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.
How do you rule out the possibility that God, having given us the capacity to create our own moral systems, would allow us to proceed to do so?I think that would have to be the case. As objective morals and duties require a grounding outside humans. That would also mean there were no real right and wrong. That doesn't mean people could come up with ways of making some meaning of different types of behavior being as you say likable and non-likable. But this would not equate to something being really right or wrong morally.
Yep, lol. I described something. How you feel about the terms has no bearing on whether my description is accurate or not.Nope.
Yep, lol. I described something. How you feel about the terms has no bearing on whether my description is accurate or not.
Since you don't want to answer that, let me ask this about nihilism. Aren't all terms meaningless?
Well your "philosophical reasonings" about the terms don't have a bearing on whether what I described is accurate either.I dont ”feel” about the term, I have philosophical reasonings.
Wow, I'm honored. That my musings are so intelligent and so profound that you require a mountain of books to address them is really flattering!The problem here is that you dont know Kant, who very much lay the groundwork on knowledge and metaphysics. You dont know Nietzsche who very much expand on this and different morals (superman, god is dead and so on). Hägerström who answers much of the above and critiques and expands on why meta-physics is not to be used. And then Heidegger who redifines much of what it means that someting exist (and a whole lot more).
This is not some obscure philosophers and you would study most of them in a philosophy 101. Without this knowledge much wont make sense in a more indept moral philosophy discussion.
Meh, it's the same thing as assigning value to things. These squiggles you're reading on the screen don't have inherent meaning either, we assign meaning to them.I’m not an ontolgical nihilist so no, everything is not meaningless.
What do you mean by some basis in reality. You do know that when it comes to morality we are talking about metaphysics presuppositions which are logically argued. Did you go into the articles I linked and read the logical arguments for objective morality?
Or the logical argument I posted earlier based on our lived moral experience. The only way this can be equated to reality is that people live like there are objective morals in real-life situations. The logical arguments stand up and you have to show me how they don't IE come up with a defeater.
It is more than just a belief but also how people live this way. It is the support of our lived moral experience that justified our belief in objective morality. As I said before it is the same for our belief that the physical world is real and not some virtual reality based on our lived experience of it. We are justified in that belief until some defeater comes along to show it is unreal. That is how logical arguments are proposed to support a position.
No, quite the opposite actually.-snip-
Wow, I'm honored. That my musings are so intelligent and so profound that you require a mountain of books to address them is really flattering!
-snip-
Prove it.No, quite the opposite actually.
Its like you are trying to argue calculus without understanding basic arithmetics
I’m not responsible for your education.Prove it.
That's one way to dodge the responsibility of supporting your claims. I hear that same thing a lot in the news/politics sections when people make unfounded claims too. If I'm so dumb, and you're so smart, it should be easy to demonstrate that I'm speaking nonsense. So come on, show us all what that fancy book-learnin' is good for!I’m not responsible for your education.
Ugh... I really hate it when people drag this old "gem" out. "Proof" is used in all sorts of other contexts. There is no "correct" definition of a word. Since you just got done comparing philosophy to math, I thought it was apt.Also, proof is for booze and axiomatic logical systems.
I wont answer you anymore as it clear you only want to have a fight and isnt interested in learning anything.That's one way to dodge the responsibility of supporting your claims. I hear that same thing a lot in the news/politics sections when people make unfounded claims too. If I'm so dumb, and you're so smart, it should be easy to demonstrate that I'm speaking nonsense. So come on, show us all what that fancy book-learnin' is good for!
Ugh... I really hate it when people drag this old "gem" out. "Proof" is used in all sorts of other contexts. There is no "correct" definition of a word. Since you just got done comparing philosophy to math, I thought it was apt.
What you meant to say was, "Personally, I only like using the word 'proof' when I'm speaking about alcohol and in axiomatic logical systems" but that doesn't make you feel like you scored a semantic point, does it?
I dont use anything, I’m asking you.I meant to also ask you what are you using to determine what is morally right and wrong in accusing God of wrongdoing.
There are a number of ways the logical argument for God can be presented. I think this one is one of the best as it deals with the Euthyphro dilemma and other objections.Should be re-written thusly:
This would be a valid syllogism.
- If Objective Morality exists, then a god must exist.
- Objective Morality exists.
- Therfore, God exists
For it to be sound, you'd have demonstrate 2. Then, if you succeeded, you have to show that a god necessarily follows from that.
You've not shown either 2 or 1.
But, the good news is that you are also wrong that a lack of objective morality implies that a god doesn't exist.
This is a failure of the sort:
The second syllogism's conclusion is wrong since the premises says nothing about the requirements for a green tie; they specify requirements for Tuesday.
- If it is Tuesday, Joe's tie is green
- Joe's tie is green
- Therefore, it is Tuesday
The first syllogism says nothing about conditions for a god's existence; it speaks only of the conditions for objective morality.
*Edited for consistency and clarity
But that seems like a meaningless question for you. What are you going to do with the answer if I defend God? If you don't have any independent measure of what is right and wrong it won't matter what I say as you cannot objectively say God is wrong. You obviously brought up the question to challenge me on God's moral status (whether God is a hypocrite or is evil). But that is all irrelevant according to your moral position as there is no right and wrong factually.I don't use anything, I’m asking you.
Bah. You stopped answering questions a long time ago. I'm always open to being corrected. In fact, that's exactly what I was asking you to do. You weren't capable of correcting me, so you switched to being condescending. But okie-dokie!I wont answer you anymore as it clear you only want to have a fight and isnt interested in learning anything.
I’m trying to understand your position but its clear its illogical and undefensible so I guess I wont get any answers (as usual).But that seems like a meaningless question for you. What are you going to do with the answer if I defend God? If you don't have any independent measure of what is right and wrong it won't matter what I say as you cannot objectively say God is wrong. You obviously brought up the question to challenge me on God's moral status (whether God is a hypocrite or is evil). But that is all irrelevant according to your moral position as there is no right and wrong factually.
There are a number of ways the logical argument for God can be presented. I think this one is one of the best as it deals with the Euthyphro dilemma and other objections.
Premise 1: Morality is a rational enterprise.
Premise 2: Moral realism is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist.
Premise 3: The moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much for us to assume moral facts and duties are grounded in a human source of rationality.
Premise 4: Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary, rational source (logically follows from 1, 2, and 3).
Premise 5: This source is what we call God.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
Premise 1: Morality is a rational enterprise
Moral facts and duties are deciphered through rationality and reasoning. Much like through math or philosophical positions but not through scientific empirical investigations. If we see someone harming someone else, we cannot know how we ought to act. We have to reason that we ought to act a certain way therefore morality is deciphered through rationality.
Premise 2: Moral realism is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist.
Premise 2 is the most controversial and most skeptics will deny this one. Moral realism is argued here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjkgD4w9w1k&t=1s
This also relates to the logical proposition that we can be justified to believe that objective morals exists based on our lived experience of them.
.Premise 3: The moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much for us to assume moral facts and duties are grounded in a human source of rationality.
This is true because humans cannot be the source of moral knowledge. We do not have perfect knowledge of the facts. In fact, because we are not morally perfect our own actions should reveal we are not the foundation of moral knowledge
Plus, we are contingent beings so we cannot be the foundation of moral facts and duties for the same reasons the laws of logic are not grounded in a human source. Humans have only discovered the laws of logic and math. We did not create them. 2+2=4 is still true even if no human existed to write it down.
If premise 1 and 2 are true, then it would simply follow that moral facts and duties cannot be grounded in human rationality because humans are contingent beings and constantly fail the moral laws. So, if not grounded in human rationality then what. They must be grounded in something necessary and unchanging (for them to be objectively binding).
The above would be obviously true by logical deduction. But also, from premise 1 we know that morality is a rational enterprise. So moral facts and duties must be grounded in a rational source. As non-sentient objects cannot be rational moral facts and duties must be grounded in a rational and sentient source (as well as be necessary) simply by logical deduction.
So logical facts and duties cannot be grounded in contingent humans, must be grounded in something unchangeable and necessary and because morality is a rational enterprise this necessary unchangeable foundation must also be rational and sentient.
This logically follows to premise 4 by deduction.
Premise 4: Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary, rational source (logically follows from premises 1, 2, and 3).
What would this source be? It would not be human-like, like a God-like version of ourselves who can decide moral values and duties on a whim and change their mind. But rather a conscience, rational, necessary, entity. This would naturally follow to premise 5 where this source whoever this maybe is what we call God.
Premise 5: This source is what we call God.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp9Nl6OUEJ0
That's why I pointed out that when you bought into the argument and accepted God's status by asking those sorts of questions that assumed God was real it allowed me to explain God's moral status. On that basis, God is naturally all good so God cannot do any morally wrong acts.I’m trying to understand your position but its clear its illogical and indefensible so I guess I won't get any answers (as usual).
That's why I pointed out that when you bought into the argument and accepted God's status by asking those sorts of questions that assumed God was real it allowed me to explain God's moral status. On that basis, God is naturally all good so God cannot do any morally wrong acts.
What you perceive is wrong in questioning God's moral status is based on a limited and fallible understanding. You cannot possible know all that needs to be known to make a judgment about God's morality.
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?