Religion Of Christianity - General

[QUOTE=noh_mercy;43874873]the definition of murder is killing with intent. so you can't murder someone for paying no mind to them. murder is an action. and inaction is just inaction. therefore you cannot murder through inaction[/QUOTE] Oh I generally agree but this is a hypothetical where inaction most certainly does lead to murder [editline]11th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;43874882]The difference is that mine is based on whether a fact is true or not (does god exist). Yours is based on only your personal opinion.[/QUOTE] Yep Oh, was there a point to that? Where you going to tell me how you knew a fact to be true or not? On a truly objective and non faith based reasoning?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43874886]Oh I generally agree but this is a hypothetical where inaction most certainly does lead to murder[/QUOTE] I agree that inaction can't be murder, but in this case it can. You are being completely contradictory.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43874849]Being arbitrarily better isn't really an accomplishment. I mean, you can literally claim that about anything ever. (I'm subjectively better than Tiger Woods at golf).[/QUOTE] Ignoring any outside variables, what would you say is subjectively better? 1. 4 innocent people die needlessly. 2. 1 innocent person dies needlessly. Every person involved is equivalent in all important respects.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43874901]I agree that inaction can't be murder, but in this case it can. You are being completely contradictory.[/QUOTE] So when you guys use thought experiments that cause a contradiction, you don't notice, but if I do it, you do and you refuse to answer? In this situation which is a hypothetical, not real, and imposes the fact that a judge/god knows the only actions that are at fault here are yours, as discussed the train and people cannot be blamed and you are the sole place that choice and action comes down to. In both cases, your inaction to not do something is the same, it's a subjective metric that throwing someone in front of the train is more wrong. You should, as you say if you will not throw the one man, be incapable of throwing the lever to save the 5, but you said you're not

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43874886]Yep Oh, was there a point to that? Where you going to tell me how you knew a fact to be true or not? On a truly objective and non faith based reasoning?[/QUOTE] It seems you've moved back into sarcastic mode. I'll use an example from science: There's a difference between saying, "I believe that gravity is caused by an unknown particle with such and such properties" and "I believe that gravity exists, therefore it does."

[QUOTE=sgman91;43874930]It seems you've moved back into sarcastic mode. I'll use an example from science: There's a difference between saying, "I believe that gravity is caused by an unknown particle with such and such properties" and "I believe that gravity exists, therefore it does."[/QUOTE] That example doesn't show me much of anything except that you completely don't understand the views of people who are interested in scientific pursuits.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43874917]Ignoring any outside variables, what would you say is subjectively better? 1. 4 innocent people die needlessly. 2. 1 innocent person dies needlessly. Every person involved is equivalent in all important respects.[/QUOTE] You are the superintendant of a hospital. There are 5 patients which need vital organ transplants. A man walks in the hospital who coincidentally matches all 5 people. I guess it is time to kill that guy and harvest his organs, because after all, people are only a means to an end, they have no value in of themselves.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43874917]Ignoring any outside variables, what would you say is subjectively better? 1. 4 innocent people die needlessly. 2. 1 innocent person dies needlessly. Every person involved is equivalent in all important respects.[/QUOTE] I already answered that I would choose the one to die. I would also come close to saying that it would be objectively wrong to choose the five instead of the one simply because the lack of knowledge disallows differing opinions.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43874951]You are the superintendant of a hospital. There are 5 patients which need vital organ transplants. A man walks in the hospital who coincidentally matches all 5 people. I guess it is time to kill that guy and harvest his organs, because after all, people are only a means to an end, they have no value in of themselves.[/QUOTE] Contrary to what you may think there is actually a difference in these scenarios because no one in real life has the ability to make that call

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43874973]Contrary to what you may think there is actually a difference in these scenarios because no one in real life has the ability to make that call[/QUOTE] What is the difference? Slaughter the fat man to save the people or don't. It is exactly the same morally.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43874973]Contrary to what you may think there is actually a difference in these scenarios because no one in real life has the ability to make that call[/QUOTE] Fat people also can't stop a train. This hypothetical is actually much more realistic than the one you gave.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43875012]Fat people also can't stop a train. This hypothetical is actually much more realistic than the one you gave.[/QUOTE] And it's one I would say would be wrong to do but you also said it would be okay to pull the lever, so oddly enough I find this boat i'm in is shared by you.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43875027]And it's one I would say would be wrong to do but you also said it would be okay to pull the lever, so oddly enough I find this boat i'm in is shared by you.[/QUOTE] What? There was no leaver in the fat man hypothetical. The first you gave isn't comparable. In this situation one is intentionally killed and 5 are saved. In your first hypothetical either one died unintentionally or 5 die unintentionally.

There was a lever in the one before that, and they're the same thing, kill the one to save the five right? you said it you're making as arbitrary distinctions as anyone else is and just have the gall to say they're objective

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43875051]There was a lever in the one before that, and they're the same thing, kill the one to save the five right? you said it you're making as arbitrary distinctions as anyone else is and just have the gall to say they're objective[/QUOTE] The first you gave isn't comparable. In this situation one is intentionally killed and 5 are saved. In your first hypothetical either one died unintentionally or 5 die unintentionally. The act in question is intentional killing. Actions are moral, results are not. [editline]11th February 2014[/editline] If I give food to a man who chokes and dies because of it I haven't done anything immoral, even though the result of my action was death.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43874951]You are the superintendant of a hospital. There are 5 patients which need vital organ transplants. A man walks in the hospital who coincidentally matches all 5 people. I guess it is time to kill that guy and harvest his organs, because after all, people are only a means to an end, they have no value in of themselves.[/QUOTE] Do they need the transplants immediately, or would it be possible to wait for organs to become available naturally? I'm guessing the former, and I'm guessing that the patients will make a full recovery if they receive a transplant. I suppose in my eyes the best thing to do would be to knock the uber-compatible guy out without him being aware of it (so he experiences no pain or discomfort), save the 5 lives and lie to them about who their donors were. Then lie to the family of the donor, telling them that he suffered a heart attack near to the hospital (or whatever spontaneous cause of death is most likely given the situation) and there was nothing anyone could do. 5 saved lives, 5 relieved families, for the cost of 1 life and 1 distressed family. I can appreciate that you may find this process emotionally repulsive, but it leads to a substantial net decrease of suffering and furthermore is preferable to inaction when using any sensible metric. [editline]11th February 2014[/editline] Initially I was going to say that I wouldn't order the action because that was my emotional gut response. I then tried to reason why inaction was better and couldn't construct an honest argument. [editline]11th February 2014[/editline] The expected outcome can be improved further if we know the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics to be correct. While the prospective donor is unconscious the 5 patients should be put unconscious too. Then take a device that samples some quantum property that has two possible observed states with equal probability independent of prior observation (perhaps observing the spin of individual photons), and sample it 10 times. If the 10 observations yield the same result each time (a probability of ~0.2%) you should let the donor go and euthanise the 5 patients while they remain unconscious. Otherwise (with probability ~99.8%) perform the transplant as originally described. From the perspective of the donor and the 5 patients, they all subjectively survive in their own branches of reality. As the Everett interpretation is known to be correct in this scenario, the families of subjects that have died can possibly find consolation in the knowledge that their loved-one is still alive, just not in their particular branch of reality.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43874065]My argument: 1) Action X is good. 2) One ought to do good actions. 3) One ought to do action X.[/QUOTE] Of course the glaring hole in this argument is that it requires 1 to be true which there is no evidence to support. Throughout this thread you haven't provided any reason as to why objective morals exist, you've simply asserted that they do. I like how you keep trying to paint it to look like believing in God is the only rational decision and that anything else is purely based on emotion completely ignoring the fact that the belief of God is irrational to begin with. There is absolutely 0 evidence to support such a claim, to believe in God requires pure faith which is completely emotional. Your entire argument stems from an emotional response, so by your own definition it is irrational.

Not sure if you noticed, Geikkamir, but I responded to your last statement at the end of page 6. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43869544]So you accept his knowing that we will make the choice has no influence on us making the choice? I do not quite get what you mean by proof, this is one of the three predominant views on God's omniscience within Christian thought, thus I was under the impression we were talking within the realms of Christianity. Do you want scriptural proof for what I am saying or are you simply demanding that I prove God's existence before you'll take this discussion any further? I still don't see how ultimately one choice being factual is of issue though given it is our own choice.[/QUOTE]

This train question really has nothing to do with Christian morals. No matter what your belief system or philosophical ideals are it would be a tough choice? Who are the five people? Who is the who person? How is this even relevant? Instead of dealing with pointless hypothetical situations can we actually deal with debate of the actual features of the religion?

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43869544]So you accept his knowing that we will make the choice has no influence on us making the choice?[/QUOTE] It has no influence on us making the choice because if God is omniscient we never actually made a choice to begin with. It's not a choice if there's only one option.

[QUOTE=Geikkamir;43877297]It has no influence on us making the choice because if God is omniscient we never actually made a choice to begin with. It's not a choice if there's only one option.[/QUOTE] By influence on our free will I meant affecting making it so that we do not have the freedom of choice. Yet I've already detailed how God would know these things would be no different than us knowing about an event in the past, how could this kind of knowledge intrinsically affect the choice that was made?

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43877369]By influence on our free will I meant affecting making it so that we do not have the freedom of choice. Yet I've already detailed how God would know these things would be no different than us knowing about an event in the past, how could this kind of knowledge intrinsically affect the choice that was made?[/QUOTE] Can people in the past make different choices that the ones they've already made? Of course not, that decision is already set in stone. Likewise, whether God sees our decisions as an event in future or as a historical event in the past, the fact that he knows what decision we will make means that it's impossible for us to make a decision other than the one he knows we will.

[QUOTE=Geikkamir;43877421]Can people in the past make different choices that the ones they've already made? Of course not, that decision is already set in stone. Likewise, whether God sees our decisions as an event in future or as a historical event in the past, the fact that he knows what decision we will make means that it's impossible for us to make a decision other than the one he knows we will.[/QUOTE] That only applies in Christian denominations that believe in predestination.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43877369]By influence on our free will I meant affecting making it so that we do not have the freedom of choice. Yet I've already detailed how God would know these things would be no different than us knowing about an event in the past, how could this kind of knowledge intrinsically affect the choice that was made?[/QUOTE] how would it be no different? It's god. It's NOT like how we view the past. You cannot relate a super being to yourself so trivially. [editline]11th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=matt000024;43877444]That only applies in Christian denominations that believe in predestination.[/QUOTE] Don't all believe that god has a plan for them? if not, then why not? Why are some explanations better than others? which one is true? why is it true? why should I believe that one over another one? [editline]11th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=matt000024;43877257]This train question really has nothing to do with Christian morals. No matter what your belief system or philosophical ideals are it would be a tough choice? Who are the five people? Who is the who person? How is this even relevant? Instead of dealing with pointless hypothetical situations can we actually deal with debate of the actual features of the religion?[/QUOTE] the box question proposed by a christian poster earlier also had no relevance but yet we had to humor that.

[QUOTE=matt000024;43877444]That only applies in Christian denominations that believe in predestination.[/QUOTE] Predestination seems like it's pretty much a requirement for omniscience to be possible.

All I see in this world is death and injustice, and men of twisted beliefs. Some seek to take advantage of the common people's fear, using it as a tool for their own means. These people are the ones who I disrespect, yet frighten me most. They hate anyone who believes in authenticity. They proselytize their crusades one day, and the next they are attempting to force their perversion on children whether it be to abuse their age to force them into a doctrine, or abuse their age to force them into sex. This is the natural progression of religious leaders. Their practices are ultimately based on nothing in reality that we can observe. There is life, then there is death. We look to those who see strange figures and shapes everywhere as insane or on drugs. But, are the priests who condemn such people as being possessed by demons any much different? Even to the lowest degree, the religious followers, it seems the nature of faith stays the same. I am troubled by the requirements of faith. I find myself asking, "Where is God? What is the meaning of existence without him? Where can I find any sense in life?" Thus, I am troubled. I am no longer set in the ideals given to me, and can only question everything to find a greater truth. But, this has only led me to the most troubling conclusion of all, that there is no idealized truth to grasp onto. This search has thus far only resulted in despair. I don't want to become the disenchanted intellectual who demands that everyone else see the world from his disenchantment. Those who not only have lost their ideals (if they ever had them), but lost the desire to find something greater than what they see. Perhaps he is more down to Earth, the only one who is totally authentic in his attitudes of everything. I can't accept this fate as true, not just yet. I know there must be people of like mind, I have not been able to put my feelings into word before.

[QUOTE=Geikkamir;43877421]Can people in the past make different choices that the ones they've already made? Of course not, that decision is already set in stone. Likewise, whether God sees our decisions as an event in future or as a historical event in the past, the fact that he knows what decision we will make means that it's impossible for us to make a decision other than the one he knows we will.[/QUOTE] Yet the choices that they have made in the past were theirs none-the-less, they could have easily taken a different course of action. The only reason God knows what we will do under this school of though is because [i]we[/i] will do it, it still ultimately comes down to our choice to commit an action. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43877454]how would it be no different? It's god. It's NOT like how we view the past. You cannot relate a super being to yourself so trivially.[/QUOTE] I apologize if I appear to be treating this issue lightly, I assure you that I am not. I must assert that these are not my own extrapolations, but those of many different Christian thinkers.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43877529]Yet the choices that they have made in the past were theirs none-the-less, they could have easily taken a different course of action. The only reason God knows what we will do under this school of though is because [i]we[/i] will do it, it still ultimately comes down to our choice to commit an action.[/QUOTE] what defines them as having had another choice?

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43877529]Yet the choices that they have made in the past were theirs none-the-less, they could have easily taken a different course of action. The only reason God knows what we will do under this school of though is because [i]we[/i] will do it, it still ultimately comes down to our choice to commit an action.[/QUOTE] Before we continue this discussion I think it would be useful to know what your definition of free will is.

[QUOTE=Geikkamir;43877556]Before we continue this discussion I think it would be useful to know what your definition of free will is.[/QUOTE] I suppose it would be that an individual's choice is not made out of necessity.