Originally posted by seer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
The Moral Argument for God's Existence
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostSo do you mean to say that murder is not objectively immoral, but is either moral or immoral, dependent upon the subjective whim of god?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWhat? What murder?
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostAre you deliberately playing dumb seer? Your god ordered that homosexuals and witches/magicians be stoned to death/murdered because of their immoral behavior. If that is an objective moral imperitave, and not a subjective and arbitrary command, then the only moral thing to do is to murder all acting homosexuals and magicians. No?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by seer View PostTass, it is not a question of how we act, but how we came to behave this way. And on that note you can only assume, you can not demonstrate it scientifically without taking great leaps.
Nonsense, most morally rational people understand what it means to love ones neighbor, and what forgiveness, sexual chastity, love for God, fidelity in marriage, simple kindness mean. These are not in the least vague. And the fact that there are competing religions does not logically mean that they are all false.
No, it is no more divisive than competing political views - just look how divisive the leftists have been after our last election.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostNatural selection!
Really! Do you understand what it means to loves homosexuals? Does Donald L Trump understand about fidelity in marriage. Do Muslims understand about "loving God" when in your view it's the wrong god?
Far more divisive because it's based upon competing beliefs re the "one true god".Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostReally, you saw this? You were there?
Sure, if you really love gays you encourage them to repent of their sin, and I'm sure that Trump understands fidelity in marriage - he just doesn't practice it.
Nonsense
Comment
-
Originally posted by crepuscule View Postobjectively wrong? In other words, why is it true despitecameonly
Impersonal things cannot specify what one ought to do or what one ought not to do. Impersonal things have no authority over anyone. Lifeless clumps of matter cannot specify what you ought to do. Only personal beings with authority can specify what you ought to do. In order for moral values to apply to all people in all places at all times, the personal being must have authority over all people in all places at all times. Moral values are eternal so the personal being from whom they proceed must be eternal. The only eternal personal being who has authority over everyone is God.
How do I escape the Euthyphro dilemma? God does not arbitrarily decide what is morally right or wrong. God calls something good or evil because He has a certain kind of nature. What is a morally right is a reflection of His nature. God does everything according to His nature. God would not call lying a good thing because lying does not reflect God's character.
I would like to add the following:
Why think that God's nature is the ultimate stopping point rather than some other thing?
1. God is the greatest conceivable being by definition. God is the paradigm of goodness.
2. It makes no sense to ask of one's ultimate stopping point, "Is it good because it creates or recognizes the good?" Neither one - it just is the good, the standard, the definition of good and evil.
3. The Euthyphro argument itself proves that God is the ground of the good. God's nature is the standard of goodness.
But isn't the whole process circular - in order to know God is good, one must know what good is, but in order to know what good is, God must exist? This objection confuses the order of knowing (Epistemology) with the order of being (Ontology). In the order of knowing, the concept of goodness chronologically precedes the concept of God, in the order of being, the existence of God logically precedes the existence of goodness. Only if one confuses the two categories can one get circularity.Last edited by Jaxb; 12-04-2016, 11:21 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jaxb View PostTorturing babies just for the fun of it is objectively wrong because this moral value applies to all people in all places at all times.
Originally posted by Jaxb View PostUniversal moral values are self-evident.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThe evidence supporting 'natural selection' is overwhelming.
So Christianity is not divisive provided everybody follows your rules...including fellow Christians who think differently from you. Gotcha!
Religion is more divisive than politics because it's based upon competing beliefs re the "one true god"...as you demonstrate above.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jaxb View PostTorturing babies just for the fun of it is objectively wrong because this moral value applies to all people in all places at all times. It is something that all cultures must adhere to.Universal moral values are self-evident.Who would deny that it is wrong for every culture or society to torture babies just for the fun of it?Impersonal things cannot specify what one ought to do or what one ought not to do. Impersonal things have no authority over anyone. Lifeless clumps of matter cannot specify what you ought to do. Only personal beings with authority can specify what you ought to do. In order for moral values to apply to all people in all places at all times, the personal being must have authority over all people in all places at all times.
Moral values are eternal so the personal being from whom they proceed must be eternal.
The only eternal personal being who has authority over everyone is God.God does not arbitrarily decide what is morally right or wrong.
I'm saying that if God exists His nature is the ultimate source of good and bad. If He says torturing babies is bad, it's bad, but if He says it's good, then it's good. Either way we have to abide; if morality is objective our opinion on the matter is completely irrelevant.
God calls something good or evil because He has a certain kind of nature. What is a morally right is a reflection of His nature. God does everything according to His nature. God would not call lying a good thing because lying does not reflect God's character.
Why think that God's nature is the ultimate stopping point rather than some other thing?
1. God is the greatest conceivable being by definition. God is the paradigm of goodness.
2. It makes no sense to ask of one's ultimate stopping point, "Is it good because it creates or recognizes the good?" Neither one - it just is the good, the standard, the definition of good and evil.
3. The Euthyphro argument itself proves that God is the ground of the good. God's nature is the standard of goodness.But isn't the whole process circular - in order to know God is good, one must know what good is, but in order to know what good is, God must exist?
Comment
-
Originally posted by crepuscule View Post
Neither the Eutyphro dilemma nor I say that He does. God's nature being arbitrary does not necessarily mean changeable/changing.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by crepuscule View PostSomething that exists necessarily?
Don't know. I'm not even sure if it is a fault.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment