Free Will: Response to Epydemic2020

Bible quotes taken from...

exodus 10:1-2

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/free_will.html

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• free
• will
• religion
• christianity
• morality
• moral
• ethics
• philosophy
• atheism
• smpunditz

[DarkMatter2525]

Epydemic, if a man was about to kill you, would you not want God to intervene for fear of the killer's free will being violated?

When a man kills, even us lowly humans are smart enough to take away his free will (jail).

[wwickeddogg]

wouldn't it be much easier to believe in a god that has no power and takes no actions (no gaps)? personally I find the FSM to be the most compelling god, on the other hand, the christian god is a prick that you could not pay me to believe in

[MyContext]

@Epydemic2020 I have never seen morality as objective at time. So, no I don't accept the concept and all arguments heard so far have been flawed. I am finally able to articulate the specific problems....

[MyContext]

@Epydemic2020 Reality is known by our senses. Morality is a concept of our mind. What are you calling in common.

You say you are not equating, yet you are claiming they are justified by the same method. This is a strong suggestion of equivalence at least with regard to some aspect. What is that aspect?

[Epydemic2020]

@MyContext

As I just got through explaining, I am not arguing anything is equivalent, I argued that objective reality and morality are justified via the same method. We are therefore bound to conclude that objective morality exists IF we accept that objective reality exists. Both rejection of objective reality or objective morality would require some sort of reason.

[MyContext]

@Epydemic2020 Material things (Reality) & effects are NOT inherently equal to abstract concepts (Products of mind) & extrapolations. This fallacy of equivalence. Morality is a concept that is NOT separable from minds in either subject or observer. This tie is a problem intrinsic to the construct of morals.

Counter: Reality exists separate from minds. Moral notions are a unique construct of each mind.

Example: Unicorns, fairies, etc are a product of mind which have never actually existed.

[Epydemic2020]

@MyContext

In that vid, I explained how we come to the conclusion that our senses inform us of reality, and then demonstrated that ethical intuitionism is justified using the same method. Therefore if we are to avoid the fallacy of special pleading, if we believe reality exists, we just also believe objective morality exists UNLESS there is a counter argument to objective morality that is not applicable to objective reality.

I am not equating the two.

[MyContext]

@Epydemic2020 Give me the specific video AND claim... I will point out the issues and present in multiple ways. | Your Defense of Morality Video: You try to equate concrete things & effects to abstract concepts & notions. This is a logical fallacy - if the integrity of the concept is contingent with regard to EVERY observer and/or subject - which is the case for morality - any claim of objectivity is immediately void.

[Epydemic2020]

@MyContext

How can you say they are unsubstantiated claims? Take the moral argument for instance. I have videos explaining why we should accept each premise, and since it is at the very least a deductive argument in valid form.. that means that unless my reasons provided for accepting the premises are in error, the conclusion must be true. Now, you could say that you think I am mistaken, but to call it unsubstantiated is just silly.

[MyContext]

@Epydemic2020 Those "arguments" are unsubstantiated claims. How are the attributes that you are claiming derived? Since, I don't see a way which is NOT subjective as a method of determination.

[Epydemic2020]

@MyContext

Each of the arguments for God's existence describe God's attributes. Moral, cosmological, teleological etc.

[MyContext]

@Epydemic2020 I'll try once more.... You have claimed god's nature. Yet, you have provided no objective method for determining god's nature. (It would still be subjective - but at least there would be something substantive) You have listed attributes, but not the method of determining the attributes. Since, the actions (at least from my perspective) are also included in nature. (Given Deuteronomy this makes it questionable as a moral anything from my perspective)