Is homosexuality natural or unnatural?
-
Ik animals and also primates (including humans) used to have same-sex all the time 10,000 years ago, but incest an rape are also seen in nature and that doesn't make them good. Would you say sex is only for reproduction between a male and a female and using it for smth else is unnatural?
@ebony something being bad doesn't mean its unnatural. i think it depends heavily. if someone is ONLY attracted to their own sex then they're just retarded, being attractive to both I think is natural but this is because as humans we have genuine feelings. most people don't just think "reproduce, reproduce, reproduce", we form actual bonds with other people regardless of gender. these feelings that humans have aren't unnatural
-
Ik animals and also primates (including humans) used to have same-sex all the time 10,000 years ago, but incest an rape are also seen in nature and that doesn't make them good. Would you say sex is only for reproduction between a male and a female and using it for smth else is unnatural?
@ebony when our ancestors did drvgs and drew in caves,it was only for pleasure and it was usless,same for say gex so the fact that its useless doesnt make it unatural,unless you think that drawing and taking shrooms is unaturalt,thats my opinion.
-
Ik animals and also primates (including humans) used to have same-sex all the time 10,000 years ago, but incest an rape are also seen in nature and that doesn't make them good. Would you say sex is only for reproduction between a male and a female and using it for smth else is unnatural?
@ebony natural doesnt mean its good nigga, as much as we are far from nature but also humans did alot of bad shit during their evolution, evolution can go both ways bad and good so if a thing happened in nature that doesnt mean its necessarily good thats just a logical fallacy
-
@ebony natural doesnt mean its good nigga, as much as we are far from nature but also humans did alot of bad shit during their evolution, evolution can go both ways bad and good so if a thing happened in nature that doesnt mean its necessarily good thats just a logical fallacy
-
@Shaprawy yea but the question is whether it's natural or not. I'm christian so I already see it as a moral abomination
-
@Shaprawy yea but the question is whether it's natural or not. I'm christian so I already see it as a moral abomination
-
@ebony It is very much natural, though "naturalness" or "naturality" is not a virtue, nor a standard of morality.
-
@ebony no nigga obv its not wtf, how are you going to fulfill your biological end goal (reproducing) when ur gay? i think u have some intrinsic gay thoughts u should do something abt it man
-
@Shaprawy do you believe we can use our reproductive organs in a sexual way for a purpose besides reproduction? or are we limited to our natural end goal only?
@ebony nigga wtf are you on? this is the most common sensibly obvious thing ever, yes dicks are made to be in pussies not men assholes, u cant reproduce with a male dumbass, and why do u view it as "limited"? wdym by limited btw? u think there is some sort of hidden thing that will happen when u try fucking men?
-
@ebony nigga wtf are you on? this is the most common sensibly obvious thing ever, yes dicks are made to be in pussies not men assholes, u cant reproduce with a male dumbass, and why do u view it as "limited"? wdym by limited btw? u think there is some sort of hidden thing that will happen when u try fucking men?
@Shaprawy calm yo ass down? obv jesus made our dicks for pussies and pussies for dicks. That's the entire point of reproduction. But I'm asking you if you think sex is only for reproduction, or if it can be used for other purposes. That's what I mean by "limited to reproduction." You're obv not gonna plant a baby in a guy's shit-hole
-
@Rawsei yea but im not judging its morality based on whether it's natural or not. i'm judging it as intrinsically disordered because God told us it is (objective morality)
-
@Rawsei yes it is, God's commandments are where I derive my morality from. It's not subjective
-
@Rawsei What evidence do you accept? if i use logic, you can say it's human convention. scripture, you can say it's man-made. experience, you can say it's subjective. what evidence do you accept and under which axioms?
-
@ebony I'm not one of those primaltards like goatis. You can try the kalam cosmological argument for an example.
@Rawsei yeah kalam is fine.
-
everything that exists has a cause
-
the universe began to exist
-
so --> the universe has a cause
that cause has to be:
- timeless (it created time)
- spaceless (it created space)
- beyond existence (it created all of existence)
so I believe the cause is God, as He is beyond time, space, and existence.
-
-
@ebony Depends on your standard for "natural". There's inherently nothing unnatural about it.
The counterarguments for this would be something like "muh reproduction", but the purpose of sex is not reproduction.
The purpose of sex can not be reproduction, for there are no purposes planned in advance. Evolution does not work that way. -
@Rawsei yeah kalam is fine.
-
everything that exists has a cause
-
the universe began to exist
-
so --> the universe has a cause
that cause has to be:
- timeless (it created time)
- spaceless (it created space)
- beyond existence (it created all of existence)
so I believe the cause is God, as He is beyond time, space, and existence.
Before I get into attacking the premises, I'll give explain some definitions:
The Universe is: the total of that which exists. More specifically (as defined by Cosmologists), it is the totality of space, time, matter, and energy. It contains every entity, part, attribute, action, event, phenomena etc that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist. Put simply, the Universe is everything.
Time: a measurement of motion. It defines a relationship between the motion and the entity under a standard that serves as a unit (motions are motions of entities; relationships are relations among entities). Since time applies to things (i.e. relationships between things) in the universe, the universe in of itself (i.e. as a total) is not affected by time.
Problems with 1st premise >
PSR states that everything must have a reason or a cause. The PSR operates under two forms: constitution & causation. A Reason is a teleological constituent. A Cause is a teleological presupposition (i.e. an external/temporal phenomena that operates in accordance with the entity that precedes it/causes it). The Universe (existence) may be subjugated to the constitutive version (a reason as to how) but not to the causal version (i.e. to phenomena/a cause as to why). Since causes presuppose preceding entities that trigger temporal phenomenal chains (based on the teleological constructs of the entities in action; on identity) and the universe is the total of that which exists, there is no referent to such an entity beyond the universe that would trigger a temporal and phenomenal chain. In simpler terms, causality pertains only to the actual entities within the universe. If the cause exists (I.e. the entity, whose teleology, triggers the temporal, causal chain), it is part of existence. The Universe is outside the range of temporal causation, since there is no time outside the universe, there is no cause of it.
I.e. premise one is committing the category error fallacy. Assigning the universe (which is the sum total of that which exists) a cause, but there is nothing outside the universe to act as a cause.Attacking Premise 2 >
The universe is everything. As such, there can be no beginning of it. If there is a beginning (cause) of something, it exists within the universe, because it is also something.A temporal regress of events implies that the regression is ordered in a linear sequence. There is no temporal regress of events at all because time is not linear (I.e. ordered by sequences under the same definite condition/timeline), it is relational. In other words, time (or a point in time) is not a universal, it is a particular. Time is not a transcendental boundary, there is no single adjacent timeline which rules over the entities in motion. Time has no primacy over these entities, the entities (and their motions) dictate the time. Since time is a relational concept, it is “local” (i.e. it is relative to the exact relationship being measured; the entity and its standard). For example, the rotation rate of Earth around the sun differs from that of Mars (Earth has 365 days; Mars has 687 days). As such, a person living for one year (in earth days: 365) may not be measured by the same standard on another planet (in mars days: 687). The entity dictates its motion (it lives) and the standard motion (another entity) measures it (it lived for this long). Therefore, there is no single, definite timeline that contains everything (i.e. every entity, every motion & every standard; THIS would be an actual infinite, and therefore impossible). In fact, the number of timelines is in relation to how many relationships (in the universe) there are.
Treating the Universe as Eternal
The Universe is eternal (I.e. not within time), not infinite. Observe that since time is a relational concept, the universe (as a whole) is in no relationship with anything else to derive a time. Time designates relationships between motions, which only exists in the universe. As such, the universe is eternal, which means that the universe is not contained within a single frame of reference or a boundary (I.e. it is within no time or place, those concepts are not applicable). Additionally, the eternality of the universe does not mean that the universe (in of itself) lacks identity (ontologically speaking), it states that there is nothing beyond the universe which restricts its being (space and time), it is everything. The only thing that standardises being is identity, which means it is not spatially nor temporally infinite (with what is within the universe). For example, say there was a man who is trapped within an inescapable cosmic void. Within this void, he can take however many steps within however much time as he likes. Essentially, he is free to wander around this void for all of eternity. This does not mean that he goes on forever (A does not become non-A), it only means that he has no boundaries, he is limitless (i.e. not in quantities nor qualities, but in reference).As for Infinity >
“Nothing can be infinite, according to the Law of Identity. Everything is what it is, and nothing else. It is limited in its qualities and in its quantity: it is this much, and no more. “Infinite” as applied to quantity does not mean “very large”: it means “larger than any specific quantity.” That means: no specific quantity—i.e., a quantity without identity. The Law of Identity prohibits this."Attacking the properties >
The notion of a spaceless and/or timeless existence is still absurd to defend. What does it mean to be spaceless/timeless? It means to exist in no specific place and to exist at no specific time. To be everywhere means to be nowhere, and to be at every time means to be in no time. And as I mentioned before, such a notion contradicts identity. Existence is identity, a thing is what it is, and to be is to be particular.“Space and Time are within the universe, but the universe is only material. God is immaterial”
It is important to stress that space and time, unlike matter, are not boundaries that existents abide by, they are the existents. So even if an existent is immaterial (immateriality is a property, never an entity), the concept(s) would still apply to it, as they apply to all existents, whether material or immaterial, they designate our epistemic frames of reference (i.e it exists at this place at this time). Now, it is true that we cannot perceive the immaterial, and we do not need to see to believe (if we’re referring to immaterial/introspective properties in their true meaning). However, the existence of immaterial/introspective properties are necessarily contingent on a material boundary and baseline. More specifically, the concept “Soul” or “Spirit” (an immaterial property) designates an aspect of the mind, (which also designates the “Self”), an emergent property contingent on other physical/neurological properties which interact with each other (this is known as: Emergentism). If “immaterial” is meant to be taken as a valid concept, it must always be in reference to an attribute (of an entity) under a material base.
Moving back to Space-time, since the existence of immaterial properties necessitates material interaction, the concepts “Space” and “Time” can also refer to them (immateriality is an attribute of an entity). However, the concept “God” designates an entity, not a property, therefore (according to the theist), space and time cannot apply to this type of immaterial existent. Immateriality is not being used to refer to attributes, it is used to justify independent existence (Stolen Concept Fallacy), and attributes cannot exist by themselves.
To clarify, this does not mean space and time only refer to whole substances (entities). As with any concept, “space” and “time” designate the (distinguishing) characteristics between concretes, the characteristics (in this case) being ones involving relationships between each other, a motion in relation to another uniform regular motion that acts as a standard (Time), a location in relation to its boundary (Space). In other words, since concepts mean abstractions (in the widest sense), it is the abstractions of “motion” and “location” from their given concretes that make the concepts “Space” and “Time” possible.
-
-
@ru
I do not blindly accept Darwin's theory of evolution, but evolution is very much a real thing. Earth, which has a large gradient, given enough time and the right constraints, can carry out evolution. This happens through self-organizing, self-maintaining, gradient-consuming structures that are physically selected wherever they arise. Evolution is the only valid explanation of life we have, and it perfectly describes the thermodynamic trajectory of a living planet.I'd like to see the alternative to evolution.
-
Before I get into attacking the premises, I'll give explain some definitions:
The Universe is: the total of that which exists. More specifically (as defined by Cosmologists), it is the totality of space, time, matter, and energy. It contains every entity, part, attribute, action, event, phenomena etc that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist. Put simply, the Universe is everything.
Time: a measurement of motion. It defines a relationship between the motion and the entity under a standard that serves as a unit (motions are motions of entities; relationships are relations among entities). Since time applies to things (i.e. relationships between things) in the universe, the universe in of itself (i.e. as a total) is not affected by time.
Problems with 1st premise >
PSR states that everything must have a reason or a cause. The PSR operates under two forms: constitution & causation. A Reason is a teleological constituent. A Cause is a teleological presupposition (i.e. an external/temporal phenomena that operates in accordance with the entity that precedes it/causes it). The Universe (existence) may be subjugated to the constitutive version (a reason as to how) but not to the causal version (i.e. to phenomena/a cause as to why). Since causes presuppose preceding entities that trigger temporal phenomenal chains (based on the teleological constructs of the entities in action; on identity) and the universe is the total of that which exists, there is no referent to such an entity beyond the universe that would trigger a temporal and phenomenal chain. In simpler terms, causality pertains only to the actual entities within the universe. If the cause exists (I.e. the entity, whose teleology, triggers the temporal, causal chain), it is part of existence. The Universe is outside the range of temporal causation, since there is no time outside the universe, there is no cause of it.
I.e. premise one is committing the category error fallacy. Assigning the universe (which is the sum total of that which exists) a cause, but there is nothing outside the universe to act as a cause.Attacking Premise 2 >
The universe is everything. As such, there can be no beginning of it. If there is a beginning (cause) of something, it exists within the universe, because it is also something.A temporal regress of events implies that the regression is ordered in a linear sequence. There is no temporal regress of events at all because time is not linear (I.e. ordered by sequences under the same definite condition/timeline), it is relational. In other words, time (or a point in time) is not a universal, it is a particular. Time is not a transcendental boundary, there is no single adjacent timeline which rules over the entities in motion. Time has no primacy over these entities, the entities (and their motions) dictate the time. Since time is a relational concept, it is “local” (i.e. it is relative to the exact relationship being measured; the entity and its standard). For example, the rotation rate of Earth around the sun differs from that of Mars (Earth has 365 days; Mars has 687 days). As such, a person living for one year (in earth days: 365) may not be measured by the same standard on another planet (in mars days: 687). The entity dictates its motion (it lives) and the standard motion (another entity) measures it (it lived for this long). Therefore, there is no single, definite timeline that contains everything (i.e. every entity, every motion & every standard; THIS would be an actual infinite, and therefore impossible). In fact, the number of timelines is in relation to how many relationships (in the universe) there are.
Treating the Universe as Eternal
The Universe is eternal (I.e. not within time), not infinite. Observe that since time is a relational concept, the universe (as a whole) is in no relationship with anything else to derive a time. Time designates relationships between motions, which only exists in the universe. As such, the universe is eternal, which means that the universe is not contained within a single frame of reference or a boundary (I.e. it is within no time or place, those concepts are not applicable). Additionally, the eternality of the universe does not mean that the universe (in of itself) lacks identity (ontologically speaking), it states that there is nothing beyond the universe which restricts its being (space and time), it is everything. The only thing that standardises being is identity, which means it is not spatially nor temporally infinite (with what is within the universe). For example, say there was a man who is trapped within an inescapable cosmic void. Within this void, he can take however many steps within however much time as he likes. Essentially, he is free to wander around this void for all of eternity. This does not mean that he goes on forever (A does not become non-A), it only means that he has no boundaries, he is limitless (i.e. not in quantities nor qualities, but in reference).As for Infinity >
“Nothing can be infinite, according to the Law of Identity. Everything is what it is, and nothing else. It is limited in its qualities and in its quantity: it is this much, and no more. “Infinite” as applied to quantity does not mean “very large”: it means “larger than any specific quantity.” That means: no specific quantity—i.e., a quantity without identity. The Law of Identity prohibits this."Attacking the properties >
The notion of a spaceless and/or timeless existence is still absurd to defend. What does it mean to be spaceless/timeless? It means to exist in no specific place and to exist at no specific time. To be everywhere means to be nowhere, and to be at every time means to be in no time. And as I mentioned before, such a notion contradicts identity. Existence is identity, a thing is what it is, and to be is to be particular.“Space and Time are within the universe, but the universe is only material. God is immaterial”
It is important to stress that space and time, unlike matter, are not boundaries that existents abide by, they are the existents. So even if an existent is immaterial (immateriality is a property, never an entity), the concept(s) would still apply to it, as they apply to all existents, whether material or immaterial, they designate our epistemic frames of reference (i.e it exists at this place at this time). Now, it is true that we cannot perceive the immaterial, and we do not need to see to believe (if we’re referring to immaterial/introspective properties in their true meaning). However, the existence of immaterial/introspective properties are necessarily contingent on a material boundary and baseline. More specifically, the concept “Soul” or “Spirit” (an immaterial property) designates an aspect of the mind, (which also designates the “Self”), an emergent property contingent on other physical/neurological properties which interact with each other (this is known as: Emergentism). If “immaterial” is meant to be taken as a valid concept, it must always be in reference to an attribute (of an entity) under a material base.
Moving back to Space-time, since the existence of immaterial properties necessitates material interaction, the concepts “Space” and “Time” can also refer to them (immateriality is an attribute of an entity). However, the concept “God” designates an entity, not a property, therefore (according to the theist), space and time cannot apply to this type of immaterial existent. Immateriality is not being used to refer to attributes, it is used to justify independent existence (Stolen Concept Fallacy), and attributes cannot exist by themselves.
To clarify, this does not mean space and time only refer to whole substances (entities). As with any concept, “space” and “time” designate the (distinguishing) characteristics between concretes, the characteristics (in this case) being ones involving relationships between each other, a motion in relation to another uniform regular motion that acts as a standard (Time), a location in relation to its boundary (Space). In other words, since concepts mean abstractions (in the widest sense), it is the abstractions of “motion” and “location” from their given concretes that make the concepts “Space” and “Time” possible.
@Rawsei Yeah so time-as-measured-motion is not the same as time-as-sequential-existence. Even withour a "clock" pre-Big bang, the universe:
a. either began
b. or didn't
Physics says it did. Like, it's universally, scientifically accepted that the universe is 13.8B years old (CMB, entropy, BGV theorem... I can go in detail if you want). "No time outside" ≠ "no beginning."Also, you misapply rand. If were arguing from classical infinity, it means "without limitation," not "infinite quantity." But u yourself use "limitless" for the man in the void. You're employing the logic you reject.
self-refutation. And idk what "spaceless existence" is about, you assume all existence must be physical/bounded. "To exist is to be particular" is ur own assertion, not proof. As a theist, I can say God is particular in nature but not in relation to space (space is created, not a container). Oh, and saying "immaterial properties need material bases" assumes physicalism (the very point at issus). That's circularfor Kantian frames, u turn "space/time are conditions of perception" into "conditions of all existence." Can u js provide justification? Or else it could be category confusion. And u misapplied "stolen concept"... we infer God as a ground of matter, not an attribute borrowed from materialism. this fallacy only works if u assume materialism first (which i dont think i did).
Basically from everything i read, ur case only holds if we assume physicalism upfront, but that's what the Kalam argument completely challenges. You didnt rly refute anything; just restated ur worldview. To refute, show either:
- the universe didn't begin (contradicts physics)
or 2. something can begin without a cause (contradicts reason)
Sooo, from ur side, did the universe begin? If so, why?
- the universe didn't begin (contradicts physics)
-
A admin moved this topic from
