Moral Argument for God: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Moral Argument for God » Moral Argument for God

Moral Argument for God

Page: First 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Last

Moral Argument for God

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 692

Posted 09/17/07 - 01:20 PM:	#341
Seem that if all is love, and nothing is love, then killing and torture is also love.., Doh!

munty13
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 08, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 197

Posted 09/17/07 - 01:42 PM:	#342
I'm afraid so...harsh as it is. Everything is unconditional love. Only the observer creates right or wrong. When one man is killing another man he is not acting out of love - he is acting out of fear. The need to protect himself. I'd probably feel a lot differently if it was me being tortured though...

TMB
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 296

Posted 09/17/07 - 02:15 PM:	#343
It's easy to make villifying accusations to the opposition in controversial debates, but please provide one specific example of me sidestepping a point pertinent to the deductive validity of my argument. The difficulty with doing this is that you are incapable of seeing flaws in your argument. The previous time I broke apart your symbolic argument you dismissed as issues with definition. On that matter we seemed to be operating on different definitions. For me, morality saying how we ought to behave (e.g. "thou shalt not kill") is an instance of a command. To you that was apparently not the case (and thus you seemed to use a different definition). Reread my posts, you have missed my points. Even when you seem to sidestep my points (for whatever reason) and even though I am at times a little irked by this, I do not seek to vilify you. Let's please try to keep things civil. Things could be worse, you could be me and faced with an argument from you. I cannot help thinking that you are a hoax poster and doing this to see how far you can string people along. I recognise that some people do truly think upon these lines, however its hard sometimes to accept this is possible. When debating with a faith based position and the social pressure to offer rational support, positions like yours are taken. Let me suggest a deal. I will be civil if you are prepared to be rational.

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 903

Posted 09/18/07 - 04:03 PM:	#344
Buddahchuck wrote: I'm not saying morality takes a form as such. But what form does morality take? Again, I'm not saying morality takes a form as such. How does one do something that existence tells it that it shouldn't? It's a fair question, right? Perhaps, but it's somewhat off topic and doesn't affect the validity of my argument. One could argue that existence gives humanity a conscience. Although not perfect, it at least gives us some general ideas of what we should and shouldn't do. For instance, there are at least some limitations on theft and violence in nearly all cultures. But doesn't physics assume the physical world is real? If not, what does physics study? No, physics assumes that perceptions are real, as does all of science. They are studies based in the realm of sense datum, and therefore do not examine anything closer than perceptions. I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying physics simply studies perceptions rather than the physical world? If so, what to make of theories like atoms and DNA? These are not real entities but some very awkward way of describing perceptions? And if so, it seems to contradict the dictionary definition of physics (which among other things is that it studies matter). I'm not sure what you mean by "physics assumes that perceptions are real, as does all of science." Because if that were true, wouldn't that imply the existence of a real physical world that our perceptions tell us exists? What is real knowledge? For one, it tells us something about reality. If physics does not tell us anything about reality, it doesn't seem to be of much use. Then so is scientific knowledge. Does not science study the physical world and its workings? Is not physics, for instance, "a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions"? Wouldn't that by definition presuppose that the physical world is real? It could, but not if you are taking the position that metaphysical truths are unknowable. If we are discussing matter and energy and their interactions, we are only discussing the ones about which we observe or hypothesize. But if matter does not exist, we are not observing it or studying it at all and physics is a sham.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Buddahchuck
Bodhisatva

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 16, 2006
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 589

Posted 09/18/07 - 04:42 PM:	#345
Again, I'm not saying morality takes a form as such. But if you are going to say that morality is based in existence, then in order for that to mean anything, you need to be able to describe what the means. What are you trying to say by morality is based in existence if you are saying that it doesn't exist? Simply explain what you mean. Perhaps, but it's somewhat off topic and doesn't affect the validity of my argument. Actually, its right on topic. If you can't give a practical moral principle based in existence, then i see no point in believing that morality is based in existence. Are you saying physics simply studies perceptions rather than the physical world? Insofar as physics is based on observable data, yes. We can only study things we observe, and without sense data, we would not be able to have science. Things like DNA and Atoms are theories we would not adhere to if we did need a way to explain certain things that we observe. ALL SCIENCE IS BASED ON OBSERVATION! For one, it tells us something about reality. If physics does not tell us anything about reality, it doesn't seem to be of much use. This didn't really answer my question, so let me ask it a different way. How are we to discern "real" knowledge from....."fake" knowledge? But if matter does not exist, we are not observing it or studying it at all and physics is a sham. Well, not necessarily. I could describe a scenario in which observe something but it is not the core of reality, but I perceive it as such. And I subsequently go about studying all these observations that I make based on this false sense data. Of course, I am not advocating any of this, because I abstain from such useless metaphysical babble.

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 903

Posted 09/18/07 - 04:44 PM:	#346
Makarismos wrote: But doesn't physics assume the physical world is real? If not, what does physics study? Actually Tist, the way around this problem is very simple:- There is no alternative to physics in explaining the world - or rather physics is a science which uses observable phenomena to match predicted effects with observed effects, choosing the best model. Perhaps, but that doesn't answer the question. Doesn't physics assume the physical world is real? If not, what does physics study?
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 903

Posted 09/18/07 - 05:42 PM:	#347
TMB wrote: It's easy to make villifying accusations to the opposition in controversial debates, but please provide one specific example of me sidestepping a point pertinent to the deductive validity of my argument. The difficulty with doing this is that you are incapable of seeing flaws in your argument. Of course, I could easily say the same thing to you about your positions. Naturally, we both think we have the correct way of seeing things. Nonetheless I was still able to provide evidence behind my claim, if only because I consider backing up accusations to be good manners. If you're not willing to provide any evidence for your accusation, why make it at all? The previous time I broke apart your symbolic argument you dismissed as issues with definition. If we are arriving at different conclusions because we are using different definitions, why isn't this a valid point? In any case, the point almost doesn't seem worth arguing, since it was about supporting the position of morality having authority, and in post #242 you have very specifically stated that "I agree with you that morality does have authority." On that matter we seemed to be operating on different definitions. For me, morality saying how we ought to behave (e.g. "thou shalt not kill") is an instance of a command. To you that was apparently not the case (and thus you seemed to use a different definition). Reread my posts, you have missed my points. Are you sure you have any that addresses this issue? Again, if we are arriving at different conclusions because we are using different definitions, why isn't this a valid point? If you do have any, can't you just put it here? I don't mean to offend you, but I have been sent on wild goose chases before when people seem unable or unwilling to address a point. Bear in mind I can play that game too against anything you say. "You have missed my points; reread my posts." This isn't nearly as helpful as giving a straight answer to the matter at hand. Heck, even a post number would be much more suitable. I cannot help thinking that you are a hoax poster and doing this to see how far you can string people along. Bear in mind, I could accuse you of the same thing. You did, after all accuse me of sidestepping points while refusing to give any specific examples (where as I was the one who provided specific examples of you sidestepping matters). You were the one who sidestepped a point of mine yet again, this time by responding with "reread my [very many] posts [instead of reading a straight answer here or even reading a specific post]"; it's a tactic I've seen people use before when they seem unwilling or unable to address an issue (like a wild goose chase). With all due respect, I think I might have better grounds to be saying "you are a hoax poster...doing this to see how far you can string people along" than you do. Of course, vilifying the opposition is still not as good as addressing apropos points. So can we please move on with civility? (I promise to be as rational as I can in debating my "If objective morality exists, it is evidence for the existence of God" argument). Edited by Tisthammerw on 09/18/07 - 06:45 PM
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 903

Posted 09/18/07 - 06:21 PM:	#348
Buddahchuck wrote: But if you are going to say that morality is based in existence, then in order for that to mean anything, you need to be able to describe what the means. When justifying something as being real, the "basis" of a given truth is often done by appealing to aspects of reality (e.g. how we might justify a symbolic logic statement by appealing to modus ponens). Some facts are "irreducible" and are not based upon further aspects of reality; they are based in reality in some general sense. It's the sort of thing I mean here. A claim having "basis in fact" means the facts support the claim. A claim "based in reality" means reality supports a claim. All facts are based in reality; some (brute) facts are based in reality in some general sense. It's a similar thing with existence. If you can't give a practical moral principle based in existence, then i see no point in believing that morality is based in existence. Anything that exists is based in existence, else it wouldn't exist. Thus, if objective morality exists, it has some basis in existence. (I should point out that I'm not here to argue whether objective morality exists; rather I'm saying that if it does it is evidence for the existence of God.) Are you saying physics simply studies perceptions rather than the physical world? Insofar as physics is based on observable data, yes. We can only study things we observe, and without sense data, we would not be able to have science. Things like DNA and Atoms are theories we would not adhere to if we did need a way to explain certain things that we observe. ALL SCIENCE IS BASED ON OBSERVATION! Great, but that doesn't answer my question. According to standard dictionary definitions, physics studies "matter and energy and their interactions." Does physics indeed study and deal with the physical world as dictionaries and science textbooks suggest? I'm not denying science uses empirical data. However, is it not the purpose of assaying such data to study the physical world? For one, it tells us something about reality. If physics does not tell us anything about reality, it doesn't seem to be of much use. This didn't really answer my question, so let me ask it a different way. How are we to discern "real" knowledge from....."fake" knowledge? Hm, it appears I have misunderstood what you meant by "What is real knowledge?" If you're question is how we distinguish real knowledge from fake knowledge, we must use logic and reason. Apart from pure logic and mathematics, we typically can't get ironclad proofs and can't be certain we have properly justified true beliefs. There are certain principles of rationality we go by to obtain knowledge as best we can (e.g. inference to the best explanation). Nonetheless, while such beliefs of reality may be rational to believe (and others irrational), we cannot strictly prove them. But if matter does not exist, we are not observing it or studying it at all and physics is a sham. Well, not necessarily. I could describe a scenario in which observe something but it is not the core of reality, but I perceive it as such. Perhaps, but it would not be physics. You would not be studying or dealing with physical reality at all (which is what physics purports to do). Thus, the branch of science called physics would still be a sham.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

TMB
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 296

Posted 09/20/07 - 02:46 AM:	#349
Tist, you say, If you're not willing to provide any evidence for your accusation, why make it at all? OK lets try this again. You positioned an argument using symbolic logic a few posts ago. (at this point the detail of this is not relevant) I analysed each line and pointed out some flaws (again at this point the detail is not relevant) You replied with this comment Lately, the only real basis you had in disputing my logic (in the point regarding my previous post) was an apparent disharmony of the definitions we were using. We were using different definitions and so came to different conclusions. I then said this The previous time I broke apart your symbolic argument you dismissed as issues with definition. You replied with this If we are arriving at different conclusions because we are using different definitions, why isn't this a valid point? Can you see the problem? Actually there are two. The first one is that you have returned to a position that we had different definitions around the symbolic logic, when in fact the process you applied to get there was flawed. It was not the issue with definitions. When I pointed this out, you still came back to a defence of 'definitions'. This means you have either no will or no capability to review logical process flaws in your position. Or you are unable to understand what is being said to you. This apparent inability to read what I say, means we are stuck with a position where regardless of the strength of a point I make, either you do not read/understand it so cannot even review your own point on that basis. In order for you to even begin to assess your own logic you have to be able to understand what is being said to you. By defining this rebuttal as being 'definition' based, you can still stay with your illusion that your arguments are logically sound. For anyone debating with you, you create a catch-22 position. It does not matter what position I (or others take) you always return to your starting position (if you do not believe me, just watch how you will turn this post on its head, and retreat to your starting intention of proving that you can provide logical proof for both God and OM).

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 3003

Posted 09/20/07 - 03:33 AM:	#350
I have to agree with TMB. That "symbolic logic" version of the argument was seriously lacking. No attempt was made to fix it other than claims like, "I've given my argument for that elsewhere." That's a poor reason for leaving something out of a symbolization.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

Page: First 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.