Quote:
Originally Posted by Skepticologist 
That's easy, with the caveat that individuals' conceptions of good and evil will vary with their own particular experiences. Those experiences include observations of the results of a wide range of behaviors. Certain behaviors produce positive (good), or at worst benign, results; other behaviors produce negative (evil) results.
With regard to deduction, the syllogism goes something like this: (A) When an individual engages in X behavior, Y is the result; (B) Y result is negative (bad, or evil); (C) therefore, X behavior is evil.
|
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to cross-examine this, I must admit however, that this was done much better than I expected. Let me plug this syllogism in to an example, and I'd like if you didn't just complain and actually refute or affirm it.
When Mike was (A)driving his motorcycle, he lost control of his bike; Although he wasn't hurt, a 12 year old bystander was (B) killed instantly. Mike realizes if he never (A) rode his motorcycle, the little girl would still be alive; therefore (C) he never rides a motorcycle again for fear of (B)killing another person.
By this logic, can we say that riding motorcycles are evil because of unpredictable freak accidents? No you say? Prove it.
With regard to your stance of perception with this statement "conceptions of good and evil will vary with their own particular experiences", are you indirectly asserting that there are no absolute morals, and that morality is general based on perceptions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skepticologist You're right. It's impossible. My inductive logic demands that any premises I accept be based on either my personal experience or on scientific observations. |
No surprise here. yet another irrational empiricist is born.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skepticologist And I'd encourage you to back away from the philosophical jargon you've adopted and think for yourself. |
Right. In other words 'Can you stop talking empiricist, because the empiricist can't understand you.'
I do and I will think for myself, I thought you knew that already or did you miss the part where I said "I used to be an atheist"?
I would advise you to take your own advise and stop clinging that which has long been dead. I'm not an elitist by any standard, but you would think that after the likes of myself, Russell, Hume, Popper, Salmon and even you disproving the rational use of empiricism would be enough to dissuade you. But then again, I had no intentions of futily reasoning with an irrational man in the first place.
It's thinking for my self that has convinced me that empiricism is foolishness, because it relies solely on the experience of a person; no man has done everything that can be done, what is true yesterday for man doesn't make it true presently. Take for example a tomato. Through empiricism, I can casually observe it through sight and smell, but I can't however know how many seeds are in it by looking at the surface, I have to experiment. After experimenting, we figure there are 20 seed; we could hastily generalize tomatoes and say there are 20 seeds in all tomatoes, but in order to verify it we have to experiment. We pick every tomato out of the field, and shockingly all of them have 20 seeds (unrealistic, but for the sake of argument); we still need to experiment on all the types of tomatoes to verify. No doubt that at this point the argument is inconclusive, So we conduct and experiment for clarity, another to compare the amount of seeds in similar fruit, and another and another. The bottomline is no matter how much knowledge can be found through observation, there is ample that is not considered and no matter how much information is sorted, any statement given including the information, will also include the statement "I don't know". Consider God my friend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skepticologist There's nothing wrong with reading Russell and Hume. But their writings should be considered as input to your own personal thinking vs. being adopted as the whole of your own personal thinking. |
Actually I don't give a fig newton what these men have to say, the fact that these men are scholars and represent your own worldview should be more important to you than me because it's irrational. I never claimed to be or use empiricism, although I used to alot when I was an atheist. Atheist and Agnostics alike both try to use empiricism as a means for scaring christians away for lack of "scientific verification". What cowardice, as I've just demonstrated, most haven't the slightest clue about empiricism anyway. Sheep.
I'm done with this forum, I would like to thank you all for your hospitality and for interacting with me; you all have played a great part in strengthening my walk with Christ, and have brought glory to the Lord through folly. I would also like to thank my God, Jesus the Christ for being the truth by whom all things are made and The Holy Spirit for His reassurance and guidance.
2 Chronicles 1:10-12
Quote:
Give me wisdom and knowledge, that I may lead this people, for who is able to govern this great people of yours?"
God said to Solomon, "Since this is your heart's desire and you have not asked for wealth, riches or honor, nor for the death of your enemies, and since you have not asked for a long life but for wisdom and knowledge to govern my people over whom I have made you king, therefore wisdom and knowledge will be given you. And I will also give you wealth, riches and honor, such as no king who was before you ever had and none after you will have."
|
Linear Mode
