How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

[Compassionist]

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong? For example, I think it is wrong to be a herbivore or a carnivore or an omnivore, or a parasite. I think all living things should be autotrophs. I think only autotrophs are good and the rest are evil. However, I am not certain that my thoughts are right. Can herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, and parasites become autotrophs at will? If so, why don't they? If they can't become autotrophs at will, is it really their fault that they are not autotrophs?

[The Tanager]

Philosophy without science is musing.
You can't prove any of your supernatural beliefs. If you could, you would.

We have begun pursuing that in your “Who Made God” thread. That seems a better fit than this thread.

Now, why is philosophy without science musing? Prove your belief.

[boatsnguitars]

Philosophy without science is musing.
You can't prove any of your supernatural beliefs. If you could, you would.

We have begun pursuing that in your “Who Made God” thread. That seems a better fit than this thread.

Now, why is philosophy without science musing? Prove your belief.

It's a self-authenticating claim. I don't need to prove something that is tautologically true.

[Diogenes]

I believe you are confusing 'scientific' with 'historical.' My claim is that there is no competent evidence of the 'resurrection.' This is an historical issue, not necessarily 'scientific.' Historical analysis, like legal analysis, takes a dim view of hearsay from anonymous sources. The science aspect is additional. It suggests reanimation of the dead is a horror movie concept, not a scientific one.

No, I’m not. What did you originally respond to in post 680? This was my quote “No, I’m claiming that there is good evidence of the resurrection, via historical and philosophical reasoning involving physical occurrences.” Your claim is also historical and philosophical. Science doesn’t suggest reanimation of the dead is a horror movie concept, your philosophical stance does. That was my claim here. It is a claim about what kind of claims people are making involving the supposed resurrection of Jesus.

All right, so I assume you have an example from science where a human corpse, dead for three days was brought back to life or 'reanimated.' Are you confusing this...



... with science?

Also, are you suggesting that of all the mythic reanimation/resurrections, your favorite is the ONLY one that actually occurred? I assume, but do not know that you are an atheist in regard to all gods but yours.

[The Tanager]

It's a self-authenticating claim. I don't need to prove something that is tautologically true.

How is it tautologically true? You don’t just get to claim it is.

[The Tanager]

All right, so I assume you have an example from science where a human corpse, dead for three days was brought back to life or 'reanimated.'

Why would I need an example from science? Are you confusing ‘scientific’ with ‘historical’ and ‘philosophical’? Science doesn’t suggest supernatural reanimation of the dead is a horror movie concept, your philosophy does.

Also, are you suggesting that of all the mythic reanimation/resurrections, your favorite is the ONLY one that actually occurred? I assume, but do not know that you are an atheist in regard to all gods but yours.

We can go through the cases for why it is reasonable to consider those to not have historically occurred as well, if you want, since each individual case must be analyzed on its own merits and demerits.

[Diogenes]

All right, so I assume you have an example from science where a human corpse, dead for three days was brought back to life or 'reanimated.'

Why would I need an example from science? Are you confusing ‘scientific’ with ‘historical’ and ‘philosophical’? Science doesn’t suggest supernatural reanimation of the dead is a horror movie concept, your philosophy does.

Also, are you suggesting that of all the mythic reanimation/resurrections, your favorite is the ONLY one that actually occurred? I assume, but do not know that you are an atheist in regard to all gods but yours.

We can go through the cases for why it is reasonable to consider those to not have historically occurred as well, if you want, since each individual case must be analyzed on its own merits and demerits.

You have a very odd view of history if you think there was a global flood, talking asses and snakes, that gods actually told men to kill their children, that fiery chariots fly men up out of the atmosphere, that water is turned to wine without grapes. I suggest you do not have a coherent view of history if you accept as history only the fantastic myths of your religion.
Or do you have a philosophical/historical criterion beside "it's in my favorite book" by which you determine which myths represent history and which are fantasy?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #700]

(b) I hadn’t supported how I think Christianity coherently answers those problems because you told me to table those reasons which, in America (which is where I’m from), means DON’T SHARE THEM RIGHT NOW, and

I was not at first aware of your concern but cottoned on eventually and went over my posts re that and decided that it was most obvious that I was asking you to give support (put it on the table of discussion) and therefore your reasoning appeared to lack honesty re "which use of the phrase" "American or other" I was using. The excuse you used appeared soundly disingenuous and as such, appeared to be a stalling/distraction tactic. A "*Tanagent" as I referred to it, due to this being a tactic you often use to distract from having to support your philosophical claims.

In post 659 you then accused me of going off on a tangent (even though you had responded to that supposed tangent in post 655) and refused to reply to those 5 issues. In post 660, I reiterated my willingness to talk about my five AND your one and in post 661 you doubled down that you just wanted to talk about your one.

Post 661 makes it clear that I am asking you to place your support on the table of discussion.
I quote:

So you claim but are unwilling to show those points. No surprises there Tanager.

If you change your mind, and you are actually able to table anything to support your philosophical claim, - like I said, I will then examine and critique the points if I can, and will do so with more than a sentence of opinion.

But let's go back a couple of posts...

You made it clear that you believed I should "show good faith" that I am "seeking understanding and truth" by responding to all five issues you mentioned BEFORE you would "share what you see as perfectly good solutions to those problems from Christianity."
I asked you if you would you do so, without using my replies as a means of going off on a "*tanagent" and, informed you that IF not, THEN I see no reason why you can't just share this knowledge you claim to have, without my even having to reply to those "five issues" you mentioned.

To that, you replied (rather huffily)

Okay, so it is clear that we can't continue discussing things here.

and accused me of only wanting to focus on what I "deem central".

So, do you want to talk about only what you think should be talked about (me supporting supernaturalism)

No. But I do think it appropriate that anyone making claims for any philosophy should support their claims, rather than not, as this helps those trying to understand the position one is coming from, so without that, how are we to understand your arguments for supernaturalism being a relevant philosophy when you continue to resist offering examples which - in theory - should help in that process. Otherwise what is there to bounce off or critique?

As to those "five key issues" you appear to need answers to before you may then deem it appropriate to place on the table of discussion your support for supernaturalist philosophy.

1. Show that these claims are evidence of Natural Philosophy being true
2. Show that minds have to be physical in order to interact with matter
3. Show that your definition of objective features of reality as being necessarily physical objects is true
4. Show why your explanation of human morality is (a) just about actions and (b) better than my explanation that says morality is more than just about actions.
5. Show that only physical evidence counts as non-empty support for a claim

These issues perhaps stem from your belief in supernaturalist philosophy, in which case they are only "issues" re that, but that is impossible to tell since you have yet to explain your belief in supernaturalist philosophy.
So they have not been shown to be actual "issues". They have simply been label as "issues" by you, for reasons you have not clearly made known.

What they appear to be then, are items of distraction invented in order that you don't have to place support for you supernaturalist beliefs on the table of discussion.

Meantime, I am currently in actual discussion with someone on the subject of Natural Philosophy bridging the void between Materialism and Supernaturalism (philosophies) Re: Does a supernatural universe have to exist to explain why the natural universe exists? and am thinking of starting a thread in the philosophy sub-forum in order to offer a summary of said philosophy I am developing, which may offer some answers to your "issues" with said Philosophy.

[boatsnguitars]

It's a self-authenticating claim. I don't need to prove something that is tautologically true.

How is it tautologically true? You don’t just get to claim it is.

It is. Think about it. How do you philosophize if you have no ability to test whether reality actually adheres to your thoughts?

Oh, right... Religion....

[The Tanager]

You have a very odd view of history if you think there was a global flood, talking asses and snakes, that gods actually told men to kill their children, that fiery chariots fly men up out of the atmosphere, that water is turned to wine without grapes. I suggest you do not have a coherent view of history if you accept as history only the fantastic myths of your religion.
Or do you have a philosophical/historical criterion beside "it's in my favorite book" by which you determine which myths represent history and which are fantasy?

Why do you think I use “it’s in my favorite book” as a criterion? I would advocate all of the normal historical, scientific, and philosophical criterion for every claim. I’m willing to look at other claims you feel are reasonable, not just ones from my “favorite book”. Talk about and make cases for any you want and I’ll share my thoughts.

Now back to the point you didn't respond to: why would I need an example from science? Are you confusing ‘scientific’ with ‘historical’ and ‘philosophical’? Science doesn’t suggest supernatural reanimation of the dead is a horror movie concept, your philosophy does.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #707]

You have made yourself perfectly clear. I have shared my thoughts as well. I don’t see any point in us moving forward in discussion here.