Moral Compass

[Janoah]

So your question is "does matter obey God"? In what sense "obey"?

"obey" in the sense as You understand it.

, how can they tell you whether or not they agree with your statement?

I'm not stating anything, I'm asking Your opinion.

[Immanuel Can]

"obey" in the sense as You understand it.

, how can they tell you whether or not they agree with your statement?

I'm not stating anything, I'm asking Your opinion.

No, you're asking me to agree with your statement, that matter "obeys" God, without specifying what it is you mean. And since I don't know what you mean, I'm not able to know whether or not I agree.

[Janoah]

, how can they tell you whether or not they agree with your statement?

I'm not stating anything, I'm asking Your opinion.

No, you're asking me to agree with your statement, that matter "obeys" God, without specifying what it is you mean. And since I don't know what you mean, I'm not able to know whether or not I agree.

Once again, do you agree that matter obeys God in the sense in which You understand this obeyance?

[Sculptor]

I'm not stating anything, I'm asking Your opinion.

No, you're asking me to agree with your statement, that matter "obeys" God, without specifying what it is you mean. And since I don't know what you mean, I'm not able to know whether or not I agree.

Once again, do you agree that matter obeys God in the sense in which You understand this obeyance?

The trouble with Immanuel Can is that he likes the idea of god, but is too weak to accept all the consequences of that belief.

[Sculptor]

"Just"?

The thing about deductions is this: if the premises are true and the deduction proposed properly formed, then they're 100% sure to be right. That's a pretty good deal, when it comes to talking about what we can "know."


That would be to misunderstand what a deduction is, and to guarantee yourself to be wrong. Why would one choose that?

Maybe because, as I said earlier, one preferred to keep going thinking what one always had, rather than challenging one's own preconceptions. You asked why people would ever do that...now you know, I guess.


Those are quite different proposals. Now you're no longer talking about things you cannot know, but things you should know, and have every reason to know, and maybe on some level you secretly do know, but are deliberately keeping yourself from accepting.

However, even in a human court of law, "I decided to keep myself ignorant" isn't actually a defense against responsibility. It is, in fact, a case of what's called "negligence." In the court of greater things, I suggest it's no different.

Thanks, IC, but I only popped in to contribute my little bit of wisdom. My work here is done.

I get it. I've seen it many, many times. When the deductive "walls" start pointing in the unwanted direction, the player picks up his ball and says, "That's it for me, lads...mom's holding supper," and leaves the field.

Deduction is not the issue.
Deduction does not offer any new material, only definitions and consequential conclusions.
You trouble is that you constantly ignore the pressures of induction which so often break down the walls of deduction which you have built around your reason.
Sadly faith is a tissue of lies and it is YOU than is covering yourself in that tissue and running home to mommy with the ball

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not stating anything, I'm asking Your opinion.

No, you're asking me to agree with your statement, that matter "obeys" God, without specifying what it is you mean. And since I don't know what you mean, I'm not able to know whether or not I agree.

Once again, do you agree that matter obeys God in the sense in which You understand this obeyance?

Once again: until I know what you're asking me, I couldn't imagine what the truth might be. I cannot use my own definition to know whether or not I'm agreeing with you.

[Immanuel Can]

Thanks, IC, but I only popped in to contribute my little bit of wisdom. My work here is done.

I get it. I've seen it many, many times. When the deductive "walls" start pointing in the unwanted direction, the player picks up his ball and says, "That's it for me, lads...mom's holding supper," and leaves the field.

Deduction is not the issue.

Harbal says it is. You'll have to take up your disagreement with him.

[Harbal]

I get it. I've seen it many, many times. When the deductive "walls" start pointing in the unwanted direction, the player picks up his ball and says, "That's it for me, lads...mom's holding supper," and leaves the field.

Deduction is not the issue.

Harbal says it is. You'll have to take up your disagreement with him.

Excuse me, but I declined to accept your deductions, and that was it.

[Sculptor]

Deduction is not the issue.

Harbal says it is. You'll have to take up your disagreement with him.

Excuse me, but I declined to accept your deductions, and that was it.

Don't worry tissue boy is running home to mommy

[Immanuel Can]

Deduction is not the issue.

Harbal says it is. You'll have to take up your disagreement with him.

Excuse me, but I declined to accept your deductions, and that was it.

Well, you can't be taking issue with the procedure of deduction itself. That would be absurd. And the premises were obviously true (such as that entropy exists), so really, there wasn't anything else for you to be taking exception with. If my deduction that you were denying deduction was wrong, then I guess you'll have to explain what you meant. It isn't obvious.

[Harbal]

Harbal says it is. You'll have to take up your disagreement with him.

Excuse me, but I declined to accept your deductions, and that was it.

Well, you can't be taking issue with the procedure of deduction itself. That would be absurd. And the premises were obviously true (such as that entropy exists), so really, there wasn't anything else for you to be taking exception with. If my deduction that you were denying deduction was wrong, then I guess you'll have to explain what you meant. It isn't obvious.

I didn't take exception with or at anything. You made a few deductions that I considered unwarranted, so I said so. I don't have to explain anything, which is fortunate for me, because I can't be bothered to explain.

[Immanuel Can]

You made a few deductions that I considered unwarranted, so I said so. I don't have to explain anything, which is fortunate for me, because I can't be bothered to explain.

Well, no you don't. But none of my deductions were unwarranted, because to be unwarranted, they would have to be premised on untruths, or faulty in deductive procedure. Since entropy is real, and, for example, things that begin always have a cause -- neither of which I think you can dispute -- they were neither faulty in form or content.

Thus, I understood what you were saying perfectly: that you didn't like the warranted conclusions, and simply refused to entertain them.

And no, you don't have to explain further, unless you want to satisfy Sculpy. But why you'd want to bother doing that, I really can't say.

[promethean75]

[deleted: wrong thread]

[Harbal]

things that begin always have a cause

Does God's existence have a cause? If not, then God never began, yet you still believe he exists. If God can exist without having a beginning, then we have to deduce that such a thing is possible, in which case we also have to recognise the possibility of the universe having no beginning, and so not having a cause, either. That isn't something I have any reason to believe, but you would have to believe it, if you want to be logically consistent.

[Immanuel Can]

things that begin always have a cause

Does God's existence have a cause?

Well, if you understand the same thing that Christians and Jews mean when they say the word "God," then you would be understanding it as the concept of an eternal being. Having no beginning, He has no cause. Nobody thinks that eternal things had a cause: by definition, they cannot have had one.

If God can exist without having a beginning, then we have to deduce that such a thing is possible, in which case we also have to recognise the possibility of the universe having no beginning, and so not having a cause, either.

Non sequitur: it does not follow, logically. If God is eternal, it does not at all imply that the universe is. In fact, it implies the opposite: that the universe is a contingent entity, not a necessary or eternal one. And the universe, we also know, had a beginning. We know it not just deductively, but empirically, because of entropy. Entropy is observable, measurable, and quantifiable.

So both logically and scientifically, you can be as certain as you can be of anything, that the universe was not eternal in the past, and cannot be eternal going forward. As such, it had a cause.