Right, but Seer is saying that there most certainly is unchangeable absolutes, and that these are grounded in an unchangeable and absolute God.
I cannot tell however if any real points are being made.
Here is my understanding at this point, in a very concise nutshell:
An unchangeable immutable God exists, therefore unchangeable absolute moral truths exists.
Surely, my understanding is lacking here, because if that is all there is, then all this is saying is "I believe in God".
The atheist (at least Tassman), has already conceded that "morality has no independent unchangeable reality..." so in effect, the argument is over.
Seer cannot ask Tassman to deductively reach any universals. Tassman has already said with no uncertain terms that there aren't any.
I can't understand how and why this argument has received so much attention over the centuries.
I think perhaps it's when the atheist begins to claim there are Universal absolutes (independent from a mind). It seems there are nuances of this argument that not every atheist subscribes to.
Stoic seems to have a different nuance of "absolute" than Seer.
Does any atheist here believe there are universal moral absolutes independent from any mind?
Doesn't the term "absolute" (especially in a philosophical context) already imply "independent from mind"?
It's like you don't even have to say it, it's just there.
Maybe it would be helpful to phrase it "independent from any human mind". This at least suggests a possible reality of some Other Mind.
There are great minds here, and there have been great minds over the centuries that have tackled this problem, yet without any consensus.
That boggles my mind that the answer cannot be seen by everyone. Why would anyone in their right mind, not want to see what is?
One bit of advice I think is for everyone to make sure that you're not equivocating any terms before you post.
It's hard to tell, and before you can even catch it, your mind has already been entangled in some conceptual abstraction of what at first appeared logic like.
I cannot tell however if any real points are being made.
Here is my understanding at this point, in a very concise nutshell:
An unchangeable immutable God exists, therefore unchangeable absolute moral truths exists.
Surely, my understanding is lacking here, because if that is all there is, then all this is saying is "I believe in God".
The atheist (at least Tassman), has already conceded that "morality has no independent unchangeable reality..." so in effect, the argument is over.
Seer cannot ask Tassman to deductively reach any universals. Tassman has already said with no uncertain terms that there aren't any.
I can't understand how and why this argument has received so much attention over the centuries.
I think perhaps it's when the atheist begins to claim there are Universal absolutes (independent from a mind). It seems there are nuances of this argument that not every atheist subscribes to.
Stoic seems to have a different nuance of "absolute" than Seer.
Does any atheist here believe there are universal moral absolutes independent from any mind?
Doesn't the term "absolute" (especially in a philosophical context) already imply "independent from mind"?
It's like you don't even have to say it, it's just there.
Maybe it would be helpful to phrase it "independent from any human mind". This at least suggests a possible reality of some Other Mind.
There are great minds here, and there have been great minds over the centuries that have tackled this problem, yet without any consensus.
That boggles my mind that the answer cannot be seen by everyone. Why would anyone in their right mind, not want to see what is?
One bit of advice I think is for everyone to make sure that you're not equivocating any terms before you post.
It's hard to tell, and before you can even catch it, your mind has already been entangled in some conceptual abstraction of what at first appeared logic like.
Comment