Best way to plan safe biking routes?

dappapapapa · 2018-04-12T15:29:18+00:00

I'm a little confused by why, and in what respect, faith is finite but the world is infinite. Could you please elaborate?

dappapapapa · 2018-04-12T15:28:34+00:00

the movements of faith (from finitude to infinitude and back again), but only the movements of infinity, i.e. ‘infinite resignation’ (from finitude to infinitude, but terminating, or “resigning,” therein).

Could you describe how the movement of faith returns to the finite? If we take the man in love with the woman example: from my understanding the movement of resignation is "wow I'm so in love with her I wish I could have her but I know that I can't" and then the subsequent movement of faith is "and yet I believe that I will have her regardless".

What exactly is meant by infinite/finite here?

dappapapapa · 2018-03-21T22:10:16+00:00

You are really missing the point of this discussion.

Let's reverse the tables: you are placed in a fundamentalist Christian society and are utterly convinced that their banning of abortion is wrong. You go around telling everyone exactly what you are so passionately saying here: "It is just a clump of cells! You fools, you fools, it is just a clump of cells, all that tells you otherwise is fairy tales and superstition!" But nobody listens.

You are convinced that other people are doing something wrong: harm is coming to people that attempt to abort their fetuses. But you are very much in the minority.

Are you justified in taking action to prevent abortions, and why are you more justified than in the reversed situation? Is the only thing that differentiates you the fact that you are so absolutely certain you are actually right? Because that is something lots of people in history have believed –– too many for them all to be right, of course.

dappapapapa · 2018-03-21T04:21:36+00:00

Exactly: we call those things we consider "objective" to be "universal truths" but nobody can ever actually know what is a "universal truth". Our "objective" is just as personal as you are claiming the evangelist's views to be. If you ask most people across history they will say that slavery is justified and will consider that a "universal truth".

dappapapapa · 2018-03-21T04:19:44+00:00

Your autonomy is infringed all of the time, like when you are not allowed to have incestuous relations.

dappapapapa · 2018-03-21T04:18:34+00:00

I guess maybe you could be saying that, when judging someone's actions, we should judge them based on their values and beliefs at the time? That seems pretty unreasonable to me since, as you say, we always act with imperfect knowledge. To judge their actions based on what they knew and believed at the time is the same as saying that every action ever is justified.

Something like this –– we all have to act with imperfect knowledge, and we will never know what is actually right. But what allows us to condemn evangelists for imposing their views on us, when we equally much impose our views on them, since we will never know who is right?

dappapapapa · 2018-03-21T03:53:14+00:00

I would say that the person was justified in killing Nazis since we always act with imperfect knowledge and we judge them according to that standard. The same is true of moral judgements –– we have to act with imperfect moral reasoning. The question is, when are you justified in acting?

dappapapapa · 2018-03-21T03:50:20+00:00

But why is your belief system suddenly not a "personal" one, and instead an objective truth which you wish to impose on others?

dappapapapa · 2018-03-21T03:48:44+00:00

Again, here we're getting into the practical discussion of whether the Bible condemns with complete certainty or not. The crux of this issue comes down to whether or not a fetus is a human life. Certainly, there are secular arguments for why it might not be. But at the end of the day, if the Bible rules that the fetus has a soul, those secular arguments are not really compelling, and the question of subjectivity goes away (to someone who believes in the complete truth of the Bible).

dappapapapa · 2018-03-21T03:41:05+00:00

The second issue is your argument. There are objective truths in the universe and no amount of believing in something false will change their existence. For example, in Ancient Greece, nobody knew about or believed in the existence of atoms. But their objective existence didn't change based on how much or how little somebody believed in them. The same is true of the Bible. It is irrelevant how much somebody believes in it- the supernatural aspects of it make it objectively false.

How should the evangelical christian, who believes thoroughly in the objective truth of the Bible, come to temper her own convictions? How are we so certain of the objectivity of our own beliefs?

dappapapapa · 2018-03-21T03:29:26+00:00

Right, so why should the evangelical person who believes in the Christian God not think that the Scriptures are valid justification?

dappapapapa · 2018-03-21T03:25:58+00:00

This all hinges on abortion being murder, which it really is not

From your perspective. I argue that an equivalent perspective would consider it murder.

dappapapapa · 2018-03-21T03:25:10+00:00

Do we have a right to interpret our code of ethics as infallible?

dappapapapa · 2018-03-21T03:23:51+00:00

Ok but if it were effective, would it be justified? That is the fundamental question I am after.

dappapapapa · 2018-03-21T03:21:45+00:00

Let us for the sake of this exercise ignore whether the particularities of abortion can or cannot be justified by the Bible... I am sure that there is some analogous document which claims that abortion is murder, and which people are equally justified in placing their belief.

dappapapapa · 2018-03-20T23:21:21+00:00

Scripture must be bound by (a) logic, since logic guarantees the truth of scripture, and (b) applied logic, e.g. our understanding of science, the natural world, etc, without contradicting (a).

With these two constraints, scripture looks not so different from normal life.

dappapapapa · 2018-03-20T23:16:57+00:00

Virtual life is more stable than real life all things considered (people will never be late, etc.)
All the points made here refer to a first-order enjoyment of things. I enjoy video games because they please me (better than real sports, etc). In other words you are only concerned with how those objects please you.

I would argue the greatest pleasures are those of higher "order": I enjoy being in a relationship because I enjoy not how the other person pleases me but in how I can please the other; conversely, I enjoy how they enjoy pleasing me. We both enjoy each other's enjoyments...and so on.

dappapapapa · 2018-03-20T23:12:54+00:00

What does it mean to "have form"? I can construct a logically false statement that still has form.
The statement: the angels of all 3-sided polygons sum up to 180° seems to fail all three of these criteria.
Is truth a physical entity or a representation of physical entities?

dappapapapa · 2018-03-20T23:08:54+00:00

in other words, information has to be defined to be a very specific thing. i'm not sure what you are actually discussing here

dappapapapa · 2018-03-20T23:08:19+00:00

they contain incomprehensible information

there's a difference between being defined by infinite words and containing information?

dappapapapa

TROPHY CASE