How the hell can anyone 'know' that 'god' is 'good'? On what basis is such an assumption made? What are the exact qualities that 'god' has that make 'him' 'good'? Why is untruthfulness NOT one of them, for example? Is it could because this quality is NOT good? And for the guy below...exactly WHO (name them) says that we are NOTHING BUT sophisticated animals? The words NOTHING BUT are a value judgment, not a scientific assertion. I deeply love my sophisticated animal children.
@derek24hudson Classical theism has always held that God is good; that love/kindness/mercy are His essential properties and thus that he cannot be evil/unloving/or cruel in any possible world; For Christians and classical theists this just IS God's essential nature, and as the ultimate being He is the explanatory ultimate; in the same way the sound quality on a tape-recording of live orchestra is judged by its fidelity to the orchestra; there is no higher standard the orchestra IS the standard!
@relarerfhjk 'Classical theism has always held..'; and classical astrology has always held that when the sun enters Capricon, there may be trouble brewing...in both cases, so what? Asserting that 'god' is 'essentially good', to me, is utterly vacuous and meaningless. I still see no evidence, or reason, to believe that a'god' exists, but, if 'it' does, tell me, does it have set of particular values that are objectively good, or are these values good because of it that holds them?
@derek24hudson "in both cases so what" well, the question comes down to whether there is good reason to believe that the God of Christianity exists.For this, turn to William Lane Craig's 5 Arguments for Christianity.
To say God is essentially good means he is loving,merciful etc by necessity of His nature,so there is no possible world in which he could be other than that;
God has these qualities as they are essential to his perfect being and that is what makes them objectively "good"
@relarerfhjk I have 'turned to. WLC on many occasions, and swiftly turned away...nothing new, original or relevant there. You did not answer the question I asked...I doubt that you will. What is 'good'? (No circles please). Why does 'god' have a particular set of qualities? Why is 'mercy' (your example) 'good'? How do you know that 'god' is 'good'? 'He' told you? If 'god' has not chosen to be 'good' (your view) then is he worthy of praise? Does 'he' have the power to be 'not good'? Answers!
Steve, what if the State commands something terrible? It happens all the time and NOT just in times of war. For example I find it morally repugnant and contrary to all sense of human decency for the elderly to lose homes they have worked all their lives for because of increased property taxes. This happens in California. I find it morally repugnant that the state tries to legitimatize abortion and will even pay for it. I find it morally repugnant that our children are NOT being taught morality!
2. And I find it morally repugnant that our children are taught they are nothing but sophisticated animals, the product of evolution which is still a theory as far as I know.
Now I can already hear the atheists mounting their soapboxes in objection. Prayer is schools! Never prayed ONCE in school as a kid. First consequence for me personally as a result of Meddlin' Madilyin's victory was they canceled by 4th grade Christmas party.Try explaining THAT to a bunch of 9 year olds.
@SmolyHoax 2.) The school cannot endorse campus wide prayer as a requirement. However, individual students are free to pray or organize religiously based groups. At my school Athletes in Action prayed in the gym everyday before classes started.
There is so much more wrong with your comments, like how "children aren't being taught morality" but I think two comments worth is enough to get my point across.
@playerwithfaith "The school cannot endorse campus wide prayer as a requirement" Never said it should. They never prayed in school when I was a kid. But teaching ETHICS is not the same as prayer now is it??
"individual students are free to pray or organize religiously based groups" You'd think so but we were forbidden to do so in the early 70's.
"There is so much more wrong with your comments..."
In you humble opinion? Or do YOU make subscribe to a Personal Opinion Command Theory?
@SmolyHoax Were they trying to pray during class? If so, I could see that being disallowed as that disrupts classtime. I'm pretty sure you are wrong about this, but feel free to provide a link to a story about it happening to prove me wrong.
Nothing in this world can hold an adequate claim to absolute truth. But observable and repeatable phenomena like evolution explain why we see the world around us. Knowing the world around us is useful for survival, therefore we teach it to our young.
@playerwithfaith "Were they trying to pray during class?" Of course not. I was walking down the hall and the Dean and I were talking. He was adamant. Many people refuse to believe the truth about this bigotry but it existed when I was in school. One teacher assigned an essay asking where we got our ideas of right and wrong. I wrote "From the words of Jesus in the Bible." My paper came back with those words crossed out with a red CRAYON and a note in pen calling them inappropriate. She asked!
@SmolyHoax Evolution has held its place at the forefront of biology for nearly 2 centures. It not only survived unforseeable discoveries like genetics, the process by which mutations happen was found there.
Intelligent Design/Creationism has not survived the trial by fire,it collapsed in academia under the weight of its own lack of evidence. It then tried to bypass the method by which theories get taught in schools by going directly through the courts. Even with a conservativejudge it failed.
@playerwithfaith "Nothing in this world can hold an adequate claim to absolute truth. But observable and repeatable phenomena like evolution explain..."
1. I would say the laws of math and logic are absolute or should be considered so.
2. This is one of my main criticisms of evolution: How can you observe a process that allegedly takes place over millions of years? Evolution explains NOTHING.
3. Yes knowing the world around us is useful to our survival. Do you doubt Christians teach it too?
@SmolyHoax 1.) You have no way of knowing whether our observations of logic (how the universe works) and the laws of mathematics are truly accurate or not. there are absolutes, but we cannot KNOW.
2.) Evolution has been observed and documented both in the laboratory and in nature. Speciation has been observed under testable conditions. If you didn't just take creationist retoric at face value you would know this.
3.) There are christians who accept evolution. What's your point?
@SmolyHoax Well, I'm sorry if you have been discriminated against by your english teacher, but where I grew up these things just didn't happen. Do you have a link to an actual story about some kind of discrimination like this?
@SmolyHoax You seem to be a victim of retoric. "Theory" in science has a different meaning then its common language use. A theory is a scientific fact, supported by peer reviewed literature. Atomic theory, Theory of Gravity, Theory of relativity.. Are you saying they shouldn't teach atomic theory because its "just a theory"?
Prayer is allowed in schools. However, the government cannot endorse one view of religion over another. If you want that, then go to a private school.
@playerwithfaith "You seem to be a victim of retoric" Oh really? You folks spout off about Divine Command Theory and how unborn fetuses are not human, and a HOST of other things from gay marriage to socialized health care. Do you FAIL to realize that is RHETORIC? It's called freedom of speech. It SHOULD work both ways but often doesn't. FYO Humanism is a religion.
Not the time or place to get into the fact that science can NEVER have truth. It observes and describes but NEVER explains.
@SmolyHoax And when did I say anything about my beliefs? "You folks"? Thanks for confirming my acusations by using such a massive generalization and assuming things about someone you don't know.
You didn't counter any of my points. Should we not teach atomic "theory" then by your own logic? By "victim of retoric" I mean you only spout off the empty words without putting any facts behind them.
This argument has already been torn apart by Lane Craig.
Theres no contradiction between God's omnipotence and his inability to command evil. The point is that, as a perfect being, God does not act illogically in contradiction to his own nature and God's commands are not arbitrary (which they would be if he could simply command evil tomorrow)but flow necessarily from his all-loving nature He's the greatest conceivable being, and It is greater to be the paragon of goodness, than to conform to it.
@relarerfhjk "This argument has already been torn apart by Lane Craig. Theres no contradiction between God's omnipotence and his inability to command evil."
Well, I tend to disagree with Mr. Craig on this issue, as do many. Regardless, however, Craig fails to address Euthyphro's dilemma, the consequent of which result in arbitrariness. Is god good because he has his properties or are god's properties good because he has them? This is the issue you must address, otherwise DCT fails.
@crazypills2 Wrong, this is how Craig demolishes Euthyphro
God being omnipotent doesnt make him illogical (God can do "all things" but a logical contradiction like a square circle isnt a "thing"...it doesnt exist, so God cant act contrary to his morally perfect, all-good nature) since goodness and virtue is a great-making property and God is the greatest conceivable being, His commands flow necessarily from his all-loving, morally perfect being so commanding evil would be logically contradictory
@relarerfhjk " this is how Craig demolishes Euthyphro...since goodness and virtue is a great-making property."
I want to thank you for demonstrating my point. If goodness is a "great-making property" as you suggest, then god is not the standard of morality; there is something else that dictates morality and greatness. God is simply great or moral because he possesses these properties. However, others who also posses these properties would also be considered great. This is why Craig fails...
@crazypills2 You confuse moral ontology with moral semantics; we are all able to comprehend right from wrong without reference to God, the point is that God is the perfect, necessary source of all goodness. Moral values are true in any possible world and God is the necessary grounding of such values.
Craig's argument defeats Euthryphro because it explains goodness is not arbitrary but part of God's nature and operates according to a perfect,not external standard (God's necessarily good nature)
@relarerfhjk To say that "moral values are true in any possible world", is to ignore the modern scientific understanding of morality. The fact that our ethical and moral problems are what they are, is a consequence of our biology,neuro-structure and our society. There is nothing that says that all possible worlds would contain such values; conscious and intelligent creatures could very well have completely different preferences than intelligent primates on earth. ( us )
@merryvinbock "is to ignore scientific understanding of moality".Now you have proved you dont know anything about this subject. Science can never define moral truths because science only describes what "is" not what "ought to be". If its just a "consequence of biology" moral truth wouldnt exist! This would mean that we call morals are just by-products of socio-evolotionay mechanisms so rape isnt really "wrong" just socially disadvantageous within the present species! Nobody thinks that
@relarerfhjk I was not implying any form of stance in the "ought-is" discussion. I was simply referring to the scientific knowledge about the biological origins of our moral senses. To ignore this, and treat moral sense as something else is "to ignore the scientific understanding of morality." There is no opposition between being evolved primates and having real moral problems and discussions. All that matters is that it matters to you, to me, and to mankind.
@merryvinbock Firstly, biology cant tell us w=the origins of morality, since it cant give us any grounding for moral truths in the first place. Secondly, our moral SENSES are just the way in which we can discern right from wrong (moral epistemology) I was talking about what grounds those moral truths in the first place (moral ontology). If there were no moral truths indepndent of what matters to "us" the Holocaust was OK, as Nazi society came to view Jews as having less moral worth than others
@merryvinbock secondly,if morality is from evolution,it doesnt exist.So you would be making an argument that moral values are illusory (and most scientist dont believe this,at least not in their personal lives!).Because if morals are just offshoots of socio-evolutionary mechanisms then humans dont have unique value,and murder isnt intrinsically "wrong",it just happens to be just socially disadvantageous for our ape-group (but not if evolutionary pressures had been "tweaked" slightly differently)
@relarerfhjk It seems to me that you are copying the arguments from famous theist debaters, without actually evaluating them yourself. Morality, that is a sense of conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions and actions between those that are good and bad, is in no opposition to evolution being to source of it. I suggest that you read about evolution.We only need (and we only have) the value and uniqnuess ascribed to us by ourselves, and this is the basis of human morality.
@merryvinbock I'm not copying anyone, the arguments stand unrefuted. Morality is in cplete conflict with evolution in a huge number of ways; firstly evolution doesnt propel species to do what is morally good, only to do what is good for the propagation of DNA (Dawkins himself has pointed out human morality clashes with this) secondly,many species kill and rape each other so there are no objective moral truths if evolution is the only motor.Value ascribed "by ourselves" is illusory and subjective
@relarerfhjk Many times moral problems have that simplistic evolutionary nature. Prolific killing is one of them. However, some questions are more abstract and touch upon things like the general quality of life, and are much more complex. Still however, this does not require any divine commands, only intelligent discussions and sympathy.
@merryvinbock It isnt morally wrong to kill in an evolutionary sense, it just happens to be socially disadvantageous within our environment and clashes with the propagation of DNA in our species. That does nothing to explain why its a moral abomination (deserving of the highest punishment) to committ murder.
there are no objective moral truths in an evolutionary sense, just taboos which diferent species inherit the same way they inherit evolved hands and toes to aid the propagation of DNA
@relarerfhjk I have never suggested to do what you are doing, namely to conflate to different languages. I´m simply saying that it is essential to understand where morality comes from and how it works biologically. Without this understanding, morality is often misunderstood and moved outside the realm of the human mind, human biology and human sympathy. This is one of the central faults of religion. God has no place in human morality, Euthyphro's dilemma is one way of demonstrating that.
@merryvinbock Sir, you didnt comprehend any of the points I made. Moral values do NOT come from evolution, because evolution doesnt explain the existence of objective moral values (the existence of a true "right" and "wrong" that is independent of human opinion).
Euthyphro's dilemma does not demonstrate any such thing; without God cruel acts would still be cruel but it wouldnt be objectively wrong to be cruel!
@MyContext Objective morality means a right and wrong that is "true" indepndent of human opinion; that requires a transcendent anchor to "ground" those moral truths otherwise they are permanently shifting, and are subjective to individual people.
@relarerfhjk Anything could be declared to be a standard if it worked. So, if anyone came up with a definition of morality that actually reflected and allowed adjudication of moral questions, I would find it supportable. However, I have yet to hear any notion of objective morality that is usable and/or acceptable in that manner. So, what are you calling objective morality and what are you claiming that it says about what is moral?
@MyContext Only if there is a perfect transcendent being worthy of worship can there be any grounding for objective moral truth;any lesser being would not be worthy of grounding such moral truths!
Every moral theory has an explanatory stopping point;(consequentialism just says human wellbeing is the basis of morality but cant explain WHY our wellbeing is invested with moral "worth";)the question is whether we have good reason to believe a perfect,all-loving being exists to ground moral truths!
@relarerfhjk Yes, there are claims of a perfect transcendent being...but only claims. Even if one were to ignore the fact there is no evidence for any transcendent being; the material used to make the claim is riddled with imperfections...including the claims of the claimed being...
The question is do we have an understanding of what we call moral and why we call it moral. I would dare say that TheoreticalBullshit's Moral Treatise is the most agreeable for the most people.
We actually have very good reason both that God exists and that He revealed himself in Jesus.
Many leading physicists (I can give you the quotes) have recently accepted the overhwelming evidence for a designer in the jaw-dropping fine-tuning of the Universe for intelligent life, and the vast majority of NT historians (including atheists and Jews) now accept the historical validity of the gospel accounts of events surrounding Jesus's death.
@relarerfhjk There may or may not be evidence for Jesus. There is no evidence for god, yes, there are claims, however, there were claims for many gods. The designer argument - is a pointless claim - if things weren't the way they are we would not exist in they way that we do is a categorically true statement. If the universe had been different then we would be different. Given that we don't know what determines the constants that we observe, this is just another god of the gaps claim...
@MyContext Oh its not a "pointless statement";its endorsed by the world's leading physicists.you dont understand the facts about fine-tuning.It is NOT fiine-tuned due to necessity (as you argue) physicists have discovered the necessary life-permitting values are so complex and precise that a life-PROHIBITING Universe is INFINTELY more probable than a life-permitting Universe! Secondly, the fine-tuned constants are indepndent of the laws of nature, so they dont HAVE TO be the way they are!
@relarerfhjk It is pointless to use their research to make a claim for a designer. Given what is known, we are incidental. It cannot be claimed that it was designed for us. Given that we live in a universe where there appears to be almost no life as opposed to no life given the vastness of the universe.
@MyContext "it cannot be claimed that it was designed for us" Wrong; thats precisely what the fine-tuning proves; it proves that the conditions needed for complex, intelligent life forms like us (as opposed to tiny, simple organisms) are so incalculably precise that chance is simply too improbable; even the multiverse (which is itself susceptible to a devastating objection) hypotheses something far more fantastically improbable than design; endless Universes each with different laws!
@relarerfhjk I guess people do tend to be rather narcissistic. Can you give me ANY distinction between what happens to be the case and the claim of a designer? All of what you are claiming is a naturalistic explanation as a justification for a supernatural notion. If we weren't here there would be no discussion, for all we know there could be infinite other universes with a full range of life allowing (in some form) and life denying (in all forms). We just don't know.
@MyContext It couldnt just "happen to be the case" because, as physicist Michael Turner wrote "The precision needed for just one of the constants is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bullseye one millimeter in diameter on the other side."
It has nothing to do with "narcisisism" its a fact that a life-permitting Universe is far more improbable than a life-prohibiting one, because of the incalculable precision in values necessary to for life-permitting conditions
@relarerfhjk Do you think there is one universe or is there a possibility that there are multiple or maybe even infinite universes? The problem with any claim of probability - one must know whether the claimed product is in fact as impossible as is claimed. I'll create something for refutation:
@MyContext ULINK – An infinite immaterial span of space from which universes emerge - ours is just one of them. There can be no existence without the ULINK for without it there is no existence. The ULINK has always existed and is eternal and ever changing. The “rules” of “matter” are NOT consistent across universes and are not consistent within some universes. The ULINK has no mind – it is existence. <- Pure Conjecture fitting what appears to be the case...
@MyContext Does the ULINK fit what is? I would dare say that it does. Can you disprove it? Well, I would dare say no or least not until you have the REAL answer or enough to show that this isn't the case...
This is the problem with ALL god claims (that I have heard, although, I think the ULINK is a better claim). They are claims with no substance. I would rather a bit of honesty as oppose to claims of it is or I know...
@relarerfhjk If I said that entirety of existence was comprise of an eternal matter from which all material as we know it emerges when this eternal matter of sufficiently vast spacial area is at rest. I could claim that this fits the nature of our universe and gives and answer to how everything is... However, it is conjecture just like claims of god are just claims with no support.
@MyContext its not "conjecture" its called deductive logic; fine-tuning is either due to chance or necessity or design; it isnt due to necessity and isnt plausibly due to chance so the most plausible explanation is design
@relarerfhjk Actually, this is my point... We don't know...
1) Whether it could have been any other way...
2) Whether another way could have allowed for life
3) Whether is is just chance that it is as it is...
We understand the precision of what is required for life as we know it. Anything else beyond is an unsupported claim, since, we do not know. If you claim a designer, let's examine this designer to confirm your claim. If we have no designer, we are left with an unknown...
@relarerfhjk NOTE: I am not arguing that it is necessity, I am acknowledging that for all we know it is just happenstance. Since, we do not know what determines the constants. However, given ANY other set of constants that happen to allow our existence it would still appear quite extraordinary, until we thought about it.
@MyContext "just happenstance" I'm afraid you dont know what your talking about
For example, as agnotic physicist Steven Weinberg admitted "The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places."
Its inexplicable unless you accept design. Thats why the great physicist Sir Paul Davies wrote The belief there is something behind it all is one I share with, I suspect, a majority of physicists"
@relarerfhjk I acknowledge I don't know. You are asserting a claim for which you have no evidence. You are attempting to claim god based on our current ignorance. If there is a god, it is a deistic god. We have no basis for anything else. I would expect a theistic god to present itself, if such a thing existed.
/watch?v=hSS-88ShJfo : Morality 2
/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg : History of God
/watch?v=WKhQs2-g8EY : Putting Religious Experience in its place
a beryllium isotope with a TINY half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that exact split of time before decaying.
This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life
There would be nothing heavier than gas or helium!!"
@relarerfhjk We know what is the case.... Why don't know why it is the case...until we know why, anything else must be considered conjecture if there is no support for that claim... No insertions due to our current ignorance... People believed that people who probably suffered from seizures were possessed... Given what was believed it was probably reasonable... We can do better than that...
@relarerfhjk There is no point of disputing whether Jesus lived or not. So far as I am concerned, Jesus probably existed and he said some things that were better than some of the people who were around him. However, he was clearly just a man. The resurrection story is just that a story conjured by somebody like the resurrection stories before.
We have NO GOD attesting to any VALIDITY of the any claims. We have people making arguments.
@relarerfhjk The theological term "objective moral values", is unnecessary. Evolution and neuroscience explains ( not 100%, the research is of course not finished ) why we behave in certain ways and why we value certain things. This is very important to acknowalge. Now, as for things being "objectively" right or wrong, I would say this. Morality is merely what humans make it to be, it is a human concern. Now, most people of course, recognize certain things to be right or wrong.
@merryvinbock This can be explained with evolutionary theory. When talking in philosophical terms about this, we must have a set of premisses and goals in order to call actions and intentions right or wrong. That is how you construct logical arguments about anything. To say that one specific religion has the right morality, and that this moral code just is "objectively right", is, in my mind, a rather irrational and fruitless assertion.
@merryvinbock "Morality is what human beings make it to be" that would make morality SUBJECTIVE and thus illusory!
For example, studies show Nazi society believed persecution of Jews to be morally right. Therefore it IS right,(as long as the Nazis won the war) if your theory is correct. But we all know this cant be true...
"most people recognise right or wrong" thats just moral EPISTEMOLOGY (knowing right from wrong) not moral ontology (what grounds moral truths in the first place)
@merryvinbock Evolutionary theory provides no moral premises whatsoever.Evolution only compels species to do what best facilitates DNA replication (other creatures carry out acts of rape/sadism within the species all the time); this does zero to explain why rape/murder are inherently wrong; why they are moral abominations, genuinely deserving of punishment.
We dont lock up a rapist because his crime is just "socially disadvantgeous" but because we know its genuinely morally wrong!
@relarerfhjk I have not said that evolutionary theory "provides premisses". These premisses are put forth by us, in intellectual debates. We are the ones to name things moral and immoral, "genuinely wrong" or "genuinely right". However, the explanation for why humans seem to value certain things, and shun others ( murder,rape,theft and genocide --- hugs,love,children,charity, etc ) is to be found in evolutionary biology.
@merryvinbock Theology has fabricated a need for a divine moral code set in stone, which results in a misunderstanding of morality. It is infinitely nuanced and to talk about it in absolute terms is to be unsophisticated.
@merryvinbock "premises are put forward by us" Thats a contradiction;If evolution were the basis for morality there would be absolutely no purpose to so-called" "morality" except to facilitate propagation of DNA, so morality would be an illusion, and we would be no "better" than sharks
seonddly if we decide than morality is just a subjective (thus illusory) rather than objective (and real outside our minds), which one of "us" decides which "premises" are true and on what basis?
@merryvinbock Sir, I have already explained why this is not the case. if you cant even acknowledge, much less engage with, the arguments, this discussion is pointless.
Evolution does NOT explain why ANYTHING is objectively wrong. Many other animals engage in all sorts of behaviours which we call "wrong". Evolution only compels species to do whatever facilitiates propagation of DNA...this does NOTHING to explain why rape etc is objectively,inherently wrong so as to be a moral abomination!
@relarerfhjk "... the point is that God is the perfect, necessary source of all goodness"
Is that the point? This seems to contradict your prior statement which said that goodness and virtue were good-making properties. If they are good-making, then god is good because he has these properties, right? Otherwise they wouldn't be "good-making." And if these are good-making then god cannot be the source of goodness or morality. You can't play both sides of the fence here.
@crazypills2 No it doesnt contradict my statement; virtue and kindness are great-making properties because they have their source in God as the very greatest conceivable being (in the same way the quality of a symphony recording is judged by its fidelity to a live orchestra, which doesnt conform to a greater standard but is itself the greatest standard)
@relarerfhjk "Craig's argument defeats Euthryphro because it explains goodness is not arbitrary but part of God's nature "
Craig's argument only pushes Euthryphro back one level...to god's nature. Now, I will ask the question again. Is god good because he has the properties or are these properties good because god has them? Craig hasn't answered this question; therefore, Euthryphro stands.
@crazypills2 "or are these properties good because god has them". Craig has frequently answered this question, you clearly havent read his work?
The properties are good because God has them for good reasons, we can grasp ( but he is the explanatory ultimate so these would cease to be good reasons if God didnt exist; for example rape would still cause harm if God didnt exist but, it wouldnt be objectively wrong unless God's nature was kind not cruel and God invested humans with moral worth!
@relarerfhjk "The properties are good because God has them for good reasons..."
What does this even mean? What are the "good reasons" for which god has these properties? And, who dictates that the reasons are good? If it is god who dictates their goodness, then it is arbitrary. However, if there is something else that dictates their goodness, then god isn't the ultimate source. We can go at this all day, but ultimately you must choose one or the other...there is really no other honest choice.
@crazypills2 "What does this even mean" It means that God, as a logical being, has good logical reasons for the values he holds, which can be known by humans also; but there would be no objective moral "good" unless moral values were grounded in God's nature. For example cruelty would still be cruel without God but it wouldnt be objectively wrong to be cruel...unless God, as the explanatory ultimate, was kind and not cruel. Our acts are measured against His perfection.
@relarerfhjk "It means that God, as a logical being, has good logical reasons for the values he holds"
Again I will ask, what are these 'good' reasons and who decided that they were 'good'?
"there would be no objective moral "good" unless moral values were grounded in God's nature"
So, these properties are good because god has them? We can go at this all day, but it will start to get tiring unless you actually answer the questions posed.
Again, I explain, God is the explanatory ultimate so the good is His nature; (in other words what Plato simply called "the good" is, in fact, God) so there is no need for a higher explanation or higher standard than the explanatory ultimate in the same way there is no need to measure the orchestra against a higher standard...because the orchestra IS the standard against which the quality of the recording is measured!!
@relarerfhjk "God can do "all things" but a logical contradiction like a square circle isnt a "thing"...it doesnt exist, so God cant act contrary to his morally perfect, all-good nature"
I always laugh at this example since it makes no sense. A square circle is impossible, but the ability to command evil isn't. Now, if god's 'goodness' prevents him from making such commands, then he isn't omnipotent. You might argue he has the greatest mixture of properties, but you cannot claim omnipotence.
@crazypills2 You laugh at the example because you dont understand it. In philosophy,you can prove a negative or demonstrate something is impossible/could not exist by proving its logically contradictory. Square circles and married bachelors are logically contradictory and therefore dont exist for the same reason God commanding evil (when He is the locus of all goodness) is logically contradictory and therefore couldnt happen in any possible world; God's commands flow necessarily from his nature
@relarerfhjk "Square circles and married bachelors are logically contradictory and therefore dont exist"
Agreed, but why? Does it have something to do with their definitions? This, however, is quite different from god commanding evil, isn't it?
And I'm curious why it is that god's goodness trumps his omnipotence? Couldn't it be equally possible that his omnipotence would trump his goodness? In other words, shouldn't his goodness never demand anything that would limit his omnipotence?
@crazypills2 "something to do with their definitions" Precisely...but their definitions are descriptions of their character! (a bachelor=unmarried) And the standard definition of God is as the locus of goodness so its contradictory for a morally perfect being to command evil in the same way its contradicory for a bachelor to be married.
His goodness does not limit his omnipotence,its precisely because he is not good to conform to an external standard but IS goodness himself that he cant do evil
@relarerfhjk "And the standard definition of God is as the locus of goodness..."
Well, I'm not sure that's the 'standard' definition, but it can be 'your' definition if you want. However, this only brings us back to the point where we began. Is god good because he has these properties or are these properties good because god has them. The former means there is an external source of goodness and the latter means that goodness is contingent on god's commands (i.e. arbitrary). The dilemma stands.
@crazypills2 It is the standard definition held by Christian philosophers and theologians since before Acquinus. Voluntarists (who held that God voluntarily chooses to do good) were always a discredited minority.
The dilemma doesn't stand (read the rest of my replies to you today, where I have already answered the second horn of Euthyphro). Cruel acts would still be cruel without God, but being cruel wouldnt be objectively wrong unless God was not cruel and invested humans with intrinsic worth
@relarerfhjk "The dilemma doesn't stand (read the rest of my replies to you today, where I have already answered the second horn of Euthyphro)."
I have read them but fail to see how they support your view. Let me ask once again the question you seem reluctant to answer: "is god good because he possess these properties or are they good because god possesses them?"
@crazypills2 What you don't seem to get, is that, far from making God LESS omnipotent,if He could do evil in any possible world that would make him LESS than perfect, because if he could choose evil then he would no longer be the greatest good; it would mean he was only good sometimes, (to conform to an external standard) therefore had failed to be God, wouldnt be worthy of worship, and would need a higher God as the source of perfection against which he is measured
@relarerfhjk "What you don't seem to get, is that, far from making God LESS omnipotent,if He could do evil in any possible world that would make him LESS than perfect..."
Exactly, now you're getting it. 'Perfection', or what I'll call 'goodness', is incompatible with omnipotence. You might say god has the greatest mixture of properties, but to call him omnipotent would violate its classical definition.
@crazypills2 Perfection is not incompatible with omnipotence; omnipotence means the ability to do all things...but a logical contradiction isnt a thing. So, for example although God is omnipotent, He cannot know what colour santa Clau's shoes are because Santa doesnt exist.
Logical contradictions like square circles or all-good beings that command evil couldnt exist in any possible world this doesnt remove from God's ability to do all things.A logical contradiction isnt a "thing" it isnt real.
@relarerfhjk "Perfection is not incompatible with omnipotence; omnipotence means the ability to do all things...but a logical contradiction isnt a thing"
You must demonstrate how commanding evil is a logical contradiction for omnipotence. You can't simply state a good being wouldn't command evil...goodness has nothing to do with omnipotence. Is it logically possible for an omnipotent being to command evil? Yes. Is it logically possible for an omnipotent being to make square circles? No.
@crazypills2 "goodness has nothing to do with omnipotence"
Commanding evil is a logical contradiction for the greatest conceivable being (therefore it couldnt exist) since good is a great-making property and God is the metaphysical ultimate... if you can find a being that is more good/more perfect than God,then you haven't reached God yet!!
It is greater to be the ultimate good than to conform to goodness so the greatest being cannot be other than good
@relarerfhjk "Commanding evil is a logical contradiction for the greatest conceivable being"
What exactly does "greatest conceivable being mean? Most powerful? Most loving? What? The point is whether goodness and omnipotence are dependent upon each other. I say no. Why should they be? If you are talking about the greatest combination of qualities, then I may agree. However, because someone has the greatest combination of qualities, doesn't make that person omnipotent.
@crazypills2 However, I must add that its good to see atheists like you intelligently engaging with the arguments, instead of just dismissing Christians with intolerant abuse or completely ducking the issue like the current crop of New Atheists (I don't know why Craig wastes his time debating Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris etc, they are so easy to demolish because they dont engage with or even understand, his basic arguments)
I prefer watching interesting atheists like Quentin Smith debate Craig
@relarerfhjk "God does not act illogically in contradiction to his own nature and God's commands are not arbitrary (which they would be if he could simply command evil tomorrow)but flow necessarily from his all-loving nature"
Ok, but do think it's a contradiction that he actually commands evil, in the form of rape and genocide in Numbers 31 and the burning of young girls in Leviticus 21:9? Or is that when you play the "God is Mysterious" card and claim to not be able to identify any evil?
@Gnomefro I'm sorry, sir, as soon as you selectively quote difficult parts of the Old Testament which are not Commandments (issued to Moses or by Jesus) you have lost the argument, since, even if you are right and a morally-perfect God couldnt have issued such commands, that would not be an argument against a morally-perfect God, it would only be an argument against the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy (the notion,held by a few Christians, that every word in the Bible is divinely inspired)
@MaximiousOfRome "...you wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the eye. Inteligent by design now thats the truth"
There is no verifiable evidence to support that hypothesis. On the other hand, there is no verifiable evidence to support abiogenesis either. To claim either is "truth" is a leap of faith - not fact.
The type of logic you employ is no different than previous god logic of "the world is flat - that's the truth" and "diseases are demon possession - that's the truth"
I think one has to understand old testament times, whether you are religious or not. It was a time of war and the strong survived. Right or wrong really didn't matter if someone was attacking your village, and taking your wives and daughters. This sort of thing was bound to get tied into religion, and praying for victory over ones enemies was almost certain.
i love these debates but one thing i notice is, not matter what argument/counter argument is givien, neither side budges an inch in their respective positions.
@BillKiernan Not in my experience. There is a growing trend of non-religious people in America, and I would like to think it is because of the discussion taking place.
Also, I can think of a number of youtube converts for both sides, and many more who have softened their original positions.
The euthyphro dilemma is really addressing the polytheistic idea that good and evil are interwoven into the fabric of existence. Both Socrates and Euthyphro, being polytheists, concluded that piety is loved by the gods because it's pious and not pious because it's loved by the gods. From a Christian perspective (at least in the Orthodox faith), those qualities are not woven into the fabric of existence. The dilemma doesn't really apply because there's no act that is good or evil in and ofitself
@crazypills2 No it isn't always bad. Abraham asks God for lenience toward Sodom and Gomorrah, Job stands up to and questions God despite the deuteronomical idea that God shouldn't be questioned, Samuel takes a census of the people of Israel at God's command which turned out bad, etc. It gets us off the hook because there is nothing that is done that is, in itself, an act with the qualities "good/bad". This means that the presupposition of euthyphro, that good/evil are clearly definable terms,
In your examples, neither Abraham nor David (not Samuel) disobeyed Yahweh. Abraham negotiated with Yahweh, but didn't disobey him. Concerning the census, David obeyed Yahweh's command. Some have argued that the census was a necessary punishment of Israel (unless you adhere to the 1 Chron 21 account).
Now, please provide an example where willful disobedience to Yahweh was considered good.
I assert that, for many, obedience and disobedience are what is considered good and bad respectively, hence the support for DCT. Now, if obedience to a command of Yahweh is ultimately considered good, then I ask why? Perhaps this will take you back to the dilemma you are trying to avoid.
@crazypills2 It was David and not Samuel - my mistake. Nevertheless, it really depends on the account you're reading. It's blatantly clear that David is grief stricken and recognizes his sin in obeying God's command (2 Samuel 24:10). This is an instance where God's command is NOT considered good whereas willful disobedience to that command would be - at least according to this specific account. DCT is not a doctrine of the Orthodox faith so, again, the dilemma doesn't apply.
@gambleor "This an instance where God's command is NOT considered good whereas willful disobedience to that command would be - at least according to this specific account."
According to your argument, neither god nor his nature is the standard of morality. Do you consider morality to be objective? And if so, from where does it come?
@crazypills2 No, morality isn't objective. If it were objective then, by definition, it would be a metaphysical reality which it isn't. We know this because there is no action that is good or evil just because it's good or evil. Like you said - it's a false dichotomy in the Orthodox Christian worldview - it simply doesn't apply.
Ok, now I understand where you're coming from. DCT only applies to those who believe that objective morality comes from the commands of god, which entails many christians.
@crazypills2 Morality is objective, but can only be so if God exists. If he doesnt, cruelty is still cruel but isnt objectively wrong (it may be socially disadvantageous, in an evolutionary sense, but this doesnt make it inherently wrong, unless something gives humans special value, and there is some ultimate transcendent foundation for moral truths, indepnent of human opinion)
@relarerfhjk "Morality is objective, but can only be so if God exists."
Well, I'm not arguing for objective morality, but I don't think you've demonstrated your statement. How have you show that morality is objective until you answer the dilemma. I know this is repetitive, but I'll ask again: "is god good because he possess these properties or are they good because god possesses them?"
@crazypills2 "have you shown morality is objective"
Surely this is a statement of obvious truth?
The Holocaust was objectively wrong,even though the Nazis didnt believe it to be,otherwise whats the justification for Nuremberg?
Atheists may pretend to reject objective moral truth on an intellectual level (as they see it carries the implication that God exists,which they loathe) but few atheists doubt it exists in their personal lives or human rights/international law etc would make no sense!
@relarerfhjk "Surely this [morality is objective] is a statement of obvious truth?"
Wasn't it was 'obvious' to many in history that disease was the result of demons? And wasn't it 'obvious' to many that the earth was the center of the universe. What appears to be 'obvious' may not be true.
"but few atheists doubt it [objective morality] exists"
@crazypills2 Its "obvious" in the sense that we all know that, say, the Holocaust is genuinely wrong,regardless of whether Nazi society subjectively believed it to be justifiable.So objective moral truths are as real to us as the external world (we cant prove external reality is real or objective morality exists, since these are metaphysical beliefs but we all believe them to be true)
"how do you know this" Because most atheists would say rape, murder etc are objectively wrong
@crazypills2 To say that I'm trying to avoid the dilemma is like me saying that you're trying to avoid the dilemma I posed - "is sex pleasurable because it's evil, or is it evil because it's pleasurable?"
@crazypills2 is not mutually held by those who belong to a monotheistic (at least an Orthodox Christian) framework. It doesn't apply. It's like me asking you why "is sex pleasurable because it's evil, or is it evil because it's pleasurable?" The underlying presupposition that sex is evil must be shared between us in order for the question to apply.
@crazypills2 Dude, are you kidding me? Did you honestly just suggest that Craig has never answered Euthyphro. Simply type "Craig, Euthyphro" into Reasonable Faith (his website Q&A section) or into Google, and you'll see he's demolished this old dilemma many times, far more easily than he demolished other atheist fallacies such as the "problem of evil" the "who designed the designer" condundrum and the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" fallacy (known as the Hume Fallacy)
@relarerfhjk "Did you honestly just suggest that Craig has never answered Euthyphro."
He has attempted to address it, but never successfully. All he does is push the dilemma back one level, but this doesn't solve the problem as I will show in a moment.
@crazypills2 He has successfully adressed it three times on his website; you really ought to attempt reading the arguments of theist thinkers before critiquing them; he explains the "middle way" through both horns of Euthyphro again in his recent debate when an audience member asked.
At least Euthyphro is a little more fun than the drearily boring, easily-demolished Student Union atheist fallacies like the "cant prove a negative" thing...which is just SOO easy to rip apart!
It also gets muddled around one issue. "Obeying justified commands from an authority figure" would be a moral value (It would actually be a combo of values like trust, greater good, etc but I'm not going to split hairs), but that value could be mistaken from coming from the command itself. Any obligation would actually come from the existence of the objective value and the command just informs us of proper behavior.
@Epydemic2020 The value is grounded in God's nature; the command is necessarily consistent with his nature.
I think I now get your misunderstanding of Craig's answer to Euthyphro. You want to know why the qualities of kindness, mercy etc are not artbirary (if they are only good because God has them). the answer is devastatingly simple.
To classical theism, these qualities (love, mercy etc) simply are necessarily God's nature so there's no possible world in He doesnt have them.
"To classical theism, these qualities (love, mercy etc) simply are necessarily God's nature so there's no possible world in He doesnt have them."
I agree.
"The value is grounded in God's nature; the command is necessarily consistent with his nature."
I agree, but that leads me to the conclusion that God's nature is the foundation of objective value, and His commands are merely consistent/inform us of what is objectively valuable.
@Epydemic2020 Correct, God's nature is the foundation of objective moral truth, as there has to be a perfect being (an ultimate "good") for objective truth to be grounded in and measured against; its clearly greater to be the paragon of goodness than to just reflect it.
Perhaps I have a unique version of theistic morality. You will not hear me appeal to commands @ all. Not in a single one of my videos.
In short, I reject premises 1 through 3.
Omnipotence includes the ability to do everything but the logically contradictory. If God did something contrary to His essential properties, He would cease to be God. (similarly, water which does something other than be composed of H20 ceases to be water).
@Epydemic2020 "In short, I reject premises 1 through 3."
Interesting. Are you suggesting that God's commands don't result in moral obligations for us, or are you saying that our moral obligations come from sources other than, or in addition to, God's commands?
I don't personally see the link between commands and duties. My friend (who shows up in my problem of hiddenness video) does argue for that line of thinking, but I don't get it. If God's nature is the foundation of objective morality all I see His commands doing is informing us of His nature.
Perhaps that'd be a good convo between him and I to film.
@Epydemic2020 "I don't personally see the link between commands and duties"
But do you accept God's commands as moral obligations, don't you? For instance, God commanded Moses to exterminate the Canaanites. Such a command could in no way be intuitive: who would have thought such an act could ever be morally obligatory? The only way for him to know about the command was for God to issue it. And, would you agree that disobeying the command have been immoral?
The only role I see God's commands playing would be to inform us of morality. Of course, we already have a basic understanding of morality from our moral intuitions. His commands could come in to help us organize that moral hierarchy of objective values if needed.
"The only role I see God's commands playing would be to inform us of morality"
You'll have to forgive my bluntness, but I feel you are skirting the issue
First you state that you deny premise 1: "DCT makes all of God’s commands morally obligatory"
Your rejection implies that not all of God's commands are morally obligatory. If this isn't your position, then you need to state so. Otherwise, I have to assume that disobedience of God's commands is not wrong
Now, if you believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, then you must accept that the sin of Adam and Eve was the disobedience of God's command. And, to abstain from the fruit of the tree was not intuitively obvious; had God not commanded it, they would never had known. Additionally, had God not commanded them to abstain from the tree, then it wouldn't have been wrong for them to eat from it. Agree?
I ask that you evaluate premise 1 to determine if you can truthfully say you still reject it. And if you do, then you should explain why in light of the questions above.
"had God not commanded it, they would never had known"
That lines up with what I said exactly. I see commands relating to epistemology. A command could inform us of moral facts. The command in that instance just informs them of what Good behavior would be.
Adam and Eve couldn't have had evil intent if God never told them eating from the tree was something they shouldn't have done. Eating was wrong, the command just removed their ignorance.
@Epydemic2020 "The command in that instance just informs them of what Good behavior would be."
But why was eating wrong? Was it wrong because of God's nature or because he commanded such? I assert the latter, but would be interested in your take. Additionally, since eating the fruit could never had been intuitively known as wrong, if it wasn't for God's command, this immoral act would never had been known. Doesn't this go against your moral argument?
I think eating was wrong because it contradicted an objective value.
"Additionally, since eating the fruit could never had been intuitively known as wrong, if it wasn't for God's command, this immoral act would never had been known. Doesn't this go against your moral argument?"
No. If Adam and eve were ignorant of whether or not it was immoral to eat the fruit, that only proves their ignorance. It doesn't imply that objective morality didn't exist.
@Epydemic2020 "I think eating was wrong because it contradicted an objective value."
What was the objective value?
"f Adam and eve were ignorant of whether or not it was immoral to eat the fruit, that only proves their ignorance. It doesn't imply that objective morality didn't exist."
Could this objectively immoral act (eating from the tree) ever be known outside of God's commands? If not, then doesn't that pose a problem for your suggestion that we have a sense of what is moral?
I had said, "Obeying justified commands from an authority figure" would be a moral value (It would actually be a combo of values like trust, greater good, etc but I'm not going to split hairs)"
"Could this objectively immoral act (eating from the tree) ever be known outside of God's commands?"
It is not merely eating from a tree which is bad, it is the impact it has. Pulling the trigger of a gun is not bad, it is what can happens next. continued
@Epydemic2020 "It is not merely eating from a tree which is bad, it is the impact it has"
So, what was the negative impact? Knowledge regarding good and evil or disobedience to God? I suggest the latter. And, if this is true, then the act was solely wrong because of the command.
Both. What is with all these false dilemmas lately? (jk).
If we take a literal interpretation of Genesis as you seem to be going with, the consequences of eating from the tree is having sin enter your life, being separated from a sinless being, and being kicked out of the garden of Eden into a life of turmoil.
@Epydemic2020 "If we take a literal interpretation of Genesis as you seem to be going with, the consequences of eating from the tree is having sin enter your life, being separated from a sinless being, and being kicked out of the garden of Eden into a life of turmoil"
But why were they separated from God? Because the tree did something to them or because they disobeyed a command. I assert the latter, as I don't believe you can show that eating was wrong without the command.
But doesn't this take us back to whatever God commands is morally obligatory?
Many have said that the sin of Adam and Eve was disobedience. Are you denying that? If not, then although the thought may seem unpleasant for your hypothesis, I don't see how you can avoid that morality for the Christian can come from commands.
"disobeying an authority figure who gives a justified command" is an example of an action which is wrong. There is no command that informs us that justified commands ought to be followed. The reason the above principle is true is not the result of a command, but is a combination of objective values like trust and respect.
@Epydemic2020 How do you know what is a justified command? People have followed commands all throughout history and thought it to be justified. You don't think that the nazis followed Hitler out of trust and respect, believing his commands to be justified? What about the 9/11 terrorists? Did they not trust and respect the commands of Osama and Allah? If you alone can tell whether or not a command is moral and just, then that kind of pushes a god out of the moral argument.
I had said, "Obeying justified commands from an authority figure" would be a moral value (It would actually be a combo of values like trust, greater good, etc but I'm not going to split hairs)"
"Could this objectively immoral act (eating from the tree) ever be known outside of God's commands?"
It is not merely eating from a tree which is bad, it is the impact it has. Pulling the trigger of a gun is not bad, it is what can happens next. continued
"Could this objectively immoral act... ever be known outside of God's commands? If not, then doesn't that pose a problem for your suggestion that we have a sense of what is moral?"
Lets assume for a minute that there is objective moral truths we don't know. My argument has been "we have innate knowledge of a realm of moral truths". My argument only shows that objective morality exists, not that we will always know what is objectively moral in any given circumstance.
If God commanded something contrary to His nature (if such a thing is possible) then it would not be obligatory.
I don't see God's commands causing an obligation, I see them being correlated with obligation. Since his commands would reflect his nature, they would be obligatory. Obligations don't arise from His commands, they arise from His nature. It just so happens that God's commands would be consistent with His nature (correlated rather than causal).
@Epydemic2020 "If God commanded something contrary to His nature (if such a thing is possible) then it would not be obligatory."
So, it's God's nature and not God, that defines good? Doesn't this imply that God is good because of his nature? And doesn't this result in good being external to God? I suppose you will deny such a thing is possible, but to do so, it must be logically consistent with your argument, which I don't think it is. Claiming God is uncaused doesn't solve this problem.
"So, it's God's nature and not God, that defines good?"
A nature refers to a beings essential properties. For example, H20 is an essential property of water.
talking about "its God's nature and not God..." is like saying "It is water and not H20 that...." Any question that starts that way seems to not make sense.
"And doesn't this result in good being external to God?"
Thats like asking if H20 is external to water. It doesn't seem to make sense.
@Epydemic2020 "For example, H20 is an essential property of water."
Do you think that using a non-sentient object is appropriate for an analogy of God? With God, isn't there a consciousness that instantiates his properties? I'm really struggling with the concept that God is his nature... I can't really wrap my head around it. Perhaps you can provide some insight other than the H20 example.
"Perhaps you can provide some insight other than the H20 example."
Perhaps the laws of logic would be a better example. Do you think they had to be the way that they are (essential properties)? If so, do you think the laws of logic caused themselves to be the way they are, were caused by something external, or is there a third option (like necessity for instance)?
@Epydemic2020 "Perhaps the laws of logic would be a better example."
I think the laws of logic are a bad example for several reasons, one which is that they are non conscious. But perhaps there is an easier way to address this. I say that God, should he exist, is an essence, not a bunch of abilities or properties.
Epydemic2020 is a pile of human shit.
RaynorGo 7 months ago
How the hell can anyone 'know' that 'god' is 'good'? On what basis is such an assumption made? What are the exact qualities that 'god' has that make 'him' 'good'? Why is untruthfulness NOT one of them, for example? Is it could because this quality is NOT good? And for the guy below...exactly WHO (name them) says that we are NOTHING BUT sophisticated animals? The words NOTHING BUT are a value judgment, not a scientific assertion. I deeply love my sophisticated animal children.
derek24hudson 8 months ago
@derek24hudson Classical theism has always held that God is good; that love/kindness/mercy are His essential properties and thus that he cannot be evil/unloving/or cruel in any possible world; For Christians and classical theists this just IS God's essential nature, and as the ultimate being He is the explanatory ultimate; in the same way the sound quality on a tape-recording of live orchestra is judged by its fidelity to the orchestra; there is no higher standard the orchestra IS the standard!
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk 'Classical theism has always held..'; and classical astrology has always held that when the sun enters Capricon, there may be trouble brewing...in both cases, so what? Asserting that 'god' is 'essentially good', to me, is utterly vacuous and meaningless. I still see no evidence, or reason, to believe that a'god' exists, but, if 'it' does, tell me, does it have set of particular values that are objectively good, or are these values good because of it that holds them?
derek24hudson 7 months ago
@derek24hudson "in both cases so what" well, the question comes down to whether there is good reason to believe that the God of Christianity exists.For this, turn to William Lane Craig's 5 Arguments for Christianity.
To say God is essentially good means he is loving,merciful etc by necessity of His nature,so there is no possible world in which he could be other than that;
God has these qualities as they are essential to his perfect being and that is what makes them objectively "good"
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk I have 'turned to. WLC on many occasions, and swiftly turned away...nothing new, original or relevant there. You did not answer the question I asked...I doubt that you will. What is 'good'? (No circles please). Why does 'god' have a particular set of qualities? Why is 'mercy' (your example) 'good'? How do you know that 'god' is 'good'? 'He' told you? If 'god' has not chosen to be 'good' (your view) then is he worthy of praise? Does 'he' have the power to be 'not good'? Answers!
derek24hudson 7 months ago
Steve, what if the State commands something terrible? It happens all the time and NOT just in times of war. For example I find it morally repugnant and contrary to all sense of human decency for the elderly to lose homes they have worked all their lives for because of increased property taxes. This happens in California. I find it morally repugnant that the state tries to legitimatize abortion and will even pay for it. I find it morally repugnant that our children are NOT being taught morality!
SmolyHoax 8 months ago
2. And I find it morally repugnant that our children are taught they are nothing but sophisticated animals, the product of evolution which is still a theory as far as I know.
Now I can already hear the atheists mounting their soapboxes in objection. Prayer is schools! Never prayed ONCE in school as a kid. First consequence for me personally as a result of Meddlin' Madilyin's victory was they canceled by 4th grade Christmas party.Try explaining THAT to a bunch of 9 year olds.
Just my thoughts!
SmolyHoax 8 months ago
@SmolyHoax 2.) The school cannot endorse campus wide prayer as a requirement. However, individual students are free to pray or organize religiously based groups. At my school Athletes in Action prayed in the gym everyday before classes started.
There is so much more wrong with your comments, like how "children aren't being taught morality" but I think two comments worth is enough to get my point across.
playerwithfaith 8 months ago
@playerwithfaith "The school cannot endorse campus wide prayer as a requirement" Never said it should. They never prayed in school when I was a kid. But teaching ETHICS is not the same as prayer now is it??
"individual students are free to pray or organize religiously based groups" You'd think so but we were forbidden to do so in the early 70's.
"There is so much more wrong with your comments..."
In you humble opinion? Or do YOU make subscribe to a Personal Opinion Command Theory?
SmolyHoax 8 months ago
@SmolyHoax Were they trying to pray during class? If so, I could see that being disallowed as that disrupts classtime. I'm pretty sure you are wrong about this, but feel free to provide a link to a story about it happening to prove me wrong.
Nothing in this world can hold an adequate claim to absolute truth. But observable and repeatable phenomena like evolution explain why we see the world around us. Knowing the world around us is useful for survival, therefore we teach it to our young.
playerwithfaith 8 months ago
@playerwithfaith "Were they trying to pray during class?" Of course not. I was walking down the hall and the Dean and I were talking. He was adamant. Many people refuse to believe the truth about this bigotry but it existed when I was in school. One teacher assigned an essay asking where we got our ideas of right and wrong. I wrote "From the words of Jesus in the Bible." My paper came back with those words crossed out with a red CRAYON and a note in pen calling them inappropriate. She asked!
SmolyHoax 8 months ago
@SmolyHoax Evolution has held its place at the forefront of biology for nearly 2 centures. It not only survived unforseeable discoveries like genetics, the process by which mutations happen was found there.
Intelligent Design/Creationism has not survived the trial by fire,it collapsed in academia under the weight of its own lack of evidence. It then tried to bypass the method by which theories get taught in schools by going directly through the courts. Even with a conservativejudge it failed.
playerwithfaith 8 months ago
@playerwithfaith "Nothing in this world can hold an adequate claim to absolute truth. But observable and repeatable phenomena like evolution explain..."
1. I would say the laws of math and logic are absolute or should be considered so.
2. This is one of my main criticisms of evolution: How can you observe a process that allegedly takes place over millions of years? Evolution explains NOTHING.
3. Yes knowing the world around us is useful to our survival. Do you doubt Christians teach it too?
SmolyHoax 8 months ago
@SmolyHoax 1.) You have no way of knowing whether our observations of logic (how the universe works) and the laws of mathematics are truly accurate or not. there are absolutes, but we cannot KNOW.
2.) Evolution has been observed and documented both in the laboratory and in nature. Speciation has been observed under testable conditions. If you didn't just take creationist retoric at face value you would know this.
3.) There are christians who accept evolution. What's your point?
playerwithfaith 8 months ago
@SmolyHoax Well, I'm sorry if you have been discriminated against by your english teacher, but where I grew up these things just didn't happen. Do you have a link to an actual story about some kind of discrimination like this?
playerwithfaith 8 months ago
@playerwithfaith "Do you have a link to an actual story about some kind of discrimination like this?"
Naw. They were personal experience when Fred Flintstone and I were in highschool together:)
SmolyHoax 8 months ago
@SmolyHoax You seem to be a victim of retoric. "Theory" in science has a different meaning then its common language use. A theory is a scientific fact, supported by peer reviewed literature. Atomic theory, Theory of Gravity, Theory of relativity.. Are you saying they shouldn't teach atomic theory because its "just a theory"?
Prayer is allowed in schools. However, the government cannot endorse one view of religion over another. If you want that, then go to a private school.
playerwithfaith 8 months ago
@playerwithfaith "You seem to be a victim of retoric" Oh really? You folks spout off about Divine Command Theory and how unborn fetuses are not human, and a HOST of other things from gay marriage to socialized health care. Do you FAIL to realize that is RHETORIC? It's called freedom of speech. It SHOULD work both ways but often doesn't. FYO Humanism is a religion.
Not the time or place to get into the fact that science can NEVER have truth. It observes and describes but NEVER explains.
SmolyHoax 8 months ago
@SmolyHoax And when did I say anything about my beliefs? "You folks"? Thanks for confirming my acusations by using such a massive generalization and assuming things about someone you don't know.
You didn't counter any of my points. Should we not teach atomic "theory" then by your own logic? By "victim of retoric" I mean you only spout off the empty words without putting any facts behind them.
playerwithfaith 8 months ago
This argument has already been torn apart by Lane Craig.
Theres no contradiction between God's omnipotence and his inability to command evil. The point is that, as a perfect being, God does not act illogically in contradiction to his own nature and God's commands are not arbitrary (which they would be if he could simply command evil tomorrow)but flow necessarily from his all-loving nature He's the greatest conceivable being, and It is greater to be the paragon of goodness, than to conform to it.
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk "This argument has already been torn apart by Lane Craig. Theres no contradiction between God's omnipotence and his inability to command evil."
Well, I tend to disagree with Mr. Craig on this issue, as do many. Regardless, however, Craig fails to address Euthyphro's dilemma, the consequent of which result in arbitrariness. Is god good because he has his properties or are god's properties good because he has them? This is the issue you must address, otherwise DCT fails.
crazypills2 8 months ago
@crazypills2 Wrong, this is how Craig demolishes Euthyphro
God being omnipotent doesnt make him illogical (God can do "all things" but a logical contradiction like a square circle isnt a "thing"...it doesnt exist, so God cant act contrary to his morally perfect, all-good nature) since goodness and virtue is a great-making property and God is the greatest conceivable being, His commands flow necessarily from his all-loving, morally perfect being so commanding evil would be logically contradictory
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk " this is how Craig demolishes Euthyphro...since goodness and virtue is a great-making property."
I want to thank you for demonstrating my point. If goodness is a "great-making property" as you suggest, then god is not the standard of morality; there is something else that dictates morality and greatness. God is simply great or moral because he possesses these properties. However, others who also posses these properties would also be considered great. This is why Craig fails...
crazypills2 8 months ago
@crazypills2 You confuse moral ontology with moral semantics; we are all able to comprehend right from wrong without reference to God, the point is that God is the perfect, necessary source of all goodness. Moral values are true in any possible world and God is the necessary grounding of such values.
Craig's argument defeats Euthryphro because it explains goodness is not arbitrary but part of God's nature and operates according to a perfect,not external standard (God's necessarily good nature)
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk To say that "moral values are true in any possible world", is to ignore the modern scientific understanding of morality. The fact that our ethical and moral problems are what they are, is a consequence of our biology,neuro-structure and our society. There is nothing that says that all possible worlds would contain such values; conscious and intelligent creatures could very well have completely different preferences than intelligent primates on earth. ( us )
merryvinbock 8 months ago
@merryvinbock "is to ignore scientific understanding of moality".Now you have proved you dont know anything about this subject. Science can never define moral truths because science only describes what "is" not what "ought to be". If its just a "consequence of biology" moral truth wouldnt exist! This would mean that we call morals are just by-products of socio-evolotionay mechanisms so rape isnt really "wrong" just socially disadvantageous within the present species! Nobody thinks that
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk I was not implying any form of stance in the "ought-is" discussion. I was simply referring to the scientific knowledge about the biological origins of our moral senses. To ignore this, and treat moral sense as something else is "to ignore the scientific understanding of morality." There is no opposition between being evolved primates and having real moral problems and discussions. All that matters is that it matters to you, to me, and to mankind.
merryvinbock 8 months ago
@merryvinbock Firstly, biology cant tell us w=the origins of morality, since it cant give us any grounding for moral truths in the first place. Secondly, our moral SENSES are just the way in which we can discern right from wrong (moral epistemology) I was talking about what grounds those moral truths in the first place (moral ontology). If there were no moral truths indepndent of what matters to "us" the Holocaust was OK, as Nazi society came to view Jews as having less moral worth than others
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@merryvinbock secondly,if morality is from evolution,it doesnt exist.So you would be making an argument that moral values are illusory (and most scientist dont believe this,at least not in their personal lives!).Because if morals are just offshoots of socio-evolutionary mechanisms then humans dont have unique value,and murder isnt intrinsically "wrong",it just happens to be just socially disadvantageous for our ape-group (but not if evolutionary pressures had been "tweaked" slightly differently)
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk It seems to me that you are copying the arguments from famous theist debaters, without actually evaluating them yourself. Morality, that is a sense of conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions and actions between those that are good and bad, is in no opposition to evolution being to source of it. I suggest that you read about evolution.We only need (and we only have) the value and uniqnuess ascribed to us by ourselves, and this is the basis of human morality.
merryvinbock 8 months ago
@merryvinbock I'm not copying anyone, the arguments stand unrefuted. Morality is in cplete conflict with evolution in a huge number of ways; firstly evolution doesnt propel species to do what is morally good, only to do what is good for the propagation of DNA (Dawkins himself has pointed out human morality clashes with this) secondly,many species kill and rape each other so there are no objective moral truths if evolution is the only motor.Value ascribed "by ourselves" is illusory and subjective
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk Many times moral problems have that simplistic evolutionary nature. Prolific killing is one of them. However, some questions are more abstract and touch upon things like the general quality of life, and are much more complex. Still however, this does not require any divine commands, only intelligent discussions and sympathy.
merryvinbock 8 months ago
@merryvinbock It isnt morally wrong to kill in an evolutionary sense, it just happens to be socially disadvantageous within our environment and clashes with the propagation of DNA in our species. That does nothing to explain why its a moral abomination (deserving of the highest punishment) to committ murder.
there are no objective moral truths in an evolutionary sense, just taboos which diferent species inherit the same way they inherit evolved hands and toes to aid the propagation of DNA
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk I have never suggested to do what you are doing, namely to conflate to different languages. I´m simply saying that it is essential to understand where morality comes from and how it works biologically. Without this understanding, morality is often misunderstood and moved outside the realm of the human mind, human biology and human sympathy. This is one of the central faults of religion. God has no place in human morality, Euthyphro's dilemma is one way of demonstrating that.
merryvinbock 8 months ago
@merryvinbock Sir, you didnt comprehend any of the points I made. Moral values do NOT come from evolution, because evolution doesnt explain the existence of objective moral values (the existence of a true "right" and "wrong" that is independent of human opinion).
Euthyphro's dilemma does not demonstrate any such thing; without God cruel acts would still be cruel but it wouldnt be objectively wrong to be cruel!
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk What is your definition of "Objective Morality"? Since, I have yet to hear a notion of objective morality that was truly objective...
MyContext 7 months ago
@MyContext Objective morality means a right and wrong that is "true" indepndent of human opinion; that requires a transcendent anchor to "ground" those moral truths otherwise they are permanently shifting, and are subjective to individual people.
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk Anything could be declared to be a standard if it worked. So, if anyone came up with a definition of morality that actually reflected and allowed adjudication of moral questions, I would find it supportable. However, I have yet to hear any notion of objective morality that is usable and/or acceptable in that manner. So, what are you calling objective morality and what are you claiming that it says about what is moral?
MyContext 7 months ago
@MyContext Only if there is a perfect transcendent being worthy of worship can there be any grounding for objective moral truth;any lesser being would not be worthy of grounding such moral truths!
Every moral theory has an explanatory stopping point;(consequentialism just says human wellbeing is the basis of morality but cant explain WHY our wellbeing is invested with moral "worth";)the question is whether we have good reason to believe a perfect,all-loving being exists to ground moral truths!
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk Yes, there are claims of a perfect transcendent being...but only claims. Even if one were to ignore the fact there is no evidence for any transcendent being; the material used to make the claim is riddled with imperfections...including the claims of the claimed being...
The question is do we have an understanding of what we call moral and why we call it moral. I would dare say that TheoreticalBullshit's Moral Treatise is the most agreeable for the most people.
MyContext 7 months ago
@MyContext "there is no evidence"
that is incorrect.
We actually have very good reason both that God exists and that He revealed himself in Jesus.
Many leading physicists (I can give you the quotes) have recently accepted the overhwelming evidence for a designer in the jaw-dropping fine-tuning of the Universe for intelligent life, and the vast majority of NT historians (including atheists and Jews) now accept the historical validity of the gospel accounts of events surrounding Jesus's death.
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk There may or may not be evidence for Jesus. There is no evidence for god, yes, there are claims, however, there were claims for many gods. The designer argument - is a pointless claim - if things weren't the way they are we would not exist in they way that we do is a categorically true statement. If the universe had been different then we would be different. Given that we don't know what determines the constants that we observe, this is just another god of the gaps claim...
MyContext 7 months ago
@MyContext Oh its not a "pointless statement";its endorsed by the world's leading physicists.you dont understand the facts about fine-tuning.It is NOT fiine-tuned due to necessity (as you argue) physicists have discovered the necessary life-permitting values are so complex and precise that a life-PROHIBITING Universe is INFINTELY more probable than a life-permitting Universe! Secondly, the fine-tuned constants are indepndent of the laws of nature, so they dont HAVE TO be the way they are!
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk It is pointless to use their research to make a claim for a designer. Given what is known, we are incidental. It cannot be claimed that it was designed for us. Given that we live in a universe where there appears to be almost no life as opposed to no life given the vastness of the universe.
MyContext 7 months ago
@MyContext "it cannot be claimed that it was designed for us" Wrong; thats precisely what the fine-tuning proves; it proves that the conditions needed for complex, intelligent life forms like us (as opposed to tiny, simple organisms) are so incalculably precise that chance is simply too improbable; even the multiverse (which is itself susceptible to a devastating objection) hypotheses something far more fantastically improbable than design; endless Universes each with different laws!
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk I guess people do tend to be rather narcissistic. Can you give me ANY distinction between what happens to be the case and the claim of a designer? All of what you are claiming is a naturalistic explanation as a justification for a supernatural notion. If we weren't here there would be no discussion, for all we know there could be infinite other universes with a full range of life allowing (in some form) and life denying (in all forms). We just don't know.
MyContext 7 months ago
@MyContext It couldnt just "happen to be the case" because, as physicist Michael Turner wrote "The precision needed for just one of the constants is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bullseye one millimeter in diameter on the other side."
It has nothing to do with "narcisisism" its a fact that a life-permitting Universe is far more improbable than a life-prohibiting one, because of the incalculable precision in values necessary to for life-permitting conditions
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk Do you think there is one universe or is there a possibility that there are multiple or maybe even infinite universes? The problem with any claim of probability - one must know whether the claimed product is in fact as impossible as is claimed. I'll create something for refutation:
MyContext 7 months ago
@MyContext ULINK – An infinite immaterial span of space from which universes emerge - ours is just one of them. There can be no existence without the ULINK for without it there is no existence. The ULINK has always existed and is eternal and ever changing. The “rules” of “matter” are NOT consistent across universes and are not consistent within some universes. The ULINK has no mind – it is existence. <- Pure Conjecture fitting what appears to be the case...
MyContext 7 months ago
@MyContext Does the ULINK fit what is? I would dare say that it does. Can you disprove it? Well, I would dare say no or least not until you have the REAL answer or enough to show that this isn't the case...
This is the problem with ALL god claims (that I have heard, although, I think the ULINK is a better claim). They are claims with no substance. I would rather a bit of honesty as oppose to claims of it is or I know...
The reality is ... there is a lot we don't know.
MyContext 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk If I said that entirety of existence was comprise of an eternal matter from which all material as we know it emerges when this eternal matter of sufficiently vast spacial area is at rest. I could claim that this fits the nature of our universe and gives and answer to how everything is... However, it is conjecture just like claims of god are just claims with no support.
MyContext 7 months ago
@MyContext its not "conjecture" its called deductive logic; fine-tuning is either due to chance or necessity or design; it isnt due to necessity and isnt plausibly due to chance so the most plausible explanation is design
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk Actually, this is my point... We don't know...
1) Whether it could have been any other way...
2) Whether another way could have allowed for life
3) Whether is is just chance that it is as it is...
We understand the precision of what is required for life as we know it. Anything else beyond is an unsupported claim, since, we do not know. If you claim a designer, let's examine this designer to confirm your claim. If we have no designer, we are left with an unknown...
MyContext 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk NOTE: I am not arguing that it is necessity, I am acknowledging that for all we know it is just happenstance. Since, we do not know what determines the constants. However, given ANY other set of constants that happen to allow our existence it would still appear quite extraordinary, until we thought about it.
MyContext 7 months ago
@MyContext "just happenstance" I'm afraid you dont know what your talking about
For example, as agnotic physicist Steven Weinberg admitted "The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places."
Its inexplicable unless you accept design. Thats why the great physicist Sir Paul Davies wrote The belief there is something behind it all is one I share with, I suspect, a majority of physicists"
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk I acknowledge I don't know. You are asserting a claim for which you have no evidence. You are attempting to claim god based on our current ignorance. If there is a god, it is a deistic god. We have no basis for anything else. I would expect a theistic god to present itself, if such a thing existed.
/watch?v=hSS-88ShJfo : Morality 2
/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg : History of God
/watch?v=WKhQs2-g8EY : Putting Religious Experience in its place
MyContext 7 months ago
@MyContext
Just one example...
a beryllium isotope with a TINY half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that exact split of time before decaying.
This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life
There would be nothing heavier than gas or helium!!"
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk We know what is the case.... Why don't know why it is the case...until we know why, anything else must be considered conjecture if there is no support for that claim... No insertions due to our current ignorance... People believed that people who probably suffered from seizures were possessed... Given what was believed it was probably reasonable... We can do better than that...
MyContext 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk There is no point of disputing whether Jesus lived or not. So far as I am concerned, Jesus probably existed and he said some things that were better than some of the people who were around him. However, he was clearly just a man. The resurrection story is just that a story conjured by somebody like the resurrection stories before.
We have NO GOD attesting to any VALIDITY of the any claims. We have people making arguments.
MyContext 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk The theological term "objective moral values", is unnecessary. Evolution and neuroscience explains ( not 100%, the research is of course not finished ) why we behave in certain ways and why we value certain things. This is very important to acknowalge. Now, as for things being "objectively" right or wrong, I would say this. Morality is merely what humans make it to be, it is a human concern. Now, most people of course, recognize certain things to be right or wrong.
merryvinbock 7 months ago
@merryvinbock This can be explained with evolutionary theory. When talking in philosophical terms about this, we must have a set of premisses and goals in order to call actions and intentions right or wrong. That is how you construct logical arguments about anything. To say that one specific religion has the right morality, and that this moral code just is "objectively right", is, in my mind, a rather irrational and fruitless assertion.
merryvinbock 7 months ago
@merryvinbock "Morality is what human beings make it to be" that would make morality SUBJECTIVE and thus illusory!
For example, studies show Nazi society believed persecution of Jews to be morally right. Therefore it IS right,(as long as the Nazis won the war) if your theory is correct. But we all know this cant be true...
"most people recognise right or wrong" thats just moral EPISTEMOLOGY (knowing right from wrong) not moral ontology (what grounds moral truths in the first place)
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@merryvinbock Evolutionary theory provides no moral premises whatsoever.Evolution only compels species to do what best facilitates DNA replication (other creatures carry out acts of rape/sadism within the species all the time); this does zero to explain why rape/murder are inherently wrong; why they are moral abominations, genuinely deserving of punishment.
We dont lock up a rapist because his crime is just "socially disadvantgeous" but because we know its genuinely morally wrong!
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk I have not said that evolutionary theory "provides premisses". These premisses are put forth by us, in intellectual debates. We are the ones to name things moral and immoral, "genuinely wrong" or "genuinely right". However, the explanation for why humans seem to value certain things, and shun others ( murder,rape,theft and genocide --- hugs,love,children,charity, etc ) is to be found in evolutionary biology.
merryvinbock 7 months ago
@merryvinbock Theology has fabricated a need for a divine moral code set in stone, which results in a misunderstanding of morality. It is infinitely nuanced and to talk about it in absolute terms is to be unsophisticated.
merryvinbock 7 months ago
@merryvinbock "premises are put forward by us" Thats a contradiction;If evolution were the basis for morality there would be absolutely no purpose to so-called" "morality" except to facilitate propagation of DNA, so morality would be an illusion, and we would be no "better" than sharks
seonddly if we decide than morality is just a subjective (thus illusory) rather than objective (and real outside our minds), which one of "us" decides which "premises" are true and on what basis?
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@merryvinbock Sir, I have already explained why this is not the case. if you cant even acknowledge, much less engage with, the arguments, this discussion is pointless.
Evolution does NOT explain why ANYTHING is objectively wrong. Many other animals engage in all sorts of behaviours which we call "wrong". Evolution only compels species to do whatever facilitiates propagation of DNA...this does NOTHING to explain why rape etc is objectively,inherently wrong so as to be a moral abomination!
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk "... the point is that God is the perfect, necessary source of all goodness"
Is that the point? This seems to contradict your prior statement which said that goodness and virtue were good-making properties. If they are good-making, then god is good because he has these properties, right? Otherwise they wouldn't be "good-making." And if these are good-making then god cannot be the source of goodness or morality. You can't play both sides of the fence here.
crazypills2 8 months ago
@crazypills2 No it doesnt contradict my statement; virtue and kindness are great-making properties because they have their source in God as the very greatest conceivable being (in the same way the quality of a symphony recording is judged by its fidelity to a live orchestra, which doesnt conform to a greater standard but is itself the greatest standard)
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk "Craig's argument defeats Euthryphro because it explains goodness is not arbitrary but part of God's nature "
Craig's argument only pushes Euthryphro back one level...to god's nature. Now, I will ask the question again. Is god good because he has the properties or are these properties good because god has them? Craig hasn't answered this question; therefore, Euthryphro stands.
crazypills2 8 months ago
@crazypills2 "or are these properties good because god has them". Craig has frequently answered this question, you clearly havent read his work?
The properties are good because God has them for good reasons, we can grasp ( but he is the explanatory ultimate so these would cease to be good reasons if God didnt exist; for example rape would still cause harm if God didnt exist but, it wouldnt be objectively wrong unless God's nature was kind not cruel and God invested humans with moral worth!
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk "The properties are good because God has them for good reasons..."
What does this even mean? What are the "good reasons" for which god has these properties? And, who dictates that the reasons are good? If it is god who dictates their goodness, then it is arbitrary. However, if there is something else that dictates their goodness, then god isn't the ultimate source. We can go at this all day, but ultimately you must choose one or the other...there is really no other honest choice.
crazypills2 8 months ago
@crazypills2 "What does this even mean" It means that God, as a logical being, has good logical reasons for the values he holds, which can be known by humans also; but there would be no objective moral "good" unless moral values were grounded in God's nature. For example cruelty would still be cruel without God but it wouldnt be objectively wrong to be cruel...unless God, as the explanatory ultimate, was kind and not cruel. Our acts are measured against His perfection.
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk "It means that God, as a logical being, has good logical reasons for the values he holds"
Again I will ask, what are these 'good' reasons and who decided that they were 'good'?
"there would be no objective moral "good" unless moral values were grounded in God's nature"
So, these properties are good because god has them? We can go at this all day, but it will start to get tiring unless you actually answer the questions posed.
crazypills2 7 months ago
@crazypills2 "Who decided they are good"
Again, I explain, God is the explanatory ultimate so the good is His nature; (in other words what Plato simply called "the good" is, in fact, God) so there is no need for a higher explanation or higher standard than the explanatory ultimate in the same way there is no need to measure the orchestra against a higher standard...because the orchestra IS the standard against which the quality of the recording is measured!!
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk "God can do "all things" but a logical contradiction like a square circle isnt a "thing"...it doesnt exist, so God cant act contrary to his morally perfect, all-good nature"
I always laugh at this example since it makes no sense. A square circle is impossible, but the ability to command evil isn't. Now, if god's 'goodness' prevents him from making such commands, then he isn't omnipotent. You might argue he has the greatest mixture of properties, but you cannot claim omnipotence.
crazypills2 8 months ago
@crazypills2 You laugh at the example because you dont understand it. In philosophy,you can prove a negative or demonstrate something is impossible/could not exist by proving its logically contradictory. Square circles and married bachelors are logically contradictory and therefore dont exist for the same reason God commanding evil (when He is the locus of all goodness) is logically contradictory and therefore couldnt happen in any possible world; God's commands flow necessarily from his nature
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk "Square circles and married bachelors are logically contradictory and therefore dont exist"
Agreed, but why? Does it have something to do with their definitions? This, however, is quite different from god commanding evil, isn't it?
And I'm curious why it is that god's goodness trumps his omnipotence? Couldn't it be equally possible that his omnipotence would trump his goodness? In other words, shouldn't his goodness never demand anything that would limit his omnipotence?
crazypills2 8 months ago
@crazypills2 "something to do with their definitions" Precisely...but their definitions are descriptions of their character! (a bachelor=unmarried) And the standard definition of God is as the locus of goodness so its contradictory for a morally perfect being to command evil in the same way its contradicory for a bachelor to be married.
His goodness does not limit his omnipotence,its precisely because he is not good to conform to an external standard but IS goodness himself that he cant do evil
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk "And the standard definition of God is as the locus of goodness..."
Well, I'm not sure that's the 'standard' definition, but it can be 'your' definition if you want. However, this only brings us back to the point where we began. Is god good because he has these properties or are these properties good because god has them. The former means there is an external source of goodness and the latter means that goodness is contingent on god's commands (i.e. arbitrary). The dilemma stands.
crazypills2 8 months ago
@crazypills2 It is the standard definition held by Christian philosophers and theologians since before Acquinus. Voluntarists (who held that God voluntarily chooses to do good) were always a discredited minority.
The dilemma doesn't stand (read the rest of my replies to you today, where I have already answered the second horn of Euthyphro). Cruel acts would still be cruel without God, but being cruel wouldnt be objectively wrong unless God was not cruel and invested humans with intrinsic worth
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk "The dilemma doesn't stand (read the rest of my replies to you today, where I have already answered the second horn of Euthyphro)."
I have read them but fail to see how they support your view. Let me ask once again the question you seem reluctant to answer: "is god good because he possess these properties or are they good because god possesses them?"
crazypills2 8 months ago
@crazypills2 What you don't seem to get, is that, far from making God LESS omnipotent,if He could do evil in any possible world that would make him LESS than perfect, because if he could choose evil then he would no longer be the greatest good; it would mean he was only good sometimes, (to conform to an external standard) therefore had failed to be God, wouldnt be worthy of worship, and would need a higher God as the source of perfection against which he is measured
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk "What you don't seem to get, is that, far from making God LESS omnipotent,if He could do evil in any possible world that would make him LESS than perfect..."
Exactly, now you're getting it. 'Perfection', or what I'll call 'goodness', is incompatible with omnipotence. You might say god has the greatest mixture of properties, but to call him omnipotent would violate its classical definition.
crazypills2 8 months ago
@crazypills2 Perfection is not incompatible with omnipotence; omnipotence means the ability to do all things...but a logical contradiction isnt a thing. So, for example although God is omnipotent, He cannot know what colour santa Clau's shoes are because Santa doesnt exist.
Logical contradictions like square circles or all-good beings that command evil couldnt exist in any possible world this doesnt remove from God's ability to do all things.A logical contradiction isnt a "thing" it isnt real.
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk "Perfection is not incompatible with omnipotence; omnipotence means the ability to do all things...but a logical contradiction isnt a thing"
You must demonstrate how commanding evil is a logical contradiction for omnipotence. You can't simply state a good being wouldn't command evil...goodness has nothing to do with omnipotence. Is it logically possible for an omnipotent being to command evil? Yes. Is it logically possible for an omnipotent being to make square circles? No.
crazypills2 7 months ago
@crazypills2 "goodness has nothing to do with omnipotence"
Commanding evil is a logical contradiction for the greatest conceivable being (therefore it couldnt exist) since good is a great-making property and God is the metaphysical ultimate... if you can find a being that is more good/more perfect than God,then you haven't reached God yet!!
It is greater to be the ultimate good than to conform to goodness so the greatest being cannot be other than good
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk "Commanding evil is a logical contradiction for the greatest conceivable being"
What exactly does "greatest conceivable being mean? Most powerful? Most loving? What? The point is whether goodness and omnipotence are dependent upon each other. I say no. Why should they be? If you are talking about the greatest combination of qualities, then I may agree. However, because someone has the greatest combination of qualities, doesn't make that person omnipotent.
crazypills2 7 months ago
@crazypills2 However, I must add that its good to see atheists like you intelligently engaging with the arguments, instead of just dismissing Christians with intolerant abuse or completely ducking the issue like the current crop of New Atheists (I don't know why Craig wastes his time debating Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris etc, they are so easy to demolish because they dont engage with or even understand, his basic arguments)
I prefer watching interesting atheists like Quentin Smith debate Craig
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk "God does not act illogically in contradiction to his own nature and God's commands are not arbitrary (which they would be if he could simply command evil tomorrow)but flow necessarily from his all-loving nature"
Ok, but do think it's a contradiction that he actually commands evil, in the form of rape and genocide in Numbers 31 and the burning of young girls in Leviticus 21:9? Or is that when you play the "God is Mysterious" card and claim to not be able to identify any evil?
Gnomefro 8 months ago
@Gnomefro I'm sorry, sir, as soon as you selectively quote difficult parts of the Old Testament which are not Commandments (issued to Moses or by Jesus) you have lost the argument, since, even if you are right and a morally-perfect God couldnt have issued such commands, that would not be an argument against a morally-perfect God, it would only be an argument against the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy (the notion,held by a few Christians, that every word in the Bible is divinely inspired)
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
I think your so endoctrinated and part of the masses (sheeple) that you woulden't
know the truth if it hit you in the eye. Inteligent by design now thats the truth
MaximiousOfRome 8 months ago
@MaximiousOfRome "...you wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the eye. Inteligent by design now thats the truth"
There is no verifiable evidence to support that hypothesis. On the other hand, there is no verifiable evidence to support abiogenesis either. To claim either is "truth" is a leap of faith - not fact.
The type of logic you employ is no different than previous god logic of "the world is flat - that's the truth" and "diseases are demon possession - that's the truth"
It's not.
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
I think one has to understand old testament times, whether you are religious or not. It was a time of war and the strong survived. Right or wrong really didn't matter if someone was attacking your village, and taking your wives and daughters. This sort of thing was bound to get tied into religion, and praying for victory over ones enemies was almost certain.
dannukesem 9 months ago
i love these debates but one thing i notice is, not matter what argument/counter argument is givien, neither side budges an inch in their respective positions.
BillKiernan 11 months ago
@BillKiernan Not in my experience. There is a growing trend of non-religious people in America, and I would like to think it is because of the discussion taking place.
Also, I can think of a number of youtube converts for both sides, and many more who have softened their original positions.
playerwithfaith 9 months ago
@playerwithfaith i hope i'm right.
BillKiernan 9 months ago
The euthyphro dilemma is really addressing the polytheistic idea that good and evil are interwoven into the fabric of existence. Both Socrates and Euthyphro, being polytheists, concluded that piety is loved by the gods because it's pious and not pious because it's loved by the gods. From a Christian perspective (at least in the Orthodox faith), those qualities are not woven into the fabric of existence. The dilemma doesn't really apply because there's no act that is good or evil in and ofitself
gambleor 1 year ago
@gambleor " The dilemma doesn't really apply because there's no act that is good or evil in and ofitself"
I don't see how this statement gets you off the hook. Is disobedience to Yahweh always bad? And if so, why?
crazypills2 1 year ago
@crazypills2 No it isn't always bad. Abraham asks God for lenience toward Sodom and Gomorrah, Job stands up to and questions God despite the deuteronomical idea that God shouldn't be questioned, Samuel takes a census of the people of Israel at God's command which turned out bad, etc. It gets us off the hook because there is nothing that is done that is, in itself, an act with the qualities "good/bad". This means that the presupposition of euthyphro, that good/evil are clearly definable terms,
gambleor 1 year ago
@gambleor (1 of 2)
"No it isn't always bad"
In your examples, neither Abraham nor David (not Samuel) disobeyed Yahweh. Abraham negotiated with Yahweh, but didn't disobey him. Concerning the census, David obeyed Yahweh's command. Some have argued that the census was a necessary punishment of Israel (unless you adhere to the 1 Chron 21 account).
crazypills2 1 year ago
(2 of 2)
Now, please provide an example where willful disobedience to Yahweh was considered good.
I assert that, for many, obedience and disobedience are what is considered good and bad respectively, hence the support for DCT. Now, if obedience to a command of Yahweh is ultimately considered good, then I ask why? Perhaps this will take you back to the dilemma you are trying to avoid.
crazypills2 1 year ago
@crazypills2 It was David and not Samuel - my mistake. Nevertheless, it really depends on the account you're reading. It's blatantly clear that David is grief stricken and recognizes his sin in obeying God's command (2 Samuel 24:10). This is an instance where God's command is NOT considered good whereas willful disobedience to that command would be - at least according to this specific account. DCT is not a doctrine of the Orthodox faith so, again, the dilemma doesn't apply.
gambleor 1 year ago
@gambleor "This an instance where God's command is NOT considered good whereas willful disobedience to that command would be - at least according to this specific account."
According to your argument, neither god nor his nature is the standard of morality. Do you consider morality to be objective? And if so, from where does it come?
crazypills2 1 year ago
@crazypills2 No, morality isn't objective. If it were objective then, by definition, it would be a metaphysical reality which it isn't. We know this because there is no action that is good or evil just because it's good or evil. Like you said - it's a false dichotomy in the Orthodox Christian worldview - it simply doesn't apply.
gambleor 1 year ago
@gambleor "No, morality isn't objective"
Ok, now I understand where you're coming from. DCT only applies to those who believe that objective morality comes from the commands of god, which entails many christians.
crazypills2 1 year ago
@crazypills2 Morality is objective, but can only be so if God exists. If he doesnt, cruelty is still cruel but isnt objectively wrong (it may be socially disadvantageous, in an evolutionary sense, but this doesnt make it inherently wrong, unless something gives humans special value, and there is some ultimate transcendent foundation for moral truths, indepnent of human opinion)
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk "Morality is objective, but can only be so if God exists."
Well, I'm not arguing for objective morality, but I don't think you've demonstrated your statement. How have you show that morality is objective until you answer the dilemma. I know this is repetitive, but I'll ask again: "is god good because he possess these properties or are they good because god possesses them?"
crazypills2 8 months ago
@crazypills2 "have you shown morality is objective"
Surely this is a statement of obvious truth?
The Holocaust was objectively wrong,even though the Nazis didnt believe it to be,otherwise whats the justification for Nuremberg?
Atheists may pretend to reject objective moral truth on an intellectual level (as they see it carries the implication that God exists,which they loathe) but few atheists doubt it exists in their personal lives or human rights/international law etc would make no sense!
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk "Surely this [morality is objective] is a statement of obvious truth?"
Wasn't it was 'obvious' to many in history that disease was the result of demons? And wasn't it 'obvious' to many that the earth was the center of the universe. What appears to be 'obvious' may not be true.
"but few atheists doubt it [objective morality] exists"
How do you know this?
crazypills2 7 months ago
@crazypills2 Its "obvious" in the sense that we all know that, say, the Holocaust is genuinely wrong,regardless of whether Nazi society subjectively believed it to be justifiable.So objective moral truths are as real to us as the external world (we cant prove external reality is real or objective morality exists, since these are metaphysical beliefs but we all believe them to be true)
"how do you know this" Because most atheists would say rape, murder etc are objectively wrong
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@crazypills2 To say that I'm trying to avoid the dilemma is like me saying that you're trying to avoid the dilemma I posed - "is sex pleasurable because it's evil, or is it evil because it's pleasurable?"
How would you answer that?
gambleor 1 year ago
@gambleor " 'is sex pleasurable because it's evil, or is it evil because it's pleasurable?' How would you answer that?"
I would say it's a false dichotomy.
crazypills2 1 year ago
@crazypills2 is not mutually held by those who belong to a monotheistic (at least an Orthodox Christian) framework. It doesn't apply. It's like me asking you why "is sex pleasurable because it's evil, or is it evil because it's pleasurable?" The underlying presupposition that sex is evil must be shared between us in order for the question to apply.
gambleor 1 year ago
@crazypills2 Dude, are you kidding me? Did you honestly just suggest that Craig has never answered Euthyphro. Simply type "Craig, Euthyphro" into Reasonable Faith (his website Q&A section) or into Google, and you'll see he's demolished this old dilemma many times, far more easily than he demolished other atheist fallacies such as the "problem of evil" the "who designed the designer" condundrum and the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" fallacy (known as the Hume Fallacy)
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk "Did you honestly just suggest that Craig has never answered Euthyphro."
He has attempted to address it, but never successfully. All he does is push the dilemma back one level, but this doesn't solve the problem as I will show in a moment.
crazypills2 8 months ago
@crazypills2 He has successfully adressed it three times on his website; you really ought to attempt reading the arguments of theist thinkers before critiquing them; he explains the "middle way" through both horns of Euthyphro again in his recent debate when an audience member asked.
At least Euthyphro is a little more fun than the drearily boring, easily-demolished Student Union atheist fallacies like the "cant prove a negative" thing...which is just SOO easy to rip apart!
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
continued
It also gets muddled around one issue. "Obeying justified commands from an authority figure" would be a moral value (It would actually be a combo of values like trust, greater good, etc but I'm not going to split hairs), but that value could be mistaken from coming from the command itself. Any obligation would actually come from the existence of the objective value and the command just informs us of proper behavior.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 The value is grounded in God's nature; the command is necessarily consistent with his nature.
I think I now get your misunderstanding of Craig's answer to Euthyphro. You want to know why the qualities of kindness, mercy etc are not artbirary (if they are only good because God has them). the answer is devastatingly simple.
To classical theism, these qualities (love, mercy etc) simply are necessarily God's nature so there's no possible world in He doesnt have them.
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
@relarerfhjk
"To classical theism, these qualities (love, mercy etc) simply are necessarily God's nature so there's no possible world in He doesnt have them."
I agree.
"The value is grounded in God's nature; the command is necessarily consistent with his nature."
I agree, but that leads me to the conclusion that God's nature is the foundation of objective value, and His commands are merely consistent/inform us of what is objectively valuable.
Epydemic2020 7 months ago
@Epydemic2020 Correct, God's nature is the foundation of objective moral truth, as there has to be a perfect being (an ultimate "good") for objective truth to be grounded in and measured against; its clearly greater to be the paragon of goodness than to just reflect it.
relarerfhjk 7 months ago
I love this gem:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
Satanos777 1 year ago
I have my gre's coming up shortly, but I might make a response vid after that.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
As to the omnipotence bit, A perfect being could do absolutely anything except fail to be perfect (a tautology).
If Goodness is a perfect making property, then God could not be evil. To be evil would be to be less perfect.
Failing to know, failing to exist, etc are all examples of deficits rather than abilities.
If "God B" could "do more things" such as fail to be perfect, I don't consider that deity more powerful.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 But why do you consider good to be perfect instead of evil to be perfect?
snofthndr 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 "If Goodness is a perfect making property, then God could not be evil."
It's language such as this that causes me confusion. You deny Euthyprho, but then claim a property to be "perfect making."
crazypills2 1 year ago
Perhaps I have a unique version of theistic morality. You will not hear me appeal to commands @ all. Not in a single one of my videos.
In short, I reject premises 1 through 3.
Omnipotence includes the ability to do everything but the logically contradictory. If God did something contrary to His essential properties, He would cease to be God. (similarly, water which does something other than be composed of H20 ceases to be water).
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 "In short, I reject premises 1 through 3."
Interesting. Are you suggesting that God's commands don't result in moral obligations for us, or are you saying that our moral obligations come from sources other than, or in addition to, God's commands?
crazypills2 1 year ago
@crazypills2
I don't personally see the link between commands and duties. My friend (who shows up in my problem of hiddenness video) does argue for that line of thinking, but I don't get it. If God's nature is the foundation of objective morality all I see His commands doing is informing us of His nature.
Perhaps that'd be a good convo between him and I to film.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 "I don't personally see the link between commands and duties"
But do you accept God's commands as moral obligations, don't you? For instance, God commanded Moses to exterminate the Canaanites. Such a command could in no way be intuitive: who would have thought such an act could ever be morally obligatory? The only way for him to know about the command was for God to issue it. And, would you agree that disobeying the command have been immoral?
crazypills2 1 year ago
@crazypills2
The only role I see God's commands playing would be to inform us of morality. Of course, we already have a basic understanding of morality from our moral intuitions. His commands could come in to help us organize that moral hierarchy of objective values if needed.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 (1 of 3)
"The only role I see God's commands playing would be to inform us of morality"
You'll have to forgive my bluntness, but I feel you are skirting the issue
First you state that you deny premise 1: "DCT makes all of God’s commands morally obligatory"
Your rejection implies that not all of God's commands are morally obligatory. If this isn't your position, then you need to state so. Otherwise, I have to assume that disobedience of God's commands is not wrong
crazypills2 1 year ago
(2 of 3)
Now, if you believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, then you must accept that the sin of Adam and Eve was the disobedience of God's command. And, to abstain from the fruit of the tree was not intuitively obvious; had God not commanded it, they would never had known. Additionally, had God not commanded them to abstain from the tree, then it wouldn't have been wrong for them to eat from it. Agree?
crazypills2 1 year ago
(3 of 3)
I ask that you evaluate premise 1 to determine if you can truthfully say you still reject it. And if you do, then you should explain why in light of the questions above.
crazypills2 1 year ago
@crazypills2
"had God not commanded it, they would never had known"
That lines up with what I said exactly. I see commands relating to epistemology. A command could inform us of moral facts. The command in that instance just informs them of what Good behavior would be.
Adam and Eve couldn't have had evil intent if God never told them eating from the tree was something they shouldn't have done. Eating was wrong, the command just removed their ignorance.
continued
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 "The command in that instance just informs them of what Good behavior would be."
But why was eating wrong? Was it wrong because of God's nature or because he commanded such? I assert the latter, but would be interested in your take. Additionally, since eating the fruit could never had been intuitively known as wrong, if it wasn't for God's command, this immoral act would never had been known. Doesn't this go against your moral argument?
crazypills2 1 year ago
@crazypills2
I think eating was wrong because it contradicted an objective value.
"Additionally, since eating the fruit could never had been intuitively known as wrong, if it wasn't for God's command, this immoral act would never had been known. Doesn't this go against your moral argument?"
No. If Adam and eve were ignorant of whether or not it was immoral to eat the fruit, that only proves their ignorance. It doesn't imply that objective morality didn't exist.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 "I think eating was wrong because it contradicted an objective value."
What was the objective value?
"f Adam and eve were ignorant of whether or not it was immoral to eat the fruit, that only proves their ignorance. It doesn't imply that objective morality didn't exist."
Could this objectively immoral act (eating from the tree) ever be known outside of God's commands? If not, then doesn't that pose a problem for your suggestion that we have a sense of what is moral?
crazypills2 1 year ago
@crazypills2
"What was the objective value?"
I had said, "Obeying justified commands from an authority figure" would be a moral value (It would actually be a combo of values like trust, greater good, etc but I'm not going to split hairs)"
"Could this objectively immoral act (eating from the tree) ever be known outside of God's commands?"
It is not merely eating from a tree which is bad, it is the impact it has. Pulling the trigger of a gun is not bad, it is what can happens next. continued
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 "It is not merely eating from a tree which is bad, it is the impact it has"
So, what was the negative impact? Knowledge regarding good and evil or disobedience to God? I suggest the latter. And, if this is true, then the act was solely wrong because of the command.
crazypills2 1 year ago
@crazypills2
Both. What is with all these false dilemmas lately? (jk).
If we take a literal interpretation of Genesis as you seem to be going with, the consequences of eating from the tree is having sin enter your life, being separated from a sinless being, and being kicked out of the garden of Eden into a life of turmoil.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
(1 of 2)
@Epydemic2020 "If we take a literal interpretation of Genesis as you seem to be going with, the consequences of eating from the tree is having sin enter your life, being separated from a sinless being, and being kicked out of the garden of Eden into a life of turmoil"
But why were they separated from God? Because the tree did something to them or because they disobeyed a command. I assert the latter, as I don't believe you can show that eating was wrong without the command.
crazypills2 1 year ago
(2 of 2)
But doesn't this take us back to whatever God commands is morally obligatory?
Many have said that the sin of Adam and Eve was disobedience. Are you denying that? If not, then although the thought may seem unpleasant for your hypothesis, I don't see how you can avoid that morality for the Christian can come from commands.
crazypills2 1 year ago
@crazypills2
Perhaps I can explain this is a different way.
"disobeying an authority figure who gives a justified command" is an example of an action which is wrong. There is no command that informs us that justified commands ought to be followed. The reason the above principle is true is not the result of a command, but is a combination of objective values like trust and respect.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 How do you know what is a justified command? People have followed commands all throughout history and thought it to be justified. You don't think that the nazis followed Hitler out of trust and respect, believing his commands to be justified? What about the 9/11 terrorists? Did they not trust and respect the commands of Osama and Allah? If you alone can tell whether or not a command is moral and just, then that kind of pushes a god out of the moral argument.
DarthMocha 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DarthMocha
God is necessary to be the foundation of morality (His nature being that foundation).
Moral knowledge is largely innate. (moral knowledge is a different topic altogether)
" If you alone can tell whether or not a command is moral and just, then that kind of pushes a god out of the moral argument."
That is not true, because nobody is arguing that moral knowledge comes solely from God's commands.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crazypills2
"What was the objective value?"
I had said, "Obeying justified commands from an authority figure" would be a moral value (It would actually be a combo of values like trust, greater good, etc but I'm not going to split hairs)"
"Could this objectively immoral act (eating from the tree) ever be known outside of God's commands?"
It is not merely eating from a tree which is bad, it is the impact it has. Pulling the trigger of a gun is not bad, it is what can happens next. continued
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@crazypills2
"Could this objectively immoral act... ever be known outside of God's commands? If not, then doesn't that pose a problem for your suggestion that we have a sense of what is moral?"
Lets assume for a minute that there is objective moral truths we don't know. My argument has been "we have innate knowledge of a realm of moral truths". My argument only shows that objective morality exists, not that we will always know what is objectively moral in any given circumstance.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@crazypills2
If God commanded something contrary to His nature (if such a thing is possible) then it would not be obligatory.
I don't see God's commands causing an obligation, I see them being correlated with obligation. Since his commands would reflect his nature, they would be obligatory. Obligations don't arise from His commands, they arise from His nature. It just so happens that God's commands would be consistent with His nature (correlated rather than causal).
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 "If God commanded something contrary to His nature (if such a thing is possible) then it would not be obligatory."
So, it's God's nature and not God, that defines good? Doesn't this imply that God is good because of his nature? And doesn't this result in good being external to God? I suppose you will deny such a thing is possible, but to do so, it must be logically consistent with your argument, which I don't think it is. Claiming God is uncaused doesn't solve this problem.
crazypills2 1 year ago
@crazypills2
"So, it's God's nature and not God, that defines good?"
A nature refers to a beings essential properties. For example, H20 is an essential property of water.
talking about "its God's nature and not God..." is like saying "It is water and not H20 that...." Any question that starts that way seems to not make sense.
"And doesn't this result in good being external to God?"
Thats like asking if H20 is external to water. It doesn't seem to make sense.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 "For example, H20 is an essential property of water."
Do you think that using a non-sentient object is appropriate for an analogy of God? With God, isn't there a consciousness that instantiates his properties? I'm really struggling with the concept that God is his nature... I can't really wrap my head around it. Perhaps you can provide some insight other than the H20 example.
crazypills2 1 year ago
@crazypills2
"Perhaps you can provide some insight other than the H20 example."
Perhaps the laws of logic would be a better example. Do you think they had to be the way that they are (essential properties)? If so, do you think the laws of logic caused themselves to be the way they are, were caused by something external, or is there a third option (like necessity for instance)?
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
(1 of 2)
@Epydemic2020 "Perhaps the laws of logic would be a better example."
I think the laws of logic are a bad example for several reasons, one which is that they are non conscious. But perhaps there is an easier way to address this. I say that God, should he exist, is an essence, not a bunch of abilities or properties.
crazypills2 1 year ago