Another Christian Being Offered On The PC Alter?

[Tassman]

Do you really think the objective standard of morality is the existing statutes? You therefore don't think the statutes themselves are subject to moral judgement (e.g., that a statute can be unjust)? For example, if the almighty Community decides to pass a statute permitting (or requiring) them to arbitrarily torture, kill, etc. some minority, then it would be objectively good to torture, kill, etc. that minority?

Community laws are based upon the commonly agreed standards and social mores of the day. And while it may have been acceptable in the past to kill and torture some minority (sometimes in the name of God) is not generally acceptable in the modern era.

You wouldn't say, on the contrary, that that law is unjust, which would imply that there is a higher moral standard than the statutes?

Well the alleged

[seer]

What reasoning about the facts of the world? That men can be selfish, greedy, cruel?

[seer]

There are consequences, there are societal consequences. Mother Teresa was a fraud who created harm because she thought it was a gift from god, so you need to consider a new example of someone good. If Islam is true, then Mother Teresa and Stalin come to the same end anyway. So theism is not a prescription for justice. And if Christianity is true, a person who devotes their entire life to helping the poor (unlike Mother Teresa) but who is a non-Christian and Stalin all go to the same place. The fate of a person in an afterlife says nothing about whether the system is just.

Let me ask you a side question Thinker. Apart from our subjective desire to survive, like any our animal, is there an objective moral imperative that states or implies that our species should survive?

[Joel]

How does "Morality is internal to God," imply "Morality exists independently to God"?

Because claiming that "one thing" is internal to "another thing" is to imply that the two are different things.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't imply that the internal thing exists independently to the other thing.
My consciousness is internal to me, but it does not exist independently of me.
Besides, I am following Christian theology such that (ontologically) prior to Creation, there exists only one existant: God. And in that state, it follows that no property of God can exist independently of God.

Besides, morality has to do with both what is good and what is evil, so if morality is internal to God, then both good and evil are internal to God. I know that isn't what you mean to argue

You misunderstand me. I'm saying that the definition of what is good/evil is internal to God. That is not the same thing as saying whether God is good or evil. The definition of evil may be internal to God without God being evil. If it is true that "It is evil to be unloving," then "It is evil to be unloving" is a property of God. But that doesn't imply that God is unloving or evil.

[Joel]

Do you really think the objective standard of morality is the existing statutes? You therefore don't think the statutes themselves are subject to moral judgement (e.g., that a statute can be unjust)? For example, if the almighty Community decides to pass a statute permitting (or requiring) them to arbitrarily torture, kill, etc. some minority, then it would be objectively good to torture, kill, etc. that minority?

Community laws are based upon the commonly agreed standards and social mores of the day. And while it may have been acceptable in the past to kill and torture some minority (sometimes in the name of God) is not generally acceptable in the modern era.

You wouldn't say, on the contrary, that that law is unjust, which would imply that there is a higher moral standard than the statutes?

Well the alleged

You didn't answer any of my questions. Nice dodge. I'm not asking about "God's absolute law". I'm asking about what you think. If such a statute were passed today, would you say:
1) It is a just law because the Community passed it, or
2) The law is unjust (which would imply that there is a higher moral standard than the Community's statutes)?


Ah, that's the problem. You are using it to refer to epistemology. Seer is using it to refer to ontology: In the sense that an objective fact exists independently of any observer, as opposed to feelings and opinions.

[The Thinker]

Your arguments in this thread have the grace and finesse of a human centipede falling down a flight of stairs. It might be time to look elsewhere for answers. But I'm just a baby what do I know

Yeah, except neither you, nor anyone else here has been able to make an argument showing god is necessary for objective morality without avoiding the euthyphro dilemma.

[The Thinker]

How does "Morality is internal to God," imply "Morality exists independently to God"?
You are resorting to claiming that propositions imply their opposites. You becoming bizarre.

"Morality is internal to God" doesn't say that morality cannot exist apart from god. Heat is internal to fire, but heat can exist apart from fire. If you claim that "Morality is internal to God" and cannot exist apart from him, then you must show either my (1) or (2) and we're back where we started. Disagree? Go make an argument showing that "Morality is internal to God" and cannot exist apart from him without falling prey to my 1,2, or 3.

[The Thinker]

Achieved worldwide accolades, fame, and admiration which she enjoyed for most of her life. I guess she won

Some of us are lucky, and some of us aren't. That's life.

[The Thinker]

But so what? So what if someone is hypocritical, that does not demonstrate that your standard is objective. Of course the lion does not want to be killed - but it is still quite natural for him to kill and eat the gazelle. And just because a majority may agree with a certain standard also does not mean that the standard is objective.

The problem you face is much larger than that. You cannot make a coherent logical argument showing that objective morality depends on god. If you seriously disagree, please, be my guest and make an argument that doesn't ultimately end up in my options of 1,2, or 3. Unless and until you can refute this, you simply have no argument to stand on. So either refute it, or admit defeat. Deal?

So seem so confident in your views that this should be a piece of cake for you.

But you already agreed that number one does not apply to the God of the bible.

No I didn't. Yahweh's "morality" is clearly arbitrary. When you say "God" I don't automatically assume that must be Yahweh. If you want to go further, please refute my argument that you cannot make a coherent logical argument showing that objective morality depends on god that doesn't ultimately end up in my options of 1,2, or 3. Or, admit that you cannot do so. Then we can move on.

[seer]

The problem you face is much larger than that. You cannot make a coherent logical argument showing that objective morality depends on god. If you seriously disagree, please, be my guest and make an argument that doesn't ultimately end up in my options of 1,2, or 3. Unless and until you can refute this, you simply have no argument to stand on. So either refute it, or admit defeat. Deal?

Thinker, this doesn't follow. Let's say that I end up on one of your horns, that doesn't mean that you have a case for objective moral values. You have to make the actual case. There may in fact be no objective moral facts. You certainly haven't demonstrated that there are.

No I didn't. Yahweh's "morality" is clearly arbitrary. When you say "God" I don't automatically assume that must be Yahweh. If you want to go further, please refute my argument that you cannot make a coherent logical argument showing that objective morality depends on god that doesn't ultimately end up in my options of 1,2, or 3. Or, admit that you cannot do so. Then we can move on.

No I said:

Do you agree that if God's laws flow from His immutable moral character then they are not arbitrary. Give me a yes or no answer then we can move on.

You said:

On condition "if" then yes it is not arbitrary. But then one can ask why god is the way he is. Why not slightly different, if even by just a small amount?

So you already agreed that God's law would not be arbitrary

[Joel]

"Morality is internal to God" doesn't say that morality cannot exist apart from god.

But it does mean that your option "(2) morality exists independently of god" is false.
For me to provide (like I did) an argument that is a counterexample to all 3 of your options, I do not need to make the stronger claim that "morality cannot exist apart from god". I only need to say that it's not the case that "(2) morality exists independently of god". Which is stated by my premise P1.
My argument is an example where all 3 of your options are false.

If you claim that "Morality is internal to God" and cannot exist apart from him...

I have no need to do that. The proposition "morality cannot exist apart from god" is not one of your 3 options.
What I have done is provide an internally consistent, non-circular position in which "morality does not exist apart from god", and your 3 options are false. If you can acknowledge that, we can go on to discuss the stronger claim of "morality cannot exist apart from god", if you like.

[Tassman]

What reasoning about the facts of the world? That men can be selfish, greedy, cruel?

you use the term "objective"?

[Tassman]

You didn't answer any of my questions. Nice dodge. I'm not asking about "God's absolute law". I'm asking about what you think. If such a statute were passed today, would you say:

1) It is a just law because the Community passed it

Obviously not!

2) The law is unjust (which would imply that there is a higher moral standard than the Community's statutes)?

No it wouldn't. It would indicate that the law does not meet the standards of the social mores of the day.

Ah, that's the problem. You are using it to refer to epistemology.

Indeed!

Seer is using it to refer to ontology: In the sense that an objective fact exists independently of any observer, as opposed to feelings and opinions.

Yes, he's referring to God.

To quote Laplace: "I have no need of that hypothesis".

[seer]

Such anti-social attitudes and behaviours are detrimental to community living, which is why society frowns upon them to the extent of legislating against them in some instances. The reasoning about facts of the world are concerned with our community and biological needs as a social species.

Well no, with higher primates those who are more aggressive and dominate actually prompt social cohesion by controlling the population. The same with human history.

you use the term "objective"?

The standard dictionary definition: Existing independent of or external to the mind. Not dependent on the mind for existence

[tabibito]

"... in order to form a more perfect union"

How exactly does one make something "more perfect"?

As with "more complete" - in both cases the term simply abbreviates "more (nearly) ~" ... set phrases do that kind of thing.