What do Dems Have Besides Doom and Gloom?

[rogue06]

Cause and effect, CP. The dismanteling of democracy from the inside is the cause of the all consuming hate. I understand you don't see that, see what Trump is doing, but that's because you're not looking. Either that, or you're all for it.

The only problem is that the all consuming hatred started before Trump was even elected much less do anything.

The all-consuming hatred has merely sought rationalization for itself and in your case clearly hasn't thought anything through.

[Cow Poke]

The only problem is that the all consuming hatred started before Trump was even elected much less do anything.

The all-consuming hatred has merely sought rationalization for itself and in your case clearly hasn't thought anything through.

That, sir, is cause and effect. The all-consuming hate causes them to see pretty much ANYTHING Trump does as pure evil.

[Charles]

One example will suffice. You said:

"You seemingly do not want to talk about meaning and purpose, yet still want to maintain they can only exist in some eternal perspective."

I neither said nor implied this. You accuse me of begging the question, but you can't even present my argument correctly.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that atheism is true and further assume that you and I agree on what "meaning and purpose" means within the framework of atheism. We could even state for the sake of argument that "meaning and purpose" in an atheistic universe objectively exists as a brute fact of nature like physical laws. It really doesn't matter. My question: What rational reason is there to care about "meaning and purpose" if the whole of human history will be wiped from existence in the blink of a cosmic eye? Do you have an answer? Or will it just be more questions and thinly veiled insults?

And this, once again, shows exactly why your line of "reasoning" is question begging. You return to the same idea over and over that: My question: "What rational reason is there to care about "meaning and purpose" if the whole of human history will be wiped from existence in the blink of a cosmic eye?"

The question, as I have pointed out, presupposes, that it is challenging if we cannot see things in an etarnal perspective. If not you would not continue to ask it. I have absolutely no problem in finding meaning in a given moment, taking care of my children, doing what I know is right towards others and the like while also knowing, that neither I nor they will remember this particular moment for ever or maybe in a weeks time. Using the time you have got for something particular that you know is right, treating other people right, help them when they are suffering is full of meaning no matter whether we will live forever or not. Now, personally, I do belive I will exist way beyond this life, but that is not what we are discussing right now.

So, to repeat, the fact that you think your question even challenges meaning shows just how stuck you are in a particular understanding of things.

So, you repeated your question begging approach, and you still failed to reply my question with regard to how an eternal perspective coulld take away the significance of a given moment. Since I have got forever, who cares what I am doing right now? And, as human beings, religious or not, we spend most of our time doing practical timely stuff. Is that more or less meaningful because of the idea we will exist forever?

[Charles]

But the issue isn't whether you believe or trust these claims or not. The Euthyphro Dilemma claims that there are only two possibilities when it comes to God and morality, and that you have to choose one or the other, and regardless of which possibility you choose it's consequences are problematic for the Christian view of objective morality and the nature of God.

So when we raise the possibility that morality is grounded in God's immutable nature the point isn't that you're supposed to accept that it's a reality. Obviously we believe that it's true (or atleast a great deal of Christian's believe it's true), but that's not the point. The point is simply to show that the dilemma is false, and that there are other options beside the ones that the euthyphro dilemma gives us. And there is no reason for us to accept either of the options presented to us via the dilemma, rather than a third option, such as the above possibility that morality is grounded in the immutable nature of God.

And it ends where I started, when you say: "And there is no reason for us to accept either of the options presented to us via the dilemma, rather than a third option, such as the above possibility that morality is grounded in the immutable nature of God."

I am asking you to give us any reason to accept the "third option". I have done so repeatedly, and all I have recieved are the same definition over and over. And, of course it follows that if you cannot give any reason to support the "third option" you are concluding you have find your way out of the dilemma with no reason at all to think what you are saying is actually right. It is rather just convenient.

[Charles]

None of what Leibniz writes here is in disagreement with the position that a number of people here have taken, namely that morality is grounded in God's nature. Leibniz is arguing against the position that the good is good because God chooses, or wills the good. But that's not the position that we have been presenting here.

Leibniz says that God's choices can't be the reason for the goodness of things, and I agree with him. But on the position that the good is grounded in God's nature, God's nature is exactly "a reason that naturally precedes the act so that God’s choices must come from his reasons for them".

Short story even shorter, Leibniz does not state anything here that is in conflict with the view that morality is grounded in God's nature.

Sometimes short stories miss important details or simply fail to give a fair account of what actually is the case.

Discourse on Metaphysics of course deals with the matter in more than the few quotes I provided in that particular context. If you know a bit about Leibniz you will not be surprised to see that his idea is that it is through reason that not only we (human beings) but also God find what is good. He is talking about reason not nature when it comes to this. We are talking about intellect not nature.

Furthermore, if you say as Descartes did that things are good not because they match up to objective standards of goodness

Though God has an intrinsic nature, according to Leibniz, rules about goodness are brought about rather by his understanding.

So, instead of having recourse to an absolute and arbitrary decree that is unreasonable because there are no reasons for it, or to reasons that fail to resolve the difficulty because they need reasons in their turn, it would be best to say in agreement with St. Paul that there are certain great reasons for God's choices, reasons of wisdom or of fitness that are unknown to mortals; God has conformed to these reasons, which are founded on the general order whose aim is the greatest perfection of the universe.

So, currently, it seems we have two at least two discussions going:

1) Does the question of whether good arrives independently of God's will arise among Christians
2) Does Leibniz agree with you that good is grounded in God's nature.

1) Given that one of the most important philosophers in history dealt with the issue it certainly has been a question. Given that I have heard it discussed in many Christian communities, it certainly has not been answered ot everone's satisfaction. Your own post seems to allow for that since you do not to to the length of saying all Christians would agree. Furthermore, as noted elsewhere, your reasons to claim that morality is grounded in God's nature, and your reason to hold that particular view remains unknown and you have not given us particular reasons to prefer it among the other possible positions one could hold.

2) Leibniz does not refer to nature but to "reason". As has been seen elsewhere reasons precedees a particular act if it has to be praiseworthy. You said: "But on the position that the good is grounded in God's nature, God's nature is exactly "a reason that naturally precedes the act so that God’s choices must come from his reasons for them"." I don't see Leibniz refering to it in that sort of way when constantly talking about reason instead of nature and of objective standards stressing the fact that it could not be different. He talks about "the eternal truths of metaphysics and geometry, and therefore also the rules of goodness, justice, and perfection" and places it in the context of objective standards and reason.

[Charles]

That, sir, is cause and effect. The all-consuming hate causes them to see pretty much ANYTHING Trump does as pure evil.

That, sir, is a rather revealing statement to make in a thread called: "What do Dems Have Besides Doom and Gloom?"

[seer]

And it ends where I started, when you say: "And there is no reason for us to accept either of the options presented to us via the dilemma, rather than a third option, such as the above possibility that morality is grounded in the immutable nature of God."

I am asking you to give us any reason to accept the "third option". I have done so repeatedly, and all I have recieved are the same definition over and over. And, of course it follows that if you cannot give any reason to support the "third option" you are concluding you have find your way out of the dilemma with no reason at all to think what you are saying is actually right. It is rather just convenient.

Again Charles, it is not merely a convenience. It has a Biblical pedigree. For instance Hebrews 6:18, "God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged."

Believers did not write this (or the texts bellow) simple to avoid a dilemma.

[Charles]

Again Charles, it is not merely a convenience. It has a Biblical pedigree. For instance Hebrews 6:18, "God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged."

Believers did not write this (or the texts bellow) simple to avoid a dilemma.

And how, exactly, does that show that morality is grounded in the immutable nature of God?

[Charles]

[...] We could even state for the sake of argument that "meaning and purpose" in an atheistic universe objectively exists as a brute fact of nature like physical laws. It really doesn't matter.[...]

So, if I get this right, you are saying that even if something objectively exists, it doesn't matter? Seems pretty question begging to me.

And why would "meaning and purpose" exist like a "brute force of nature"? Is that, seriously, the only way you see they could exist in, or are you simply placing them there becasue it perfectly fits the narrative that it will all end with the end of the universe and thus you wont have to consider the idea that things could have meaning and purpose in the very time and space in which they take place? Again, it seems pretty question begging to me.

[JonathanL]

And it ends where I started, when you say: "And there is no reason for us to accept either of the options presented to us via the dilemma, rather than a third option, such as the above possibility that morality is grounded in the immutable nature of God."

I am asking you to give us any reason to accept the "third option". I have done so repeatedly, and all I have recieved are the same definition over and over. And, of course it follows that if you cannot give any reason to support the "third option" you are concluding you have find your way out of the dilemma with no reason at all to think what you are saying is actually right. It is rather just convenient.

And again, there is no need for me to give you any reasons to accept the third option. That was never what the Euthyphro dilemma was about. If someone gives you two possibilities, and tell you that they are the only two that exist, the only thing you need to do to defeat the dilemma is to show that there are other possibilities. There is no need to try and convince anyone that the third possibility is actually the right one, because merely by showing that there are other possibilities beyond the two presented in the dilemma, the dilemma has been rendered toothless.

[Cow Poke]

That, sir, is a rather revealing statement to make in a thread called: "What do Dems Have Besides Doom and Gloom?"

Perhaps you and your backpatter missed the part where the guy flat out admitted his "all-consuming hate"....

Well, yeah, I'm disgusted with a whole lot of what Trump says, but it is not "all-consuming", which is what my brudder actually said.

Some of us can post a whole lot of things and start threads that don't focus on Trump, or derail threads with all-consuming hatred of Trump.

Well, it is pretty much all consuming for me, rational, and all consuming. I happen to care very much about democracy and holding on to it.

[Cow Poke]

And again, there is no need for me to give you any reasons to accept the third option. That was never what the Euthyphro dilemma was about. If someone gives you two possibilities, and tell you that they are the only two that exist, the only thing you need to do to defeat the dilemma is to show that there are other possibilities. There is no need to try and convince anyone that the third possibility is actually the right one, because merely by showing that there are other possibilities beyond the two presented in the dilemma, the dilemma has been rendered toothless.

That makes WAY too much sense.

[JonathanL]

Sometimes short stories miss important details or simply fail to give a fair account of what actually is the case.

Discourse on Metaphysics of course deals with the matter in more than the few quotes I provided in that particular context. If you know a bit about Leibniz you will not be surprised to see that his idea is that it is through reason that not only we (human beings) but also God find what is good. He is talking about reason not nature when it comes to this. We are talking about intellect not nature.



Though God has an intrinsic nature, according to Leibniz, rules about goodness are brought about rather by his understanding.





So, currently, it seems we have two at least two discussions going:

1) Does the question of whether good arrives independently of God's will arise among Christians
2) Does Leibniz agree with you that good is grounded in God's nature.

1) Given that one of the most important philosophers in history dealt with the issue it certainly has been a question. Given that I have heard it discussed in many Christian communities, it certainly has not been answered ot everone's satisfaction. Your own post seems to allow for that since you do not to to the length of saying all Christians would agree. Furthermore, as noted elsewhere, your reasons to claim that morality is grounded in God's nature, and your reason to hold that particular view remains unknown and you have not given us particular reasons to prefer it among the other possible positions one could hold.

2) Leibniz does not refer to nature but to "reason". As has been seen elsewhere reasons precedees a particular act if it has to be praiseworthy. You said: "But on the position that the good is grounded in God's nature, God's nature is exactly "a reason that naturally precedes the act so that God’s choices must come from his reasons for them"." I don't see Leibniz refering to it in that sort of way when constantly talking about reason instead of nature and of objective standards stressing the fact that it could not be different. He talks about "the eternal truths of metaphysics and geometry, and therefore also the rules of goodness, justice, and perfection" and places it in the context of objective standards and reason.

[seer]

And how, exactly, does that show that morality is grounded in the immutable nature of God?

Sheesh Charles, can you stay on topic, my response was to your point on The Euthyphro Dilemma. And if morality is not grounded in the nature of God what would it be grounded in?

[Mountain Man]

And this, once again, shows exactly why your line of "reasoning" is question begging. You return to the same idea over and over that: My question: "What rational reason is there to care about "meaning and purpose" if the whole of human history will be wiped from existence in the blink of a cosmic eye?"

The question, as I have pointed out, presupposes, that it is challenging if we cannot see things in an etarnal perspective. If not you would not continue to ask it. I have absolutely no problem in finding meaning in a given moment, taking care of my children, doing what I know is right towards others and the like while also knowing, that neither I nor they will remember this particular moment for ever or maybe in a weeks time. Using the time you have got for something particular that you know is right, treating other people right, help them when they are suffering is full of meaning no matter whether we will live forever or not. Now, personally, I do belive I will exist way beyond this life, but that is not what we are discussing right now.

So, to repeat, the fact that you think your question even challenges meaning shows just how stuck you are in a particular understanding of things.

So, you repeated your question begging approach, and you still failed to reply my question with regard to how an eternal perspective coulld take away the significance of a given moment. Since I have got forever, who cares what I am doing right now? And, as human beings, religious or not, we spend most of our time doing practical timely stuff. Is that more or less meaningful because of the idea we will exist forever?

You keep addressing my question as if I'm asking "How?" and "What?" when what I'm asking is "Why?"

I don't care how atheists/agnostics arrive at a concept of "meaning and purpose", nor do I care what that concept is. What I'm asking is "Why should anybody care about meaning and purpose in a godless universe?"

The fact that you keep reframing my question to something you feel comfortable answering suggests that you do in fact find it challenging.