What do Dems Have Besides Doom and Gloom?

[Roy]

Rush Limbaugh has often observed that he's yet to meet a liberal who is genuinely happy and satisfied with his life.

Possible reason: meeting Rush Limbaugh makes liberals unhappy.

[Charles]

To answer your supposed "paradox" about the nature of goodness, the answer is simple: "good" is simply that which aligns with the character and nature of God. To put it another way, God is the personification of goodness. It is not something he chooses to define or a standard against which he is measured. Rather, he is the standard.

I will agree with you that this answer is simple. It is question begging as well, and in the version you provide here it lacks any sort of reasoning apart from "thinking" along the lines of "this is just what we do".

You ask about "meaning", but I never mentioned it. Even if you and I could agree on a definition of such an ambiguous term, the issue is that if atheism is true then it doesn't matter. If science has gotten it right, then on a cosmic time scale, humanity has only existed for a fraction of a second and will be gone in another fraction of a second. If there is no God, then what you and I do won't make a bit of difference as far as the universe is concerned, so what rational reason is there to care about the consequences of what happens after we're gone? "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die."

Again. You presuppose that purpose of life can only exist in an eternal perspective. I challenged you on that and now you are just repeating yourself while not adressing the points and questions.

The only counter to this is to declare that humans have some sort of inherent value that is worth protecting, but atheist/agnostics don't have that escape hatch. If all things that exist are nothing more than the end result of a cosmic accident, then you and I have no more value than the ant we crush under our feet without a second thought. This isn't a begged question, it is the logical conclusion of the atheistic/agnostic worldview.

That is actually question begging because it is based on the very statements you have made upon what values right and wrong are founded. So far you have made question begging statements and repeated yourself when challenged.

Again this has al been a great demonstratin of what Mill said: "And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question."

You are stuck in a particular, simplified view on reality, in which meaning things have to be eternal in order to hold value. You have not been able to support that statement. You are stuck in the question begging idea that only God can provide value to human life and that the only alternative is that our value would be determined by our history of evolution.

[seer]

And, like I have pointed out numerous times it remains, even among Christians, a challenging question if "good" is good because God says so (and then anything could be good) or if it is good independently on what God says (and then we don't need God to establish what is good).

Nonsense, since good is grounded in God's immutable character then "anything" can not be good. God by nature is truthful, He can not lie for instance, therefore lying is immoral. So morality is neither arbitrary nor does it exist independently of God.

That was a second simplified version of atheism and a rather question begging approach in which we are seemingly to take for granted that value can only be described or ordained by god, that the history of life equals the value of life, that life needs to be endless in order for it to bear a meaning and the like.

No you need God for any universal or transcendent ground of human value. If not value is person subjective. You value what you do, the Communist what they do, the Hutu what they do. No position is more correct or right than another.

[Watermelon]

Nonsense, since good is grounded in God's immutable character then "anything" can not be good. God by nature is truthful, He can not lie for instance, therefore lying is immoral. So morality is neither arbitrary nor does it exist independently of God.

[Charles]

Nonsense, since good is grounded in God's immutable character then "anything" can not be good. God by nature is truthful, He can not lie for instance, therefore lying is immoral. So morality is neither arbitrary nor does it exist independently of God.[...]

This claim has been made numerous times with no arguments at all to support it. Apart from the fact that it is convenient for you to think this is the case what reasons or proof have you got in order to make it more than just an unsupported claim?

[lilpixieofterror]

Google is a thing.

So all you have is campaign slogans. Got it.

[Watermelon]

To answer your supposed "paradox" about the nature of goodness, the answer is simple: "good" is simply that which aligns with the character and nature of God. To put it another way, God is the personification of goodness. It is not something he chooses to define or a standard against which he is measured. Rather, he is the standard.

You ask about "meaning", but I never mentioned it. Even if you and I could agree on a definition of such an ambiguous term, the issue is that if atheism is true then it doesn't matter. If science has gotten it right, then on a cosmic time scale, humanity has only existed for a fraction of a second and will be gone in another fraction of a second. If there is no God, then what you and I do won't make a bit of difference as far as the universe is concerned, so what rational reason is there to care about the consequences of what happens after we're gone? "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die."

The only counter to this is to declare that humans have some sort of inherent value that is worth protecting, but atheist/agnostics don't have that escape hatch. If all things that exist are nothing more than the end result of a cosmic accident, then you and I have no more value than the ant we crush under our feet without a second thought. This isn't a begged question, it is the logical conclusion of the atheistic/agnostic worldview.

[seer]

How can an eternal, immutable moral character be arbitrary? If that is arbitrary can you name something that is non-arbitrary?

[seer]

This claim has been made numerous times with no arguments at all to support it. Apart from the fact that it is convenient for you to think this is the case what reasons or proof have you got in order to make it more than just an unsupported claim?

What are you taking about? Are you suggesting that we don't believe God's being is immutable, that is not a Christian belief? So Euthyphro dilemma does not hold.

[Charles]

What are you taking about? Are you suggesting that we don't believe God's being is immutable, that is not a Christian belief? So Euthyphro dilemma does not hold.

I am talking about the fact that you make statements about reality and God with nothing to support them. Seems that simple point is hard to understand for you and MM who also seems to think he can just define his way out of the problem with no proof or reason to support it.

[lilpixieofterror]

I am talking about the fact that you make statements about reality and God with nothing to support them. Seems that simple point is hard to understand for you and MM who also seems to think he can just define his way out of the problem with no proof or reason to support it.

[Charles]

They have not provided reasons but just made claims. If you find my lack of willingness to just take someone's word for it to be a lack understanding if theology I think that says a lot.

Hint: study the Christian philosophers and you will find that they have all sorts of views with regard to this. Leibniz would be good for you to start with, then perhaps Kierkegaard....

[Sparko]

And yet you have provided none. Why?

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

[Sparko]

Unsupported claims all over. Seems you are happy with unsupported claims.

Please support this claim with sources and footnotes to scientific papers supporting those sources. Thanks.

[Sparko]

Not so much.



The article was about the Dems that may hold similar opinions, Jesse.



Is that helpful?



Ya know, it's interesting... everybody else but Charles appears to have accepted the premise, or at least - not opposed it.

Charles is lucky to have a standup guy like you to defend him.

Chuck isn't interested in sources. He is just using a troll tactic to derail the thread and drag you down a rabbit hole. But, hey, he seems to have successfully trolled MM, LPOT and others into derailing the thread so I guess he is happy now anyway. Just kick him out of the thread.