Originally posted by seer
View Post
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
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
Atheism And Moral Progress
Collapse
X
-
-
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post1. Empirical evidence is not the only way which we acquire new knowledge.
2. 'Begging the question' does not even factor in to the discussion since both I and Jim B. already believes God exists.
3. It is only "proof" of God if someone believes that moral virtues such as justice, fairness and goodness are objectively real.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI agree with you that moral ideals don't have independent existence. They're not floating out there in the ether. They depend on rational wills. But I don't think they are the product of rational minds. God did not produce them. They've been part of His nature forever.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostThere is no deeper explanation, as I've already said. The basic definition of good is simply "that which is in accordance with God's nature". Asking why exactly that is is akin to asking why water is defined as a chemical substance whose molecules are made up of 2 hydrogen atoms in a covalent bond with 1 oxygen atom.
I don't see how love and justice could even be logically prior. There is no way to logically argue for the objective goodness of love, justice or any other virtue that we hold as good, without the existence of God. Furthermore, God is the ultimate source of everything in existence, which would include concepts such as goodness.
Well, no, He does not create their goodness by incorporating them into His nature. Rather, good is simply defined on the most basic level in the way I defined it above. Defining good without recourse to God can only lead to a definition that while it might possibly be objective in the sense that it doesn't depend on human opinion, has completely lost the most important part of the definition, namely that which explains why we would be obligated, or even want to live in accordance with such a definition of goodness.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI respect your opinion, Chrawnus. I'll post a longer answer later. Just out of curiosity, do you also think that God is the source of numbers and the fact that a=a?
The laws of logic in general I'm more hesitant to state anything for certain about, but I'm inclined towards the belief that they are also an expression of God's (rational) nature. I cannot imagine a world where the laws of logic didn't exist, or where they would look different from what they do now, but simply because I cannot imagine something does not mean it's not theoretically possible. So there doesn't seem to be any good reasons to posit that the laws of logic exist by necessity, outside of the being of God. If they exist and have the form that they do by necessity it would have to be because of they derive from the immutable nature of God and because the only possible worlds are ones where God's nature is identical to the nature that He has in the actual world.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI agree with you that moral ideals don't have independent existence. They're not floating out there in the ether. They depend on rational wills. But I don't think they are the product of rational minds. God did not produce them. They've been part of His nature forever.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
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostYou're confusing a few different issues there.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI agree that they are a part of God's nature, so what are we arguing about?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI don't think numbers exist objectively, but are subjective constructs of the mind that are used to categorize things in the real world according to quantity. But they don't exist anywhere other than in minds. So in the sense that God is the first conscious being Who is also omniscient, then yes, God is the source of numbers.
The laws of logic in general I'm more hesitant to state anything for certain about, but I'm inclined towards the belief that they are also an expression of God's (rational) nature. I cannot imagine a world where the laws of logic didn't exist, or where they would look different from what they do now, but simply because I cannot imagine something does not mean it's not theoretically possible. So there doesn't seem to be any good reasons to posit that the laws of logic exist by necessity, outside of the being of God. If they exist and have the form that they do by necessity it would have to be because of they derive from the immutable nature of God and because the only possible worlds are ones where God's nature is identical to the nature that He has in the actual world.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostI don’t think so. There’s no doubting that physical truths can be empirically tested and verified. But moral truths arose from human minds, as did the God you claim embodies them.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostThere is no deeper explanation, as I've already said. The basic definition of good is simply "that which is in accordance with God's nature". Asking why exactly that is is akin to asking why water is defined as a chemical substance whose molecules are made up of 2 hydrogen atoms in a covalent bond with 1 oxygen atom.
I don't see how love and justice could even be logically prior. There is no way to logically argue for the objective goodness of love, justice or any other virtue that we hold as good, without the existence of God. Furthermore, God is the ultimate source of everything in existence, which would include concepts such as goodness.
Well, no, He does not create their goodness by incorporating them into His nature. Rather, good is simply defined on the most basic level in the way I defined it above. Defining good without recourse to God can only lead to a definition that while it might possibly be objective in the sense that it doesn't depend on human opinion, has completely lost the most important part of the definition, namely that which explains why we would be obligated, or even want to live in accordance with such a definition of goodness.
God loves the good because of its intrinsic value, not because the good is merely part of His nature. If He loved the good only because it was part of His nature, that would seem to diminish both God and the good, imo.
God can't be the source of those powers that make His own being and actions possible. That's non-sensical. Morality is one of those things. That's no more a limitation of God's power than saying that God cannot make a rock so heavy, He cannot lift it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostBut you're assuming that empiricism is the only valid way of knowing anything. That's a philosophical, not a scientific, claim which requires a philosophical argument to support it.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI'm saying that things like truth, love, freedom and justice have intrinsic worth. They're part of God's nature because they are good and because God is good. It's not the other way around.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
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostBut you're assuming that empiricism is the only valid way of knowing anything. That's a philosophical, not a scientific, claim which requires a philosophical argument to support it.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
160 responses
509 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 07:28 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
|
88 responses
354 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-01-2024, 09:27 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
133 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment