@oglocgeeks2nd @oglocgeeks2nd Wow how original of you! Are you a social
hermit from U of T? I pity you. I love the attention York gets from
faceless students at other universities. I find it kind of sad that people
spend so much time and energy hating on York. You don't even go here,
what's your reason? Only students and faculty have legitimate reason to
hate York, after all, it has the power to disappoint us, not you, faceless
student.
@plootiy Having fun doesn't automatically lower your GPA. How ignorant of
you. Some people are able to balance their studies and personal life... not
U of T students though, I guess they have less to balance with regard to
the latter.
York is not an "unreputible" school, and in fact, unreputible is not a word
lol York, like all schools, has some programs that are ranked among the top
in the country, and some that aren't
Yeah, it is a completely different argument. Craig is merely pointing out
that if we agree morality to be objective then it follows logically that
there is a moral law giver. He never makes reference to it being his God.
He understands that the argument doesn't lead to the conclusion that
Christianity is true, but only that it is reasonable to believe that a God
exists. Your right, we could all argue over who the actual author is, but
that doesn't have any relevance to the argument of morality.
Regarding Dr. Craig's first point in this video about design being a better
explanation than so-called "chance," an additional reason that he didn't
mention is that design is a factual phenomenon for which there is
scientific evidence, whereas the concept of "chance" is merely a
mythological, unscientific, and totally unsupported dogmatic opinion. In
short, "chance" simply does not exist in reality, nor does any evidence for
it exist, but design and its evidence certainly do exist in reality.
@efeey So the 1st pr in Craig's Moral Argument is logically incoherent:
first he defines 'objectivity' as INDEPENDENT on what anyone (i.e. any
PERSON) thinks, and then he makes 180 turn and argues objective morality
cannot exist unless it DEPENDS on a single PERSON--God! If it's necessarily
true that torturing children for fun is wrong, then it's true in all
possible worlds. yet, if morality depended on God, it would be wrong in NO
possible world if God didn't exist. see the contradiction?
@efeey none of the arguments for theism are convincing. if they were surely
someone would've won the Noble Price. so there are no good reasons to
believe in God, which, of course doesn't mean he doen't exist; just that
believing he exists is unreasonable. even Plantinga admits the arguments
for God are not really convincing. that's why he argues they're not
necessary :)) as for morality being subjective on atheism-- that's a
non-sequitur. for the fine-tuning, you use God of the gaps arg.
Listen mister tool. You are making claims that no one ever has been able to
demonstrate. I made claims that indeed can be demonstrated (e.g. what Craig
said). Thats the f*cking difference. Hence the f*cking "sophomorphism" on
your side. Indeed, "Sphaghettimonstrism" (or Pastafarianism) its not
demonstrable just as "your ejeculations" are not. Thats the point, yet you
keep refusing to understand. Im giving you the last chance. Either you
demonstrate your position, or just dump yourself...
|I do actually see the distinction that theist would like to exist. but am
giving feedback on the fact that for myself and many atheist there really
is no distinction in terms of provability. FSM is not a lame joke, its
giving feedback through example. Now of course some non theist use it as a
joke, but the origins of FSM was to demonstrate a point. And here it is
also used to demonstrate a point. And that is that the facts presented
prove the god thing in as much as it proves the FSM.,
@efeey again, think of moral truths as math truths and you'll see the
problems with your reasoning. If God doesn't exist, 2 + 2 will still be =
4. same with morality. If morality depended on God in any way (whether on
his opinion or nature is irrelevant), this means it's subjective and
wouldn't exist without God. the point is you can't have it both ways:
either morality is objective and independent of any person's opinion,
nature, etc. or it's subjective-- i.e. it depends on person(s)
That's a different argument. Craig is raising the question, if you agree
that something is objectively right or wrong, independent of your belief,
then what other explanation exists besides an author of morality? In
essence, I accept that, objectively, event X is either right or wrong. My
personal belief is X is wrong. It might be right. But it is one or the
other. If it is one or the other, independent of my personal belief, what
determined it being right or wrong? Not me and not you.
@efeey well that's a question that's very much debatable. I'm not
suggesting they exist in some Platonic form. Philosophers disagree on that.
but in any case, if it turns out God doesn't exist, this would have no
effect on math, right? I mean we can easily imagine God not existing, but
we can't imagine numbers not existing. so regardless of how math or moral
truths exist, they're necessary truths, hense independent of God's
existence. now why is that (moral realism) a problem for you?
@AgeOfReasonXXI @AgeOfReasonXXI even if the evidence for something is non
existent. it doesnt mean that that it is not present.i.e. evidence of
absence is not absence of evidence.also have you not been listening to the
evidence in favor of thiesm? to be an athiest u must believe that the
universe came into being from nothing and by nothing, fine tuned itself by
ridiculous chance and that morals are just social conventions based on
genetics and there4 subjective. reasonable thinking?
@efeey as for why morality being subjective on atheism is a non-sequitur,
see what most theist philosophers say themselves. actually Craig is one of
the few philosophers left who argue that without God there's no objevtive
morality. for example Swinburne (correcly) points out that if morality is
objective then moral truths are necessary truths (like math truths), i.e.
they would exist even if it turns out God doesn't. Otherwise they wouldn't
be necessary, hense not objective.
No, i don't see how it is a different argument. Even if we assume that
morality must be "outside" of humanity , therefore supposedly objective,
then how do we know where this morality comes from? Demanding their must be
ONE author of morality and that this author matches someones theology is
wishful thinking, and still doesn't solve any problems with 'objective'
moral values. One can just assume that there is an author and then we can
just fight over who or what the author is
@efeey the Big Bang doesn't say the Universe came from nothing. at this
point we don't know, but even if there wasn't anything pre-existing, this
doesn't mean it "came from" nothing because nothing isn't a state the
Universe can come out of. and since space-time is a feature of the
Universe, asking 'where did it come from' is meaningless. demanding a cause
is also meaningless since space-time is the context in which causality even
makes sense (unless there's a Multiverse)
'God' |(the usual christian version) is no different to other unprovable
things. Sure it maybe different in definition, but still no evidence. If
you do not wish people to be honest to you, simply state that. |The
arguement does not self destruct at all, that is why you did not
demonstrate that, you know you cannot do it. It is feedback, you just do
not like it. The non believer is essentially asking you what is the
difference between belief in Santa and God
Prof. Gail Vanstone | Culture & Expression
Meet Professor Gail Vanstone and the students of the Culture and Expression program as they discuss the exciting courses currently being offered. Culture ...
Provost Lecture - Paul O'Higgins: The Measure of Things: Pattern, Process and Morphometry
Paul O'Higgins is chair of anatomy at the University of York and head of the Centre for Anatomical and Human Sciences at Hull York Medical School, U.K. He ...
Extraordinary conference on geometric morphometrics, strong admiration for
Prof. O'Higgins and his studies. He represents an example to follow and an
authentic resource for the whole scientific community. Congratulations!
Fat shaming and the thin epidemic: Jill Andrew at TEDxYorkU 2014
Jill Andrew's lively body image talk addresses fat shaming, fat euphemisms (i.e. plus fashion), and strategies to address what she calls the pervasive "thin ...
I thank this Ted talk for being the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen.
Now I know what to reference when talking about stupid bullshit.
My god. The lack of logic on this one. And perpetuating the "annoying loud
mouthed black woman" stereotype.
Man, we are so fucked as a society. Really ? Thin epidemic ? anorexia is
horrible but it only affects a tiny portion of society. Obesity on the
other hand accounts for a huge chunk of the population. Being in shape
should be one of the basic aims of every able body person, specially when
some people bound to wheel chairs practice sport and maintain a healthy
weight/life style.
This land whale and anyone who agrees with her are delusional fucks that
have drunk so deeply from the well of PC bullshit that now they blame other
people for their sloth and gluttony. Fat is not healthy, it's not
beautiful, and no, you don't have mental/thyroid/cosmic fat osmosis issues.
Get off your fat ass and lose weight. Some people have come back from 500
lbs and above. If they can do it so can you, let's stop this insane
coddling.
Why is everyone in the comments section so bitter? I thought she was great.
Charismatic, sarcastic, ironic, and just an overall amazing public speaker.
Jill Andrews is a woman I would like to have coffee with.
Saturday, November 3, 2012 Meet & Greet: 4-5pm @ York University outside the Sandra Faire and Ivan Fecan Theatre A Ticket to the competition or After party ...
Yeah sure Britain's a wet country but we don't get hurricanes or tornados
that often. And when I say 'not that often' I mean we have one like every
20 years. Also... Do take a girl seriously when she's on her period. When
she says she wants chocolate.... She means it. Dad I'm looking at you