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

Atheism And Moral Progress

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

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    It is referencing right. It is not referencing wrong. God is prohibited from choosing from that set of actions. He is not choosing to eschew evil acts - he cannot perform an evil act - by your definitions.
    Nonsense Carp, of course He is referencing right and wrong, what conforms to His will and nature is right, what doesn't conform is wrong. And referencing is NOT choosing. You keep conflating the two words.

    But the problem is a moot one, Seer. You have noted that god is not omnipotent - which eliminates the conundrum.
    Right, I believe that God can do ANYTHING that is intrinsically possible.
    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 seer View Post
      Nonsense Carp, of course He is referencing right and wrong, what conforms to His will and nature is right, what doesn't conform is wrong. And referencing is NOT choosing. You keep conflating the two words.
      This has been responded to multiple times. I'll let my previous posts stand.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Right, I believe that God can do ANYTHING that is intrinsically possible.
      And if anything does not conform to your definition of "god," then it is excluded from the list of "intrinsically possible," so you can hold on to the definition of "god" you want. The result is a god that is more constrained than mere mortal.

      It's an odd belief system, to me.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        This has been responded to multiple times. I'll let my previous posts stand.
        Right and you still are conflating choice with reference.

        And if anything does not conform to your definition of "god," then it is excluded from the list of "intrinsically possible," so you can hold on to the definition of "god" you want. The result is a god that is more constrained than mere mortal.

        It's an odd belief system, to me.
        Carp, of course, Biblically, we would have to exclude certain things as intrinsically possible for God. Like lying or sinning or ceasing to exist or acting contrary to His nature - generally. Why on earth would you find that controversial or odd? Besides your inherent bias? And if you think God is more constrained than a mere mortal get back to me after you raise the dead, walk on water, or create a cosmos of your own.
        Last edited by seer; 01-14-2019, 01:50 PM.
        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 seer View Post
          Right and you still are conflating choice with reference.

          Carp, of course, Biblically, we would have to exclude certain things as intrinsically possible for God. Like lying or sinning or ceasing to exist or acting contrary to His nature - generally. Why on earth would you find that controversial or odd? Besides your inherent bias? And if you think God is more constrained than a mere mortal get back to me after you raise the dead, walk on water, or create a cosmos of your own.
          Seer - every religion has it's "bible." They mostly do the same thing with respect to this; describe a particular kind of god - and then define their terms around that description.

          And then people wonder why those of us who sit outside of all that scratch our heads and are somewhat perplexed that people can't see just how convoluted their structures are.

          That being said - I think we have run the course with this discussion. Thanks for the chat.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            Seer - every religion has it's "bible." They mostly do the same thing with respect to this; describe a particular kind of god - and then define their terms around that description.

            And then people wonder why those of us who sit outside of all that scratch our heads and are somewhat perplexed that people can't see just how convoluted their structures are.

            That being said - I think we have run the course with this discussion. Thanks for the chat.
            If you have a problem Carp, go to the actual text (there the problem usually disappears). Yes men try to define these things using available language and concepts. The God of Scripture is as close as one is going to get to the idea of omnipotent. Though like I said I prefer the term supremely powerful.
            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 seer View Post
              If you have a problem Carp, go to the actual text (there the problem usually disappears). Yes men try to define these things using available language and concepts. The God of Scripture is as close as one is going to get to the idea of omnipotent. Though like I said I prefer the term supremely powerful.
              Whatever your preferences in defining the standard attributes of God they remain theological beliefs only, not necessarily real or true.
              “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 carpedm9587 View Post
                I certainly don't have the time to respond to all of this in one go. You said "pick one," so I guess we might as well start at the top.


                A Disjunctive Argument for Objective Moral Values
                1. Either moral values are objective or moral are subjective.
                2. Moral values are not subjective.
                3. Therefore, moral values are objective.



                You correctly note that, "the objectivist doesn’t necessarily have to argue FOR objectivism because premise 1 is an exhaustive disjunction. All the objectivist needs to do is demonstrate that moral subjectivism is false (premise 2), and the conclusion necessarily follows."

                So go for it. Prove #2 is false.

                Michel
                Here’s an indirect proof, connected with all the other arguments I presented. Assume moral subjectivism is the case. If moral subjectivism is the case, evolutionary naturalism is true. If evolutionary naturalism is true, then moral subjectivism can’t be rationally affirmed. Moral subjectivism is the conclusion of the argument. Therefore, moral subjectivism is being rationally affirmed. Therefore, moral subjectivism is and is not rationally affirmed. Therefore, moral subjectivism is not the case. Second, you can also connect it to the epistemic argument. Assume moral subjectivism is true. If moral subjectivism is true, then I can’t know objective moral values. However, I do know objective moral values. Therefore, I know and don’t know objective moral values. Therefore, moral subjectivism is false. Such indirect proofs could be multiplied with moral reformation, disagreement, evil, and praise and blame. All such proofs would (I contend) provide reason to accept premise 2 of the Disjunctive Argument for Objective Moral Values. With the proofs in place, let me know which one you’d like to discuss first. I’m asking because a discussion of any of these proofs will involve a lot of exposition.
                Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                George Horne

                Comment


                • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                  Here’s an indirect proof, connected with all the other arguments I presented. Assume moral subjectivism is the case. If moral subjectivism is the case, evolutionary naturalism is true.
                  How do you show this premise to be true?

                  Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                  If evolutionary naturalism is true, then moral subjectivism can’t be rationally affirmed.
                  Or this one?

                  Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                  Moral subjectivism is the conclusion of the argument. Therefore, moral subjectivism is being rationally affirmed. Therefore, moral subjectivism is and is not rationally affirmed. Therefore, moral subjectivism is not the case.
                  If you can show the premises to be true.

                  Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                  Second, you can also connect it to the epistemic argument. Assume moral subjectivism is true. If moral subjectivism is true, then I can’t know objective moral values.
                  True by definition.

                  Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                  However, I do know objective moral values.
                  How do you propose to show this premise to be true?

                  Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                  Therefore, I know and don’t know objective moral values. Therefore, moral subjectivism is false. Such indirect proofs could be multiplied with moral reformation, disagreement, evil, and praise and blame. All such proofs would (I contend) provide reason to accept premise 2 of the Disjunctive Argument for Objective Moral Values. With the proofs in place, let me know which one you’d like to discuss first. I’m asking because a discussion of any of these proofs will involve a lot of exposition.
                  As I noted before, Matt, I'm willing to engage. I'm just not interested in going down the rathole of philosophical double-speak. I have yet to encounter any discipline that cannot be be discussed in simple English terms. Let's keep it that way, please. I'm not a fan of cryptospeak.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    How do you show this premise to be true?
                    So when we were discussing moral reasoning you said one must begin with a true premise, but you offered no such premise for your position... You were reduced to saying that it was only true for you. Talk about double-speak.
                    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 seer View Post
                      So when we were discussing moral reasoning you said one must begin with a true premise, but you offered no such premise for your position... You were reduced to saying that it was only true for you. Talk about double-speak.
                      No - it's not double-speak. My premises are about what I value - hence they CAN be only true for me with no contradiction. You have only my word to know if they are true or false because they are about my interior mental state.

                      The first two statements Max made were if/then conditionals. He needs to be able to show that the "then" logically follows the "if." That is basic logic. If they don't necessarily follow, the premise is not necessarily true.

                      In the last statement I questioned, Max made a statement that involved external reality. The statement "I know absolute/objective moral truths" is essentially: "absolute/objective moral truth exist and I know them." You have to be able to show that they are actually absolute/objective - that they exist - for that to be true. Otherwise, Max's statement is equivalent to "I believe I know absolute/objective moral truths." That statement is about his interior state only - his belief. The statement is true if he believes that - false if he doesn't. And that belief in independent of whether or not the "absolute/objective moral truths" he believes he knows actually exist.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        No - it's not double-speak. My premises are about what I value - hence they CAN be only true for me with no contradiction. You have only my word to know if they are true or false because they are about my interior mental state.
                        So making up premises that can not be demonstrated apart from what you feel is the case is a legitimate way to make a logical argument?
                        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 seer View Post
                          So making up premises that can not be demonstrated apart from what you feel is the case is a legitimate way to make a logical argument?
                          Logic has nothing to do with subjective or objective. It merely says: "if the argument takes a syllogistic form, and the premises are true, then the argument is sound and valid - so the conclusion is true." It says nothing about your ability to actually determine if the premises are true. It merely says "if they are true, and the argument is sound, then the conclusion is likewise true." Determining the truth/falseness of a premise is a matter of seeing if it aligns to reality. When the premise is about my internal mental state, your only avenue is my word (AFAIK).

                          So if I make an argument on the basis of a subjective truth, you have no way (beyond my word) of knowing if the conclusion is true. This happens all the time, and is never questioned.

                          P1) I want pizza for lunch
                          P2) That restaurant serves pizza for lunch
                          C) I (we?) should go to that restaurant for lunch.

                          If I am in the mood for pizza, and that restaurant serves it, then the argument is sound and valid (ok you purists, I know the argument is not, strictly speaking, in syllogistic form - but it's close enough for government work!) and the conclusion is true.

                          Note that you have only my word for it that I like pizza - but you don't typically say, "well - your conclusion is irrational because your premises are subjective!" The conclusion is perfectly rational - and perfectly subjective.

                          You have been making this error throughout our discussions. For some reason, you have linked "rational" and "reasonable" to "objective" in a way that the simple definition of the terms does not support. Your own behavior does not support it either, as I am sure you have made MANY decision in the course of your life (major and minor) on the basis of subjective values and preferences, using a similar line of logic. We all do.
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            So if I make an argument on the basis of a subjective truth, you have no way (beyond my word) of knowing if the conclusion is true. This happens all the time, and is never questioned.

                            P1) I want pizza for lunch
                            P2) That restaurant serves pizza for lunch
                            C) I (we?) should go to that restaurant for lunch.
                            Correct, but we never come to a more insightful understanding of ethics, only what your personal preferences are. And with that and a buck fifty you can buy a cup of coffee...
                            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 seer View Post
                              Correct, but we never come to a more insightful understanding of ethics, only what your personal preferences are. And with that and a buck fifty you can buy a cup of coffee...
                              That is because for you "more insightful" means "aligned with an absolute/objective norm." You've defined your way to "insightful." Look, Seer, I have enjoyed the chat with you on this topic, but you truly have demonstrated that you cannot see outside that box. Indeed, it is not clear to me that you even know there IS a box. The irony here is that you repeatedly accuse me of wanting you to accept my worldview and abandon yours. I want nothing of the kind. But you cannot even begin to understand my worldview because you cannot set yours aside long enough to examine it. To you, the elephant is "like a snake" because you have the tail firmly in your hand. I don't think that you are inherently incapable of seeing (as you apparently think of me), but so far you show no ability to see beyond your "box."
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                That is because for you "more insightful" means "aligned with an absolute/objective norm." You've defined your way to "insightful." Look, Seer, I have enjoyed the chat with you on this topic, but you truly have demonstrated that you cannot see outside that box. Indeed, it is not clear to me that you even know there IS a box. The irony here is that you repeatedly accuse me of wanting you to accept my worldview and abandon yours. I want nothing of the kind. But you cannot even begin to understand my worldview because you cannot set yours aside long enough to examine it. To you, the elephant is "like a snake" because you have the tail firmly in your hand. I don't think that you are inherently incapable of seeing (as you apparently think of me), but so far you show no ability to see beyond your "box."
                                I think I made my point rather well. All your moral reasoning or true premises lead us no further down the ethical road of understanding. As a matter of fact all your moral reasoning and true premises are simply rationalizations to confirm your moral biases. Yet you pretend that somehow you are on a higher logical ground for understanding ethics, than those who rely on the herd or a book. But you are not.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                51 responses
                                216 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                345 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 08-29-2023, 08:00 AM
                                272 responses
                                1,517 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X