and you had three options, one extremely "bad", one extremely "good", and one in between, would the perception of good and bad still hold?

I suppose so.

"So liquid now has acc- cause liquid-...the liquid-...the liquid-....so now I have the liquid..."
–Neil deGrasse Tyson on the show Hot Ones

How can then a feather be a rock?

Do martial arts count as a sport?

Do you see any similarity, John, between the different sorts of objects that fall through the atmosphere and the sorts of ppl that endure loss differently? — Leghorn

While there is a universal constant, In essence each object/person is individual?

Well in the even that we are studying free fall(something falling with no forces acting upon it except gravity) it would seem like you said that there is no need to apply drag, however free falling in a more layman, natural sense requires a broader holistic view of the subject, which I believe would incorporate drag and the such.

Oh, oops.

(Also, I was lying about reading it all. I read like 10 pages and went ehh I think i get the gist of it.)

. Here is a link to every 9453 pages ... good luck! ;) — Tobias

Too bad, I've already read it all :cool:

Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica. I like the way he organizes his thoughts.

Uh...I don't think so? Drag is an essential component to understanding free fall after all, I would think...

It seems that in our current culture, you are only allowed to be on one side of that scientific debate: "Genetics do not affect peoples performance or potential. And there absolutely are not even slight differences in the average capabilities of any human populations." Which would simply be an extraordinary and rare observation about a biological species, since evolution pretty much needs variation in capability to work and for many other reasons. — Qmeri

I'll be honest that i've never heard of this scientific debate before. Could you point out a popular example, or something that you're familiar with?

And isn’t this true because the force of the drag of the air on the feather quickly becomes equal to the force of the gravitational pull on it, whereas the drag on the rock takes much longer to equal the pull of gravity on it? — Leghorn

Yes that is correct. However in my belief the implied question was whether they both conform/who conforms more to this true average, which they do equally:

And which of these: the rock or ball-bearing or lead-weight, or rather the feather, do you think conforms most closely to the accepted formula of falling bodies?—that a falling body falls to the earth at the rate of 9.8 meters/second squared? — Leghorn

Score.

Yeah. Which is why I don't necessarily think you should devote your time to understanding death, because it's a fairly short topic. Acceptance kind of removes the grandeur of it all: yeah were going to die, anyways...

In three words: "Calvin and Hobbes". You can start with the story of the raccoon run over. True philosophy only has to do with a single problem: death. We are not able to face it. That is why there are so many philosophers. Since we don't know how to die, we don't know how to live either. — Primperan

I don't deny that Calvin and Hobbes is brilliant, but...

There's a lot more to life than death.

I don't personally feel a visceral need for pessimism-confirming doomsday, or dystopian post-apocalytic, scenarios. We get enough of that in popular media. — Gnomon

:100:
It's insane how much we talk about it actually. The science fiction section might as well be renamed to post-apocalyptic fiction. It ain't a sub-genre no more.