tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post5374129400296429200..comments2023-06-13T19:06:50.965-07:00Comments on Oasis: Addendum To "More Thoughts On God's Goodness" Karlahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-66276792057278191542009-03-12T08:42:00.000-07:002009-03-12T08:42:00.000-07:00"I haven't said that. Righteous living does not co..."I haven't said that. Righteous living does not come from us, by our strength. It comes from our relationship with Him, by His strength."<BR/><BR/>You haven't? You said, "We can learn to hear His voice and follow Him." If following god does not mean obeying him, then what does it mean? You're engaging in what is commonly referred to as Xian-speak. What people mean by that is meaningless Xian sound-bytes that tell us nothing and are rooting in tautological language that doesn't actually tell us anything. Until you can flesh out your ideas in ways that actually explain things to our human understanding, your words are quite useless.<BR/><BR/>"I'm sorry if I stepped on your toes and proselytized."<BR/><BR/>I'm not, because you've established that it's your only way to try and counter that which is difficult. Can't answer a question, simply assert that god loves me, that god is good, or some other such nonsense. I'm still waiting for you to explain quite a few things here, like why it's OK to commit genocide when god orders it and why god would order it...especially since you claim that absolute morality exists!<BR/><BR/>"I am still learning how to communicate across worldviews. I'm trying to put things in terms that communicate without jargon."<BR/><BR/>That's exactly what I've been asking for...knock off the jargon and use definitions and terms that make sense to us all. To communicate across worldviews - as you put it - is not hard. You don't even have to disbelieve in god, you simply need to put things into terms that make sense and have to learn to actually use and understand logic. If you god does exist, then you should have no issue with logic, because your god should be logical. When you can't defend your god except by resorting to illogical arguments, doesn't that tell you something? Also, you should try and use evidence.<BR/><BR/>"I keep seeing that some of what I say is heard differently from what I believe I am saying. So I keep trying to tweak, repeat, and take another go at it."<BR/><BR/>No offense, but I hope that you aren't a school teacher, because you'd never be able to do a good job. Your process of "tweak, repeat, and take another go," is better labeled as "repeat and take another go." Either way, it's not that I don't understand you, because I do - for the most part at least. You forget that I was a Xian. I understand the "worldview." You have to show why it's valid. You have to show why it makes sense and why it's logical. Simply attacking atheism or evolution doesn't lend support to your theology. You have to provide positive arguments for your theology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-70677722531531159972009-03-12T07:34:00.000-07:002009-03-12T07:34:00.000-07:00"So, the highest moral act is to obey god to the f..."So, the highest moral act is to obey god to the fullest? Freedom is slavery, eh?"<BR/><BR/>I haven't said that. Righteous living does not come from us, by our strength. It comes from our relationship with Him, by His strength. <BR/><BR/>Some of your questions seemed to require me to go into greater depths to paint more of the picture. I'm sorry if I stepped on your toes and proselytized. <BR/><BR/>The post I made today is along the same lines as my previous comment to you. I had been working on it before I made that comment and completed it today. <BR/><BR/>I am still learning how to communicate across worldviews. I'm trying to put things in terms that communicate without jargon. I keep seeing that some of what I say is heard differently from what I believe I am saying. So I keep trying to tweak, repeat, and take another go at it. Thank you for aiding my learning experience.Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-66741245322174756622009-03-12T07:05:00.000-07:002009-03-12T07:05:00.000-07:00Quixote,"Granted, but you know I'm not appealing t...Quixote,<BR/>"Granted, but you know I'm not appealing to those."<BR/><BR/>Good, because the omni-max variety is the easiest to disprove. Some other varieties are impossible to disprove.<BR/><BR/>"This is disingenuous on your part, my friend. I was referencing the specific question of humperdingles with this statement, and you've taken it out of context and applied it to the argument as a whole."<BR/><BR/>No, it's not, because I brought all those up as part of your begging the question.<BR/><BR/>"If what you're claiming is true, then a modus tollens would beg the question.<BR/><BR/>A modus tollens does not beg the question.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, what you're claiming is not true."<BR/><BR/>Once again, incorrect. Simply because <I>your</I> example is incorrect does not mean that all are incorrect. This would be another logical fallacy, although in my sick state I can't think of the name right now.<BR/><BR/>"It sounds like you're saying it may be "not wrong" for someone to commit genocide."<BR/><BR/>No, I'm saying that I don't know that it's absolute. There's no example so far where it has been right, including in the Bible, but does that make it absolute? What you are claiming is that something is always right or wrong for all times in all situations in all possible worlds.<BR/><BR/>"It's difficult for me to envision how you would empirically justify this belief."<BR/><BR/>It's rather easy. We have no examples of things that are objective and are not in accordance with reality. Many things that are not objective, however, like gods, are not in accordance with reality. Yay me.<BR/><BR/>"You either got there by using the laws of inference, or this conclusion landed in your mind fully formed by some sort of miracle."<BR/><BR/>The "laws of inference" were themselves gained by empirical observation. Once I've empirically observed something and formed a "rule" it doesn't mean that the empirical basis is somehow no longer valid or never happened.<BR/><BR/>"IOW, you used logic to arrive at your conclusion about logic. Even if you claim you're merely observing and collecting data, you're processing those observations with the laws of inference."<BR/><BR/>No. We gain logic by examining the workings of the world. Just as the case I gave you with examining the world and learning that the majority is not always right, all logic is gained through empirical observation of the world. I've not seen an example of knowledge gained that was not gained through empirical observation and testing.<BR/><BR/>"Grounded in an entity in a constant state of change, becoming, and decay--doesn't sound too promising to me."<BR/><BR/>Really? I wasn't aware that the rules of physics and science were constantly in a state of change. Our understanding of them is increasing and changing as we speak, but the way the world works isn't changing. Reality is not changing. Can you think of a time when the majority was necessarily right?<BR/><BR/>"Quit shutting it out, and it will become obvious, my firend."<BR/><BR/>It is by not shutting things out that I realized that god is imaginary. It was by opening my mind to all possibilities that I figured out that god almost certainly does not exist, and the common conceptions of god (omni-max) are logically contradictory.<BR/><BR/>"Now here's a good example of question begging and special pleading. IOW, I know there's nothing beyond nature, so any statement or belief that is skeptical of my naturalism is GOTG or incredulity."<BR/><BR/>Sorry, but arguments of the variety that 'X can not be explained to my satisfaction via natural processes therefore god' are GOTG and arguments from incredulity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-13703944784134982252009-03-12T06:41:00.000-07:002009-03-12T06:41:00.000-07:00Karla,"Anon, it is possible for God to inhabit you...Karla,<BR/>"Anon, it is possible for God to inhabit you and at the same time for us to be within the habitat of God. I am both in God and He is in me. I am His dwelling place and yet He is bigger than all that exist so I can be in Him at the same time. This happens through relationship."<BR/><BR/>Um, no, it happens through the Xian tenet of omnipresence.<BR/><BR/>"God gives us His righteousness and His goodness. We become representations of Him. Our union with Him gives us goodness and righteousness."<BR/><BR/>Thank you for restating yourself, but this does nothing to explain how this happens and what it means.<BR/><BR/>"The moral "laws" we speak of become fulfilled and unnecessary as laws in and of themselves the more we live in the freedom from the need to be something other than who we were created to be."<BR/><BR/>What does this mean? You claim very often that moral law is "fulfilled" through Jesus or relationship with god, but you never get around to explaining what that means. How can a law be "fulfilled?"<BR/><BR/>"But once we find Him their necessity for guidance becomes less and less until we need only Him for guidance. We can learn to hear His voice and follow Him."<BR/><BR/>So, the highest moral act is to obey god to the fullest? Freedom is slavery, eh?<BR/><BR/>"The written Word is a guidance to protect us from mishearing Him which we can do, but if we know what He has said and compare that with what He is saying it helps us to recognize Him."<BR/><BR/>So, you are claiming now that the Bible does provide a moral guideline?<BR/><BR/>"But the more you hear Him the less uncertain you become of His voice. It's like in a crowded room I can distinguish my husband's voice from the other voices. I have learned it and I am quiet familiar with it. It is the same with the Lord."<BR/><BR/>And, as I've pointed out, how do you know that it's not some demon's voice talking to you and has been from the start? How do you know it's not simply your inner conscience?<BR/><BR/>"But as we are learning we also have the unchanging Scriptures to compare what we believe He is saying for He never contradicts Himself."<BR/><BR/>I agree that scripture doesn't change (not taking into account modifications over the years, like the addition of the "Let those without sin cast the first stone" story, for instance). Problem is, our morality has changed (evolved). We used to think slavery was OK, and the Bible seems to support that. Now, we agree that slavery is not OK. So, how do you point to the Bible and point out that it now claims slavery is not OK? It doesn't. What you are doing is taking your modern moral sense and post hoc applying it back to the Bible and finding any way to shoehorn your faith back into the scripture you say you follow. Then, after you think you've sufficiently done that, you turn it around and incorrectly credit the Bible as the source of your theology.<BR/><BR/>"I know this might be a lot for you to swallow and I don't expect you to."<BR/><BR/>I've noticed that when the going gets tough, you resort to proselytizing to me, so it's no surprise that I wouldn't swallow it. If you had several unanswered questions and instead of working on them and answering them I simply proselytized to you, would you be satisfied?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-54055858135546459682009-03-12T05:47:00.000-07:002009-03-12T05:47:00.000-07:00"Incorrect. There are differing levels and concept..."Incorrect. There are differing levels and conceptions of god that don't always align to the omni-max or greatest being conceivable."<BR/><BR/>Granted, but you know I'm not appealing to those.<BR/><BR/>"No, the disagreements (plural) are as follows:"<BR/><BR/>This is disingenuous on your part, my friend. I was referencing the specific question of humperdingles with this statement, and you've taken it out of context and applied it to the argument as a whole.<BR/><BR/>"Where did you get the concept that with this god necessarily come absolute morality? It's begging the question."<BR/><BR/>If what you're claiming is true, then a modus tollens would beg the question.<BR/><BR/>A modus tollens does not beg the question.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, what you're claiming is not true.<BR/><BR/>"The closest I can come to is that one should not commit genocide...incidentally, that's one that god has violated. I'm still not convinced that I've seen a moral absolute."<BR/><BR/>It sounds like you're saying it may be "not wrong" for someone to commit genocide.<BR/><BR/>"This is the only way that we can develop objective measures of things, because they must correspond with reality."<BR/><BR/>It's difficult for me to envision how you would empirically justify this belief.<BR/><BR/>"There's nothing circular about noticing that the majority is not always right and writing down this fact."<BR/><BR/>You either got there by using the laws of inference, or this conclusion landed in your mind fully formed by some sort of miracle. Since we can agree you'll reject the former, the latter is the case. IOW, you used logic to arrive at your conclusion about logic. Even if you claim you're merely observing and collecting data, you're processing those observations with the laws of inference.<BR/><BR/>"Actually, I find "grounding" things to the real world to be the best way to "ground" things."<BR/><BR/>Grounded in an entity in a constant state of change, becoming, and decay--doesn't sound too promising to me.<BR/><BR/>"What can I know that I'm shutting off?"<BR/><BR/>Quit shutting it out, and it will become obvious, my firend.<BR/><BR/>"Sorry, but this is more GOTG and argument from incredulity."<BR/><BR/>Now here's a good example of question begging and special pleading. IOW, I know there's nothing beyond nature, so any statement or belief that is skeptical of my naturalism is GOTG or incredulity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-57176041599158718432009-03-11T21:04:00.000-07:002009-03-11T21:04:00.000-07:00Anon, it is possible for God to inhabit you and at...Anon, it is possible for God to inhabit you and at the same time for us to be within the habitat of God. I am both in God and He is in me. I am His dwelling place and yet He is bigger than all that exist so I can be in Him at the same time. This happens through relationship. God gives us His righteousness and His goodness. We become representations of Him. Our union with Him gives us goodness and righteousness. <BR/><BR/>The moral "laws" we speak of become fulfilled and unnecessary as laws in and of themselves the more we live in the freedom from the need to be something other than who we were created to be. The more we get closer to His nature the more we work that out in our natural lives supernaturally. <BR/><BR/>This is all laid out in Scripture, but I figure you don't want me to quote the verses to you. <BR/><BR/>The laws protect us from a destructive path that hardens our hearts and brings us farther and farther away from the truth. But once we find Him their necessity for guidance becomes less and less until we need only Him for guidance. We can learn to hear His voice and follow Him. The written Word is a guidance to protect us from mishearing Him which we can do, but if we know what He has said and compare that with what He is saying it helps us to recognize Him. But the more you hear Him the less uncertain you become of His voice. It's like in a crowded room I can distinguish my husband's voice from the other voices. I have learned it and I am quiet familiar with it. It is the same with the Lord. As we spend time with Him we learn His voice and we know when He is speaking. But as we are learning we also have the unchanging Scriptures to compare what we believe He is saying for He never contradicts Himself. <BR/><BR/>I know this might be a lot for you to swallow and I don't expect you to. But I would ask that you store away the information and consider it within the whole of what we have discussed. What is often forgotten I think is that all of this interlocks into a big picture and sometimes just talking about some of the pieces leaves out important details that helps bring cohesion.Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-14766044560897452382009-03-11T16:04:00.000-07:002009-03-11T16:04:00.000-07:00Anon said "You keep claiming that goodness is defi...Anon said "You keep claiming that goodness is defined as god's nature, but that gets me nowhere when it comes to trying to decide how to live my life if I want to be good. (Actually, it means that I can't be good, because I'm not god's nature, nor is anything else, including that which god made - so Eden can not be good, heaven can not be good, etc.) Is genocide good?"<BR/><BR/>True, you can't find a way to live the good life without being in Him. And by being in Him, I mean relationally not spatially. We are already in Him spatially. He is the greatest that there is, and He is all present so we are always in Him in that regard. I am speaking of relationally being connected to His Being. <BR/><BR/>Without knowing Him you can follow moral principals that we intrinsically know and discover and avoid the problems that living outside those precepts cause. But in those precepts is not the root of all goodness or the fulfillment of the good life. Those things are there to guide us to Him and to show us the path away from lawlessness and to His goodness. But they are not their to bind us to legalism (law for the law's sake). <BR/><BR/>He created the world and man and He called all of His creation good. He was able to call it all good because we reflected the glory and goodness of God. But when we fell that reflection was tarnished, corrupted, subverted, etc. And when we come into alignment with Him and experience His righteousness we are set free from all of that and all the laws and rules and concern we won't make the grade. He sets us free and adopts us as Sons and Daughters. <BR/><BR/>Were you never taught this in your time in the Church?Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-89431217961206035882009-03-11T14:16:00.000-07:002009-03-11T14:16:00.000-07:00karla said: All of you seem to be looking for me t...karla said: All of you seem to be looking for me to list or point to a system of rules or laws as the ultimate standard of moral living. That would be in accurate for me to do. <BR/><BR/>Well... I was expecting something a bit more substantial than: "God, Himself, is the standard". Which as far as it goes is virtually meaningless. The standard is unreachable perfection.... Personally I'm not that motivated to obtain the impossible.<BR/><BR/>karla said: And He out of Himself has given precepts and laws that are good and objective (not created by us but discovered).<BR/><BR/>...and they are....?<BR/><BR/>karla said: That system is still objective, but it has no value apart from being a reflection of God's goodness.<BR/><BR/>...and how do you know that its objective?<BR/><BR/>karla said: I know this sounds confusing. I'm trying to articulate some of this for the first time.<BR/><BR/>I think I'm confused by what you say because I'm attempting to make sense out of something that makes no sense.CyberKittenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394155516712665665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-26586961272406788982009-03-11T08:28:00.000-07:002009-03-11T08:28:00.000-07:00Karla,"All of you seem to be looking for me to lis...Karla,<BR/>"All of you seem to be looking for me to list or point to a system of rules or laws as the ultimate standard of moral living. That would be in accurate for me to do."<BR/><BR/>Am I included in that, considering that I've told you over and over that it's not necessary? What I've asked you to do is not use a tautology, or to define the terms you are using in non-tautological ways. You keep claiming that goodness is defined as god's nature, but that gets me nowhere when it comes to trying to decide how to live my life if I want to be good. (Actually, it means that I can't be good, because I'm not god's nature, nor is anything else, including that which god made - so Eden can not be good, heaven can not be good, etc.) Is genocide good? It's not part of god's nature, so it must not be good, but OTOH, god did order it and he felt it was good since it was in his nature to commit genocide....see how confusing this is?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-77770314744742252412009-03-11T08:22:00.000-07:002009-03-11T08:22:00.000-07:00Quixote,"Ali revisited. I'm fine with "humperdingl...Quixote,<BR/>"Ali revisited. I'm fine with "humperdingles" as long as we are defining as being possessing maximal greatness in all possible worlds."<BR/><BR/>I'm not seeing why this is a necessary condition.<BR/><BR/>"It's self-evident to theist and atheist alike that the definition of God means a being than which a greater cannot be conceived."<BR/><BR/>Incorrect. There are differing levels and conceptions of god that don't always align to the omni-max or greatest being conceivable.<BR/><BR/>"Call it by whatever name you want to. The disagreement is not the definition of the concept of God, it's that we think he exists, and you think its merely a concept."<BR/><BR/>No, the disagreements (plural) are as follows:<BR/>1) Why is it necessary that a greatest conceivable being must exist in order to have absolute morals?<BR/>2) What is the reason we believe that absolute morals exist?<BR/>3) Why do we think that if absolute morals exist that they must be indicative of a god?<BR/>4) Where did we get the concept that some greatest conceivable being exists that can be called god?<BR/>I'm sure there are others...<BR/><BR/>"Go back and read the premiss. It says "If God does not exist." However hard you try, you're not going to get "God exists" out of that premiss."<BR/><BR/>That's the point. Instead of saying, "If humperdingles exist," you said, "If god exists." Where did you get this concept of god? Where did you get the concept that with this god necessarily come absolute morality? It's begging the question. Now, it doesn't look that way from what you wrote, but only because you are leaving out quite a few steps.<BR/><BR/>"I doubt you live your life consistently with this statement."<BR/><BR/>The closest I can come to is that one should not commit genocide...incidentally, that's one that god has violated. I'm still not convinced that I've seen a moral absolute.<BR/><BR/>"Mere bluster. You must know this statement is false."<BR/><BR/>No, it's not. I've yet to see anyone reason their way to god, as it inherently requires one to beg the question.<BR/><BR/>"You mean you put the goodness in a laboratory and tested it, or you observed people and animals exhibiting morality. I assume the latter, which is to say you haven't grounded anything, you've only made observations."<BR/><BR/>Empirical results are observations. This is the only way that we can develop objective measures of things, because they must correspond with reality.<BR/><BR/>"Or, we might say that you are using logic to invent logic. Rather circular."<BR/><BR/>Not at all. There's nothing circular about noticing that the majority is not always right and writing down this fact. From enough observations and experiments, we can develop all the rules of logic, etc. These things don't exist on their own, they are derived from the real, emprical world. If we lived in a world where the majority was always right, then our rules of logic would be different.<BR/><BR/>"Which are in a state of constant flux, according to atheists. Hardly candidates for grounding anything in your view."<BR/><BR/>Actually, I find "grounding" things to the real world to be the best way to "ground" things.<BR/><BR/>"That's probably one reason you're an atheist. I, OTOH, see you as constructing an arbitrary wall between yourself and what you can know about the way things are."<BR/><BR/>What can I know that I'm shutting off? I've never once heard what we actually learn from religion/revelation. IIRC, you mentioned that we learn about god's nature from revelation, but I reject that as an answer for pretty obvious reasons (which god, and how are you sure that what you've claimed to "learn" about god is actually correct - how will you verify it?)<BR/><BR/>"The natural world does not fully explain my observations. Goodness is an example of that, yes."<BR/><BR/>Sorry, but this is more GOTG and argument from incredulity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-67579755977903916782009-03-11T07:55:00.000-07:002009-03-11T07:55:00.000-07:00Amanda, great to see you back. Welcome!Amanda, great to see you back. Welcome!Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-11499208554316593422009-03-11T07:54:00.000-07:002009-03-11T07:54:00.000-07:00karla said: Nope. I haven't posited that. The ulti...karla said: Nope. I haven't posited that. The ultimate standard is God Himself.<BR/><BR/>Cyber: OK... You've *completely* lost me now.....<BR/><BR/>All of you seem to be looking for me to list or point to a system of rules or laws as the ultimate standard of moral living. That would be in accurate for me to do. <BR/><BR/>God, Himself, is the standard. What He speaks is true, because what He speaks is that which is congruent with Himself. So I cannot say that the 10 Commandments are the ultimate moral values, but that God is the ultimate good standard. And He out of Himself has given precepts and laws that are good and objective (not created by us but discovered). <BR/><BR/>However, He takes us a leap further and says you don't need to seek even my system of rules, if you know me because in me is life and righteousness and as you take on my nature doing what is good and right will be supernaturally normal. <BR/><BR/>But those who don't live this way do look to the system because that is all they have. That system is still objective, but it has no value apart from being a reflection of God's goodness. <BR/><BR/>I know this sounds confusing. I'm trying to articulate some of this for the first time.Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-31781645972832464482009-03-11T07:35:00.000-07:002009-03-11T07:35:00.000-07:00Quix said: I doubt you live your life consistently...Quix said: I doubt you live your life consistently with this statement.<BR/><BR/>[waves hands] I do......<BR/><BR/>Quix said: Isn't that the thing though. It constantly amazes me. <BR/><BR/>It doesn't amaze me so much these days. I've come to the opinion that people often see what they want to see.<BR/><BR/>Quix said: Yeah, good catch. I shouldn't have said "developed." As you've pointed out, we've been developing it for quite some time. I meant "created."<BR/><BR/>That would be the Greeks then - specifically Aristotle.CyberKittenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394155516712665665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-65118679695853591152009-03-11T07:08:00.000-07:002009-03-11T07:08:00.000-07:00"Fuunily that's the same evidence that I use to co..."Fuunily that's the same evidence that I use to come to the opposite conclusion. There must be something else going on. Obviously when we look at the same evidence we clearly see different things."<BR/><BR/>Hey Cyber,<BR/><BR/>Isn't that the thing though. It constantly amazes me. <BR/><BR/>"They at least codified what we in the West view as logic. Logic has undergone development since that time. Not exactly my subject but that's my understanding of it."<BR/><BR/>Yeah, good catch. I shouldn't have said "developed." As you've pointed out, we've been developing it for quite some time. I meant "created."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-55909335392427695942009-03-11T07:01:00.000-07:002009-03-11T07:01:00.000-07:00"Why do you not say, "If humperdingles do not exis..."Why do you not say, "If humperdingles do not exist...?" <BR/><BR/>Ali revisited. I'm fine with "humperdingles" as long as we are defining as being possessing maximal greatness in all possible worlds. It's self-evident to theist and atheist alike that the definition of God means a being than which a greater cannot be conceived. Call it by whatever name you want to. The disagreement is not the definition of the concept of God, it's that we think he exists, and you think its merely a concept.<BR/><BR/>"since that is an explicit assumption of your premises."<BR/><BR/>Go back and read the premiss. It says "If God does not exist." However hard you try, you're not going to get "God exists" out of that premiss.<BR/><BR/>"I've never observed a moral absolute."<BR/><BR/>I doubt you live your life consistently with this statement.<BR/><BR/>"all "reasoning" to god must beg the question from the get go, meaning the logic is shot from the beginning."<BR/><BR/>Mere bluster. You must know this statement is false.<BR/><BR/>"It's grounded in empirical results."<BR/><BR/>You mean you put the goodness in a laboratory and tested it, or you observed people and animals exhibiting morality. I assume the latter, which is to say you haven't grounded anything, you've only made observations.<BR/><BR/>"Thus, I can use my empirical results to formulate a rule that it's illogical to assume that the majority is always right."<BR/><BR/>Or, we might say that you are using logic to invent logic. Rather circular.<BR/><BR/>"It's grounded by our culture and our evolutionary history."<BR/><BR/>Which are in a state of constant flux, according to atheists. Hardly candidates for grounding anything in your view.<BR/><BR/>"I fail to see how that's a rational position to take as it smacks of god of the gaps logic"<BR/><BR/>That's probably one reason you're an atheist. I, OTOH, see you as constructing an arbitrary wall between yourself and what you can know about the way things are. <BR/><BR/>"If I can't convince you that the natural world explains itself,"<BR/><BR/>The natural world does not fully explain my observations. Goodness is an example of that, yes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-32597803731851924742009-03-10T21:46:00.000-07:002009-03-10T21:46:00.000-07:00Hey Karla,Sorry I disappeared for a bit. I am kind...Hey Karla,<BR/><BR/>Sorry I disappeared for a bit. I am kind of struggling with writing and such lately.<BR/><BR/>I kind of tend to think that God and goodness are the same thing. I mean, an abstract concept of "goodness" has a purpose and a reason for being... One and the same. We try to use human terms to define something that is undefinable by earthly standards.<BR/><BR/>I hope you are doing well!<BR/><BR/>AmandaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-20979595841930266572009-03-10T14:58:00.000-07:002009-03-10T14:58:00.000-07:00karla said: Nope. I haven't posited that. The ulti...karla said: Nope. I haven't posited that. The ultimate standard is God Himself.<BR/><BR/>OK... You've *completely* lost me now.....CyberKittenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394155516712665665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-45093673838421310082009-03-10T14:35:00.000-07:002009-03-10T14:35:00.000-07:00"So... The 'ultimate standard' for morality is the..."So... The 'ultimate standard' for morality is the 10 Commandments in the OT? What exactly makes *them* the external standard rather than any other religious or non-religious teaching?"<BR/><BR/>Nope. I haven't posited that. The ultimate standard is God Himself.Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-88757068552006951602009-03-10T12:36:00.000-07:002009-03-10T12:36:00.000-07:00Quixote,"The first premiss begins with God's non-e...Quixote,<BR/>"The first premiss begins with God's non-existence: "If God did not exist." Not sure how you get "God exists" outof that. What you have above is my conclusion. Hence, non-question begging."<BR/><BR/>From whence this concept of god did come? Why do you not say, "If humperdingles do not exist...?" And, how do you get from "god exists" to "absolute morality exists and comes from god" since that is an explicit assumption of your premises.<BR/><BR/>"Observation, experience, reason, history."<BR/><BR/>That's not really telling me much - it's rather vague, don't you think? I can point out that we've done studies on other animals to find that they have moral senses, we share a common evolutionary history with them, etc. and that's just one observation. I've never observed a moral absolute. I've never reasoned to a moral absolute, because all "reasoning" to god must beg the question from the get go, meaning the logic is shot from the beginning.<BR/><BR/>"Don't see how this matters one way or the other, except possibly as a defeater for our morality being based on reason."<BR/><BR/>Not at all, because our ability to reason is also a product of our evolution.<BR/><BR/>"What I'm asking is how it's grounded."<BR/><BR/>It's grounded in empirical results. That's the only way that I know of to "ground" anything in this world.<BR/><BR/>"For instance, if you really believe that we "develop" logic--it seems to me that we discover it, not develop it--then your logic is not really grounded upon anything except some kind of ephemeral sense that you've somehow created it and agreed that it works."<BR/><BR/>No, it's grounded in empiricism. Take argument from popularity, for instance. I can believe that something must be right if a majority of people believe in it, but I could be empirically shown to be wrong on that score, because the majority of people used to believe the sun revolved around the Earth. So, going with the majority opinion would be empirically shown to be incorrect at times. Thus, I can use my empirical results to formulate a rule that it's illogical to assume that the majority is always right.<BR/><BR/>"I've never really heard a satisfying answer on grounding the good from your side of the fence."<BR/><BR/>It's grounded by our culture and our evolutionary history.<BR/><BR/>"Which in a way answers your question above. The universe doesn't make sense to me that way, so I reject it tentatively in favor of an absolute morality, in addition to the other reasons I think its the more rational position (NOTE: I said MORE rational, not the only rational)."<BR/><BR/>I fail to see how that's a rational position to take as it smacks of god of the gaps logic. If I can't convince you that the natural world explains itself, then god must be behind it, absolute morality must exist, etc?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-70451337295955776442009-03-10T10:52:00.000-07:002009-03-10T10:52:00.000-07:00"What evidence do you use to decide that an absolu..."What evidence do you use to decide that an absolute morality exists?"<BR/><BR/>Quix said: Observation, experience, reason, history.<BR/><BR/>Fuunily that's the same evidence that I use to come to the opposite conclusion. There must be something else going on. Obviously when we look at the same evidence we clearly see different things.<BR/><BR/>Quix said: For instance, if you really believe that we "develop" logic--it seems to me that we discover it, not develop it--then your logic is not really grounded upon anything except some kind of ephemeral sense that you've somehow created it and agreed that it works.<BR/><BR/>Wasn't logic invented by the Ancient Greeks? They at least codified what we in the West view as logic. Logic has undergone development since that time. Not exactly my subject but that's my understanding of it.CyberKittenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394155516712665665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-75478344312029393702009-03-10T10:34:00.000-07:002009-03-10T10:34:00.000-07:00"I'm claiming that morality has evolved over time...."I'm claiming that morality has evolved over time."<BR/><BR/>It's still not clear what you mean here. Until then, I can't agree or disagree.<BR/><BR/>"which places it outside of the "just so" regime and into plausible,"<BR/><BR/>Which sounds remarkably similar to my calling it a logical possibility.<BR/><BR/>"In formulating your first premise, you had to beg the question in order to come up with this concept that god exists in order to allow for absolute morality."<BR/><BR/>The first premiss begins with God's non-existence: "If God did not exist." Not sure how you get "God exists" outof that. What you have above is my conclusion. Hence, non-question begging.<BR/><BR/>"What evidence do you use to decide that an absolute morality exists?"<BR/><BR/>Observation, experience, reason, history.<BR/><BR/>"And, how will you differentiate it from the fact that we see morality in many animals."<BR/><BR/>Don't see how this matters one way or the other, except possibly as a defeater for our morality being based on reason.<BR/><BR/>"It's quite simple really, first off there's evolutionary evidence which is empirical. Second, we use the same methods to develop objective morality as we use to develop things like logical rules (fallacies, etc.)"<BR/><BR/>I understand why you believe what you believe. What I'm asking is how it's grounded. For instance, if you really believe that we "develop" logic--it seems to me that we discover it, not develop it--then your logic is not really grounded upon anything except some kind of ephemeral sense that you've somehow created it and agreed that it works.<BR/><BR/>Take Euthyophro for another example. When you use the ED, you're not asking the theist why he believes God is good, you're asking how the good is grounded. I've never really heard a satisfying answer on grounding the good from your side of the fence. I'm not picking on y'all, or trying to make a point, if you have a suggestion. I'd really like to hear it. Problem is, there's really not a good answer to the question that I know of, except to say that it's not, and to accept the universe that way.<BR/><BR/>Which in a way answers your question above. The universe doesn't make sense to me that way, so I reject it tentatively in favor of an absolute morality, in addition to the other reasons I think its the more rational position (NOTE: I said MORE rational, not the only rational).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-91697109790516601192009-03-10T09:34:00.000-07:002009-03-10T09:34:00.000-07:00Quixote,"If you're claiming that morality can impr...Quixote,<BR/>"If you're claiming that morality can improve over time, or even degenerate, I'd agree. There's plenty of room for morality to improve or approximate the "Good" or recede from it."<BR/><BR/>I'm claiming that morality has evolved over time. There's a subtle difference, but it's undeniable that this has happened.<BR/><BR/>"If, as I suppose you are, you're suggesting that it's an empirically demonstrated fact that evolution created morality, I don't think it's at all clear that you can prove this. In fact, it strikes me as a "just so" evolutionary story."<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't say that it's empirically demonstrated, but there is empirical evidence for it, which places it outside of the "just so" regime and into plausible, which is much better than we have for any god.<BR/><BR/>"A strict standpoint is the only one I'll accept. Now take another look at the premisses, and tell me where they claim God exists, which strictly speaking, would be required for begging the question:<BR/><BR/>If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist."<BR/><BR/>Right there is where it happened. In formulating your first premise, you had to beg the question in order to come up with this concept that god exists in order to allow for absolute morality. You could just as well posit that some force, mysterious particle, or anything else exists which explains absolute morality.<BR/><BR/>"If you reject the premiss, then obviously the argument doesn't work for you. But I think an absolute morality is rather obvious, or at least more plausible than its denial. Therefore, the conclusion is not only rational for me, it's necessary."<BR/><BR/>What evidence do you use to decide that an absolute morality exists? And, how will you differentiate it from the fact that we see morality in many animals.<BR/><BR/>"Which, if you'll go back and read what I wrote, is exactly what I told Ali. And if it is but a different term denoting the same God, the argument's structure holds, rendering his objection moot. If it's not a term denoting the same God, he's equivocated."<BR/><BR/>Just so we know that you're not arguing for the Xian god.<BR/><BR/>"I'm not certain that's the case, but I'm open to suggestions on how you believe goodness can be grounded using the empirical world."<BR/><BR/>It's quite simple really, first off there's evolutionary evidence which is empirical. Second, we use the same methods to develop objective morality as we use to develop things like logical rules (fallacies, etc.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-20318028867305090952009-03-10T09:22:00.000-07:002009-03-10T09:22:00.000-07:00Karla,"If our values of right and wrong or good an...Karla,<BR/>"If our values of right and wrong or good and evil do not correspond to any ultimate right or good then all are equal and stepping on an ant or snuffing out the life of a child are equally amoral."<BR/><BR/>Without absolute morality, then there is no morality? Why is everything black or white with you?<BR/><BR/>"We are appalled at things because they are not in line with what we know deep down ought to be."<BR/><BR/>How many Muslim men are appalled at honor killings? Do they similarly have this "ought to be" in them or are Muslim men from the devil?<BR/><BR/>"Cyber, it's that which measures up with the ultimate goodness of God's nature."<BR/><BR/>Meaning what exactly? Morality is defined as lining up with god's goodness. Good is defined as lining up with god's nature. god's nature is defined as...goodness. Circular definitions and tautologies, and we're no closer to understanding what your definitions are.<BR/><BR/>"While I think it vital to understand that goodness isn't rooted in an evolutionary human system, but in God and that is why I keep bringing up the moral argument for God's existence."<BR/><BR/>It's not an "evolutionary human system," it's a system based on empirical studies and actual evolution - as we see in other animals. And, your argument for morality stemming from god seems to be an argument from incredulity (evolution couldn't a done it) coupled with bald assertions sans evidence. Where is the evidence that god exists, absolute morality exists, and that god is the measure of goodness and morality? What does it mean to say that god is the ultimate measure of goodness? Why can't god come down and order another genocide?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-55943202728209453302009-03-10T08:22:00.000-07:002009-03-10T08:22:00.000-07:00karla said: As soon as you start to profess that o...karla said: As soon as you start to profess that one action is more moral than another then you have to accept a standard outside of human agreement.<BR/><BR/>No you don't - because (as I keep saying) there are no standards 'outside of human agreement'. I can say that the killing of a child is a deeply immoral act and the killing of an ant is largely irrelevant *from my moral standpoint*. I do not require outside assistence to make moral judgements. I am more than capable of making them myself.<BR/><BR/>karla said: There is no reason to believe than any of them have any rights to a superior moral structure developed through evolution.<BR/><BR/>What exactly has evolution got to do with it? Some of the underlying factors may indeed be the product of evolutionary forces but morality as we see it today around the world and throughout history is cultural not evolutionary.<BR/><BR/>karla said: We are appalled at things because they are not in line with what we know deep down ought to be.<BR/><BR/>Even if that is true (which is debatable) it in no way validates your argument that either an external standard of morality exists nor that God gave it to us.<BR/><BR/>karla said: God gave commandments to guide humanity away from the things that will corrupt our nature and bring harm to us and to point us to Himself where we find life.<BR/><BR/>So... The 'ultimate standard' for morality is the 10 Commandments in the OT? What exactly makes *them* the external standard rather than any other religious or non-religious teaching?<BR/><BR/>karla said: While I think it vital to understand that goodness isn't rooted in an evolutionary human system, but in God and that is why I keep bringing up the moral argument for God's existence. But I do not do it to impose system of laws to you.<BR/><BR/>I'm actually reading an interesting book ATM about the evolution of morality. I'll let you know when I do the review. As to imposing ancient Jewish law on me... don't worry about it - it ain't going to happen. [grin]CyberKittenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394155516712665665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1891021171911308006.post-80474467922406125282009-03-10T07:07:00.000-07:002009-03-10T07:07:00.000-07:00"OK, you've lost it again. Just because there are ..."OK, you've lost it again. Just because there are no objective morals doesn't mean that every action is equally moral (or not). Most people agree that in most circumstances killing people is wrong and helping people is right. But as with most things its just a bit more complex than that. One size does not fit all."<BR/><BR/>As soon as you start to profess that one action is more moral than another then you have to accept a standard outside of human agreement. The fact is, we don't all agree. Just think how many cultures we have (generational, ethnic, geographical, spiritual, political, economical, etc.) There is no reason to believe than any of them have any rights to a superior moral structure developed through evolution. If our values of right and wrong or good and evil do not correspond to any ultimate right or good then all are equal and stepping on an ant or snuffing out the life of a child are equally amoral. One may cause more destruction to the highest level of the food chain, but in the grand scheme of things there is no difference. There is no reason for outrage when a gunman shoots up a school. Yet we grieve and we know something horribly evil has been done. We know not because we culturally agree on it, but because we know something greater has been violated. And we know it ought not to be this way. We are appalled at things because they are not in line with what we know deep down ought to be. <BR/><BR/>"Oh, and I'd really like to hear what you think the objective morality actually is...."<BR/><BR/>Cyber, it's that which measures up with the ultimate goodness of God's nature. God gave commandments to guide humanity away from the things that will corrupt our nature and bring harm to us and to point us to Himself where we find life. Then He took us a leap further and showed us that the key to all righteous living was not in keeping the commandments for obedience sake, but in entering His life and love and taking on His nature to the extent where we can supernaturally reflect goodness and righteousness without following a list of rules. The rules are by default kept, but not because it's about them. God had created the rules out of His goodness for our benefit, but they are only there to point to Him not to bring us into bondage to a set of rules. The Pharisees and Sadducees were always the best at keeping the letter of the law. They prided themselves on how good they followed the rules. They thought in them was life. They thought they had it all because of their obedience to God's law. Jesus time and again rebuked them because the law wasn't ever put in place as a method by which to find righteousness, but to point to Him who is righteous. The righteous one was before them and they were rejecting Him. He told them that He is the life they seek, not the rules. <BR/><BR/>To often the Church has given the impression that it's about law and regulation and the Church has piled even more laws never given by God. That's appealing to no one. And it is not the Gospel message. Jesus said he came to free those in bondage, to set the captives free. He didn't come to bring condemnation, but to free us from condemnation. <BR/><BR/>While I think it vital to understand that goodness isn't rooted in an evolutionary human system, but in God and that is why I keep bringing up the moral argument for God's existence. But I do not do it to impose system of laws to you.Karlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737176726360623655noreply@blogger.com