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?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #679]

No, it would not depend on that. No matter what entity we are talking about, it would not be shown to be untrustworthy as a creator or not worthy of worship simply because it exists within some sort of dualistic reality.

I wasn't arguing that.
I was arguing that there is no reason to trust or worship any such being just because it exists in some unproven dualistic reality. There is no more reason for doing so than for trusting and worshiping any being claiming to not be from any supernatural reality and claiming to be the creator.

If there is no way to test the claims, then the best position to hold is one of wait and see.

That is why I was also asking how one is supposed to test something which is untestable - at least while it remains unavailable to any physical examination.

The way Paul advises us to test truth is carefully. Specifically, in 2 Cor 11:14, he is saying truth isn’t judged by the speaker’s prowess or how much money the speaker gets.

So - Paul is simply using a metaphor to explain to the reader not to trust truthfulness comes from those who have a way with words and are well paid. He wasn't meaning for the reader to believe in an actual supposed supernatural entity like the Christian Devil?

That makes sense when such supernatural entities and realms are understood as a means of conveying important advice rather than meant to be taken literally.

Thanks for the heads up.

[The Tanager]

I claim there is no "good evidence of the resurrection," and am curious about what you call "philosophical reasoning involving physical occurrences." I am aware of none.

There is no competent evidence of a resurrection, tho' it is often claimed by various religions as it is a common religious and mythic motif.

Is your claim scientific? Did you run scientific experiments to come to that conclusion? Or did you look at physical evidence (like historical documents), apply other philosophical beliefs you hold, applying logical principles to come to that conclusion. It’s the latter, right? That’s my point. You and I are doing the same thing (which goes beyond physical evidence) to come to our different philosophical (not scientific) conclusions. Even if you are right, you back up my point about how the conclusion we reach is done through philosophy, not just a scientific claim, not just direct physical data.

[The Tanager]

I wasn't arguing that.
I was arguing that there is no reason to trust or worship any such being just because it exists in some unproven dualistic reality. There is no more reason for doing so than for trusting and worshiping any being claiming to not be from any supernatural reality and claiming to be the creator.

Okay, you seemed like you thought you were disagreeing with me, but I wasn’t arguing that one should trust and worship a being just because it exists in some unproven dualistic reality.

If there is no way to test the claims, then the best position to hold is one of wait and see.

That is why I was also asking how one is supposed to test something which is untestable - at least while it remains unavailable to any physical examination.

I agree. But, fortunately, physical examination isn’t the only way to get the truth. We can trust philosophical claims through a combination of data and logic. In fact, we can only trust physical examinations as giving us truth by trusting philosophical claims through a combination of data and logic.

So - Paul is simply using a metaphor to explain to the reader not to trust truthfulness comes from those who have a way with words and are well paid. He wasn't meaning for the reader to believe in an actual supposed supernatural entity like the Christian Devil?

That makes sense when such supernatural entities and realms are understood as a means of conveying important advice rather than meant to be taken literally.

Thanks for the heads up.

No, it’s not a metaphor. He also wasn’t making an argument for the existence of Satan here (assuming his audience already agrees with that belief), but using that belief there as an example of how what seems good isn’t always good.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #683]

He also wasn’t making an argument for the existence of Satan here (assuming his audience already agrees with that belief), but using that belief there as an example of how what seems good isn’t always good.

He was making a claim that the Christian Satan is a supernatural entity who could somehow be mistaken for a good character?
How does one test the character of a supernatural entity if one is unable to verify how rich or well dressed it is?

No, it’s not a metaphor.

It appears to be most useful as a metaphor, but not so much as evidence of supposed supernatural beings who are well dressed, well paid and can look good.

[The Tanager]

He was making a claim that the Christian Satan is a supernatural entity who could somehow be mistaken for a good character?
How does one test the character of a supernatural entity if one is unable to verify how rich or well dressed it is?

Yes. Jewish tradition highlighted Satan's role as a deceiver, often depicting him coming in disguises, just like it tricked Eve (which Paul mentions in v. 3). Evil has to be mistaken for good for anyone to commit it because we only do things we think are good in some way. In chapter 12 Paul gets to what the better test here is. Instead of gaining fame and money from them, Paul spent himself for their good (v. 15), showing his love for them.

It appears to be most useful as a metaphor, but not so much as evidence of supposed supernatural beings who are well dressed, well paid and can look good.

Contextually, it is neither of these things, as I've already supported.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #685]

Contextually, it is neither of these things, as I've already supported.

Where?

[Diogenes]

I claim there is no "good evidence of the resurrection," and am curious about what you call "philosophical reasoning involving physical occurrences." I am aware of none.

There is no competent evidence of a resurrection, tho' it is often claimed by various religions as it is a common religious and mythic motif.

Is your claim scientific? Did you run scientific experiments to come to that conclusion? Or did you look at physical evidence (like historical documents), apply other philosophical beliefs you hold, applying logical principles to come to that conclusion. It’s the latter, right? That’s my point. You and I are doing the same thing (which goes beyond physical evidence) to come to our different philosophical (not scientific) conclusions. Even if you are right, you back up my point about how the conclusion we reach is done through philosophy, not just a scientific claim, not just direct physical data.

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.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #670]

First off, what do you think my claim here has been? I need to know if I need to correct you on that before I then defend my actual claim. (1) That claiming the resurrection actually occurred or that it didn’t occur is a (here is the important bit) philosophical claim built off of historical data or (2) that the resurrection actually occurred?

I believe you are trying to claim #1. We all know the Rez didn't happen, but feel free to imagine it did.

However, the fact that you can call it a philosophical musing that leads you to Belief is pretty absurd.

After all, there is no historical data of a resurrection any more than there being historical data of all the supernatural events ever claimed by humanity. That is to say, none. There is no bona fide, verified instance of ANYTHING supernatural occurring.

So, you are trying to claim a bunch of natural things happened (like people claiming things, making up religions, people dying, people being sad about people being dead, etc.) and that leads to belief that a supernatural event occurred?!?!?!

And the classic line from Religionists is "Well, if my preferred God exists, then it's completely reasonable to believe in the supernatural! Therefore, my belief in God is all the reason I need to accept supernatural things occur."

The problem you have is that you have chosen a religion that requires you to defend a supernatural claim as if it's real.

Yet, you don't have one verified example of the supernatural existing - at all.

And philosophy can't help you there.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #685]

Contextually, it is neither of these things, as I've already supported.

Where?

In previous posts. I’ll say it again, differently.

Paul isn’t trying to prove to his audience that Satan exists, so this isn’t meant to be useful in providing “evidence of supposed supernatural beings who are well dressed, well paid and can look good.” Paul doesn’t even describe supernatural beings in that way. And where are you getting “well dressed” and “look good” from in Paul’s description of the false apostles?

Paul says that since Satan deceives, it is no wonder that Satan’s servants (the false apostles Paul is talking about) also deceive. If Paul thought of it as purely metaphorical, then that connection wouldn’t work.

[The Tanager]

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.