|
Author
|
Topic: Moral Argument for God
|
General Nazort
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 218 of 279 (227324)
07-29-2005 11:46 AM
|
Reply to: Message 198 by Yaro
07-28-2005 1:32 AM
|
|
Another morality system
Yaro's definition of morality is:
a) Minimizing harm b) Benifiting the whole If you caused harm to others and compromised social order fullfiling your need, you are being imoral. Here is mine: a) Maximizing harm b) Hurting the whole If you didn't harm others and if you helped the social order, you are being immoral. This is objective. If everyone shot each other we would kill ourselves off. I call this right. Why is it right? Because it's harmful for humans. That simple. My premises are not subjective, they are based on observation. Murder is an objective thing, death is objective. It is an objective fact that lots of murder means lots of dead people. It is an objective fact that lots of dead folks isn't too good for a species. That's what those premesies are based on. That's where my definitions of 'good' and 'bad' come from - 'good' is what harms the species, 'bad' is what helps it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 198 by Yaro, posted 07-28-2005 1:32 AM | | Yaro has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 220 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2005 12:04 PM | | General Nazort has replied |
|
General Nazort
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 237 of 279 (227477)
07-29-2005 3:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 220 by PaulK
07-29-2005 12:04 PM
|
|
Re: Another morality system
Or are you just another Christian against morality, who seeks only to knock down other concepts of morality without having anything better to offer ? Are you saying there is a better moral system than my system of harm and destruction?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 220 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2005 12:04 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 239 by Yaro, posted 07-29-2005 4:05 PM | | General Nazort has replied | | | Message 255 by PaulK, posted 07-30-2005 2:32 PM | | General Nazort has not replied |
|
General Nazort
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 240 of 279 (227505)
07-29-2005 4:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 239 by Yaro
07-29-2005 4:05 PM
|
|
Re: Another morality system
Yes, the one based on our inborn social/survival instincts. Your system of harm and destruction is not compatible with that and would ultimately be to the detriment of society and the species. True, my system would be hard to follow since most of our instincts would be against it. But one must do ones best to do what is right, even if our instincts are against it. Oh yes, it would be to the detriment of society and the species. And that would be a good thing! Remember - 'good' is what harms the species, 'bad' is what helps it.
The majority of people would not tolerate your system, and thus it is not likely to find a foothold in socitey (at least not very long). Most people like to be happy, and they recoil from pain. Your system dosn't apeal to this and therefore will largely be regarded as unacceptable. This is irrelevant to the issue of which moral system is better. Logical fallacy - appealing to the majority.
Remember, 'bad' is like 'cyanide is bad for my health'. 'good' is like 'oil is good for my car'. Only according to your moral system. In MY moral system something that hurts your health is good, and something that helps my car run is bad. The question remains, why is your system better than mine?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 239 by Yaro, posted 07-29-2005 4:05 PM | | Yaro has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 241 by Yaro, posted 07-29-2005 4:52 PM | | General Nazort has replied |
|
General Nazort
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 243 of 279 (227575)
07-29-2005 7:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 241 by Yaro
07-29-2005 4:52 PM
|
|
Re: Another morality system
In this case its not. Im not saying it's intrinsicaly better, just that it wouldnt work. i.e. your system is impractical and unhealthy. I agree.
I have already explained in previous posts that I don't subscribe to an idea of a transcendent 'undefinable' good. Fair enough.
Its not trancendantly bad, but it is bad for humans and generaly disagreable to them. Cyanide will never make a good breakfast. I agree, as long as it is bad in a survival sense and not in a moral sense.
My system is only better in the sense that it is conducive to the continuation of the species and yours is not. Sort of. The way you use the word 'better' makes me think that you are saying that it is 'better' for the species to survive than for the species to die out, which you cannot justify at all according to your beliefs. However I think what you meant was that your system is better only at creating conditions which lead to survival, and not in the moral sense. I say that you cannot justify that it is better for the species to survive according to your beliefs, because I think that, according to my beliefs, your system is better, both in a survival and in a moral sense. How can I claim your system is better in the moral sense? By comparing it to a third system. This third system is the absolute morality that is the very nature of God, the transcendent and eternal Good in which you do not believe. Your system comes closer to the absolute morality than my hypothetical system, and thus your system is better than mine. In this way I can claim that your system is morally better, but you cannot make the same claim unless you believe in a transcendent, objective Good as well.
The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys. -C.S. Lewis
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 241 by Yaro, posted 07-29-2005 4:52 PM | | Yaro has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 244 by Yaro, posted 07-29-2005 8:11 PM | | General Nazort has replied |
|
General Nazort
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 252 of 279 (227662)
07-30-2005 1:40 AM
|
Reply to: Message 244 by Yaro
07-29-2005 8:11 PM
|
|
Re: Another morality system
Well, objectively I can say its better for survivle, subjectively I can say it's good in a moral sense. Morals relate to my personal emotional reactions to the system. What's better for me and my family, makes me 'feel' (in a broad sense) good and thus makes me want to continue those conditions. So in a subjective sense, I can say it's moral. I agree - it is moral subject to your arbitrary definition of morality.
You could do that, but you would also be applying a subjective reason for declaring the system moral. No, I am applying the most objective thing in or out of the universe.
"I am moral cuz it makes me feel good." "I am moral for the sake of those I love." "I am moral cuz it allows me to live a better life." "I am moral because I don't want to go to jail" "I am moral because I belive in Zeus" "I am moral because I belive in pink unicorns" OR "I am moral because I belivce in the christian god" See what I mean? In the end you are choosing emotion as well. I see what you mean but the logic doesn't work. First of all, we are dicussing not why people are moral but what morality is. God's nature IS the source of morality. His nature is the ultimate Good of the universe. As Hangdawg said, "God is the very core and source of reality, life, truth." He is the only constant, unchanging, eternal thing that has ever existed and thus is the ultimate standard to which we compare everything else. It is not subjective to base morality on God - it is the only thing to base it upon that is not subjective.
The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys. -C.S. Lewis
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 244 by Yaro, posted 07-29-2005 8:11 PM | | Yaro has not replied |
|
General Nazort
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 253 of 279 (227663)
07-30-2005 1:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 251 by Yaro
07-30-2005 1:08 AM
|
|
Zeus is the source of all reality, life, and truth. Vishnu is the source of all reality, life, and truth. Really, I don't see a difference. Do you have proof that your god is the source of reality, life, and truth? We have evidence but I'd rather not get into it right now - getting late. So ignoring the question of whether such a God exists, do you at least see how such a God would provides the only objective standard for morality?
The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys. -C.S. Lewis
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 251 by Yaro, posted 07-30-2005 1:08 AM | | Yaro has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 254 by Yaro, posted 07-30-2005 9:52 AM | | General Nazort has replied |
|
General Nazort
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 257 of 279 (228012)
07-30-2005 11:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 254 by Yaro
07-30-2005 9:52 AM
|
|
PaulK said this earlier in the thread: "Is an act good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good ?" Ah yes, Euthyphro's Dilemma. I say it is a false dilemma. There is a third option:
The third option is that an objective standard exists (this avoids the first horn of the dilemma). However, the standard is not external to God, but internal (avoiding the second horn). Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness. To read more go here
The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys. -C.S. Lewis
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 254 by Yaro, posted 07-30-2005 9:52 AM | | Yaro has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 258 by crashfrog, posted 07-31-2005 8:57 AM | | General Nazort has replied | | | Message 259 by PaulK, posted 07-31-2005 9:22 AM | | General Nazort has replied | | | Message 260 by Yaro, posted 07-31-2005 2:27 PM | | General Nazort has not replied |
|
General Nazort
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 264 of 279 (228281)
08-01-2005 12:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 258 by crashfrog
07-31-2005 8:57 AM
|
|
No, that's still the first option: it is good because God commands it. No, its not. God commands it because it is good, and it is good not because of some Good that is higher than God but because the very nature of God IS good.
Furthermore its nonsense to suggest that an objective standard can be internal to God; either its objective, or internal, but not both. How so? Objective means "Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices" - God's emotions, being perfectly holy and good, cannot influence the moral standard rooted in his nature. Did you read the link I posted earlier?
The LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 258 by crashfrog, posted 07-31-2005 8:57 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 267 by crashfrog, posted 08-01-2005 7:28 AM | | General Nazort has replied |
|
General Nazort
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 265 of 279 (228282)
08-01-2005 12:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 259 by PaulK
07-31-2005 9:22 AM
|
|
Re: No Third Option
Either you judge God's nature to be good because it is God's or there is some external standard by which God can be judged "good". So we come back to the same dilemma. One must eventually say that God's nature is judged to be good by intuition:
Regardless of how one grounds the concept of goodness, another could always ask, "But what makes that notion good?" To avoid a vicious regress, one must eventually appeal to some irreducible, primitive concept known by intuition. This avoids both horns of the dilemma.
The LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 259 by PaulK, posted 07-31-2005 9:22 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 266 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2005 3:37 AM | | General Nazort has replied |
|
General Nazort
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 269 of 279 (228418)
08-01-2005 11:04 AM
|
Reply to: Message 267 by crashfrog
08-01-2005 7:28 AM
|
|
Thus, it is good because God commands it. Like I said, it's the first option. No, its NOT good because God commands it. If God had not commanded us to do good, good would still be good. The commanding has nothing to do with the making of good.
Because it can't be arbitrary and yet be objective. True. God is not arbitrary.
For instance - if God did not exist, would that standard of good and bad still exist? No it would not exist. Nothing would exist. That doesn't make it arbitrary.
The LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 267 by crashfrog, posted 08-01-2005 7:28 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 272 by crashfrog, posted 08-01-2005 10:33 PM | | General Nazort has replied |
|
General Nazort
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 270 of 279 (228419)
08-01-2005 11:07 AM
|
Reply to: Message 266 by PaulK
08-01-2005 3:37 AM
|
|
Re: No Third Option
If you think about it you need intuition in order to form the basis of ANY knowledge. For example, how do you know that you see these words?
The LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 266 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2005 3:37 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 271 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2005 12:15 PM | | General Nazort has replied |
|
General Nazort
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 273 of 279 (228640)
08-01-2005 11:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 271 by PaulK
08-01-2005 12:15 PM
|
|
Re: No Third Option
You're confusing ontology and epistemology. The question is not how we know what is moral (epistemology) but what is the foundation of morality (ontology). You are right - I am going beyond the basic scope of what I am trying to prove. For the sake of my argument, let us assume that God is in fact good. With this assumption do you see how the two horns of the dilemma can be avoided? The first horn is avoided because a good God would be definition only command what is good. The second horn is avoided because there is no "higher" goodness by which we judge God to be good - we simply assume that God's nature is already good, and thus there is nothing "higher" than God to conflict with the view that God is the highest power in existence.
The LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 271 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2005 12:15 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 275 by PaulK, posted 08-02-2005 2:35 AM | | General Nazort has not replied |
|
General Nazort
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 274 of 279 (228641)
08-01-2005 11:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 272 by crashfrog
08-01-2005 10:33 PM
|
|
Right. It's an objective standard that exists outside of God. Second option. No, it does not exist outside of God, it is not the second option. That is what I have been trying to say the whole time. Let me try again. *Option 1: Good is whatever God says it is. *Option 1 Problem: The problem with this is that good is subject to the whims of however god defines it. *Option 2: The source of good is some "higher power" to which God is subject. *Option 2 Problem: The problem with this is that God is supposed to be the highest power in existence. If there is some higher power, perhaps THAT should be called God instead. *Option 3: The source of good is the nature of God himself. *Option 3 resolution of Option 1 Problem: Since God cannot change his nature, and his nature is good, by definition he will always declare a constant, good, moral system. It will not be subject to whims and change. *Option 3 resolution of Option 2 Problem: There is no "higher power" that is over God, and God remains the highest power in existence.
The LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 272 by crashfrog, posted 08-01-2005 10:33 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 276 by crashfrog, posted 08-02-2005 7:09 AM | | General Nazort has replied |
|
General Nazort
Inactive Member
|
Hey, I'm back from vacation.
Your problem is that your arguments logically neccessitate a completely different conclusion than the one you arrive at, which is what I'm trying to show you. Of course, if we're going to do this, then we need to first agree that words actually have meanings. Do you agree? Yes...
But there is - his own nature, which apparently he cannot change. That nature is apparently a higher power over God. I would venture to say that that nature IS God, not a higher power. God remains the highest power in existence.
The LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 276 by crashfrog, posted 08-02-2005 7:09 AM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2