All those names represent a self-same thing which we can only define in a riddle, or in an irrational, incomplete set of characters. Yet the thing is ratio itself.
If we presume an omnipotent God - would he be able to alter that ratio? If so, would a circle be still a circle? Could he alter the ratio between its diameter and circumference while not altering the circle?
^ on the note of beards...
I too think the nature of reality is impossible for us to grasp intuitively. Even a lot of concepts that do seem natural to us most likely 'work' differently than we perceive them. This is why we have science and math, to map out what is and not what we experience (even if that distinction really cannot be made of course).
That remains the "magic" in the middle which is likened to God or Cosmic Force or Chi,... until the mechanism is known...it remains unknown.
I agree it's a leap of faith for all of us to believe in something, regardless of whether you put your faith in science or religion, but to reject logic and rationality would be to reject everything we see and think and feel. Pi is just a number to us and we don't try to call it 'intelligent' or 'good' or claim it chills in the clouds with a white beard. That is not rational. Using God as a shortcut to "something we cannot comprehend" is fine, but claiming he has a beard is not.
Not a question of "faith" in science...but observation and testing the system...
Philosophers and drug addicts are uncomfortable with unknowns...so...delusions and stories allow many to sleep deeper.
leon14 stated: source post
In white countries white feminists and liberals etc yell and scream about white men who might be oppressing white women with male/cis/whatever privilage and patriarchy fascism and so on. But when non white mud men do these things to white women and children nothing is said.... why?
That's not an argument against moral relativism. It's an example of how interests and morals being relative can cause disputes.
Inquirer stated: source post
I agree that this is a major problem for moral/cultural relativists. They need to be more consistent with their critique. And I don't think they come across as sociopaths, just people ignorant of the wider perspective and there are lots of those in the world.
This specific problem would be solved by moral absolutism in my opinion (treat everyone the same way) but it'd struggle with any issue where circumstances are important. And how do we actually know what absolute morals are, as all sources of morality are open to human interpretation?
As in most cases, I'm a fan of a point in between the two extremes.
What does that look like in this instance?
Spatial Mind stated: source post
What we call morality in any language or expression, is NOT a human invention. Even dogs have a sense of morality Inq.
No one said (as far as I can remember) that humans invented morality. Rather (with rare exception), humans have an innate tendency to be moral. They assimilate their moral codes from those around them, or from ideologies. And some form their own moralities.
There are moralities of all sorts with different conceptions of ethical living. No moral code is inherently more "right" than any other, because there is no objective standard for "right" and "wrong." Moral relativism is simply a term for what I am describing.
Spatial Mind stated: source post
Charles Darwin, was a theist, and it's his theories "you have faith" in. They still never found the missing link, and they never will.
That's an "appeal to authority." Just because an authority has an opinion on something does not make that thing any more or less true...
Spatial Mind stated: source post
But it is intelligent.
So what's the deal with children being born with Down's Syndrome or anencephaly? Or genetic diseases? The human body seems rather balanced on a razor's edge for something so intelligently designed.
Inquirer stated: source post
Spatial Mind stated: source post
Oh so I'm responsible for your intake of information now ?
I told you plain and simple, the American dream is based on the opportunity to work and do well for one self.
Get on my level, then we'll be pages ahead instead of being stuck on you trying to solve the mystery of definitions and meanings of simplistic terms.
There are rankings and indexes that measure that sort of thing. Link me one or I'll consider your claim untrue.
Child of Sweden. You're displaying a spoiled behavior which is also associated with lesser awareness.
Spatial Mind stated: source post
Morality doesn't revolve around being self centered, while relative morality does.
It's fine to tolerate people's bullshit, however there are limits to that.
Relative morality IS the very thing you theorize about "hypocritical absolute morality", which has no static foundation, It's counterfeit morality. It's us and not them, or me and not you. Relative morality is willing to change to suit itself, while morality remains the same. There is no hypocrisy in morality.
Relative morality just means you you acknowledge morality can be flexible depending on circumstance. It can still have boundaries, and if you disregard them you're 'betraying' that system of morals, same as if it'd be absolute morality. I've explained this several times.
False. Moral relativism is based on personal opinion. One of it's characteristics is that 2 people are free to oppose and debate what is moral for the sake of democracy. That's why this kind of flexibility is highly prone to error. Morality on the other hand holds more consideration for what is true, as opposed to varying degrees of excused selfishness.
Spatial Mind stated: source post
I told you the first time, and I'll put it another way for a 3rd time. You can't see it. You're desensitized.
- Violence and other acts of immorality is used to entertain us, we are entertained by it.
- For what we enjoy in entertainment to happen to us, will traumatize us.
There's the effects you've been looking for. Very subtle, but over time, less considerate. We're not immoral in our entirety. We already know the next generation will out due us at everything we do, including the bullshit, as we've been outdoing our predecessors at everyhting.
I enjoy murder mysteries but that does not mean I enjoy murder in real life. Desensitization is a thing, I agree, but its effects are difficult to determine. Yet you use this as an argument against humanity undergoing a positive moral evolution overall, which I find to be absurd. We're not as moral as we'd like and pretend to be, perhaps, but I don't think you can deny we're inching forward in the right direction.
It's just a point I made and after the 3rd time you get it and agree, I did say the first time you wouldn't notice it. Now you say I'm arguing it but it was you who forced me to revisit it over and over again, while I already said not everyone is immoral.
Too much entertainment is bad for you.
Spatial Mind stated: source post
But it is intelligent.
bla bla bla
No matter how long you stare into nothingness, you will NEVER find any produce. No ideas, no mistakes, no movement, no coincidence, and no masterpieces.
That is a false dichotomy. Intelligence is not the opposite of nothingness, so I'm not limited to either of them. There's obviously something 'out there' since we (and stuff) exist but it does not have to be intelligent.
How is that false ? Intelligence is "something" too, and I never said intelligence was the complete opposite of nothing, though it can be argued how all things oppose nothing.
Does the force behind this creation have to be intelligent ? It's absolutely without a doubt is more ingenious than we are. We're not making living breathing creatures, or designing them, there are countless species out there. We who are conscious and proclaim intelligence believe we do not get something from nothing.
"If" there's no intelligence in creation, then this would be of nothing. You already know we don't get something out of nothing, the theorized big bang is no exception to the rule.
It has to be vastly intelligent, otherwise intelligence as you know it couldn't and wouldn't exist.
