hmm, this is really supposed to be on a different stack exchange :)

Ooops.

do we care?

There aren't supposed to be totally off topic chats.

I can't do anything about it now, so no worries.

Someone will just delete it at some point :)

alrighty

So, I feel that you said something mighty unusual.

:o

what specifically?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you affirmed there's nothing ultimately right or wrong, there are only things right and wrong to you (and others as well), and this is due to the brain's processing of information it has received and then has imposed this sense on to you, so that you must respond accordingly?

Does that correctly summarize the conversation so far?

seems accurate

I call shenanigans :)

Do you agree that the human mind is quite intelligent?

I do

going back to your summary though, processing of information isn't as simple as a computer would

So, it seems that you're affirming that this incredibly intelligent brain of yours has calculated the fact that there is no actual morality and imposed this view on your conscious mind, but then within that same brain, enforced a sense of this knowingly false concept into your behavior, in such a way that you must abide it. I mean, you're admittedly living a lie. I can't reconcile a brain being intelligent while implementing knowingly wrong information into its routine.

I can see how you might argue that it doesn't matter if the brain does dumb things - it just it what it is.

However, where's the evidence for that?

and why would you use that evidence anyway, even if there was?

there is no absolute moral given by default to any human

how do you know that?

I watch the news

children can be raised to do anything

How do you know that?

but even if it wasn't so, you still have what your body and mind impose on you

How do you know that? :)

pain is real and almost anyone would wish to avoid it

This kinda goes on until you give me a foundation to work from. You can't start with facts until you defend there are such things and they have any kind of significance.

connecting to other humans and emotional joy or pain is also real and a result of evolution

Is evolution true?

the basis of evolution is fact

Why do facts matter?

they allow deduction and conclusion

why should anyone deduce or conclude anything?

interesting question, I have no real answer

first thing that comes to mind is staying alive

Why should you stay alive rather than die?

many if not all animals makes some kind of reasoning to survive

That doesn't mean they should.

but it does

Why?

because survival brought their species this far

if there was no need to survive, they and us would not be here

Why does it matter if species get this far?

it doesn't

why does it matter if we're here?

it doesn't

buggy chat

Interesting that you were so quick to say "but it does" a moment ago.

that's not fair :P

they should survive because their instincts are built on it

What's wrong with not being fair?

but it hardly matters

So, it's wrong if I kill them because they don't want to do?

Says who or what?

Why does it matter what something/one wants?

it matters to them else they wouldn't want it

I'm asking why it matters to you.

it doesn't

I think :P

Of course, the same argument applies anyway, who says they should care about what they want, or are entitled to have such wants?

Moreover, how do you determine that you should be "thinking" what you think rather than what I think?

I don't understand the first question

Not only do I find it interesting that your intelligent mind denies a very thing which you claim it also imposes on itself, but you also claim that neither one of us can choose anything apart from what our brains tell us, yet you're implying by being here that your brain which recognizes this issue forced you to come here and debate with another inevitably meaningless brain which also lacks the option to choose.

So whatever result we come to is just as meaningless as the conclusions we had prior to this conversation,

By that reasoning, this is actually detrimental to the well being of both of us, as we could instead spend this time in pursuit of food and sex.

food and sex aren't the only needs though

fun is one too

I do value interaction with other people

You missed my issue ^

perhaps

point it out

though I wasn't done

Your brain as you described it is not an intelligent one, as it affirms the meaninglessness of things, then imposes them on you anyway. You have demonstrated that in two senses.

Oh, my apologies. Continue.

@m59 I do like this sentence though

I always think that religion was born out of the need to overcome the struggle between meaninglessness of living and survival

survival is always a given because without it we wouldn't be here

We can think whatever we wish. I want to know things.

you can always replace "think" with "know" as a lot of people do

I don't.

I think you do

You say that you're guessing, but I don't believe so.

I really, really want you to understand my view of knowledge, but it's kinda funny - if you understood, you'd probably become a follower of Jesus.

"survival is always a given because without it we wouldn't be here"

yeah

do you know how I will respond to that?

you respond to almost everything with "how do you know?" :P

Depends, but I could.

In that case, I think there's a better question.

Why does it matter?

You imply that "being here" has significance.

matter to whom

To you or anyone.

Doesn't matter.

My problem is that you have yet to explain significance in your worldview, yet you refer to it often.

At this point, most people get mad at me (or have been for 20 minutes by now lol) and claim that I'm saying something I'm not.

I believe your life is quite significant and quite significant in your own eyes.

honestly, I'm not sure what you're trying to say

I believe you care about people and love things ,etc.

What I am trying to show you is that none of that can be supported by what you say about yourself and the world.

If it can, please do!

hmm

Recall, you were saying things to the effect of "believing _____ is dumb"

so, you have shown that you find believing some things to be better than believing others.

I never said it's dumb

I'm asking you to give a reason, and I've been asking a while and haven't found it.

perhaps I'm mistaken.

I don't understand it, can't see the use in it, and can't perform it anyway

Let's make this simple.

you are saying that caring and love can't be borne out of anything other than god, right?

that it's not any physical force that can be explained by any physical means

absolutely. err, not inevitably, at least.

I'd have to think deeply on some semantics when you say "explained". I mean, maybe on some reason. Notice you'd explained a lot of things, but when I question the origins, they end up being without foundation or circular.

such as?

So, I say inevitably, logic, induction (uniformity of nature), and morality (should/should not) must be founded on a being which has infinite knowledge and power and has revealed them to us.

Such as every question I asked.

I'd be glad to give it another go, if you'd like.

And please don't think me to be arrogant as many people do. I believe we both want to know how to live the best we can and do the best we can in this world.

the only reason I can give for that is God and no one has ever given me a shred of reason elsewhere.

So, I stand on what I must.

why do you assume I want to live the best I can and do the best I can?

Also, I was an atheist until I was 19, so it's not like I think this way because I was raised to. I was convinced by evidence, though I now think that our own nature (logic,morals) is much stronger to rest on.

that's very much not true for a great many people and I can't even be sure about myself

I don't have to assume. There's plenty to discuss there and I suppose I should just drop that subject.

and I don't think you're arrogant :P I don't get mad because I don't have a view set in stone

You bear God's image and have no choice but to have an innate desire for moral and intellectual excellence.

Unfortunately, sin destroys that to various degrees in everyone.

Thus, our natures are quite conflicted on the subject.

but tell me this

why can't it be the result of evolution and survival?

intellect and morality lend to that end

I hope you can understand this, but I can't discuss that with you.

can you really fathom the effect of millions of years on an organism?

hmm, why not :\

Unfortunately, my fundamental understanding of knowledge makes it impossible for us to connect on those subjects.

We would end up in an infinite regress as we were previously.

So, it's totally pointless.

what is your fundamental understanding of knowledge?

That all knowledge rests on a presupposition.

You must assume A in order to know B.

I've been trying to demonstrate this since the beginning of our conversation.

It usually actually takes a long time for people to understand it.

but I've given you those presuppositions that pertain to a different line of thought

Unless you're a philosophy student at least :)

Give me your most basic presupposition.

What must be true in order for anything you say to be true?

the physical world

cause and effect

"ntellect and morality lend to that end"

Ok, so cause and effect affirm that statement? ^

I can see what you mean.

yes, that's what I'm trying to say

Now, how do you determine so?

I think the problem is that a human only lives so long while the human race has been around for 200,000 years and its predecessors for millions of years

So long as you won't take offense, I believe I can help you answer that... you'd just have to trust that I'm not trying to trick you into my conclusion..

But why do you think that?

it is a conclusion that appeals to me, but I don't pretend it's true just because of that

How did you conclude?

What do you use for such deducing?

my brain

What in your brain? What activity?

Would you say "logic"? (sorry for cheating, but I'm quite sure you would say so)

I guess, but no one really knows how the brain works

not to that extent

Then how can you possibly know anything you've said so far to be at all true or even a good idea to believe?

remember, I said I don't do "believing" :P

I see no reason not to consider it an option

Then what do you do?

scratch that

and through the multitude of options available, I conclude that I should just drop the whole issue and live my life

You're doing the same inescapable thing

Is what you just said true?

Because you're trying to affirm that it isn't!

wat

There are always three choices (and this is due to the logical laws)

affirm, deny, or claim aribitrarity.

You just claimed arbitrarity - but that itself is just an abstraction for affirming that claiming arbitrarity is the correct response to moral issues, and thus is a moral response!

therefore a self-refuting statement and one which no person can in fact hold to.

as with programming, this may have some language barrier, but I'd be glad to continue explaining it where anything may be unclear.

I don't see how it refutes itself

"I conclude that I should just drop the whole issue and live my life"

maybe I'm just waiting for an explanation I can contend with

To summarize the issue you were referring to "can we know things and what actions ought/ought not we engage in"

to which you claimed "I conclude that I should just drop the whole issue and live my life"

The problem is that such a thing is wordplay.

no, that's not what I meant

Then to what were you referring?

and my apologies for misunderstanding.

I talked about the origin of the presuppositions we base our knowledge on

Aye, same problem.

Knowing things.

you say it has to be a higher power, I say that I can imagine it being other things

But do you see, every response you have affirms something

and it affirms something which is contrary to what you're saying.

" I say that I can imagine it being other things" affirms that you "believe" or "think" or "know" (choose whichever you want) that it is acceptable to entertain the thought.

On the basis that you don't just mean "imagine" you mean, that because of your imagining, that there's no need to rest it on God.

but it is your assumption that "believing" or "thinking" or "knowing" have to come from god

So, you could summarize "I believe, think, know (whatever) I don't need to rest my thoughts on God"

Of course, because I can explain things I do and that you do!

So, regarding that statement, how do you determine that imagination is sufficient for reaction?

See how we keep ending up here?

it's easy to come back to God every time you reach a layer of reasoning you can't penetrate

That's not what I'm dong.

It's my hope that you would see that.

And that's kind of what I meant earlier that if you saw it, you'd likely believe what I believe.

I see what you're saying

What I'm saying is that we're both doing that same thing, but God has opened my mind to it.

Try not using logic, induction, and morality.

You can't.

why do they have to come from God?

Because there's literally no possibility for them to exist otherwise.

I don't work my way backward as you assume.

I start with God and work forward.

I don't have the luxury of that initial assumption

On an atheistic worldview, you must start with logic, induction, and morality in order to work forward

Ah, but you do ^

and I don't have a need to know everything at the cost of plausibility

That statement is problematic for you.

How do you know and why should you believe that?

You inevitably used logic, induction, and morality to form it.

but those don't have to come from God

and even if they have to come from something God-like, it doesn't have to be your God, does it?

That's the next subject.

Now, explain how you know logic is reliable, that nature will remain uniform in the future as it has in the past and that you should acknowledge logic.

and to be clear, I can definitely entertain the possibility of a sentient being responsible for all those phenomena

What I'm trying to show you is that there is no choice. If you have one, I'd be glad to hear it.

And I have a strong suspicion you will be hung up on the "claim of arbitrarity" issue.

I think I gave another choice

in evolution/survival

How did you form that choice and why form it rather than something else?

because there's evidence of it

but I know what you're gonna say

do tell :)

> How do you know how to use that evidence?

or something :P

close - Why does evidence matter and why should you use it?

or "what makes evidence valid or relevant"?

how the conclusions it gives you hold up with other evidence

why does that other evidence make any difference?

because you want to make a valid, truthful conclusion

Would you understand how this inevitably gets back to logic, induction, morality?

yes, but the same way you say those have to come from God

How do you determine truth and that it matters?

my senses

How do you determine that your sense are valid for determining truth?

and reasoning (which came from those senses and the functioning brain)

@m59 I treat that as a given

how do you determine that you should use reason, or that it's reliable?

Ahahah!

So, you just believe it because, for really no reason at all (according to you)

because it's there

Who says that "things that are there" should be used?

or that they lead to truth?

they have a benefit to me as an organism

Why does it matter what benefits you?

It makes me continue living, happy, content

How do you determine that you ought to be alive and happy?

being alive and happy leads to survival, and my whole being is based on it because it took that same survival to get me here

How do you know that?

I don't know it, I think it's plausible

What difference does it make if something is plausible?

it gives me more than one option

it allows me to not have a conclusion that God exists

Sounds kinda biased doesn't it?

how so

But, still unfounded - why does having more than one option matter?

it doesn't

I promise, you can't say anything without falling back on logic, induction, and morality.

it just is

of course I can't

I never said I could

Then God just is, so you must believe in Him as well, right?

yes, praise Jesus!

:P

(this isn't my thinking, just using what you said to my advantage)

So, why do you use logic, induction and morality?

Last time I asked the question, you lead back to them and basically said "because logic, induction, and morality"

That's not an answer =D

cv-pls

you just undermine any statement I make with the tools I use to make the statement, and ignore the statement itself

Yes, that's just having a foundation.

If you can't found logic, induction, and morality, you don't get to use them.

why can't I replace the word "God" in anything you say with something else?

On what basis would you do so?

Also, I'm not really interjecting my beliefs (not trying to at the moment, at least)

I'm asking you to account for anything on your worldview.

on the basis that it makes just as much sense to me

Why does it matter what makes sense to you?

> why does it make sense to you?

hehe

close enough :P

And you're going right back to logic, induction and morality

your basis, then, is "I believe in X because X implanted believing in X in me"

Close enough

and X can only be God

errr no it isn't

X must be sufficient for doing so, yes.

I believe in X because X is sufficient for causing belief in X and implanted believing X in me.

and you're saying he implanted it in me as well, even if I don't acknowledge it

Absolutely. May I share some Scripture?

eek

:P

That's all I've been doing this whole time anyway.

trickery!

Romans 1:18

:D

wait wait

but why can't this basic set of rules

be implanted in me by my brain, whose certain abilities are given in its blueprint, combined with what it took for certain groups of humans to survive hundreds of thousands of years?

Right, I get your point, but this is why I said X must be sufficient.

why isn't that sufficient?

So.. give me a sec to formulate =D

you can't really deal with this issue that way.

What you just said, how would you determine it?

I don't have to

How do you know?

I'm the one with the questions, you claim to have the answers

Oh sure, if you'd like to hear what I have to say, that'd be great.

You coulda just asked to begin with, lol.

@m59 but to this, I could refer back to my notion about survival and evolution

Which you know through what means?

I can again refer back to it

the exact same way you do

with God

no, because evolution lacks sufficiency.

how come?

I'm trying to show you by asking.

Evolution gave you a reason to use logic, morality, and induction? How do you know that and why should you believe it?

because it's a means of survival

we've been through this =D

yeah, and if you'd given me something I can work with we would be over it :P

You can't use logic, morality, and induction until you give me a reason they're credible =D

they're credible because they have led to our being here

What did you use to determine that?

A is only true if B is true.

Since you can't give me B (or you give me B and I ask for C) you're saying you really don't know anything.

I know you know things.

You know logic, morality, and induction are true. Universally, absolutely, forever true.

I find it very suspect that your intelligent brain would write computer programs if tomorrow your javascript file could be an elephant.

I have no reason to assume something that has never happened will happen

why?

I don't see why if you can keep getting back to God, I can't get back to something else

show me something sufficient. You haven't asked me necessarily why God is differentiated between anything else.

You're somewhat saying "god" arbitrarily.

why then?

For the sake of this discussion, it makes sense to say "something which logic, morality, and induction can sufficiently be derived from".

sure

and to clarify, I am arguing over what you actually believe.

So, you're claiming there are possibilities, but I haven't heard and sufficient ones.

because you deny their sufficiency

Until some is shown.

Perhaps I'm daft (probably), but all I've seen summarizes to me as "evolution is the foundation because it is"

By that reasoning, I could say you must submit to Jesus as your King because He is.

you say the same about God

I don't.

and I don't even say that

I say it makes some sense

then tell me again

I'll even abstract it

Also, why does it matter if it makes sense? :)

lets say there is an unknown natural process, called X

we don't know what it is, we don't understand it, but it happened over time

it's not evolution

but it's within the laws of physics as we know them or have yet to discovered them

why can't X give you all the things you claim God has given you?

If it fit the definition of God as required by this discussion, then that thing IS God.

The question is "what is sufficient"

what sufficiency is required?

and no natural process can be sufficient (this has been a point of my questioning)

why not?

I suppose the only good answer I know that is that God didn't make it that way.

That sounds like a cop out, but that's because I'm being literal

now who's going in circles :D