/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16171681
>You wouldn't have a priori knowledge of anything
Why not? Do you not know what 'a priori' means? It means BEFORE EXPERIENCE. If you lived in a universe of NOTHING but still had a priori knowledge, you would STILL KNOW THINGS. BECAUSE THE KNOWLEDGE DOESN'T NEED ANYTHING ELSE TO BE IN THE UNIVERSE.

Holy shit, you are legitimately retarded.

>>15841673
Sam Harris is a fucking retard that tried to get out of the is-ought problem by claiming that all ought statements (as in, all moral statements) are theological in nature. And since God doesn't exist, there are no ought statements and thus no is-ought problem. Which is a lot like saying that because the Earth isn't flat, gravity doesn't exist, and therefore you won't get hurt if you jumped off a cliff.

The reality is that ought statements emerge from the interaction between individuals and greater society, and do not require divine command theory in the slightest.