The ACLU -- Thoughts?

[Jason Tate]

what are the opposing views? evolution vs. god? or evolution vs. biblical creation? because neither really refute the existence of an absolute moral lawmaker.



scientists seem like they are in close agreement that the universe came from a singularity. but from the laws of thermodynamics, matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed by natural means.

could you give me your best naturalistic explanation to account for the abundance of matter and energy we observe within the universe?
The term "matter" is too loosely defined to give you anything you're asking -- that's a loaded question. "Matter" as a term opposed to "energy," linguistically forces an artificial distinction between matter and energy which is no longer present in the understanding of modern physics (ie: after Mr. Einstein).

[Jason Tate]

because...?

Because your argument was that there can be no subjective math, and that's not true.

no. it didn't.

Oh, oh, oh, I'M CONVINCED! Nah, actually you're going to have to do more than just say that.

did i ever claim that i ascribe to absolutism?

the answer is no.

Moral absolutism (albeit a rudimentary understanding of) is what you've been arguing for the past few pages. Are you changing your stance?

[rufiocardtime]

1) You said, "theory of evolution" - which applies. You either misrepresented your position or do not know the correct terminology.

the observation of the mutations of viruses are not "the theory of evolution". the mutation of viruses is one observable fact that the theory of evolution is based on. for if this fact fulfilled the entire theory of evolution, it would no longer be called "a theory".

is your case really that weak that you want to start debating semantics?

2) Evolution is provable in cellular life.

name any species that humans have witnessed the evolution of from any another species.

[thejetstolehome]

the observation of the mutations of viruses are not "the theory of evolution". the mutation of viruses is one observable fact that the theory of evolution is based on. for if this fact fulfilled the entire theory of evolution, it would no longer be called "a theory".

is your case really that weak that you want to start debating semantics?

2) Evolution is provable in cellular life.

name any species that humans have witnessed the evolution of from any another species.[/quote]

nothing evolves from one speices into another. for example, we didn't evolve from monkeys but we share a common ancestor with monkeys. we also haven't observed evolution because it takes thousands of years. why do people expect evolution to just happen on a large level? it's something that takes an incredible amout of time.

[rufiocardtime]

Because your argument was that there can be no subjective math, and that's not true.

yes. it is true. math is completely objective.

Oh, oh, oh, I'M CONVINCED! Nah, actually you're going to have to do more than just say that.

well you're already convinced of things that simply aren't true. so i'm not too worried about what you think i should or shouldn't say.

Moral absolutism (albeit a rudimentary understanding of) is what you've been arguing for the past few pages. Are you changing your stance?

don't set up a staw stance for me. my stance is what it is. my claims remain what they are. i don't need you to put a label on my views and then argue against claims that i haven't made.

[rufiocardtime]

name any species that humans have witnessed the evolution of from any another species.

nothing evolves from one speices into another. for example, we didn't evolve from monkeys but we share a common ancestor with monkeys. we also haven't observed evolution because it takes thousands of years. why do people expect evolution to just happen on a large level? it's something that takes an incredible amout of time.[/QUOTE]

well there are millions upon millions of species and according to most evolutionists, humans have been around for tens of thousands of years. you might think (at least from a statistical standpoint) that during our time on earth, humans would have observed at least one new species arise from the genetic mutations of another.

[rufiocardtime]

The term "matter" is too loosely defined to give you anything you're asking -- that's a loaded question. "Matter" as a term opposed to "energy," linguistically forces an artificial distinction between matter and energy which is no longer present in the understanding of modern physics (ie: after Mr. Einstein).

ok. if you want to debate semantics again, let me try to make this more simple...

according to most scientists, the space-time continuum that we currently live in sprang from a singularity. could you give me your best naturalistic explanation of how this might have happened?

[Jason Tate]

the observation of the mutations of viruses are not "the theory of evolution". the mutation of viruses is one observable fact that the theory of evolution is based on. for if this fact fulfilled the entire theory of evolution, it would no longer be called "a theory".

You're lack of understanding as to what the word "theory" means baffles me

is your case really that weak that you want to start debating semantics?

Semantics are incredibly important in a topic such as this.

name any species that humans have witnessed the evolution of from any another species.

That's changing the very basis of the theory of evolution. This is Bio 101. The idea behind this is common decent - something that stands up to scrutiny via the scientific method (links and sourced provided in my next post).

yes. it is true. math is completely objective.

Using limits:
1/3 = ~.3333

2/3 = ~.6666

~.333 + ~.666 = ~.9999

However: 1/3 + 2/3 = 3/3

3/3 = 1

Therefore: 1 = ~.9999999

Math has just become subjective.

---

Now, the second subjective example is based upon a thought experiment: If a group of humans were stranded on an island and the only difference between them and us were that they had 6 fingers on both hands ... their math would fundamentally change. They'd base themselves in a base 12, and everything from pi to basic math would change in an instant. Subjective to who they are -- this is all elementary stuff. I think even a high-school pre-calc class teaches these things.

well you're already convinced of things that simply aren't true. so i'm not too worried about what you think i should or shouldn't say.

In these forums we base our arguments on what you can show and prove. So if you have no evidence to support these claims - they remain baseless and only another attack to add to your already stunning resume.

don't set up a staw stance for me. my stance is what it is. my claims remain what they are. i don't need you to put a label on my views and then argue against claims that i haven't made.

I'm not arguing against a single claim you haven't made - only those ridiculous ones you have.

[Jason Tate]

nothing evolves from one speices into another. for example, we didn't evolve from monkeys but we share a common ancestor with monkeys. we also haven't observed evolution because it takes thousands of years. why do people expect evolution to just happen on a large level? it's something that takes an incredible amout of time.

well there are millions upon millions of species and according to most evolutionists, humans have been around for tens of thousands of years. you might think (at least from a statistical standpoint) that during our time on earth, humans would have observed at least one new species arise from the genetic mutations of another.
You're lack of understanding on the theory you purport to want to take down is astonishing.

What you are discussing is macro-evolution and common decent. Evidence for both is listed in great detail here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/). Most specifically under the "change" heading (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html):

Extremely extensive genetic change has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild. We have seen genomes irreversibly and heritably altered by numerous phenomena, including gene flow, random genetic drift, natural selection, and mutation. Observed mutations have occurred by mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements. Chromosomal rearrangements include genome duplication (e.g. polyploidy), unequal crossing over, inversions, translocations, fissions, fusions, chromosome duplications and chromosome deletions (Futuyma 1998 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#Futuyma1998), pp. 267-271, 283-294).

There have been numerous observations of morphological change in populations of organisms (Endler 1986 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#Endler1986)). Examples are the change in color of some organ, such as the yellow body or brown eyes of Drosophila, coat color in mice (Barsh 1996 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#Barsh1996)), scale color in fish (Houde 1988 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#Houde1988)), and plumage pattern in birds (Morton 1990 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#Morton1990)). Almost every imaginable heritable variation in size, length, width, or number of some physical aspect of animals has been recorded (Johnston and Selander 1973 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#JohnstonSelander1973) ; Futuyma 1998 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#Futuyma1998), p. 247-262). This last fact is extremely important for common descent, since the major morphological differences between many species (e.g. species of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds) are simple alterations in size of certain aspects of their respective parahomologous (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/glossary.html#parahomology) structures.

[thejetstolehome]

well there are millions upon millions of species and according to most evolutionists, humans have been around for tens of thousands of years. you might think (at least from a statistical standpoint) that during our time on earth, humans would have observed at least one new species arise from the genetic mutations of another.

there may be a new species we haven't discovered yet? perhaps what we see is, hopefully not, the evolutionary peak of most species? i could give you a more in depth answer but i only know basic science and biology so i can't give as detailed an explination as i'd like to.

[Jason Tate]

ok. if you want to debate semantics again, let me try to make this more simple...

according to most scientists, the space-time continuum that we currently live in sprang from a singularity. could you give me your best naturalistic explanation of how this might have happened?

Well, we're dealing with science - semantics are everything. Your lack of knowledge on the topic doesn't make it a semantics debate, it just means you're uneducated on the topic and it should be left at that. The matter/energy argument is ridiculous to any modern physicist. Use relevant terminology and there wouldn't be a problem.

I'd have to see a source saying that most scientists believe this for starters, as I'm unable to find evidence to that claim on my own.

[rufiocardtime]

You're lack of understanding on the theory you purport to want to take down is astonishing.

What you are discussing is macro-evolution and common decent. Evidence for both is listed in great detail here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/). Most specifically under the "change" heading (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html):

Extremely extensive genetic change has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild. We have seen genomes irreversibly and heritably altered by numerous phenomena, including gene flow, random genetic drift, natural selection, and mutation. Observed mutations have occurred by mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements. Chromosomal rearrangements include genome duplication (e.g. polyploidy), unequal crossing over, inversions, translocations, fissions, fusions, chromosome duplications and chromosome deletions (Futuyma 1998 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#Futuyma1998), pp. 267-271, 283-294).

There have been numerous observations of morphological change in populations of organisms (Endler 1986 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#Endler1986)). Examples are the change in color of some organ, such as the yellow body or brown eyes of Drosophila, coat color in mice (Barsh 1996 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#Barsh1996)), scale color in fish (Houde 1988 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#Houde1988)), and plumage pattern in birds (Morton 1990 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#Morton1990)). Almost every imaginable heritable variation in size, length, width, or number of some physical aspect of animals has been recorded (Johnston and Selander 1973 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#JohnstonSelander1973) ; Futuyma 1998 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#Futuyma1998), p. 247-262). This last fact is extremely important for common descent, since the major morphological differences between many species (e.g. species of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds) are simple alterations in size of certain aspects of their respective parahomologous (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/glossary.html#parahomology) structures.

what i was referring to as a generality was darwin's theory of evolution, which would include macro as well as micro evolution.

but that was a very long-winded way of saying, "the theory of evolution cannot be proven and although we have observed variations within organisms of the same species, we have never observed a new species arise from the genetic mutations of another."

sorry, but evidence is not proof. i thought we had already established this truth?

[rufiocardtime]

Well, we're dealing with science - semantics are everything. Your lack of knowledge on the topic doesn't make it a semantics debate, it just means you're uneducated on the topic and it should be left at that. The matter/energy argument is ridiculous to any modern physicist. Use relevant terminology and there wouldn't be a problem.

I'd have to see a source saying that most scientists believe this for starters, as I'm unable to find evidence to that claim on my own.

what is YOUR best explanation for the origination of this space-time continuum?

[Jason Tate]

what is YOUR best explanation for the origination of this space-time continuum?
Depends on my mood. I'd probably be able to make two separate arguments from either a philosophical or physicists point of view. Hell, maybe even theologian - depending on my particular mindset.

[Jason Tate]

sorry, but evidence is not proof. i thought we had already established this truth?

I think I'm going to just keep quoting this back to you for the next few pages. What a great line.

[rufiocardtime]

Using limits:
1/3 = ~.3333

2/3 = ~.6666

~.333 + ~.666 = ~.9999

However: 1/3 + 2/3 = 3/3

3/3 = 1

Therefore: 1 = ~.9999999

Math has just become subjective.

---

Now, the second subjective example is based upon a thought experiment: If a group of humans were stranded on an island and the only difference between them and us were that they had 6 fingers on both hands ... their math would fundamentally change. They'd base themselves in a base 12, and everything from pi to basic math would change in an instant. Subjective to who they are -- this is all elementary stuff. I think even a high-school pre-calc class teaches these things.

i agree with all these truths. however, this does not make math subjective. it still remains objective.

[rufiocardtime]

Depends on my mood. I'd probably be able to make two separate arguments from either a philosophical or physicists point of view. Hell, maybe even theologian - depending on my particular mindset.

i didn't ask for all the arguments you could make at different points in time, i asked for your best explanation ...right now.

[rufiocardtime]

I think I'm going to just keep quoting this back to you for the next few pages. What a great line.

cool.

[thejetstolehome]

just for curiosity's sake--when was the last time the ACLU was actually mentioned?

[Jason Tate]

i agree with all these truths. however, this does not make math subjective. it still remains objective.
To not even have to argue limits: If the basic mathematical structure changes based on the number of fingers a species has that makes it subjective to the entity.

Furthermore, to many: 100 = 1100100

[Jason Tate]

i didn't ask for all the arguments you could make at different points in time, i asked for your best explanation ...right now.
The giant spaghetti monster (http://www.venganza.org/).

Are you only asking for my beliefs because you're unable to defend your own and therefore need something by which to attack me?

[Jason Tate]

just for curiosity's sake--when was the last time the ACLU was actually mentioned?
Page 5?

[x togepi x]

i agree with all these truths. however, this does not make math subjective. it still remains objective.

Agreeing with those truths makes them subjective. If someone doesn't buy into the theoretical construct of math, ie: if they don't think 2+2=4, then that is not a universal law.

but, even if you can agree that there's a theoretical truth that's objective, that doesn't really help your cause all that much because math=/= moral law. You haven't made any headway there.

[Jason Tate]

Agreeing with those truths makes them subjective. If someone doesn't buy into the theoretical construct of math, ie: if they don't think 2+2=4, then that is not a universal law.

but, even if you can agree that there's a theoretical truth that's objective, that doesn't really help your cause all that much because math=/= moral law. You haven't made any headway there.
Where I work, there is no 2.

[rufiocardtime]

To not even have to argue limits: If the basic mathematical structure changes based on the number of fingers a species has that makes it subjective to the entity.

Furthermore, to many: 100 = 1100100

simply because the definitions of the relationships amongst numbers may require a necessary qualifier (i.e. "within base 10..." or "using limits..."), does not intrinsically make math subjective. these qualifiers are still within an objective frame of reference. thus, math is still objective, not subjective.

[Jason Tate]

simply because the definitions of the relationships amongst numbers may require a necessary qualify (i.e. "within base 10..." or "using limits..."), does not intrinsically make math subjective. these qualifiers are still within an objective frame of reference. thus, math is still objective, not subjective.
If you go back to my original quote it was, "math may become subjective" - you'll see the careful wording - I never said math was intrinsically or always subjective. However it can be, and it does so daily for many - myself included.

To argue an "objective frame of reference" simply nullifies any subjectivity to begin with - that's a cop-out answer. You should use it for your moral absolutism argument right now too ... that forced frame would hinder any subjectivity argument, even those that are inherently subjective. Your personal taste could be set within an objective frame of reference and I could make you like Hinder.

However, this entire argument is pointless -- it's a basic mathematical principle and has nothing to do with the argument at hand. I just stated it off the cusp because you were factually incorrect and it helps foster the idea that "everything is relative."

[rufiocardtime]

If you go back to my original quote it was, "math may become subjective" - you'll see the careful wording - I never said math was intrinsically or always subjective. However it can be, and it does so daily for many - myself included.

To argue an "objective frame of reference" simply nullifies any subjectivity to begin with - that's a cop-out answer. You should use it for your moral absolutism argument right now too ... that forced frame would hinder any subjectivity argument, even those that are inherently subjective.

However, this entire argument is pointless -- it's a basic mathematical principle and has nothing to do with the argument at hand. I just stated it off the cusp because you were factually incorrect and it helps foster the idea that "everything is relative."

no. it still doesn't become subjective. the relationships amongst numbers, objectively, are what they are for all people at all times, even outside of time.

[Jason Tate]

no. it still doesn't become subjective. the relationships amongst numbers, objectively, are what they are for all people at all times, even outside of time.
To me, and countless others: 100 = 1100100 and 2 = 10.

[rufiocardtime]

The giant spaghetti monster (http://www.venganza.org/).

Are you only asking for my beliefs because you're unable to defend your own and therefore need something by which to attack me?

i'm asking because i assumed by the nature of your claims that you would have a much superior explanation than genesis 1:1. and out of sheer curiousity i wanted to know.

but your own insecurities are overwhelmingly obvious.

[rufiocardtime]

To me, and countless others: 100 = 1100100 and 2 = 10.

...given the necessary qualifiers (but sometimes those are assumed for the sake of brevity), absolutely.

[Jason Tate]

i'm asking because i assumed by the nature of your claims that you would have a much superior explanation than genesis 1:1. and out of sheer curiousity i wanted to know.

but your own insecurities are overwhelmingly obvious.
Well, which story of the beginning in Genesis do you adhere to? There's more than one.

I have my beliefs, but they're my own - and I don't feel the need to discuss those with anyone in these forums. Especially when there's no logical reasoning to do so - I'd argue that makes me more secure in my beliefs. You have to sit here and try and prove you believe something, prove to others you believe it, and prove to others they're wrong ... I do none of those things.

[Jason Tate]

...given the necessary qualifiers (but sometimes those are assumed for the sake of brevity), absolutely.
And given qualifiers anything is possible. Elephant's can walk on the moon with your line of reasoning.

[rufiocardtime]

Well, which story of the beginning in Genesis do you adhere to? There's more than one.

I have my beliefs, but they're my own - and I don't feel the need to discuss those with anyone in these forums. Especially when there's no logical reasoning to do so - I'd argue that makes me more secure in my beliefs. You have to sit here and try and prove you believe something, prove to others you believe it, and prove to others they're wrong ... I do none of those things.

i'm claiming that my position is superior to yours. isn't that what debate is?

you've felt the need to write many, many posts trying (albeit, unsuccessfully) to prove my position inconsistent. you've attacked my position from the beginning, yet "don't feel the need" to offer a more worthy position (other than a joke that only a few liberals that hang out on this website would find entertaining)?

weak.

i don't HAVE to sit here and do this, but i choose to because learning from other people is what makes me sharper. when i give you the opportunity to attack my claims, you jump at the chance, but when i give you the opportunity to educate me on your own position, you are suddenly silenced? and that makes you "more secure"?

[rufiocardtime]

And given qualifiers anything is possible. Elephant's can walk on the moon with your line of reasoning.

if you put them in some kind of spaceship and sent them to the moon, sure.

but not everything is possible within my line of reasoning.

[x togepi x]

i'm claiming that my position is superior to yours. isn't that what debate is?

you've felt the need to write many, many posts trying (albeit, unsuccessfully) to prove my position inconsistent. you've attacked my position from the beginning, yet "don't feel the need" to offer a more worthy position (other than a joke that only a few liberals that hang out on this website would find entertaining)?

weak.

i don't HAVE to sit here and do this, but i choose to because learning from other people is what makes me sharper. when i give you the opportunity to attack my claims, you jump at the chance, but when i give you the opportunity to educate me on your own position, you are suddenly silenced? and that makes you "more secure"?

are you getting sharper? because you still haven't proven anything.

[rufiocardtime]

are you getting sharper? because you still haven't proven anything.

haha.

[x togepi x]

haha.

what exactly have you proved?

[Jason Tate]

i'm claiming that my position is superior to yours. isn't that what debate is?

No, I don't think that's the point of debate at all.

you've felt the need to write many, many posts trying (albeit, unsuccessfully) to prove my position inconsistent.

Well, I think I've shown quite extensively how your position is inconsistent. Not only that, but others have chimed in and agreed.

you've attacked my position from the beginning, yet "don't feel the need" to offer a more worthy position (other than a joke that only a few liberals that hang out on this website would find entertaining)?
weak.

My beliefs are irrelevant to this debate. If I thought them worthy it'd undermine the very argument I've laid forth from the beginning.

i don't HAVE to sit here and do this, but i choose to because learning from other people is what makes me sharper. when i give you the opportunity to attack my claims, you jump at the chance, but when i give you the opportunity to educate me on your own position, you are suddenly silenced? and that makes you "more secure"?

Well, that would be due to the fundamental difference between us and the very basis of this argument: I don't find my beliefs to be any better than anyone else's -- nor do I feel the need to push them on anyone else and prove to a message board that my faith is strong.

if you put them in some kind of spaceship and sent them to the moon, sure.

You're the one that came up with this stupid "qualifier" argument. At least now you see it's idiocy.

but not everything is possible within my line of reasoning.

And if it's your line of reasoning, it's subjective. Round and round we go!

[Jason Tate]

what exactly have you proved?
Absolutely nothing. In one of his latest posts he even said he wasn't arguing moral absolutism. I'm not even sure he knows what his current argument is.

[Love As Arson]

what are the opposing views? evolution vs. god? or evolution vs. biblical creation? because neither really refute the existence of an absolute moral lawmaker.
I never argued that that was the case. Quite the contrary, evolution can co-exist with a deity. The point remains, however, that evolution is far more likely to have happened than humanity being created as the bible depicts.


scientists seem like they are in close agreement that the universe came from a singularity. but from the laws of thermodynamics, matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed by natural means.
could you give me your best naturalistic explanation to account for the abundance of matter and energy we observe within the universe?
The argument you are constructing ie. "Where did the energy come from?", is something science is continuing to inspect. If one decides to defer to the supernatural for the answer, that is a matter of faith, but it is not a matter of science as you suggest..

[rufiocardtime]

Well, that would be due to the fundamental difference between us and the very basis of this argument: I don't find my beliefs to be any better than anyone else's -- nor do I feel the need to push them on anyone else and prove to a message board that my faith is strong.

really? is it your belief that my beliefs and/or actions are wrong?

You're the one that came up with this stupid "qualifier" argument. At least now you see it's idiocy.

there wasn't anything stupid about what i said.

And if it's your line of reasoning, it's subjective. Round and round we go!

no. my line of reasoning can be anywhere on the spectrum of objectively accurate to objectively inaccurate.

[rufiocardtime]

what exactly have you proved?

it depends what you mean by "prove". it seems to me that you keep flip-flopping on your definition of what constitutes as "proof". therefore, i really don't know how to answer your question to your own satisfaction.

[rufiocardtime]

I never argued that that was the case. Quite the contrary, evolution can co-exist with a deity. The point remains, however, that evolution is far more likely to have happened than humanity being created as the bible depicts.

far more likely based on what statistics?

The argument you are constructing ie. "Where did the energy come from?", is something science is continuing to inspect. If one decides to defer to the supernatural for the answer, that is a matter of faith, but it is not a matter of science as you suggest..

science has already proved/theororized/suggested/don't-know-what-word-you-guys-want-to-agree-on-using-here that the supernatural exists. as i already said, although photons interface with the natural world, they do not exist within the natural world. thus, photons exist within the supernatural because they are not bound by the conditions of the natural world (such as mass, distance, time, etc.)

[Jason Tate]

really? is it your belief that my beliefs and/or actions are wrong?

Irrelevant to this discussion.

there wasn't anything stupid about what i said.

You just showed the idiocy with your elephants in spacecraft construct.

no. my line of reasoning can be anywhere on the spectrum of objectively accurate to objectively inaccurate.

:hitself:

Not this again

[x togepi x]

it depends what you mean by "prove". it seems to me that you keep flip-flopping on your definition of what constitutes as "proof". therefore, i really don't know how to answer your question to your own satisfaction.

point out where i flip flopped, because my position has been the same this entire discussion. You can't prove that universal moral laws exist.

[Jason Tate]

sorry, but evidence is not proof. i thought we had already established this truth?

This is still my favorite line from this entire thread.

[rufiocardtime]

Irrelevant to this discussion.

it's absolutely relevant. but you know exactly what point i'm making. and i just proved it. so i'll drop it.

You just showed the idiocy with your elephants in spacecraft construct.

what's idiotic about that? surely it's a possibility?

[Jason Tate]

it's absolutely relevant. but you know exactly what point i'm making. and i just proved it. so i'll drop it.

No, it's not relevant at all. You can believe whatever you want - it's when your belief structure begins to impose on the lives of others that there's a problem.

what's idiotic about that? surely it's a possibility?

So your thesis is that given an objective frame set - anything is possible? That's fine. For some of us though, we have to choose to live in reality.

[rufiocardtime]

point out where i flip flopped, because my position has been the same this entire discussion. You can't prove that universal moral laws exist.

see jason tate's response just underneath yours. i hold that there's really no way to prove that universal moral laws exist. all i can do is provide more compelling evidence that they do which trumps your evidence that they don't - the same way a case would be presented wtihin a courtroom.

[Jason Tate]

see jason tate's response just underneath yours. i hold that there's really no way to prove that universal moral laws exist. all i can do is provide more compelling evidence that they do which trumps your evidence that they don't - the same way a case would be presented wtihin a courtroom.
And the irony is that a subjective decision would have to be made as to which is correct - therefore nullifying your objective argument in the court itself.

[rufiocardtime]

No, it's not relevant at all. You can believe whatever you want - it's when your belief structure begins to impose on the lives of others that there's a problem.

well it poses the greater problem to you then, for your beliefs are imposing on many people's lives. my beliefs don't impose on your life any more than yours impose on mine.

So your thesis is that given an objective frame set - anything is possible? That's fine. For some of us though, we have to choose to live in reality.

haha did you even read what i said when you asked me?

apparently not.

[rufiocardtime]

And the irony is that a subjective decision would have to be made as to which is correct - therefore nullifying your objective argument in the court itself.

each of these so-called "subjective" decisions are once again anywhere on the scale from objectively accurate to objectively inaccurate.

[Jason Tate]

well it poses the greater problem to you then, for your beliefs are imposing on many people's lives. my beliefs don't impose on your life any more than yours impose on mine.

Explain.

haha did you even read what i said when you asked me?

apparently not.

Yes, I did:


if you put them in some kind of spaceship and sent them to the moon, sure.

[Jason Tate]

each of these so-called "subjective" decisions are once again anywhere on the scale from objectively accurate to objectively inaccurate.
You're scaling objectivity?

The very idea of scaling objectivity makes it a choice, which makes it subjective.

Choices are not "objectively inaccurate", unless you are going to tell me my taste for pizza is wrong. You've set up a position that is going to have to argue against something every rational human knows to be true. This is like trying to tell me my grades in high-school were objective.

And lastly, this argument is in almost direct contradiction to your previous Biblical stance.

[rufiocardtime]

Explain.

well, for starters, it is your belief that i shouldn't "impose" my beliefs on others. yet, in communicating this, you are simultaneously "imposing" your beliefs on me.

Yes, I did:

it's really awesome how you take my words out of the context in which they were used./sarcasm

keep reading./seriousness

[Jason Tate]

well, for starters, it is your belief that i shouldn't "impose" my beliefs on others. yet, in communicating this, you are simultaneously "imposing" your beliefs on me.

I haven't said you can't have them, can't speak them, have I?

it's really awesome how you take my words out of the context in which they were used./sarcasm

keep reading./seriousness

That doesn't address anything.

[rufiocardtime]

You're scaling objectivity?

The very idea of scaling objectivity makes it a choice, which makes it subjective.

Choices are not "objectively inaccurate", unless you are going to tell me my taste for pizza is wrong. You've set up a position that is going to have to argue against something every rational human knows to be true. This is like trying to tell me my grades in high-school were objective.

And lastly, this argument is in almost direct contradiction to your previous Biblical stance.

i'm scaling objectivity within this example because sometimes there are multiple decisions within a single conclusion. these individual decisions can be objectively accurate or objectively inaccurate. thus, a scale.

i'm not going to tell you that your taste for pizza is necessarily wrong, because taste can be subjective although there are aspects to taste that are objective. personal preferences or tastes in the context you just used are subjective and a false analogy to morality.

[Jason Tate]

i'm scaling objectivity within this example because sometimes there are multiple decisions within a single conclusion. these individual decisions can be objectively accurate or objectively inaccurate. thus, a scale.

You're describing subjectivity.

i'm not going to tell you that your taste for pizza is necessarily wrong, because taste can be subjective although there are aspects to taste that are objective. personal preferences or tastes in the context you just used are subjective and a false analogy to morality.

Not at all. Morality is personal taste. Yours differs from mine.

You said the Bible lays out an absolute moral law - yet when pushed through examples you admitted there were differences between "killing" and "murder" - therefore denying an absolute moral law.

This discussion is all but over.

[rufiocardtime]

I haven't said you can't have them, can't speak them, have I?

you implied that having them, speaking them, and/or voting based upon them was somehow imposing them on others.

That doesn't address anything.

you really are that fucking stupid...

"So your thesis is that given an objective frame set - anything is possible? That's fine. For some of us though, we have to choose to live in reality." - jason tate in light of reading...

if you put them in some kind of spaceship and sent them to the moon, sure.

but not everything is possible within my line of reasoning.

[Jason Tate]

I think you should go read Ayn Rand. Her arguments of "objectivism" are at least put together correctly.

[Jason Tate]

you implied that having them, speaking them, and/or voting based upon them was somehow imposing them on others.

No I didn't. I implied that the actions that subsequently come through certain beliefs do. Such as trying to ban abortion and gay marriage. Having a belief that allows both of these doesn't impose on you in the slightest -- having a belief to the contrary however, does impose on others.

you really are that fucking stupid...

Guess I'm under your skin.

"So your thesis is that given an objective frame set - anything is possible? That's fine. For some of us though, we have to choose to live in reality." - jason tate in light of reading...

Why are you quoting me back to me? Your line of reasoning does allow anything; that's what an objective frame does. Objective frames, which is what you were arguing, allows for anything to happen.

[rufiocardtime]

No I didn't. I implied that the actions that subsequently come through certain beliefs do. Such as trying to ban abortion and gay marriage. Having a belief that allows both of these doesn't impose on you in the slightest -- having a belief to the contrary however, does impose on others.

actions...i.e. voting based upon my beliefs?

...additionally, there's nothing wrong with imposing our beliefs on others. i assume we both believe that murder is wrong, and we impose this belief on murderers through our government.

Guess I'm under your skin.

yea. it's a shame you feed your ideas to all your readers in such an illogical fashion.

Why are you quoting me back to me? Your line of reasoning does allow anything; that's what an objective frame does. Objective frames which is what you were arguing, allows for anything to happen.

no. the objective frame of reference i referred to does not allow for ANYTHING to happen. but you already read this and then begged the question in your response by pre-supposing your own idea into part of your conclusion regarding MY claim.

[Jason Tate]

actions...i.e. voting based upon my beliefs?

There's a difference in the outcome of your vote and mine. I said this in my last post.

...additionally, there's nothing wrong with imposing our beliefs on others. i assume we both believe that murder is wrong, and we impose this belief on murderers through our government.

See, this is where we have the issue: I don't believe "murder is wrong" - that's an objective absolute and I believe in subjectivity. Murder is sometimes wrong, it's situational (just like in the Bible).

yea. it's a shame you feed your ideas to all your readers in such an illogical fashion.

It's a shame you're unable to show this "illogical fashion" and instead have to rely on just saying it's illogical to attempt to win someone over to your side.

no. the objective frame of reference i referred to does not allow for ANYTHING to happen. but you already read this and then begged the question in your response by pre-supposing your own idea into part of your conclusion regarding MY claim.

You are missing the key principle: objective frame of references, by their definition, allow anything to happen. There is no difference what "frame of reference" you're referring to as long as it is in fact an objective frame of reference. You're saying "if you follow this laid out plan then I'm right" - that's ridiculous and not how the world works.

My argument: Math can become subjective.

Your argument: Not if you follow my "objective frame of reference."

My rebuttal: Forcing an objective frame of reference can make someone like Hinder. It's not a valid argument as any objective frame of reference on anything changes the very nature of what is being discussed.

Your response: Uh, mine doesn't in this case.

Any objective frame of reference ruins the discussion. I can change the objective frame of reference and show math to be completely subjective (as opposed to my current argument). I can change the objective frame of reference and make you a girl. The thing is - without any objective frame of references ... my argument holds up, and yours doesn't.

We are going in circles here. There hasn't been a single person on this forum that's agreed with you and I'm growing tired of this.

/I can't wait 'till gays can marry in every state.

[x togepi x]

see jason tate's response just underneath yours. i hold that there's really no way to prove that universal moral laws exist. all i can do is provide more compelling evidence that they do which trumps your evidence that they don't - the same way a case would be presented wtihin a courtroom.

so basically, you can't prove that moral laws exist...which is what i've been saying all weekend...and yet that somehow makes you more right than me?

[GloryForgotten]

actions...i.e. voting based upon my beliefs?

...additionally, there's nothing wrong with imposing our beliefs on others. i assume we both believe that murder is wrong, and we impose this belief on murderers through our government.



yea. it's a shame you feed your ideas to all your readers in such an illogical fashion.



no. the objective frame of reference i referred to does not allow for ANYTHING to happen. but you already read this and then begged the question in your response by pre-supposing your own idea into part of your conclusion regarding MY claim.

Fuck this. I've read this entire thread and you are a fucking idiot. Give it up you've gotten destroyed by everyone here. Fundimental neo-con asshole. You are a disgrace to Christianity.

[Jason Tate]

so basically, you can't prove that moral laws exist...which is what i've been saying all weekend...and yet that somehow makes you more right than me?
I laughed when I got to his "more compelling evidence" line - so I dunno dude.

[thejetstolehome]

:horse:

[chronomic]

:horse:

maybe its my monitor but that horse looks really red and is kind of sick ahaha

[youcomebeforeyo]

i agree that women should choose the course of their own lives. isn't it ironic that women don't want children, are aware that sexual intercourse may produce children, and yet they continue to engage in sexual intercourse?


So by your logic...

Isn't it ironic people don't want to die yet still get into a motor vehicle when they are aware that driving may lead to a car accident yet they continue to drive?

Isn't it ironic people date when they know that they may be hurt in rejection yet they continue to seek out a partner?

Isn't it ironic that people catch public transport when they need to get to somewhere even though they know there is a risk of the public transport breaking down yet they still use it to get to their destination?


Isn't it ironic that in this same statement you called someone an idiot for disagreeing with you when you put forward a piece of logic like this?

[x togepi x]

haha

[rufiocardtime]

So by your logic...

Isn't it ironic people don't want to die yet still get into a motor vehicle when they are aware that driving may lead to a car accident yet they continue to drive?

Isn't it ironic people date when they know that they may be hurt in rejection yet they continue to seek out a partner?

Isn't it ironic that people catch public transport when they need to get to somewhere even though they know there is a risk of the public transport breaking down yet they still use it to get to their destination?


Isn't it ironic that in this same statement you called someone an idiot for disagreeing with you when you put forward a piece of logic like this?

yes, actually i do find all those things ironic.

i look forward to death (in a sense). i don't date. and i don't use public transportation.

[rufiocardtime]

Fuck this. I've read this entire thread and you are a fucking idiot. Give it up you've gotten destroyed by everyone here. Fundimental neo-con asshole. You are a disgrace to Christianity.

haha so wait. you invested all that time reading every post and you signed up for a new account just to make the most unintelligent reply in this whole thread?

this is me caring./sarcasm

[rufiocardtime]

so basically, you can't prove that moral laws exist...which is what i've been saying all weekend...and yet that somehow makes you more right than me?

the long and short of it is "yes".

[rufiocardtime]

It's a shame you're unable to show this "illogical fashion" and instead have to rely on just saying it's illogical to attempt to win someone over to your side.

then why are you still using logical fallacies (within your same response) to try to further your case...?

Your argument: Not if you follow my "objective frame of reference."

(i.e. straw man - misrepresenting my claim)

There hasn't been a single person on this forum that's agreed with you

(i.e. appeal to majority - in this case maybe 7 people?)

sorry tate, i'm willing to admit that we are, in fact, beating a dead horse and i'm having a hard time taking you seriously anymore.

learn how to make better arguments and maybe we can have another go at it in the future.

[rufiocardtime]

and since i said i would respond to this post, i really felt like it would have been a waste of breath to make more claims that you might misrepresent so that you could ask more questions that i've already answered. but i picked out the dumbest thing you said and responded...

Well, an appeal to popularity (Argumentum ad Populum) does not make your argument logical or valid. And if you are going to change your line of thinking to be that of the masses, you must accept their decision on all things -- not just those you agree with. This would render your abortion claims obsolete.

You just argued for a subjective interpretation while claiming objectivity from the start.

of course i did, you dolt. (yes, that's an ad hominem, you can call me on it.)

see, i assumed we were taking the objective view of logic in this debate - that logical fallacy was an error in logic all across the board, objectively. what you responded to was me taking your subjective view seriously and following it to its logical conclusion..."logical fallacy is subjective". in which case i could, in fact, appeal to others because in a morally subjective view there SHOULD be subjectivity to logic. if this still confuses you, go back to my original statement and re-read while applying your moral subjectivity. but make sure you don't impose any of your own beliefs on my subjective moral view, that would be...subjectively wrong?

but, alas, we all know that both logic and morality are objective. the world would make no sense if this was not the case.

it's your website. these are all your butt-buddies. i'll give you and all of them the last word.

[x togepi x]

the long and short of it is "yes".

you provide no warrants to back up anything you're saying.

[x togepi x]

see, i assumed we were taking the objective view of logic in this debate - that logical fallacy was an error in logic all across the board, objectively. what you responded to was me taking your subjective view seriously and following it to its logical conclusion..."logical fallacy is subjective". in which case i could, in fact, appeal to others because in a morally subjective view there SHOULD be subjectivity to logic. if this still confuses you, go back to my original statement and re-read while applying your moral subjectivity. but make sure you don't impose any of your own beliefs on my subjective moral view, that would be...subjectively wrong?

but, alas, we all know that both logic and morality are objective. the world would make no sense if this was not the case.

it's your website. these are all your butt-buddies. i'll give you and all of them the last word.

So...when you basically lose an argument, you imply that we're all homosexuals. Oh man, you're totally wise and not using a style of argumentation that should have died in middle school.

The problem with your weak analysis of this debate is while you might be able to prove our idea absurd, which i'll admit it is, I'll take your argument to its logical extension and state that all existence is absurd. The problem is, while we have this absurd conclusion, you can't even prove your conclusion exists. We're merely describing the way the world is. Your criticism that "well, this makes no sense", is irrelevant, as all existence makes no sense. It doesn't take any particular worldview to admit that this existence is odd, whether evolved from apes, put here by God or any other creation story you can think of.

Unfortunately, while you offer a criticism of our viewpoint, you can't even prove that yours exists. Actually, you state that there's no way to prove yourself correct. What is a reader of this forum supposed to say: "yes, i'll totally go with the guy who admits he can't prove shit, instead of the people who admit that their worldview might seem absurd"?

It's also important to note that you don't understand the idea of subjectivity at all. Logic is only as "objective" as long as you buy into it's theoretical basis, which is what we were saying about math. There are those who would tell you that being able to point out one's logical fallacies is meaningless. Even said logical fallacies have a little bit of subjectivity to them, it depends on who is framing them and who's making the claim that such a fallacy exists. Even outside of logic, there are those who will claim that using Logic as a field is stupid, and rejects its claims that it allows to you structure persuasive arguments, as the field of logic completely ignores emotions.

Logic also involves judgment claims about whether something is true or false. Often, to prove an argument to be invalid, you have to show that it has true premises and a false conclusion. What's true and false will be based on your subjective interpretation of truth. When you have to make judgment calls like this all the time in the field, obviously it cannot be objective.

[atticus1492]

yes, actually i do find all those things ironic.

i look forward to death (in a sense). i don't date. and i don't use public transportation.

I envy your life.

[Jason Tate]

then why are you still using logical fallacies (within your same response) to try to further your case...?

Such as.

(i.e. straw man - misrepresenting my claim)

Your exact words (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=5712449#post571244 9), "these qualifiers are still within an objective frame of reference."

How is that misrepresenting your claim? Those are your words. So unless you wish to take back your previous post, I'm only arguing what you said.

(i.e. appeal to majority - in this case maybe 7 people?)

I wasn't using it as a reason for my being right, simply pointing out a fact that I found humorous.

sorry tate, i'm willing to admit that we are, in fact, beating a dead horse and i'm having a hard time taking you seriously anymore.

I never took you serious to begin with.

learn how to make better arguments and maybe we can have another go at it in the future.

So, you lose an argument and then try and play it off like this? Hahaha, that's rich.

and since i said i would respond to this post, i really felt like it would have been a waste of breath to make more claims that you might misrepresent so that you could ask more questions that i've already answered. but i picked out the dumbest thing you said and responded...

Ok.

of course i did, you dolt. (yes, that's an ad hominem, you can call me on it.)

I find it strange that you still apparently do not know the difference between the two words we've been using from the start: Objective and Subjective, as you have been using them interchangeably for the past few pages.

see, i assumed we were taking the objective view of logic in this debate -

Why would you do that? There's no such thing.

that logical fallacy was an error in logic all across the board,

Well, yes - that was the point everyone made to you when you first started talking.

objectively. what you responded to was me taking your subjective view seriously and following it to its logical conclusion..."logical fallacy is subjective". in which case i could, in fact, appeal to others because in a morally subjective view there SHOULD be subjectivity to logic. if this still confuses you, go back to my original statement and re-read while applying your moral subjectivity. but make sure you don't impose any of your own beliefs on my subjective moral view, that would be...subjectively wrong?

This makes no sense - if you don't believe something, why are you taking it to it's false conclusion? Nice try.

but, alas, we all know that both logic and morality are objective. the world would make no sense if this was not the case.

You've been shown to be wrong countless times on this topic, neither logic nor morality are objective and the world does not make sense -- that's what's so beautiful about it.

it's your website. these are all your butt-buddies. i'll give you and all of them the last word.

Classy. Calling all of us homosexuals because you were unable to prove your point in a coherent fashion.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

and since i said i would respond to this post, i really felt like it would have been a waste of breath to make more claims that you might misrepresent so that you could ask more questions that i've already answered. but i picked out the dumbest thing you said and responded...





of course i did, you dolt. (yes, that's an ad hominem, you can call me on it.)

see, i assumed we were taking the objective view of logic in this debate - that logical fallacy was an error in logic all across the board, objectively. what you responded to was me taking your subjective view seriously and following it to its logical conclusion..."logical fallacy is subjective". in which case i could, in fact, appeal to others because in a morally subjective view there SHOULD be subjectivity to logic. if this still confuses you, go back to my original statement and re-read while applying your moral subjectivity. but make sure you don't impose any of your own beliefs on my subjective moral view, that would be...subjectively wrong?

but, alas, we all know that both logic and morality are objective. the world would make no sense if this was not the case.

it's your website. these are all your butt-buddies. i'll give you and all of them the last word.

question- what are you accomplishing here?

you claim biblical morals, but come in here and try to argue people into them? perhaps I missed the bible verse where that happens, but if not then I think you should let it go man.

and just my two cents on what i bolded. i believe in absolute truth, in God, in Jesus. I believe them to be true. However, as I stated, I see no point in arguing this point. Lets say that morality is objective, and then i encounter someone (as you have in this thread) who disagree. right there, the objectivity of morality is subjective.