31 May 17
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeWell that's why I said 'curious' . Despite the emoticon, I couldn't find any humour there
I think, by the deployment of an emoticon, we can safely assume he was joking.
I will now spend two hours thinking of some insults of my own. 🙂
(See what i did there? )
Originally posted by sonship"that is all the time I have for now"Here is what I think is really ironic to all this. It's usually the theist who brings up the charge that their worldview provides for intrinsic value, whereas others do not. They're invariably a bit light on the details for how that works,
The theist is a bit light on the details you say. But the theists brings it up more often and not th ...[text shortened]... time I have now.
Your article is being re-read a number of times by me for good comprehension.
Thank god!
31 May 17
Originally posted by dj2beckerThat depends on what you mean by 'intrinsic value'. As per your usual MO, you choose to ask a pointed question instead of substantively addressing any of the points I raised. (It sure explains a lot that, after all, Fetchmyjunk = dj2becker.)
Person A: Life has intrinsic value.
Person B: Life has no intrinsic value.
Who in your opinion is speaking the truth and why?
I've tried to be clear on how I am intending 'intrinsic value', but I'm confident that my usage does not mirror your own. So, you'll need to clarify. You first introduced the term back on page 1, implying that the discussion would benefit from it but providing no clarification of how you intend the term. Please go ahead and clear up this oversight. Then, hopefully, I will understand what you are asking.
31 May 17
Originally posted by sonshipThe vast majority of what you posted here has nothing to do with what I've argued. I'm not sure if your reading comprehension has taken a holiday or what, but I shall not linger on those parts your post.Here is what I think is really ironic to all this. It's usually the theist who brings up the charge that their worldview provides for intrinsic value, whereas others do not. They're invariably a bit light on the details for how that works,
The theist is a bit light on the details you say. But the theists brings it up more often and not th ...[text shortened]... time I have now.
Your article is being re-read a number of times by me for good comprehension.
These parts I address below, however, are relevant.
I think something with instrinsic qualities can have those qualities bestowed upon it.
I think I could say that the portrait of the Mona Lisa has some intrinsic beauty to it.
Of course that intrinsic beauty was bestowed upon it by the creator of the painting.
I am not sure I see a contradiction in saying man is intrinsically precious and that preciousness is bestowed upon man from God.
I think I understand you to be saying once that is claimed the value is no longer intrinsic.
Now if we had no idea who the artist was who created the Mona Lisa we still could recognize that however it came about, it has inherent beauty. .
So you’re apparently so confused about what I've argued that in attempting to rebut my point, you only succeeded in making the point for me. My exact point was that those types of considerations external to the thing in and of itself (such as the etiological particulars of how it came to be) do not matter when it comes to intrinsic properties. Here, you're just making the same point. If the Mona Lisa is intrinsically beautiful, that would still hold even if hypothetically its origins were unknown or radically different. Likewise, if man is intrinsically valuable, that would still hold even if hypothetically our origins were unknown or radically different. Do you get it now? The theist who acknowledges that man is intrinsically valuable and yet hews to the theoretical commitment that our value is merely contingent on our origins from God is being schizophrenic.
If you want to do away with God each of us is not liberated into more value.
We are robbed of any really.
Something of a case in point here. You just got done arguing, with your Mona Lisa analog, that one can divorce the painting and the painter and yet the painting will still retain its intrinsic properties. Somehow, though, you keep insisting we cannot do the same for man and God. Shall we call this schizophrenia on your part? Or just special pleading?
31 May 17
Originally posted by dj2beckerThat's easy.
Person A: Life has intrinsic value.
Person B: Life has no intrinsic value.
Who in your opinion is speaking the truth and why?
I remember from the "Posers & Puzzles" Forum that Person B always tells the truth and person A always lies.
In addition you are allowed to ask one question of them.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
01 Jun 17
Originally posted by LemonJello
My exact point was that those types of considerations external to the thing in and of itself (such as the etiological particulars of how it came to be) do not matter when it comes to intrinsic properties. Here, you're just making the same point. If the Mona Lisa is intrinsically beautiful, that would still hold even if hypothetically its origins were unknown or radically different. Likewise, if man is intrinsically valuable, that would still hold even if hypothetically our origins were unknown or radically different. Do you get it now?
No I don't really get it. That is because "unknown" does not mean non-existent. It just means unknown.
One man says "We don't know who produced this, but it is beautiful."
Another man agrees with its beauty and proposes an artist.
You seem to be saying the second is being schizophrenic.
The way I see it you have two people both admitting that man is valued.
The first says he wants to avoid or ignore giving reasons why.
Maybe he doesn't want to come off as schizophrenic.
The other man also says man is valued and says that is his quality because of God.
You seem to want to jury rig the issue so that is not allowed.
The theist who acknowledges that man is intrinsically valuable and yet hews to the theoretical commitment that our value is merely contingent on our origins from God is being schizophrenic ....
But it sounds to me that you are the one doing the special pleading.
Maybe if you didn't want to start from a default position that God doesn't exist, it might not sound so.
Is it less schizophrenic to believe that value of man is bestowed upon him from within himself ? If you do not want to locate the origin of value in God you have to locate it from someone or somewhere.
Why isn't you saying "The value of man has its origin in man" kind of schizophrenic ?
i think the question comes down to where is the source of value ?
01 Jun 17
Originally posted by sonship
[quote] My exact point was that those types of considerations external to the thing in and of itself (such as the etiological particulars of how it came to be) do not matter when it comes to intrinsic properties. Here, you're just making the same point. If the Mona Lisa is intrinsically beautiful, that would still hold even if hypothetically its origins wer ...[text shortened]... d of schizophrenic ?
i think the question comes down to where is the source of [b]value ?[/b]
No I don't really get it. That is because "unknown" does not mean non-existent. It just means unknown.
One man says "We don't know who produced this, but it is beautiful."
Another man agrees with its beauty and proposes an artist.
You seem to be saying the second is being schizophrenic.
Nope, you're simply not getting it. Let me give you an example of the schizophrenia and/or special pleading I am talking about. It's an example that is more faithful to my actual argument, and it is also an example that should be painfully familiar. Here goes:
A first man puts forth an argument entailing that intrinsic properties belonging to a thing can be divorced from considerations of that thing's origins. He even gives a nice Mona Lisa analog to drive the point home, arguing that the painting is inherently beautiful and, like duh, that wouldn't change if, counterfactually, the painting's origins were different or unknown. That just makes clear sense to him. A second man agrees, even to the point of remarking that, gee, that was actually his prior point. Further, the second man points out the obvious and natural extension of this to the discussion at hand: same thing would go for intrinsic value. For example, if man is intrinsically valuable, that wouldn't change even if, counterfactually, man's origins were different or unknown. Surely the first man should agree with this: after all, that's just the natural extension of the very point that he himself raised, the point that made so much sense to him. Inexplicably, however, the first man goes against the very point he brought up and now disagrees, suggesting that he really doesn't get it at all. In support of why things should all of a sudden change so radically once the discourse switches back to the subject of God, the first man gives the penetrating, insightful, and very thought-provoking consideration that "unknown" means just that: unknown.
Can you spot the schizophrenia here? How about the special pleading?
01 Jun 17
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeBut can you imagine if all of a sudden atheism were proven true AND we developed immortality for all with the caveat we can no longer have children or say 1/1000ths of the children we have now. What would life be like then? What are there, 100 odd million children under say 16 yo in the world now? So instead we get 100,000 children in the whole world. Send them all to children city? Concentrate them all together so we can have schools with more than one student per school?
"Without God I don't see why you'd be upset about the prospect of death..."
Because sir, without God there is no immortal soul. For an atheist, all we have is here and now. That is why our mortal life is precious, is miraculous. Of course i'm upset about the prospect of death. I love life!
Meanwhile hundreds of years go by and as people age, maybe they have good brains but creativity goes downhill, like the difference between Bob Dylan of 1967 V the Bob Dylan of 2017, just 50 years later and he doesn't produce the profound lyrics now like he used to. So the entire human race gets bogged down like that, science stops advancing, science projects stop, medical research stops since we don't get sick anymore.
What do we do, listen to the same rap music we did but 100 or 300 years later, the same old same old coming out of the music industry, classical, jazz, folk, country, blues, rap, hip hop, all in the doldrums because no new blood comes in, say a once a generation genius as it is now comes around in each discipline, athletics, dance, sculpture, music, science, math and so forth. But now the possibility of that goes down 1000X lower simply because there is that much less new blood, so now the once a generation becomes once every thousand years. It wouldn't be a very nice place to live, same ole same ole same ole for a thousand years.....