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
When does proving one's truth claims come to an end?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostWe cannot verify facts via subjective feelings and experiences; for facts we need scientific testing.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 Tassman View PostOne believes what can be supported by evidence. Science is supported by empirically testing observations and deriving conclusions. Religious beliefs have no such methodology to test its claims.
Comment
-
You're trying to reduce a complex, multi-dimensional phenomenon such as "love" to a single explanatory level. That's called 'explanatory monism'. Your explanation is useful as long as it's understood to apply to that one descriptive level. An explanation or description at a single level is never meant to be exhaustive.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostJim that was not the point I was making, whether I decide God is real or not has nothing to do with it. I'm asking theoretically on what basis could we ever object to a moral act of God?
I agree, and they line up with the morally qualities of God.
No I'm saying that without God there are no universal moral truths, only relative moral beliefs.
No, there is nothing prior in God's moral nature. Mercy, love, forgiveness, justice that make up his goodness are just as eternal and immutable as His overall goodness.
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
What on earth are you talking about? And I will ask again, what effect or influence could your standard have on an immutable moral character? It would be completely superfluous to a morally unchanging being.
I do believe God is influenced by the world, answers prayers, intervenes in history, etc, but that's another aspect of His being.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hornet View PostOne can test religious beliefs with what the Bible teaches.
The Bible is inspired by God
and it is the final authorityLast edited by Tassman; 01-21-2020, 11:38 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThat is just nonsense Tass, most of the facts you know have nothing to do with scientific testing they are historical, personal or otherwise. You had breakfast last Thursday morning, the specifics are facts learned via personal experience and historical. No science necessary.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostOR you may have imaginedAtheism 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 PostIn 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.
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.
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.
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
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.Last edited by seer; 01-22-2020, 07:16 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...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostGiven 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.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 Tassman View PostThey are nevertheless and cannot be verified by anything other than an academic argument.
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?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 PostAs I already said, academic, a priori arguments establish the necessity or possibility of something.
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.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
606 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
Comment