Another Christian Being Offered On The PC Alter?

[The Thinker]

Just a side point here Thinker. Not all circular arguments are necessarily bad or vicious. For instance, how do you know that what goes on in your head (mind) actually corresponds to reality? This can only be concluded by a circular argument. So even to begin to justify knowledge of the external world you have to argue in a circle. Yet I assume that you hold that to be valid.

Are you suggesting that the circular argument theists have to make to try and show that god is the source of good is a basic belief that is asserted without any evidence?

[Joel]

Because that would be flawed reasoning. Not to mention fear mongering. There are good reasons in the interests of the state to deny sibling marriages, as well as polygamous marriages, whereas there are no good reasons for the state to deny two consenting adults who happen to be Gay to marry.

I'm sorry, I don't buy the argument that something being in the government's "interest" allows the government to violate the constitution.
Nor do I buy the argument that the government may violate the constitution if it has a "good reason" for wanting the unconstitutional statute.

Also, I'm not "fear mongering". I'm just trying to reason to logical conclusions. And it seems obvious to me that if "equal protection of the laws" demands licenses equally for everyone, then logically it demands licenses for siblings, and for groups of 6 people, and for single people--everyone.

It is also changing the subject. If you have good reason to deny the same rights to Homosexuals that are afforded to Heterosexuals, other than your personal belief that homosexuality is unatural, then argue that case alone. If you don't have good reason, then you have no case.

Ironically, it is you who are changing the subject here. The question isn't whether there exists a good reason for these statutes, or whether they are good or bad statutes. The question is whether they violate the constitution.

Unlike between homosexuals, there's a biological cost to incest, especially with first degree relatives such as one's sister. But if you feel you can make a case for incestuous unions then go ahead.

From what I understand, the court decision was based on the equal protection clause, which makes no exceptions for "biological cost" one way or the other. How would "biological cost" make an unconstitutional law constitutional? The argument is that the constitution demands equal protection of the laws. Equal means equal. Either both bans are unconstitutional or both or not.

[The Thinker]

Are you one of them thar "New Atheists"?

New Atheism is dead. Today it's New New Atheism.

Oh year and your quote from 2 Tim is a forgery. 1 & 2 Tim and Titus are well known forgeries.

[seer]

Dunning-Kruger, seer. The term "clear and distinct perceptions" is straight-up Descartes and, despite your claim, Descartes does write that one can indeed conclude things have external existence without circular reasoning. He does this by grounding belief systems in axioms. You might say "Well, maybe Descartes is wrong and we can't be sure our axioms are correct" — but that's exactly the argument you denied earlier when I was trying to show you the epistemological problem of your claims regarding ontology.

Really Sam? Descartes never could make a deductive argument for trusting sense perception. His only way out was to invoke God. If you think otherwise please link me to where he claimed this.

The syllogism is wholly valid, as the conclusion proceeds from the premises and is distinct from them.

It was not in the least valid Sam, how does C1 prove that you are perceiving something external?

[seer]

Are you suggesting that the circular argument theists have to make to try and show that god is the source of good is a basic belief that is asserted without any evidence?

Let me ask again Thinker. Why is something good because your objective standard of morality says it's good? How is that standard not arbitrary?

[Sam]

Really Sam? Descartes never could make a deductive argument for trusting sense perception. His only way out was to invoke God. If you think otherwise please link me to where he claimed this.

It was not in the least valid Sam, how does C1 prove that you are perceiving something external?

You are confused. While Descartes could not externally verify his belief system without invoking God (and that is where Descartes ran into a circle), his belief system itselfreally need to step back from trying to argue philosophy, seer. Valid means that if the premises are true then the conclusion is true. That's it. As far as the syllogism I used goes, it is both valid and sound, though it could be contested.

Like I said earlier, read "Principa Mathematica". If you're arguing for the difficultly of proving something on the one hand, you will not be able to rest your arguments on the existence of God. If it takes a book to prove "1 + 1 = 2", you're setting yourself up for failure. The best you could say, as I wrote in the other thread is "IF God exists, THEN ..."

God isn't reducible to maths.

[seer]

You are confused. While Descartes could not externally verify his belief system without invoking God (and that is where Descartes ran into a circle), his belief system itself was predicated on basic beliefs/axioms. The pragmatist completely avoids Descartes' problem because she says her beliefs are true in that they "work" — what gets you through the day is "true". The empiricist gets around Descartes' problem for much the same reason — those ideas that are consistent through experience are more likely to be true. The logical positivist avoids Descartes' problem by saying only that which is axiomatic or derived from axioms has any meaning — "meaningful," in a sense, replaces "true".

If you don't know the meaning of the term "valid" when it comes to logic, you really need to step back from trying to argue philosophy, seer. Valid means that if the premises are true then the conclusion is true. That's it. As far as the syllogism I used goes, it is both valid and sound, though it could be contested.

Like I said earlier, read "Principa Mathematica". If you're arguing for the difficultly of proving something on the one hand, you will not be able to rest your arguments on the existence of God. If it takes a book to prove "1 + 1 = 2", you're setting yourself up for failure. The best you could say, as I wrote in the other thread is "IF God exists, THEN ..."

God isn't reducible to maths.

No Sam, Descartes could not deductively justify sense perception - period. None of these other theories change my original point. You can not logically (i.e. deductively) show that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality. It does not follow that because you perceive a red apply that that apple is therefore necessarily external to your mind. That does not follow from your fist two premises.

You could have said:

P1) I have clear and distinct perceptions of the external world.
P2) I perceive this thing to be a red apple in the external world.
C1) This thing is therefore a red apple and exists in the external.

But there is no way to show that PI is valid or true.

[The Thinker]

No Thinker, we are not on either horn, since said moral standard in internal to God, not external.

There is no way out of the dilemma. Asserting the "moral standard [is] internal to God" is just an assertion, you need a logical argument showing so. But you cannot show that.

[seer]

There is no way out of the dilemma. Asserting the "moral standard [is] internal to God" is just an assertion, you need a logical argument showing so. But you cannot show that.

Let me ask again Thinker. Why is something good because your objective standard of morality says it's good? How is that standard not arbitrary?

[Sam]

No Sam, Descartes could not deductively justify sense perception - period. None of these other theories change my original point. You can not logically (i.e. deductively) show that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality. It does not follow that because you perceive a red apply that that apple is therefore necessarily external to your mind. That does not follow from your fist two premises.

You could have said:

P1) I have clear and distinct perceptions of the external world.
P2) I perceive this thing to be a red apple in the external world.
C1) This thing is therefore a red apple and exists in the external.

But there is no way to show that PI is valid or true.

If P1 is an axiom then you don't need to show that it's true (valid doesn't even make any sense here).

You're out of your league here, seer, and you're digging your own argumentative grave. Whether you're saying (rightly) that all belief systems are contingent upon axioms or (wrongly) that all belief systems are contingent upon circular arguments, you've just killed your own argument. If all belief systems are axiomatic, claiming God as an axiomatic moral source is fine, though the axiom can be disputed or disregard by someone who doesn't hold it as true. If all belief systems are based on fallacious reasoning then there's no sound reasoning that can preference your belief system over another's, as they both appeal to a fallacy.

Where angels fear to tread ...

[The Thinker]

Let me ask again Thinker. Why is something good because your objective standard of morality says it's good? How is that standard not arbitrary?

Answering my question with a question, how wonderful. Let's be honest now, you don't actually have a logical argument to show objective morality cannot exist independently from god, you just assert it, over and over again. I think that's very apparent by now.

[Joel]

There was a lot in your post I'd love to reply to but I decided to focus down to the following, which seems to be the root of our misunderstanding:

Neither.
"Loving is good" is an attribute of God's nature. But I'm not claiming that that property makes God good.
Rather, what makes God good is a different property: that God conforms to the Standard.
That's why it's not circular: they are two different properties. (Like I said elsewhere, one could possibly attempt to imagine an evil god that both is the standard (including the property "loving is good"), and yet is evil (is not loving)).

That really doesn't make sense. Why is god good then? And why is loving good? You still haven't answered any of those questions. If "God conforms to the Standard," then you're admitting a standard exists independently of god, which is the view I've been espousing for a week on this thread.

I'm not sure where you are failing to understand what I said. (And you clearly are not understanding what I said.)
First note that "God conforms to the Standard," simply implies that there exists a standard, and says nothing about whether that standard is internal or external to God. There is nothing contradictory or circular about saying that the Standard (e.g. "loving is Good") is a property of God, and that God also has the property that God conforms to the standard (e.g., "God is loving"). Those are two different propositions. They do not contradict. And they are not circular (because the former does not depend on the latter being true).

God is good because of the latter property. Loving is good because of the former property. Again, no contradiction and no circularity.

[The Thinker]

I'm not following Thinker - why is something right because this objective standard says it's right?

Until you can make a logically valid argument showing that objective morality cannot exist independently of god, which you have not, the only thing you have is that things are right because god says they are right, which you reject as it makes morality arbitrary. So if god's moral values and commands are not arbitrary, they must appeal to a standard external to him, since again, you cannot make a logically valid argument showing that objective morality cannot exist independently of god.

[seer]

If P1 is an axiom then you don't need to show that it's true (valid doesn't even make any sense here).

You're out of your league here, seer, and you're digging your own argumentative grave. Whether you're saying (rightly) that all belief systems are contingent upon axioms or (wrongly) that all belief systems are contingent upon circular arguments, you've just killed your own argument. If all belief systems are axiomatic, claiming God as an axiomatic moral source is fine, though the axiom can be disputed or disregard by someone who doesn't hold it as true. If all belief systems are based on fallacious reasoning then there's no sound reasoning that can preference your belief system over another's, as they both appeal to a fallacy.

Where angels fear to tread ...

See Sam I even made a deductive argument that will work for you. How kind am I! So I guess we can just call any first premise an axiom without justifying it or showing that it is valid. Isn't philosophy wonderful!

[seer]

Answering my question with a question, how wonderful. Let's be honest now, you don't actually have a logical argument to show objective morality cannot exist independently from god, you just assert it, over and over again. I think that's very apparent by now.

But you did not answer the question, let me try again: Why is something good because your objective standard of morality says it's good? How is that standard not arbitrary?