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.
Fair enough I can see that this will go off on another tangent.I told you at the beginning of this it had nothing to do with this thread--you wanted reasons of WLC's bad arguments anyway. I gave them, and now you say this isn't the place to discuss it. Wow.
Science can point to the Big Bang. But, there is no reason to think that was the beginning of all matter and energy. The present incarnation of our universe is all we can observe; we don't know if a previous universe collapsed and expanded before the Big Bang. There may have been innumerable cycles of matter and energy forming and collapsing. God is not the only other option. That fact makes the Kalam pointless.
Not necessarily. The issue came up merely as a typical example of a weakness in Craig's argumentation style, which applies to his moral arguments as well.Fair enough I can see that this will go off on another tangent.
I do not believe there is any way to objectively say that a particular moral position is correct and a different moral position is incorrect.
Technically, I'd have to say that we can't even objectively say that a person holds the moral position they claim to hold, since they could be doing everything they can to fake it, but that's neither here nor there in this discussion. Asa far as I am concerned, if a person claims to hold a moral position and acts in accordance with that moral position, I'd be happy to accept it.
Not that I would ever defend one of WLC's arguments, but it's sort of poisoning the well to attack his other arguments in order to debunk his moral arguments. If his moral arguments fall into the same pitfalls, and they do, then that can be demonstrated instead of going off on tangents.Not necessarily. The issue came up merely as a typical example of Craig's argumentation style, which applies to his moral arguments as well.
I sense a Three's Company style misunderstanding coming on... She isn't happy to accept a different moral position for herself, she's happy to accept that person's claim about what their moral position is.You'd be 'happy' to accept "it"? That's kind of scary for me to hear you say this .......... !
I sense a Three's Company style misunderstanding coming on... She isn't happy to accept a different moral position for herself, she's happy to accept that person's claim about what their moral position is.
You're right, and I don't remember why the subject was originally brought up, but I refer to it only as an example of straw-manning that might be more accessible to Steve, since he apparently doesn't see it going on in Craig's moral arguments.Not that I would ever defend one of WLC's arguments, but it's sort of poisoning the well to attack his other arguments in order to debunk his moral arguments. If his moral arguments fall into the same pitfalls, and they do, then that can be demonstrated instead of going off on tangents.
Not just one's own. Morality is a social phenomenon, not an individual creation.Simple answer: unless moral absolutes exist, morality comes from one's own imagination.
The phrase "I'd be happy to" doesn't literally mean she feels happiness to find out someone holds a moral position...Yeah, I can't imagine holding 'my own' moral position in such a way, or having a moral position that permits, for my being "happy" about another person's supposed moral claims about their own potentially contradicting moral position. It's sounds like a form of lunacy to me.
Ethics is a social phenomenon, morality is an individual creation that can be (but not necessarily) influenced by society.Not just one's own. Morality is a social phenomenon, not an individual creation.
....ok. What 'does' it mean in this instance?The phrase "I'd be happy to" doesn't literally mean she feels happiness to find out someone holds a moral position...
"I believe them without seeing reason to disbelieve them".....ok. What 'does' it mean in this instance?
"I believe them without seeing reason to disbelieve them".
???And what "THAT" mean?
I understand the distinction (although I don't agree with the "not necessarily" part of your post) but I'm not sure that Steve does.Ethics is a social phenomenon, morality is an individual creation that can be (but not necessarily) influenced by society.
I edited it. Read it again.
And what does THAT mean?
She didn't say anything about tolerating it. If a skinhead tells me that he thinks all Jews should be exterminated, I will believe that is his moral position because I don't see any reason to disbelieve that's what it is, and then I'll beat the tar out of him.Is she blind? Is she just so loose in her own moral position that Tolerance runs headlong over a moral cliff?
The "not necessarily" is there because morals can develop in isolation. Almost no one finds themselves in complete isolation from other people, but for the rare folk that do, it doesn't mean morality ceases to exist for them. While the concept of morals developing in isolation has almost no real application, the fact that it can happen is important to consider, as I've found out in this thread, because some folk think that morals are only morals if they're about interaction between people.I understand the distinction (although I don't agree with the "not necessarily" part of your post) but I'm not sure that Steve does.
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?