Where does morality come from?

[2PhiloVoid]

I gave a link to the context. Instead of telling me I have taken them out of context explain where and why.

Yes, you gave a link, and I haven't just yet got around to addressing it. But I'll place you at the top of my schedule.

You have no basis for this determination. Can you just reply to what I wrote?

I have no basis to determine that you're intelligent? Ok.

We will see.

Yes, we will.

 

[createdtoworship]

There is no evidence that there is a soul. Can you support this claim?

sure, a soul is the life force of the body. The immaterial object that contains our personality. Of which even animals have. But humans are also given a spirit. And it is that part that goes to heaven. But that is another topic, I don't want to confuse. But for now, lets view in humans the spirit and the soul, as just the soul. I would ask you what is the substance that holds our emotions? Is it electricity? Is it neurons? See I believe all of that is just the hardware of the body, the actual soul is the software of the body. When I was younger, I looked in the mirron and I said, "who am I."? I knew that my body was just the housing, that I was somehow inside and different. I think most people do realize this. I think that later in life, we are misquided into believing we are just brain impulses and not a person in there. But anyway, I hope that answers your question. I don't have proof that we have a soul. But our hardware is run on a type of software, and the software, the program is immaterial, without mass, and thus eternal. Information in general is eternal, because information is massless. I don't want to confuse, but if you get into information science, this starts to make sense.

 

[createdtoworship]

Honestly, you sound like those hardcore Star Trek fans who insist they know how dilithium crystals actually work.

It's still all make believe.

thanks for the debate. I can clearly see you have no ammunition left, and have resorted to mocking what you don't understand. I get it. But it just makes me realize that you are done with this topic. Thanks again, let me know if I can help in any other way.

 

[createdtoworship]

How do you know this? Each atheist is different in what they believe about death. Most as in my case simply have no good reasons to believe we live after we die. You claim that we do, you have the burden of proof.

I know this because you just admitted it. "each atheist is different in what they believe about death."

 

[createdtoworship]

The Islamic nature of hell seems just as bad:

They will long to leave the Fire, but never will they leave there from; and theirs will be a lasting torment. (Quran 5:37)

…And they will never leave of the Fire. (Quran 2:167)

Surely, those who disbelieve and did wrong; God will not forgive them, nor will He guide them to any way except the way of Hell, to dwell therein forever. (Quran 4:168-169)

Surely, God has cursed the disbelievers, and has prepared for them a flaming Fire wherein they will abide forever. (Quran 33:64)

And whosoever disobeys God and His Messenger, then surely, for him is the fire of Hell, he shall dwell therein forever. (Quran 72:23)

Surely, the gates of the Heaven will not be opened for those who deny Our revelations and treat them with arrogance; their admission into paradise will be as impossible as the passing of a camel through the eye of a needle. That is how We shall reward the criminals. Hell shall be their bed and flames shall be their covering. That is how We shall reward the wrongdoers.(Qurʾān 7:40-41)

No food will there be for them except from a bitter, thorny plant which neither nourishes nor avails against hunger. (Quran 88:6-7)

Indeed, the tree of zaqūm is food for the sinful, like murky oil, it boils within bellies, like the boiling of scalding water. (Quran 44:43-46)

Is Paradise better as an abode or the tree of zaqūm? Indeed, We have made it a torment for the wrongdoers. Indeed, it is a tree issuing from the bottom of the Hellfire, its emerging fruit as if it was heads of the devils. And, indeed, they will eat from it and fill with it their bellies. Then, indeed, they will have after it a mixture of scalding water. Then, indeed, their return will be to the Hellfire. (Quran 37:62-68)

Then indeed you, O those astray (who are) deniers, will be eating from trees of zaqūm and filling with it your bellies, and drinking on top of it from scalding water, and will drink as the drinking of thirsty camels. That is their hospitality on the Day of Recompense. (Quran 56:51-56)

How is the Christian hell significantly worse than the Islamic hell?

islamic hell is very similiar but biblical hell is worse. Namely because of how you get there. In christianity for one smallest sin you die. Where I believe in islam it takes more than one basic sin, it takes heresy or some other mortal sin to make it there.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

My answer is essentially that of Pascal and Kierkegaard, and that is: Human reason, using the various logic(s) can never get a person to faith, however well the logics may be applied; human rational activity all by its lonesome may enable a person to begin to surmise that Christianity could have some kind of substantive claim and thus lean in that direction, but this rational leaning in and of itself would never provide a firm epistemological position by which faith in Jesus Christ could be attained. It just doesn't work like that.

For some 'reason,' there are Christians and even Atheists who, despite the failures of their own epistemological positions, still think Christianity should somehow be achievable by sheer rationality alone. Again, no, it can not; it takes more than that, which is why Pascal offers his Wager to those who haven't succumbed to apathy toward the Christian faith.

so the answer is still a simple no. You said twice here that Faith is not arrived at rationally. I agree. You have no sufficient evidence for your belief. This discussion should be over, we have come to an agreement.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I have not basis to determine that you're intelligent? Ok

The fact that you think you do shows the flaw in your epistemology. That you think you know things that you have no evidence for.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The fact that you think you do shows the flaw in your epistemology. That you think you know things that you have no evidence for.

Thank you for the lesson. I guess you sent my little butt back to college, didn't you?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Thank you for the lesson. I guess you sent my little butt back to college, didn't you?

No. feel free to actually respond to what I said though. You said yourself that you believe things without sufficient evidence or irrationally. I was just restating what you already said.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

so the answer is still a simple no. You said twice here that Faith is not arrived at rationally. I agree. You have no sufficient evidence for your belief. This discussion should be over, we have come to an agreement.

...I think you and I have different ideas/definitions as to what some of these epistemic notions amount to or as to how they apply in the case of attaining a mental state of "Christian faith." For instance, while I would say that it takes more than the use of human rational capacities to find faith, this isn't to say that some portion of the overall process doesn't involve the use of the ol' noggin. On a second front, I think there is subjective ambiguity in the concept of "sufficient" as a determiner of having proper evidence. Of course, there's also the semantic problems involved in determining just exactly what evidence is and should be in the case of the Christian faith. As a Philosophical Hermeneuticist, I'd think our prior interpretations about Scripture and our derived expectations from these could also play some role in how we come to think about what "sufficient evidence" should be in relation to faith.

Anyway, it doesn't look like we're ending up talking about Pascal after all; and furthermore, we're intruding here on an Ethics and Morality forum, so perhaps it would be better to discuss this elsewhere?

 

[Kylie]

thanks for the debate. I can clearly see you have no ammunition left, and have resorted to mocking what you don't understand. I get it. But it just makes me realize that you are done with this topic. Thanks again, let me know if I can help in any other way.

Hasn't been a debate for some time. Just you making assertions and proposing fan theories with not a single shred of evidence to support what you've been claiming.

 

[Skreeper]

sure, a soul is the life force of the body. The immaterial object that contains our personality.

The thing that contains our personality is called the brain. That's why the personality of a person can drastically change if the brain gets damaged or altered.

This is direct evidence that our personality is an emerged property of the brain and not part of some magical immaterial soul.

 

[createdtoworship]

No. feel free to actually respond to what I said though. You said yourself that you believe things without sufficient evidence or irrationally. I was just restating what you already said.

we all believe things by faith, nearly all facts are unprovable, science...unverifiable and uprovable, nothing is for certain. So yes, he uses faith. But we all do. Science does. Think about it this way, when they make a scientific hypothesis, they write down their observations and conclusions to their tests, how do you know they did it accurately? How do you know they were not fudging the numbers to make the report look better? How do you know they didn't lie? You don't. You just take their word for it. Even peer reviews, they are screened by a group of people. How do you know they are not biased? How do you know they peer review it accurately, and how do you know that if one person out of five that didn't like it, wouldn't change his mind to agree with the others? You don't. So again, we all have faith. It's just that Christians are the only ones who admit it in these forums.

 

[createdtoworship]

The thing that contains our personality is called the brain. That's why the personality of a person can drastically change if the brain gets damaged or altered.

This is direct evidence that our personality is an emerged property of the brain and not part of some magical immaterial soul.

the brain is the hardware. The soul is the software. If a computer is damaged the software cannot repair the computer mechanically, that's not it's job. But it's still a hardware problem not a software problem. Your illustration is like me taking a bat to my monitor, and blaming windows 10 because the login screen didn't come up.

 

[createdtoworship]

Hasn't been a debate for some time. Just you making assertions and proposing fan theories with not a single shred of evidence to support what you've been claiming.

Kylie I have been mentioning circumstantial evidence all of this time. See our souls are massless, therefore if they are to be judged logically, then it should be an eternal judgement. Because the soul is eternal because according to relativity time is critically tied to mass. Now this explains most of the eternality of hell. But there is a slight twist that needs to be made to this theory. That is that when we are resurrected and glorified and sent to Hell for our judgement, that our physical bodies are sent there too. So they have mass. So then they would not be able to be in a timelessness according to general relitivity at least. But I personally believe that beings in higher dimensions can come into our existence upon demand, and leave upon demand. Manifesting and dematerializing at will. And for this theory I compare 2D beings to 3D beings. See if you have a piece of paper with stick figures on it, you can start drawing another stick figure next to him, and to him, who only sees in 2D, that stick figure is coming out of nothing. You can draw a 2 dimensional house plan. And you can draw a stick figure in a locked house, behind closed doors. Because you have the extra dimension you have the freedom to create miracles in a 2D world. I think angels and demons, and ultimately our glorified bodies one day, will be in a higher dimension, and can do the same sort of miracles in a 3D world, that 3D beings could do in a 2D world. It's simply by adding a dimensional aspect to them. Time affects all mass, but if you are beyond the time domain, you have ability to go to the past or future in time, or to go to no time at all. That doesn't make sense to a 3D being, because we are bound by time, it is in a higher dimension that we are, so we are bound by it's affects. Just like a piece of paper is bound to your desk, until a 3D being or some outside force moves it. I wanted you to watch Dr quantum on youtube, and his video called flat lander. But I explained most of it. So anyway, I don't have proof of eternal hell, but it is the theory that makes most logical sense. You however don't have a theory at all that you are willing to debate. So I guess I can part ways, believing something is better than nothing.

 

[gaara4158]

Kylie I have been mentioning circumstantial evidence all of this time. See our souls are massless, therefore if they are to be judged logically, then it should be an eternal judgement. Because the soul is eternal because according to relativity time is critically tied to mass. Now this explains most of the eternality of hell. But there is a slight twist that needs to be made to this theory. That is that when we are resurrected and glorified and sent to Hell for our judgement, that our physical bodies are sent there too. So they have mass. So then they would not be able to be in a timelessness according to general relitivity at least. But I personally believe that beings in higher dimensions can come into our existence upon demand, and leave upon demand. Manifesting and dematerializing at will. And for this theory I compare 2D beings to 3D beings. See if you have a piece of paper with stick figures on it, you can start drawing another stick figure next to him, and to him, who only sees in 2D, that stick figure is coming out of nothing. You can draw a 2 dimensional house plan. And you can draw a stick figure in a locked house, behind closed doors. Because you have the extra dimension you have the freedom to create miracles in a 2D world. I think angels and demons, and ultimately our glorified bodies one day, will be in a higher dimension, and can do the same sort of miracles in a 3D world, that 3D beings could do in a 2D world. It's simply by adding a dimensional aspect to them. Time affects all mass, but if you are beyond the time domain, you have ability to go to the past or future in time, or to go to no time at all. That doesn't make sense to a 3D being, because we are bound by time, it is in a higher dimension that we are, so we are bound by it's affects. Just like a piece of paper is bound to your desk, until a 3D being or some outside force moves it. I wanted you to watch Dr quantum on youtube, and his video called flat lander. But I explained most of it. So anyway, I don't have proof of eternal hell, but it is the theory that makes most logical sense. You however don't have a theory at all that you are willing to debate. So I guess I can part ways, believing something is better than nothing.

lol

 

[Skreeper]

the brain is the hardware. The soul is the software. If a computer is damaged the software cannot repair the computer mechanically, that's not it's job. But it's still a hardware problem not a software problem. Your illustration is like me taking a bat to my monitor, and blaming windows 10 because the login screen didn't come up.

If you want to provide evidence for a soul then by all means go ahead.

I just gave evidence that confirms that our personality seems to be tied to our brain. No brain, no personality.

If you want to claim that our personality is actually inside a magical soul than I would love to know how that would work considering all available evidence seems to point to it simply being a property of our brain.

 

[createdtoworship]

lol

I can see that what I said confused you. Just ask me questions about it, don't belittle and mock what you don't understand. Especially when you are in a forum where christian principles are practiced. You should be ashamed of yourself for how you are acting.

 

[gaara4158]

I can see that what I said confused you. Just ask me questions about it, don't belittle and mock what you don't understand. Especially when you are in a forum where christian principles are practiced. You should be ashamed of yourself for how you are acting.

I will not take your nonsense seriously if it’s something we’ve already been through, which this is. You usually bail out or lose track of our conversations whenever I engage you seriously, so this is what you’ll be getting from now on. If you have something new to put forward, by all means let’s discuss it, but I think I’ve seen all you have to offer.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

...I think you and I have different ideas/definitions as to what some of these epistemic notions amount to or as to how they apply in the case of attaining a mental state of "Christian faith." For instance, while I would say that it takes more than the use of human rational capacities to find faith, this isn't to say that some portion of the overall process doesn't involve the use of the ol' noggin.

But yet you still need faith right?

On a second front, I think there is subjective ambiguity in the concept of "sufficient" as a determiner of having proper evidence.

Yes "sufficient" is subjective. What evidence people accept is different for each person. This is why we have hung juries. We don't get to choose what we believe, either we are convinced or we are not of anything. Each person gets to decide what is sufficient for them. However, it is how we come to determine what sufficient is can be discussed and can change for each person throughout their life. I was convinced that god existed for a long time, I no longer do after studying epistemology etc.

Anyway, it doesn't look like we're ending up talking about Pascal after all; and furthermore, we're intruding here on an Ethics and Morality forum, so perhaps it would be better to discuss this elsewhere?

If it needs to be moved I am fine with that.