Arguments from Morality for the Existence of God

[michabo]

If the emergence of every idea is to be dealt with as one deals with the emergence of all other natural events, it is no longer permissible to distinguish between true and false propositions.

Yeah, the same equivocation.

We cannot say that a given thought is a better or worse thought than any other in an absolute sense.

We can say whether a thought/proposition/argument is:
* rational
* congruent with observed reality
* insightful
* innovative
* creative

Whomever wrote this wants to jump from "because they arose naturally, they have no value" but we know that we value natural things more than others all the time.

Then the theorems of Descartes are neither better nor worse than the bungling of Peter, a dull candidate for a degree, in his examination paper.

They both arose in the same general fashion. One can hardly fault Peter's brain, but we can and do judge the theorems based on the above criteria.



After conflating some terms, he then rejecting the conclusion because he doesn't like where it leads. Just because the conclusion doesn't appeal, doesn't make it wrong.

All evidence shows that we have the illusion of free will. We talk about choice, but our choices are very limited. We have no evidence that anyone's mind is anything more than a phenomenon of the brain, and that their choices while appearing free are in fact wholly determined by physical constraints.

Materialists think that their doctrine merely eliminates the distinction between what is morally good and morally bad.

Huh? No one I know of believes this. Another strawman, I think.

For a doctrine asserting that thoughts are in the same relation to the brain in which gall is to the liver, it is not more permissible to distinguish between true and untrue ideas than between true and untrue gall.

Again (*exasperated sigh*), "true thoughts" in this bizarre sense is not valid, that's right. But just as we may judge the gall produced by the liver by its ability to help digest fat, its timeliness, and its quantity. we may judge thoughts by their substance.

Do you really not see this?

 

[Lifesaver]

"But just as we may judge the gall produced by the liver by its ability to help digest fat..."

You resorted to the very defence Mises anticipated and refuted: the appeal to pragmatism, to whether thoughts "work" or "don't work", and are judged according to that.

 

[Lifesaver]

Acceptance of first principles do not invalidate ethics anymore so than they invalidate logic (that is, not at all).

 

[michabo]

"But just as we may judge the gall produced by the liver by its ability to help digest fat..."

You resorted to the very defence Mises anticipated and refuted: the appeal to pragmatism, to whether thoughts "work" or "don't work", and are judged according to that.

It's how everyone judges thoughts. How is this a "resort"?

So anyway, is there a response?