How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

[Compassionist]

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong? For example, I think it is wrong to be a herbivore or a carnivore or an omnivore, or a parasite. I think all living things should be autotrophs. I think only autotrophs are good and the rest are evil. However, I am not certain that my thoughts are right. Can herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, and parasites become autotrophs at will? If so, why don't they? If they can't become autotrophs at will, is it really their fault that they are not autotrophs?

[The Tanager]

I believe you are trying to claim #1. We all know the Rez didn't happen, but feel free to imagine it did.

However, the fact that you can call it a philosophical musing that leads you to Belief is pretty absurd.

After all, there is no historical data of a resurrection any more than there being historical data of all the supernatural events ever claimed by humanity. That is to say, none. There is no bona fide, verified instance of ANYTHING supernatural occurring.

So, you are trying to claim a bunch of natural things happened (like people claiming things, making up religions, people dying, people being sad about people being dead, etc.) and that leads to belief that a supernatural event occurred?!?!?!

You say you believe I’m trying to claim #1, but then you slide into saying I’m trying to claim #2 at the end here. I believe #2, but it’s not what I claimed in this thread. There are other threads for that.

And the classic line from Religionists is "Well, if my preferred God exists, then it's completely reasonable to believe in the supernatural! Therefore, my belief in God is all the reason I need to accept supernatural things occur."

That’s not a classic line, it’s choosing very low-hanging fruit that most religionists would not make and acting like that is a mark against the claims of thoughtful religionists.

[boatsnguitars]

I believe you are trying to claim #1. We all know the Rez didn't happen, but feel free to imagine it did.

However, the fact that you can call it a philosophical musing that leads you to Belief is pretty absurd.

After all, there is no historical data of a resurrection any more than there being historical data of all the supernatural events ever claimed by humanity. That is to say, none. There is no bona fide, verified instance of ANYTHING supernatural occurring.

So, you are trying to claim a bunch of natural things happened (like people claiming things, making up religions, people dying, people being sad about people being dead, etc.) and that leads to belief that a supernatural event occurred?!?!?!

You say you believe I’m trying to claim #1, but then you slide into saying I’m trying to claim #2 at the end here. I believe #2, but it’s not what I claimed in this thread. There are other threads for that.

And the classic line from Religionists is "Well, if my preferred God exists, then it's completely reasonable to believe in the supernatural! Therefore, my belief in God is all the reason I need to accept supernatural things occur."

That’s not a classic line, it’s choosing very low-hanging fruit that most religionists would not make and acting like that is a mark against the claims of thoughtful religionists.

It's incoherent to say you are arguing for something, as an academic exercise or philosophical musing, then claim you also happen to believe it.

If you know it's simply a musing, then why do you believe it? How can you believe something you can't prove - when you openly admit you can't prove it?

1. I believe in Big Foot.
2. I offer philosophical musings on how Big Foot might exist, you know, as a philosophical musing....
3. Don't denigrate my belief in Big Foot! I know He exists! I pray to Him every night! But, don't ask me for evidence - I'm just musing...

All Supernaturalists have this problem. It's inherent to supernatural belief. There has never been any direct evidence for the supernatural, yet, apparently, people are willing to die for it.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #689]

Where are you getting “well dressed” and “look good” from in Paul’s description of the false apostles?

I got the idea from your writing the following:

The way Paul advises us to test truth is carefully. Specifically, in 2 Cor 11:14, he is saying truth isn’t judged by the speaker’s prowess or how much money the speaker gets.

Well dressed and looking good are reminiscent of politicians and pastors of mega-churches re Paul's descriptions.
I suppose it could equally describe unusual encounters with any entity one encounters on the roadside. The point Paul is making appears to be that such things require testing before they can legitimately be regarded as right or wrong, and that includes supernatural notions superseding natural ones.

Paul says that since Satan deceives, it is no wonder that Satan’s servants (the false apostles Paul is talking about) also deceive. If Paul thought of it as purely metaphorical, then that connection wouldn’t work.

If Paul was a supernaturalist maybe he did believe in an actual Supernatural being called Satan and wasn't using the notion metaphorically, but the notion itself may be a product of a natural being who wants humans to believe that there is such a thing as a supernatural universe which created this one.
That would mean that supernaturalists are deceived. The question is, "How can such be tested?" and if such cannot be tested then "Why believe in such?"

Perhaps - metaphorically - one believes in such because one is allowing oneself to be deceived and perhaps the deceiver is really ones self?

This is the paradox which Christian Doctrine heaps upon those who believe it and want others to believe it. The dualistic nature of a "supernatural" universe which has an ongoing dispute between two diametrically opposed "supernatural" entities (The Christian God and the Christian Satan) in which Humans in the Natural universe are troubled by.

[The Tanager]

It's incoherent to say you are arguing for something, as an academic exercise or philosophical musing, then claim you also happen to believe it.

If you know it's simply a musing, then why do you believe it? How can you believe something you can't prove - when you openly admit you can't prove it?

1. I believe in Big Foot.
2. I offer philosophical musings on how Big Foot might exist, you know, as a philosophical musing....
3. Don't denigrate my belief in Big Foot! I know He exists! I pray to Him every night! But, don't ask me for evidence - I'm just musing...

All Supernaturalists have this problem. It's inherent to supernatural belief. There has never been any direct evidence for the supernatural, yet, apparently, people are willing to die for it.

Where did I say it was simply a musing? Where did I openly admit I can’t prove one of my beliefs? I didn’t. You making claims based off of me saying these things I didn’t say is the problem.

[The Tanager]

Well dressed and looking good are reminiscent of politicians and pastors of mega-churches re Paul's descriptions.

That says more about our cultural heritage than Paul’s.

The point Paul is making appears to be that such things require testing before they can legitimately be regarded as right or wrong, and that includes supernatural notions superseding natural ones.

I agree.

If Paul was a supernaturalist maybe he did believe in an actual Supernatural being called Satan and wasn't using the notion metaphorically, but the notion itself may be a product of a natural being who wants humans to believe that there is such a thing as a supernatural universe which created this one.
That would mean that supernaturalists are deceived. The question is, "How can such be tested?" and if such cannot be tested then "Why believe in such?"

Perhaps - metaphorically - one believes in such because one is allowing oneself to be deceived and perhaps the deceiver is really ones self?

This is the paradox which Christian Doctrine heaps upon those who believe it and want others to believe it. The dualistic nature of a "supernatural" universe which has an ongoing dispute between two diametrically opposed "supernatural" entities (The Christian God and the Christian Satan) in which Humans in the Natural universe are troubled by.

I agree that the supernaturalist (like Paul definitely was) could be deceived. The principle of testing beliefs that Paul uses applies to supernatural beliefs as well. But what paradox are you talking about? Any belief, supernatural or natural, could be deception. I don’t see how dualistic supernatural worldviews are any different than non-dualistic natural worldviews on this front.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #695]

Well dressed and looking good are reminiscent of politicians and pastors of mega-churches re Paul's descriptions.

That says more about our cultural heritage than Paul’s.

Then we could also argue that what Paul has to say is more about his cultural heritage than ours.

The point Paul is making appears to be that such things require testing before they can legitimately be regarded as right or wrong, and that includes supernatural notions superseding natural ones.

I agree.

I haven't gotten that impression re our overall interactions, since you have never provided supporting evidence for your belief in supernaturalism as being the right philosophy to follow.
That aside, perhaps this is due to a superficial difference rather than any major one.

Have you had any experience which you consider to being supernatural and if so, how did you test it/what process did you employ which convinced you it was a genuine supernatural experience?

I agree that the supernaturalist (like Paul definitely was) could be deceived. The principle of testing beliefs that Paul uses applies to supernatural beliefs as well. But what paradox are you talking about? Any belief, supernatural or natural, could be deception. I don’t see how dualistic supernatural worldviews are any different than non-dualistic natural worldviews on this front.

If the testing was done only on the grounds that any deception can be detected from non-dualistic natural world views, then any deception can at least in theory, be detected. If there isn't a way in which to detect such, then one best remain agnostic until such a time when claims et al can be tested.

[The Tanager]

Then we could also argue that what Paul has to say is more about his cultural heritage than ours.

When Paul uses cultural examples, sure, but not the principles that underlie his claims. The same goes for you. The difference here is that we were talking about a principle by Paul and you offered a cultural example.

I haven't gotten that impression re our overall interactions, since you have never provided supporting evidence for your belief in supernaturalism as being the right philosophy to follow.

I have always supported my claims, at least when it is clear that the other person wants a mutually respectful conversation. I was willing to continue to do so with you here about my claims concerning supernaturalism, but you decided that only what you wanted to talk about should be talked about. Now you’ve tried to circle back around to that. No thanks.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #697]

When Paul uses cultural examples, sure, but not the principles that underlie his claims. The same goes for you. The difference here is that we were talking about a principle by Paul and you offered a cultural example.

I was following your lead Tanager. In offering modern day equivalents, I wasn't denying any underlying principle.

The point Paul is making appears to be that such things require testing before they can legitimately be regarded as right or wrong, and that includes supernatural notions superseding natural ones.

I agree.

I haven't gotten that impression re our overall interactions, since you have never provided supporting evidence for your belief in supernaturalism as being the right philosophy to follow.
That aside, perhaps this is due to a superficial difference rather than any major one.

I have always supported my claims, ...

I have a different memory re your being asked on many occasion to support supernaturalism here in this thread and failing to do so.
I may be mistaken in that, so if you would, please provide a specific quote where this has been the case, and I will gladly retract.

was willing to continue to do so with you here about my claims concerning supernaturalism, but you decided that only what you wanted to talk about should be talked about.

While you are at it, rather than possibly bearing false witness, please quote where I said any such thing, or retract your accusation.

Also, have you had any experience which you consider to being supernatural and if so, how did you test it/what process did you employ which convinced you it was a genuine supernatural experience?

I agree that the supernaturalist (like Paul definitely was) could be deceived. The principle of testing beliefs that Paul uses applies to supernatural beliefs as well. But what paradox are you talking about? Any belief, supernatural or natural, could be deception. I don’t see how dualistic supernatural worldviews are any different than non-dualistic natural worldviews on this front.

I think it sound logic that the testing was done only on the grounds that any deception can be detected from non-dualistic natural world views, then any deception can at least in theory, be detected. If there isn't a way in which to detect such, then one best remain agnostic until such a time when claims et al can be tested.

[boatsnguitars]

It's incoherent to say you are arguing for something, as an academic exercise or philosophical musing, then claim you also happen to believe it.

If you know it's simply a musing, then why do you believe it? How can you believe something you can't prove - when you openly admit you can't prove it?

1. I believe in Big Foot.
2. I offer philosophical musings on how Big Foot might exist, you know, as a philosophical musing....
3. Don't denigrate my belief in Big Foot! I know He exists! I pray to Him every night! But, don't ask me for evidence - I'm just musing...

All Supernaturalists have this problem. It's inherent to supernatural belief. There has never been any direct evidence for the supernatural, yet, apparently, people are willing to die for it.

Where did I say it was simply a musing? Where did I openly admit I can’t prove one of my beliefs? I didn’t. You making claims based off of me saying these things I didn’t say is the problem.

Philosophy without science is musing.
You can't prove any of your supernatural beliefs. If you could, you would.

[The Tanager]

I was following your lead Tanager. In offering modern day equivalents, I wasn't denying any underlying principle.

I wasn’t saying you denied the underlying principle. But offering modern day equivalents isn’t following my lead because I didn’t offer modern day equivalents. It’s fine that you did this. The only reason we are talking about this is because I thought you were saying Paul’s text was the source, not our culture. That has been cleared up now.

While you are at it, rather than possibly bearing false witness, please quote where I said any such thing, or retract your accusation.

In post 654, I pointed out 5 key issues we had been talking about, seeking further discussion. You responded to some of that in 655. I responded again, using that fivefold categorization in post 656. In post 657 you raised a 6th issue defending Natural Philosophy against the problems of consciousness, evil, and infinite regress and you wanted me to do the same with my worldview. In post 658 I responded how:

(a) I agree your Natural Philosophy coherently answers those problems

(b) I hadn’t supported how I think Christianity coherently answers those problems because you told me to table those reasons which, in America (which is where I’m from), means DON’T SHARE THEM RIGHT NOW, and

(c) That I’d be willing to share them if you will continue to discuss the 5 key issues I had pointed out and you stopped responding to in the last post.

In post 659 you then accused me of going off on a tangent (even though you had responded to that supposed tangent in post 655) and refused to reply to those 5 issues. In post 660, I reiterated my willingness to talk about my five AND your one and in post 661 you doubled down that you just wanted to talk about your one.

So, do you want to talk about only what you think should be talked about (me supporting supernaturalism) or do you want to discuss all 6 issues? If the former, then you can join on this thread: viewtopic.php?t=40578&start=40 with the latest two questions I asked bng in post #44.

If the latter, then respond to each point in post 656, we can discuss my support for supernaturalism in that other thread (or I'll double up here if you want), and I'll address your question concerning if I’ve had any supernatural experiences and how I tested those.

I think it sound logic that the testing was done only on the grounds that any deception can be detected from non-dualistic natural world views, then any deception can at least in theory, be detected. If there isn't a way in which to detect such, then one best remain agnostic until such a time when claims et al can be tested.

Why can it only be detected from non-dualistic natural worldviews? This seems like an 6th issue, but perhaps it is covered by one I’ve already named in post 654.