We want our laws to be fair and just, that's true, but if we lived in a world where making murder illegal actually caused more murder to occur, we would think such a system to be less just or less fair (or at least less desirable to live in, perhaps).
You may not be aware of the underlying cause, but that's a separate issue.
is there good porn
— Cavacava
Consequentialism is the hands-on winner here. If it works, it's good.
Should harm be the deciding factor? What of moral intuition? Are there other forms of harm that haven't been considered (like the harm of treating people as a means to an end)?
We can conclude that God being a man on a cloud or the trinity etc are the illusions of reason as we are able to trace the source as rational, autonomous beings following a synthesis between us and consciousness of the world, and the possibility of transcendental reflection for ourselves is practically indispensable epistemologically, but I am not convinced that we simply stop at the point of being aware of our limitations but rather continue - morally - toward the ideal, making God necessary for perfecting our moral position.-
as we are able to trace the source as rational, autonomous beings following a synthesis between us and consciousness of the world,
He certainly intimates these 'illusions' of reason - the whole man on a cloud, the trinity, the sun or whatever the heck - but the fact that you say (t)his is not to say there is no God is the very root of our argument, whereby since Kant cannot deny non-existence otherwise his existence is not a predicate would contradict itself that therefore concludes the necessity of God since by saying (a)ccordingly, there must be something whose nonexistence would cancel all internal possibility whatsoever. This is a necessary thing justifies my initial suggestion contingency isn't the only necessity. If your argument rests solely on some justification that Kant suggested that during his pre-critical period, ya gonna have to do better.
For thine is the
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper. T. S. Elliot The Hollow Men
Not with a bang but a whimper
"Accordingly, there must be something whose nonexistence would cancel all internal possibility whatsoever. This is a necessary thing."
LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.
"When Lincoln rose to speak, I was greatly disappointed. He was tall, tall, -- oh, how tall! and so angular and awkward that I had, for an instant, a feeling of pity for so ungainly a man." However, once Lincoln warmed up, "his face lighted up as with an inward fire; the whole man was transfigured. I forgot his clothes, his personal appearance, and his individual peculiarities. Presently, forgetting myself, I was on my feet like the rest, yelling like a wild Indian, cheering this wonderful man."
Despite his insistence that the idea of God is indispensable and “inescapable” (cf. A584/B612), Kant again denies that we can acquire any theoretical knowledge of the alleged “object” thought through such an idea. On the one hand, then, the idea of God is “the crown of our endeavors.” On the other, as in the cases of both rational psychology and cosmology, the idea answers to no[t] given and theoretically knowable object (A339/B397). Indeed, according to Kant, the idea of God should not lead us to “presuppose the existence of a being that corresponds to this ideal, but only the idea of such a being, and this only for the purpose of deriving from an unconditioned totality of complete determination the condition…” (A578/B606). As in the other disciplines of metaphysics, Kant suggests that we are motivated (perhaps even constrained) to represent the idea as a real object, to hypostatize it, in accordance the demand for the unconditioned:
So, ah-yuh even the universe is contingent, it could have been otherwise.
— Cavacava
Nope. You're gonna have to do better than that. :P
Really? No racism anywhere except that started by Christianity?
How did Christianity do that?
If the Greeks or Romans were not racist, what kept them from it?
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I am sure that a 'logical' God it is a fantasy, perhaps a necessary one
How is it possible that something which is necessary could be a fantasy
I it think this is an intrinsic part of modern man's psychological construction.
Oi, since when is Anselm a god? I said that surely Anslem' ontological argument on the existence of God has a logic, namely "...that than which no greater can be conceived," and not that God is logical. But wait, you say:
The only necessity is contingency...show me otherwise
— Cavacava
Hmm.. and you also say:
All the logical conundrums fall flat in the face of experience, and life goes on.
— Cavacava
Anselm' formula that we are unable to conceive by understanding alone of a perfect being or God which - by being an agnostic - you must agree with this contingent proposition since the nature of the divine beyond which nothing greater can be posited is neither true nor false.
My my, how logical of you.
Think of the cosmological singularity - how did the universe come to existence? No one is able to posit the very nature and the ultimate beginning of this reality and yet we assume the necessity of the singularity' existence since the universe exists. Unless, you believe that the universe is a contingent proposition?
Of course if there is no God, then there is no reason why the principle of sufficient reasons holds. The world is just the way it is, the causal argument crumbles leaving only contingency & the law of noncontradiction. There is (ultimately) no causal reason for anything.
If the PSR applies to all things, then it applies to all becomings.
When someone says 'I am thinking, therefore I am, or I exist', he does not deduce existence from thought by means of a syllogism, but recognizes it as something self-evident by a simple intuition of the mind. This is clear from the fact that if he were deducing it by means of a syllogism, he would have to have had previous knowledge of the major premiss 'Everything which thinks is, or exists'; yet in fact he learns it from experiencing in his own case that it is impossible that he should think without existing. It is in the nature of our mind to construct general propositions on the basis of our knowledge of particular ones.
Which I will now defend as the only correct understanding.
But how on earth could anyone know that every single version of physicalism fails to account for consciousness? He even looks like a christian rock musician O:)
hinking is always being,
being is not always thinking
—Cavacava
And you know this how? While not living things 'think' as we do, it is a gray area as to at what threshold allows something to be classified as a 'living thing', and from there at what level it has some self awareness, and after that sentience. Whether or not a non-living thing is a being like a living being is other question that really has no answer. While it is kind of safe to assume that something you see exists, I'm unaware of anything of any argument that state that it is a given that the thing-in-and-of-itself exists as we perceive it to exist. Or at least I'm unaware of any good argument that states this.
As far as I know, we do not the attributes that are required to allow something to think nor do we really understand which attributes are required for something to be. While for the sake of simplicity we can make certain assumptions, but it isn't a given that such assumptions are true under all conditions.