The Moral Argument for God's Existence

[Tassman]

So you agree that the understanding of moral concepts do not go back millions of years. That as a matter of fact we only have evidence that our understanding of these concepts goes back thousands of years.

They were only codified

That is nonsense, a baker refusing a service has nothing to do with equal protection under the law, that is about how the law is applied by the Government. And the Civil Rights Act says nothing about discrimination based on sexual behavior. So again, you have no problem forcing your moral view on others. It makes no difference if your view is codified in law, the result is the same.

I agree that if determinism is true you could have no idea is you were determined to speak the truth above of a falsehood. grmorton has an excellent post on this here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post396328

[seer]

They were only codified

No Tass, they did not exist as moral CONCEPTS, and that is the point. We did something no other "primate" did.



First that is false, second so what? The point is most law is about forcing one moral view on others. And you have no problem forcing your moral view on others.


Did you miss grmorton point completely? If everything is determined then so are scientific results and how you see or understand those results. So how do you KNOW that you and the results were determined towards truisms? You logically can't.

[JimL]

Did you miss grmorton point completely? If everything is determined then so are scientific results and how you see or understand those results. So how do you KNOW that you and the results were determined towards truisms? You logically can't.

If you don't believe in the reality of your observations, then whether they are determined or not, you don't have to believe in the truth of the conclusions arrived at by scientific observation. You can just make stuff up! Reality is just a great big fantasy playing itself out in your own head.

[seer]

If you don't believe in the reality of your observations, then whether they are determined or not, you don't have to believe in the truth of the conclusions arrived at by scientific observation. You can just make stuff up! Reality is just a great big fantasy playing itself out in your own head.

Jim, I believe we can know truisms just because we are not determined. The laws of nature care nothing for propositional truths or concepts. And it is these very laws that determine what we think do or say if Tass is correct. You have to go to the source or ground of our thinking, which in this case, would be non-rational physical processes.

[Tassman]

Jim, I believe we can know truisms just because we are not determined. The laws of nature care nothing for propositional truths or concepts. And it is these very laws that determine what we think do or say if Tass is correct. You have to go to the source or ground of our thinking, which in this case, would be non-rational physical processes.

Given that every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs, please explain how you arrive at your "truth" independently of this.

[Tassman]

No Tass, they did not exist as moral CONCEPTS, and that is the point. We did something no other "primate" did.

It makes no difference whether the rules of behaviour were conceptualised or not, they still existed.

First that is false, second so what? The point is most law is about forcing one moral view on others. And you have no problem forcing your moral view on others.

With regard the 1964 Civil Rights Acts and the 14th Amendment it's based upon, its aim is to protect the civil rights of ALL citizens; if this results in bigots being denied the right to discriminate against those they dislike then so be it.

Did you miss grmorton point completely? If everything is determined then so are scientific results and how you see or understand those results. So how do you KNOW that you and the results were determined towards truisms? You logically can't.

as if they are true. Please explain how it could be otherwise...revelations from on high? How are they validated, or is it a faith thing?

[seer]

It makes no difference whether the rules of behaviour were conceptualized or not, they still existed.

What? Until the are conceptualized they are not rules, just instinct. Monkeys just happen to act one way, wolves another.

With regard the 1964 Civil Rights Acts and the 14th Amendment it's based upon, its aim is to protect the civil rights of ALL citizens; if this results in bigots being denied the right to discriminate against those they dislike then so be it.

What about a man's right to not be forced by law to serve another? You really are a hypocrite Tass.

as if they are true. Please explain how it could be otherwise...revelations from on high? How are they validated, or is it a faith thing?

You are not understanding the point. Look, is what you just wrote above true? How do you know you were determined to believe the correct thing here?

[Jaxb]

[shunyadragon]

Premise 1: If ethical relativism is false, then there are moral values that apply to all people in all places at all times.
Premise 2: Ethical relativism is false.
Conclusion: There are moral values that apply to all people in all places at all times.

Shoot down from the git go.

There are in reality many moral values that do not apply to all people in all places at all times.

It is not absurd that 'There are in reality many moral values that do not apply to all people in all places at all times.'

There are in reality many moral values that do not apply to all people in all places at all times. There are indeed many changes in fundamental moral and ethics over time.

3. ETHICAL RELATIVISM AND IRRATIONALITY: According to Individual Ethical Relativism, whatever I choose to believe is right or wrong just because I believe it. I may have reasons to support my belief, but then again I may not. In other words, it really does not matter whether I have reasons to support my moral beliefs. For it is consistent with the theory to assert that whatever moral beliefs I hold, they are true simply because I believe them. Similarly for Cultural Ethical Relativism. The only difference is that we are dealing with what a Culture believes is right, instead of a single individual.

Individual Moral Relativism has little or nothing to do with cannot be equated with Cultural Moral Relativism.

[Tassman]

What? Until the are conceptualized they are not rules, just instinct. Monkeys just happen to act one way, wolves another.

What about a man's right to not be forced by law to serve another? You really are a hypocrite Tass.

What about the civil right of a law-abiding citizen to not be discriminated against by bigots?

You are not understanding the point. Look, is what you just wrote above true?

Define "true"

How do you know you were determined to believe the correct thing here?

[JimL]

Given that every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs, please explain how you arrive at your "truth" independently of this.

seer is under the misconception that as a spirit he isn't dependent upon his physical brain. Why he thinks, that as a spirit, he would need a physical brain, is the question he has no answer for.

[seer]

What about the civil right of a law-abiding citizen to not be discriminated against by bigots?

The Constitution doesn't care if you are a bigot, it doesn't care who you choose to do business with or not. That is called freedom Tass, it is not a civil right to force me by law to serve you.


OK, so now you don't even know what true or correct means? Sad...

[seer]

seer is under the misconception that as a spirit he isn't dependent upon his physical brain. Why he thinks, that as a spirit, he would need a physical brain, is the question he has no answer for.

Jim, I never said that the mind (spirit) isn't dependent on the physical brain. I actually said just the opposite since I hold to emergent dualism. But you don't have to invoke the spirit to make a case for freewill as Joel did here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post392741

[Tassman]

The Constitution doesn't care if you are a bigot, it doesn't care who you choose to do business with or not. That is called freedom Tass, it is not a civil right to force me by law to serve you.

But the Constitution as expressed in the Civil Rights Act, does

OK, so now you don't even know what true or correct means? Sad..

[Tassman]

Jim, I never said that the mind (spirit) isn't dependent on the physical brain. I actually said just the opposite since I hold to emergent dualism. But you don't have to invoke the spirit to make a case for freewill as Joel did here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post392741

There's no dualism, "emergent" or otherwise. All the evidence indicates that the mind and consciousness can be reduced to the neurological function of the brain and nervous system.