Derail from Hillarygate

[Charles]

Charles, I will give you one more chance, right here and now - make a deductive argument for a universal moral truth or admit that opinion is all you have.

Here I will help you out, it would look like this:

1. Premise
2. Premise
3. Premise
4. Conclusion

I'll be waiting.

So first the ad hominem again and again, and then, when you do not seem to want to do that anymore instead of proving yourself right you want to prove me wrong. That would not prove your approach right, however. It is quite easy to see why you want to change focus.

I pointed to the fact that you misrepresented my position, you claimed you had written about stuff that you had not written about, and then finally I pointed to the fact that you really have no foundation apart from your belief, which may be wrong. God may not exist, he may exist and disagree with you and so on.

And then, after all of that I get a change to talk about something I have already talked about at great lenght. While you get to say nothing about the points I just pointed to? Misrepresentations, wrong claims and so on? Who would be stupid enough to fall for that, seer, honestly, come on.

So I will ask you once again, seer, where is the reasoning behind your claims.

Three premises wont do
By the way I certainly know how an argument looks. What I also know and have consistently claimed is that it is a very long line of reasoning if you want to prove it step by step. To think three premises will do, is to think in very, very simple minded terms. You would need lots of arguments, lots of conclusions to use as premises in new arguments and so on. So I am not going for your simplification. I have already sketched my basic thinking on this in the following links:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...f-ethics/page3

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post451896

But don’t try to use this as an escape, seer, you have yet to come up with anything at all but claims in this (and the other) thread. Make us wiser. Food for rational thoughts please. Let us see if you can answer without ad hominem and without trying to change focus on me and what I think. You are the seer, you should be able to do that.

[seer]

So first the ad hominem again and again, and then, when you do not seem to want to do that anymore instead of proving yourself right you want to prove me wrong. That would not prove your approach right, however. It is quite easy to see why you want to change focus.

I pointed to the fact that you misrepresented my position, you claimed you had written about stuff that you had not written about, and then finally I pointed to the fact that you really have no foundation apart from your belief, which may be wrong. God may not exist, he may exist and disagree with you and so on.

And then, after all of that I get a change to talk about something I have already talked about at great lenght. While you get to say nothing about the points I just pointed to? Misrepresentations, wrong claims and so on? Who would be stupid enough to fall for that, seer, honestly, come on.

So I will ask you once again, seer, where is the reasoning behind your claims.

Three premises wont do
By the way I certainly know how an argument looks. What I also know and have consistently claimed is that it is a very long line of reasoning if you want to prove it step by step. To think three premises will do, is to think in very, very simple minded terms. You would need lots of arguments, lots of conclusions to use as premises in new arguments and so on. So I am not going for your simplification. I have already sketched my basic thinking on this in the following links:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...f-ethics/page3

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post451896

But don’t try to use this as an escape, seer, you have yet to come up with anything at all but claims in this (and the other) thread. Make us wiser. Food for rational thoughts please. Let us see if you can answer without ad hominem and without trying to change focus on me and what I think. You are the seer, you should be able to do that.

See Charles, you are doing it again, you never pointed to one universal moral truth via a deductive argument. If you did be honest and tell us what that truth is. Put up and stop hiding behind weak arguments and verbiage.

[Darth Executor]

Oh my goodness, don't know how many times this has to be explained to you. Children are not consenting adults,

Liberals arbitrarily decided children's consent "doesn't count". there's nothing stopping any of you loons from rescinding that arbitrary decision the next time you get a whim to start another process of degeneration. this has been your modus operandi for the last couple of decades.

[seer]

It was not a silly argument. In your version, however, it became a silly argument. That is because JimL took it for granted that the argument about acting from one’s genuine self was not to be the one and only principle, but an important one.

In your version it became the one and only principle, and then you used it to act against another person’s genuine self (peadophile) or to break your promise to your wife. That is, you have left the discussion, before it has even started, because all you have done is to misrepresent the point and the context in which it was used.

Not an approach I would expect from anyone who had anything of substance.

Nonsense, every argument Jim could make for the lesbian one could make for the pedophile.

[JimL]

Nonsense, every argument Jim could make for the lesbian one could make for the pedophile.

No you can't. For one thing, the girl never said anything about sexual behavior seer, that just seems to be something you and yours are obsessed with. If you want to talk moral behavior from your perspective of what is natural, then you shouldn't even be having sex with anyone, including your wife, unless you are doing it strictly for the purpose of procreation you immoral son of a gun you.

[Tassman]

See Charles, you are doing it again, you never pointed to one universal moral truth via a deductive argument. If you did be honest and tell us what that truth is. Put up and stop hiding behind weak arguments and verbiage.

This is a bit rich coming from someone who's only deductive argument derives from an unverifiable premise, namely the existence of God. And, given that you can't establish the truth of your premise you cannot argue that your conclusion is true either.

[seer]

No you can't. For one thing, the girl never said anything about sexual behavior seer, that just seems to be something you and yours are obsessed with. If you want to talk moral behavior from your perspective of what is natural, then you shouldn't even be having sex with anyone, including your wife, unless you are doing it strictly for the purpose of procreation you immoral son of a gun you.

Of course I can, the pedophile does not necessarily have to be acting on his inclinations. Only that he embraces it as something natural, good and moral. And why would I only have sex with my wife for the purpose of procreation? Where does Scripture say that? And like I said before Jim, I can't have sex with my wife - she is dead.

[seer]

Of course I can, the pedophile does not necessarily have to be acting on his inclinations. Only that he embraces it as some natural, good and moral. And why would I only have sex with my wife for the purpose of procreation? Where does Scripture say that?

Try to keep up Homer, I never claimed that I could make a deductive argument for God. It was Charles who was claiming the high logical ground, claiming that logic was on his side in this ethical debate. I prove him wrong.

[Charles]

So first the ad hominem again and again, and then, when you do not seem to want to do that anymore instead of proving yourself right you want to prove me wrong. That would not prove your approach right, however. It is quite easy to see why you want to change focus.

I pointed to the fact that you misrepresented my position, you claimed you had written about stuff that you had not written about, and then finally I pointed to the fact that you really have no foundation apart from your belief, which may be wrong. God may not exist, he may exist and disagree with you and so on.

And then, after all of that I get a change to talk about something I have already talked about at great lenght. While you get to say nothing about the points I just pointed to? Misrepresentations, wrong claims and so on? Who would be stupid enough to fall for that, seer, honestly, come on.

So I will ask you once again, seer, where is the reasoning behind your claims.

seer, I never got an answer to this? Do you think it is fair to just ignore it? Given the fact that you have made false statements, I think not…

[Charles]

Try to keep up Homer, I never claimed that I could make a deductive argument for God. It was Charles who was claiming the high logical ground, claiming that logic was on his side in this ethical debate. I prove him wrong.

Though you cannot prove anything, you keep talkings as if it is a fact that your God exists and that he holds the norms you think he holds. You are yet to prove me wrong. You are not even close to doing that. There is logic to what I have said, yours is just circular claims.

[Charles]

Nonsense, every argument Jim could make for the lesbian one could make for the pedophile.

Ok. Then I would like to see how the following is an argument for the pedophile:

Two persons of the same or different sex can follow their genuine self and have sex given that they are both more than 15 years old and given that they both wish to take part in the act.

Looking forward, seer.

[seer]

Though you cannot prove anything, you keep talkings as if it is a fact that your God exists and that he holds the norms you think he holds. You are yet to prove me wrong. You are not even close to doing that. There is logic to what I have said, yours is just circular claims.

I have no idea what you mean that there is logic in your reasoning. That is an assertion, not a fact. All you have offered was opinion, not deductive reasoning. Good grief man you could not even offer a good argument for why Deontology was more correct than Utilitarianism or even Moral Skepticism - apart from your person preference. And the fact that any moral preference that you come up with, will in the end, be circular also. So I will ask you again Charles - name one universal moral truth. In all this discussion you have not named one. You tried with lying and killing, but we know how that turned out. And I never claimed that I could "prove" God, only that a God akin to the God of classic theism would offer a foundation for universal moral truths. And that without such a God, as Kant made clear, morality would be irrational.

[Tassman]

I never claimed that I could "prove" God, only that a God akin to the God of classic theism would offer a foundation for universal moral truths.

God “would offer a foundation for universal moral truths” if he existed, but you cannot show that he does so it's an irrelevant argument.

And that without such a God, as Kant made clear, morality would be irrational

Nonsense! As with all animals we have evolved to have a purpose-driven life; one of survival and reproduction and this is the basis of our morality.

[Starlight]

God “would offer a foundation for universal moral truths” if he existed, but you cannot show that he does so it's an irrelevant argument.

I don't see why. There's a pretty severe problem with knowing what his opinion is. There are 3 major different monotheistic religions in the world, and even within those religions there a many sub-groups with different teachings, and none of their religious books have clear answers to all moral questions.

And even if we knew for certain what his opinion was, that would just be, like, his opinion, man. What if God were evil? God's opinion is just his opinion, like my opinion is my opinion. It doesn't set right and wrong by being his opinion.

And according to the bible, God at times deliberately gives bad laws and commands, so it seems wise to ignore him:

Ezek 20:25
"I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live"

Socrates correctly observed more than 2000 years ago that the idea that morality is from the gods is nonsensical, and his reasoning still entirely applies today.

[Charles]

I have no idea what you mean that there is logic in your reasoning. That is an assertion, not a fact. All you have offered was opinion, not deductive reasoning. Good grief man you could not even offer a good argument for why Deontology was more correct than Utilitarianism or even Moral Skepticism - apart from your person preference. And the fact that any moral preference that you come up with, will in the end, be circular also. So I will ask you again Charles - name one universal moral truth. In all this discussion you have not named one. You tried with lying and killing, but we know how that turned out. And I never claimed that I could "prove" God, only that a God akin to the God of classic theism would offer a foundation for universal moral truths. And that without such a God, as Kant made clear, morality would be irrational.

I already commented on Kant’s points. You can read it under “Kant’s points” here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post450176

I talked about moral scepticism under “The actual consequences if there is no moral reality” here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post451896

I have mentioned several times that I hold the categorical imperative to be a moral truth. But since you appear to forget, I will mention it again.

Like I wrote yesterday: “I have showed that the claim you can always kill and always lie will have absurd consequences. But I have not been attracted by too easy solutions to that problem. “ I never tried with lying and killing, like you claim I did, because I knew beforehand that there is no easy solution to this and I do not agree with Kant on this part, which I have also made clear several times. It would be fitting if you could stop lying about that part, Mr. seer.

It may also be useful for you to reread “A misunderstanding of subjectivity”: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post451896

So, basically, seer, you keep making false statements about what i have said or not said. Did you ever actually read it and reflect on it? You seem to not even remember what it was about. It is so easy to prove you wrong again and again. And your response is to always ask for more though I have written far more about my point of view than you did about yours.

There are many points that you are yet to answer. And making false statements about me will not help you to answer. So let us here some rational food for thought, no more ad hominem and false statements.