Anon Anonymous

Classical conservative realist.
Mind-independent truths, Objective moral order, Human nature, Logos & mythos, Hierarchy, Rights ordered within duties.

[Anon Anonymous @AnonAnonymale]

@mizanthropie Hello Pontus! or should I say Nietzsche incarnate! :) :)

For starters, I wanna know this: Did you reason your way to the conclusion that reason is to be preferred only coz it enhances power?

[Anon Anonymous @AnonAnonymale]

@1Quetzalcoatl1 @McClureShawn How does he get sound logic from matter?

[Anon Anonymous @AnonAnonymale]

@DavidCamham1 @AndyWoo13649715 @McClureShawn Very good! that's huge progress.

You went from "it breaks the laws of physics" to "interventions from a supernatural being" in under 3 hours.

Keep going, and you'll see why they aren't the same thing.

[Anon Anonymous @AnonAnonymale]

@1Quetzalcoatl1 @McClureShawn If you are some of platonic atheist, that's fine. I might not have much to say as such.

I included materialism because of Richard Lewontin's quote which started this string of texts.

[Anon Anonymous @AnonAnonymale]

Atheism/materialism, while it is the rejection of a claim at a surface level, it does have many entailments. One has to think through those.
Materialism for instance --- can't get norms from matter. But they use norms all the time. That's an inconsistency.

My personal position is that of Deism (approximately).

[Anon Anonymous @AnonAnonymale]

I'll paste what I said in the other message.

Look it up. There's a difference between these two ideas.

1) God breaks the laws of physics.
2) God intervenes while keeping the laws of physics intact.

Neither one is mundane. Most people think miracles are (1). I did too. But it's not.

Most philosophers go with (2).

[Anon Anonymous @AnonAnonymale]

Yes, that's attributed to Einstein.
But he also said this: "Everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler."

Of course, there's no obligation.

About the miracle thing, I say it again: Look it up. There's a difference between these two ideas.

1) God breaks the laws of physics.
2) God intervenes while keeping the laws of physics intact.

If you don't want to, that's fine too. Like I said it's easier.

[Anon Anonymous @AnonAnonymale]

@YouKneelToZod @1Quetzalcoatl1 @McClureShawn True

[Anon Anonymous @AnonAnonymale]

@1Quetzalcoatl1 @McClureShawn I am not a full theist.

I agree with your (1) and (2).

To your (3) -- there are some theistic worldviews that are consistent. More consistent than materialism/atheism.

[Anon Anonymous @AnonAnonymale]

@DoctorWorm93 @McClureShawn Well, I hope you have a definitive demonstration of the "should" principle that you just made to yourself.

[Anon Anonymous @AnonAnonymale]

@1Quetzalcoatl1 @McClureShawn That's very good!
I'll lay my cards on the table. My intention was to goad atheists (materialists actually) into thinking how they get these "norms" and "principles" from material stuff.
That's why I was being pedantic.

[Anon Anonymous @AnonAnonymale]

@DavidCamham1 @McClureShawn Like I said, it's the beginning of epistemology. It will take a while. We can move this conversation to a private chat exchange if you wish. Let me know. I don't want to do it here. This interface isn't conducive.

[Anon Anonymous @AnonAnonymale]

You said miracles break the laws of physics.
That's false.
If you have the time and the inclination, read more, try to understand what the theists claim. Try to understand what they mean by "intervention".

Alternatively, you can dismiss what I wrote as nonsense. It's the simpler route.

[Anon Anonymous @AnonAnonymale]

@1Quetzalcoatl1 @McClureShawn Any definitive demonstration of your claim that it works for ontological claims but not for epistemological norms?

[Anon Anonymous @AnonAnonymale]

No it doesn't.

This isn't a perfect analogy, but bear with me.
Bodies left unsuspended fall towards the centre of the earth.
But a helicopter stays in the air. Did the helicopter break the laws of physics? No it didn't. It used another law of physics to counteract the effects of gravity.

Theists do not claim that miracles break the laws of physics. They are saying that God intervenes. That's a different claim. If this God really created everything, he can, so to speak, intervene -- just like how you can put your hand out and catch a falling ball (which should've hit the ground if you didn't intervene).

Miracles are something like that. Intervention doesn't mean laws of physics are broken.

[Anon Anonymous @AnonAnonymale]

Very good question! My point was that without a deep dive into epistemology (like you just started), and tackling hard questions such as 'what counts as proof/evidence/warrant for belief' etc, merely discarding all theists' claims does no good.
(By the way, I am not a full theist myself).

[Anon Anonymous @AnonAnonymale]

@Sport76586 @McClureShawn Some pic with some words in them. Definitively not definitive demonstration!

[Anon Anonymous @AnonAnonymale]

@DavidCamham1 @AndyWoo13649715 @McClureShawn No they don't. Read more.

[Anon Anonymous @AnonAnonymale]

@DavidCamham1 @McClureShawn Nope. That's not enough indication for me. Didn't you hear? I want "definitive demonstration"!

[Anon Anonymous @AnonAnonymale]

@DoctorWorm93 @McClureShawn Can you definitively demonstrate the existence of the standard by which you judged that "it's probably not a good sign...."?