Is Epiphenomenalism Irrational?

[The Thinker]

Well right and that is the point. There is something about the human person, qualia, that can not be discovered by science, that is not material in nature.

Science doesn't need certainty, it just needs really good evidence.

No I asked you first. If God's immutable and eternal character, or being, is arbitrary, then can you show me something in the universe that is not arbitrary? Since we often argue about definitions I need to know how you define arbitrary.

Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Now answer my question: Why is god's moral nature the way he is?

No Thinker you are asking me to prove a universal negative - that is bad form, and you know it. You are the one who has been advocating an objective source for ethics - which you have failed to show.

Theists have no problem trying to prove this - so no it is not bad form, and it is technically possible to prove a negative, by showing how the very concept is incoherent - just like I did with LFW. So since you think it is logically impossible to have objective morality without god, you should easily be able to show it. But you know you can't.

Good question, I ground ethics in God? Where would you?

Which one? There are thousands.

As far as entering heaven yes, they are pointless. as far as the degree of punishment in hell, no they are not pointless. You will not share the severity of punishments that a Hitler would.

Hitler was a Christian. So he's in heaven. Do good deeds have a point other than getting into heaven?

First if a Christian (as flawed as we are) really thought like that I would question his conversion. Wouldn't you? Second, again there are degrees of rewards and demerits even in heaven. Salvation is by faith, but that is not all there is - we well be judged by the things done in the body - good or bad

I question everyone's conversion because it seems they're done out of selfishness for the desire for reward. Some people join Islam for example just for the 72 virgins.

No Thinker, I do good because I love God and am eternally grateful (literally) for His grace, mercy and love.

Define "good."

So if instead of going to heaven for doing good, you went to hell instead, would you still do good?

Nonsense, in your system, or any godless system, justice can not be guaranteed, therefore injustice is a common feature. If the bad man can gain wealth and power with little or no exposure to sanctions then he would be completely rational to do so.

If that same bad man can just convert to your religion before he dies and go to heaven, and a non-Christian can help the poor her entire life and end up in hell, how is that justice?

In my system doing good is not to get some selfish reward in the afterlife, or for the love of some invisible deity like yours, it is because doing good things positively benefits people and society. That's what's rational.

[The Thinker]

Then prove it. And it is a positive claim - that is a positive statement, a claim to a truth or fact.

"don't" is a negative claim. "do" is a positive claim.

Has religion so degraded your brain that you cannot comprehend basic logic?

[seer]

"don't" is a negative claim. "do" is a positive claim.

Has religion so degraded your brain that you cannot comprehend basic logic?

Nonsense, a claim is a claim. A claim to a fact or truism. And the fact claimed here is that god's do not exist - so prove it.

[The Thinker]

Nonsense, a claim is a claim. A claim to a fact or truism. And the fact claimed here is that god's do not exist - so prove it.

No, there are two types - positive and negative. The person making the positive claim bears the burden of proof. That would be you.

[seer]

Science doesn't need certainty, it just needs really good evidence.

Evidence without all the facts in this case.

Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

How does that make God's nature arbitrary if it is eternal and immutable?

Now answer my question: Why is god's moral nature the way he is?

No, you did not answer my first question. Can you show me something in the universe that is not arbitrary?

So since you think it is logically impossible to have objective morality without god, you should easily be able to show it. But you know you can't.

Admit it Thinker, you can not make an argument for objective ethics without begging the question.

Which one? There are thousands.

It would not matter, if God, then...

Define "good."

What conforms to the teachings and example of Christ.

In my system doing good is not to get some selfish reward in the afterlife, or for the love of some invisible deity like yours, it is because doing good things positively benefits people and society. That's what's rational.

And why is it good to benefit your fellow man? Like I asked - why is it an objective moral good for our species to survive in the first place

[seer]

No, there are two types - positive and negative. The person making the positive claim bears the burden of proof. That would be you.

I didn't make a claim, Tass did - he said no gods exist. No matter how you label it that is a claim to a fact or truism. It is on him or you to prove it.

[The Thinker]

I didn't make a claim, Tass did - he said no gods exist. No matter how you label it that is a claim to a fact or truism. It is on him or you to prove it.

I didn't make the claim either. Duh.

[The Thinker]

Evidence without all the facts in this case.

Makes no sense.

How does that make God's nature arbitrary if it is eternal and immutable?

Eternal and immutable don't resolve the arbitrary problem. And evil god can have eternal and immutable natures. I already told you this.

No, you did not answer my first question. Can you show me something in the universe that is not arbitrary?

1+1=2

Now answer my question: Why is god's moral nature the way he is?

Admit it Thinker, you can not make an argument for objective ethics without begging the question.

Sounds like you don't want to admit you can't actually show your faith-based claim that without god there is objective morality.

It would not matter, if God, then...

OK, so the god of ISIS then?

What conforms to the teachings and example of Christ.

Why him? What is it about Jesus' teachings and examples that are good? He condoned slavery. Why not Mohammed, or Joseph Smith?

And why is it good to benefit your fellow man? Like I asked - why is it an objective moral good for our species to survive in the first place

It's good because I will sometimes be that fellow man, and so will you, and so logically it makes rational sense to cultivate a society where people help each other and seek to decrease suffering. Your last question is totally misguided.

[seer]

I didn't make the claim either. Duh.

Well I was responding to Tass, and you stuck your big nose in.

[seer]

Eternal and immutable don't resolve the arbitrary problem. And evil god can have eternal and immutable natures. I already told you this.

Yes, but even if it was an evil god it's nature would still not be arbitrary.

1+1=2

You mean that the tokens we assign to numbers are not arbitrary? Do numbers have independent ontological existence? Try again. If I follow your definition everything would be arbitrary.

Now answer my question: Why is god's moral nature the way he is?

Because it is the only way He can be. He can be no different. But that is not arbitrary. His nature is not as it is due to a personal whim.

Sounds like you don't want to admit you can't actually show your faith-based claim that without god there is objective morality.

OK, so the god of ISIS then?

Stop turning the augment around. You have claimed that objective morality can exist apart from god - OK, show us. Or admit that it is a faith-based claim.

It's good because I will sometimes be that fellow man, and so will you, and so logically it makes rational sense to cultivate a society where people help each other and seek to decrease suffering. Your last question is totally misguided.

So you are good for basically selfish reasons? And no, the last question is not misguided, you just have no answer. BTW - none of this makes ethics objective.

[The Thinker]

Well I was responding to Tass, and you stuck your big nose in.

I had to stuck up for him to show how he was technically right. You're making the positive claim - you bear the burden of proof. He's making a negative claim. That's basic philosophy.

[The Thinker]

Yes, but even if it was an evil god it's nature would still not be arbitrary.

Why not?

You mean that the tokens we assign to numbers are not arbitrary? Do numbers have independent ontological existence? Try again. If I follow your definition everything would be arbitrary.

No. The math is not arbitrary and you know it. So there I showed you something that isn't arbitrary. So let's see how you fair with my question.

Because it is the only way He can be. He can be no different. But that is not arbitrary. His nature is not as it is due to a personal whim.

Things that aren't arbitrary are based on a system or reason, as the definition showed. So what's the reason why that's the only way he can be?

Stop turning the augment around. You have claimed that objective morality can exist apart from god - OK, show us. Or admit that it is a faith-based claim.

I already showed that on the other thread by showing that there is no logical way to ground morality in god without either:

1. showing how it is arbitrary
2. making a circular argument
3. showing that morality is independent of god

There is no other logical option. Given that you reject 1, and you know 2 is incoherent, that only leaves 3. It's the only rational approach.

So you are good for basically selfish reasons? And no, the last question is not misguided, you just have no answer. BTW - none of this makes ethics objective.

No, because even If I die this principle wouldn't go away.

I don't think you even know what the definition of objective is. Give me it.

[seer]

I had to stuck up for him to show how he was technically right. You're making the positive claim - you bear the burden of proof. He's making a negative claim. That's basic philosophy.

Again nonsense, I did not make any claim - I called him on his - he made the claim.

[seer]

Why not?

If God's nature is immutable then it does not follow you definition of arbitrary. He does not simply act on personal whim. That He can change what He is, or His moral sense at the drop of a hat.

No. The math is not arbitrary and you know it. So there I showed you something that isn't arbitrary. So let's see how you fair with my question.

Wrong, of course the tokens we assign to numbers are completely arbitrary. And with out those arbitrary tokens you don't have math.

So what's the reason why that's the only way he can be?

Who knows, why is the universe the way it is? You would have to say just because too.

I already showed that on the other thread by showing that there is no logical way to ground morality in god without either:

1. showing how it is arbitrary
2. making a circular argument
3. showing that morality is independent of god

There is no other logical option. Given that you reject 1, and you know 2 is incoherent, that only leaves 3. It's the only rational approach.

But you have never showed that morality was independent of God without arguing in a circle. And God having an immutable moral nature prevents arbitrary moral decisions on His part - you know that is the case, that is why you are pushing the question back to why is God the way he is.

No, because even If I die this principle wouldn't go away.

If we all die would this principle go away? So the principle depends on our existence, and our existence is not an objective moral good. So again - you got nothing. Besides, increased suffering of others can be beneficial to some if they gain wealth and power through it. So even that doesn't fly.

I don't think you even know what the definition of objective is. Give me it.

Objective means something that exists independent of the viewer. The sun is objective, its existence does not depend on our subjective experience of it.

[The Thinker]

Again nonsense, I did not make any claim - I called him on his - he made the claim.

He made a negative claim. And you've made plenty of claims on this site that you never justify - that we have LFW for example. Not only do you not even provide evidence for it, you're question begging the assumption that it's even coherent.