Another Christian Being Offered On The PC Alter?

[Joel]

First, I'm assuming the premise for the sake of the point that I'm making. For that point, whether it is true or verifiable is irrelevant.

Second, your conclusion there doesn't follow. Assuming a proposition for the sake of discussion says nothing about whether it is true or false or verifiable or anything. It in no way follows that the proposition cannot be verified or evaluated by other/further discussion/investigation. The only reason I'm just assuming it and not trying to prove it is that attempts to prove it would just add irrelevant complication to the current discussion with Thinker.

[Joel]

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 never said to assume there is no dilemma. All I've been trying to show is that to assume P1 does not lead to any logical problems. And the only way to show that is to present an argument that assumes P1. It's then irrational for you to turn around and complain that the argument assumes P1.
(Note, by the way that every deductive argument contains assumptions. That's what premises are.)

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.

What argument? In the last few posts when you've started making the claim that P1 is incoherent, you have repeatedly claimed that it is incoherent or simply demanded that I somehow prove that it isn't incoherent, without you making any argument that it is incoherent or even explaining how or in what way you think it is incoherent. I literally have no idea what you find incoherent or self-contradictory about P1.

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.

At this point I'm not even asserting that P1 is true. My position is only that to assume P1 for the sake of argument doesn't run into logical problems. That is, that someone can rationally believe P1 to be true as part of an internally consistent position (in particular, without running into one of the horns of your dilemma). If you can't even agree to that, I see no reason why I should attempt to show the stronger thing you ask for here.
"Show P1 while avoiding the dilemma" is different from "Assume P1 while avoiding the dilemma." I've only been trying to do the latter of those two. Once we can agree on the latter of the two, we can go on to discuss the former, stronger one. Or are you saying that the dilemma only arises for the former? Then just say so, and we can move on to the former. All you would need to do is say something like, "I don't think assuming P1 runs you into a dilemma, I only think trying to show P1 runs you into a dilemma." On the other hand if you think that "assuming P1 runs you into a dilemma", then we need to settle that before it would be worth discussing whether "Trying to show P1 runs you into a dilemma."

You have not, in any way shown that P1 avoids the dilemma.

I gave you an argument showing a position that someone could possibly hold that contains P1 and P2 ("God is loving") and concludes with the conclusion "God is good." And that argument is non-circular. Thus that entire position falls upon none of the 3 options of your trilemma. You have yet to show that any of your 3 options is true about that argument. Instead you have now shifted to complaining that P1 itself is impossible.

I have already given you an argument that P1 is logically impossible because it inevitably runs you into the dilemma....
You must make an actual argument showing that P1 is possible by refuting my argument.

What where? Only in your previous post did you start claiming that P1 is logically impossible. And in that post (and this current one) you gave no argument for that claim. Or I missed it? Please repost/quote your argument for me? I'm honestly wondering what it is.

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.

No, I was assuming the premise P1 for the sake of argument. Which is a standard logical procedure.

You cannot expect me to take you seriously anymore.... 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.

Wow with the insults. I'm finding it difficult to take you serious too. Almost every time you've tried to give a reason why I'm wrong you have listed things that are irrelevant to what I'm saying, usually by complaining that I haven't yet proven some proposition X, where X is irrelevant to what I'm trying to show. You seem incapable of focusing the discussion on one particular claim and instead complicate the discussion by randomly shifting to a variety of claims. Your latest shift to claiming that P1 itself is self-contradictory is at least an intriguing change and I am honestly interested to know what your argument for that claim is.

[Joel]

It is infered that God is a mind

That's not necessary. We don't need to suppose that "God is a mind and only a mind". I don't think that's a traditional Christian doctrine.

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

I don't see how that follows. If someone, whether Christian or athiest or other, thinks there is an objective moral standard, then they think that standard exists in reality. If it exists in reality, there is no reason to think that it can't be part of God. In which case God would 'contain' (so to speak) at least a mind and the objective moral Standard.

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.

Yep, that's exactly the distinction I made between those two senses of the phrase "depends on a mind". You got it.

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.

Only if "is mind dependent" is meant in the subjective of those two senses. We have to be careful to avoid confusing the two senses, to avoid equivocation.

If morals are a necessary truth, then they are not dependent upon a mind.

If you mean "dependent upon a mind" in that subjective sense, then okay.

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.

Well, if God were pure mind, as you suggested above, and the truth of the Trinity depends on God's existence, then it would imply that the truth of the Trinity depends on God's mind. But in the objective sense. Not because it's an opinion supposed by God, but because it would be an objective fact about God's mind.

Maybe the truth of the moral standard is Similar (that it's not an opinion supposed by God, but an objective fact about God's mind). Though I'm not really relying on that (and that wasn't what I was arguing). We could also suppose that God's being contains both God's mind and the objective moral Standard. Whether the Standard is a different 'part' of God's being than God's mind, or is itself an objective attribute of God's mind (like the Trinity), would be a different question.

Morals are not physically existing things,

So real morals would require non-physical being. It would imply that there exists more in reality than physically existing things.

they are only objective in the sense of being the best alternative for life to exist withinin that relationship world.

Note that "best" assumes the objective Standard.

[JimL]

That's not necessary. We don't need to suppose that "God is a mind and only a mind". I don't think that's a traditional Christian doctrine.

Morals are not physically existing things, they are "mental constructs" which are only relative to living things, which if subject to the existence of God, they are subject to a mind. If you want to argue that God is not a mind in the traditional sense of the word, then your argument is that God himself is determined, which I do not believe that to be the traditional Christian doctrine.

I don't see how that follows. If someone, whether Christian or athiest or other, thinks there is an objective moral standard, then they think that standard exists in reality.

True, but being that the morals are only mental constructs, not things in themselves, in order to be real those morals need only be dependent upon the reality in which they exist, i.e dependent upon the relationship between living beings and the world in which those living beings exist. In other words there is no need of an authoritative deity in order that objective morals relative to the interests of living beings to exist.

If it exists in reality, there is no reason to think that it can't be part of God. In which case God would 'contain' (so to speak) at least a mind and the objective moral Standard.

Well, first off, such a mind would be a determined mind, which again is hardly what we mean when we speak of a mind. But the point is that an objective moral standard can exist within the universe itself without the need of any authority. Morals are all about what kind of world, morally speaking, is best suited to the beings living within it, and those moral constructs can exist in the world itself, and be derived thereof, by those living beings themselves without any necessity of them being authoritatively objective morals which is what this thread is assertively attempting to deny.

Yep, that's exactly the distinction I made between those two senses of the phrase "depends on a mind". You got it.

Right.

Only if "is mind dependent" is meant in the subjective of those two senses. We have to be careful to avoid confusing the two senses, to avoid equivocation.

Again, the one sense is mind dependent, the other is existence dependent, which are two different things. Morals unlike bananas are mental constructs, not physically existing things, and so though they are contingent on existence, they are also mind dependent.

If you mean "dependent upon a mind" in that subjective sense, then okay.

Well again, that is what is meant by mind. If morals are objective, then though they may exist in a mind as knowledge, they are not subjective or dependent on a mind.

Well, if God were pure mind, as you suggested above, and the truth of the Trinity depends on God's existence, then it would imply that the truth of the Trinity depends on God's mind. But in the objective sense. Not because it's an opinion supposed by God, but because it would be an objective fact about God's mind.

I think you need to define what you mean by the term mind, else we will continue to talk past each other. My understanding of your definition of Gods mind being objective to himself is that god is a determined being.

Maybe the truth of the moral standard is Similar (that it's not an opinion supposed by God, but an objective fact about God's mind). Though I'm not really relying on that (and that wasn't what I was arguing). We could also suppose that God's being contains both God's mind and the objective moral Standard. Whether the Standard is a different 'part' of God's being than God's mind, or is itself an objective attribute of God's mind (like the Trinity), would be a different question.

Not sure any of that makes sense, but the main point I am trying to make is that none of that is necessary for objective morals to exists within nature itself with respect to living beings relationship to it.

So real morals would require non-physical being. It would imply that there exists more in reality than physically existing things.

No not at all. Real morals only require the existence physical beings and a world in which they live.

Note that "best" assumes the objective Standard.

True, and an objective standard requires no external authority.

[Joel]

Morals are..."mental constructs"

So they are subjective? They are dependent on a mind, in the subjective sense?

If you want to argue that God is not a mind in the traditional sense of the word, then your argument is that God himself is determined, which I do not believe that to be the traditional Christian doctrine.

I'm not sure what you are saying. That God is either pure mind or God has no mind? Surely there could be a middle ground?

But the point is that an objective moral standard can exist within the universe itself without the need of any authority.

I'm not sure what you mean by authority. I suspect I'm not proposing "an authority" in the sense you mean. I think God is the ground of logical and mathematical truths in the same way He is the ground of moral truths. If mathematical truths were Platonic forms would that make such a form "an authority" as you are using it?

Morals are all about what kind of world, morally speaking, is best suited to the beings living within it

There are different theories of moral philosophy. Others would suggest that morality is, instead, about what kind of entities are best suited to the world they are in. Or is about being excellent or conforming to one's teleology.
But none of these are sufficient for a definition of morality because they all refer to morality in their statement ("best" "excellent" "teleology").

I think you need to define what you mean by the term mind, else we will continue to talk past each other. My understanding of your definition of Gods mind being objective to himself is that god is a determined being.

I don't know what you mean by "objective to himself" or "determined being".

Not sure any of that makes sense, but the main point I am trying to make is that none of that is necessary for objective morals to exists within nature itself with respect to living beings relationship to it.

And the main point I am trying to make is that Euthyphro isn't a problem for Christian theology.

So real morals would require non-physical being. It would imply that there exists more in reality than physically existing things.

No not at all. Real morals only require the existence physical beings and a world in which they live.

Like asteroids going around the sun in the asteroid belt?

[Tassman]

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.

Nor, apparently, are you reduced to pesky things like evidence.

Apart from anecdotal accounts, all the evidence indicates that the death of the body also results in the death of the mind/spirit. Dualism is a fantasy.

That is correct, it is a fiction, and a fiction is a lie.

Like dualism, you mean?

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...

There are many factors that determine the decisions people make or do you consider that we live in a vacuum and that every event and decision is nothttp://edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html#dawkins

[Darth Executor]

Self awareness is testable and we know it exists among many creatures.

Yes, it is. For example people who think free will is an illusion probably have no self awareness, they just emulate it to outsiders.

[Tassman]

First, I'm assuming the premise for the sake of the point that I'm making. For that point, whether it is true or verifiable is irrelevant.

The only point you can make with an assumed premise (as opposed to a verifiable premise) is that your argument is a valid argument, nothing more.

Second, your conclusion there doesn't follow. Assuming a proposition for the sake of discussion says nothing about whether it is true or false or verifiable or anything. It in no way follows that the proposition cannot be verified or evaluated by other/further discussion/investigation. The only reason I'm just assuming it and not trying to prove it is that attempts to prove it would just add irrelevant complication to the current discussion with Thinker.

True, but if your premise was a verified fact then you would surely take this as your premise, not an unsubstantiated assumption.

[Tassman]

Yes, it is. For example people who think free will is an illusion probably have no self awareness, they just emulate it to outsiders.

[Darth Executor]

It did not develop via evolution, it's a product of sentience which was imparted by God to Adam and I suspect it had nothing to do with biological evolution though obviously I have no hard opinion on this. Since Adam at least some humans have inherited it, though with the large number of (mostly atheists) denying free will I've been considering of late that it's a possibility not all homo sapiens are sentient (or have a soul). Denying the prime sense is nonsensical to someone like me who does have free will, but due to the large volume of people who claim sentience but accept explanations for it that are inherently alien I suspect many of you simply emulate it (like a very advanced computer) but, lacking a soul, you lack true self awareness which is self-evident to the sentient.

[Tassman]

It did not develop via evolution, it's a product of sentience which was imparted by God to Adam and I suspect it had nothing to do with biological evolution though obviously I have no hard opinion on this. Since Adam at least some humans have inherited it, though with the large number of (mostly atheists) denying free will I've been considering of late that it's a possibility not all homo sapiens are sentient (or have a soul). Denying the prime sense is nonsensical to someone like me who does have free will, but due to the large volume of people who claim sentience but accept explanations for it that are inherently alien I suspect many of you simply emulate it (like a very advanced computer) but, lacking a soul, you lack true self awareness which is self-evident to the sentient.

[Leonhard]

This is a special pleading fallacy. While it would be very interesting to know the details of the origin of free-will, in order to demonstrate its existence, we don't need to know it origin, to know that we have it. Likewise with whether other creatures have it, though that question is interesting in and of itself.

[JimL]

So they are subjective? They are dependent on a mind, in the subjective sense?

Without minds in nature there are no morals, so in that sense they are subjective. They have no existence apart from minds and are not authoritative. That murder is wrong is not an objective fact, but what is an objective fact is that it is in the best interest of living things that they not be murdered.

I'm not sure what you are saying. That God is either pure mind or God has no mind? Surely there could be a middle ground?

I'm saying that, though nature contains all knowledge, there is no evidence of an omniscient mind that knows all that is in nature. Minds are an emergent property of nature, nature isn't an emergent property of a mind. Morals are the result of minds deriving from nature laws that are best suited to their survival and happiness within that nature.

I'm not sure what you mean by authority. I suspect I'm not proposing "an authority" in the sense you mean. I think God is the ground of logical and mathematical truths in the same way He is the ground of moral truths. If mathematical truths were Platonic forms would that make such a form "an authority" as you are using it?

No. Objective facts and authoritative commands are two different things. It may be objectively true that a moral law against murder is in our best interests as living beings, but that doesn't make murder objectively immoral in itself, or immoral from some external authoritative viewpoint.

There are different theories of moral philosophy. Others would suggest that morality is, instead, about what kind of entities are best suited to the world they are in. Or is about being excellent or conforming to one's teleology.
But none of these are sufficient for a definition of morality because they all refer to morality in their statement ("best" "excellent" "teleology").

Not following. Why is not that which is in best interest of living beings that which is good, or that which is detrimental to the existence of living beings that which is bad?

I don't know what you mean by "objective to himself" or "determined being".

If what is right and what is wrong are objective truths, then even if they are grounded in God they are objective and not decided upon subjectively by god, which makes them determined, which in turn makes God a determined being. In other words my question to you is: Does god determine what is right and wrong, or is he by his own nature determined.

And the main point I am trying to make is that Euthyphro isn't a problem for Christian theology.

I think it is a problem. In such a case God is neither good or bad, or powerful, he is determined.

Like asteroids going around the sun in the asteroid belt?

No. an asteroid is not a being with a mind that has choices to consider.

[seer]

That is silly Tass, I exercise freedom every day. I freely choose to respond to you. I'm under no compulsion to do so. And I have no idea what goes through a monkey's mind. Heck, I don't know what goes through your mind - you could be some kind of biological automaton for all I know. But I do know that I have freedom of the will.

Apart from anecdotal accounts, all the evidence indicates that the death of the body also results in the death of the mind/spirit. Dualism is a fantasy.

And of course you are all knowing.

There are many factors that determine the decisions people make or do you consider that we live in a vacuum and that every event and decision is nothttp://edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html#dawkins

Tass, way ahead of you. I have read that link more than a dozen times and watch a number of discussion on line with Dawkins. Especially his two hour back and forth with Sam Harris. The fact is Tass, if you and Dawkins are correct human responsibility is a fiction. Nonsensical.

So at what point in our evolution did we acquire this freedom of will? Do monkeys have it as well, why not?

I don't have to know when we got free will anymore than I have to know when we became self aware - I just have to know that we now have both.

[The Thinker]

I never said to assume there is no dilemma. All I've been trying to show is that to assume P1 does not lead to any logical problems. And the only way to show that is to present an argument that assumes P1. It's then irrational for you to turn around and complain that the argument assumes P1.
(Note, by the way that every deductive argument contains assumptions. That's what premises are.)

You need to show that P1 does not lead to any logical problems because my whole argument is that it does. Assuming P1 is assuming the very thing that is the problem. And yes I know things are assumed in logic, but you cannot assume the very thing that is incoherent.

What argument? In the last few posts when you've started making the claim that P1 is incoherent, you have repeatedly claimed that it is incoherent or simply demanded that I somehow prove that it isn't incoherent, without you making any argument that it is incoherent or even explaining how or in what way you think it is incoherent. I literally have no idea what you find incoherent or self-contradictory about P1.

The incoherency arises when you cannot show P1 to be true without either:

1) showing morality is arbitrarily decided by god
2) showing morality is independent to god
3) make a circular argument.


The only thing you have done so far is indicate (1), showing morality is arbitrarily decided by god, (3) make a circular argument, or your latest tactic, which is just to assume you can avoid the dilemma above without actually showing it. The actual argument itself is the euthyphro dilemma, which I've articulated several times on this thread now. So either you will refute the argument, admit you cannot, or pretend you can without actually showing so. It seems to me that you are preferring the latter. That means you're a waste of my time.

At this point I'm not even asserting that P1 is true. My position is only that to assume P1 for the sake of argument doesn't run into logical problems. That is, that someone can rationally believe P1 to be true as part of an internally consistent position (in particular, without running into one of the horns of your dilemma). If you can't even agree to that, I see no reason why I should attempt to show the stronger thing you ask for here.

No, I will not agree to assume something incoherent in order you to you "refute" my argument. That is logically absurd. So either refute the argument, or admit you cannot like an adult.

All you would need to do is say something like, "I don't think assuming P1 runs you into a dilemma, I only think trying to show P1 runs you into a dilemma."

This is ridiculous. If you actually had an argument that could refute the dilemma, I would have heard it by now. So it's obvious you, nor anyone else on this thread, all of whom are too chicken to even attempt to refute my argument, don't have a way to refute my argument.

I gave you an argument showing a position that someone could possibly hold that contains P1 and P2 ("God is loving") and concludes with the conclusion "God is good." And that argument is non-circular. Thus that entire position falls upon none of the 3 options of your trilemma. You have yet to show that any of your 3 options is true about that argument. Instead you have now shifted to complaining that P1 itself is impossible.

Completely false, because P1 assumes there is no incoherency in it in order to justify your argument. Anything can be assumed to be coherent. Square-circles can be assumed to be coherent. Married bachelors can be assumed to be coherent. But no one with knowledge of basic logic is going to take an argument that assume this seriously.

No, I was assuming the premise P1 for the sake of argument. Which is a standard logical procedure.

Which is incoherent because you must ultimately come to one of my 3 options.

Wow with the insults. I'm finding it difficult to take you serious too. Almost every time you've tried to give a reason why I'm wrong you have listed things that are irrelevant to what I'm saying, usually by complaining that I haven't yet proven some proposition X, where X is irrelevant to what I'm trying to show. You seem incapable of focusing the discussion on one particular claim and instead complicate the discussion by randomly shifting to a variety of claims. Your latest shift to claiming that P1 itself is self-contradictory is at least an intriguing change and I am honestly interested to know what your argument for that claim is.

You're finding it difficult to take me serious? How do you think I feel dealing with you, a person who needs to assume the very thing that is problematic with his argument in order to show me it isn't false. I've always maintains that P1 is contradictory. It is logically impossible to be true. So once again, either you will refute the argument, admit you cannot, or pretend you can without actually showing so. It seems to me that you are preferring the latter. That means you're a waste of my time.