As OP's, I feel your arguments rely on very specific views that aren't universal.

The concept of triangleness. We recognize triangles without having to count their sides or amount of angles, because they seem triangle-ish.

Similarly I could ask, do you claim the definition of triangle to be that they have three sides or that they have three angles? What if there was hypothetically speaking a shape that only had one of those properties? And on a related note, how should we approach the fact that real life triangles don't have straight sides, or that we can recognize this as a triangle?

As you wish. A triangle with an amount of sides other than three can exist, as triangles aren't defined by having three sides. Instead, there's a concept of triangle and it's a huge coincidence every shape that fits our false definition of triangle is a triangle and vice versa.

If a functional watch was randomly assembled by the pounding of the waves and washed up on shore, would it be immoral to smash that watch given it has no owner? — VagabondSpectre

Yes. I also believe causing any enthropy is immoral. You should be more careful with rhetorical questions.

E.g. a triangle necessarily has the property of having 3 sides. — Samuel Lacrampe

Not this again :-x

wait a sec

Ok, could you please fix the attitude of USA being the center of everything, and using the circumstances in it as arguments while discussing global topics?

Should the father have a say in decisions whether to abort or give up for adoption when he is aware of the child? — Ciceronianus the White

No. In the case neither of the parents made the decision to have the child, neither parent should have a say in whether the other parent will have any part in taking care of the child. Of course the child has human rights so both parents are responsible to at least put the baby up for adoption to make sure someone else is taking care of them.

apparently in some jurisdictions the way that the law is written a woman can give birth to and raise a child without ever telling the biological father, and then sue him retroactively for child support payments. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I assume this refers to the laws of USA and you're from USA?

I'm not sure what it is you find offensive here. Do you feel a father should not be responsible for child support unless he knows he has a child? Do you think that if a mother doesn't tell a father there is a child, the child isn't entitled to support from his/her father? — Ciceronianus the White

Seriously? Of course the father has no reason at all to be obliged to support a person he does not know and whose existence he has no responsibility over. The woman is the one deciding to 1) not abort and 2) not give the child up for adoption, so she is responsible due to having made a moral decision. How is the biological connection any basis for responsibility?

So you're just asking about motivation? — Michael

A good question, but not quite.

Damn that's a tough question.

Seriously though, that's a question.

I think what is the reason for the motivation is a rather decent answer.

Again, this talk about being obliged to follow an obligation is confused. — Michael

It's not; there's a vast difference between one having an obligation, or being obliged, and that one should do something. Obligations are always external, and the former means that according to some other being, one should do something, whereas that one should do something (at least in the context) would be interpreted so that one themselves thinks so.

It doesn't follow from the mere existence of an obligation that it ought to be followed, which the sentence "one should do X" means.

Because I want to — Wosret

"You should do things you want to because you want to" is circular reasoning.

it's natural. — Wosret

That's not a reason unless you answer the question "why should we do as is natural?".

The premise is "If truth and morality are man made, and not objective". — Michael

For the claim to be correct, the premise should be "morality is man made, and not objective, and we should follow it".

Why should you act according to your benefits and motivations in the first place?

So, "I should do X" means "man has imposed the obligation to do X" — Michael

No, it's means "I should follow the obligation to do X".

Uh?

You implied that you did. You asked me if I could do a better job. That's a loaded question, not merely a simple inquiry. — szardosszemagad

The question and its phrasing implied more that I assumed the answer to be no than yes.

Why do you think it is unreasonable to expect a God to do for what I criticized Him for not doing? — szardosszemagad

A very good question. For the same reason you think it's unreasonable to expect mortals to do it, I assume. I think it'd be a nirvana fallacy to expect and accept nothing but the best instead of one trying their best.

Does someone have the link to the original thread?

Democracy is only unviable if there's one centralized power in control of everything known to mankind. That's just not happening. We don't have one governing institute even on our one planet.

First of all, please explain on what ground you expect a mortal to do the job of a God — szardosszemagad

As I have stated, I don't. I'm asking on what ground you expect a god to do that job, as you wouldn't expect anyone else, including yourself, to be able to do that.

Second of all, you asked why I defer the quality of workmanship expected in thought to God's title, and I replied there is no title that God uses. — szardosszemagad

Given that part of the question didn't make sense, as I wasn't aware of the existences of both terms title and job title, one could have, especially on the basis of the sentence structure, considered the question without that part. That being said:

You admit you couldn't do any better, so how is it fair to ask a god to do the same thing — BlueBanana

Ie. what justifies the unreasonable expectations set on deities by us mortals?

You asked me if I were dodging your point. I ask you: Do you get most of your reading comprehension and language skills honed by reading the Gospel and/or the Old Testament? — szardosszemagad

First, that answers neither of my questions. Second, no.

God itself is the title I'm referring to. Did you purposefully dodge my point?

Before the creation of the Universe there was no time for the physicist/materialist because there were no phenomena that could be used to measure time. — Agustino

You seem to be mistaken about the physicist's stance on time. They also use matter to measure distances, but no physicist would claim that the distance between two objects divided by void have no distance between them. Similarly void is a possible concept in time.

Time did not exist before the universe, and neither did matter, but the correlation doesn't imply causality.

Time as we experience only exists as an experience of the past moving into the present, continuously. No one experiences the future. — Rich

How can you be sure of this? Not as in what if someone else can experience future, but what if you don't experience single moments but a nanosecond of both past and future at any given moment? Given the reaction times of human beings and how (in)accurately we experience our perceptions, I don't think one could notice knowing something a fraction of a second before that event happens.

What you're writing isn't the scientific view of the time. In scientific stance, we use some event, the rate of which doesn't change, to measure time, but not to define it. Scientists still use their subjective experience of time to confirm that the time doesn't change.

Aaand I just noticed theee has been three pages of discussion in three days so this has probably been said by now. Eh.

Well, if I were a god, I'd try. But I am not. So... why do you ask Sir2u to perform a task which only gods are required to do? This is like asking a sea mollusk to solve a second degree equation system with five unknowns. You simply can't ask a mortal to perform the job of a god. That is not fair. — szardosszemagad

Exactly my point. You admit you couldn't do any better, so how is it fair to ask a god to do the same thing just because of their title?

I talked about the message that boys and men get every day in the culture that I am a part of. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Must be confirmation bias.

A god that leaves his followers in a daze about what he meant should be disqualified as a god for incompetence. — Sir2u

Do you think you could do any better with no experience of the job?

From Wiki: — tim wood

Which wiki? Wikipedia?

DEPARTMENT...HEBREW...REVEALS . . .BELONGS TO . . .
Peshat... פשט... Simplest meanings... World of Action
Remez... רמז... Hinted meanings... World of Formation
Derush... דרוש... Deeper meanings... World of Creation
Sod... סוד... Secret meanings... World of Emanation — tim wood

Sorry, but what does this mean?

(All statements are false) is false, and it is equivalent to
(Some statements are true). — Owen

A small error there: ((All statements are false) is false) is equivalent to (some statements are true). (All statements are false) is equivalent to (there are no statements that are true).

And this is, of course, only considering the classical logic with only two truth values, which we aren't considering here: more correct statement would be ((All statements are false) is false) is equivalent to (some statements are either true or have no truth value). This actually proves OP wrong, because (this statement is false) implies (there is a statement with no truth value), which of course implies (there is a statement that is either true or has no truth value), which then implies ((All statements are false) is false).

it presents false scenarios which could confuse the animal and get it into danger. — JupiterJess

Does this often happen to you? :D

I agree with Rich. Science, as is, does not explain the emergence of consciousness, we can't equate the brain structure of consciousness with consciousness itself (even if we assume consciousness to be created by the physical brain) and being asleep is classified as a specific condition of unconsciousness ignore the last part, I decided to double check and am getting mixed results.

But the temporal shift I'm interested in consists of two things: (1) a focus on incalculable risk in the future - what might be called catastrophe risk — StreetlightX

Can any odds be incalculable? I think the more unexpected an event is (which is required for it to be more difficult to calculate), the smaller are its chances, and with those two factors combined, I think the combined effect of all unexpected things is a rather small one.

We have (prima facie) duties to the dead not to desecrate their graves, steal their shit or slander their image, even if they're not around to know anything about it. We have duties not to kill people in their sleep - the fact that we can say we can "kill" them (even if they don't "exist" at the time of killing) means we recognize that there is, in fact, some sort of "residue" left behind that is morally relevant. Just because it's a memory or an idea doesn't make it any less "real". — darthbarracuda

I guess we should be asking what anything being morally respectable is based on and whether it's justified to demand us to respect the dead to find the answer.

Anyone can call anything murder, but what matters is what counts as murder in a court of law. — Sapientia

It doesn't matter in the slightest what counts as anything legally speaking - ethically speaking, of course. I treat practical issues as irrelevant to me.

(though he stole the idea from me :) ) — Baden

Not only a dictator planning a genocide of bananas, but a thief as well? Most horrific; a person in possession of such rotten morals truly ought to be hanged! Are our mods to take action?

Wait, he is one of the mods D: no one can help us, the end is upon us!

I like your idea of consciousness 'dissolving into the lower levels' much more than Blue Banana's 'ceases to exist'. — Bitter Crank

I actually buy very much into that thought myself. I see mind as a construct that unconstructs itself into smaller pieces while asleep - a thought very similar to dissolving in my opinion. I just think just because the substance exist doesn't mean the construct does. If a building is demolished, all the concrete is there and can be used to rebuild, but the building is no longer there.

Eating a banana is assault — Baden

Are you saying it's not? Have my brethren no human rights?

(already mentioned) — Baden

Wait what. When. Where.

We, today, hold the ability to clone a human being from any nucleus-endowed human cell (the details to this do not matter). Because each of my somatic cells holds the potential for becoming an “integral human being” (the details to what this legally is do not matter) I then, to use your terminology, commit mass-murder (why not even genocides) every time I use the restroom to defecate. — javra

Nice try, but we do not have the ability to clone every single cell of every single person so the argument has a bit of a gap there, as we can afford disposing of some extra cells and still clone as many people as we have the capability of.