Which part would "Theism" or Pascal disagree with? That we're talking about a being? — Terrapin Station

Yes. God is not a being the way you and me are beings. Theism makes a distinction between the created - beings - and the Uncreated - God. If you look around you, you will see that everything in this Universe is created - there was a time when it was not. So what we know as beings are all created things. A certain rearrangement of atoms, with certain properties, etc. etc. but fundamentally created things.

That there's some sort of being with at least some more or less "supernatural" control over events and entities in the world, etc. — Terrapin Station

That's not what Theism, including Pascal would hold.

Because there's no evidence that thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc. per se are anything else. — Terrapin Station

How could there be such evidence? :s It's a matter of interpretation, not a matter of evidence here it seems to me.

To believe something else I'd need to observe external-to-me thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc. But there appear to be none. — Terrapin Station

There appear to be none because all thoughts by default are perceived within your mind, but that doesn't tell us that your mind is their source. It's just like your eyes - just because trees are perceived with your eyes doesn't tell us that there are no trees outside your eyes.

They simply occur in a different location than other things. — Terrapin Station

What location? Thoughts have a spatial location? :s

That's no different than the fact that bowling, say, occurs in a different location (like bowling alleys) than other things (like beaches). — Terrapin Station

It is very different because bowling can be perceived by the five senses, whereas thoughts can't.

But don't you already know my views on this stuff? I mean, how many times do I have to type the same thing before one remembers? — Terrapin Station

No, because I have rarely and not in much depth discussed metaphysics with you - and I don't usually read your posts, since we generally participate in different kind of threads, so how would I be expected to know that? :s

God exists — Terrapin Station

What does that mean though?

No, that would be evidence of things that my mind is doing only. — Terrapin Station

How do you delimit what is your mind? Do you just assume that all thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc. are the product of your mind, probably in isolation from the rest of reality?

plausibility — Terrapin Station

What determines plausibility? For example, miracles are plausible to me, but they must obviously be quite rare, otherwise they wouldn't be miracles in the first place, but common occurrences.

The problem with Pascal's wager is that there's no reason to believe that if there is a God, anyone knows what the consequences of not believing in the God in question are. — Terrapin Station

Sure, but you don't know what Pascal takes "believing in God" to mean. What does it mean to believe in God according to you?

With God, there's only hearsay, but no good reason to believe any of the hearsay. — Terrapin Station

You do have empirical evidence for God within your own conscience - in the Eastern countries, non-belief in God is taken to be a form of psychosis, since people are expected to be aware of a spiritual reality in which they partake. So this consciousness that "there is no good reason to believe" is by all means not common to all of mankind - I'd go as far as saying it's not common to MOST of mankind.

Exactly. — 0 thru 9

No, not exactly - you've misunderstood once again what I've said.

for example a Jewish or Christian believer can benefit from the study and/or practice of Buddhism and meditation, then it's a good thing — 0 thru 9

No the Christian cannot benefit for himself from the study of Buddhism, since Christianity has everything that Buddhism has and much more through the person of Jesus Christ - Christianity also has meditation and prayer through for example the tradition of Hesychasm. However, the Christian can benefit from understanding another religion, seeing what's valuable in it, etc. - this even cements their faith for they see that there are partial revelations of God everywhere. But this is not to say that Buddhism can contribute towards their salvation if they are already Christians.

The fact that Buddhism is not primarily a Theistic belief system actually make easier to pair with other religions. The only hindrance is in the mind, but that may be the biggest obstacle. — 0 thru 9

:s

No, not really. — Heister Eggcart

Yes really - you just don't know what you're talking about - there's a difference there.
https://www.amazon.com/Wall-Street-Bolshevik-Revolution-Capitalists/dp/190557035X

Why couldn't a Christian be influenced and inspired by Buddhism, in a way similar to being influenced by Taoism or the many teachings and forms of yoga, for example? Is there nothing to be gained, or is it simply impossible or heretical? If so, why? — 0 thru 9

Buddhism is good - as far as it goes. The problem is that it doesn't go far enough. I said Christianity is the most complete religion, not that there is no truth in other religions. All religions fundamentally try to relate with the divine.

I'd be easily entertained by visual things. — Terrapin Station

Do you honestly think that would be true?

That's a true fact - you book a flight around here and check it out for yourself. And it was as much true today as it was 100+ years ago. The West has sought to influence and control the East for a long time.


You may both be interested to read this.

Buddhist Christianity — Wayfarer

There is no Buddhist Christianity, that's a very profound error right there. Christianity may have some similarities with Buddhism, however, because of the person of Jesus Christ, Christianity is ultimately entirely different.

And if I got a disease, or had an accident, which posed a great enough obstacle, such that I'd rather not live at all, then I could do something about that, except in exceptional circumstances, but that'd just be a terribly unfortunate happenstance. — Sapientia

That sounds quite tragic to me :P

I'm very easily entertained. — Terrapin Station

So what would you do if you were left paralysed and deaf (I pick deaf because I know you like music) due to, for example, an accident or illness?

No. — Beebert

Why not? You're not contradicting yourself. You just said justice is a cause of joy, and now you're saying it's not :s

Justice is a cause of joy. — Beebert

Okay good, so then Aquinas isn't wrong to say that the wicked going to hell is a cause of joy so long as their going to hell is just and not sadistic, right?

Nietzsche correctly and rightly criticized. — Beebert

Nietzsche did not understand Aquinas and Christianity very well - his understanding was always tainted by Luther. Nietzsche's morality was actually the opposite of just.

The pharisees were just in their sentences, because they followed the law, but they were heartless and cruel. — Beebert

They followed the letter of the law, but not its spirit, thus they were not just.

Justice can also be cold-hearted and mean. — Beebert

But justice can also be a cause of joy then? In fact, why wouldn't justice ALWAYS be a cause of joy if justice is something good?

Is justice being done a cause of joy - yes or no?

Enjoyment. — Sapientia

That must be quite a terrible existence then for you, because pleasure is quite a fickle mistress, often attended by a harem of pain. Terrible uncertainty shall follow you at every step, and a deep seated animalistic fear for the day when pleasure will become impossible - and it always does sooner or later with age, disease, etc. All who have made pleasure their mistress have been left destitute, with everything taken away from them. — Agustino

That's also risky for the reason stated above, though not as risky as pure pleasure :P

Pleasure, I suppose. — Terrapin Station

That must be quite a terrible existence then for you, because pleasure is quite a fickle mistress, often attended by a harem of pain. Terrible uncertainty shall follow you at every step, and a deep seated animalistic fear for the day when pleasure will become impossible - and it always does sooner or later with age, disease, etc. All who have made pleasure their mistress have been left destitute, with everything taken away from them.

what is the one value that holds the most power in your life? — Advocate

God.

Aquinas did help scholasticism to become a big part of the west yes. — Beebert

The movement was well under way, with or without him. He joined in it, but he by no means started it.

He also upheld the almost augustinian view of predestination and grace and election(Plus, he said one of the most disgusting things about the afterlife that I have heard), and he therefore not only was a front figure for scholasticism, but also for the thought of Calvin. — Beebert

Augustine & Aquinas did not hold the views of Calvin at all. Calvin largely misinterpreted them.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm

BTW, I really think he was an overrated philosopher and thinker. Immanuel Kant proved him wrong also. — Beebert

I think quite the opposite - Kant was wrong on most things and Aquinas was right on them.

A quote from Aquinas, this apparently great philosopher, theologian and saint, will do: "In the kingdom of heaven, the blessed will see the punishment of the damned, so that they will derive all the more pleasure from their heavenly bliss.” Summa theologicae, 35, Q94, article 1 — Beebert

Seemingly, but I get a feeling you know Aquinas from Nietzsche rather than from reading him. He certainly explains what he means by that soon after:

I answer that, A thing may be a matter of rejoicing in two ways. First directly, when one rejoices in a thing as such: and thus the saints will not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked. Secondly, indirectly, by reason namely of something annexed to it: and in this way the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy. And thus the Divine justice and their own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly.

When I see a criminal punished, I'm happy because justice is done, not because harm is done to a man. Love doesn't mean that we as a society will not punish the criminal, for if we do not punish him, that would entail allowing others to suffer because of him, and thus not loving them.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5094.htm

Would an orthodox christian dare to say something like that? — Beebert

I think he would.

I remember a conversation between [Silouan] and a certain hermit who declared with evident satisfaction,
‘God will punish all atheists. They will burn in everlasting fire.’
Obviously upset, Silouan said,
‘Tell me, supposing you went to paradise, and there you looked down and saw someone burning in hell-fire – would you feel happy?’
‘It can’t be helped. It would be their own fault,’ said the hermit.
Silouan answered him in a sorrowful countenance:
‘Love could not bear that,’ he said. ‘We must pray for all.’ — Beebert

Sure, but Aquinas would not say the opposite. We naturally desire that all will repent and be saved by God - but unfortunately not all will. So we must pray for all - but not all will achieve salvation.

“If the Lord saved you along with the entire multitude of your brethren, and one of the enemies of Christ and the Church remained in the outer darkness, would you not, along with all the others, set yourself to imploring the Lord to save this one unrepentant brother? If you would not beseech Him day and night, then your heart is of iron—but there is no need for iron in paradise.” — Beebert

Yes, yes you would beseech, but that doesn't mean it's practically possible to save him if he does not want to be saved.

It seems to me like Aquinas and Silouan didn't really worship the same God. I prefer the God of Silouan. — Beebert

I think they worship the same God, but Silouan has a closer relationship with God and a deeper more mystical understanding, while Aquinas - at least in-so-far as his theology shows - is too trapped in the logical aspects of God. "Light" is relative to the plane of understanding - on the plane of understanding that Aquinas is on, God's logic is Light - but from a higher plane it is Darkness.

I see that you're trying to get Russian history to fit with your current worldview. zzzzzzzzz — Heister Eggcart

What part of Russian history isn't as I said? :s

I agree with what you say here; but I would add that the "higher level" is not something which can be determinately formulated. Wherever this is attempted fundamentalism begins. So, I think care must be taken not to reify "levels of being" into social and political hierarchies of any kind. — John

This is demonstrably false, since apophatic experiences of God require dogma to be interpreted, corrected and guided. Dogma =/ fundamentalism.

Because western theology is more often than not despicable IMO — Beebert

Sometimes - some forms of Scholasticism certainly can be.

He destroyed mysteries. — Beebert

I wouldn't say he personally did this, but he did help in that movement and direction.

He is boring, he thought in reality nothing new, he was more into justice and vengeance than love and mercy etc. — Beebert

That's good, justice is also needed.

He is one of those who made christianity Into something it isnt it seems to me: A system, and a thought religion. — Beebert

Aquinas did actually reject his philosophy at the end of his life and said it is all "like straw" compared to what God had revealed him. As I said, philosophy does have its place. Aquinas is good as a philosopher, but nothing more. If you had to choose a philosophy, it would be his.

The philosophers worth reading as I see it are Plato(because he far surpasses Aquinas in morals and virtues, and Most of all, he teaches you how to think, plus the prose in itself is the highest quality), Augustine (But I dont like God theology. Confessions is enough), Schopenhauer (even though too pessimistic, he can teach you something), Kierkegaard (for obvious reasons it seems to me), Nietzsche (because he was the greatest poet and writer of all philosophers, as well as the funniest. He also was good at exposing religious nihilism and hypocrisy. And he pointed towards the truth about the meaninglessness and falseness of most philosophies. His weakness is that he didnt seem to understand or be interested in the greatness of true religion, as expressed by people like Francis of Assisi etc.), and Wittgenstein (Because he proved the meaninglessness of most philosophy). — Beebert

I would say Aristotle, Plato, Kierkegaard, Aquinas, Augustine, Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer, Pascal, Hamann, Sextus, Spinoza if i had to make a list of philosophers that are really worth reading. Perhaps also include the Stoics (Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, etc.). I would exclude N. despite the fact that he did, some of the time, achieve profundity. He was also mistaken about a great deal of things.

Solution: don't get involved with people who cheat on each other ;)

Does he advocate a kind of universalism or does he acknowledge that said traditions, similarities between them not withstanding, actually make mutually exclusive truth claims? — Thorongil

That is an important point. It's not about mutually exclusive truth claims, but rather that only one of them has access to the Truth (which is non-discursive).

Though it is obvious that Dostoevsky experienced the problems and struggles with God that Ivan experienced... — Beebert

Of course - Dostoevsky was an intellectual and as is usual for the East, there is a very strong tendency to "Westernise" and "Americanise" which usually means taking what is worse from the West rather than what is better (no wonder Communism came to the East - from the West!). The great pity has been the Eastern leaders have really been Western to the core - Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev -
really Western intellectuals, who had lived in the West and had absorbed the Marxist communism propagated there. It's kind of stupid for the West today to claim they opposed communism, when in truth they created it and unleashed it on the Eastern world many times via financial backing and sponsoring with arms of revolutionary movements in the East. That's like throwing stones and breaking someone's windows at night and coming in the morning to offer your services to repair them in exchange for money :s

That is true back then as it is true today. That's why for example both Tolstoy and Dostoevsky struggle with atheism - an atheism which is fundamentally foreign to their motherland (now watch Wayfarer be annoyed :P ). It's an intellectual movement that is coming from the West. So someone like Dostoevsky struggles to resolve the contradiction between Ivan and Alyosha as they appear in his own soul.

Why BTW do you like someone like Aquinas? — Beebert

Aquinas is one of the best as far as philosophy goes, but as I've stated many times, I actually don't think philosophy has that much to help us. Philosophy doesn't go far enough, and is ultimately a dead end - and it's philosophical to recognise it as such. So my endorsement of Aquinas is a bit ironic - I don't have anyone else to endorse, but even he isn't good enough.

Russian distaste for Western Europe is a lot more complicated than just religion. — Heister Eggcart

Yes, and it usually has to do with the West who keeps wanting to interfere with the affairs of the East. And this has a long history for many Eastern countries - Russia is actually one of the least affected. Some other countries like say Lithuania or Ukraine have been a ping pong ball between Russia and the West for all their history.

But religion is also an important consideration. Don't forget that the East has for a long time accused the West of being atheistic, and there have been many authors here who keep on predicting the collapse of the West precisely for those reasons. Among the most recent, this one. (not that I agree with him, but it's an interesting read - definitely different than what you find on the Western market).

So, it is independent of reason, thus making you a fideist in this sense. — Thorongil

Yes sir, I plead guilty to that.

What have we been doing this whole time? Why are you talking to Beebert as well, in that case? — Thorongil

Ah, well Beebert has some misunderstandings with regards to Scripture, and how Scripture is to be understood (for example the role Apostolic Tradition plays in understanding Scripture). I explained to him passages he found problematic, and directed him to research with regards to the passages from the Old Testament (for it would be silly for me to go over matters that have already been discussed, especially since there's a lot of things he can bring up - I've just shown him that it's possible to account for all those). I think that's very productive.

I'm baffled as to how you think you can "invite" people to become Christians if their becoming so doesn't depend on rational argument, but rather on will, personal experience, and revelation — Thorongil

Of course! Reason is quite impotent, it's only usefulness really is in inducing a profound skepticism of its own powers, a skepticism which shows the soul its need for God.

Someone will not believe unless they love God and want God - so that's the role of the will. Someone will also not believe unless they have access to revelation. God is hidden, so He must reveal Himself. That's Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. And finally, one will not believe unless they experience God - that's why it says "Taste and see that the LORD is good" - it doesn't say reason and see that the LORD is good.

So it's quite simple. Reason is used as a weapon to prepare one for faith, but it doesn't generate faith at all. All it generates is skepticism (more precisely skepticism of atheism, scientism, etc.). Perhaps my favorite philosopher should be Sextus Empiricus :P

If you invite people without argument, then you're on equal footing with the Buddhist apologist, who, much like your metaphor of the lamp posts, has his own simile of the raft to describe the goal of Buddhism. You've given the prospective believer no means to determine why one path is any better than another. — Thorongil

So does he want to determine if a path is better than another without walking it? What did Jesus do, did He say "Let me convince you that I am the Truth and the Way and the Life"? Or did He invite people to see for themselves that He is the Way?

Your foundational assumptions are problematic. You presuppose that it is a priori possible to determine which is the best path without taking it, and that's false - it's also something that can be borne out of a fear of taking the wrong path (although you have to balance that with the fear of not taking any path, which is definitely the wrong path to take ;) ).

The thing I often see in all religions, especially christianity, as it is the one I encounter the most, is that behind this faith, behind this wonderful belief that their life will continue forever, that God loves them and that life has a meaning and is created just for them, is an intense fear of death. — Beebert

Yes, and behind the faith of the atheist in the non-existence of God is a deep seated and intense fear of responsibility for one's actions on Earth. -> See how reason is to be used? If the atheist critiques the believer for fearing death, the believer should critique the atheist for fearing responsibility and accountability for his actions. But this is nothing but rhetoric for even if true, such statements do not say anything about the truth of the underlying beliefs at all. But rhetoric is useful to move the will.

Give me an example of a "non-empirical first principle" other than a fundamental particle or force. — VagabondSpectre

Causality.

fundamental particle or force. — VagabondSpectre

These are empirical, sorry to disappoint.

He charted it, he didn't give a reason or explanation of it's origin, and what he described still holds true (GR and SR add precision to Newtonian calculations involving masses of certain scales). — VagabondSpectre

He actually did.

I know you mean that, but nobody else does. — VagabondSpectre

Suuuuure, nobody, just several philosophical traditions :s

believing that knowledge of God depends on revelation & faith — Agustino

I do believe this.

to believing that faith is contrary to reason — Agustino

I don't believe this.

to believing that faith is independent of reason — Agustino

Faith is dependent on will & personal experience & revelation

A simple question: are you a fideist? — Thorongil

Please qualify what you mean by "fideist" because it can mean a variety of things from believing that knowledge of God depends on revelation & faith; to believing that faith is contrary to reason; to believing that faith is independent of reason, etc. So what exactly do you mean?

When we add gasoline, oxygen, and a spark, there's no physical cause of combustion, it's just some metaphysical cause that for all we know is playing out in the "physical world" like some abstract reflection that we're unable to understand? — VagabondSpectre

Causality is actually a metaphysical not a physical category. That's why there are actually attempts, including by atheists like Bertrand Russell, to eliminate it from science altogether. You add gasoline, oxygen and a spark and you get combustion. That's a physical correlation. The causality is explained metaphysically through the natures of the elements added.

In my opinion the difference between physics and metaphysics is that physics bases itself on the material and observable world while metaphysics tend to be based on nothing at all. — VagabondSpectre

That's wrong. Metaphysics is required in the first place to make sense of any kind of physics whatsoever. It observes and categorises non-empirical first principles which we need in order to make sense of the world. Causality is one such principle that it needs to discover. Metaphysics works by establishing coherence mainly, but also correspondence. We certainly compare different metaphysics by how coherent they are.

Einstein did not overcome Newton. GR and SR added precision to Newtonian calculations (especially concerning gravity) it did not overturn them. All of modern Newtonian scale physics still works, Einstein just enhanced it. — VagabondSpectre

They do work, but the theory is false. The reason for example why objects attract one another via gravity given by Newton is false. We now know that it's the curvature of space-time that accounts for gravity, with mass having the property of bending the space-time continuum.

"A good watch": Definition 1: A good watch is a watch which performs it's function well.

"A good watch" Definition 2: A good watch is a watch that satisfies my personal watch-standards.

"A good man" Definition 1: A good man is a man which performs his function well.

"A good man" Definition 2 : A good man is a man that satisfies my personal "goodness/morality" standards. — VagabondSpectre

I actually do mean definition 1 in both cases. A man who performs his function well is a moral man. That's what Plato illustrated if you read, for example his Republic, or if you read Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics.

In fact, a moral man simply could not be someone who doesn't perform his function well.

A complete apophaticism would be indistinguishable from atheism. — Thorongil

No, since atheism has no desire to experience God. A complete apophaticism represents a desire for God, but it doesn't work alone, it requires dogma. And please not that while dogma does include cataphatic statements about God, the vast majority of it is neither cataphatic nor apophatic, as I've illustrated in Shoutbox.

There must be some positive statements one can make about God or else you're just engaged in farce. — Thorongil

Sure, but they're lamp posts - guides towards an actual encounter with the incomprehensible trans-rational God.

No, it implies that God has a nature different from created things, analogous to but not identical (obviously) created natures. — Thorongil

And how did you come to this conclusion?

We are said to be made in God's image, after all. — Thorongil

Sure, but it doesn't necessarily follow from this that God has a fixed nature :s

(a point made here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0025.2005.00285.x/abstract) — Thorongil

I can't read that article for free - but it does appear quite interesting based on the abstract.

God is not absolutely nothing but not a thing either. — Thorongil

Yes. That's apophaticism, denying both that God is no-thing and that He is a thing.

They don't apply univocally, but analogically. — Thorongil

Why? I don't buy this. Even the analogical application is wrong in the final analysis, and merely useful, but not true.

but still want to engage in God-talk, then you're really just an atheist or someone engaged in equivocal gibberish. — Thorongil

That's false. I'm inviting you to know God personally by following the dogmas, believing in the life, death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, prayer & devotion.

@Thorongil Who wrote this?

Again, ascending yet higher, we maintain that it is neither soul nor intellect; nor has it imagination, opinion reason or understanding; nor can it be expressed or conceived, since it is neither number nor order; nor greatness nor smallness; nor equality nor inequality; nor similarity nor dissimilarity; neither is it standing, nor moving, nor at rest; neither has it power nor is power, nor is light; neither does it live nor is it life; neither is it essence, nor eternity nor time; nor is it subject to intelligible contact; nor is it science nor truth, nor kingship nor wisdom; neither one nor oneness, nor godhead nor goodness; nor is it spirit according to our understanding, nor filiation, nor paternity; nor anything else known to us or to any other beings of the things that are or the things that are not; neither does anything that is know it as it is; nor does it know existing things according to existing knowledge; neither can the reason attain to it, nor name it, nor know it; neither is it darkness nor light, nor the false nor the true; nor can any affirmation or negation be applied to it, for although we may affirm or deny the things below it, we can neither affirm nor deny it, inasmuch as the all-perfect and unique Cause of all things transcends all affirmation, and the simple pre-eminence of Its absolute nature is outside of every negation- free from every limitation and beyond them all.

I'm not sure I would affirm such a cataphatic statement about God :P - that presupposes for example that God has a nature, just like created things do :s based on what are you saying that?! — Agustino

I really thought you understood this from Schopenhauer. The categories of thought that apply to the phenomenon don't apply to the noumenon...

If poor Schopenhauer knew about Orthodoxy well enough, I think he would have converted :P

But he can't change his nature, which is goodness itself, which means neither that which is right nor that which is wrong can change their status. — Thorongil

I'm not sure I would affirm such a cataphatic statement about God :P - that presupposes for example that God has a nature, just like created things do :s based on what are you saying that?!

If it is wrong to violate someone's will — Thorongil

No it's not wrong in all contexts to violate someone's will. If you want me to shoot you, and I refuse, thereby violating your will, I'm committing no wrong, but a good thing. You have to show and prove to me how violating a created being's will is wrong when the Uncreated God does it.

it cannot be the case that God "could have" violated someone's will without having done wrong. — Thorongil

If your will comes from God, how is God violating it when He takes it away? :s

I loved the Jesus explained by Dostoevsky. It was the the book that got me interested in christianity. Reading theology and theologians destroyed it all though. I am not completely unfamiliar with Eastern orthodoxy. It is the Only form of christianity that has a value IMO (Some sides in catholicism are great too, like gregorian music). But I cant find myself trusting orthodox theology when I read scripture. I have tried but I cant. At least not yet. — Beebert

Well one aspect of the conflict for example is displayed by the fact that Ivan uses arguments. This surprises Alyosha, because arguments for/against God are quite foreign in Orthodoxy. God is supposed to be a primal reality here, that people just have to recognise by looking within. So that's one reason why Alyosha doesn't respond - he doesn't understand where Ivan (the West) is coming from, for we do not reason to God, but God is rather a noetic & intuitive first principle. People have to be open to encounter God, practice his Commandments, have Faith in him and pray.

Indeed some of the West's current troubles with scientism & atheism are born out of their love with Scholasticism - I know @Thorongil will hate me now :P

I see clearly enough to know that God cannot commit evil. — Thorongil

Sure but that's because God is the standard of good itself.

He's not free to commit evil, make square circles, cause himself to not exist, etc. — Thorongil

The Lord gives and the Lord takes away, entirely out of His own accord. Why is it bad if He takes away what He has given? :s How can that be bad?! It would only be bad if we assumed that He owed you something - and that's stupid. He owes you nothing. He will not take it away because He intended you to have free will in the first place - but this is not to say that it would be evil for Him to take it back. It wouldn't.

And Dostoevsky is wonderfully dear to me. My favorite work of his is Brothers Karamazov, which is the greatest book I have ever read. — Beebert

But did you understand it? Do you understand why Alyosha never gave Ivan a reply? Do you understand the West-East conflict that is playing out there? Because lots of people who read Dostoyevsky from the West misinterpret that book completely because they don't understand Christian Orthodoxism.

Your moral argument from teleology indicates that I should adhere to some average standard in order to be moral (find happiness?), but what if I'm not average?. — VagabondSpectre

Not at all, my moral argument from teleology holds that we all, as human beings, have the same telos, which is by no means "average", but quite the contrary. Our telos is what human excellence itself would be.

but rather that morality is a mutually shared/cooperative agreement that we generally figure out based on what makes us both happy/unhappy — VagabondSpectre

This is demonstrably false. A cannibal may look for a victim who wants to be eaten. It would not be moral for that action to happen, even though they both share the same values and would think they are profited from it.

note: the controversial sentiments of a few people aren't sufficient for my standards of moral argument. The values which I do base moral arguments on are the most universally shared values available — VagabondSpectre

This is false, and a form of argumentum ad populum, which is a fallacy.

Conversely if humans had an extra appendage designed to castrate men, our telos would define it as moral to use it per your reasoning, correct?. — VagabondSpectre

Then the function of that appendage would be to castrate. That, however, does not mean that castrating would be moral in all circumstances. It wouldn't be moral in circumstances where it would contradict the telos of other parts (perhaps more important) of the body/soul. It would for example contradict the telos of brotherhood among men, and thus would be immoral in most circumstances, unless perhaps you used it on someone trying to kill you, etc.

I can recognize anyone's concept of love (although occasionally with some strain) but that doesn't mean our definitions are common enough that I therefore agree with your teleological and moral positions. — VagabondSpectre

You're now moving goalposts again. If you can recognise their concepts as being concepts of love instead of something else, then they clearly do share commonalities.

All scientific arguments are inexorably based on strong correlation. — VagabondSpectre

Sorry, science isn't in the business of deciding on metaphysical questions. Science just had to find predictabilities and understand how one thing is associated with another. Science is in the business of identifying correlations.

The strong inductive argument supporting gravity isn't metaphysical, and it doesn't overstep the boundaries of science so much as it defines them (repeatable observation and successful prediction) — VagabondSpectre

:s Gravity being nothing else than the apple falling to the ground when you drop it, I understand. That's just a predictability that you observe in the world.

If you don't think that brain damage/disease or psychoactive drugs can causally affect someone's feeling of love, I'm not sure where else to go but to lectures in human behavioral/neuroscience and more examples of brain damage affecting behavior. — VagabondSpectre

Yes of course they affect ability to think/feel so what? That doesn't mean that ability to think/feel doesn't also affect the physical brain - gasp - it does! It's called neuroplasticity. Glasses affect your ability to see, but so do your eyes.

What is compelling here? Am I missing something? — VagabondSpectre

I think you are.

But if you're only making distinctions based on invented categories from observed norms, why should we hold that the "final cause" of a human is required to be upheld for morality (happiness?). — VagabondSpectre

This is a strawman - the categories are neither invented, nor are we speaking of norms. And finally, it's also a non-sequitur.

We don't actually need metaphysics if we found our starting positions on physical evidence (i.e: the test-ability of gravity). I cannot demonstrate the physical mechanism that makes gravity work, but I can at least demonstrate it's consistency with strong inductive arguments that have massively persuasive power. — VagabondSpectre

>:O >:O >:O Good one, you must be one of those people who does metaphysics while they're thinking they're not doing it.

How many pieces of the puzzle do you need before you will agree that we're on the right track by assuming that the goings-on of the brain dictate the goings-on of the mind? — VagabondSpectre

Even if you had all the pieces of the puzzle you would STILL not be able to assume that, since it's a matter of metaphysics, not of physics.

Living bodies have organismic activity — VagabondSpectre

ORGANISMIC ACTIVITY >:O >:O - sounds like a soul to me! In fact PRECISELY like a soul, for the soul also is an activity, and not a thing ;) (don't forget forms are act, matter is potency)

Inductive reasoning has a long and proud tradition of providing strong reasoning which has carried many a person towards the successful ends they've sought. — VagabondSpectre

>:O Yes, but it's not all about how you can manipulate the world to do your will. That's a very selfish view of things.

Gravity has been physically demonstrated to exist beyond a reasonable doubt — VagabondSpectre

No it hasn't. All that has been demonstrated is that objects in the Universe we have observed seem to currently attract each other. There's no statement there about this happening in the future, why it happens, or whether it even happens outside of what we know as the visible Universe. And in fact it's worse - things are actually not even attracting, so we postulated this weird dark energy that we don't have a fucking clue what it is. Maybe just our understanding of gravity is wrong. That's what my money is on actually. Einstein overcame Newton, and someone will overcome Einstein. That's science - always looking for more and never reaching an end.

At some point correlation can become so reliable and consistently un-violated that it becomes like a brute and undeniable fact of existence; a starting point for good arguments. — VagabondSpectre

That's scientism at its best. No we have a piss poor understanding of our emotions, and the like in all truth. A large of the so called understanding we have is culturally mediated and only valid in certain cultures.

Oh but it does by my standards. It's one of the four fundamental forces. — VagabondSpectre

Today, but wait till tomorrow. It wouldn't be the first or last time science changed its mind ;) - if you base your life off science, you may soon find the ground under your feet running away.

There are two issues here. The statement "a moral man is a good man" uses a different and colloquial meaning of the term "good" that the statement "my watch works good" employs. The "goodness" of a moral man has to do with what I believe to be moral in the first place while the "goodness" of a watch has to do with how well it performs it's function. This is known as equivocation. — VagabondSpectre

That's false. We're looking for objective morality, and we have shown that a good doctor is objectively one who is good at healing, where healing is the doctor's function - and objectively so. A good man also depends on his function, in similar manner. There is no equivocation between the terms, the terms good have the same sense in both phrases. It's funny how now you're all backpeddling and moving goalposts - soon you'll be falling off the pitch!

The second issue is that even if you could convince me that "teleological final causes" are somehow morally obligatory to pursue and uphold, you could n ever convince everyone that your idea of "proper human function" actually applies to them or that their contrary definition of proper human function is not superior to your own. The reality is that human function seems endlessly diverse, and I see no good reason to cherry pick a few variants and hold them to be the moral ones... — VagabondSpectre

So what if I can't convince you? That means I wouldn't be right? :s That's certainly a very strange way to establish what right and wrong is. But clearly when you run out of other means, you appeal even to those!

But alas, you can sleep well, it's not my purpose to convince you in particular that casual sex is wrong. I've done my purpose in this thread by educating you on Aristotelian philosophy, so that at least you understand the basics correctly and see the motivations behind the distinctions Aristotle drew. Maybe you'll come to your own conclusions later.

Let me ask you - is God free? — Agustino

And by the way Thorongil, you still haven't answered my question here.