Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 3:38 AM
18 online now:
Meddle, Tangle (2 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,983 Year: 9,019/19,786 Month: 1,441/2,119 Week: 201/576 Day: 4/98 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
14151617
18
19Next
Author Topic:   Moral Argument for God
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 279 (227998)
07-30-2005 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Hangdawg13
07-29-2005 2:20 PM


Re: feelings vs. logic
But what I have found in Christianity and recently Buddhism has brought everything together. So because of this and because I trust in some other things, I can have faith in these mysterious absolutes and there is no disconnect between what I feel and what I think.

Yeah, but no evidence. Just feelings. Not that I don't respect your moral feelings. I do respect them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-29-2005 2:20 PM Hangdawg13 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-31-2005 3:24 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

  
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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by crashfrog, posted 07-31-2005 8:57 AM General Nazort has responded
 Message 259 by PaulK, posted 07-31-2005 9:22 AM General Nazort has responded
 Message 260 by Yaro, posted 07-31-2005 2:27 PM General Nazort has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 258 of 279 (228054)
07-31-2005 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by General Nazort
07-30-2005 11:47 PM


There is a third option:

No, that's still the first option: it is good because God commands it. Furthermore its nonsense to suggest that an objective standard can be internal to God; either its objective, or internal, but not both.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by General Nazort, posted 07-30-2005 11:47 PM General Nazort has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by General Nazort, posted 08-01-2005 12:36 AM crashfrog has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15037
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 259 of 279 (228057)
07-31-2005 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by General Nazort
07-30-2005 11:47 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by General Nazort, posted 07-30-2005 11:47 PM General Nazort has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by General Nazort, posted 08-01-2005 12:42 AM PaulK has responded

    
Yaro
Member (Idle past 4660 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 260 of 279 (228115)
07-31-2005 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by General Nazort
07-30-2005 11:47 PM


Crash and PailK had good responses, I would also like to comment on the immutable character of god.

If God can change his mind, be swayd by human actions, be called upon in prayer, how can his character be immutable?

Further, it makes no difference if the morality is rooted in gods "immutable character" putting it there still makes the standard subjective, that is, subjective to gods character.

This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-31-2005 02:27 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by General Nazort, posted 07-30-2005 11:47 PM General Nazort has not yet responded

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 3070 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 261 of 279 (228141)
07-31-2005 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by robinrohan
07-30-2005 10:51 PM


Re: feelings vs. logic
Thanks for your reply.

Yeah, but no evidence. Just feelings.

That's why its always faith. Even if my eyes were opened and I saw a miracle, it would still be faith. Even if I were face to face with God, it would still be faith. Any time we except anything to be absolutely true, it is faith. We can all go up and feel the bark of a tree and accept it to be real, but this is faith that what we are feeling is real. Most of us do the same with right and wrong without even thinking. We just accept it as real because we feel it. There is no logical reason any of it must be real or true because all logic is based on presuppositions that are accepted by faith.

Is there anything inherently virtuous or superior about living life without faith? Does it really make sense that in the interest of finding Truth, we should ensure that this will never happen by having faith in no Truth?

Neway... I'm rambling off topic now...

Not that I don't respect your moral feelings. I do respect them.

No, I understand completely where you're coming from, and that's fine. I really have enjoyed your comments here as it seems you are the only one who understands completely what I am saying.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by robinrohan, posted 07-30-2005 10:51 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

    
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 3070 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 262 of 279 (228143)
07-31-2005 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Yaro
07-30-2005 1:08 AM


As living concious beings we are capable of giving the world and our lives purpose. In a sense it's the same attribute you give to the god you belive in.

I believe that you are right here. We are like gods in this sense, but if no One Mind exists, of which we are apart, then what are we? We are an illusion. We are many mindless processes serving to create an illusion manufacturing machine. But then there's the question, if no one is there to be decieved, illusion is a meaningless term.

My point is that by losing a source of reality you cut your own throat and your own ability to add purpose and meaning as this is a supernatural thing. We must trace meaning and purpose back to a source. If we are the source, we must ask what are we? To which we can come up with a naturalistic answer which begins with no Mind. If there is God as the source, then we can either trace it back to us and view each of us as a gateway into this Mind of God, or take the naturalistic route back to the source of reality which IS the Mind of God.

I hope that made sense... gotta go to work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Yaro, posted 07-30-2005 1:08 AM Yaro has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by ramoss, posted 07-31-2005 4:25 PM Hangdawg13 has not yet responded
 Message 268 by crashfrog, posted 08-01-2005 7:31 AM Hangdawg13 has not yet responded

    
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3110
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 263 of 279 (228148)
07-31-2005 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Hangdawg13
07-31-2005 3:32 PM


Actually, no it doesn't. It is the exact opposite of it being sense.

The assumptions are you making are very circular, and , totally unneded as far as I am concerned.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-31-2005 3:32 PM Hangdawg13 has not yet responded

  
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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by crashfrog, posted 08-01-2005 7:28 AM General Nazort has responded

  
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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2005 3:37 AM General Nazort has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15037
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 266 of 279 (228322)
08-01-2005 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by General Nazort
08-01-2005 12:42 AM


Re: No Third Option
quote:

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.


To avoid the infinite regress you need to give a foundation - what you call "an irreducible primitive concept". However by resorting to intuition you simply evade saying what that concept actually refers to. Because intuition is subjective it cannot be the actual foundation of an objective morality.

Thus you only avoid the dilemma by evading the question - not by providing a genuine resolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by General Nazort, posted 08-01-2005 12:42 AM General Nazort has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by General Nazort, posted 08-01-2005 11:07 AM PaulK has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 279 (228351)
08-01-2005 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by General Nazort
08-01-2005 12:36 AM


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.

Thus, it is good because God commands it. Like I said, it's the first option.

How so?

Because it can't be arbitrary and yet be objective. For instance - if God did not exist, would that standard of good and bad still exist?

Did you read the link I posted earlier?

It didn't seem worthwhile, based on the nonsense that you quoted from it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by General Nazort, posted 08-01-2005 12:36 AM General Nazort has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by General Nazort, posted 08-01-2005 11:04 AM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 268 of 279 (228353)
08-01-2005 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Hangdawg13
07-31-2005 3:32 PM


We must trace meaning and purpose back to a source.

Why? Meaning and purpose are merely concepts that exist in our heads. They don't come from any external source. There's no requirement to "trace" them to a source, any more than we're required to trace daydreams to a source.

If I see a cloud that looks like a rabbit, it has that meaning. But that meaning has no source other than myself, just like daydreams.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-31-2005 3:32 PM Hangdawg13 has not yet responded

  
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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by crashfrog, posted 08-01-2005 10:33 PM General Nazort has responded

  
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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2005 12:15 PM General Nazort has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
14151617
18
19Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019