Originally posted by Bardock42
Or, the point could be, that divorce can be a better alternative for the children and parents.This obviously is a fundamental question to your claim. Is an increase in divorce a positive or negative thing. If it turns out to be positive (for the children), which I see no reason why it shouldn't, you'd have to be for pre-marital sex, by your logic (logic that I don't agree with, of course).
That doesn't follow at all. Divorce isn't a positive thing for the children. It's simply a lesser evil than the alternative. That's almost like claiming getting shot in the leg is a positive thing because getting shot in the head is worse.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's as if you didn't even read my post.
You wanted to know about why premarital sex increases divorce, right? So I pointed you to the study that found that.
The rest of your post seemed to be nothing more than speculation.
Originally posted by TacDavey
That doesn't follow at all. Divorce isn't a positive thing for the children. It's simply a lesser evil than the alternative. That's almost like claiming getting shot in the leg is a positive thing because getting shot in the head is worse.
Ah, I see you are anti-amputation. Bold stance in this day and age, for sure.
Originally posted by TacDavey
You wanted to know about why premarital sex increases divorce, right? So I pointed you to the study that found that.The rest of your post seemed to be nothing more than speculation.
Hello kettle, meet pot.
The issues with per-marital sex and divorce seem to come from the expectation of what the relationship is. If sex is on the scene from the start and then as time goes on it occurs less and less often then one or both partners may begin to feel there's something wrong and something missing.
If a relationship is only about the emotional, and nothing more than light physical intimacy such as kissing, then, one, sex is something new and associated only with marriage, and secondly, it's never been an integral part of what kept that couple together. If there are periods where the sex lessens then the couple doesn't suddenly feel like something that's been there from the beginning is missing.
As to it being okay or not, that depends on the couple and their beliefs. It does seem though that no matter what the relationship, sex complicates things.
Originally posted by Ascendancy
If a relationship is only about the emotional, and nothing more than light physical intimacy such as kissing, then, one, sex is something new and associated only with marriage, and secondly, it's never been an integral part of what kept that couple together. If there are periods where the sex lessens then the couple doesn't suddenly feel like something that's been there from the beginning is missing.
Young(er) religious virgin couples do get married for the purpose of finally being able to have sex . Not saying this is the only reason they got married, but the prospect of sex in the future was a factor in their bonding relationship during the pre marriage relationship.
Originally posted by TacDavey
The flaw was in the creation of logical theories and ideas and how ideas and theories built based off of predetermined stimuli of which the individual has no control over cannot be trusted to create logically sound ideas
Man, this is so off-topic, but we can't seem to shake it.
There's a few things that are problematic with this view imo. I list them briefly below, and can elaborate if needed.
The first is that, if we suppose you're right, this applies equally to any theory of the universe. You've done nothing to disprove one or prove another, you've just called every theory equally into doubt. We can then invoke the "least extraordinary claim" idea (similar to Occum's Razor) to land once again on determinism, because it's the only theory we have any evidence for.
The second is, our experiences are subjective, so whether or not the universe is deterministic, if we want to be absolute about it, we can't fully "trust" our experiences in any scenario or theory. Science deals in probable or provisional truths based on evidence. That's all we're talking about, a provisional truth based on what we know through empirical testing.
The last is, you're confusing the means by which we discover this idea. Empirical tests have to conform to the laws of reality, whatever those rules are. So when we run a test, it gives us an insight into the nature of the universe. The only subjective thing about it is our interpretation of the result. Which I'll admit are imperfect approximations of reality, but they're still based on something. Your magical free will is based on nothing. No evidence, no logic. All you've done is make my idea less than a certainty, which I admitted already. You're calling into question our reaction because we're determined, without acknowledging that empirical tests are true representations of the universe's physical laws, however imperfect our perception of them may be. It introduces uncertainty, which is healthy, but doesn't disprove anything or even call into question the methods by which we're determining our conclusions.
Put another way, if our reaction is determined, we can still trust it so long as we establish beforehand that we're conforming our opinion to the evidence...because that determined, empirical evidence is how the universe works. If I am about to drop a ball and say "I'll determine a provisional view on gravity based on the behavior of this ball" then I drop it and it falls to the ground, whatever conclusion I determine has its bearings in the determined properties of the universe. I may not be 100% correct, but I'm closer and more sufficiently backed than guessing at alternative theories that don't use the determined properties of the universe as their starting point.
...
Let me put one more question to you. I take it you believe in gravity, electromagnetism, etc. And you believe that the world around us conforms to certain rules (for example, the Earth revolves around the sun according to certain physical laws). And we know that human beings are made of the same matter. My question is: how are humans exempt from these same laws? And if you use a soul or free will or consciousness, I expect a plausible explanation of how.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Ah, I see you are anti-amputation. Bold stance in this day and age, for sure.
Of course I'm anti-amputation. I take it you are too. Unless, of course, it cannot be avoided. I don't suppose you would want limbs being taken off for no reason. Probably because it's harmful.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's not substantiating your position, it's pointing in the general direction of a supposed study that might help your position. If you made a thesis defense you wouldn't answer every reviewer's questions by saying "please consult a paper that's somewhere in the stack I've submitted".
You would if you weren't an expert on the subject. It's an argument from authority basically. I've never done such a study, so obviously I'm in no position to represent it.
I'm not quite sure what issue you are having here. You wanted to know information about the reasoning behind what the study found, right? Instead of speculating about it, wouldn't it be better to simply consult the study itself?
Originally posted by Digi
The first is that, if we suppose you're right, this applies equally to any theory of the universe. You've done nothing to disprove one or prove another, you've just called every theory equally into doubt. We can then invoke the "least extraordinary claim" idea (similar to Occum's Razor) to land once again on determinism, because it's the only theory we have any evidence for.
I don't think it applies to every theory. Only theories that claim we have no control over ideas. The main problem here is that the theory itself contains within it the very flaw that calls into question it's validity. Its self defeating.
It doesn't matter how much evidence a theory has, if the theory itself basically calls itself illogical it cannot be considered logical.
Originally posted by Digi
The second is, our experiences are subjective, so whether or not the universe is deterministic, if we want to be absolute about it, we can't fully "trust" our experiences in any scenario or theory. Science deals in probable or provisional truths based on evidence. That's all we're talking about, a provisional truth based on what we know through empirical testing.
But these "probable" truths, according to this theory, can't really be called probable. At best they are what our brains consider probable based off of stimuli we have no control over. There is no reason to believe, according to this theory, that we have actually created a theory that is probable to reality. Only that we have created a theory that our brains have been hard wired to consider probable.
Originally posted by Digi
The last is, you're confusing the means by which we discover this idea. Empirical tests have to conform to the laws of reality, whatever those rules are. So when we run a test, it gives us an insight into the nature of the universe. The only subjective thing about it is our interpretation of the result. Which I'll admit are imperfect approximations of reality, but they're still based on something. Your magical free will is based on nothing. No evidence, no logic. All you've done is make my idea less than a certainty, which I admitted already. You're calling into question our reaction because we're determined, without acknowledging that empirical tests are true representations of the universe's physical laws, however imperfect our perception of them may be. It introduces uncertainty, which is healthy, but doesn't disprove anything or even call into question the methods by which we're determining our conclusions.Put another way, if our reaction is determined, we can still trust it so long as we establish beforehand that we're conforming our opinion to the evidence...because that determined, empirical evidence is how the universe works. If I am about to drop a ball and say "I'll determine a provisional view on gravity based on the behavior of this ball" then I drop it and it falls to the ground, whatever conclusion I determine has its bearings in the determined properties of the universe. I may not be 100% correct, but I'm closer and more sufficiently backed than guessing at alternative theories that don't use the determined properties of the universe as their starting point.
You make the claim here that we can trust a conclusion as long as we do something before hand. But the problem is this still relies on our own involvement in the creation of the theory. Which, according to this theory, cannot be trusted. Even if it is based off of what we experience as properties of the universe.
For example:
Say I create a robot with the ability to form theories based off of data it gathers. We'll use the ball example you provided. It drops the ball, notes that it falls to the ground, and then, based off this data, it determines that space aliens are pulling it down with magic powers. Why? Because I programed it to make that theory if that specific data was gathered. The robot had no control over the theory it made. It wasn't concerned with developing a theory that was actually close to reality, it was simply concerned with making the theory that I said it should make, whether it is close to reality or not.
The theory wasn't anywhere close to what was really happening, yet it was created based off of witnessing actual properties of the universe. And, of course, the robot thinks it's the probable truth.
Originally posted by Digi
Let me put one more question to you. I take it you believe in gravity, electromagnetism, etc. And you believe that the world around us conforms to certain rules (for example, the Earth revolves around the sun according to certain physical laws). And we know that human beings are made of the same matter. My question is: how are humans exempt from these same laws? And if you use a soul or free will or consciousness, I expect a plausible explanation of how.
I don't think I made the claim that human's are exempt from the laws of reality...
Originally posted by TacDavey
For example:Say I create a robot with the ability to form theories based off of data it gathers. We'll use the ball example you provided. It drops the ball, notes that it falls to the ground, and then, based off this data, it determines that space aliens are pulling it down with magic powers. Why? Because I programed it to make that theory if that specific data was gathered. The robot had no control over the theory it made. It wasn't concerned with developing a theory that was actually close to reality, it was simply concerned with making the theory that I said it should make, whether it is close to reality or not.
The theory wasn't anywhere close to what was really happening, yet it was created based off of witnessing actual properties of the universe. And, of course, the robot thinks it's the probable truth.
Horrible example, because you're ignoring the scientific process. We use controls to remove variables and narrow our findings, and we test competing theories to choose the most probable one. A theory only comes about after hundreds, and probably thousands, of corroborating data points.
Your robot isn't doing science, it's making things up that it doesn't have evidence for. As I said, empirical tests work with what we know, not what might be. What your robot has is a hypothesis, and an unfounded one at that. You're using "theory" so cavalierly that it reminds of how creationists denigrate the term to try to linguistically undermine evolution.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't think I made the claim that human's are exempt from the laws of reality...
Then on what grounds do you refute determinism? All this talk of interpretation and inevitability has ignored the question of how could the universe not be causal. Rules govern matter, which is what we are, and everything is for that matter. If there isn't a logical progression of actions based on the rules at all times, how in hell does reality exist and function? That's the crux of it, because to refute determinism is literally to say that something happens without cause, that something happens that is inconsistent with the laws of reality.
Everything we know points toward those rules existing. Nothing we've ever discovered suggests that we live in a swirl of chaos without rules or causal links between events and actions. It's not a perfect, irrefutable model of the universe, but it's also the best and most probable we have.
Originally posted by Robtard
Young(er) religious virgin couples do get married for the purpose of finally being able to have sex . Not saying this is the only reason they got married, but the prospect of sex in the future was a factor in their bonding relationship during the pre marriage relationship.
Yeah, I'm not denying that there's the understanding that sex will come in time, but when it's not part of the glue that holds the relationship together then when it's not occurring as often there are fewer issues because of it.
Again, though, when sex isn't on the table, that's one item less causing conflict. No awkward worries about when the time is right, no trying to pick circumstances where everything can go at just the right pace, on and on. There's also that little "I gave my body to this person and this is where we are now?" voice that doesn't pop up in fights.
I'm sleep-deprived on account of exams so I'm sure this isn't the best of explanations but bottom line is that a healthy relationship probably isn't going to be strained by waiting to have sex, but even a good one can have added problems because of it. To each his own though.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sex not being on the table is the kind of thing that would cause conflicts.
Co-signed.
Ascendency, are you really that troubled about sex? I'm not trying to be insulting, but that middle paragraph of yours includes worries that are, well, worrisome. I've dated girls that get stressed when we don't have sex for a while, which I also find somewhat odd, but that's more about horny anticipation than actual problems. But really, after the first couple times where there's some inherent awkwardness, the act of sex should be liberating.
Your last line, "a healthy relationship probably isn't going to be strained by waiting to have sex, but even a good one can have added problems because of it" ...can probably be stated as the exact opposite by many. But neither is healthy. If there's tension because of sex, something's wrong, but it's not the sex. And if there's tension because of lack of sex, something's wrong, but it's not the sex. It's the people and the relationship. Outside of high-schoolers or college kids not emotionally ready to handle sex, which is a different discussion, no well-adjusted adult should feel lasting worries about sex.
So you're right that a healthy relationship probably isn't going to be strained from lack of sex (temporarily). But if it's truly healthy, it won't be strained from sex either.
Originally posted by Digi
Horrible example, because you're ignoring the scientific process. We use controls to remove variables and narrow our findings, and we test competing theories to choose the most probable one. A theory only comes about after hundreds, and probably thousands, of corroborating data points.
But my hypothetical can be adapted to include hundreds of thousands of tests. I can program the robot to perform hundreds of tests, and then based off of the data of all those tests conclude the same thing, because once again the robot it not in control of the theories it creates. I am. And the robot, again, is not interested in determining what is actually true. It's only interested in determining what it's programed to determine.
Originally posted by Digi
Your robot isn't doing science, it's making things up that it doesn't have evidence for. As I said, empirical tests work with what we know, not what might be. What your robot has is a hypothesis, and an unfounded one at that. You're using "theory" so cavalierly that it reminds of how creationists denigrate the term to try to linguistically undermine evolution.
You're missing the point of the hypothetical. As I said above, the point is that the robot is not in control of the theories it produces, the fact that it's reasoning is horribly flawed is simply there to better illustrate this point. It is only able to create the theories it is programmed to create. It doesn't matter if those theories are actually close to logical truth or not.
Originally posted by Digi
Then on what grounds do you refute determinism?
On the grounds above and the grounds I've been debating this whole time.
Originally posted by Digi
All this talk of interpretation and inevitability has ignored the question of how could the universe not be causal. Rules govern matter, which is what we are, and everything is for that matter. If there isn't a logical progression of actions based on the rules at all times, how in hell does reality exist and function? That's the crux of it, because to refute determinism is literally to say that something happens without cause, that something happens that is inconsistent with the laws of reality.Everything we know points toward those rules existing. Nothing we've ever discovered suggests that we live in a swirl of chaos without rules or causal links between events and actions. It's not a perfect, irrefutable model of the universe, but it's also the best and most probable we have.
You are assuming a lot here that I have never claimed. I simply provided a very specific flaw in one of the aspects of determinism. I never once said things can happen without causes. Or that there are things in the universe that deny the laws of reality. These are things you claimed, not me.
I simply denied that we have no control over what theories we create. I don't think this simple fact demands that the world be seen as "a swirl of chaos without rules".
Ignoring the rest of determinism, at the very least the aspect of it that you were using to support your stance has been called into question and can no longer be used to support your stance until the flaw is rectified.
Originally posted by TacDavey
But my hypothetical can be adapted to include hundreds of thousands of tests. I can program the robot to perform hundreds of tests, and then based off of the data of all those tests conclude the same thing, because once again the robot it not in control of the theories it creates. I am. And the robot, again, is not interested in determining what is actually true. It's only interested in determining what it's programed to determine.You're missing the point of the hypothetical. As I said above, the point is that the robot is not in control of the theories it produces, the fact that it's reasoning is horribly flawed is simply there to better illustrate this point. It is only able to create the theories it is programmed to create. It doesn't matter if those theories are actually close to logical truth or not.
On the grounds above and the grounds I've been debating this whole time.
You are assuming a lot here that I have never claimed. I simply provided a very specific flaw in one of the aspects of determinism. I never once said things can happen without causes. Or that there are things in the universe that deny the laws of reality. These are things you claimed, not me.
I simply denied that we have no control over what theories we create. I don't think this simple fact demands that the world be seen as "a swirl of chaos without rules".
Ignoring the rest of determinism, at the very least the aspect of it that you were using to support your stance has been called into question and can no longer be used to support your stance until the flaw is rectified.
Ok, so you don't refute determinism, but our ability to objectively know reality. That's more reasonable, but I think you take it too far. I don't claim anything with certainty, but I do believe we can understand the nature of the universe to a certain extent. If we can't, then we're just flailing around in a dream world. The fact that we can and have manipulated scientific findings to change the world around us, and those principles hold without exception in human experience, suggests a consistent, causal reality.
I also think the robot analogy still doesn't work. The robot has no awareness of its autonomy. The cognition isn't the same. Our opinions can change because we've decided to mold them to the evidence. In your scenario, there is no means by which the robot's hypothesis gets any more accurate.
So let's say person A has decided to believe in the alien hypothesis. Person B has decided to only believe what there is empirical evidence to suggest. Both of these choices are determined. So far, so good. Now...We can only trust the opinions of person B on this matter because that is the only person whose opinions are based on what reality shows us through empirical study. Basically, if you want to say everyone's choice is determined, great. The empirical test is determined as well; but that is its power. Because it has to tell the truth about the universe. Thus, the people who have decided to trust such tests know more about reality than those who do not. Their understanding is imperfect and their interpretations may be flawed, but the fact that they work with the empirical, de-facto-truthful data, means they're closer to the truth than those who don't.
So just to be clear, do you hold to a Christian concept of magical free will? Or do you think reality, and human beings by extension, is determined and causal?
Originally posted by Digi
Co-signed.Ascendency, are you really that troubled about sex? I'm not trying to be insulting, but that middle paragraph of yours includes worries that are, well, worrisome. I've dated girls that get stressed when we don't have sex for a while, which I also find somewhat odd, but that's more about horny anticipation than actual problems. But really, after the first couple times where there's some inherent awkwardness, the act of sex should be liberating.
Your last line, "a healthy relationship probably isn't going to be strained by waiting to have sex, but even a good one can have added problems because of it" ...can probably be stated as the exact opposite by many. But neither is healthy. If there's tension because of sex, something's wrong, but it's not the sex. And if there's tension because of lack of sex, something's wrong, but it's not the sex. It's the people and the relationship. Outside of high-schoolers or college kids not emotionally ready to handle sex, which is a different discussion, no well-adjusted adult should feel lasting worries about sex.
So you're right that a healthy relationship probably isn't going to be strained from lack of sex (temporarily). But if it's truly healthy, it won't be strained from sex either.
I'm not troubled about it in the least. If two consenting adults both have the same understanding about whatever sexual relationship their going to have then there shouldn't be any major issues. My point is simply that lack of orgasm shouldn't kill a relationship and waiting to have sex isn't an unhealthy thing. Western culture has gotten to the point that it tries to lay out the ideal that if you're in a relationship and not having sex, there's something wrong. If you're around attractive people and not having sex with someone, there's something wrong. I'm only saying that attitude is just as closed-minded as shouting of fire and brimstone at anyone who hasn't waited.