Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    That's fine, though it would seem that moral truths are therefore objective, "love fulfils the law" is true regardless of whether anyone (including God) is actually loving.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    Lee, I don't get this. If there were no minds how can there be a moral law that loves fulfills? I mean that particular law is the law of God, He instituted it, it is completely contingent on Him.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      I generally agree that the law of God is grounded in His knowledge, but there is more - it is also grounded in His immutable moral character. By nature He is loving, truthful, just, etc...
      Your problem is that based to your line of reasoning any description you can use like "moral character" is based on ideas you claim follow from his own nature. So you are stuck in the "it is good because it is God's choice, nature or whatever" trap. The justification of the source is based upon the source itself. Circular, seer.
      "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Charles View Post
        Your problem is that based to your line of reasoning any description you can use like "moral character" is based on ideas you claim follow from his own nature. So you are stuck in the "it is good because it is God's choice, nature or whatever" trap. The justification of the source is based upon the source itself. Circular, seer.
        Charles I made this point early on in our other debate and you have yet to respond with any good argument. Every definition of good is going to end up begging the question. Please offer a definition of good that is not based on circular reasoning.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Charles I made this point early on in our other debate and you have yet to respond with any good argument. Every definition of good is going to end up begging the question. Please offer a definition of good that is not based on circular reasoning.
          If that is your point then why do you seem to get so angry everytime someone points to the fact that it is circular? Your definition is circular and thus it is not better or worse of than any other circular argument. Or is your subjective preference for one type of circular defintion better than another circular definition?
          "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

          Comment


          • #35
            Behavior is an objective act. That there is good behavior versus an evil behavior is also a matter of objective reality. Good behavior being mutually beneficial.
            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              If there is no God then sanity is relative, there would not be an absolute standard.
              Sure there would, degrees of insanity could point to the concept of sanity, by extrapolation. Or by putting together pieces of sanity found in various insane people.

              And go back to my OP, I dealt with the math question there.
              And I replied: "Yet the distance is an objective quantity, regardless of the units used to measure it."

              "1+1=2" is an abstract concept!

              An abstract concept like love or sanity are different - they are completely dependent on a mind.
              But it is not dependent on a mind knowing "1+1=2".

              Blessings,
              Lee
              Last edited by lee_merrill; 09-07-2017, 06:18 PM.
              "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                Originally posted by lee_merrill
                ...though it would seem that moral truths are therefore objective, "love fulfils the law" is true regardless of whether anyone (including God) is actually loving.
                If there were no minds how can there be a moral law that loves fulfills? I mean that particular law is the law of God, He instituted it, it is completely contingent on Him.
                Yet the law is a real entity, considered by itself, "do not steal" is something that can be understood as a real proposition, apart from God, even.

                Blessings,
                Lee
                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Charles View Post
                  If that is your point then why do you seem to get so angry everytime someone points to the fact that it is circular? Your definition is circular and thus it is not better or worse of than any other circular argument. Or is your subjective preference for one type of circular defintion better than another circular definition?
                  Charles the reason I take exception is that you are suggesting that a circular argument in this case is somehow invalid - when in fact there is no non-question begging way to settle the issue. So you keep attacking my position because it is circular when you know that you can not offer anything non-circular - that is not only hypocritical but dishonest.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    Yet the law is a real entity, considered by itself, "do not steal" is something that can be understood as a real proposition, apart from God, even.

                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    Lee, I still don't get you. How can you have a moral law without a lawgiver?
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Sure there would, degrees of insanity could point to the concept of sanity, by extrapolation. Or by putting together pieces of sanity found in various insane people.
                      But Lee you would still need a sane mind to piece all this together.

                      And I replied: "Yet the distance is an objective quantity, regardless of the units used to measure it."

                      "1+1=2" is an abstract concept!


                      But it is not dependent on a mind knowing "1+1=2".
                      I'm not sure of your point, if there are no minds the abstract 1+1=2 does not exist.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        How can you have a moral law without a lawgiver?
                        Just like you could have an arithmetic table without a table-giver.

                        But Lee you would still need a sane mind to piece all this together.
                        Wouldn't a creature being born sane fit the bill? A sane mind could appear.

                        I'm not sure of your point, if there are no minds the abstract 1+1=2 does not exist.
                        This is where I need you to give the evidence for your claim.

                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          Just like you could have an arithmetic table without a table-giver.
                          Lee, you can not have an arithmetic table without a mind first creating the table.


                          Wouldn't a creature being born sane fit the bill? A sane mind could appear.
                          It would be sane compared to what? What standard would you use?

                          This is where I need you to give the evidence for your claim.
                          Well no Lee - we know that abstracts can exist in rational minds, it is up to you to show how they can exist without minds.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Lee, you can not have an arithmetic table without a mind first creating the table.
                            But the arithmetic table was not created, it was discovered, mathematical truths yet to be discovered are nonetheless real, even if no one knows them yet, even if God (per impossible) did not know them yet.

                            It would be sane compared to what? What standard would you use?
                            It would be sane in and of itself, no standard of comparison would be needed, as in the color blue, which is itself, no standard needed.

                            Well no Lee - we know that abstracts can exist in rational minds, it is up to you to show how they can exist without minds.
                            Because we discover moral principles, they are not created, they are not arbitrary.

                            ... if there are no minds the abstract 1+1=2 does not exist.
                            And even though abstracts can exist in rational minds, that does not prove this statement, I need to hear your evidence for this.

                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              But the arithmetic table was not created, it was discovered, mathematical truths yet to be discovered are nonetheless real, even if no one knows them yet, even if God (per impossible) did not know them yet.
                              Lee of course arithmetic table was created. Some one had to create the numbers one or two or three etc... You can have one rock, or two rocks or three rocks but you can not have 1+2=3 without a mind to invent the tokens we use in abstract reasoning.


                              It would be sane in and of itself, no standard of comparison would be needed, as in the color blue, which is itself, no standard needed.
                              But the color blue is a physical thing, what is considered sane is subjective and comparative.


                              Because we discover moral principles, they are not created, they are not arbitrary.
                              Well God's law is not arbitrary, but without God of course ethics are arbitrary. How or where do moral principles exist apart from minds?



                              And even though abstracts can exist in rational minds, that does not prove this statement, I need to hear your evidence for this.
                              No Lee, if you hold that abstract principles (ethical or otherwise) can exist apart from rational minds it is up to you to show how and where they exist when no minds are present.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                seer explain why that 2 items and another 2 items make 4 items. The math symbolism aside. Explain why that or any self evident truth needs God to be true. If I was an atheist that would be one of the questions I would ask a theist. We are speaking of self evident truths Not just the math symbolism.
                                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X