22-02-2002 12:03									#61
	Tired of ads?

One could say that we can know the intent of God as well as the nature of God, by examining what God has created.

It's still something that would have to be proven though, and I don't feel like trying. lol

	22-02-2002 12:06									#62
	Yay, more philosophical jacking-off! Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Yes I asked you to prove that assumptions are the rules of logic. Your comment there in no way proved that.

I explicitly wrote that non-contradiction was the assumption that I was referring to.

quote: I'll try to explain it better, on 2, if all assumptions are equal, then my assumption, "that all assumptions are not equl" would have to be equal to that

I never made a decision one way or the other. Like I said, it becomes ackward to refer to truth values in such a situation.

quote: Well then are you saying that asumptions are not equal?This shouldn't be too hard to figure out but I'll help you. By "equally true" the person who said 2 is saying "all assumptions are equal" there is a big gap between claim 1 and claim 2.

Again, I'm not saying that all assumptions are equal or that all assumptions are not equal.

And would you mind not referring to numbers?

quote: If it's all assumption then there is no evidence. You say all belief is unwarranted assumption, then ask for evidence as a standard.

Ok then, assuming a logical framework, prove that assertion.

quote: And it isn't. According to you my claim is equal to yours.

'
Are you reading someone else's posts? You're attributing claims to me that I've never made.

quote: Ostensibly. And yes they have inherit meaning as symbols that represent quantities. Then again though, the above statement was just an assumptions anyways, as is that statement, as is the statement that the prior statement was an assumption in your system according to you.

You're just being intentionally confusing!

Again, that last "assumption" was derived from the framework of logic.

quote: The deterministic interpretation has always been the more logical of the two.

And has little scientific credibility.

quote: Then again he above is just your assumption...perhaps there is no Quantum Mehcanics. Your just assuming there is...and that it proves something. If its all assumption then its ALL assumption.

Egads man, can you try not making strawmen for a moment? My assumptions are that I exist, the world around me exists, I'm not delusional, and that the physics community is not delusional. Quantum mechanics logically follows from these assumptions (and probably some minors ones I'm not thinking of).

quote: Actually that is to go by reason. To ditch logic in order to embrace a given interpretation is to go by faith.

Logic has no basis in reality. It only exists in the human mind. We cannot observe logic. We can observe Physical phenomenena. Surely what we can observe should be given more credibility than what we pull out of our asses.

quote: Question begging. How do you know they don't exist? Maybe they do without you knowing.

Because they're different for different observers...

quote: Like I said phycisists disagree on the issue as many physicists are as succeptible to idealogical irrationalism as the rest of us.

I was just pointing it out for your benefit...

	22-02-2002 12:07									#63
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by connorkimbro It's still something that would have to be proven though, and I don't feel like trying.

You'd deserve to be locked in a loony bin if you were willing to tackle a proof like that, especially with such a surplus of skeptics at arm's reach...

	22-02-2002 16:22									#64
	Re: Axiomic relativism Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist See above for the disprove. I have shown how your viewpoint is contradictory. That is disproof.

No you haven't because your argument does not hold water. Perhaps you would be better calling yourself Illogical realist.

quote: Either subjectivism is true, in which case there is no truth or falsehood. In which case both objectivism and subjectivism are true at the same time(cause if there is no right or wrong, objectivism cannot be wrong). This is contradictory. And hence false in logic.

I disagree with the very first sentence. Things can still be true or false in a subjective world. Your problem with the understanding of this may be down to how you define 'true' and 'false'....

quote: You are at that point asking me to "disprove" your claim while expecting me to abandon ALL standards of proof. Of curse such a task is impossible.

No - I am asking you to prove it without making any assumptions which you do not prove. Disprove it from first principle! This shouldn't be so hard in your objective universe should it, but I don't believe you can.

quote: Before you said "everything is subjective" now you're saying everything "might be" subjective.

Well it is a very subjective statement.

quote: I "know" rocks and bricks exist because I can see them.

Not good enough. If you see a ghost or a manifestation of God, does that mean they exist?

quote: Also because rocks and bricks do not behave in ways that one would expect them to if they were imagined. I cannot for example lift them up with my mind as I could an imaginary object. They're behavious also tends to be uniform, and predictable, while dream or imaginary objects tend to behave in very arbitrary non-causal ways.

i don't think the basis for reality should be what you 'expect'. And I don't think you should make categorical statements based apon words like 'tend to'.

The laws of physics tell us how we expect things to move and interact, but it I would have a bloody boring job if everything was as we 'expect' it to be.

quote: I'll explain. You are not saying that people just have different views of reality but that these different viewpoints ARE reality. That's what subjectivism is. And in subjectivism all point of views are true.

I agree with the first bit but not with the last sentence. All points of view are not true for any particular individual.

quote: According to the subjectivist viewpoint my antisubjectivist claim would be just as true as the subjectivist one...that situation would be contradictory, asburd and hence disproven.

It is not contradictory, you can still be subjectively wrong....

quote: I am not questioning the truth of Quantum Mechanics but your interpretation and extension of it to all areas of philosophy.

It is more the other way around. I must admit I too get a little sick of 'Quantum Quackery'. There is a vast tendancy for certain types of people who get their physics knowledge from the Discovery channel to assume that science can explain everything. In reality, science starts from basic assumptions and based on these assumptions, makes and attempt to describe the universe in a predictive sense. The more we confirm the predictivity, the more we can be certain of the assumptions which were originaly made, but they remain assumptions never-the-less. Therfore there are things which science can never prove (or disprove), and indeed makes no attempt to prove. It is only the practioners of 'Quantum Quackery' who try to do this.

quote: This whole thing of which you speak has many explanations offered to explain why this happens, none of them definitive and very few subjectivist.

Where di you pluck that misconception from? Perhaps you would like to tell me of a completely observer independent explanation of quantum theory then? There isn't one.

quote: There are recognized limits to Quantum Mechanics, like the fact that no Quantum observations have been superluminal(faster then light) and hence are limited by physical laws.

Just because things are subjective doesn't stop people agreeing!

quote: That is flawed reasoning in that you assume that since we only know the object exists when we see it, that our lack of knowledge equal a lack of existence.

I have to ask you what defines an object? Is it a collection of particles with some predefined position and momenta? If so, it does cease to exist when we are not observing it because it no longer fits into your definition of the object. I wouldn't go that far actually, although I would say that certain properties of the objects do not have definite values until we observe them. For example, if we know a point particle is at a certain position at a certain time, the momentum of the particle is not defined until we measure it.

quote: There is a difference between knwoing the value of something and an object having a value.

That is the whole point - there is no difference!!! The act of knowing (or not knowing) the value changes the entire system!

quote: To discard this is to discard logic and go by faith. In which case your theory is very,very weak especially when other more logical theories are available.

No - again you have it backwards. You are the one who is resorting to assumptions, or in other words 'faith' by assuming that my observations must be the same as your's. I make no such assumption, and acknowledge that we may live in a universe which is different for different observers You make the assumption that the universe is the same for every observer. (I actually don't think it is a bad assumption - I make it all the time in my work - but you must recognise that it is an assumption!)

quote: Not that your Quantum Mechancal theory was the first abuse of science. Every new branch of science or anamoly(unexplained event) is usually used to support some form of subjectivism or supernaturalism. This is nothing more then the argument from ignorance given a face lift. ... I will end by quoting Victor J. Stenger(professor of physics and astronomy) at the University of Hawaii on this abuse:

Rather than quoting professors of physics, I suggest you go away and learn some physics so you can understand the limitations of science for yourself.

I really feel that the public of today regard scientists as a sort of new preisthood. They believe everything that scientists say as a matter of faith rather than taking some time to try and understand the ideas for themselves and viewing everything in a light of skepticism. Fair enough, you need to take some things on trust (there is far to much for one man to understand everything) but you should keep in the back of your mind that it could all be wrong.

	22-02-2002 16:32									#65
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist Here you totally evaded the issue. I'm asking if morality is defined by "correcr behavior" what then is correct behavior?

I don't think I do.
I presented you a definition of Morality so that we could be on common ground.
I proposed that Morality is simply put, the set of rules through which a Society evaluates whether a behaviour is correct or incorrect. When you ask me what is then Correct Behaviour, I have to answer, following the definition I proposed: the moral one. That, however is a tautology.
You seem to want that I state here what is, in my opinion, the Christian view of what is moral behaviour. The problem is that, all I can present to you is My Christian view, so I wont start a new discussion thread on this. On the other hand, as I stated in my previous post, I don't believe that is the point in this debate.

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist Here you're confusing many things: You seem to at one moment posit that morality is something that exists without God or uncreated by God. And that God in his Omnsicience discovered this morality where manind could not. Such a theory deserves its own criticism and is not what I'm talking about in my post.

Your right, such a theory deserves criticism, but the one making the confusion isn't me.
I never stated the the Omniscient God discouvered anything.
I clearly stated He cannot discouver anything, because, being Omniscient, i.e., All Knowing, He Allready Knew, Knows and Will Know, Anything and Everything. So God didn't discouvered morality, He knew the Perfect rules of Moral Behaviour all along.
This, according to Christian belief, of course.

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist What I'm talking about is the Christian view that the universe without God loses morality...is naturally amoral. In this view God is just pushing his arbitrary dictums on humanity by means of using his strength.

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist About how the universe without God HAS no morals...not ignorant of morals...has no morals. That God is where all morals come from. Expressed ultimately, that without God, its all relativism. Now I ask...how does this change with God? The only significant difference over manknd here, that would make his "opinion" better then ours in this matter is his power.

You know, to a Christian there is no such thing as a universe without God. And, God's Will is like a roadmap that allows you to follow the best and quickest route from one place to another, only the path you lead is your life. Of course, there are two issues here: as far as we, Christians, know, noone but Jesus knew exactly how that "map" was "drawn" and you can allways draw your own map (will you get lost in the process? whitout a guiding light...who knows?).
And we Humans tend to set moral rullings (remember that part when I said Christian Religion does not state that we are primal beasts?). You will never hear or read Christian doctrine stating that Man is naturally amoral - misguided is usually the common term . The point, again, is "drawing the map" with a "guiding light".

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist In this view "morals" are just what God makes up. That's what I'm criticizing.

As far as what Christianity believes, last time God "made something up" was when He created all that exists. I believe that, according to Christian belief, is fair to say that what is moral and what is not moral derives from that Creative Action alone.

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist Now you say "Christianity doesn't say this" but then what about the test of Abraham? All the immoral things that later on became moral?

Why do you think, Christians believe Jesus had a purpose in comming?

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist See if it was just a matter of God being smarter, then morality would not just become opinion without God. There would still be right and wrong, we'd just be too stupid to figure out what right and wrong is. But that's not what is said. Christians say that without God "there is no morality". Meaning that morality is based on God's power. Heaven and hell. That what keeps mankind moral is "fear of hell" sounds like power is running it to me. And also in Christianity Gods word=morality by definition. Again that sounds like power is running it, as if that's true;if God says to rape, then rape becomes moral. If it was intellect then God's word wouldn't always be moral, in which case the atrocities in the Bible can be questioned.

I believe you keep missing the point about god being Omniscient a awfull lot. I know you never though about that this way, but I'm offering you that opportunity. I ask you, please, to ponder what Omniscient means, all the repercussions of that notion, so I don't have to be writing the same thing on and on.
That all Heaven and Hell and fear of Hell is the reasining usually presented to children in Sunday School but, like with the "Boogie Man", "Santa Claus" and sorts, we usually get over that with age.
If you start questioning that reasoning you may find another answer, like the one I'm proposing. I suggest you try and go beyond the simple denial. I for one don't try to understand God's Will out of fear from the "burning flames of Hell" but out of the Goodness I perceive in it.
Also, on the Heaven and Hell stuff, I would like to direct you to Regan Josh's post in 20-02-2002 11:02. That is current Catholic doctrine on Hell, IIRC.

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist As far as I see what you seem to be saying then, in a way, is that iots not the power of God that makes his rules moral. But God's intellect, in which case morality is determined by who is smartest. Still sounds like a dictatorship to me.

I normally can find the difference between Knowledge and Cleverness. Don't you? One more time: we believe God is Omniscient, therefore, all Knowledgable.

On one thing I have to say I agree with you though: we also believe God is Omnipotent, that is All Might, therefore stronger, faster... and cleverer too .

So, again being able to know the Perfect Moral Behaviour comes from Omniscience. That, my friend, is plain logic and a full awareness of what Omniscient means.

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist Also even though it had slaves, it still had morals, some immorality on its part does not negate morality as a whole.

Agreed.
But, as I wrote too many times already, Christian doctrine does not state that Humans are not able to have their own set of moral rules. They will, however, have faults, and some of them will never be preceived without the awareness that we are all equal, that we have a Loving Father that created us out of Love, making Love the Ultimate Moral Rule. Given insuficient information, Logic is bound to drive you to a wrong conclusion. How wrong the conclusion is and what is the extension of the damage it provokes, I believe, no one can evaluate (other than God Himself ). Being aware of God does not grant you, automatically the right conclusion, but it can surelly add information that will help Logic to achieve a better conclusion, and hopefully lead the Human effort of drawing the Best Moral Behaviour Mapping in the right way (of course this last statment is a question of Faith, so I don't ask you to agree with it).

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist Also as for the Catholic's immoral behavior changing. I find it odd how the Chruch dedicated to preserving Christianity and studying the Bible would misinterpret the scripture for almost a thousand years.

When you show me one thing about which Humankind already achieved the Perfect Knowledge and Interpretation of, maybe I'll start believing that the Church has some hope in gatting there, also. Meanwhile, I keep a faithfull, although critic, perspective on the Churchs effort. Surrelly is not perfect, but it's the best yet (in my opinion, of course). I believe that is also the Catholic Church's perspective (at least). Otherwize I wouldn't understand all those "forgive us" pleedings of the Pope nor would I understand the reason Christian Theological studies exist and are promoted by the Christian Churches.

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist As for the Mosiac law commanding that one stone a child, here it is:

Thanks. Hopefully you do agree that Jesus, by doing what He did with the aledged adulterous woman also shown His disaproval of the other stoning practices, no?

	22-02-2002 16:37									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Incidentally, I agree with everything in Victor's quote. I don't see how it supports LR's position in any way....

	22-02-2002 16:54									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by MacTBone Don't worry DF, all the Christians missed my post

Sorry Mac. I really missed it.
Now, I read it but I can't understand it.

What exactly is your point?

	22-02-2002 17:22									#68
	Suffering from ads?

How could we do anything contradictory to God's nature, if God created us to be in his image? That's kind of where I was going with that, but I did have some legitimate philisophical questions too.



I also have issue with this omniscient God changing the rules in the NT. According to Christians (well, most of them), Jesus and God are one (Holy Trinity, and all that). Well, we know, from reading both the OT and the NT that there is a distinct shift in philosophy. Now, how could he change his mind on what is moral or immoral?

How come God is moral, inall things that he does? I semm to recall different parts of the OT, where he purposely kills of many people. Yet, he gives us the commandment "Thou shalt not kill", so, is God immoral? Does God have a different morality?

	22-02-2002 17:50									#69
	To MacTBone: About God's change of Mind and other stuff Full PM-box? Change here!

To current Catholic doctrine (I know the creationists will say i'm wrong, but... ) the Creation description in the Book of Genesis is not to be taken literally but to be interpreted. By saing that Human were created in God's image is a statement of dignity. Basicly what it is stating is that we Humans are diferent that the rest of God's creation. But, that same description shows Eve being tricked by the clever serpent, which by itself points to the assumption that we are hardly divine. Given free will, we are allowed to go against God's Will and Nature.

In the New Testament, Jesus offers a reasoning about your question of "changing the rules". He said that He didn't came to change the rules, but to re-interpret them. In Christian doctrine, all the rulings that are presented in the Law (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomium) are summarized in the Ten Commandments, which are, themselves summarized in two (Loving God, and Loving the Other) and in the Twelve Blessings
(Mathew 5:1-12). They are not at all contradictory with the Law, but they clear many precepts the Jesus found to be useless and drawing people from the Love of God. The question here is that, other than the Ten Commandments, which are clearly presented as being proclamed by God Himself, therefore eternal, the other rullings can be said to be dated (in a Christian perspective, of course).

About the ocasions: God killed or helped killings (Sodom and Gomorra, the Flood, the Plague, some of Israel's victories,...) to Christian doctrine some are Paraboles (the Flood, Sdom and Gomorra) and the others are interpretations of the facts as God's doings. Christian belief does not dwell that much on those issues: maybe because they are contradictory, as you pose and I agree; maybe because they are not essencial, to our belief; maybe both.

	23-02-2002 03:10									#70
	Re: Re: Axiomic relativism Increase Your PM Length

I'll have to agree with Logical Realist here:

Ramo:

quote: And has little scientific credibility.

How can something that is (at least for now) only a matter of interpretation have "scientific credibility"? I can see why philosophical credibility would apply, but IMO the many worlds theory has much more philosophical credibility than the Copenhagen interpretation (for one thing it doesn't have the problem of what "measurement" means exactly).

If you mean "popularity among scientists" by "scientific credibility": the Copenhagen interpretation is the most popular but it's not that much more popular than the MWI.

Rogan Josh:

quote: Where di you pluck that misconception from? Perhaps you would like to tell me of a completely observer independent explanation of quantum theory then? There isn't one.

The many worlds interpretation says the universe is nothing but a wave function that evolves according to the Schrödinger equation. It is completely deterministic and local.
I don't see how this is observer-dependent. Of course, different observers observe different parts of the universe, and there are limits to measurement (uncertainty principle), but if that means the theory is observer-dependent then any theory is and there's no need to invoke quantum mechanics.
Likewise I don't see how the transactional interpretation or Bohm's theory is observer-dependent.

IMO it's really not necessary how almost everyone sees quantum mechanics as something mysterious - it's the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics that's bizarre, not the theory itself (and some of the other interpretations, too). I still resent having had it crammed down my throat in secondary school physics and having it crammed down my throat in university.

	23-02-2002 08:48									#71
	God: Necessary of Free? Remove this text

quote: connorkimbro: Not necessarily. Most intelligent christians would argue the following: That God does not arbitrarily decide what is a sin, and what is not a sin, but that a thing is a sin because it is contrary to his nature, IE, even God himself could not be any other way. For example, because God is honest, lying is a sin. Given that, they'd still have to show that each and every sin is based on God's nature, and NOT arbitrary . . . my only contribution is that it is not NECESSARILY arbitrary or based on the "opinion" of a higher being.

True. But then keep in mind that this takes away God's free will, in that IF God must necessarily be the way he is, and make the decisions that He is making then God cannot really be said to have "free" undetermined will. Also in this sense, God could no longer be omnipotent because then He could not do things contrary to His nature.

	23-02-2002 09:14									#72
	Still arbitrary Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Ecowiz:

quote: I presented you a definition of Morality so that we could be on common ground. I proposed that Morality is simply put, the set of rules through which a Society evaluates whether a behaviour is correct or incorrect. When you ask me what is then Correct Behaviour, I have to answer, following the definition I proposed: the moral one. That, however is a tautology. You seem to want that I state here what is, in my opinion, the Christian view of what is moral behaviour. The problem is that, all I can present to you is My Christian view, so I wont start a new discussion thread on this. On the other hand, as I stated in my previous post, I don't believe that is the point in this debate.

See then if its a tautology here, it seems to me that it it is still "what God commands" with God's commands based on very little other then arbitrary decisions.

quote: Your right, such a theory deserves criticism, but the one making the confusion isn't me. I never stated the the Omniscient God discouvered anything. I clearly stated He cannot discouver anything, because, being Omniscient, i.e., All Knowing, He Allready Knew, Knows and Will Know, Anything and Everything. So God didn't discouvered morality, He knew the Perfect rules of Moral Behaviour all along. This, according to Christian belief, of course.

Maybe discover was the wrong word. What I meant was more like....know of. I'm saying that if its not arbitrary and based on God's knowledge(though by no means created by it) this means that morality is something that exists outside of God. Such a viewpoint is not what I'm criticizing and is by no means the mainstream Christian one though.

quote: You know, to a Christian there is no such thing as a universe without God. And, God's Will is like a roadmap that allows you to follow the best and quickest route from one place to another, only the path you lead is your life.

See that's what I'm criticizing, it seems on that basis God is just making his road map out of nothing. Just inventing it. If not...on what basis is He making it? What makes God's invented road map better then another person?

You state that it's his supperiority on intellect...I think Christians really believe its power. In the former case you are saying that who's smartest is who gets to make true or false...right or wrong.

quote: You will never hear or read Christian doctrine stating that Man is naturally amoral - misguided is usually the common term .

I hear about it all the time. How without Christianity everyone will become an "immoral animal", without fear of hell everyone will just do whatever "sins" they want. In his book "Losing faith in Faith" Dan Barker describes a preacher who talks about how he(the preacher) would become an immoral animal without God, killing and raping people(he said this in front of his wife and kids).

To quote the Bible:

quote: 3 Romans 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Ecowiz:

quote: So, again being able to know the Perfect Moral Behaviour comes from Omniscience.

This still doesn't answer whether morality is determined by God, or whether God knows of some external morality and basis His orders on that.

quote: Thanks. Hopefully you do agree that Jesus, by doing what He did with the aledged adulterous woman also shown His disaproval of the other stoning practices, no?

See I can't be sure of that because Jesus didn't go all out and say "stoning is outdated" He seemed to only criticize the stoning of women and even there only in that one case. Remember Jesus said in the Bible that "he did not come to destroy the Law"(Old Testament Law). In fact I don't know of any passage in the New Testament that says that Old Testament Laws are outdated or no longer apply. And if there is a New Testament passage that clearly makes the Old Testament outdated...I wonder...why are Christian's still trying to post the Ten Commandments in publics schools?

	23-02-2002 09:48									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Also in this sense, God could no longer be omnipotent because then He could not do things contrary to His nature.

A person who made such an argument would agree that, in that sense, god is not omnipotent. In fact, some even go so far as to say he's not omniscient either. There are some really different arguments out there. . .

	23-02-2002 11:11									#74
	Subjectivist Fallacies Enter the AD-FREE zone

The first thing that comes to mind is why I should even bother writing a proper criticism on someone who puts up the statement "Yay, more philsophical jacking off!" as his or her title. Such immaturaty speaks of a person who does not take the issue seriously and puts in as much thought accordingly.But since he or she has not been too immature I will continue on:

(on Ramo's evasion of proving his point)

quote: I explicitly wrote that non-contradiction was the assumption that I was referring to.

Ramo I have asked you several times to prove just that. All you seem to be doing is restating your opinion.

quote: I never made a decision one way or the other. Like I said, it becomes ackward to refer to truth values in such a situation.

Really? You seemed pretty sure that everything was all of it is based on "baseless assumptions" and stated that:

quote: Why should truth values be attached to baseless assumptions? They're meaningless.

That sounds like a pretty strong relativist stance to me. In that you are in effect saying all knowledge is meaningless.

quote: Again, I'm not saying that all assumptions are equal or that all assumptions are not equal. And would you mind not referring to numbers?

I'll refer to numbers when it is effiecient to do so. Also you did say it was all based on assumptions and all assumptions are baseless.

I also showed how number 2 cannnot be true because it is self-contradictory. To which you said "that's just an assumption"...sounds like you are saying all assumptions are equal to me.

quote: Ok then, assuming a logical framework, prove that assertion.

That's kind of a backwards thing to ask since there can be no proof without logic. It's kind of like asking to establish numbers by means of algebra. Numbers come before algebra: logic comes before proof.

I would make this short by saying logic is self-evident, because without logic all statements lead to absurdity and communication becomes impossible. (For if a thing could be what it is not: One could never say nor know that, as then knowledge of something could be knowledge of its opposite). In effect to deny logic, one must use logic, and that's absurd.


I found this to be amusing. Here Ramo jettisons logic by saying:

quote: You're just being intentionally confusing! Again, that last "assumption" was derived from the framework of logic.

Then argues from it by saying:

quote: My assumptions are that I exist, the world around me exists, I'm not delusional, and that the physics community is not delusional. Quantum mechanics logically follows from these assumptions (and probably some minors ones I'm not thinking of).

then follows with:

quote: Logic has no basis in reality. It only exists in the human mind. We cannot observe logic.

In other words, logic has no basis in reality but helps to establish Quantum Mechanics. I suppose that is somewhat inconsistent but then again, one thing I'd never accuse a subjectivist of is constistency.

Also Ramo said "I'm not delsuional" but in his framework that's just an "assumption". Perhaps he is delsuional and all the solipsists are right. That ideas just as good as any, according to Ramo. Perhaps creationists are the true scientists, afterall what many consider to be real science is based on their "assumptions" according to Ramo.

This was Ramo's response to my statement concerning whether something can exist without him knowing of its existence. His evidence that they don't exist or exist subjectively is:

quote: Because they're different for different observers...

That in no way proves 1) That these things do not exist until we know of them and 2)that is circular reasoning. Again, what if they are seen differently but ARE the same? And are things really seen THAT differently?

Now onto "RJ":

quote: No you haven't because your argument does not hold water. Perhaps you would be better calling yourself Illogical realist.

That in no way refutes my argument...you are just saying "it's wrong: cause its wrong." Oh yes btw, har har harrr.

quote: I disagree with the very first sentence. Things can still be true or false in a subjective world. Your problem with the understanding of this may be down to how you define 'true' and 'false'....

This shows that you have no real clue as to what subjective means. I suggest you look it up in a logic text or critical thinking book.

Actually I know you won't so I'll just quote one right now:

quote: (From the book "Critical Thnking Fourth Edition) Claims about factual matters are known as subjective claims; claims about matters of pure opinion are known as subjective claims. Objective claims are statements that are true or false regardless of our personal preferences,tastes,biases and so on. Subjective claims are expressions of those preferences, tastes, biases and so on.

Also from the same textbook it states this concerning what is known as "the subjectivist fallacy":

quote: This pattern of pseudoreasoning: "Well, X may be true for you but its not true for me," said with the intent of dismissing X.

Lastlyfrom the same book)

quote: The view that underlies the subjectivist fallacy is sometimes called relativism, and it seems a common view among many students. Simply put, this view maintains that truth is relative. Now, lots of things are relative among individuals......But most claims, certainly straighforward matters of fact....are simply true or false independent of any paticular person's acceptance of them.

Back to Rogan:

quote: No - I am asking you to prove it without making any assumptions which you do not prove. Disprove it from first principle! This shouldn't be so hard in your objective universe should it, but I don't believe you can.

I did using the principle of identification(with its counterpart "the principle of noncontradiction") as the first principle then.

quote: me:Before you said "everything is subjective" now you're saying everything "might be" subjective.

RJ's response:

quote: Well it is a very subjective statement.

Really? Right before he said:

quote: There is no such thing as 'true objectivism'. Everything is subjective.

On the subjectivist point of view he later says:

quote: But I never said this point of view was true, so I make no assumption. I am only saying that it may be true, and you cannot disprove it.

quote: Not good enough. If you see a ghost or a manifestation of God, does that mean they exist?

There are different kinds of observations each contextual. None are made tabula rasa or in a vacuum. In that sense seeing God or a ghost on one occasion for a short period of time, under questionable conditions would not establish their existence. But if they were seen on numerous occasions for long durations....under normal conditions with many viewers at once, it would mean they are probably real.

quote: i don't think the basis for reality should be what you 'expect'. And I don't think you should make categorical statements based apon words like 'tend to'.

The vast majority of our knowledge is based on tendencies and probabilities. Hence, that is a good enough standard to establish something as real. Knowledge doesn't have to be perfect to be valid.

quote: The laws of physics tell us how we expect things to move and interact, but it I would have a bloody boring job if everything was as we 'expect' it to be.

So how entertaining a theory is determines its truth-value?

quote: It is not contradictory, you can still be subjectively wrong....

...there's an oxymoron.

quote: It is more the other way around. I must admit I too get a little sick of 'Quantum Quackery'. There is a vast tendancy for certain types of people who get their physics knowledge from the Discovery channel to assume that science can explain everything. In reality, science starts from basic assumptions and based on these assumptions, makes and attempt to describe the universe in a predictive sense. The more we confirm the predictivity, the more we can be certain of the assumptions which were originaly made, but they remain assumptions never-the-less. Therfore there are things which science can never prove (or disprove), and indeed makes no attempt to prove. It is only the practioners of 'Quantum Quackery' who try to do this.

Agreed, science is not perfect. But it is the best tool for discovery we have. But keep in mind that in places where science is limited...philosophy is not.

quote: Where di you pluck that misconception from? Perhaps you would like to tell me of a completely observer independent explanation of quantum theory then? There isn't one.

Keep in mind that being affected does not make it subjective and that Quantum laws become irrelevant at the macroscopic level.

quote: Just because things are subjective doesn't stop people agreeing!

I fail to see the relavance of this clarly. Are you saying that all determined phenomenon are the result of people agreeing? Well then, why don't you Subjectivists change that? It seems some of you would disagree here.

quote: I have to ask you what defines an object?

That's ostensible. It has to be else we would have infinite regress.

quote: Is it a collection of particles with some predefined position and momenta?

That is what makes up an object not defines it.

quote: If so, it does cease to exist when we are not observing it because it no longer fits into your definition of the object.

Among physicists that's controversial, but even if the person's presence is what determines the value of tiny particles, that fails to apply at the macroscopic level.

quote: I wouldn't go that far actually, although I would say that certain properties of the objects do not have definite values until we observe them. For example, if we know a point particle is at a certain position at a certain time, the momentum of the particle is not defined until we measure it.

Like I said we could simply be ignorant of these values until we measured them. Or the values may just change with measurement.

quote: That is the whole point - there is no difference!!! The act of knowing (or not knowing) the value changes the entire system!

That is question begging. And contradictory, in that, if what you are saying is the case: then Quantum Mechanics never existed until I knew of it. Neither did your position on this matter of things existing without being known.

quote: I make no such assumption, and acknowledge that we may live in a universe which is different for different observers

Well that's odd, you were pretty sure of it in your first post:

quote: There is no such thing as 'true objectivism'. Everything is subjective.

quote: You make the assumption that the universe is the same for every observer.

Perhaps you are a little too vague on what you mean by assumption and again, not all assumptions are necessarily equal.

quote: Rather than quoting professors of physics, I suggest you go away and learn some physics so you can understand the limitations of science for yourself.

I'm not a scientist, and don't therefore see any merit in spending several years researching Quantum Mechanics. Nor is it reasonable for you to expect anyone else to expect people to spend several years trying to disprove your theories or find your evidence. I get my information on physics from physicists as that is efficient.

quote: I really feel that the public of today regard scientists as a sort of new preisthood. They believe everything that scientists say as a matter of faith rather than taking some time to try and understand the ideas for themselves and viewing everything in a light of skepticism. Fair enough, you need to take some things on trust (there is far to much for one man to understand everything) but you should keep in the back of your mind that it could all be wrong.

Well it is illogical to assume someone is lying or is wrong off the bat. What is more logical is to believe them until people know they are lying. Science is far from the new priesthood though some may treat it that way, as is clear by Hollywood's constant negative portrayal of science and the public's reaction to genetic engineering. Of course people can question science,(that's why science is part of what makes it science, and what makes science a self-correcting enterprise). However like you said, there is trust involved. And one of the ways to check this is with logic(does this theory I know little about go against the logic I am certain of?) If a given theory fails that test it fails uttelry.

	23-02-2002 11:14									#75
	Lastly Increase the size of your Attachments

I would like to thank those that actually take the time to read and understand my posts as I know of how tedious they are. Ands those who have examined my ideas with an open mind on the basis of their logic and empirical strength. Thank you. ANd a special thanks to those who have given me positive feed back(supportjavascript:smilie('')
cool) concerning my theories and ideas. javascript:smilie('')
smile

	23-02-2002 13:39									#76
	Support Apolyton

quote: The first thing that comes to mind is why I should even bother writing a proper criticism on someone who puts up the statement "Yay, more philsophical jacking off!" as his or her title. Such immaturaty speaks of a person who does not take the issue seriously

I don't know if you've noticed, but this is an online forum, not a formal debate hall. Every sentence in my posts is not necessarily serious. That particular comment was meant to be amusing. You might've heard of the concept.

quote: and puts in as much thought accordingly.

Look, I don't know what's lodged up your ass, nor do I particularly care. But if you treat a person with disrespect, don't expect anything more than reciprocal behavior.

quote: But since he or she has not been too immature I will continue on

Interesting definition you have there; ad hominens, absurd non-sequiturs and strawmen are "mature," while a joke is "immature."

quote: Ramo I have asked you several times to prove just that. All you seem to be doing is restating your opinion.

I already did (in my second post). Again, any internally consistent system is logically valid. To be more explicit, any set of consistent assumptions makes a perfectly valid interpretation. Because there are many (in fact, infinite) such sets, there is no single objective interepretation.

quote: Really? You seemed pretty sure that everything was all of it is based on "baseless assumptions" and stated that:

How does that prove that I attach truth values to baseless assumptions?

quote: That sounds like a pretty strong relativist stance to me. In that you are in effect saying all knowledge is meaningless.

What? How am I "in effect" saying that? You're reading something that isn't there from my posts.

quote: I also showed how number 2 cannnot be true because it is self-contradictory.

I didn't assert "number 2."

[qutoe]To which you said "that's just an assumption"...sounds like you are saying all assumptions are equal to me.[/quote]

Where?

quote: That's kind of a backwards thing to ask since there can be no proof without logic. It's kind of like asking to establish numbers by means of algebra. Numbers come before algebra: logic comes before proof.

That's not what I said. I asked for proof assuming a logical framework. I didn't ask to prove it without logic.

quote: In other words, logic has no basis in reality but helps to establish Quantum Mechanics.

That's a completely absurd interpretation of what I wrote!

Logic has no more basis in reality than a tensor. These concepts are nothing more than tools to model reality. If these concepts inadaquetely model reality, they should be changed; not reality itself (see the MWI).

quote: This was Ramo's response to my statement concerning whether something can exist without him knowing of its existence.

I misread your statement (which is why the answer makes no sense). I thought you were asking for me to back up my assertion.

Regarding the question that you asked, of course something can exist without me knowing about it. But I'd prefer to have hard evidence of this thing's existence before subscribing to its existence.

quote: How can something that is (at least for now) only a matter of interpretation have "scientific credibility"? I can see why philosophical credibility would apply, but IMO the many worlds theory has much more philosophical credibility than the Copenhagen interpretation (for one thing it doesn't have the problem of what "measurement" means exactly).

AFAIK, inventing an unnecessary physical concept to make a theory coincide with your pre-conceptions smacks of an extremely unscientific attitude.

	23-02-2002 18:27									#77
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

LR, although our discussion was interesting, I think you never tried to analyse the Christian arguments on the Superiority of the Morality entailed in God's Will against the religion's basic assumptions about God.
I'll repeat those that, in my opinion are the crucial ones, because you seem to have forgotten them:
1- God exists and is Eternal
2- God Created all
3- God is Omniscient
4- God Loves Us All

Taking those four Christian, but also Muslim and Jewish (though I never understood if, in a Jewish framework God is said to love the Hebrew People more than all the others ),let me try to disconstruct the bases of your arguments.

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist See then if its a tautology here, it seems to me that it it is still "what God commands" with God's commands based on very little other then arbitrary decisions.

You can say that Christian Moral Rules are, alegedly, "what God commands". But you can also say "what God proposes" or "what God knows is best for His creation". Your argument is clearly based on Omnipotence: obey God's Will or else...
The two notions, that are current Christian doctrine are based of God's Love (making His Will a proposal and not an order) and His Omnisicience (justifying the claim that He knows best).

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist Maybe discover was the wrong word. What I meant was more like....know of. I'm saying that if its not arbitrary and based on God's knowledge(though by no means created by it) this means that morality is something that exists outside of God. Such a viewpoint is not what I'm criticizing and is by no means the mainstream Christian one though.

I don't know if what you claim to be mainstream Christian though is indeed The mainstream Christian thought. The Priests I talk with sure share and discuss these thoughts with me, and they are Catholic Preasts.
And, what surelly is not mainstream christian thought is that something, anything at all, exists outside God. And, surelly it is mainstream Christian doctrine that God, through his Creation has drawn Morality much the same way as the Laws of Phisics.

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist See that's what I'm criticizing, it seems on that basis God is just making his road map out of nothing. Just inventing it. If not...on what basis is He making it? What makes God's invented road map better then another person?

Two answers: Assumtion number 2 - God Created All (surelly out of nothing else but Himself - by assuming that God is Eternal, Christian doctrine presumes "nothingness" never existed); assumption number 3 - He is Omnsicient.
To Christians, All Creation was the only thing God "invented". But, for us, that seems to be enough .

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist You state that it's his supperiority on intellect...I think Christians really believe its power. In the former case you are saying that who's smartest is who gets to make true or false...right or wrong.

I don't need to say that. With all our discussions you should have already understood that the point is not Smarts but Knowledge.
Do you really try to understand all I'm writing?

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist I hear about it all the time. How without Christianity everyone will become an "immoral animal", without fear of hell everyone will just do whatever "sins" they want. In his book "Losing faith in Faith" Dan Barker describes a preacher who talks about how he(the preacher) would become an immoral animal without God, killing and raping people(he said this in front of his wife and kids).

What you hear all the time, is not sure to be mainstream doctrine.

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist To quote the Bible:

See, quoting the Bible is not enough.
Paul was talking about himself. He was assuming his own faults.
Paul particularly felt that without God's guidance he would be against His Will. If we look at Paul's life and conversion it's easy to understand why he feels this way.

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist This still doesn't answer whether morality is determined by God, or whether God knows of some external morality and basis His orders on that.

Look, to a Christian All is determined by God. Even our sins are determined by the Free Will He granted us. We tend to think that only order is of divine nature, but what makes us assume that? Allowing some desequilibria may well be part of a Divine Creation.

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist In fact I don't know of any passage in the New Testament that says that Old Testament Laws are outdated or no longer apply.

Then you should really read the Gospels. They are full of such indications. Not that the Law is outdated but that some of the rullings are.

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist And if there is a New Testament passage that clearly makes the Old Testament outdated...I wonder...why are Christian's still trying to post the Ten Commandments in publics schools?

For someone that claims to be Logical use have really, not a too elaborate use of Logic. Is it all Black and White to you?

When I see, from your posts that you really understood something that I have writen here, than I'll return to you. By now, I offered you much and I have to understand also when to give up.

	23-02-2002 18:56									#78
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: AFAIK, inventing an unnecessary physical concept to make a theory coincide with your pre-conceptions smacks of an extremely unscientific attitude.

This criticism is true of both the Copenhagen interpretation and Bohm's interpretation, but not the Many Worlds interpretation, which is also deterministic.

The Copenhagen interpretation invents the unnecessary collapsing mechanism and Bohm's interpretation invents an unnecessary quantum potential. The Many Worlds interpretation needs no new mechanisms: the evolution of the wave function according to the Schrödinger equation is enough.

You could say the collapse mechanism was invented to coincide with preconceptions that only the world we observe is real, except they didn't have anything better when it was invented.

	25-02-2002 02:58									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Alright, Christians claim God is Omniscient, meaning He knows everything. If He knows everything, that means He knows EVERYTHING, as in everyhing that was and everything that will be. Christians also claim that God gave humans free will. Free will causes us to sin, etc. Well, how do we have free will, if God knows everything? If God knows everything, that would include the future, and if a being ever knew the future, that would mean that the future cannot be altered. If the future cannot be altered, then there is no free will. We will do things, that have been pre-ordained. So, one of those beliefs is wrong. Either God is not Omniscient, or humans have no free will.

	25-02-2002 19:15									#80
	The nature of relativists Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Ramo:

quote: I don't know if you've noticed, but this is an online forum, not a formal debate hall.

Well Ramo, formal or not we should try to handle a serious issue in a serious manner. You can behave in as immature a manner as you wish...but then don't expect others to take you seriously. Besides...was your statement really that funny or creative?('')

quote: But if you treat a person with disrespect, don't expect anything more than reciprocal behavior.

Screw you.

quote: Interesting definition you have there; ad hominens, absurd non-sequiturs and strawmen are "mature," while a joke is "immature."

All this from a guy who believes that the first rule of logic(the principle of identification) is a "baseless assumption"? It seems interesting how, when cornered, a relativist is so willing to use the same logic he stated was "baseless assumption" just a post ago. These concepts like "ad hominens", non sequiturs and strawmen are meaningless if the rules of logic are meaningless.

Also if you think I did any of the above...show me where.

quote: I already did (in my second post). Again, any internally consistent system is logically valid.

Again though, in your system that is "baseless assumption". For one can say on the basis of a different "assumption" that inconsistent views are logical while consistent views are illogical.

quote: To be more explicit, any set of consistent assumptions makes a perfectly valid interpretation.

That's an unwarranted leap. You're saying that if an interpretation is "consistent" it is automatically "pefect" in regards to validity. That's a non sequitur if I ever saw one. Consistency isn't the only standard of evidence though it may be a strong one.

quote: Because there are many (in fact, infinite) such sets, there is no single objective interepretation.

Are there in fact "Infinite" interpretations? How do you know? Isn't that just your interpretation?

You're system IS very inconsistent btw. You state that there is "no single objective interpretation" right after you posited the objective standard of consistency.In your view its "All beliefs are equal but some are more equal then others" .

quote: How does that prove that I attach truth values to baseless assumptions?

You stated tht all beliefs were ultimately based on "baseless assumptions" and that such assumptions were meaningless. In which case you are advocating that your view(which would also be derived from baseless assumptions) is true.

quote: What? How am I "in effect" saying that?

I'll go over that real explicitly, so that even you can understand it>WINK<:

1) You state that all knowledge is based on "basless assumption"
2) You state that these "assumptions" are all meaningless.
3) Hence you are saying all knowledge is meaningless.

quote: You're reading something that isn't there from my posts.

For a relativist you sure do seem to make a lot of absolute statements. ('')

quote: I didn't assert "number 2."

I showed how number 2 was self-contradictory.

You stated that all knowledge was equal, in that ALL assumptions are baseless. Number 2 was meant to refer to a relativist stance in general friend, meaning it applies when the opponent obviously shows himself to hold to strong relativist positions.

quote: That's not what I said. I asked for proof assuming a logical framework. I didn't ask to prove it without logic.

Like I said, logic presupposes proof. Hence you are asking me to basically show you the workings of your eye. Or establish numbers via algebra. The request is backwards.

Also though, wouldn't an attempt to prove logic while assuming logic be rather... pointless? You are asking me to prove that a set of given standards work via thos given standards.

But to try and come close to your ridiculous request, if we go by what your saying with regards to logic then reducing the only alternative to absurdity establishes logic, the opposite of logic "illogic" is absurd, as it allows contradictions. Therefore since it's only alternative is absurd logic is established.

But like I said the request was ridiculous. The very act of assuming what is to be proven is question begging.

The argument, in summary would thus be:

Premise: Logical standards are valid.

Premise: If logical standards are valid they must be valid.

Conclusion:Hence Logical standards are valid.

See what I mean?

I'd like YOU to prove instead that these standards are assumed without assuming those standards.

quote: Logic has no more basis in reality than a tensor. These concepts are nothing more than tools to model reality. If these concepts inadaquetely model reality, they should be changed; not reality itself

So these tools are somehow "unreal"? And though they have "no basis in reality" one is to use them to establish what model accurately models reality?

I don't see how logic establishes the Quantum Mechanical model if it has no basis in reality. Or how one is to find out what model is the best representative of reality if all of knowledge is baseless.

quote: Regarding the question that you asked, of course something can exist without me knowing about it. But I'd prefer to have hard evidence of this thing's existence before subscribing to its existence.

Agreed, but you must also remember that the concept of evidence is dependent on the concept of an objective reality.

quote: inventing an unnecessary physical concept to make a theory coincide with your pre-conceptions smacks of an extremely unscientific attitude.

Pre-conceptions have been with science since its very begginings. Observations are never made in a vacuum but are interpreted on the basis of one's world view. The empriricists would spend countless hours speaking of "tabula rasa"; but an empty slate is not a vacuum; as it does contains one thing: the slate itself. Observations made without any content in which to store and interpret them cannot be made at all(for what can a vacuum really see?). All of it presupposes neurological machinery and 'a priori' viewpoints. Science is not immune to this, nor should it be. Like Darwin said "all knowledge to be useful must be for or against a given point of view." Science advancees by means of a reciprocal relationship of concepts and empirical evidence, observations are placed within the context of a worldview and worldviews can change when observations warrant. If it was all purely empirical, then like Lyell said, we may as well stop "theorizing" about rocks and count grains of dirt.


The main difference between me and the subjectivist is this:

I believe that some conceptul foundations and standards are self-evident and necessary for reasoning. And that this makes them better, and more realistic then other standards.

Whereas the subjectivist maintains that all standards and conceptual foundations are equal in their truth-value and their applicability to reality.

My position allows for objectivity,self-correction and rationality. The subjectivist's leads to a swamp of preference made into dogma. The subjectivist's position is one of pure conveniance(for what could be more conveniant then to be able to make any claim you want regarding: any subject, say it is equal to that of those most knowledgeable on the subject and do so without having to prove it?) My position allows one to actually admit when one is wrong and know when one is right.

	25-02-2002 19:34									#81
	God's arbitrary standards Full PM-box? Change here!

Ecowiz: You state that God invented all, well then He invented morality and the universe. God used his omnipotence to do so, hence His right to make things moral or immoral stems not from His knowledge of morality but from the notion that He invented morality out of thin air via His omnipotence.God could then likewise make rape and murder moral whenever He basically wants to. Basically then it's all based on His omnipotence.

as for mainstream Christians: this is their POV. That should be obvious to anyone willing to observe them.


Also where in the Bible does God get rid of the Law condemning kids to be stoned?

It seems that you are making your standards very arbitrary and unspecified(in regards to Old Testament laws being over-ruled by New Testament dictums) in order to pick and choose what Old Testament Laws are outdated at will.

	26-02-2002 01:58									#82
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Well Ramo, formal or not we should try to handle a serious issue in a serious manner. You can behave in as immature a manner as you wish...but then don't expect others to take you seriously.

Whatever. I'd rather not participate in this idiotic pissing contest.

quote: Besides...was your statement really that funny or creative?('')

We have these objectivist-type debates way too often (you're not a Randian, are you? ). Some may find it reasonably amusing...

quote: Screw you.

No thanks.

quote: It seems interesting how, when cornered, a relativist is so willing to use the same logic he stated was "baseless assumption" just a post ago. These concepts like "ad hominens", non sequiturs and strawmen are meaningless if the rules of logic are meaningless.

Where did I say that the rules of logic are meaningless? They model certain concepts well, but aren't inherently valid by themselves.

quote: Also if you think I did any of the above...show me where.

I was wrong. Actually, what you were doing is asserting that I've written various things that I have not, most likely because you're not actually reading my posts.

quote: Again though, in your system that is "baseless assumption". For one can say on the basis of a different "assumption" that inconsistent views are logical while consistent views are illogical.

Absolutely. Remember that whole subjectivism concept that we're arguing over? Remember that I explicitly wrote that I was assuming the basis of logic (noncontradiction)?

quote: That's an unwarranted leap.

Why? That's what I was assuming.

quote: You're saying that if an interpretation is "consistent" it is automatically "pefect" in regards to validity.

That's also the quintessential assumption that logic is essentially based on.

quote: That's a non sequitur if I ever saw one. Consistency isn't the only standard of evidence though it may be a strong one.

Consistency is the only standard of validity. Look it up in any logic text book.

quote: Are there in fact "Infinite" interpretations? How do you know? Isn't that just your interpretation?

For the simple reason that there are infinite possible assumptions to make. For example, assuming there's a God, how many possible names could He have? It's perfectly plausible that his name is Joe. Now assuming that there are k names he can take on, where k belongs to the set of all positive integers, and the kth name has k characters, there is obviously a k+1'th name, if you just concatenate an "a" onto the kth name. This doesn't contradict the assertion that there's a God, so that's perfectly logically vlaid. And because the set of all positive integers, by definition is infinite, you have an inductive proof that there are infinite possible assumptions you can make.

quote: You're system IS very inconsistent btw. You state that there is "no single objective interpretation" right after you posited the objective standard of consistency.

It's not an objective standard. It's simply the one most mathematicians use, and it's an, IMO, intuitive standard, so it's the one I use. I stated that it was an assumption at the very beginning, and kept repeating it every once in a while in this thread. I assumed that you were paying attention to my posts (though, with all of these things you attributed to me in this thread that I've never asserted, I see that I was incorrect in my assumption).

quote: You stated tht all beliefs were ultimately based on "baseless assumptions" and that such assumptions were meaningless. In which case you are advocating that your view(which would also be derived from baseless assumptions) is true.

It is indeed a baseless assumption. It's just as baseless as the definition of the vector product; it's a useful assumption, but it's not objectively true. I've never asserted otherwise.

quote: 2) You state that these "assumptions" are all meaningless.

Where?

quote: For a relativist you sure do seem to make a lot of absolute statements. ('')

Like I siad, there's a long list of assumptions that I make in every statement (for example, I'm not delusional). It's just not practical to list every single assumption in every single assertion that I make. assumed that you would realize that a relativist is never making absolute assertions, but I assumed incorrectly.

quote: You stated that all knowledge was equal, in that ALL assumptions are baseless.

How? Once again, I don't know what probability means in the case of baseless assertions.

quote: The argument, in summary would thus be: Premise: Logical standards are valid. Premise: If logical standards are valid they must be valid. Conclusion:Hence Logical standards are valid.

That isn't the argument.

You asserted "People who assume such a foundational relatavist viewpoint think that by proving claim 1; they've proven claim 2."

I asked for proof (assuming logic ). Again, you're evidently not reading my posts.

quote: So these tools are somehow "unreal"? And though they have "no basis in reality" one is to use them to establish what model accurately models reality?

Yep. I've yet to see a wild tensor running around.

quote: I don't see how logic establishes the Quantum Mechanical model if it has no basis in reality.

Logic is a mental construct. It helps the human mind work things out.

quote: Or how one is to find out what model is the best representative of reality if all of knowledge is baseless.

I'm getting really tired of these assertions that you're attributing to me that I've never written.

quote: but you must also remember that the concept of evidence is dependent on the concept of an objective reality.

Nope. One merely assumes that our senses work fine, and so forth.

quote: Pre-conceptions have been with science since its very begginings.

Yep, for example, Newtonian concepts of absolute position and time. That's why science keeps changing.

quote: Observations are never made in a vacuum but are interpreted on the basis of one's world view.

Which makes achievements such as QT and General Relativity all the more impressive. Once again, the idea is to drop philosophical concepts when they contradict reality, not to make reality unnecessarily complex.

quote: I believe that some conceptul foundations and standards are self-evident and necessary for reasoning. And that this makes them better, and more realistic then other standards.

I'd say that these standards are not "necessary" for reasoning, but certain concepts model certain aspects of reality more simply than others.

quote: and conceptual foundations are equal in their truth-value and their applicability to reality.

For the last time, I've never asserted that.

quote: The subjectivist's position is one of pure conveniance(for what could be more conveniant then to be able to make any claim you want regarding: any subject, say it is equal to that of those most knowledgeable on the subject and do so without having to prove it?)

*cough* Ad hominen! *cough*

On the contrary, the objectivist's position is the one of convenience; everything is black or white in your worldview.

quote: My position allows one to actually admit when one is wrong and know when one is right.

Your position is also extraodinarily arrogant.

	26-02-2002 15:44									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Enough is enough!!!

You, my friend are the living example of how using logic on unsificient information leads to the wrong conclusions!

What is a serious problem with you, though, is that you aply logical reasoning on unsuficient information not because it was not presented to you but because you choose not to use all the information given. That is intelectual dishonesty!!!

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist Ecowiz: You state that God invented all, well then He invented morality and the universe. God used his omnipotence to do so, hence His right to make things moral or immoral stems not from His knowledge of morality but from the notion that He invented morality out of thin air via His omnipotence.God could then likewise make rape and murder moral whenever He basically wants to. Basically then it's all based on His omnipotence.

Like the lowest kind of Sofism here is you conclusion build.
Working with the assumptions of Christianity (I will not repeat them, although you, so pedanticly, have chosen to disregard them, but I direct you to every single post I've written in this thread)...
True: God created (invented, if you want) all, because is Omnipotent.
False: God keeps inventing things.
You kept disregarding the assumption that God is Omniscient.
Omniscience implies:
- He knows all.
- He is never wrong.
- Everything he "invented" followed His purpose, from the moment of Creation.

Therefore, Morals is not being invented on a day by day basis, it derives from the one and only creative action of God. He Knew, when creating All, how things were to fit togheter and how they wouldn't. He has chosen to grant us the oportunity to act in order of making things not to fit togheter - that much we, Christians, believe. But the good practices were always known by Him, because, He created them with Full Knowledge of what He was doing!!!

The question you never considered is not the fact that God Created all, even Morals, but How he created them!!! And Christians believe He created All out of Love!!! Therefore, be sure to know that God did never proposed rape, theft, murder, even the little white lie as a good thing. Not according Christian belief, that is.

According to your uninformed, partial and partizan view of the "Christian God" I surelly don't know!!!

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist as for mainstream Christians: this is their POV. That should be obvious to anyone willing to observe them.

Agreed, and you're fighting windmils here!!!
No longer does the Christian Church has power over popular decision. However, is a majority of individuals believe in the Christian Faith, and therefore in the Christian Doctrine, it becomes a matter of individual choice, doesn't it?

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist Also where in the Bible does God get rid of the Law condemning kids to be stoned? It seems that you are making your standards very arbitrary and unspecified(in regards to Old Testament laws being over-ruled by New Testament dictums) in order to pick and choose what Old Testament Laws are outdated at will.

I'm a Christian, not a Jew. And you are criticizing the Christian belief, not the Jew one.
For a Christian, the Old Testament is read as validating that Jesus was the Messiah and that the Law and the Prophets are confirmed and given full meaning with Jesus' words and actions.
Not once you cited the Gospels, so I sugest you read them.
If you are so knowledgable about the mosaic law, please confront it with the folloing events:
- Jesus preaches on Saturday, outside the Sinagoge;
- Jesus' disciples take grains of weat, on a Saturday, to eat;
- Jesus expels the sellers from the Temple;
- Jesus asks to have the children among Him;
- Jesus eats and drinks with those deemed impure (like tax colectors);
- Jesus disaproves the killing of an alegedly adulterous woman;
- Jesus accepts to be washed by the hands of a alegedly impure woman (believed to be a prostitute).
Read also the opinion of Christ about the purity of food and investigate why christians eat pork (it is considered impure by the Mosaic Law).
Please, read all that, but read also the comments Jesus has about the Law, namelly how was established the now known Golden Rule.
Finally try and picture this, if you will: imagine that Jesus was indeed God; now imagine that Jesus was to be killed by men, much weaker than Him (He would be Omnipotent); now try to figure out why did He let it happen!!! Please do this under the assumption that He, in fact was God and not under of your assumption that there is no such thing as a God!!!
After that little exercize, please try to explain why Christians believe that God is Good and so is His Creation!

All this time that you criticized Christian doctrine, that you called mainstream so that you could try to place my reasoning as out of that category (it failed, by the way), you never used the Christian framework; not even the four simple assumptions I proposed to you.
A god that is Omnipotentent, but not Omniscient and does not love us all, simply is not the God christians believe in.

Therefore, all this time you have been criticizing a non existing thing. Surelly you were not criticizing the Christian belief, because, as far as you have shown in this thread, you simply do not know what you are talking about!!!

This goes to you new founded thread also!
Please, stick with what you know, try to investigate and then share your thoughts with us.
Ignorance is such a presumptuous thing!
Particularly when it gives someone the idea he knows better than so many others.

	26-02-2002 17:09									#84
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Those are some interesting points you bring up. Some of them directly relate to what St. Augustine grappled with.

If God is omnipotent, and God is omnibenevolent, then why is there evil at all? Since God is all together good, and God is all powerful, he would not only wish to not have evil, he would have the power (omnipotentcy) to get rid of it.

BTW, what do you think about God killing thousands of people at various times and handing out the commandment "Thou shallt not kill"?

	26-02-2002 17:51									#85
	Ramo the forgetful Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Now Ramo this is starting to bug me. I can take your criticims...that's fine. I try to be open minded. But when you deny sayng something you just said....that's where I draw the line. That means Ramo that your very sneaky and don't take this convo seriously.

Here is what you say when I point to how you state that the rules of logic are meaningless.

quote: Where did I say that the rules of logic are meaningless? They model certain concepts well, but aren't inherently valid by themselves.

Really? Well you said that:

quote: Didn't I just say that the assumptions are the rules of logic?

Hence logic is a baseless assumption. Next you say:

quote: Why should truth values be attached to baseless assumptions? They're meaningless.

This makes me wonder if you know "what you even believe yourself. This isn't the first time you've done this Ramo. If you want anyone to take you seriously at least pay attention to what you say. Because its not my job to look up and find your statements for you.

Also you don't seem to get it: I am not saying your assumptions are not true, I am saying they cannot be true. Whether or not you decide they are true then is irrelevant.

As for Ramo's proof, for subjectivism(I was unaware that he made an attempt to prove subjectivism at all since his proof was so. weak)

quote: Again, any internally consistent system is logically valid. To be more explicit, any set of consistent assumptions makes a perfectly valid interpretation. Because there are many (in fact, infinite) such sets, there is no single objective interepretation.

No here I got to thinking he must mean "true" when he says validity. Because if Ramo knew basic logic he would know that validity alone isn't enough to establish a given conclusion. That takes 2 things 1) Validity and 2) True premises. True premises are important for this reason:

I can make this argument using Ramo's logic: All Marxists are evil
Preston is a Marxist
Therefore Preston is evil.

Valid yes. But since the premises are not known to be true its very weak.

In logic, a good argument or conclusion is established by 1) Validity and 2)True premises. If any argument is missing any one of those two elements it is called weak. If it contains both it is either strong or sound.

Ramo says he has 1(which he doesn't because if the viewpoints were infinite and all equal, then a viewpoint opposite to Ramo's would have to be true,creating a contradiction and destroying Ramo's cherished validity). A

But even with 1, without 2 all those viewpoints are worthless.

Hence, there could be "infinite" viewpoints but all of them could simply be wrong. I don't see how the fact that there are "possible viewpoints" establishes or proves in any way that reality is subjective.

Ramo basic logic tells you reality means nothing in a vacuum. Ramo's argument must be more then just valid, it must be strong or sound.

quote: We have these objectivist-type debates way too often (you're not a Randian, are you? ). Some may find it reasonably amusing...

No I'm not an Randian. Thanx for asking >WINK<. I have read a lot of Rand's stuff and agree with some of her ideas though. You'd do well not to label all objectivists as Randians though; as more then one person has made a fool of himself on the atheist network for doing so. Rand may be somewhat odd btw, but at least her beliefs seem to be better then yours.

quote: Where did I say that the rules of logic are meaningless? They model certain concepts well, but aren't inherently valid by themselves.

I think I see what you're saying a little more clearly now. Though its still not making very much sense. You seem to believe that unless there are premises that validly lead up to a given point that the statement is meaningless. or lacks a truth-value. Such a view bespeaks an ignorance of critical thinking. Validity only applies to arguments which are built on true premises. A premise can be true without being valid, btw,(non-validity and being invalid ar two different things). Certain things though can be said to be true without argument,things like basic facts and such. Remember that a sound or strong argument consists of two main elements 1) Validity and 2) True premises. Meaning some things don't necesserally require validity to be true(these thing being original premises). Things can be true without being conclusions...either sound or strong.

quote: Absolutely. Remember that whole subjectivism concept that we're arguing over? Remember that I explicitly wrote that I was assuming the basis of logic (noncontradiction)?

OK, you still don't get why that's relativism. You state all these assumptions are baseless and meaningless. This implies that one assumptions is just as good as another(for they are ALL baseless remember?). If they are all baseless it doesn't matter whether you decide to accept a baseless assumption or not, in your system they are all still baseless. Meaning that one is still just as good as another. You're preffering a certain assumption does nothing to change the asburdity of your viewpoint.

quote: Consistency is the only standard of validity. Look it up in any logic text book.

I am aware of that.

You posted this on your first criticism though:

quote: Nope, that would actually also be a subjective statement. It operates under certain unspoken assumptions, namely that the structure of our logical system is valid.

To me it appeared as if by "valid" you meant true. As the very attempt to apply the standard of vallidity to the logical structure that sets it up seems kind of backwards. Also see my criticism of your "proof" for subjectivity above for more on why I was confused.

As for that textbook, if you actually read my posts you would see that these textbooks label the whole subjectivist position as fallacious.

How Ramo knows there are infinite interpretations:

quote: For the simple reason that there are infinite possible assumptions to make.

His proof in the form of an analogy:

quote: For example, assuming there's a God, how many possible names could He have? It's perfectly plausible that his name is Joe. Now assuming that there are k names he can take on, where k belongs to the set of all positive integers, and the kth name has k characters, there is obviously a k+1'th name, if you just concatenate an "a" onto the kth name. This doesn't contradict the assertion that there's a God, so that's perfectly logically vlaid. And because the set of all positive integers, by definition is infinite, you have an inductive proof that there are infinite possible assumptions you can make.

Problems with it:

1) Assuming there is a God. Remember for an argument to be strong or sound its premises have to be true.

2) What do names have to do with interpretations? That's quite a leap to go from the assumed God's names to all interpretations.

3) Again Ramo assumes that since his argument is "valid" it is strong. That's only half of it friend. The other half is having true premises. Without that your argument may be valid...but weak.

quote: It's not an objective standard.

If its not an objective standard then it can prove nothing. Look at what the textbook I quoted had to say about objective and subjective claims.

quote: It's simply the one most mathematicians use, and it's an, IMO, intuitive standard, so it's the one I use. I stated that it was an assumption at the very beginning, and kept repeating it every once in a while in this thread.

You stated that it was a baseless subjectivist assumption, in which case it cannot be a standard of truth.

quote: It is indeed a baseless assumption. It's just as baseless as the definition of the vector product; it's a useful assumption, but it's not objectively true. I've never asserted otherwise.

First off define useful. Secondly, by saying all asumptions are baseless you are saying they are equal. How can one baseless assumption be better then another?

quote: Like I siad, there's a long list of assumptions that I make in every statement (for example, I'm not delusional). It's just not practical to list every single assumption in every single assertion that I make. assumed that you would realize that a relativist is never making absolute assertions, but I assumed incorrectly.

Well that makes me wonder now how you came to the conlcusion that an assumption was incorrect. As if they are all baseless it seems like they could pretty much stand alone. Also I know relativists aren't supposed to be making absolute statements. I was pointing out that yours sound that way though...that you were in effect contradicting yourself. Also aren't you just assuming then that relativists don't make absolute assumptions? What if someone else assumes that they do?

quote: How? Once again, I don't know what probability means in the case of baseless assertions.

Isn't probability itself then also a "baseless" assumption in your view? If so aren't you just by using probability evaluating baseless assumptions by means of other baseless assumptions?

quote: That isn't the argument. You asserted "People who assume such a foundational relatavist viewpoint think that by proving claim 1; they've proven claim 2." I asked for proof (assuming logic ). Again, you're evidently not reading my posts.

Well Ramo maybe if you weren't ambiguous I would.

Here was the original question:
Me:

quote: If it's all assumption then there is no evidence. You say all belief is unwarranted assumption, then ask for evidence as a standard. <http://apolyton.net/b.gif>

Ramo:

quote: Ok then, assuming a logical framework, prove that assertion.

Now what's he asking about? The first sentence or second? Or about the rules of logic that I'm talking about and is the theme of my post?

I believed the third and responded with:

quote: That's kind of a backwards thing to ask since there can be no proof without logic. It's kind of like asking to establish numbers by means of algebra. Numbers come before algebra: logic comes before proof. I would make this short by saying logic is self-evident, because without logic all statements lead to absurdity and communication becomes impossible. (For if a thing could be what it is not: One could never say nor know that, as then knowledge of something could be knowledge of its opposite). In effect to deny logic, one must use logic, and that's absurd.

To which Ramo responded that I misread his question? NO. He asnwers with:

quote: That's not what I said. I asked for proof assuming a logical framework. I didn't ask to prove it without logic.

Well now it seems he misread as well. Anyways Ramo, I've always showed why relativist/subjectivist(interchangeable terms) positions are contradictory numerous times. And will not state it again for your amusement. I was puzzled by your original question because it was ambiguous and because I had already fulfilled your request. The fact that you didn't realize that with my paragraph long answer tells me it is you, not I, that am not reading these posts.

quote: Yep. I've yet to see a wild tensor running around.

So to be "real" and object has to be seen? I've never seen my brain, so according to Ramo's theories, my brain is "unreal", as is any concept like science,physics, and zoology. All concepts go into some sort of netherworld. That's not subjectivism Ramo...that's dualism. Are you saying that ideas are not real? Or that these ideas and methods(Like science) don't describe reality just cause I can't see a science running around?

quote: Logic is a mental construct. It helps the human mind work things out.

If logic is a construct it is not a very good standard Ramo. In your view at least, in which case it cannot be used to establish Quantum Mechanics. Also define "work things out". Also prove that logic is a construct.

quote: One merely assumes that our senses work fine, and so forth.

If there is no objective reality what are the senses working on? Are you saying all evidence is derived from sense experience btw? Evidence is more then that.

Senses cannot interpret nothingness and they are hardly working if one is making stuff up. If there is no objective reality Ramo, then sense experience is no better a standard then imagination. Ramo, if everything is subjective and everybodies right, then the idea that there can be something called "evidence" which gets us closer to the truth is meaningless.

quote: Which makes achievements such as QT and General Relativity all the more impressive. Once again, the idea is to drop philosophical concepts when they contradict reality, not to make reality unnecessarily complex.

In the subjectivist view reality is whatever one wants it to be. I'm getting annoyed by your inability to grasp that obvious statement. If it's subjective, whatever I percieve or think it to be, then my concepts never have to change. The very concept of reality loses meaning in the subjectivist viewpoint.

quote: I'd say that these standards are not "necessary" for reasoning, but certain concepts model certain aspects of reality more simply than others.

You can say that, but in the subjectivist viewpoint that would just be your opinion.

(In reference to truth-values being equal under subjectivism)

quote: For the last time, I've never asserted that.

Ramo, you don't have to. That's what subjectivism entails. If you don't believe me, then you obviously haven't a clue as to what subjectivism is. Please read my posts, there you will find out what a subjectve claim is by means of the textbook I quoted. Subjectivism is basically saying all claims,truths etc are subjective.

quote: *cough* Ad hominen! *cough*

Actually its only an ad hominen if I say that disproves subjectivism.

quote: On the contrary, the objectivist's position is the one of convenience; everything is black or white in your worldview.

How is that conveniant? I have to admit when I'm wrong and actually admit that being correct is more then a matter of just inventing things. I actually have to work to acquire knowledge.

Also, Ramo, what makes you think everything becomes a matter of black and white in the objectivist viewpoint? I think some things are black and white, but some things are grey too. I try to avoid reducing everything to the simplistic black/white only, or all is grey mentality.

quote: Your position is also extraodinarily arrogant.

That in no way refutes what I was saying.

	26-02-2002 17:58									#86
	Ecowiz Increase Your PM Length

All the following example on the NT show that Jesus is above the Law. Not people in general. The Golden Rule and such are just add ons.

You state that God's morality comes from his Love and Omniscience.

OK, but again God just made morality that way. It's still ultimately based on his omnipotence, had God simply chosen to base morality on hate...that would have been just as easy for him.

Also look here: You're asking me to judge your morality as good, when God is the only standard of good. In your system God automatically equals good. In that way I would not be able to judge God as anything but good by definition. That's rigging the game.

It's still God just made things up out of nothing. An omnibenevolent or omniscient being who makes things up; is still just making things up.

	26-02-2002 18:04									#87
	Jesus says Full PM-box? Change here!

Jesus in mathew talks of Old Testament Law here:

quote: 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

	26-02-2002 21:23									#88
	Re: Jesus says Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist Jesus in mathew talks of Old Testament Law here: 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

What a very nice quote qe have here!!!

So Jesus came and fullfilled the Law and the Prophets, thus accomplishing the condition He presented in 5:18.

Now, about those "least commandments": I suppose you've read
Mathew 5:1-12. Also you should read the part in the Gospel when Jesus is asked what is the most important commandment. You may look for His answer and figure out how does He propose to keep those "least commandments". Hopefully, there you can also realize what are those "least commanments" Jesus is talking about. Or do you want us to believe that all Christian message is in this small part of the Gospel?

	26-02-2002 21:43									#89
	Re: Ecowiz Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist All the following example on the NT show that Jesus is above the Law. Not people in general. The Golden Rule and such are just add ons.

Wrong!!!
And the quote you posted after this little post just disproves you!
The Golden rule cannot be an add on for two reasons:
1- The context in which it is presented: Jesus presents it, along with the First Commanment, as a synthesis of the Law and the Prophets.
2- It would simply be in contradiction with some of the rulings, if they were to be accepted as something other than dated precepts. Those rullings are, in my opinion, the first bureaucratic experience known to humankind!

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist You state that God's morality comes from his Love and Omniscience. OK, but again God just made morality that way. It's still ultimately based on his omnipotence, had God simply chosen to base morality on hate...that would have been just as easy for him.

Is it OK? Really?
Finally!!!
And you're right. It would be just as easy for a Omnipotent God to make it allright to hate, wouldn't it?
But then, would He be a Loving God?
I think not.

quote: Originally posted by Logical Realist Also look here: You're asking me to judge your morality as good, when God is the only standard of good. In your system God automatically equals good. In that way I would not be able to judge God as anything but good by definition. That's rigging the game. It's still God just made things up out of nothing. An omnibenevolent or omniscient being who makes things up; is still just making things up.

Now we agree!
The main point and problem is to believe all four assumptions are true. All the rest derive from them. But believing in that, with no such thing as a strong physical evidence isn't called Logic, it is called Faith. Christians have it, so it is easy, for us to believe all that follows. You, on the other hand don't have it, so it is much more difficult, I assume.
The only thing I offer you to ponder is "What if it was true, and such a God existed?". "Wouldn't it be great?"

Now returning to your first point.
It is not Christian doctrine that an a-Christian moral is structurally a-moral or imoral. Otherwize, we wouldn't have Ecumenism or gatherings of religious leaders sponsored by the Pope, would we?

However oficial Catholic doctrine still points to a certain superiority over other religions. This much is, AFAIC, a point open to (internal) debate.

There is also, among those that assume some kind of trascendent existence the feeling that a strictly materialistic morallity will be insuficient. To be honest, in this particular point a assume myselt the same difficulty I suppose you have when dealing wiht a Christian framework. I have some dificulty in imagining what would be the pilars of a strictly materialistic morallity.

Can you help me on that?

	26-02-2002 22:19									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by MacTBone Those are some interesting points you bring up. Some of them directly relate to what St. Augustine grappled with. If God is omnipotent, and God is omnibenevolent, then why is there evil at all? Since God is all together good, and God is all powerful, he would not only wish to not have evil, he would have the power (omnipotentcy) to get rid of it.

The usual response to your question, which actually satisfies me is that, because God loves Humans, He granted us the gift of being able to choose our actions. For some reason (some say, in order to help us understand what is good and what is not), that right of choice entitle us to do evil. The point here is not that He couldn't avoid evil, is that he allowed His loved limited Sons and Daughters to have free will. Evil doings would, then, be bound to happen. As so many times we see happening, evil is many times performed out of twisted (therefore limited) perceptions of what is good and what is wrong.

quote: Originally posted by MacTBone BTW, what do you think about God killing thousands of people at various times and handing out the commandment "Thou shallt not kill"?

Christians believe we are, All, Sons and Daughters of God, through Christ. So we tend to disregard much of the claims that Israel's victories were God's workings. We accept that kind of interpretation of the facts from the Hebrews because they thought they were The Chosen People. Because those that wrote the Old Testament were Jews, it is accepted by Christians that they would describe their victories as the workings of God. We, nowadays Christians do not agree that War can be one of God's workings but, in the best of the hypothesis, an aftermath of some evildoings performed by some of us. Some centuries ago, however, there was something about a Holy War, of sorts but, this is but one of the many mistakes the Catholic Church has having the oportunity of ponder.
That much comes to say that, for Christian doctrine (as far as my Paroch's preacher this last Sunday goes, at least) it was not God that killed the people, those thousands times you mention.