Who created wealth for the past 200 years? Only a handful of industrious people. — Agustino

No, that handful of people scammed millions of people wasting their life working for them to gain even minimal upgrade in their standard of living.

Right - animals are believed to have self-consciousness, which is different than saying they do have self-consciousness, and it being proven so. — Zoneofnonbeing

It's also different than your claim that they don't have self-consciousness, so your premise that "Humans use language because --- we have self-consciousness" doesn't stand. What are your claims such as that one and "we cannot know ourselves without language" based on?

Ironically, the sentience of animals can't be proven precisely because of Descartes' "cogito, ergo sum".

Humans use language because, unlike other animals, we have self-consciousness. — Zoneofnonbeing

This is false not proven to be true, multiple other animals are believed to have consciousness.

We can only exist in relation to others. There is no ‘I’ without ‘you’ and there is no ‘us’ without ‘them’. — Zoneofnonbeing

Is this a metaphor? If not, it's false. If yes, I don't see of what relevant claim it is a metaphor of.

At birth, our body is literally connected to another person. — Zoneofnonbeing

But it's not after that. Is that physical connection supposed to have a symbolical meaning?

The father of modern philosophy – Rene Descartes – declared “I think, therefore I am.” This line of thought suppresses our social being in favor of individualism. — Zoneofnonbeing

No it doesn't, because it's supposed to be taken literally. Whatever symbolical meaning you attach to it is attached by you and wasn't intended by Descartes. It's a logically valid statement, and where its meaning interpreted by you might lead us as human beings, or whether you like that or not, doesn't make it any more or less valid.

The word ‘independent’ depends upon the word ‘dependent’ to gain meaning.
The word ‘dependent’ depends upon the word ‘independent’ to gain meaning.

This is because language is dependency. Language prohibits independence. What we call ‘independence’ is simply a degree of dependency.

We need to stop saying we are independent. — Zoneofnonbeing

This only makes that person's ability to call themselves independent dependent on language, not the person themselves.

You proved neither that miracles are real nor that fantasy isn't.

Back to the subject:

What actual basis is there to ban the guns or limit them? Can the issue be discussed before we discuss the necessity of laws, society, even morals or value of human life first?

What if we just eliminate the real problem, which seems to be people? As Stalin (I think) said, "no people, no hunger".

Very well, you may expect pages upon pages of content on the society of ants in my back yard.

With winter approaching, the events are about to turn most fascinating, don't you think?

What about low effort rule?

Do you support stronger gun laws in America? — Brian

I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the matter because I don't live in USA and it isn't the center of the world. Speaking of which, it's not even the centre of America, which is the continent and not the country. I don't think Canada has a problem with their gun laws.

I was under the impression this was an international forum. How local issues may be discussed here until the moderators take action? May I start a thread on the selection of mayor in my home village? Where is the line drawn?

The thing about virtual trees is that they are not trees. — Banno

Irrelevant, the difference is still only between the objects perceived.

I'm experiencing pain when I stub my toe on a rock. Seems you want to say that I'm experiencing the rock. — creativesoul

You're perceiving the rock, you're experiencing the perception in the form of pain. You can't experience a physical object, only its consequences.

Yet still, there would remain a difference between seeing a real tree and seeing a virtual tree; one is real, the other virtual. — Banno

That's a difference between the trees, not between seeing the trees.

The experience of seeing a tree when we're awake is not mental. The experience of seeing a tree in a virtual reality that is so realistic that it is indistinguishable from reality is mental. I think that everyone will agree on this point. — Magnus Anderson

I won't. Actually I could argue against either one of those points.

When perceiving a virtual reality, we'd perceive a physical image and get an external perception of it. I don't believe that to be mental.

Then again, I believe that we see and perceive a physical tree and that perception is physical, but the experience of that perception is mental. That'd of course mean that the experience of the perception of the virtual reality would be mental as well.

Any experience is a mental phenomenon. The perceptions themselves are not mental in either case.

To perceive a tree and to be conscious of a tree are different things. We perceive either a real or mental tree, but what we are conscious of is the perception of a tree. The perception is of the physical tree, but the physical tree isn't necessarily what we're conscious of.

(2) is based on two options, and two options are defined in (1). Those two options are all encompassing as far as we understand reality and I can't see a third option that can be added. Provide me an example of a third option that can be added to (1). — Henri

Aside from the option of the world not having been created, I think I can accept (1) except for the definition of consciousness. Imo the issue is solely (2).

At the same time (2) doesn't say that there is 50/50 chance, it says that only taking into consideration (1), meaning without further measurements and observations, there is 50% chance that any possibility is true. — Henri

And that is false. It means that without further information the probabilities are 100% unknown to us which is not the same thing as them having equal probabilities. Furthermore, in (4)-(8) you claim that no further information can be obtained that'd reveal us anything about those probabilities, but in arguing for those points you only work with unconscious aspects of our physical universe, resulting in that those points only apply to a posteriori knowledge. We can at least theoretically through logical reasoning access a priori information which can diminish those 50% chances, an example being that the more ways something can happen the likelier the event generally speaking is.

you didn't prove anything other than that you dislike the idea that you are created by God. — Henri

First of all, I didn't call your arguments BS. I called a premise of a premise you hadn't claimed to be BS, and drew from it the conclusion that you yourself claimed to be false. Basically a reductio ad absurdum.

Second, I believe in God. People are (or at least should be) capable of recognizing the objective validity of claims and logical conclusions regardless of whether they support their opinions. I can claim an argument to contain a logical fallacy and to be false but still support its conclusion.

The premise doesn't stand because you take it as a premise, allowing others to show it to be an example of a false premise. Nowhere in the OP is 2) defended or based on anything.

It's just not true that various imagined modes through which creator could create the universe diminish the chance that conscious entity, the creator, created the universe. — Henri

I agree, but meanwhile it's just as true as your 2nd premise. It's just straight out BS. You need another premise prior to it, which is that unknown probabilities are equal, which is BS. Given that premise we can draw an equally valid conclusion that P(X)=Y , ∀X∈R , Y∈[0,1].

You can consider unconscious creator or conscious creator not purposefully planning the world, but when we measure and observe human behavior and actions, how many creations does human create by being unconscious or not in any way purposefully planning the creation? — Henri

If the creator doesn't consiously plan the decision of creation, the scenario isn't comparable to human consciously planning a creation. All animals create footsteps even though they don't decide to act in such a way that they'd be the result of their actions.

But even so, there are possibilities for various modes of creation, but they still don't diminish minimum 50% chance that a conscious entity, the creator, created the universe. — Henri

Yes, they do, because

we can't just assume unknown probabilities to be equal — BlueBanana

and if we can, we can come up with an infinite amount of other scenarios and then the probability is no more 100%/2.

Argh, sniped.

Why is working with plan and purpose the line that divides the probability to 50/50? We could just consider unconscious creator, conscious creator not purposefully planning the world as it is and conscious creator designing the world as three options and say each one has 33% chance. Which is f'd up because we can't just assume unknown probabilities to be equal.

Also:

humans work with plan and purpose in a way other beings on earth do not. — Henri

That's narrow-minded, arrogant and ignorant.

Based upon what we know about reality, we can divide existence by the line of human level consciousness. — Henri

We could divide it by any other line just as well. What, besides your racial egoism, leads to the conclusion that mankind is that line? It's just as justified to draw the line between conscious and not conscious instead.

Which premises lead to the claim 1? You don't even mention the humans' consciousness' level or that of the beings with a lower one after that.

Yes, it is. But it can't be derived from any. The premise is false.

That can be derived from none of your premises.

Using it as reference does not exclude the levels of consciousness below it.

where "conscious means" includes consciousness at or above human level. — Henri

Why?

What do you mean? — TheMadFool

If only true things can evoke emotions, the story can evoke emotions because its existence is true.

The existence of the story is true.

Well, NOTHING forms the backdrop to everything. A physical object occupies the space that was NOTHING. An idea forms to occupy what was once a void/NOTHING. Tabula rasa? — TheMadFool

The tabula rasa is not nothing, it's something. In this context, a physical object does not occupy nothing: it occupies space, which in itself is something. That space also has location, which is maybe something.

Well, I think we can agree that the situation in question is very much related to the reasons of sexuality being such a taboo in our culture, which is due at least partially due to christianity's effect on it.

Okay, but that doesn't make it moral or right. — Agustino

And that doesn't make it immoral or wrong. That just means our culture's view on sexuality is very much twisted by christianity's sick view on sexuality.

Strange thing, nobody - absolutely nobody - voted in this poll. — Agustino

I misclicked an option in the 2nd poll and can't unselect it, thus I can't vote.
Edit: managed to unselect it but can't vote.

And a nonsensical statement does not turn into a sensical statement just because we add the concept of omnipotence in front of it. — Samuel Lacrampe

True, but neither does it turn impossible just because we add the concept of nonsensicalness in front of it. Making sense or being logical are properties and laws of our universe, and they don't necessarily apply outside it.

So we are discussing moral virtue. — MysticMonist

This was clear.

Virtue by definition means being uncommonly good at something, and like skills in general virtuousness is a spectrum. Anyone is virtuous by some standards.

How so? Morality is only human. — bloodninja

No, humans are the only thing capable of understanding the abstract concept of morality.

God is dead. — bloodninja

I don't see the relevance.

Sentience is absolutely irrelevant as far as the grounding of morality is concerned. — bloodninja

What, then, explains morals almost universally apply exclusively to sentient beings, if their grounding is not connected to sentience?

I think you are also misusing the concept "property". How can morals be a property? — bloodninja

Might be, English isn't my first language. Would it be more correct to say that morality is a property of sentience?

Sorry I don't understand, can you please explain more what you meant here? — bloodninja

Morals can be viewed as a thing much larger than us puny humans. Taking our viewpoint of course does warp our perceptions of the matter. Without considering broader points of view, how do we know the conclusions we draw are correct, and not as warped as the point of view?

No because the idea of sentience grounding morality can't be taken seriously. Morality is far too complex to be grounded in sentience. — bloodninja

Sentience isn't complex? The most conventional view is that morals only apply to sentient beings, and therefor it's quite logical to say that morals are a property of sentient beings or their sentience.

Here is my interpretation: — bloodninja

By that, I meant your interpretation of what I meant by "nothing", not your opinion of the subject.

Besides, one property of triangles is that the sum of the angles equals to 180 deg. — Samuel Lacrampe

Or maybe it's a property of some specific triangles.

As Aquinas says, contradictions do not fall under the omnipotence of God. — Samuel Lacrampe

As Gandhi says, argumentum ad verecundiam.

Clearly, this is not a triangle. — Samuel Lacrampe

I heavily disagree. Most people would recognize that object, or a triangle with rounded angles, as a triangle. Furthermore, it's only our culture that has taught us what is a "proper" triangle; without that influence, a human could recognize the three examples as equally triangle-like.

Now, my favourite part of the argument (which unfortunately is a tad off-topic so no further comments on this): an omnipotent being could create a triangle with four sides. This is, however, independent of whether the definition of triangle is its triangleness or that it has three straight sides and angles.

Which god? — bloodninja

I'm providing examples of people's views, not my own ones, so any of them, although I'm not sure exactly which religions base their morals on their deities.

Well-being. Okay but how would one know what would count as well-being to begin with? Only by having an idea of the nature of the being in question? For example, The well-being of the human would depend on what it means for a human to live well, which in turn requires something like a description of human nature. — bloodninja

Randomly picking humans from the group of anything imaginable seems biased as we are humans. I'd rather take a rock or something into consideration. This view goes along quite nicely with teleology.

Well-being of any sentient beings. No comment. — bloodninja

Why? Because animals shouldn't be treated well or because of reasons related to discussing the subject?

Nothing. Interesting... What do you mean? Do you mean: we just do what one does because it's what one does, and it's ultimately meaningless? — bloodninja

Yes. Among with every other way it can be interpreted. Your interpretation, as far as I can tell, is morals not existing, but one could also interpret it as morals existing independently of anything else, or human beings having morals but for no underlying reason, or human beings not existing at all (except me, because cogito, ergo sum).

How else could they be grounded? — bloodninja

To give some examples:

• God
• Well-being (of anything)
• Well-being of any sentient beings
• Culture
• Nothing

BUT If there is no human nature, then in what are our moral theories grounded? This is my first question. — bloodninja

The question implies you have the premise of morals being grounded in human nature.