The Perpetual Philosophical Debate Thread

[Diogenes The Cynic]

This is where we talk about philosophy itself.

The thread is not for practical debate.

First question: Is it me, or do people resort to cartesian reasoning only when they realize they are about to lose a debate and want to stonewall the last inch they would have to give up?

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

A) Free will
B) God created the universe and IS the universe
C) If God was going to create anything he would create it with a way to improve itself (evolution)

[Ghost of Alex Libman]

B) God created the universe and IS the universe

Then why did he make Moses climb a fucking mountain? 



Oh, and ...

... here's what you append to all your forum posts if you want every person viewing them to hammer maqs.com for ~8MB of bandwidth:

[Diogenes The Cynic]

A) Free will
B) God created the universe and IS the universe
C) If God was going to create anything he would create it with a way to improve itself (evolution)

Free will is awsome. We have it insofar as we can make choices from our own prespectives. Basically, the determinists shut the hell up after Jan Paul Satre said that from an individuals own perspectives, our actions don't seem to be predetermined.

G-d is not the universe. Thats pantheism. Theres a book that I donated to Rabbi Chaloms shul library called Mystical Concepts of Chassidus by Rabbi I. Shochet. I learned from him, and enjoyed his book as well. It basically works out how G-d could create something thats an extension of himself without being IT in of itself.

You know, its funny to me how Fundamental Christians hoot and holler over the age of the universe while Frum Jews, and especially Kabbalists can readily accept the idea of a world billions of years old without it presnting a problem with the Torah viewpoint. There are texts that are about 900 years old. Older then the debate over geological age pointing to a universe billions of years old.


So, can we accept evolution? There is no reason not to. I learned it in college and while I find it to be too lacking empirically spaking to be a true science, its an ok notion.

[rookie]

So, can we accept evolution?

I dig it.

[mikehz]

You know, its funny to me how Fundamental Christians hoot and holler over the age of the universe while Frum Jews, and especially Kabbalists can readily accept the idea of a world billions of years old without it presnting a problem with the Torah viewpoint.

It's one of those little tidbits that gets latched onto and then refuses to die. Bishop Usher concocted the whole 4,000 year-old nonsense by adding up the ages of the patriarchs in the Bible. All highly inaccurate, of course. But, for some reason, fundies have sunk their teeth into the concept and refuse to let go of it, despite overwhelming evidence. I mean, the Bible is even more emphatic that the planet is flat and that it circles the sun, but for some very odd reason, they ignore those and instead just go with the age thing.

Few mainstream religions hold to the Usher chronology, having long ago given up the 15th Century science.  

[Diogenes The Cynic]

You know, its funny to me how Fundamental Christians hoot and holler over the age of the universe while Frum Jews, and especially Kabbalists can readily accept the idea of a world billions of years old without it presnting a problem with the Torah viewpoint.

It's one of those little tidbits that gets latched onto and then refuses to die. Bishop Usher concocted the whole 4,000 year-old nonsense by adding up the ages of the patriarchs in the Bible. All highly inaccurate, of course. But, for some reason, fundies have sunk their teeth into the concept and refuse to let go of it, despite overwhelming evidence. I mean, the Bible is even more emphatic that the planet is flat and that it circles the sun, but for some very odd reason, they ignore those and instead just go with the age thing.

Few mainstream religions hold to the Usher chronology, having long ago given up the 15th Century science.  

At 4,000 years, its very inaccurate. The year today from creation is 5768. I actually do believe that that is the age of the universe, and I do not think that this presents any problem with any evidence to the contrary. Nowhere in the Torah does it say the Earth is flat, and although there are some allusions to the Earth revolving around the sun, there are just as many allusions to the contrary.

[mikehz]

At 4,000 years, its very inaccurate. The year today from creation is 5768.

  AM or PM?

[Ghost of Alex Libman]

My theory (which is the only logical theory) of Natural Rights is based on evolution.

If evolution is false, then there's only one rational source of moral values:

Satan. 

[Diogenes The Cynic]

My theory (which is the only logical theory) of Natural Rights is based on evolution.

If evolution is false, then there's only one rational source of moral values:

Satan. 

Hehe. Regarding the former part of the argument, I think "naturalistic" arguments are flawed. I am not using naturalistic in any of the classical philosophical contexts, but rather to mean arguments derived from the way nature works. The problem a lot of them have is that they introduce the idea that the strong can eat the weak, and that is only, no pun intended, natural. Thats not cool, methinks.

[Rillion]

Hehe. Regarding the former part of the argument, I think "naturalistic" arguments are flawed. I am not using naturalistic in any of the classical philosophical contexts, but rather to mean arguments derived from the way nature works. The problem a lot of them have is that they introduce the idea that the strong can eat the weak, and that is only, no pun intended, natural. Thats not cool, methinks.

Either you're extremely ignorant, as the strong eat the weak all of the time, or you desperately need to read about something called the naturalistic fallacy. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

[Richard Garner]

My theory (which is the only logical theory) of Natural Rights is based on evolution.

If evolution is false, then there's only one rational source of moral values:

Satan. 

What rights do I have, then, and why?

[mikehz]

Rights are a social construct; a set of mutually agreed limits of activity. In the theory of natural rights, members of society agree to respect one another's life, liberty, and property. (There is a reason for these three, in that they are all related to each other. For details, read Rand.)

There ARE other rights theories. For example, there is the "might makes right" concept, in which the strong rule the weak, and the "divine right of kings" theory, in which rulers derive their power from some deity. The problem with these is that unless you are strong or a king, you are screwed!

There is also the idea that rights are cumulative; that is, that groups have more rights than any individual in the group. (This is the current working model in our society.) Again, this is great, IF you are in the majority, but if you are in the minority, you're unlikely to fare so well.

The trouble with all of the rights theories other than equal rights of life, liberty and property is that the most productive members of society stop being productive. After all, why bother producing, if the product of your labor is going to be taken away from you by force? Therefore, of the various models, the best overall for society as a whole is the idea of equal rights for all, with individual actions limited where those actions impinge on the equal rights of others.

Bottom line: for a successful, productive, and peaceful society to function, all members should be secure in their lives, property and liberty.

[Jetfire]

there's no such thing as philosophy. there is no such thing as anything.

[Ghost of Alex Libman]

What rights do I have, then, and why?

Great, more proof that you don't actually read my counter-arguments on the "Childless Tax" thread.