₦airaland Forum

MacCantStopMe:
Consensus? When did I argue for concensus morality?

I never said you did.

OlaAjia:
Yes.

OK.

Now you tell me, is 1+1+1= 3 =1 objective?

1+1+1 = 3 Objective
1X1X1 = 1 Objective

OlaAjia:
Alas, the danger in the objective view of morality is that it inexorably leads to the conflation of 'universality' and 'objectivity'. Two, different things, no doubt. Even though it may be said that the notion of morality is universally accepted by humans, morality doesn't exist independent of humans, so it is subjective (i.e. subject to human interpretation). You can ponder and postulate upon the existence of an objective entity, but you can never make the leap to assert its existence, for to do so, you must first vacate the confining constructs of your sensory devices (i.e. your mind). In simple terms, it is impossible to sense objectivity, so you cannot claim anything is ontologically objective. This does not mean you don't perceive things in a definite way. Now, if a collective of entities (say people) have similar sensors - that is, they have minds - as you, then your sensations will necessarily be similar, hence the erroneous perception of objective morality.

Is 1+1 = 2 subjective? Does it require a consensus of "similar sensors" to reach such conclusion?

MacCantStopMe:
God is morality?

Yet, 90% of his prophets will be considered immoral today. Moses, Joshua, Abraham, Solomon etc would be in police custody for terrorism, child abuse etc


Yet, God himself in the form of Jesus was racist to a Canaanite woman.



Yet, no two followers of God can agree on his morality.



God is the opposite of morality

I wasn't expecting you to agree. But, at least you seem to understand the implication of what you quoted, unlike those who are pretending not to.

MacCantStopMe:
Your arguments do not follow. I am having a hard time finding where to start. But I'll try;


1) When you have a blank chalkboard, you can draw beautiful or ugly things on it. Very simple analogy. just as in life, you can give yourself a good or bad purpose. I dont know how to explain this any further.

Doesn't this illustration contradict your materialist world view?
Who is this you that is making a moral choice of giving yourself a good or bad purpose?
You don't seem to get it. If this you is the same as what you described as the "blank chalkboard" (yourself), then their is no such thing as a "blank chalkboard".

2) Universal morality stems from the fact that logic remains true wherever you are in the universe. Mathematically, 1+1 will always be 2.

Its interesting that your idea of universal morality is not "morality by consensus".
In order words, just like logic, universal morality is transcendental - if this is what you mean, then its just another name for objective morality.

Stealing from your neighbour's pot will always carry more disadvantage than advantages.

how so? giving that morality is transcendental- the choice of stealing should not be predicated on personal advantage.

The problem is that logic can not be applied to all moral issues. Those ones get you into logical paradoxes

care to explain?

Kay17:
In the light of your agreement with Anony1 on morality, does God's intent for mankind have a moral value?

God is Morality.
Anything He does is in agreement with Himself.

@cheers01,
By universal morality, I mean "morality by consensus" a la Humanist Manifesto.

MacCantStopMe:
I still argue for universal morality.

Well, I consider universal morality a face-saving "alternative" to objective morality. Its a humanistic diversion of the the destructive logical conclusion of atheist belief: the consequence of relativistic and nihilistic mindset.

However, you forget 2 things

a) Purpose is far different from morality. They are independent of each other.

They are far different the way a plate of beans is different from the stomach.
As for independence, you have to elaborate.

b) There are some things (morality) that are universal and some (morality) that cant be universal

That is not the argument.
Since your life is a blank slate, who is this morally-aware being that is doing the filling?
The point is, you cannot hold that you are a moral being and still consider your life a blank slate.

MacCantStopMe:
Life is a blank slate with zero purpose. You fill in the purpose that you want.

See decree. You must be god.

You use the analogy of an Ak47.

The creator of the AK47 created it with good intentions to defend his motherland. However, it has become the most effective killing machine in the world.

A creator can create something with his own intentions/purposes but that is different from the creation having a purpose. An AK47 has no purpose. The user pours his or her own intent/purpose into the AK47- to either start war or defend his family or to ra.pe women.



Hyundai and Mercedez Benz both created cars for rich people. However, ask them the purpose of a car, one will tell you "for comfort/performance", the other will tell you for "simplicity and new thinking".


Again- only the user can put his purpose/intents on a creation

^^^

This means that we as users of our own lives, we can each give our lives the purpose we want it to have.


It is not universal that our purpose as humans is to do good. "Ought to" is a big pile of nonsense. There is only "what can be done", "which choice is more logical/effective" and "which choice gives more benefit to people"

If your life is a blank slate, who is this you that is filling the 'blank slate' or using this 'tool' that is your life?
Why is this you a moral being/morally concious, and as once argued for universal morality in the person of cheers01

Kay17:
For the purposes of this thread both shall be regarded as synonymous and must be construed in a moral context.

OK.

Can I assume you have a different standard of morality from Anony1, because Anony1 believes morality is predicated on an 'ought' proposition and the basis of which is in the intent and therefore the source of morality is the intent of man's design.

I believe in Objective Morality therefore, I agree with Anony.

Funny enough, don't you believe that to a pacificist, an AK47's barest purpose is to kill, and therefore evil?

A peacemaker is not necessarily a pacifist. A pacifist is out of touch with the reality of the human condition in regard to evil: therefore, a fool.

I personally believe a pair of scissors can have both good and bad value depending on who is using it and against whom it is being used against. However it is Anony1's idea that God's intent creates morality.

Wrong. think about it.
It is the user that is good or evil, not the tool.

Kay17:
I know what you are trying to say, but my contention is whether the intent behind the design has a moral value, and your answer in that 'not necessarily' however in the case of God's intent for man's design, was it good or bad?!

First, what is the difference between "good" in "good vs bad" and "good vs evil"?

God's intent for man's design is good.

and by what standard is that decided?

God is the standard.

Sorry I think I didn't express myself as clearly as I would have wanted. I actually meant this: "anything is good for staying true to its design irrespective of the moral standing of the intents of the design"

"the moral standing of the intents of the design" of AK47 is: ...simple and reliable weapon to defend the borders of my fatherland - Mikhail Kalashnikov

...simple and reliable... (good in a design sense)
...defend the borders of my fatherland. (good in a moral sense)

Your turn:
What is the moral intent behind the invention of scissors?
Is the design good or bad?
If you think their is necessarily a moral intent, is it good or evil?

Mental gymnastics....pull off fallacies out of thin air....quoting out of context....self-contradictions....endless shifting....pseudo-intellectual rants...what a convoluted mess.

Denying God's existence by any means necessary just got even more desperate. Enjoy.

---I rest my case---

plaetton:
You can look at a sand dune see a pattern, you can look at ocean waves and see a repeating pattern.
Does that imply that sand dunes and ocean waves are intelligently designed and directed for a purpose?

Patterns of ocean waves and sand dunes are created by forces obeying certain physical laws- just like the formation of snowflakes. Physical Laws are fixed, not arbitrary just like you have posited earlier- otherwise they won't be laws. This laws exist because their is order in the universe, order in this "complex machine" of a universe is evidence for God.

davien:
2.you claiming patterns exists because order does is a fallacy.....first you just made a claim as true without giving definitive demonstrations....patterns can be derived from any disorderly object or phenomenon.....infact .....psychotherapists employ random imagery to reveal our notions on them....and naturally we derive ordered notions from them....patterns exist in everything no matter how random and order isn't a factor....

What you mean by the bolded is not even clear enough to make any sense.

Lets assume psychotherapists employ random imagery to achieve...whatever; Do they employ this random imagery in a controlled and orderly way or not? (Please also take cognizance that this random images are applied by intelligent minds for a purpose.)

davien:
I clearly and honestly asked you to show my error and you don't on the count that i "relish" my alleged error?

Dude, scroll up and discover your attempt to invalidate my comment with a strawman. If you can't, too bad.

please explain why mathematics is not science...and do note however that science works by these criteria;
a. testable models

b. well defined terminology and units...

c. makes accurate predictions about future data

d. is independently verify-able and falsify-able

e. matches the phenomenon represented accurately

Good. So, why is mathematics a science?
Saying mathematics is science because it "seeks out pattern" is insufficient. Seeking pattern in matter is physics expressed in maths. Seeking interaction in matter is chemistry expressed in maths. Seeking patterns, causes, and effects of health and disease is epidemiology...on and on.

The purpose is simple....to understand reality....and conjectures are derived by the [b]representation of the phenomenon using mathematical symbols,theorems and models....to match the the unknown identity represented.... [/b]

Good.
1. You just described the purpose of science (....to understand reality....) In an empirical sense of course.
2. Mathematics as a language ( ..representation of the phenomenon..).
2. Mathematics as a tool for science (...using mathematical symbols,theorems and models...).

I hope you get the point this time.

really?....again stop beating around the bush and provide the basis for your claims......i have listed the criteria for science above

And how does mathematics fits into your criteria for science? You are the one chasing your tail.

Mathematics is the study of topics such as quantity (numbers), structure, space, and change. There is a range of views among mathematicians and philosophers as to the exact scope and definition of mathematics. - Wikipedia (the same source you quoted).

Mathematics is used throughout the world as an essential tool in many fields, including natural science, engineering, medicine, finance and the social sciences. - wikipedia.

"The universe cannot be read until we have learned the language and become familiar with the characters in which it is written. It is written in mathematical language, and the letters are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without which means it is humanly impossible to comprehend a single word. Without these, one is wandering about in a dark labyrinth." - Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) source: Wikipedia

patterns are features that correlate with each other....and may have a repeated outline that can be followed or studied....

Good. Now, define "random pattern" ...we are going somewhere.

davien:
Explain to me how your argument wasn't made invalid by you not understanding what mathematics actually is.....I will deal with both the highlighted statements....

Guy, your argument don miss target. Unfortunately, you seem to relish your off-tangent trajectory...carry go

1.mathematics is a branch of science and like all sciences seeks patterns.....here have a read for yourself;

Mathematics in and of itself, is not science.

" Mathematicians seek out patterns [9][10] and use them to formulate
new conjectures . "
[url] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics [/url]

seek out pattern to what purpose?
formulate new conjecture from what? and for what purpose?

Your attempt to answer the above will only reveal which field is using it as a tool.

You are quoting wikipedia out of context. Any honest person who study the wiki page you linked will conclude that maths is a tool for science and other disciplines...you should stop being a joker.

2.you claiming patterns exists because order does is a fallacy.....first you just made a claim as true without giving definitive demonstrations....patterns can be derived from any disorderly object or phenomenon.....infact.....psychotherapists employ random imagery to reveal our notions on them....and naturally we derive ordered notions from them....patterns exist in everything no matter how random and order isn't a factor....

Define pattern.

davien:
lmao.....i made no attempt to refute mathematics as a language....
perhaps my statement that mathematics is a language in the same sense....that we relate to objects and phenomena in reality using symbols and utterances wasn't clear enough
you claimed mathematics was used to explain "the order of the universe" and i merely pointed out it being used to draw patterns even from the most inane disorderly identities....it is the methodology itself that represents such workings of the universe in orderly concepts....an example is chaos theory were nonlinear events have to be represented in concise predictable forms....

BY THE WAY ARE YOU A CREATIONIST?

Alright you agree its a language.. that is fine.

I am a Child of God that enjoys praying in tongues.

You said:

with your staggering inability to understand the definitive and symbolical representation that is mathematics you've proven your points to be invalid.....good day sir! cheesy mathematics simply seek patterns....not order!

You went off-tangent with the above. My argument is not about "the nature of the language of mathematics " so you have not invalidated anything...lol.
Mathematics does not seek pattern, science does. Maths is the tool or the language(depending on the context).
by the way, pattern exist because order does.

davien:
No...mathematics is referred to as a language because it is a definitive representation of causality.... that is to say that the cause and effect manner in which the universe works by is represented by defined mathematical symbols....in much the same way we represent objects and actions in reality by symbols and utterances.....it is the representation of phenomenon with symbols and other man made definitive terms that we refer to as language.....and this is all due to our own minds ability to draw patterns from nature....

The purpose of our textbooks is not to communicate any mechanism of order in the universe but to deduce and represent physical phenomena in a way that is definitive....well understood and predictable......else if it was mechanism of order mathematics focused on then abstract random events like chaos and random extrapolations cannot be quantified(yet we do this and it is because these attributes are represented by figures and symbols that we merge together to understand and try to predict them) for example if all the matter on the earth were a vacuum it would still be represented to have a quantify-able vacuum energy that cannot be reduced till matter is re-introduced into the system...

and do you know why mathematics can do this? It is because we give definition to the abstract phenomenon we observe and convert those definitions into symbols that we interact with each other till relationships can be derived...that is why a phenomenon such as heat loss can be quantified as entropy in joules/kelvin...

with your staggering inability to understand the definitive and symbolical representation that is mathematics you've proven your points to be invalid.....good day sir! mathematics simply seek patterns....not order!

In an effort to refute mathematics a language, you unwittingly prove it a language albeit the long and tedious way.

plaetton:
So many fallacies. I will shred them later when I have time.

Their are no fallacies but I await your rebuttal.

Let me chip in here that the laws of mathematics

Please indicate if you have decided to "switch" from 'the language of mathematics' to 'the laws of mathematics'.

Nevertheless, what we understand as ' the law of mathematics' is our description of Physical Laws.

It might interest you to know that some laws of mathematics are man-made laws that do not reflect natural laws. Example: Matrix Multiplication.

It might also interest you to know that in nano-scale level fabrication of transistors for microchips, circuits are forced and manipulated to obey Maxwell's Equation- I hope you understand what that implies.

plaetton:
They are not my own words. They are fact. Snowflakes are created randomly when the atmospheric conditions ( mathematical relationships) are right.
No sentiments. No director. Infact, no two snowflakes are ever the same,. Suggesting that atmospheric conditions are always in random flux.
No director required.

Atmospheric Conditions generating complex multi-symmetrically designed snowflakes at random is governed by a complex Physical Law. Physical laws are laws because they are ordered and consistent.

Their are proofs that an intelligent mind can create an ordered, consistent, physical law to govern the generation of random but well designed objects.

I(mind) wrote this code below to command (condition) my computer(environment) to generate random integer numbers. (no floating-point numbers...just integers).

--------------------------

#include <time.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

srand(time(NULL));
int random_integers = rand();

-----------------------

Game programmers have used this techniques as a means to generate fractals like snowflakes in conjunction with recursive functions.

plaetton:
Mathematics, sir.
The language of the universe.

Mind --> Thought --> Word --> Language.
Mathematics exist as the language of the universe because a Mind exists that understands and communicates the order and mechanism of the universe.

All things in the universe have a mathematical relationship to others.

All things in the universe have a mathematical relationship to others in your physics textbooks; and that is because the purpose of your textbooks is to communicate the mechanism and order in the universe with the language of mathematics.

Also, their mathematical relationships determine their motions, their geometry , and their properties.

Nope. Maths is a language- The language can only describe the relationships, motions, geometry and the properties.

Do not forget that mathematical relationships are fixed and not arbitrary.

With the above quote, you just provided an evidence for God.
The relationship mathematics describes is fixed because their is order in the mechanism of the universe. Order in complexity exist because the Intelligent Mind designed it.

We had our first university in 1948. The first case of Ebola outbreak in Africa was in 1976 - What proactive measure to invent a cure did our numerous universities/research institutes undertake?

This culture of "attributing to another country our own responsibility" is the enemy - not America.

Anyone who is rejoicing over this news is not different from the late Patrick Sawyer.

Considering what is going on in the Middle-East, Its not far-fetched to conclude that if Muslims have run out of other religions/civilisations to conquer; they will eventually consume each other.

As long as Islam exists: Either way, their will always be jihad.

mrceo63: Happy Sunday to you all!
Please I want to know if listening/playing Secular music a sin. Because most of them, seems to have message for the pit of hell. Which is not good for a beliver.. They tend to corrupt the mind of the listener.. most of the songs we have today centre on s*x nd money!!! Why? Watching most of the music video's is the worst. And we Christain have do have nd play dem.
So i want to know if it is a sin to listen/play/watch such music, and if it is "WHY THEN IS IT NOT PREACH AGINST IN THE CHURCH"...? I went to a children's day party in a church as the priest was preaching, he told the children that they shouldnt worry that after this they will go and dance the latest song in town, which he now ask the childern to tell him.. right there in the alter he was singing it with them, the song by davido "aye"..! Smh*.. through out they party they never played any Christain music.. Note it was organised by a Church not a Secular organisation!

From your write-up its clear that your conscience is not at peace with this "secular music". Do no go with anything that violates your conviction even if its been subtly promoted by any "church". Ask yourself - what kind of a church would promote music whose message is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Evil communication corrupts; that includes bad music.

Thanks bro. A great photo-illustration and hilarious too
Yours is an encouragement well received, especially from a brother who is consistent and as shown by example, to be a relentless soldier of Christ.

@DS, May God grant you the strength to handle the situation in the best way possible.

She is speaking the truth about Islam without the "saccharine" of political correctness that is "300 times as sweet as table sugar, but has a bitter or metallic aftertaste." added.

What Political Correctness is doing to our minds is as catastrophic as Boko Haram's onslaught.
The link to the source is not working. If you would please repost it- I'd like to drop a reply on the original piece.

davidylan: Perhaps you care to show me if i got the distance wrong or whether it made more sense to donate millions to their starving fellow country men than to people they have no kinship with outside of religion, living 2000 miles away from them. Anyone thinking this is a noble gesture is fooling themselves.

When the Israelis pulled out of Gaza, they left behind academic, social and economic infrastructure intact. Instead of the 'Palestinians' to invest the billion-dollar aids received from the West and Arab States to enhance this infrastructures and build a vibrant economy for their people, the Hamas-led government sabotaged everything because of their hatred for everything Jewish. Instead, they invested in firearms, built tunnels all the way to Sinai to smuggle in ammunitions to further their terrorist campaign and the corrupt officials siphoned the rest with only a meagre to go round. Their poverty is self-inflicted.

This is not just a 'kind' gesture from the Algerian team; but a religious and political statement.

Please allow this guys to freely roll in their 'resounding' stupidity.