9
   

Morality (a discussion)

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2021 01:56 pm
@Albuquerque,
Albuquerque wrote:

WTF does quoting what Neal or Einstein believed or disbelieved or ignored has anything to do with a ill defined concept of God?

WTF "creator" engages in as a fundamental concept that lead you to a potential God? How do you make that extra step eh?

Look I don't give two farts about whether you get my argument...you are a statistical side corner...my argument is coherent for those who do grasp it and that is all that matters to me.

I DON'T KNOW what God intends to mean until I have a very concessive circumscription and self consistent concept for the word. So far in a 2000 years of Theological debate to which I have paid some degree of attention I have yet to found one single attempt that makes sense.

So again, politely, stick your arrogance up your arse because I am not joking about it nor is this dissertation on the fracking meaningless pseudo concept of God a pastime.

Unlike you, I am aware that I don't know what I mean when I invoke any claim about God and that aside believing or disbelieving also includes agnosticism, one step further in the abstract chain you fail to achieve.


Look, Al...I don't fault you for trying this pseudo-intellectual bullshit, but as a friend, I suggest you ought to attack whatever the hell it is that you are attacking, from a different perspective. You are not nearly erudite or clever enough to get away with this tactic.

Also...patting yourself on the back as often as you do is dangerous. You are going to throw your shoulder out if you continue on this path.

Okay?
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2021 02:13 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Sorry Frank I do like you, I even like you stubbornness, its a feature not a fault.
I honestly appreciate your care with my intellectual boldness and perhaps excessive confidence...but you see so far I have had good reasons to. Obviously you cannot confirm this, but I can and have in my lifetime. That is all!

Don't ever confuse laziness, carelessness, or informal chatter, with cognitive failure...it is a fatal mistake! I have embarrassed a few big mouths with a name in public debate...no internet, no phone searching, just fluent oral direct debate! Back in the day at University I had a few laughs and pulled a few...
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2021 02:36 pm
...let me bolster a bit more:

At high School I beat Socrates old saying that I know that I know nothing way before Rumsfeld came up with his unknown unknowns...

The argument back then was exactly the same I made here with you.

I don't know if I know I know nothing.
Agnosticism like so many other concepts cannibalizes itself out of existence...just like Nothingness.

PS - You want a long distance association shot? What does this has anything to do with quantum computers eventual failure? Yeah the Universe is binary! You cannot have a zero before you have something. Zero is relative to something not relative to itself! Thus zero is never an absolute absence just a balance of opposing forces/vectors. A zero is an absence of something that was not an absence of absence. Now we know that the passage of time is illusory, a real phenomena...so a relative absence is null as whatever existed in the past that now is gone is not really gone but rather circumscribe in a time frame that is ever present. This is Eternalism!
In Eternalism creators make no sense...nor do creations...also minds and free will make no sense...you are not much different from a rock...and the very concept of "Life" is an Anthropomorphic idealization on shaky ground.

Now...digest all this slowly, it has decades of baggage and thought put on it, all by myself.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2021 02:58 pm
@Albuquerque,
Albuquerque wrote:

Sorry Frank I do like you, I even like you stubbornness, its a feature not a fault.
I honestly appreciate your care with my intellectual boldness and perhaps excessive confidence...but you see so far I have had good reasons to. Obviously you cannot confirm this, but I can and have in my lifetime. That is all!

Don't ever confuse laziness, carelessness, or informal chatter, with cognitive failure...it is a fatal mistake! I have embarrassed a few big mouths with a name in public debate...no internet, no phone searching, just fluent oral direct debate! Back in the day at University I had a few laughs and pulled a few...


Thank you for those comments, Albuquerque.

Obviously questions about the true nature of the REALITY of existence are of interest to me...and I love discussing them with anyone who wants to discuss them.

I think we went too broad in scope in our discussion here...and when that happens (it happens often), people start talking past each other.

When it happens in discussions I am having, I always suggest a way to harness the conversation so as to limit the "talking past."

I suggest it is best to take on item at a time...and build toward a whole by accumulating items upon which agreement can be made.

If you want to pursue the issue...we can take a discrete component...and discuss it thoroughly...and either reach an agreement we can live with...or acknowledge we cannot even get past that initial component.

Why don't you suggest a beginning discrete item...and after resolving any differences we might have with regard to whether it is discrete enough...we have a discussion.

Lemme know.

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2021 03:01 pm
@Albuquerque,
Albuquerque wrote:


...let me bolster a bit more:

At high School I beat Socrates old saying that I know that I know nothing way before Rumsfeld came up with his unknown unknowns...

The argument back then was exactly the same I made here with you.

I don't know if I know I know nothing.
Agnosticism like so many other concepts cannibalizes itself out of existence...just like Nothingness.

PS - You want a long distance association shot? What does this has anything to do with quantum computers eventual failure? Yeah the Universe is binary! You cannot have a zero before you have something. Zero is relative to something not relative to itself! Thus zero is never an absolute absence just a balance of opposing forces/vectors. A zero is an absence of something that was not an absence of absence. Now we know that the passage of time is illusory, a real phenomena...so a relative absence is null as whatever existed in the past that now is gone is not really gone but rather circumscribe in a time frame that is ever present. This is Eternalism!
In Eternalism creators make no sense...nor do creations...also minds and free will make no sense...you are not much different from a rock...and the very concept of "Life" is an Anthropomorphic idealization on shaky ground.

Now...digest all this slowly, it has decades of baggage and thought put on it, all by myself.


This came while I was composing my last post (interrupted by my sister who wanted to talk for a while)...and seems way too complicated to be considered a discrete issue.

I'll read it over, but if anything, I will pick a sentence and deal with it.

I hope you have something more discrete and singular to offer.
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2021 03:02 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I anticipated your request by chance Frank, check up in my previous post specially on the post scriptum on why I came to think what I think.
0 Replies
 
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2021 03:08 pm
@Frank Apisa,
...oh you already saw the post. I was pointing out to the broad broad mindset from where I am coming from. Think of it as context. You don't have to take it seriously...just play with it and see what you come up with.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2021 05:28 am
@Albuquerque,
Albuquerque wrote:

...oh you already saw the post. I was pointing out to the broad broad mindset from where I am coming from. Think of it as context. You don't have to take it seriously...just play with it and see what you come up with.


I read it...and mulled it over. It does nothing for me...and does not address the problems we are seem to be having.

Here is my general position again:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.



nacredambition
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2021 06:25 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Here is my general position again:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...


Crimson and clover over and over
Crimson and clover over and over
Crimson and clover over and over
Crimson and clover over and over
Crimson and clover over and over
Crimson and clover over and over
Crimson and clover over and over
Crimson and clover over and over



Quote:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...


Quote:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...


Quote:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2021 07:01 am
@nacredambition,
nacredambition wrote:


Quote:
Here is my general position again:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...


Crimson and clover over and over
Crimson and clover over and over
Crimson and clover over and over
Crimson and clover over and over
Crimson and clover over and over
Crimson and clover over and over
Crimson and clover over and over
Crimson and clover over and over

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjhxkANhKwI[/youtube]

Quote:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...


Quote:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...


Quote:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...



Do you have a point to make?

0 Replies
 
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2021 10:18 am
@Frank Apisa,
Good morning Frank!
We already talked about the problematiques surrounding the word "God".
Stating the "God" is the creator of our Universe leaves out the internal Universe of God itself, from which everything follows.
We already talked about the problematiques that the word "creation" implies, namely the problem of a linear perception of Time and a linear perception of causation which might well be modelled as pure correlation, even if perfect correlation. Perfect correlation without Time as a fundamental just means that the WHOLE of Reality has an intrinsic rational.

So once again I wonder how can I state ANYTHING about God when I honestly don't know what exactly the word means?
I am not pushing your leg here. I don't have a clear picture on what it means!

God could not chose his own Nature, nor his own Reality, as he could not create itself out of Nothing. I find it hard that such being could have any free will as God must be what God must be. The whole origin of properties in Reality can hypothetically proceed from him but it cannot originate with him since God did not chose his own Nature. So God has no say in all a priori properties and subsequent action that he must fulfil. So where does this leaves us about God? Its a word that unifies a Ratio in Reality...what else? Not much!...

I cannot make any statement in regards to this minimal viable product concept of God...a Ratio in Reality that has no Origin, that is Timeless, that cannot chose anything about Himself/itself...what does the word actually mean in order for me to be a believer a disbeliever or even agnostic? I dunno!

If you think you can be agnostic about such a poorly defined idea go ahead.
On my part I have not much to say about it. It really transcends any possibility that I have to frame it.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2021 10:52 am
@Albuquerque,
Albuquerque wrote:


Good morning Frank!
We already talked about the problematiques surrounding the word "God".
Stating the "God" is the creator of our Universe leaves out the internal Universe of God itself, from which everything follows.
We already talked about the problematiques that the word "creation" implies, namely the problem of a linear perception of Time and a linear perception of causation which might well be modelled as pure correlation, even if perfect correlation. Perfect correlation without Time as a fundamental just means that the WHOLE of Reality has an intrinsic rational.

So once again I wonder how can I state ANYTHING about God when I honestly don't know what exactly the word means?
I am not pushing your leg here. I don't have a clear picture on what it means!

God could not chose his own Nature, nor his own Reality, as he could not create itself out of Nothing. I find it hard that such being could have any free will as God must be what God must be. The whole origin of properties in Reality can hypothetically proceed from him but it cannot originate with him since God did not chose his own Nature. So God has no say in all a priori properties and subsequent action that he must fulfil. So where does this leaves us about God? Its a word that unifies a Ratio in Reality...what else? Not much!...

I cannot make any statement in regards to this minimal viable product concept of God...a Ratio in Reality that has no Origin, that is Timeless, that cannot chose anything about Himself/itself...what does the word actually mean in order for me to be a believer a disbeliever or even agnostic? I dunno!

If you think you can be agnostic about such a poorly defined idea go ahead.
On my part I have not much to say about it. It really transcends any possibility that I have to frame it.


Why are you talking to me about "God?"

Why are you using male pronouns for the "God?"

You were replying to a post of mine where I spoke of gods.

Why the capital letter; why the capital "G"..and why the male designation?
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2021 11:34 am
@Frank Apisa,
I used a random. Why is this important? You can recursively multiply by a googleplex of them if you want and change for a billion different sexes and the fundamental problem is still the same.

I am addressing the only referent you gave me so far the creator, singular, of our Universe.

Again define you terms what is it that you are agnostic about? A civilization of Gods? Did they create the Universe by democratic vote and who was the majority? I want to know the politics...are they pro Trump or Biden? Do they float at night while they sleep or do they have a godly bed? Any special food like Mana? Can you fill in more details? I want to be agnostic about something but I don't get what you talking about!
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2021 06:27 am
@Albuquerque,
Albuquerque wrote:

I used a random. Why is this important? You can recursively multiply by a googleplex of them if you want and change for a billion different sexes and the fundamental problem is still the same.

I am addressing the only referent you gave me so far the creator, singular, of our Universe.

Again define you terms what is it that you are agnostic about? A civilization of Gods? Did they create the Universe by democratic vote and who was the majority? I want to know the politics...are they pro Trump or Biden? Do they float at night while they sleep or do they have a godly bed? Any special food like Mana? Can you fill in more details? I want to be agnostic about something but I don't get what you talking about!



I think you are being disingenuous here, Al, but I'm willing to play along for a short while.

You asked me to define what I mean by "god" (I had used gods)...and I offered: "The entity responsible for the creation of what we humans call "the physical universe"...IF THERE IS SUCH AN ENTITY."

Please read that as: The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call "the physical universe"...if such an entity (or entities) exist.

I do not know if such an entity (or entities) do or do not exist...

...AND I KNOW THAT I DO NOT KNOW.

You do not know either...but for whatever reason, you are choosing to pretend that you do not.

Now let's move along.

What follows is my take on the question of a significant part of "What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence?"

If you disagree with the first line, tell me about your disagreement and let's discuss it.

I do not know if gods exist or not;

I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.
[/b]









Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2021 08:58 am
@Frank Apisa,
To see reasons pro, against, or even doubt you have at the very least to have a proto idea of what is it that you refer to. I cannot doubt what I don't know about!

Personally I don't give a shizz about what people call "Physical" it is not clear, less even about "Spiritual" which is a fancy spinoff on the already obscure definition of "Physical"...I speak of Reality as a whole period.

There are loads of "God/s" definitions that are internally inconsistent and thus fore I do not believe in them with good reason. A married bachelor is simply false!

When if when someone provides me with a self consistent minimal viable product for sale I will cast my vote. A self consistent proposition which is not verifiable will bring me to agnosticism. I have yet to see one.


Hope the snow fall back there has stopped Frank take care!
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2021 09:12 am
@Albuquerque,
Albuquerque wrote:

To see reasons pro, against, or even doubt you have at the very least to have a proto idea of what is it that you refer to. I cannot doubt what I don't know about!

Personally I don't give a shizz about what people call "Physical" it is not clear, less even about "Spiritual" which is a fancy spinoff on the already obscure definition of "Physical"...I speak of Reality as a whole period.

There are loads of "God/s" definitions that are internally inconsistent and thus fore I do not believe in them with good reason. A married bachelor is simply false!

When if when someone provides me with a self consistent minimal viable product for sale I will cast my vote. A self consistent proposition which is not verifiable will bring me to agnosticism. I have yet to see one.


Hope the snow fall back there has stopped Frank take care!


Let me see if I've got this correct, Al.

You are saying that you have made a blind guess that there are no gods...and you are sticking with that blind guess the same way others, who have made a blind guess that there is a GOD, stick with theirs.

Okay, I get that.

You stay safe, too.
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2021 09:18 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
When if when someone provides me with a self consistent minimal viable product for sale I will cast my vote. A self consistent proposition which is not verifiable will bring me to agnosticism. I have yet to see one.


This statement is clear, take it as you want Frank.
It is rainy and windy in central Portugal right now, no reason to get out but its fine!
Catch ya later old man!
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2021 10:21 am
@Albuquerque,
Quote:
When if when someone provides me with a self consistent minimal viable product for sale I will cast my vote.

Frank did give you one. They don’t get more basic than that.
Why don’t you at least address it?
Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2021 10:39 am
@Leadfoot,
Good evening Leadfoot, let me quote myself earlier on:


Quote:
God could not chose his own Nature, nor his own Reality, as he could not create itself out of Nothing. I find it hard that such being could have any free will as God must be what God must be. The whole origin of properties in Reality can hypothetically proceed from him but it cannot originate with him since God did not chose his own Nature. So God has no say in all a priori properties and subsequent action that he must fulfil. So where does this leaves us about God? Its a word that unifies a Ratio in Reality...what else? Not much!...

Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2021 04:18 am
@Albuquerque,
Yes, I read that. But what I asked for was what you thought about Frank's definition of 'God' or 'god'.
Nothing you said there ruled him out as the creator of the physical universe.
 

Related Topics

Define Morality - Question by neologist
Relativity of morality - Discussion by InkRune
Killing through a dungeon - Question by satyesu
Morality. - Discussion by Logicus
Creationism in schools - Question by MORALeducation
Morality Concerning Prostitution - Discussion by brainspew
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/31/2021 at 11:44:51