BlueBanana

Also answer the question: do you accept the difference between the terms proof and evidence?

The OP has a false definition of belief, because he refuses to accept that the words evidence and proof are not interchangeable. Instead, all while qu...

What I imagine was meant is, in the context of christianity.

I'm holding only my popcorn.

If we had the upvote function, I'd be confused whether I should upvote that comment or not use it because of my principles.

Yes. Unless we can observe the moral values without making the judgements ourselves. Yes this might lead to needing to redefine morality but given how...

Yes there can, and no I don't. Are you claiming slef-destructive behaviour in general doesn't exist?

No, they can be true or false.

P3 is incorrect. What if we learn the morals without being taught? What if they exist independently of humanity, and can be observed? To demonstrate w...

Guess what? I don't see the relevance to the OP. And regarding the relevance of my previous comments, wrt my previous comments.

Really? That's ok, just answer it and I'll draw the conclusion afterwards to make it easier for you.

You just avoided the whole "and even if I didn't" thing. Even if the words were synonyms, they would have drastically different meanings for this disc...

I have seen, read and acknowledged your URLs, and I refuse to recognize the authority of them. And even if I didn't, the words might be similar in col...

That's technically correct but the word proof expresses that definition in a more exact way.

Thanks *virtual hug*

A claim is not a valid response to its own counter. The only thing it implies is that you either didn't read or understand my reply. Similar words are...

And what exactly counts as similar? Synonym is a grammatical term, and your OP does not concern grammar. In the context of this discussion proof and e...

Because it's more technically correct than what you claim. I oppose calling words with similar but not the same meaning synonyms. Is this a counter to...

You haven't answered my point about us being more motivated by our inner moral codes than by external incentives set by, for example, society.

Can't I? I'll call this self-destructive altruism: altruistic behaviour with negative effect to one's happiness and/or well-being.

1. Proof and evidence are not exact synonyms. 1.2 Stop writing your arguments in numbered lists, using screenshots of dictionaries and copypasteing yo...

In one sense. Not all. No, just out perceptions of it. On some subjective, irrelevant to the topic, level, perhaps. Yes there are. True. False. True. ...

Yes we do. Our conscious experiences are illusions (yet they exist as illusions), but we still exist. Yes they do. We perceive them, that perception i...

How the heck do I know, but altruistic self-sacrifice often does not have an external incentive yet people decide to do so. I guess incentives and mot...

Why would you do that? The illusion is an accurate representation of the reality and it's not like you're meditating to break free of your experiences...

To motivate and to incentivize, maybe. Motivation and incentive, not so much. Motivation is internal, incentives are external (although incentive can ...

Debatable; I can agree if you stuff the word "objective" somewhere there. Does not follow from anything. The meaninglessness and lack of reliability o...

Isn't it obvious that the only logically self-consistent answer is no?

There is no proof of anything scientific. Only evidence. This means that every scientific truth is a belief.

Illusions that we call perceptions and that appear to us as perceptions. Determinism and physicalism don't make those perceptions any less real or rel...

Descartes' arguments apply without determinism as well. The mind being an illusion does not make the perceptions any more or less reliable.

What, no. It's exactly the opposite. If we do things that contradict incentives that means we're not motivated by incentives, which here means that we...

Why? Your claim that an illusion is less reliable than a not-illusion has no basis.

How does it affect the reliability of the perceptions if they are an illusion?

People do still have experiences of the reality outside them, and as long as those experiences do not deny the possibility of one's experience of self...

Interesting point. Declaring causality to be an illusion is certainly a thing that has been done, but it's not a part of determinism. If consciousness...

The illusion that you said there'd be if determinism was the case. Dude, I don't even believe in determinism myself. I'm arguing against you because y...

There's an incentive to do evil, and there's often an incentive to not do good. The comparison is invalid. Most people do not do evil, even though the...

So you admit that the illusion of self exists in determinism (btw what you are describing is physicalism). Then this illusion is what is called self, ...

Besides the reasoning for that claim, no.

So you claim.

Then the decision and all the options form a coherent whole, which is one thing, of which the decision-maker is conscious.

With books, the thoughts of the author are a means to generating the text. In philosophy, the text is a means to understanding the thoughts of the aut...

Totally agree, the poor people had access to higher quality automobiles back two thousand years ago when we didn't have Ferraris and Porsches yet. The...

Yeah, that was my point. Then an irreducible thing can be created by changing the properties of another irreducible thing.

What?

It's not. It's an example how a thing is created without reducing it to anything or building it from anything but by changing its properties.

That seems, so far, irrelevant to the arguments proposed in the OP. Also, irrelevant, as the question can be considered to be a hypothetical one, and ...

Both are debatable. What if souls are different from each other and reducible, and on top of genes and environment are another factor in who a person ...

I wasn't talking of the destruction, I meant the creation (or becoming to existence to be more accurate) accidentally.