Nash Edgerton
Junior Member
- Jun 7, 2017
- 9
- 1
- 6
Why does your epistemic state carry greater weight than that of billions of other people?Well I don't believe in the god. So He did not create this world. The end.
Why does your epistemic state carry greater weight than that of billions of other people?
There literally can’t be - by definition.Almost invariably, all discussions about "what was before God?" or "what happened before the big bang?" are based upon fundamentally flawed notions regarding the nature of time. There is no before time. There doesn't need to be a before time.
We would suffocate.What if we were in a car on a treadmill in a vacuum of space inside a fish bowl?
I'm not sure there's an after life, even if I knew for sure there wasn't, I wouldn't change a thing.It is kind of dissapointing that people believe as they do because they expect to get a reward in the afterlife.
Nothing of being a good person while actually being alive because it is the good thing to do. No, because god is watching and you may be deprived of your ticket to heaven.
Or you think your doing gods bidding and are convinced to get a reward and expect to be rewarded.
Hurting other lifeforms in the process.
I'm not sure there's an after life, even if I knew for sure there wasn't, I wouldn't change a thing.
I'm thoroughly convinced that if there is an entirety, it exists in every moment. So I follow my path because it is what gives me the greatest care for others, and love for my self.
Simply said: I seek to be good and godly for its own sake.
Makes sense to me.Anyone should be able to respect that but to many people it's unacceptable and you have no concept of good and bad, only God does.
I agree with you though, we know what good and bad is inherently and it's only through outside means that we can give up our inherent knowledge.
It makes me a bit happy that there are people who put thought into this and decided to be good according to their own inherent knowledge of good and bad without considering ramifications that they cannot be sure are even possible.
Or, to simplify, being good for the sake of being good is what is good.
Makes sense to me.
Now how can we keep this idea and the mouth breathers from taking my shit?
So what process turns moral compas us away from ethical true north?We can't. We can propose it as a philosophical suggestion and frame a logical argument around it if we want to but as an empiricist I would find it a waste of time.
We could show that empathy exists and is an inherent function of humans which we have done, we could argue that empathy IS an inherent sense of good as it is literally allowing us to understand pain that happens to others as if it was happening to ourselves.
We could then deduce that we are all inherently good AND bad but that we all know what is good and bad without any external source required.
Empirically evidenced and no one can dispute it outside of argumentum ad ignoratiam suggestions.
Unfortunately that is exactly what religion is all about.
So what process turns moral compas us away from ethical true north?
What’s your field?
I can tell by the narrative, and having heard a number of fairy tales in my time.You know this how?
How noble of you!!I'm not sure there's an after life, even if I knew for sure there wasn't, I wouldn't change a thing.
I'm thoroughly convinced that if there is an enernity, it exists in every moment. So I follow my path because it is what gives me the greatest care for others, and love for my self.
Simply said: I seek to be good and godly for its own sake.
Well I myself go with using empathy and considering wither or not my actions and behavior is either beneficial or harmful to myself and others.We can't. We can propose it as a philosophical suggestion and frame a logical argument around it if we want to but as an empiricist I would find it a waste of time.
We could show that empathy exists and is an inherent function of humans which we have done, we could argue that empathy IS an inherent sense of good as it is literally allowing us to understand pain that happens to others as if it was happening to ourselves.
We could then deduce that we are all inherently good AND bad but that we all know what is good and bad without any external source required.
Empirically evidenced and no one can dispute it outside of argumentum ad ignoratiam suggestions.
Unfortunately that is exactly what religion is all about.
The text doesn't say that, it says in Genesis 1:
" In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
So in the beginning there was God and God created everything.
And it is entirely un-equivocal in John 1:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
Job is older. And John, like Genesis, starts with creation.
If god were smart, he would've made a much more convincing argument by sharing knowledge which could only be obtained through divinity.