It’s good to see you two getting along so well. Warms my little mechanical heart to see a doo-doo pusher and a doo-doo flinger that can be such good buddies.
And for the lurkers and new folks on here who may be wondering, be aware that Cog and Ratty hurling insults at each other means they are both doing well. But if they ever start being NICE to each other, THAT is when intervention might be required. Let’s hope that never happens.
(Edit to put on HAZMAT suit.)
I SWEAR I have not mentioned your decrepit geezerness to Ratty! And if Ratty says I did, he’s full of shit. You know how the little bastard is always lying. Skrit, however… Well, you KNOW he sings like a damn bird about everything.
(Edit to add: No offense, Ratty. I just said that to throw Cog off my trail.)
Damn Skrit! Sticking his beak in places it don’t belong.
That is neither a straw man nor moving the goal posts, as you claimed? I would need to have changed or varied my position in order for it to be the latter, and would need to have falsely assigned a claim to you that you had not made for the former, and I did neither. here is my original assertion verbatim as evidence it contained no straw man fallacy and did not shift my position at all.
This was in response to your accusation that I was “ignorant to the objective reality of love” when in fact I was simply contesting your claim it was universally applied as an objective basis for all human morality, when it quite demonstrably is not.
None for me, as it amply demonstrates that morality is subjective. You’re even accepting this here, but then denying it again.
Of course it does, that is what the word means?
noun
So morality is determining when we consider human actions and behaviours are either right or wrong, and as this example of Nazis having a different interpretation of what is right and wrong demonstrates, and as you have just accepted, it can only be subjective, and is demonstrably not universal, as you claimed, quod erat demonstrandum.
What I consider right or wrong is irrelevant to the point, my and your morality differs from Nazis morality, and from many other subjective interpretations of what is right and wrong, ipso facto those interpretations are subjective. How many times must I explain I am talking about the nature of human morality, not about what I consider to be moral or immoral?
I don’t believe you, but this nonsense might explain why you think it is epistemologically sound to assert claims as immutable, but I suspect you are simply being facetious. You are demonstrably not omniscient, and if you could experience the future you could demonstrate some objective evidence, and yet have remained reticent about this remarkable gift.
That is what omniscient means, and you’re not, hence you cannot demonstrate sufficient evidence that anything is immutable. Only that something is irrefutable, and they are very different claims.
Nope, you made two contradictory claims, that you rejected relativist ethics, and simultaneously that “some people have shitty values”, these obviously contradict each other, and I pointed this out, and asked if it was possible you could not see such an obvious contradiction, and you responded with ““Shitty” - as in not “universal”” which makes no sense. Either morals and ethics are not relative or some people have different (your ref “shitty”) ethics, both claims cannot be true at the same time and in the same place, it is a violation of the law of non contradiction.
That’s not what universal means.
adjective
relating to or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases.
I can hardly be held responsible if you’re illiterate, and again your claim was wrong. As love and compassion are quite demonstrably not universal, I have zero interest in the woo woo goal post shifting as it has zero relevance to this discourse, by all means start another thread and present a case for the claim, and I will address it there.
Indeed, indicating their morality differs from yours and mine, indicating they are not a universal basis for morality, demonstrating that morality is subjective. What you consider immoral they consider moral, and sometimes vice versa, quod erat demonstrandum.
Bullshit, you mean the common usage doesn’t support your position so you sought an obscure reference that you think does, but you said “no one wants pain”, and this has been demonstrated not to be the case. It was poorly worded / reasoned on your part, why not learn from that, and be amore careful not to make sweeping claims you cannot defend in the future, disagreeing with the dictionary simply speaks for itself.
However I will now address your goal posts from their new position:
“Sexual masochism is a form of paraphilia, but most people who have masochistic interests do not meet clinical criteria for a paraphilic disorder, which require that the person’s behavior, fantasies, or intense urges result in clinically significant distress or impairment.”
Quod erat demonstrandum, now before you dig those suckers up again, and move your goal posts a third time, you said "no one wants pain. You were simply wrong.
Goal posts ahoy, you said no one, do you want me to quote you saying that? Or have you the integrity to accept your sweeping absolute claim was both poorly reasoned and wrong?
Yes you absolutely will, I suspect you’re about to make Cog a few dollars richer again, with this idiocy. Though I also suspect that what you really mean is that those definitions don’t always support your woo woo superstitious beliefs. Now that I will grant you.
The words describe emotions we feel, and the evidence suggests this is not possible without a functioning physical human brain, and that the mind is a product of that brain, the rest is vapid metaphor.
A brilliant example of subjective morality or ethics in action, thank you sir.
Uh, er, what? No I would never…I mean far be it from me to ever point out the obvious, or rather what should be obvious…
Uh, given “rodent tendencies” of resorting to angry outbursts, I would certainly be reticent towards mentioning anything which could, in any significant way, be construed as pandering or triggering, or dare I say, even hinting at deliberate antagonism. After all, I am all about peace and promulgating hearts full of love…
.
.
Edit you can’t handle the truth
“Within every good tweet there is some amount of chirp that makes the tweet convincing…” Unknown Wiseman
Well if the chirp fits…
Edit (more like Wiseacre)
Please tell me what you believe in @CyberLN and please give me implications it has on your philosophy of life?
Please give me objective evidence that anything can come from nothing.
LOL… Please give objective evidence that ‘nothing’ exists.
@WhoAreYou, that’s a fascinating way to answer my two questions.
I certainly can not, but then, it is theists who believe that.
I’d suggest you pick up a copy of, “ A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing” by Krauss. It’s always better to go to an expert in the field. After all, I’m sure you wouldn’t want someone schooled by Wikipedia to perform surgery on you.
Since I have never claimed something can come from nothing, this is a pretty obvious straw man fallacy. Now if you can’t demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity or deities, or that it is even possible, you might have the integrity to say so. Or is the dishonest misdirection of Whataboutism and straw men fallacies all you have?
Or did you want to leap straight to the argumentum ad ignorantiam and false dichotomy fallacies this straw man is a clear primer for, and try to make the irrational claim that we are faced with just two choices, something from nothing or an unevidenced deity using inexplicable magic, which is the false dichotomy, or equally irrationally insist that if we don’t have an alternative explanation it somehow lends credence to your unevidenced deity using inexplicable magic, which is the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy?
So, do you have the courage and integrity to challenge all beliefs with reason and logic, and accept that your arguments thus far are both insufficiently evidenced and irrational, and try and learn what that implies for those beliefs? Or is it more important to you to preserve a belief you are emotionally invested in, than critically examining whether that belief is epistemologically and rationally justified?
If it’s the latter then as a parting gift I can give some much stronger arguments than the woeful stuff you’ve used here, if it’s the latter pull up a chair, the only thing you will need is an unbiased willingness to listen.
Ahhh… But Krauss is not talking about nothing.
‘Empty space is a boiling, bubbling, brew of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence.’ according to Krauss. It’s hard to call that empty. There is nothing empty about empty space, according to Krauss.
He asserts that if we remove everything from empty space there is still a dominant energy, and it has weight. It’s the cause of the universe’s expansion. The empty space, that is supposedly empty is something and it is expanding. according to Krauss. ‘Empty space is something, and it is expanding.’ Again according to Krauss.
Now the caveat. This is only within the universe. If there is an outside to the universe, we know nothing about it. And the physics of causality breaks down a Plank time. The whole notion of a causal relationship to formation of the universe may be silly.
That’s my take on Kraus’s position anyway. Quick Interview:
@Cognostic, I proposed @WhoAreYou read this book precisely because I have a suspicion that s/he thinks of the space around us as empty in that it has zero in it. It seems that W.A.Y. does not understand much about the initial moments of the space/time we occupy. I also suspect that W.A.Y. thinks that scientists have determined that ‘nothing’ came before the ‘big bang’…(all of which is, of course, silly).
Well, hmmm…I’m not for certain, but it seems like your vapid question originating in a morass of unfounded and unevidenced assertions and declarations, MIGHT qualify as a top contender for the first example of such…
.
.
Edit (
Nothing is real….and there’s nothing to get hung about )
We don’t have souls, remember?
Oh look, it’s the tiresome and predictable resurrection of the lame and repeatedly destroyed “atheists think the universe came from nothing” bullshit, that so many mythology fanboys think constitutes some sparkling piece of wisdom, instead of the rectally extracted tripe that it is.
Time for this again:
Let’s deal with the “atheists believe something came from nothing” canard once and for all, shall we?
Item one. Atheists dispense with belief altogether. Instead, if they’re contemplating a postulate properly, they ask “what evidence exists in support of this postulate?”, and look to whichever discipline is supplying the evidence.
Item two. The people who REALLY think the universe came from “nothing”, are those supernaturalists who think their imaginary magic man from their favourite mythology, waved his magic todger and poofed the universe into existence from nothing. So even before I move on to the next items, this alone stuffs the “atheists think the universe came from nothing” excrement down the toilet and pulls the flush hard.
Item three. The question of the origin of the universe has nothing to do with atheism. This question is the remit of cosmological physics. And, once again, those of us who paid attention in class, turn to that discipline, and ask what postulates arise therefrom, and what evidence is supplied in support thereof.
Item four. No cosmological physicist presents the fatuous notion that the universe “came from nothing”. Instead, cosmological physicists postulate that testable natural processes, acting upon well defined entities, were responsible for the origin of the observable universe in its current form.
Item five. The question of the origin of the universe is an active research topic, and as a corollary, a number of hypotheses are extant in the field, with respect to the origin of the observable universe. Indeed, it’s a measure of how far cosmological physics has progressed, that researchers in the field are able to postulate a number of pre-Big-Bang cosmologies, and then work out how to test those cosmologies and the hypotheses underpinning them.
Item six. As an example of the ideas extant in the literature, I’m aware of two papers by Steinhardt & Turok, in which they propose a pre-Big-Bang cosmology centred upon braneworld collisions, and which possesses three elegant features. Namely:
[1] It provides a mechanism for the donation of energy to the newly instantiated universe, facilitating subsequent matter synthesis;
[2] It eliminates the singularity problem from standard Big Bang cosmology;
[3] It provides a testable prediction, namely that the power spectrum of primordial gravitational waves will take a specific form, with the graph skewed towards short wavelengths.
Indeed, [3] above is one of the reasons scientists have been labouring diligently, to produce operational gravitational wave detectors, precisely so that they can test this prediction, once they’ve learned how to distinguish between primordial gravitational waves and gravitational waves of more recent origin. The moment they learn to do this, the requisite tests will be conducted. Furthermore, if those tests reveal a power spectrum that matches the Steinhardt-Turok prediction, then Steinhardt & Turok walk away with the Nobel Prize for Physics.
Message to you: read the above, and learn from it. The next time you peddle the “atheists think the universe came from nothing” bullshit, you’ll know from the above why we regard you with scorn and derision for posting this bullshit.
Come back when you’ve learned the relevant facts, and don’t bother posting repeatedly destroyed and fatuous apologetic canards, that were known decades ago to be duplicitous strawman caricatures of our actual thoughts on relevant topics.