Secular Morality?

[Cornell]

QU

You having a plan /=/ God having a plan

I know that....

[JimL]

You just made my point for me

I had an 'intention' on being here so I am part of a plan.

No, in your world you are are commanded to follow a script, you don't do good because you make the choice to do so, because you believe it to be right to do so, you do what you do because like an automaton you are following commands out of fear of being inhilated or in want of the reward of eternal existence. Thats what you call " your purpose."

Even if we don't know what the plan is, we are still part of a plan.

Yes, for good or evil, you will blindly obey!

This is all I need to have an advantage of significance, because right off the bat, my existence is ultimately part of something 'objective' to my opinion on the matter.

Yes, it must be nice not having to think and take responsibility for ones own dicisions.

Being part of something objectively, means I am significant to something objectively.

If you have no self respect, if you can find no meaning to your own existence, then who cares if as a created toy you are objectively significant.

I can't say the same for your magical universe which makes 'signifance' arbitrary since it is dependent on subjectiveness and an 'accidental' foundation.

You're the one living in a magical universe. Your significance is that of a thoughtless puppets whose voice is not his own.

[Cornell]

Jim, Jim, Jim I can' keep up with all the non-sequiturs so can you actually refute what I actually said instead of going into projections of what you assume to be my stance on philosophical positions relating to theology?

So once again

If X had an 'intention' of being here, does that make them part of a plan? Yes or no?

I also said

" Even if we don't know what the plan is, we are still part of a plan."

Which you conceded, so that is an advantage in my favor.

Then I said

" Being part of something objectively, means I am significant to something objectively"

You then claimed that If I had no self respect such and such would occur, however, whether I had self respect or not it doesn't have anything to do with what I said, because 'objective' means 'minds independent' and therefore it doesn't matter how I respect myself, because my claim could be made by any human, as it was a universal claim.

So do you agree or not?

Your last response is a poor defense of your position which amounts to a tu quoque and it makes no sense, as how is what you said have to do with whether or not an objective purpose logically follows from an intention which occurred that ultimately makes the subject be a part of a plan?

Can you try to put your emotions away and address what I am saying this time?

[JimL]

Jim, Jim, Jim I can' keep up with all the non-sequiturs so can you actually refute what I actually said instead of going into projections of what you assume to be my stance on philosophical positions relating to theology?

So once again

If X had an 'intention' of being here, does that make them part of a plan? Yes or no?

I also said

" Even if we don't know what the plan is, we are still part of a plan."

Which you conceded, so that is an advantage in my favor.

Then I said

" Being part of something objectively, means I am significant to something objectively"

You then claimed that If I had no self respect such and such would occur, however, whether I had self respect or not it doesn't have anything to do with what I said, because 'objective' means 'minds independent' and therefore it doesn't matter how I respect myself, because my claim could be made by any human, as it was a universal claim.

So do you agree or not?

Your last response is a poor defense of your position which amounts to a tu quoque and it makes no sense, as how is what you said have to do with whether or not an objective purpose logically follows from an intention which occurred that ultimately makes the subject be a part of a plan?

Can you try to put your emotions away and address what I am saying this time?

What Im saying is that there is nothing significant about being a piece of someone elses puzzle, particularly when you are ignorant of and can not even articulate what your purpose is.

[Cornell]

What Im saying is that there is nothing significant about being a piece of someone elses puzzle, particularly when you are ignorant of and can not even articulate what your purpose is.

BUt that just looks like an emotional rant on your part and nothing else.

One doesn't need to know what their purpose is in order to have a purpose to begin with, because the purpose exists anyways. This is why I use the word 'objective'. The purpose doesn't depend on me knowing what it is, it depends on whether or not I have one.

[JimL]

BUt that just looks like an emotional rant on your part and nothing else.

One doesn't need to know what their purpose is in order to have a purpose to begin with, because the purpose exists anyways. This is why I use the word 'objective'. The purpose doesn't depend on me knowing what it is, it depends on whether or not I have one.

No, you don't have one. If you don't know what you are doing, then "you" don't have a purpose.

[Tassman]

BUt that just looks like an emotional rant on your part and nothing else.

One doesn't need to know what their purpose is in order to have a purpose to begin with, because the purpose exists anyways. This is why I use the word 'objective'. The purpose doesn't depend on me knowing what it is, it depends on whether or not I have one.

So you have a purpose but you don't know what your purpose is. Gotya!

[seer]

No, you don't have one. If you don't know what you are doing, then "you" don't have a purpose.

That doesn't make sense Jim. If a seeing eye dog doesn't really understand his purpose, yet does his job, does that mean he doesn't have a purpose?

[Cornell]

So you have a purpose but you don't know what your purpose is. Gotya!

Yeah just like I can purposely give my baby pears instead of apples, and the baby will eat it, not knowing why I choose pears over apples.

But yet, I still had a purpose to do something, and the person that was affected by that something had no idea what my purpose was.

In other words... I don't see a problem

[Cornell]

No, you don't have one. If you don't know what you are doing, then "you" don't have a purpose.

Ridiculous

I can raise my infant in a way where I have a plan for her this week, and yet she wouldn't realize what my purpose was, but the plan still exists.

In other words....I don't see a problem

[Tassman]

Yeah just like I can purposely give my baby pears instead of apples, and the baby will eat it, not knowing why I choose pears over apples.

But yet, I still had a purpose to do something, and the person that was affected by that something had no idea what my purpose was.

In other words... I don't see a problem

[Cornell]

No, there is an 'intention' taking place when I choose one fruit over another.

All I am saying right now is that our species was 'intended' to be here, so I accept a teleology.

And that intentions imply a goal to take place

This is all I need to work with

[Tassman]

No, there is an 'intention' taking place when I choose one fruit over another.

"An intention" but, according to your example, not your intention.

All I am saying right now is that our species was 'intended' to be here, so I accept a teleology.

You can say that if you wish and I can disregard it as unsubstantiated nonsense.

And that intentions imply a goal to take place

...even when they're God's intentions and not yours.

This is all I need to work with

So it seems.

[JimL]

Ridiculous

I can raise my infant in a way where I have a plan for her this week, and yet she wouldn't realize what my purpose was, but my plan still exists.

Your purpose, your plan, not your childs purpose.

In other words....I don't see a problem

You don't see the problem in blindly following a plan?

[Cornell]

"An intention" but, according to your example, not your intention.



You can say that if you wish and I can disregard it as unsubstantiated nonsense.



...even when they're God's intentions and not yours.



So it seems.

an intention that plays a role in my life (whether I like it or not), and yet I am not the source of it entails that an objective purpose exists. This aligns with a teleology because a final cause is present.

Comparing human 'intentions' to a God's 'intentions' is a false analogy. This is because of the difference between 'necessity' and 'contingency'.

My intentions don't create physical reality for contingent beings, so what's up with the attempt of trying to make humans analogous to a necessary being?