|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
29th November 2012, 09:21 AM | #481 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
|
Actually, I said "no." Repeatedly, and in great detail.
It seems you are determined to pay attention to only about one thing out of five that I say and to ignore anything I say that doesn't fit your preconception of what a strawman theist would say. Please have the intellectual integrity to address my actual points instead of your strawman versions of my points. |
29th November 2012, 09:31 AM | #482 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
29th November 2012, 09:44 AM | #483 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
That's just as much nonsense as AvalonXQ's attempt to defend the position. Objective doesn't come from voices in your head. And nothing in the multitudes of interpretations of the Christian's alleged god's alleged rules can be considered objective, simply because there are multitudes of interpretations.
Quote:
It's those "most circumstances" which will never come down to something that, as AvalonXQ put it, "can be confirmed and we can all agree on". So nope, AvalonXQ's defense of his position is convoluted logic, a work of fiction created to defend an indefensible position. It has failed, as has your defense of his defense. |
29th November 2012, 10:20 AM | #484 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
|
It's objective in the same way that one can objectively measure temperature, even though temperature can change randomly. If good is what God orders, then one can always measure the goodness of something by how close it comes to God's order.
As far as what God himself is allowed to do, one has to define whatever he does as good (and of course accept that there is an actual god behind the machinery too). I think the devil's advocate view would be that that's no different than defining temperature as the variation in the speed at which molecules move (not sure if I've got that correct scientifically, but I mean defining temperature as the underlying thing being measured). Everything which follows is logical if one accepts the initial premise. One can't measure goodness without defining goodness, but once it's defined, one can measure away. Edited to clarify: all of the above is a devil's advocate argument, and not anywhere close to my personal belief I wish AvalonXQ would explain how there can be goodness outside of God, if goodness is defined as following God's instructions, because that's the part I don't understand. If we all know that certain things are wrong--genocide, punishing innocent people, etc.--and if we accept that following God's instructions is good, then God can't perform or order those things, otherwise he wouldn't be good. Yet the Bible says God did those things himself or ordered his followers to do them. Does not compute. One can either claim that certain things are always wrong, or that certain things were/are good when God orders them and bad when he prohibits them, but not both. The only way the logic holds is to define anything God does or orders as good, no matter how wrong it seems based on common sense. |
29th November 2012, 10:31 AM | #485 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
What Pup describes is logically consistent and seems to answer the title question, "No right or wrong without a higher authority" and puts God in the role of "higher" with respect to humans.
Since "higher" is relative, we can escape the heirarchy by allowing humans to alter what God sees as right and wrong. So, for example, God establishes it is right to kill X because of some offense. Man kills X. God thinks about it and sees Man doesn't appreciate having to kill X and God decides that, based on Man's feedback, He should no longer demand that sort of killing. Both get to evolve in this scheme, and the role of "higher" flips around. In a sense, Man is a measuring instrument, used by God to figure out what is currently the most moral stance. One can use this argument as a path to justify some absolute morality, in turns discovered by God and Man in the way any discovery might work. "I shall try out this activity and find out whether it is moral or not." All it requires is an indeterminate universe, something you can make compatible with God if you like. He still gets to be omniscient, omnibenevolent and all powerful, but this omniscience doesn't extend into the future, which is not yet determined. So too, what is moral isn't determined throughout time and gets discovered as we move along. |
29th November 2012, 10:33 AM | #486 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
29th November 2012, 10:41 AM | #487 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
Well, my comments relate to objective reality. Yours relate to some wild and wholly unsupported hypothetical what-if scenario. And AvalonXQ's relate to a work of fiction he molds and re-molds in his head to suit any given discussion. It's built on the delusional premise that your what-if has some basis in reality. |
29th November 2012, 10:54 AM | #488 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
29th November 2012, 11:30 AM | #489 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
|
Goodness is not just defined as following God's instructions; it's defined as taking actions consistent with absolute morality, which includes (but is not limited to) following God's instructions.
Some things can be good because they show love and compassion for others, some things can be good because they help others avoid harm, some things can be good because they transform us for the better, some things can be good because they represent obedience to God, etc. Obeying God is a component of moral behavior, but it's not more accurate to say "good depends on God" than it would be to say "good depends on this hungry child." In both cases, yes, the existence of the entity modifies what is good, but that doesn't mean that goodness itself depends on the entity. |
29th November 2012, 11:58 AM | #490 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
29th November 2012, 12:01 PM | #491 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,986
|
The problem is that God's instructions are not actually objective. You don't get an email from God saying 'Kill 5 people today' you get a book, and some preachers with multiple interpretations of it that actually feature very little in the way of direct instruction.
But temperature doesn't change randomly. It's a physical phenomenon determined by real physical things. Yes, you can define Good=whatever God wants but then we have a problem because we as humans have no way to determine what God wants. None. Where does this absolute morality come from then and what determines it? Specifically please. |
29th November 2012, 01:47 PM | #492 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
|
Okay... But what about the things that the Bible says God did, that don't seem moral to us today? In other posts, you've said that those things were meant for other people, not us, but if there is absolute morality, none of God's actions or instructions should violate it, if he's moral.
Yet there's plenty of stuff, particularly in the Old Testament, that I think most people would consider a violation of absolute morality, if they weren't conditioned to think it's moral because it's a Biblical story. For example, killing innocent babies and animals along with everyone else in a flood, because you don't like how wicked the adults are, rather than omnipotently coming up with a method of killing that spares the innocent. Even getting past the question of whether one has a right to kill a creation just because it didn't turn out right, I can't see any justification for killing innocent people and animals. Is that really objectively moral? |
30th November 2012, 04:56 AM | #493 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
|
If a constantly sinning civilization is ruining the rest of the world or it is very likely they will ruin the world in the future. And they are ruining their offspring as well, and there is no hope they will change as evidenced by multiple warnings, I think it is moral for a God who created those people and gave them free will to end that civilization for the sake of a better world for God's other people living now and in the future. If any innocent die in the process then a just God would send the innocent to heaven where they are better off than if they were not killed during the process.
|
30th November 2012, 05:01 AM | #494 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
|
|
30th November 2012, 05:05 AM | #495 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
|
|
30th November 2012, 05:12 AM | #496 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
30th November 2012, 05:21 AM | #497 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
|
|
30th November 2012, 06:33 AM | #498 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
I didn't ask for your what-if's, nor did I ask for your opinion. I asked if it was absolutely moral or absolutely immoral to kill millions. Absolutes don't need any conditions. If you have to put conditions and "I think" onto your answer, you're saying that morality isn't absolute.
Quote:
Do you see yet how you have subjective morality and simply claim that it is objective when you assign it to your fictional deity? |
30th November 2012, 06:37 AM | #499 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
Of course it is true and I'm sure you know it. That's why when you cite Bart Ehrman as believing an itinerant mortal preacher named Jesus lived, you are agreeing with him. Your dishonest tactic of bait and switch the mortal itinerant preacher with a fictional divine deity has bitten you on the behind. How many times have you cited Bart Ehrman's itinerant mortal preacher? And why do you believe that morals come from that mortal preacher? Where did morals come from before mortal itinerant preacher Jesus? Where do morals come from for people who have never heard of the mortal itinerant preacher Jesus?
|
30th November 2012, 06:40 AM | #500 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
|
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
30th November 2012, 06:58 AM | #501 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,986
|
This makes no sense. If killing the innocent leaves them better off than living then we'd should be slaughtering babies at birth.
Nor does this. God choosing not to know has no effect on free will whatsoever. If God could know the outcome but chooses not to then the outcome is still knowable and hence the same issues with free will apply. |
30th November 2012, 08:31 AM | #502 |
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
|
Wait, you are claiming in the same sentence that God gave people free will, but the offspring of those "evil" people are guaranteed to grow up to be evil, so it is better to kill them now? Holy contradiction, Batman! I seem to remember something about some Law of Non-Contradiction... |
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon |
|
30th November 2012, 08:43 AM | #503 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
30th November 2012, 09:53 AM | #504 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,986
|
|
30th November 2012, 11:13 AM | #505 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
30th November 2012, 12:55 PM | #506 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
|
|
30th November 2012, 01:13 PM | #507 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
30th November 2012, 01:24 PM | #508 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,986
|
|
30th November 2012, 02:11 PM | #509 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
It means objective morality is arbitrary and isn't really objective at all. When AvalonXQ uses the word "objective", it means something quite different than it does when normal English speaking people use it. It's being used in a, shall we say, less than honest way, to try to salvage a failed argument. But the persistent effort to make it work, although unsuccessful, is somewhat amusing. |
30th November 2012, 02:31 PM | #510 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
|
30th November 2012, 06:18 PM | #511 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
30th November 2012, 06:22 PM | #512 |
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
|
Christians aren't moral. Therefore believing in their god doesn't impart morality.
|
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse. World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid. |
|
30th November 2012, 06:48 PM | #513 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
|
|
30th November 2012, 06:52 PM | #514 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
30th November 2012, 06:53 PM | #515 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
deleted
|
30th November 2012, 07:03 PM | #516 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
|
|
30th November 2012, 07:08 PM | #517 |
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
|
God is irrelevant to everything.
|
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse. World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid. |
|
1st December 2012, 02:28 AM | #518 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
That the objective morality that you're proposing may or may not be deducible from our natures has nothing to do with whether it's arbitrary or not. I say this without meaning to imply that you definitely stated that such was the case, though. Either way, by the looks of it, you very much seem to be holding onto one of the more popular, if failing, Christian attempts to try to get around Euthyphro's Dilemma. It seems that the objective morality you speak of is very much dependent on the arbitrary rulings of an authority and the authority's use of power to enforce them. That your position may be that the authority is not arbitrarily changing it at a whim does not, in any way, change how arbitrary the origin and nature of it is. Either way, this does contradict concepts you presented earlier in the thread which rest quite firmly on the other horn of the dilemma, unless I'm mistaking something quite badly here.
|
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
1st December 2012, 03:10 AM | #519 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
1st December 2012, 05:07 AM | #520 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,986
|
Which sounds very different to something that is objective and hard-wired into the universe that God created.
The universe is billions of years old and morality significantly less so given that humans have only been reasoning and decision-making for a tiny proportion of that age. This sentence above though doesn't actually specify that we can deduce morality from our natures but merely that morality means nothing without decision-making individuals cable of acting morally. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|