Print

Author Topic: Time doesn't exist  (Read 52727 times)

« Reply #105 on: April 28, 2010, 10:16:27 PM »
(research Buddhism please)

-_-

Good gravy, I was making a point. I know that Buddhists don't assert that Buddha created the universe. I was a religion major for two years for Pete's sake.

I'm basically saying that believing that the god of Christianity created the universe is just as rational as believing that a pink unicorn did. Or Buddha. Or Dwight Eisenhower. Or a llama.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2010, 12:56:32 PM by PaperLuigi »
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

« Reply #106 on: April 29, 2010, 02:10:39 PM »
Or a llama.



Yeah, this discussion has become a game of tennis between two brick walls.
YYur  waYur n beYur you Yur plusYur instYur an Yur Yur whaYur

« Reply #107 on: April 29, 2010, 08:04:16 PM »
You started it.

« Reply #108 on: April 29, 2010, 08:08:58 PM »
I'll admit partial responsibility, but other posts also shifted the focus to an extent.
YYur  waYur n beYur you Yur plusYur instYur an Yur Yur whaYur

« Reply #109 on: April 29, 2010, 08:11:25 PM »
Yes. But we all know where the true evil lies.

« Reply #110 on: April 29, 2010, 08:15:33 PM »
Whatsoever could you possibly mean? That was a meaningful, intelligent contribution to this vivacious discussion.
YYur  waYur n beYur you Yur plusYur instYur an Yur Yur whaYur

Rao

  • Arr! Ay! Oh!
« Reply #111 on: April 29, 2010, 08:28:17 PM »
What's your problem, Cambodian?

CrossEyed7

  • i can make this whatever i want; you're not my dad
« Reply #112 on: April 30, 2010, 07:23:07 AM »
I'm basically saying that believing that the god of Christianity created the universe is just as rational as believing that a pink unicorn did. Or Buddha. Or Dwight Eisenhower. Or a llama.
Not really, since Yahweh (along with some other religions' gods) is described as having a lot of the characteristics you'd expect from a universe-creator -- He is said to transcend time ("Before Abraham was, I am" - John 8:58), space ("Can a man hide himself so I do not see him? Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?" - Jeremiah 23:24), and matter ("God is spirit" - John 4:24, "a spirit does not have flesh and bones" - Luke 24:39; "who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see" - 1 Timothy 6:16). Whether there's empirical evidence is one thing, but the idea of the universe being created by an infinite, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, spacetime-transcending deity like the one described in the Bible certainly makes more rational sense than a mortal llama, inanimate teapot, or dead president doing it. A unicorn maybe, since they at least have some magical powers, but still.
"Oh man, I wish being a part of a Mario fan community was the most embarrassing thing about my life." - Super-Jesse

« Reply #113 on: April 30, 2010, 02:24:55 PM »
No, not a mortal llama. An omnipotent llama.

infinite, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, spacetime-transcending deity

These qualities are undermined by something called the Euthyphro dilemma:

Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God? If it's the former, then morality is arbitrary. If it's the latter, then nothing without god's commands would be right or wrong. We know for a fact, however, that we don't need god's commands to know that stoning gays (which god does command in Leviticus) is morally wrong.

One could take the Thomas Aquinas approach and say that goodness is a part of god's nature, but this still raises the question: why is he good?

having a lot of the characteristics you'd expect from a universe-creator

You automatically assume that these traits define a universe-creator, yet said traits were conceived by natural beings. I thought you said that any attempts by something natural to explain something supernatural would ultimately fail. Am I wrong?
« Last Edit: April 30, 2010, 02:51:20 PM by PaperLuigi »
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

Turtlekid1

  • Tortuga
« Reply #114 on: April 30, 2010, 02:47:39 PM »
Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God? If it's the former, then morality is arbitrary. If it's the latter, then nothing without god's commands would be right or wrong. We know for a fact, however, that we don't need god's commands to know that stoning gays (which god does command in Leviticus) is morally wrong.
No, the latter is right.  What morality do you think exists without God?  Why is stoning gays wrong?  And before someone misconstrues that question as saying that it's okay to kill gay people, let me expound.  Why is anything morally right or wrong without a standard to judge it by?

How about an example.  You have a homosexual homeless person out on the street.  He's obviously contributing nothing to society; he's neither reproducing, thereby ensuring the continued existence of his race; nor is he working to better life for himself or anyone around him.  Is it wrong to kill him?  It's not like anyone would miss him, right?  It's not like society needs him, right?
"It'll say life is sacred and so is death
but death is life and so we move on"

« Reply #115 on: April 30, 2010, 02:56:52 PM »
How about an example.  You have a homosexual homeless person out on the street.  He's obviously contributing nothing to society; he's neither reproducing, thereby ensuring the continued existence of his race; nor is he working to better life for himself or anyone around him.  Is it wrong to kill him?  It's not like anyone would miss him, right?  It's not like society needs him, right?

So what's stopping you?

« Last Edit: April 30, 2010, 03:02:03 PM by PaperLuigi »
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

Turtlekid1

  • Tortuga
« Reply #116 on: April 30, 2010, 03:17:11 PM »
That's not what I asked.  I asked why is it morally wrong?  Not whether it contributes to society.  In my example, the person is a drain on resources; taking from the system without giving back.  So why would it be immoral to kill him?  It doesn't damage society at all; rather, it helps society.  Similarly, is euthanasia wrong?  In most cases, euthanasia would be applied to people that are, like the man in the aforementioned example, a drain on resources, either because of age or birth defects.  Would it be morally wrong to kill them if it doesn't harm society? 

Or: why is stealing wrong?  After all, it's not actually harming the economy of a society as a whole; just... if you'll excuse the oft-uttered phrase, redistributing the wealth?  Why does one man have any more right to riches than another man?

The speaker in that video would like to believe that morals arose from conventions designed to propagate civilization, but that belief cannot possibly apply to all morals, as I said above.
"It'll say life is sacred and so is death
but death is life and so we move on"

« Reply #117 on: April 30, 2010, 03:33:11 PM »
It would be morally wrong to kill said person if he didn't want to die.

It would be morally right to kill said person if he did want to die.
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

Turtlekid1

  • Tortuga
« Reply #118 on: April 30, 2010, 03:35:33 PM »
You haven't answered my original question.  That is, what makes an action inherently right or wrong?  What should it matter if the guy doesn't want to die?  If he's a drain on society, then he needs to die for the greater good.  And if he doesn't understand that, tough darts.

Or is there some other reason it would be wrong?  Is there some sort of sacredness about life that shouldn't be violated on a whim?
« Last Edit: April 30, 2010, 03:41:23 PM by Turtlekid1 »
"It'll say life is sacred and so is death
but death is life and so we move on"

« Reply #119 on: April 30, 2010, 03:55:11 PM »
What should it matter if the guy doesn't want to die?  If he's a drain on society, then he needs to die for the greater good.  And if he doesn't understand that, tough darts.

Utilitarianism is a dead morality. No one sane suggests killing others for the greater good anymore.

What makes an action inherently right or wrong? Look up Kant's categorical imperative. It's basically the golden rule for moral absolutists.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2010, 03:57:49 PM by PaperLuigi »
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

Print