Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Just because you personally consider something to be a valid reason for action doesn't mean that you've got a valid argument. A valid argument is one in which the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. You're committing the Is/Ought Fallacy.
Says who?
How exactly am I morally obliged to help creation "work best"?
Ok, I guess I am going to borrow from your previous argument ("Why does causing pain to others oblige me to stop causing pain to others? What if I like causing pain to others? What if this is my goal?"):
Why does destroying life oblige me to stop destryoing life? What if I like destroying life? What if this is my goal?"
If I want to live and flourish in this world I need to look at how the world works - no matter whether and by whom it has been created.
Well, I´ll try:
For you (if I understand you correctly - but otherwise you whole line of reasoning doesn´t make any sense) the only way for there to be an "ought" is the command of a personal authority. (I do not agree with this authoritarean view on things anyway, but let´s just put this aside for a moment). And, of course, for such an authority-oriented person like you the most powerful entity is the greatest authority. If a God exists, God would be more powerful than anything in Its creation - so God would be the Highest Authority. However, in the absence of a God, you would have to go with the Highest Authority available in that reality: This authority would be the one to determine authoritative "oughts".
METAGOD, by definition, is the entity that created God. Thus, it´s defined as a Higher Authority than God. In the absence of a METAGOD God would only be a lesser authority.
So much for defining entities into existence in order to establish a "either it exists or there can be no 'ought' or morality at all. If you can do it, I can do it.
And then there will be next guy who postulates a SUPERMETAGOD.
There are no problems to address.
Your own argument is "God is the law giver, therefore we ought to follow God's commands". It follows the same "ought from an is", and yet you think it is valid. How do you explain that?
Because God created the world and knows how life works, if we want to live then we ought to obey him.
You can challenge the authority of God, I suppose, in a theoretical sense. But if God exists then he is the highest authority and his judgment will be carried out and overturn all other judgments. If God decides that we will live forever in a new heavens and new earth then we will. If he decides that we will be tormented forever by being cast out of his presence then we will. At the end of the day his judgment will always prevail, so he has ultimate authority.
Yes. Which, however, is true for the fact of reality even in the absence of a God: If you want to be miserable you are not obliged to accept them.I suppose that if you want to be miserable and die then you're not obliged to do anything God has said.
You aren´t getting circular on me here, are you?You can't truly understand how the world works without reference to the creator.
No, according to your rationale the most powerful being would be the highest authority.The highest authority would determine the oughts. If there is no divine overseer then our own preferences are the highest authority.
Indeed - I just give you some of your own medicine.This is all gobbledygook. Your first sentence is logically incoherent.
You misquoted me. Bad style."METAGOD is the entity which created the uncreated creator of all things." Don't make no sense.
You can challenge the authority of God, I suppose, in a theoretical sense. But if God exists<snip>
...
The reason I agree with the posts about needing reference to God for stuff like morality is because I agree with the presupposition that he exists and is creator. It's still a presupposition though. If you want to argue that God is required for morality, then you have to build a case that there is a 'code' of morality that exists for the universe, and that the code was derived from the God who is creator. If you can do that logically and philosophically, you have created a plausible argument.
...
There is the same Ought from an Is.
In accusing me of committing this fallacy are you conceding that you've committed it?
Even so, I don't think that this fallacy is committed in the case of a hypothetical imperative. My argument would go something like this:
1. Obeying God leads to life and flourishing
2. People who want to live and flourish ought to obey God
3. Therefore if we want to live and flourish we ought to obey God
This is perfectly valid.
In accusing me of committing this fallacy are you conceding that you've committed it?
Even so, I don't think that this fallacy is committed in the case of a hypothetical imperative. My argument would go something like this:
1. Obeying God leads to life and flourishing
2. People who want to live and flourish ought to obey God
3. Therefore if we want to live and flourish we ought to obey God
This is perfectly valid.
You're still assuming God exists which is a presupposition nonbelievers won't agree with. This is why the entire line of argument is moot if approached that way. You have to use what we have here to point to God, not start with God and work down.
Yeah, but you were the guy who asked "But if what someone doesn´t want to lead such a life?" in order to demonstrate how this isn´t a sufficient rationale for constituting an "ought".My argument would go something like this:
1. Obeying God leads to life and flourishing
2. People who want to live and flourish ought to obey God
3. Therefore if we want to live and flourish we ought to obey God
This is perfectly valid.
The claim of this thread is that everyone believes in God's existence. This is seen in other believes that we act on that depend upon God's existence.
edit: Sorry, I'm thinking of another thread I'm involved in. This thread has not yet made this claim. Let this post be the first to make it.
I'm not sure you'd want to get sidetracked in this thread with 'does God exist' proofs.
My approach to morality is to demonstrate the positive effects that Christian morality has had on our society, using historical examples. Where we derive our beliefs from is something different, but we can definitely look at the effects of properly practiced Christianity.
To answer the title of the thread...NO. An appeal to authority is an invalid argument. It's fallacious.
Yeah, but you were the guy who asked "But if what someone doesn´t want to lead such a life?" in order to demonstrate how this isn´t a sufficient rationale for constituting an "ought".
In the absence of a God e.g.
"1. Acting upon your empathy [or whatever it is that someone wants to establish as the basis for an "ought"] leads to life and flourishing
2. People....
3. Therefore..."
would be just as valid.
Come to think of it, it would even be the stronger argument since it explains how and why something "ought" to be done - as opposed to just being an appeal to authority.
An appeal to authority is not an argument. It's a justification for knowledge. If you make this claim, then you'd have to claim agnosticism on a great many things. Almost all of your scientific knowledge you "know" because you've read in books. Also any historical knowledge that you think you have. All of this knowledge is justified by an appeal to an authority.
It's a poor justification for knowledge.
Do you know when the allies stormed Normandy during WWII - otherwise known as D-Day? When was that?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?