That Boat Don't Float!!

[Skaloop]

As long as "it" acts as though it were a person with a personality and I can communicate with it, and it influences my life as a caring God would....I'm OK with the details of chemical or electrical synapses in my brain.

So even if it's not what you think it is, but only appears to be what you think it is, you're cool with that?

 

[SkyWriting]

How?

I suppose then if I said "This film is immoral" it is immoral, but if I force people away from it, through some compelling penalties it ceases to be immoral, because the truth of it (its immoral state) is affected by the use of force.

The film is not immoral though it may advocate immoral behavior.
Allowing the general-public access, may be.

 

[Skaloop]

The film is not immoral though it may advocate immoral behavior.
Allowing the general-public access, may be.

So advocating immoral behaviour is not necessarily immoral?

 

[SkyWriting]

So even if it's not what you think it is, but only appears to be what you think it is, you're cool with that?

Each of us creates their own reality with our thoughts.

 

[Skaloop]

Each of us creates their own reality with our thoughts.

No, each of us does not. If we did, then there would not be billions of equally mundane realities for everyone. This is nonsense on par with "What The Bleep Do We Know."

We may influence reality, but we do not create our own with our thoughts. There was reality before there were people, before there was any life at all.

And no, CSS is not a reputable source.

 

[SkyWriting]

So advocating immoral behavior is not necessarily immoral?

That would be on the producer/director's shoulders.
Surely the editor.
Maybe not the actors.
Each person involved deserves individual evaluation.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Each of us creates their own reality with our thoughts.

So you believe there is no objective reality, just the power of our own wishful thinking?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

So you believe there is no objective reality, just the power of our own wishful thinking?

Sounds like that existentialist crap I had to read in Freshman English way back when. Pirandello etc.

 

[Hespera]

Sounds like that existentialist crap I had to read in Freshman English way back when. Pirandello etc.

I think this stuff is true to the extent that the only "god" anyone ever talks to or otherwise encounters is the one in their own imagination

if all the thumpers ever figured out they are worshipping themselves they might be get embarrassed

but who knows

maybe they'd just construct a reality inwhich that isnt embarrassing

or maybe they already did.

 

[SkyWriting]

No, each of us does not. If we did, then there would not be billions of equally mundane realities for everyone. This is nonsense on par with "What The Bleep Do We Know."

We may influence reality, but we do not create our own with our thoughts. There was reality before there were people, before there was any life at all.

And no, CSS is not a reputable source.

And we each are entitled to our own opinions as well as our own reality.
Especially as to what we regard as "a reputable source".

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I think this stuff is true to the extent that the only "god" anyone ever talks to or otherwise encounters is the one in their own imagination

if all the thumpers ever figured out they are worshipping themselves they might be get embarrassed

but who knows

maybe they'd just construct a reality inwhich that isnt embarrassing

or maybe they already did.

"God created man in his own image. And man, being a gentleman, returned the favor."
-- Rousseau

 

[SkyWriting]

Sounds like that existentialist crap I had to read in Freshman English way back when. Pirandello etc.

It's actually the application of well established quantum physics properties to the grander scale of our knowledge of the cosmos.

So far, all scientific properties discovered on the atomic scale have been consistent with properties as they related to the largest astronomical scale.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

It's actually the application of well established quantum physics properties to the grander scale of our knowledge of the cosmos.

So far, all scientific properties discovered on the atomic scale have been consistent with properties as they related to the largest astronomical scale.

I have studied quantum physics in grad school. I even read the Tao of Physics. I think some of this theology and quantum stuff is pure hokum but even if the many worlds hypothesis turns out to be correct it doesn't mean you get to pick the one you want to live in.

 

[SkyWriting]

And blasphemy laws! Moral laws based on Christian ideals, etc.

All laws are based on moral behavior.

 

[SkyWriting]

Another non-answer

Completely appropriate.

 

[SkyWriting]

But you specifically asked why we should be sent to a place. so I answered about being sent somewhere:

Originally Posted by SkyWriting

It's a choice people voluntarily make. Why should people be sent to a place they don't believe in or want to be?

​

And if I choose where I want to be, than if I end up in either heaven or hell, however you define them, then I am not where I would choose to be.

You are right. It was a rhetorical question.
I could have been more clear.
People volunteer not to be in heaven with God the Father.
When you remain, and you are only spirit, one regrets their decision.
And any other selfish decisions they made.
That's the torment of Hell. Internal conflict is pretty intense if you don't have comfort food to munch away your regrets. Or dogs to kick or other people to blame. Or TV to watch. Or chat forums to blow off steam.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's the torment of Hell. Internal conflict is pretty intense if you don't have comfort food to munch away your regrets. Or dogs to kick or other people to blame. Or TV to watch. Or chat forums to blow off steam.

Will there be atheists there?

 

[Montalban]

Not quite. The absence of "certain chemicals" or "patterns of chemicals firing" would only mean that there would be different patterns.

It doesn't matter. The absence of certain chemicals would be a cause of an effect on the brain. Even if you want to take it as a 'total absence', well take out all the chemicals from the brain and you will still get a result

If you want to stay within your "heat/cold" analogy: there is only one type of "cold"... the absence of all heat.

That's what I've been saying to another in opposition to me.

Absolute zero. All other states, even those that make you shiver are not "cold"... only a different level of "heat".

It doesn't matter

The further removed from God you are the less love you feel, the more hate.

I am not that close to God, but I don't believe that I'm totally evil. My removing myself from God affects me.

But if "heat" makes you act in a certain way, and "another heat" makes you act in a different way... "cold" makes you act in only one way: not at all!

Cold, or the lack of heat makes me shiver. Less heat affects me differently. Take away more heat and I'll put on more clothes to compensate

In the same way, different "chemicals" and different "patterns" can make you act in different ways. But the absence of all chemicals, all patterns can only make you act in one way: not at all. You are dead in that case.

I've now covered that. Being dead too, as noted is an effect. It may make you not 'act', but it has an affect on your state.

I used "goodness" in a non-literal way here... as in "the ability to act in a way we describe as 'good'". I wouldn´t have thought you to be so literalminded as to not get that.

You simply goal-shift by not defining what good is, and simply using that term

No, the absence of love (as well as the absence of hate) would be indifference.

Wouldn't that then be a 'dead' state of emotion?

I did explain it... "...this behaviour is the "baseline". The "state of rest", the state that exists when no forces/causes act on our object."

The explanation of the 'baseline' is that the behaviour is the baseline? That still doesn't make sense to me. It is its own explantion?

That should have been clear from my Newton analogy (which you deigned to dismiss):

I only dismiss Newton in this case.

the baseline is the state that exists when nothing is influencing it.

now 'baseline' makes sense.

When there is an absence of influences, there is logically nothing influencing it. So if there is an absence of heat/love/force, the object is not influenced by them and remains in its basic state... the "baseline".

Excepting as noted the absence of heat is cold and cold affects us

No, you didn´t. You have given an external cause for behaviour X,

Yes, it's God's love

Concepts don´t exist as independent entities. They are only abstractions of physical structures.

Prove that science is right, using science.

We started this line with the question of "desire to harm / not harm". So we are talking about physical stuff, in this case "actions".

No. We're talking about the desire to do the action, not the action itself

Concepts like "beauty" and "goodness" are patterns into which the brain sorts its reactions to such physical stuff. "Goodness" here being the pattern for "preferred behaviour".

So what makes something 'good' is chemicals in the brain. See quote from CS Lewis I gave earlier

You were talking about a human being being nothing more than a bag of chemicals (as you see our positions, which you disagree with). And I agreed with you: you are right, a human is not only a bag of chemical... it is something more. It is a bag of chemicals ACTING IN A CERTAIN WAY.

I haven't missed that point at all. In order to continue discussion I changed to using your terms of reference. I'm still happy to use them, but you seem unhappy that I am doing so.

This is "something more". It is a different "something more" than you have in mind, but it is something more.

It still doesn't matter - because I can have a bag of chemicals acting a certain way, and therefore according to you they'd be a human. Thus if I took a person, recently dead, and ran some stimulation through it and made it act a 'certain way' (which you never explain what that 'way' is), it's a person, according to you.

The point you made: "No. There's no real 'you' about it. "You" is a person. Person doesn't exist in chemical form, else you could go down to the shops grab a bunch of chemicals mix them up in the right percentages and call it a person."

That was my point, yes

"Going down to the shops, grabbing a bunch of chemicals and mixing them up in the right percentage" does not make a person.

*sigh*

I accept that you don't believe so, and that you believe that the chemicals must also act a certain way. We're going around in circles. I see you have nothing further to add.

 

[Montalban]

All laws are based on moral behavior.

Again, you've not made a point.

They are still laws where they carry compulsion

 

[Freodin]

The further removed from God you are the less love you feel, the more hate.

Just a simple question: how to you feel towards my sister? Do you hate her or love her?

(And a slightly more difficult question to follow: how did you feel towards my sister before you read that question?)