Page 11 of 26 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 253

Thread: When does proving one's truth claims come to an end?

  1. #101
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    26,341
    Amen (Given)
    1956
    Amen (Received)
    5469
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
    In theory, it's not metaphysically possible, although logically possible, to object to a moral act of God's if God's character aligns with the good and with love. My point was that morality is based on reasons and reasons are equally accessible to all moral agents.
    But reasons are relative to the moral goals one has. Gandhi has certain goals, Stalin others.


    Yes, they line up with the moral qualities of God, but that doesn't mean that God is the source of or identical with those qualities.
    If God isn't the source of universal moral truths then what is? You?



    Whether moral truths are universal or relative has nothing to do with whether or not God is the source of them. In fact, positing God as the source relativizes them more than not doing so, IMO, because it makes them brute, and without reasons for being.
    That is silly, if God's moral nature is immutable then moral truths are not relative and are universal. They in a sense are brute facts as God Himself is a brute fact since you can not offer reasons for His existence.




    I think you've got two problems.

    You've got the redundancy problem I already mentioned. If God sets His own standard of goodness, then you're not ascribing meaning to words the way we normally do. When we ascribe a property P to X, we mean that there is a separate standard for judging and applying P to X, something separate from X. If X can set its own standard for P, then all we're saying is that "X is being X," or "X is doing Xness". X loses the meaning that we usually associate with words for properties. If God sets His own standard for goodness, then 'the good' means 'what God is, commands, or wills.' So that 'God is good' comes to mean "God is or does whatever God is or does."

    The second problem is the emptiness problem based on logical priority.

    http://faculty.georgetown.edu/koonsj.../Euthyphro.pdf
    Jim, I'm not going to wade through through that link. First, God does not set His own standard, He is by His immutable nature that standard. But you need to answer - if God's nature does not set the standard EXACTLY what does? And like I said I doubt if you can define "the good" with out begging the question. So you are in a no better position, logically.


    God's unchanging nature is eternally one with the truth, whether that's mathematical, logical, moral, or otherwise. There is no effect or influence, any more than He's 'influenced' by the number 7. Effect and influence connote time and change and these are timeless abstractions.
    So again, of what use is this independent standard? The standard would be completely superfluous.
    Last edited by seer; 01-22-2020 at 06:16 AM.
    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...

  2. #102
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,995
    Amen (Given)
    5275
    Amen (Received)
    3614
    Given that morality is about interpersonal relationships I'm not really sure in what ways it makes sense to say that the ultimate standard or source of morality lies outside of God. I can easily conceive of a world devoid of God (questions of metaphysical or logical impossibility aside) where no such standard exists, so if the ground/source/standard of morality/goodness does not lie in God it seems to me like it would only be an accidental aspect of any universe. I.e there would be possible (that is, conceivable) worlds where this outside standard did not exist.

    Then there's also the issue that the Bible clearly teaches God's ultimate sovereignity over all that exists apart from Him, which would be inconsistent with an external standard to which He has to align Himself.

  3. #103
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    26,341
    Amen (Given)
    1956
    Amen (Received)
    5469
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrawnus View Post
    Given that morality is about interpersonal relationships I'm not really sure in what ways it makes sense to say that the ultimate standard or source of morality lies outside of God. I can easily conceive of a world devoid of God (questions of metaphysical or logical impossibility aside) where no such standard exists, so if the ground/source/standard of morality/goodness does not lie in God it seems to me like it would only be an accidental aspect of any universe. I.e there would be possible (that is, conceivable) worlds where this outside standard did not exist.

    Then there's also the issue that the Bible clearly teaches God's ultimate sovereignity over all that exists apart from Him, which would be inconsistent with an external standard to which He has to align Himself.
    And the fact that I have never seen a moral realist define what is good without begging the question. Or as Jim B. did just assert that moral truths were axioms.
    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...

  4. #104
    tWebber mattbballman31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    234
    Amen (Given)
    2
    Amen (Received)
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    They are “speculations” nevertheless and cannot be verified by anything other than an academic argument.
    As I already said, academic, a priori arguments establish the necessity or possibility of something. It's a completely different kind of verification. Verification should be understood analogically relative to the methodological constraints of different domains of inquiry. To univocally impose one kind of verification onto the framework of non-scientific disciplines is just mistaken.

    How can your metaphysical argument be justified as any more than an academic mind-game, when there is no mechanism to arrive at a verifiable true premise and consequently cannot arrive at a verifiable true conclusion?
    You have to go through them on a case by case basis. I could go into philosophical methods with a test-case, but it would take too long. And to call this nothing but an academic mind-game is so snobbishly condescending as to not even merit a response. But to go over a little short-cut. As we've already told you a million times, the methods and findings of science, though not conversant with philosophy, do rely on philosophical assumptions. And so the empirical beliefs can't be more certain than the philosophical assumptions upon which they're based. If you think a physics-based theory is true, you have a background-belief about a theory of truth. The same methods that go to establish a theory of truth will be the same methods you use to establish metaphysically necessary or possible entities, events, things, or properties. They go hand-in-hand. So, either go with philosophy and its methods (which doesn't involve, or rely upon, empirical confirmation) or throw it all out and lose all the philosophical assumptions you need to keep your empirical theories afloat.
    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

  5. #105
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,985
    Amen (Given)
    2592
    Amen (Received)
    1888
    Quote Originally Posted by mattbballman31 View Post
    As I already said, academic, a priori arguments establish the necessity or possibility of something.
    A priori arguments do not establish the “necessity or possibility” of anything. They proceed from purely theoretical deductions, NOT from observation or experience.

    As we've already told you a million times, the methods and findings of science, though not conversant with philosophy, do rely on philosophical assumptions. And so the empirical beliefs can't be more certain than the philosophical assumptions upon which they're based.
    As I have already responded “a million times” I’m not "invalidating" philosophy. It has its place. It’s essential for holding the scientific structure together - it can ensure self-consistency and avoid errors of false inference. But, I repeat, philosophy cannot in and of itself arrive at new factual knowledge about the real world. For this you need scientific methodology.

    If you think a physics-based theory is true, you have a background-belief about a theory of truth.
    More to the point, what "a physics-based theory" has is a scientific methodology to establish facts and build on these facts the results of which are all around us.

    The same methods that go to establish a theory of truth will be the same methods you use to establish metaphysically necessary or possible entities, events, things, or properties. They go hand-in-hand. So, either go with philosophy and its methods (which doesn't involve, or rely upon, empirical confirmation) or throw it all out and lose all the philosophical assumptions you need to keep your empirical theories afloat.
    Putting a man on the moon is sufficient to keep my "empirical theories afloat".
    “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.

  6. #106
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,985
    Amen (Given)
    2592
    Amen (Received)
    1888
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    And the fact that I have never seen a moral realist define what is good without begging the question. Or as Jim B. did just assert that moral truths were axioms.
    You are assuming that 'morals' are eternal and unchangeable. This is demonstrably not so. Morals are simply how humans behaved under certain circumstances at a certain time in history. Morals and ethics evolve and vary to a degree from culture to culture over time.
    “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.

  7. #107
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    26,341
    Amen (Given)
    1956
    Amen (Received)
    5469
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    You are assuming that 'morals' are eternal and unchangeable. This is demonstrably not so. Morals are simply how humans behaved under certain circumstances at a certain time in history. Morals and ethics evolve and vary to a degree from culture to culture over time.
    I'm speaking to what Jim B. believes, not what you believe.
    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...

  8. #108
    tWebber mattbballman31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    234
    Amen (Given)
    2
    Amen (Received)
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    A priori arguments do not establish the “necessity or possibility” of anything. They proceed from purely theoretical deductions, NOT from observation or experience.
    I think I'll take E.J. Lowe's The Four-Category Ontology, The Possibility of Metaphysics, and A Survey of Metaphysics, William Hasker's Metaphysics: Constructing a World View, Lynne Rudder Baker's The Metaphysics of Everyday Life, Robert Koons' Metaphysics: The Funadmentals, Alyssa Ney's Metaphysics: An Introduction, Peter van Inwagen's Being, Existence, and Ontological Commitment, D.W. Hamlyn's Metaphysics, Edward Feser's (ed.) Aristotle on Method and Metaphysics and Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction, Mark Pestana's (ed.) Metaphysics, John Carroll and Ned Markosian's An Introduction to Metaphysics, Matthew Slater and Zanja Yudell's Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Science, Michael Loux's Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction, Michael Rea's Metaphysics: The Basics, Richard Taylor's Metaphysics, or Robert Henle's Method and Metaphysics, along with literally hundreds of other monographs, not to mention the tens of thousands of essays in philosophy journals, not just in the Western Academy, but in non-Western academies around the world, over your baseless, bald assertion. There's nothing about a deduction's being theoretical that keeps it from being an inference as to a conclusion's possibility or necessity, in the broad logical sense, which carries over into the more broad nomological varieties empirically confirmed in the hard sciences.


    As I have already responded “a million times” I’m not "invalidating" philosophy. It has its place. It’s essential for holding the scientific structure together - it can ensure self-consistency and avoid errors of false inference. But, I repeat, philosophy cannot in and of itself arrive at new factual knowledge about the real world. For this you need scientific methodology.
    You're not getting it, and you're not reading what I'm writing obviously. I already addressed your denuded version of philosophy. It isn't just the formal science of logic. But even here, you're going to have to ignore a domain of metaphysical autonomy, independent of the sciences, called philosophical logic, which is inextricably intertwined with the a priori, metaphysical methods that inform a more robust kind of philosophy than the denuded version you've settled on. Then the foot is in the door. Those are the same methods, procedures, goals, parameters, and domains investigated by first philosophy in typical, analytic metaphysics.

    You keep saying philosophy can't in and of itself arrive at new factual knowledge. It just depends. Philosophy on its own can't get quantum physics, general theory of relativity, the standard model of particle physics, the theory of biological evolution; it can't engage in the applied sciences and invent new technological innovations that make our lives better; it can't bring any empirical, novel insights into the cutting edge, first-order investigations of chemistry. That's just not its domain. But metaphysics does interface with the empirical aspects studied by these sciences, not just at the level of philosophical interpretation of the mathematical formalism of scientific theories, conceptual clarification, or theory concilience. At the level of broad logical modality, and in the context of external conceptual problems, metaphysics can serve to curb the pretensions of scientific research programs.

    One example: "Ellis, Kirchner, and Stoeger ask, “Can there be an infinite set of really existing universes? We suggest that, on the basis of well-known philosophical arguments, the answer is No” (14).

    George F. R. Ellis is a world-renown theoretical cosmologist. Ulrich Kirchner is a theoretical physicist. W.R. Stoeger is an astronomer. The past-finitude of the universe is new factual knowledge about the world. It's better than science because the knowledge garnered from metaphysics makes the knowledge broadly logically necessary, and not just probable. So, scientific methodologies are neither necessary nor sufficient for getting at all the factual knowledge there is about the world. The only thing in your way of seeing this is your scientistic dogma. Finding scientists that disagree with Ellis, Kirchner, or Stoeger isn't the point. It is a fact that philosophical methods enframe scientific research programs because the parameters have built into them concessions to the consequences of analytically robust philosophical arguments, independent of empirical confirmation.

    More to the point, what "a physics-based theory" has is a scientific methodology to establish facts and build on these facts the results of which are all around us.
    That wasn't more to the point at all. The point was that the methods and findings of science are based on robust philosophical assumptions, not just the formal restrictions constitutive of 'avoiding error' or 'streamlining logical inference'. A paradigmatic example is the realism/anti-realism debate, which is not settled by scientific methodologies. Yet scientists cannot avoid saying something about, for example, the general theory of relativity. Does it describe the real world? Is it just empirically adequate? It is just reflective of the sociological predilections of the dominant, agreed-upon paradigms? Interesting theses, all of them. Unfortunately, adjudicating the issues is completely independent of, and cannot be settled by, and leaves utterly underdeterminative, the question of which option is true.

    Putting a man on the moon is sufficient to keep my "empirical theories afloat".
    Irrelevant. That an empirical theory lead to the technological innovations necessary to put a guy on the moon is utterly irrelevant as to whether empirical methods can substantiate or justify the robust, philosophical assumptions upon which the empirical theories are based. And again. I'm not talking about the formal sciences guiding valid logical inferences. I'm talking about robust metaphysical commitments that underlie any physics-based theory. It's not science's job to address these commitments, and that okay. But it's also not a part of science to crap on those departments at universities that do, and then disqualify them because they don't use scientific methods. That's like disqualifying chess because there aren't any home runs.
    Last edited by mattbballman31; 01-23-2020 at 07:38 AM.
    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

  9. #109
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    694
    Amen (Given)
    16
    Amen (Received)
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    No, I’m referring to the origins of “love” as an evolved instinct common to many living creatures and therefore explainable by science. I am not elaborating on the multi-dimensional nature of "love" as a phenomenon. Although, there is no good reason to think that it too cannot be explained by science.
    To make that move would be to commit the 'genetic fallacy.' There are very good reasons to believe that scientific knowledge of origins alone is far too impoverished to give you complete knowledge of the nature of a phenomenon.

  10. #110
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    694
    Amen (Given)
    16
    Amen (Received)
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    But reasons are relative to the moral goals one has. Gandhi has certain goals, Stalin others.
    Morality is relative in the sense that it applies to rational moral agents. It doesn't apply to rocks or grubworms. It's not relative in the sense that what is right or wrong is so irrespective of individual perspective or opinion. Reasons are not relative because they are normative and can be judged normatively.

    You wrote earlier that you thought God is sovereign and source not only of morality, maths and logic but of properties and relations too. That would mean he'd have to be sovereign over the property of his being sovereign, logically prior to his property of being logically prior, and the source and creator of his property of being source and creator.

    God's properties and relations are obviously not meant to be idolized and fetishized beyond reason. God Himself is meant to be worshipped, not a god whose properties and powers are transcendentalized into absurdity.




    If God isn't the source of universal moral truths then what is? You?
    The nature of rational social discourse. You assume there has to be a subject who is the source of morality, math, etc, whether that subject is me, God, other people, etc. That's an example of the 'pathetic fallacy,' to assume that there must be some anthropomorphic force behind everything. So you're really a subjectivist, albeit on a cosmic scale; I don't think you believe in objective truth.






    That is silly, if God's moral nature is immutable then moral truths are not relative and are universal. They in a sense are brute facts as God Himself is a brute fact since you can not offer reasons for His existence.
    God is the very opposite of bruteness. He is necessary being. He exists a se. He carries his reason for existence within himself.

    But my point was that if God is the source and basis of morality, morality would be 'brute' in the sense that it wouldn't be based on reasons; it would simply, brutely be the way God says it is and that's it. But our experience runs counter to that. We as moral agents seem to have moral autonomy with accompanying individual moral responsibility and this autonomy is based upon reasons which are equally accessible to all agents, whether they be theists or non-theists. What reasons would non-theists have to adopt the moral point of view under your theory? Why do we find that non-theists are generally as moral as theists? Could it be because the basis for morality is not a supernatural basis accessed through faith but a rational basis open to all rational actors? The fact that we don't find a great disparity between the morality of theists and non-theists generally is exactly what we'd expect to find with a rational rather than a theistic basis for morality.






    Jim, I'm not going to wade through through that link. First, God does not set His own standard, He is by His immutable nature that standard. But you need to answer - if God's nature does not set the standard EXACTLY what does? And like I said I doubt if you can define "the good" with out begging the question. So you are in a no better position, logically.
    I appreciate your openness to new information. I'll quote passages from it as needed, then. The "good" in this context is whatever is ideally desirable, the most general term of commendation. It's not necessarily a proper noun.




    So again, of what use is this independent standard? The standard would be completely superfluous.
    That's the height of silliness. God is the ground of existence.
    Last edited by Jim B.; 01-23-2020 at 02:32 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •