Another Christian Being Offered On The PC Alter?

[seer]

Then it follows that we are not responsible, in any real sense of the word.


I didn't omit it - it doesn't change the point. Logically the idea of responsibility is nonsensical. As he said:But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility.

[Darth Ovious]

Really? After all we've discussed in the past few weeks? Your statement here is just an assertion. Theists like you will simply never get it, and you will repeat your falsified talking points over and over again. The euthyphro dilemma proves that a theist asserting god is the foundation for objective morality must either take one of 3 positions:

1) morality is arbitrarily decided by god
2) morality exists independently of god
3) make a circular argument

There is no logical way out of this. Period. And the only good position a theist can take is (2), as (1) would be subjective, and (3) would be a tautology.

Sorry to gate crash the conversation but saw the subject and thought I would reply to this. I believe your view on option 1 here is not correct. I base this on the fact that a creator determines the objective reason for an objects existence. This is because the reason a creator has for creating an object is a factual reason for that objects existence, otherwise the object would not exist to begin with. So I disagree with that 1 is not a good answer for a theist. To imply this would be to imply that Windows 10 has no objective purpose and you can't argue that it's purpose is to be an operating system for a PC. We all know that Windows 10 is an operating system for a PC and to claim otherwise would not be the purpose that Windows 10 was created for.

[Joel]

Irrelevant. The question isn't whether the argument is sound. The point is merely that it is internally consistent (is valid), is not circular, and makes none of the horns true of The Thinker's trilemma.
Tassman, you have already in this thread agreed with me that on this point (that I continue to discuss with Thinker) I am correct and The Thinker is wrong. If Thinker would just admit it too, then we could possibly go on to discuss whether the premises and conclusions in that argument are true. Would you help me out explaining this to Thinker, so we can more quickly put this trilemma to rest and move on?

Even regarding "them as faulty units" would be assuming too much. "Faulty" implies that they fail to conform to a Standard of working well. Rather, one should simply regard those events as no more significant than an asteroid smashing into the moon, neither good nor bad nor faulty nor well-functioning. (That is, if we want to work from Dawkins' premises.)

If so, people who are interested in truth rather than illusion, would want to eradicate those illusory constructs.

[The Thinker]

You don't have to assume P1.
The only thing I'm trying to show is that you are incorrect in claiming that if I assume it, then that must run me into logical inconsistency or circular logic.
To discuss that particular claim of yours, we don't need to consider whether P1 is actually true or false.

Then you need to show this without running into the dilemma. Otherwise you're just wasting my time.

You are making a new claim here. You are now claiming that my P1 is incoherent. As a reminder, my P1 is now:

P1) "Loving is good" is a property of God, such that the moral standard exists in God's being, and does not exist independently of God.

It doesn't matter. It's still incoherent because it cannot avoid the dilemma. If you disagree, prove me wrong by making a positive argument that demonstrates P1 without running into the dilemma without having to make ridiculous assumptions.

Have you made any positive argument that P1 is incoherent? Or that it is self-contradictory? The most I can see there is that you go from saying "I think it's logically impossible [to answer] the question why loving is good" to "you are asking me to assume something logically impossible", as if you are suggesting that "P1 is logically impossible" follows from the former? That doesn't seem to follow. I'm not seeing any reason to think that P1 is self-contradictory or otherwise logically impossible.

I've been arguing for weeks in this thread that no one can make a positive argument that a claim like P1 is possible without running into the dilemma I've mentioned. Therefore if you're asking me to just assume for sake of argument that P1 is possible, you're asking me to assume something incoherent. If that's what it takes to make your argument coherent, you have no argument.

[The Thinker]

No Thinker, first you already agreed that if God's law was grounded in in His immutable character then it would not be arbitrary. Second, Joel has already dealt with the rest. My question is how does your "objective" moral law avoid the same "pitfalls?" How is your moral law not arbitrary? How do you reason to it apart from begging the question?

Joel has already dealt with the rest? Are you kidding me? His "argument" requires that I just assume there is no incoherency with the claim that morality is dependent on god. So you cannot be seriously trying to tell me that he's refuted my argument.

Second, if god was not somehow arbitrary, an objective standard can still exist independently of him. Not being arbitrary does not logically conclude that there cannot be an independent standard, it would just mean, at most, that god and the standard coexist.

So stop asking questions, and refute my argument already. This should be a piece of cake for you. Just a few weeks ago you were pounding your chest proclaiming that objective morality depends on god, and now all of a sudden you can't show that without running into an obvious dilemma. What happened? Did you realize your view was unjustifiable?

[Joel]

The only thing I'm trying to show is that you are incorrect in claiming that if I assume it, then that must run me into logical inconsistency or circular logic.

Then you need to show this without running into the dilemma. Otherwise you're just wasting my time.

That is what I've shown. Your claim was that I cannot hold both that the moral standard originates in God and that God is good, without running into circular logic. I've shown that that is not true by providing an example of a non-circular argument in which both the moral standard originates in God and God is good.

It doesn't matter. It's still incoherent because it cannot avoid the dilemma. If you disagree, prove me wrong by making a positive argument that demonstrates P1 without running into the dilemma without having to make ridiculous assumptions.

As I've said, the truth of P1 (and thus demonstrating P1) is irrelevant to whether assuming P1 runs a person into logical problems.

I've been arguing for weeks in this thread that no one can make a positive argument that a claim like P1 is possible without running into the dilemma I've mentioned. Therefore if you're asking me to just assume for sake of argument that P1 is possible, you're asking me to assume something incoherent. If that's what it takes to make your argument coherent, you have no argument.

Here you claim that P1, standing alone by itself, is impossible. That's not exactly what you've been claiming before. Your claim before was not about making an argument that P1 is possible. Rather your claim was that assuming P1 runs a person into circular logic.

I have shown that P1 doesn't require running into your dilemma (really trilemma?). On the other hand it is true that I have not given any positive argument that P1, itself, is logically possible.
But is it really reasonable that you demand a positive argument that a proposition is possible? It seems that a proposition is logically possible if there does not exist any proof that it is logically impossible. Proving that there does not exist any such proof is likely intractable. It seems far better to suppose a proposition to be possible until proven impossible. Thus the burden of proof would lie on the person claiming that a proposition is impossible. And I see no reason to think that P1 is impossible. Why would it be impossible? You haven't shown it to be impossible. In fact I don't recall you claiming that until now.

The think that would make a proposition logically impossible is if it were self-contradictory. But I don't see anything in P1 that contradicts itself.

Before your claim was not that P1 is impossible, but that it conflicts (or runs into circular logic) with other propositions that Christians want to hold. (which I have refuted.)

[Tassman]

Then it follows that we are not responsible, in any real sense of the word.

I didn't omit it - it doesn't change the point. Logically the idea of responsibility is nonsensical. As he said:But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility.

Any behavior, good or bad, is the result of antecedent conditions acting through our physiology, heredity and environment. Prove this is not the case. As Dawkins says, assigning responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world. It is an example of the illusion of Free-Will. Chimpanzees have the same illusion the only difference being that, thanks to our higher intelligence, we can understand what we are doing, whereas chimpanzees can't. Their illusion is complete, just as ours was in more primitive times when we credited a deity for granting us 'free-will'.

[Tassman]

Irrelevant. The question isn't whether the argument is sound. The point is merely that it is internally consistent (is valid), is not circular, and makes none of the horns true of The Thinker's trilemma.

Tassman, you have already in this thread agreed with me that on this point (that I continue to discuss with Thinker) I am correct and The Thinker is wrong. If Thinker would just admit it too, then we could possibly go on to discuss whether the premises and conclusions in that argument are true. Would you help me out explaining this to Thinker, so we can more quickly put this trilemma to rest and move on?

Even regarding "them as faulty units" would be assuming too much. "Faulty" implies that they fail to conform to a Standard of working well.

Rather, one should simply regard those events as no more significant than an asteroid smashing into the moon, neither good nor bad nor faulty nor well-functioning. (That is, if we want to work from Dawkins' premises.)

If so, people who are interested in truth rather than illusion, would want to eradicate those illusory constructs.

http://edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html

[seer]

Where did creatures first gain self-awareness? At what point in the evolutionary process? And again Tass, as a Christian and a dualist I am not reduced to your narrow view of mankind.

Any behavior, good or bad, is the result of antecedent conditions acting through our physiology, heredity and environment. Prove this is not the case. As Dawkins says, assigning responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world. It is an example of the illusion of Free-Will. Chimpanzees have the same illusion the only difference being that, thanks to our higher intelligence, we can understand what we are doing, whereas chimpanzees can't. Their illusion is complete, just as ours was in more primitive times when we credited a deity for granting us 'free-will'.

That is correct, it is a fiction, and a fiction is a lie. So in your world men are not really responsible. But earlier on you suggested that they were: We assign responsibility for the decisions people make. And that my good man is totally irrational. Like assigning responsibility to a rock rolling down a hill...

[seer]

Second, if god was not somehow arbitrary, an objective standard can still exist independently of him. Not being arbitrary does not logically conclude that there cannot be an independent standard, it would just mean, at most, that god and the standard coexist.

So stop asking questions, and refute my argument already. This should be a piece of cake for you. Just a few weeks ago you were pounding your chest proclaiming that objective morality depends on god, and now all of a sudden you can't show that without running into an obvious dilemma. What happened? Did you realize your view was unjustifiable?

Thinker, I did not pound my chest, so the question remains - how can your independent moral standard actually exist. Why do you keep avoiding this simple question? Is your position so weak that you can't defend it?

[The Thinker]

Thinker, I did not pound my chest, so the question remains - how can your independent moral standard actually exist. Why do you keep avoiding this simple question? Is your position so weak that you can't defend it?

I can easily go back a couple of weeks in this thread and quote you on saying that objective morality depends on god. So then I come in and show you that you cannot actually show that to be true without running into a dilemma, and now all of a sudden you're unable to refute my argument. So will you please, out of all sincerity, refute my argument and stop trying to turn the tables? You need to establish that god is required for objective morality while avoiding the dilemma.

[The Thinker]

That is what I've shown. Your claim was that I cannot hold both that the moral standard originates in God and that God is good, without running into circular logic. I've shown that that is not true by providing an example of a non-circular argument in which both the moral standard originates in God and God is good.

Your argument has to just assume there is no dilemma, so it does not in any way show that you are avoiding the dilemma. You've even admitted that your argument contains an assumption. I think that assumption is incoherent and I've shown you why. So you need to refute my argument without assuming the very dilemma that you face doesn't exist.

As I've said, the truth of P1 (and thus demonstrating P1) is irrelevant to whether assuming P1 runs a person into logical problems.

You cannot just assert P1 is true unless you can show it to be true by avoiding the dilemma and not just assuming that no dilemma exists. Until you can do that you have no argument.

Here you claim that P1, standing alone by itself, is impossible. That's not exactly what you've been claiming before. Your claim before was not about making an argument that P1 is possible. Rather your claim was that assuming P1 runs a person into circular logic.

I have shown that P1 doesn't require running into your dilemma (really trilemma?). On the other hand it is true that I have not given any positive argument that P1, itself, is logically possible.

But is it really reasonable that you demand a positive argument that a proposition is possible? It seems that a proposition is logically possible if there does not exist any proof that it is logically impossible. Proving that there does not exist any such proof is likely intractable. It seems far better to suppose a proposition to be possible until proven impossible. Thus the burden of proof would lie on the person claiming that a proposition is impossible. And I see no reason to think that P1 is impossible. Why would it be impossible? You haven't shown it to be impossible. In fact I don't recall you claiming that until now.

The think that would make a proposition logically impossible is if it were self-contradictory. But I don't see anything in P1 that contradicts itself.

Before your claim was not that P1 is impossible, but that it conflicts (or runs into circular logic) with other propositions that Christians want to hold. (which I have refuted.)

You have not, in any way shown that P1 avoids the dilemma. That you think this is the height of delusion. All you have done is ask me to pretend there is no dilemma, and then viola! No more dilemma! You cannot expect me to take you seriously anymore. I have already given you an argument that P1 is logically impossible because it inevitably runs you into the dilemma. Your only "solution" (if we can even consider it that) is to just assume it's possible without actually showing any kind of argument or logic - literally just assuming it - on faith. You must make an actual argument showing that P1 is possible by refuting my argument. That means you must show P1 while (1) avoiding the dilemma, and (2) by not assuming there is no dilemma. If you cannot do that, just admit it and stop wasting my time. I have more intellectual theists I could be debating right now besides an amateur like you.

[seer]

I can easily go back a couple of weeks in this thread and quote you on saying that objective morality depends on god. So then I come in and show you that you cannot actually show that to be true without running into a dilemma, and now all of a sudden you're unable to refute my argument. So will you please, out of all sincerity, refute my argument and stop trying to turn the tables? You need to establish that god is required for objective morality while avoiding the dilemma.

No Thinker, I can see how objective moral values (objective to human kind) can exist in the mind of God. I can not see how they could exist otherwise objectively. And to be honest Thinker it is very telling that in all this time you have done nothing to defend your position. You have done nothing to show how this standard can or does exist, how it is not arbitrary and how you decide what is good without being circular. It may be that any moral system ends up being circular.

[JimL]

Hey seer, sorry for not answering for a while but my computer was out of commision all week.

Well free will is key - if not we are all predetermined to do what we do, and we don't assign responsibility, moral or otherwise, to creatures who have no choice. My dog is not morally bad for peeing on the rug.

Well no, that is a different issue. It doesn't necessarily have to do with resposibility. Free will is not necessaraly the key when it comes to what is the best working moral system. The system of morals lived by can be either one that is determined or one that involves free choice but in either case there would be only one moral system that is the best one.

Jim you are not taking men as the actually are. Men are often cruel, selfish, and power hungry. Now your opinion may be that they are not reasoning correctly, but your opinion is not relevant. To them it is rational to gain as much personal power and wealth possible. I mean really Jim, we are not going to suddenly hold hands and sing Kumbaya. I mean you are speaking of some kind of moral utopia, but you support the slaughter of unborn babies. Your opinion has no ethical weight with me as long as you do. Sorry.

But again seer, we are not talking about the subjective opinions of men, we are discussing whether or not morality itself is objective.

That is not the point, not all men have that goal - they don't seek the best for human life collectively, they seek what is best for them personally. So again, your goal is subjective.

You are missing the point seer. You believe that there is a world in which the morals that all men live by make for the best world in which for them to live. That is your after life paradise. If such a world can exist, then the moral system that makes that possible is an objective fact. The existence of that moral system doesn't require authority, the system itself is what it is whether it is adhered to or not. If you are going to continue to argue that there are no objective moral facts that define the existence of such a world, then you have to let go of the idea that there could be such a world at all.

[JimL]

A) I didn't say anything about God's mind. You are reading that into my post. So what you say here is irrelevant.

It is infered that God is a mind, if not then there is no reason behind the argument that objective moral facts are dependent upon an authoritative deity.

B) What you are saying here isn't exactly correct. If JimL feels that "Bananas are yummy," that statement is subjective to JimL (depends on JimL's mind). But it would be the case that "JimL feels that bananas are yummy," is an objective truth. Even though its truth depends on JimL's mind. The two senses in which those two are said to "depend on JimL's mind" are different. We have to be careful not to equivocate. The one sense makes the difference between subjective and objective. And the other sense does not.

That bananas are yummy to JimL may be an objective fact, but that bananas are yummy in and of themselves would not be an objective fact. The only objective fact there would be my subjective opinion that bananas are yummy. A minds subjective opinion does not an objective fact make. Murder is not objectively wrong if it is subject to opinion, and it is subject to opinion if it is mind dependent.

Then you say, "if they are objective facts that exist in their own right then their existence is not dependent upon anything else." That's not true. The color of JimL's eyes may be an objective fact, but it still depends on JimL's existence. (If JimL had never existed, then there would never have been JimL's eyes or their color.) If what you've claimed here were true, it would imply that there is no such thing as a contingent fact, which is clearly not true. (Not that I'm saying that moral truths are contingent. A Christian can agree that the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity depends on God's being, but we would say it's a necessary truth, rather than a contingent one.)

If morals are a necessary truth, then they are not dependent upon a mind. That my eyes are brown may be contingent on my existence, or it may be that the existence of the trinity depends upon Gods existence, but they are facts in themselves in that in neither case are those contingent facts dependent upon, or subject to, a mind. Morals are not physically existing things, they are objective facts dependent upon the relationship between living things and the world in which they live in, and they are only objective in the sense of being the best alternative for life to exist withinin that relationship world.