Originally posted by mattbballman31
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
Atheism And Moral Progress
Collapse
X
-
The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI did not say "all areas." I said "moral automaton." If a human would be a "moral automaton" if they could not freely choose to do good (i.e., by being able to also choose evil), then it stands to reason the same logic applies to a god.
It is not a lie, Seer. You are very free with your insults, my friend. I am merely repeating your argument back to you:
What you have said is:
1) a human who cannot freely choose "moral good" is a moral automaton - and you believe your god values love freely given. You noted that the love of a spouse has value because it is freely given (and does not have to be given).
2) your god cannot freely choose to do evil - and is constrained to do only what is good.
Your own reasoning leads to the conclusion that your god's love is not "freely given" - and your god is constrained to only love by his "nature." Ergo - your god is a moral automaton whose love really has no true value because it is not freely given.
I don't see how you escape this conundrum. It is what I have been trying to point out to you for some time now.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 PostAgain, it is not completely analogues since even in His determined moral nature He does will, think and feel (automaton don't as far as I know). But yes He certainly is morally determined by nature to act as He does.
Yes it is a lie Carp, I have not moved the goal posts, I'm explaining why a freely given love could have value to God and to us, I'm also saying that a determined love could have value to us, especially in light of the fact that it may concern my eternal destiny.
I did not say that a determined love did not have value, I asked if it would would have value to you in your relationships. There I too prefer a freely given love, but AGAIN there are real down sides as I have explained. But to put my eternal fate in a being who could freely decide to change, for what ever reason, is fool's errant. There I want certainty. I VALUE certainty over FREEDOM.
There is only a problem in your own mind Carp. Completely different situations can and will cause us to value differently.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostA lie, Seer, is a statement made with the intent to deceive. I have no such intent. My intent is to show you the inconsistency of your position. It is possible I am wrong (though you have not yet shown that). I have not lied. For whatever reason, you are shifting to insults. I'm not sure why. Perhaps part of you actually sees that your position is not consistent - so you need to shift to a personal attack. Only you actually know why you feel the need to go there. But I do know I am not lying.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 PostCarp, I didn't care for you accusing me of moving the goal posts - that was false.
You have no basis for this shift - except that you apparently want it. The shift is not rooted in logic or reason, that I can see.
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd an insult.
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd my position is perfect consistent. In certain conditions I value a freely given love (even with the high possibility capriciousness) and it other situations I would prefer a love that could not possibly change. When it came to your eternal density (if you believed in such a thing) would you rather have it depend on a changeable, unpredictable affection, or a certain, unchangeable love? The answer is obvious.
However, the issue is not about change or not change. The issue is about moral freedom. The argument for why evil exists is often made on the basis that man must have the freedom to choose to do both good or evil, because to be forced to only good makes man a moral automaton, lacking the ability to be a moral being because man would lack the ability to freely choose to do good. Your argument is that god is a moral automaton. Ergo, your good (by that argument) cannot be a moral being. The concept of "being morally good" does not apply to this being because it is not free to choose otherwise. You cannot consistently hold the position that man would be a moral automaton if he lacked free agency, but a god somehow can be morally constrained and NOT be a moral automaton.
Perhaps I am guilty of assuming you hold a particular position. I am assuming that you would agree that man must have moral free agency so as to be considered a moral being. That is, without the freedom to choose - man cannot be considered a moral agent. Is that true?
P.S. As for "eternal destiny," I believe it is all of our "eternal destiny" to cease to exist. That is what death is - the end of existence as a thinking, reasoning, individual. And it is "eternal" only in so far as "eternal" means "for all time." If/when time itself ends, so too will any sort of "destiny."Last edited by carpedm9587; 12-27-2018, 12:20 PM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostSeer, "moving the goalposts" is an observation on an error in logic. It is about your argument. It may be false (if you can show how the logic fails) but it is not a lie (which is a statement of intent, and would require you to be reading my mind or otherwise demonstrating an intent on my part to deceive). The statement I made was, "You are shifting the goalposts as you shift from man to god - seeing value in a god that is a moral automaton, but no value in a human with the same characteristics - or insisting that a human that cannot freely choose to perform immoral acts is a moral automaton - but a god who cannot freely choose to perform immoral acts is not."
You have no basis for this shift - except that you apparently want it. The shift is not rooted in logic or reason, that I can see.
There is little I can do if you choose to take a rational argument as an insult. And given the sheer number of times you and others here have levied the exact same charge at me, you should perhaps rethink either doing that, or considering it an insult.
I'll try not to take "eternal density" as an insult. For the record, my wife would probably agree with you...
However, the issue is not about change or not change. The issue is about moral freedom. The argument for why evil exists is often made on the basis that man must have the freedom to choose to do both good or evil, because to be forced to only good makes man a moral automaton, lacking the ability to be a moral being because man would lack the ability to freely choose to do good. Your argument is that god is a moral automaton. Ergo, your good (by that argument) cannot be a moral being. The concept of "being morally good" does not apply to this being because it is not free to choose otherwise. You cannot consistently hold the position that man would be a moral automaton if he lacked free agency, but a god somehow can be morally constrained and NOT be a moral automaton.
Perhaps I am guilty of assuming you hold a particular position. I am assuming that you would agree that man must have moral free agency so as to be considered a moral being. That is, without the freedom to choose - man cannot be considered a moral agent. Is that true?
P.S. As for "eternal destiny," I believe it is all of our "eternal destiny" to cease to exist. That is what death is - the end of existence as a thinking, reasoning, individual. And it is "eternal" only in so far as "eternal" means "for all time." If/when time itself ends, so too will any sort of "destiny."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 PostCarp first I never claimed that for a person to be a moral being he must be free to make contrary choices, I argued just the opposite.
Originally posted by seer View PostI even offered an accepted dictionary definition that did not require the idea of contrary choice (though it could include that). Now to your false claim on my moving the goal post. I never did that, here is how the argument went. It was about human freedom and the ability to choose evil. I asked you if YOU would find value in a deterministic love, you said no. Then I said perhaps God doesn't value such a love from His creatures either. Then you suggested that because of His nature God's love would be deterministic, and I agree that it is. But that to me that can and does have value. That when it came to reaching everlasting life, or not, I value absolute certainty over moral vagaries or the possibility of God changing His mind. So what I value in my fellow man may not be what I would value in my God. There is no moving of the goal posts here or nothing logically inconsistent.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostCarp first I never claimed that for a person to be a moral being he must be free to make contrary choices, I argued just the opposite. I even offered an accepted dictionary definition that did not require the idea of contrary choice (though it could include that). Now to your false claim on my moving the goal post. I never did that, here is how the argument went. It was about human freedom and the ability to choose evil. I asked you if YOU would find value in a deterministic love, you said no. Then I said perhaps God doesn't value such a love from His creatures either. Then you suggested that because of His nature God's love would be deterministic, and I agree that it is. But that to me that can and does have value. That when it came to reaching everlasting life, or not, I value absolute certainty over moral vagaries or the possibility of God changing His mind. So what I value in my fellow man may not be what I would value in my God. There is no moving of the goal posts here or nothing logically inconsistent.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostWhich is why I noted I may be assuming, and asked the question that I asked.
Sorry, Seer, but you kind of just went back on yourself. First, you seem to be pivoting between "love" and "moral choice." The concepts are not the same.
Second, if you have a deterministic god, then you don't really have a god - you have an automaton. If you are happy worshiping an automaton, then that is clearly your right and your choice. You cannot, however, consistently say that you value love because it is freely given when from a person, and then pivot to value love for the opposite reason from a a supreme being. The positions are simply not consistent. You seem to be working hard to make them so - but so far all you seem to be leaning on is "I value it that way." That's not a logical argument - it's primarily an emotional one.Last edited by seer; 12-28-2018, 08:22 AM.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 PostBut I already answered that a while back.
Originally posted by seer View PostI have no idea what you mean, please explain.
I guess I don't understand what you don't understand.
Originally posted by seer View PostIt is perfectly consistent since we are speaking of two different situations and two different beings (God and man). Human freedom and love, with all its inconsistencies, has its place. But when it comes to my eternal destiny I prefer a love that will not change. There is nothing illogical about that Carp. And again, God is not an automaton, automatons do not think, will or feel.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostAgain - you are shifting the goal posts. I am not talking about love - the conversation was about morality. And the expression I used was "moral automaton." That does not mean it cannot choose - it means it is forced to choose particular types of acts. That is consistent with the position taken by most Christians in refuting the argument from evil: that a being cannot be said to be a moral agent if it's moral acts are constrained to prohibit evil acts, ergo god had to permit man to choose freely. A being without this ability has no moral freedom, and hence cannot be a moral agent. It is a moral automaton. The concepts of "good" and "evil" do not apply to it because it cannot choose. It is merely acting according to its moral programming. This is equally true of both a god and a man. It is true of any sentient being.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 PostCarp, love in Scripture is linked to morality. It is the First Commandment.
Originally posted by seer View PostIt centers everything else, as Christ said: If you love me you will keep my commands (moral law).
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd my point all through is was that perhaps God prefers a freely given love as opposed to a deterministic love. And that moral obedience follows (or not) from that choice. It is not about being a moral agent per se but about our love for God and our fellow man, the moral obedience flow from those. As Paul said: So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
Originally posted by seer View PostAs far as God and man, I'm certain you can understand that one can value a particular kind of love (freely given) in one instance and another kind of love (deterministic/certain) in another instance. And of course the concept of good and evil still exist. Good is what conforms to God's nature and will, evil is what violates those. And I'm not sure that concepts like love or hate can not be considered moral questions.Last edited by carpedm9587; 12-30-2018, 05:39 PM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostLinked? yes. The same? No. I can act morally without love being involved. I can love without morality being involved. Indeed, love has caused more than one person to engage in highly immoral actions. I can also love and act for the moral good in tandem. You are attempting to equate two things that are not equivalent.
Again, that does not make love and morality the same thing. The conversation has bee about morality - and you are attempting to pivot it to "love." I'm going to stay with what the conversation was actually about: choosing actions that are moral and discarding actions that are immoral. A being that is free to choose from either immoral or oral actions and chooses moral actions is morally free and so is a moral agent. Their choice has meaning. Their choice demonstrates moral character and moral strength. A being that is constrained to only act for the good at all times is not morally free and so cannot be a moral agent. Morally - they are an automaton. The term "morality" does not really apply to them because they lack the capacity for free choice between both moral and immoral actions.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
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
173 responses
649 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
06-07-2024, 07:30 AM
|
Comment