Opening statement in debate with shwanerd part 3

[Hooya2]

Your attempts to refute physicalism--materialism?--see­m laughable in the extreme. Wouldn't a brain count as an 'enduring self' which survives through the process of thinking? Rationality does not require libertarian thought, because rational thought is simply a systematic evaluation of data. Thoughts and propositions ARE physical objects AND mental states when they are in the brain; they can be classified as the electrical impulses moving through the brain at any given time.

[migkillertwo]

hooya2, rational oughts imply libertarian freedom. secondly, all particles in the body are replaced after 7 years. Third, consciousness is a process which turns on and off every hours, hence there is no enduring self.

[Hooya2]

"rational oughts imply libertarian freedom."

How?

"secondly, all particles in the body are replaced after 7 years."

So? The overall shape remains; even if tiny parts are replaced, there is never a point where the body is not 99% there.

"Third, consciousness is a process which turns on and off every hours, hence there is no enduring self."

Bzzt does not compute.  We don't reason when we're sleeping.

[Hooya2]

Obviously, morality is subjective; we absorb the morals of our cultures, and cultures undergo a sort of evolution as bad habits are weeded out. This explains why so many morals are different from culture to culture (like what kind of marriage is OK) while other morals are almost uniform (like murder is bad): it's because some morals are pressured by natural selection. It also explains why abused children tend to be abusive, why children with disinterested parents tend to be anti-social, etc.

[migkillertwo]

as I explained in my opening statement, this does nothing more than commit a genetic fallacy.

[Hooya2]

"...a disembodied mind is remarkably simple, and does not need a designer."

Could you explain how a mind with superpowers is simple?

'When we hear about the atrocities of the Holocaust and by the Crusaders, we instinctively recognize it as wrong [paraphrased].' I'm sorry, but the level of obliviousness in that statement made me laugh out loud. Don't you even consider the fact that neither the Crusaders nor the Nazis shared that experience?

[embracethemetal]

I don't think talking about morality as an evolutionary outcome is commiting the genetic fallacy, although i don't accept that morals did evolve.

[migkillertwo]

it pretty much fits the textbook description of a genetic fallacy. It attempts to undercut moral values by explaining the origin of our perception of them.

[Knowntje]

morals are if you ask me a result of altruistic behavior and empathy, both which can be shown to have evolved

[migkillertwo]

again, it really doesn't matter. genetic fallacies simply are not enough to undercut the fact of moral experience. if you really think that evolution does undercut the moral experience, then you need to distrust your senses and awareness of colors and other abstract objects.

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

The discovery institute? Do you honestly consider them a worthy source? Do you, too, think people used to live with dinosaurs and that carnivores ate vegetables before "the fall of man?" Seriously?

[kintarocrab]

The odds are 100% due to humans existence. You did not show objective morality, sociobiology does a good job in explaining why we behave the way we do. Metaphysics is called such because there is no empirical evidence to support it.

[Deliratio]

You talked about Free Will at the end. Have you read van Invagen's masterpiece "An Essay on Free Will"?

[migkillertwo]

no unfortunately I have not.

[Deliratio]

It's not necessarily the most useful resource for apologetics (Chris Carter's defense of dualism "Does Consciousness depend on the Brain?" would probably do better), but I think it's highly recommendable for someone who is interested in philosophy.

[Deliratio]

Aquinas argued exhaustively for divine simplicity (I think in summa theologica). He listed several types of complexity and argued that none of them fit God.

Dick and Dan both write that they want to explain "organized complexity", which is best translated as "many parts working together". That really doesn't work with non-physical beings.

[epaminodas]

forgive me for being a bit confused about this...but are you arguing that since science cannot account for everything metaphysical and philosophical arguments are superior given that they explain the possibility of certain outcomes/causes?

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

"...philosophical arguments are superior given that they explain the possibility of certain outcomes/causes?"

That is exactly what he is doing and this little series here is the most spectacular case of self delusion and rationalization I have ever seen, bar none.

[TheGamingWeasel]

Extant Dodo says that the anthropic principle is a tautology...it isn't. Also his treatment of the kalam cosmological argument is laughably bad.

[migkillertwo]

well we can forgive them for that. Scientists have very important things to do in their time, like do science. I'm sure they dont have too much time on their hands to read up on philosophy or metaphysics.

[TheGamingWeasel]

But at least he should have some basic literacy.

I think its funny. It's one thing to refute and lampoon creationism and another to try smash analytic philosophy of religion and leading christian apologetics. Now that's a titanium wall you have to pass through. Extant Dodo will get a bloody head if he attempts to do that again.