0
   

A perfect god can not exist?

 
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 02:06 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;155278 wrote:
why on earth would you think the bible says it's OK to rape someone? please direct me to this passage. Anyone using even an ounce of discernment, I would imagine, can understand that God does not condone rape.


Judges 21:20-22

"They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When you see the young women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to the land of Benjamin to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be sympathetic. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find wives for all of them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not actually give your daughters to them in marriage."
Extrain
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 02:25 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;155282 wrote:
You only say this because you realize that what you previously wrote was flawed.


So what exactly is the flaw?

Krumple;155282 wrote:
You take the shape of something as an example of a subjective view point? No, because the shape of something can be determined. But just like I thought. If moral values can be determined then by what criteria are they determined?


What does this got to do with anything? You can't determine the exact age of the universe, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have one.

Krumple;155282 wrote:
I never said this was the case for all things. I said for determining the shape of an object is surely can.


But what does this have to do with moral judgments? Where is your argument?

Krumple;155282 wrote:
Also the name of a person, can surely be discovered. Yet objective moral values can not.


huh? Of course they can be "discovered." Moral properties of right and wrong are immediately identifiable by most people with respect to a set of commonly shared set of basic core moral principles. That's enough to say that they are, in fact, identifiable. Most people have almost unanimous agreement that some version of the following principles are correct, which is a strong indication that objective moral judgments have a truth-value. You can distill the following very common principles across most differences in religion, culture, and societies:

(1) Do not gratuitously kill innocent people.
(2) Do not cause gratuitous unneccesary pain or suffering.
(3) Do not cheat or steal.
(4) Keep your promise and honor your contracts.
(5) Do not deprive another person of his or her freedom.
(6) Do justice, treating equals equally and unequals unequally.
(7) Help other people, at least when the cost to oneself is minimal./
(8) Reciprocate (show gratitude for services rendered).
(9) Obey just laws.

Most people have some version of these principles. And those cultures who disagree with one or more of them are actually in the minority. This is a strong indication there are moral facts of the matter, regardless of culture, society, and religion.

Krumple;155282 wrote:
Yeah, use another example of something that is not a parallel to moral values as an example of how they can be determined? Silly.


Well, you are operating from the false principle that what you can't always clearly determine, therefore does not have a true value. So I am showing this is false, and it clearly is. Again, where is your argument?

Krumple;155282 wrote:
By what criteria are you making this assessment?


By the following criteria listed above.

Krumple;155282 wrote:
I find it funny that you can make claims without basis, yet I have to be the one who has basis?


They do have a basis, in the moral principles above. Anybody can doubt anything, but every person is justified in believing these principles are correct since he is within his epistemic right to believe these principles have a truth value. Emprical evidence is not the only source of reasoned and justified belief. If you think it is, then you need to offer arguments for thinking why that would be the case--since it becomes irrational to believe mathematical propositions are false. So what are your own epistemic criteria for justified, true, belief?

Krumple;155282 wrote:
By the way, if torturing babies is morally wrong, why does the bible say that it is alright to do it?


I don't know. Whoever wrote that was clearly mistaken.
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 02:43 pm
@Alan McDougall,
the perfect god and evil god would both become extinct

god is to much of a pacifist to have any fight in it and therefore survive and the evil god is so aggressive as to wipe out any life and therefore survive

both are imblanced , and hence die out
[RIGHT]http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/misc/progress.gif[/RIGHT]
0 Replies
 
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 03:22 pm
@Extrain,
Extrain;155284 wrote:
Originally Posted by Night Ripper http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
What's really the difference? As far as I'm concerned, the only difference is that I have a strong emotional response at the thought of torturing babies for fun (as opposed to profit?) whereas I really don't care what you do to ice cream. If you think that my moral qualms go beyond that, I don't see it.

If we disagree on the height of the Statue of Liberty we can always just go measure it and see who is wrong. If we disagree on the morality of abortion, there's nothing we can do. Likewise, if we disagree on the taste of ice cream, we can either agree to disagree or go to war.

De gustibus non est disputandum.



Right. That's the ridiculous stipulation the moral relativist, or anti-realist, demands everyone start accepting. The two assumptions are,

(1) All moral judgments are nothing but Humean subjective belief reports about one's tastes and preferences.
(2) If I can't empirically test a hypothesis, it doesn't have a truth value (or is false).

I see no good reason for thinking (1) or (2) are true at all.

And the logical fallacy comes here:

(a) Persons A, B, C, and D all believe different things about X.
(b) Therefore, there is no fact of the matter about X.
(c) Hence all beliefs about X are subjective belief reports about one's taste-preferences.

How does (b) and (c) follow? The argument is obviously invalid. Moral relativism is a groundless stipulation.


That's a straw man argument. The fact that different people believe that the Statue of Liberty is different heights doesn't entail that they are subjective beliefs. It entails that some of them are false beliefs. Subjective beliefs are not subjective just because we don't all agree on them.
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 03:48 pm
@Alan McDougall,
The ability to discern moral truths is one of the unique attributes of humanity. That it cannot be demonstrated with reference to the material attributes of the environment does not undermine this fact. Civilization depends on a consensual moral framework. The belief that morality is purely a matter of individual opinion is symptomatic of a decaying civilization.
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 03:53 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;155311 wrote:
The ability to discern moral truths is one of the unique attributes of humanity. That it cannot be demonstrated with reference to the material attributes of the environment does not undermine this fact. Civilization depends on a consensual moral framework. The belief that morality is purely a matter of individual opinion is symptomatic of a decaying civilization.


I wouldn't say it's all individual opinion. There's probably just as much social opinion too. Nonetheless, it is all opinion.
0 Replies
 
CharmingPhlsphr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 04:28 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;155066 wrote:
How can you say that? I am asking questions to you and you call that arrogance? I am the one asking how you come up with this stuff and I get called arrogant? I am not the one making this stuff up and calling it factual.


The arrogance you exhibited was found in the final sentence of your response, in which you express your hope that I do my homework for a change. Self-aggrandizing statements like this do little to help your case. Also, you are only assuming that I am making stuff up.

Krumple;155066 wrote:
What are non-sentient creatures? Can you give me a short list what those are because I have no idea what non-sentient creatures are. As far as I am concerned anything that reacts to pain or damage is considers by me to be sentient. This would include insects and animals. I can't seem to determine what a non-sentient creature is. If you mean angels are non-sentient creatures I would agree with you, because they are nothing other than imaginary creatures.


On the philosophical level, sentience would essentially be the ability of one to subjectively perceive or experience feelings. As for animals, the matter has not been completely shut as to the complete sentience of the variety of creatures in the "lower, animal kingdom," which I will define as the collection of those creatures not endowed with consciousness (this last part could be treated independently and should). All in all, though, if we were to place any importance on the subjectivity of semantics and the varying levels of abstraction, you could ultimately define any thing you wish as anything you wish.

I find your conclusion about angels as consistent. You cannot make such a conclusion and remain soundly rational. The reality is that you cannot know or prove the nonexistence of a thing in a particular container if the thing in particular is too small in relation to the container to be observed; this is the essential point of the problem of the Universal Negative. Angels would be classified as sentient, for they either chose to act in accordance to God's will or fall.

Krumple;155066 wrote:
Oh christian thought is the only right thought? So burning people and killing them for not accepting the faith or promoting slavery is considered good, I don't want any part of it. I guess that makes me an evil person because I don't support the bigotry.


Christianity is not inherently prejudice, nor is it supportive of bigotry. Slavery is never held as good, but authorized and never is it authorized in the New Testament. As for the Old Testament, while we read authorization for the Israelites to take on slaves, they were commanded to treat them fairly and warned against abuse. The content of the Old Testament, as for the violence against falling away or introducing false idols and faiths were meant to keep purity within the nation, who were chosen by God and liberated out of bondage to Egypt. The Old Testament story is the story of the Creator who loved Israel so much that, despite every reason given to Him to enact His full wrath against them, He proclaimed restoration and that He would soon intervene for His people; this was done through Christ Jesus. Perhaps, though, you were referring to the church, wherein many professed Christians were guilty of persecuting each other and people of other faiths as a means of conversion, such as the Spanish Inquisition, the persecution of the many "fathers" of the Reformation, and the Salem witch trials.

I ask, though, is this Christianity or is this man? A thorough understanding of how we are to interact with the world would yield the answer that this is man. Christ commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:39) and, later, we read Jude, who tells us to basically love the sinner, but hate the sin (Jude 1:22-23). Next and, by no means, lesser to any extent, Jesus informs us that the visible church is going to contain both wheat and chaff (Matthew 13:24-30).

Krumple;155066 wrote:
Immoral and moral are completely subjective terms. Good or evil are just as subjective. They only come about because of what a particular society adopts and enforces them to be. If a society accepts that murder is just and fine by all means that is what will happen. Just like I consider war murder yet people have some ways of justifying it. Your bible promotes that anyone who suggests you follow a different faith, they should be killed. You accept that to be justifiable?

Exodus 22:20

"Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed."

This is not the only place it suggests killing those who follow a different faith.

Deuteronomy 13:6-10

"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God"

So if I suggest that you take up Buddhism instead of Christianity, you should kill me right? Isn't that what your manual suggests. So why don't you look into Buddhism? I guess I just signed my death sentence.


Much like what I wrote before, those portions of the Old Testament were primarily meant to keep the nation of Israel pure and holy. Much of the rest of the Old Testament was of God condemning them as a harlot, but far worse than a mere harlot (Ezekiel, for instance).

I admit that I detest what thinkers like Hobbes did to our "civilized" world. You are so convinced that morality is subjective, but why act for another person's well-being at all? I have looked into multiple ways and, before coming to Jesus, spent years studying eastern philosophy and mysticism, which was the companion to a greater amount of time studying eastern methods of combat. The Buddhism comment does not bother me, but, in light of what was discussed, it is remarked out of bias ignorance.
Extrain
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 04:33 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;155304 wrote:
That's a straw man argument. The fact that different people believe that the Statue of Liberty is different heights doesn't entail that they are subjective beliefs. It entails that some of them are false beliefs. Subjective beliefs are not subjective just because we don't all agree on them.


Duh. That's exactly my point. Run that through again with respect to moral beliefs.
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 04:36 pm
@Alan McDougall,
I don't share CharmingPhlsphr's religious orientation, but am more in agreement with his side of the argument.

Something that could be said is that the insistence on morality being 'subjective' is completely consistent with the philosophy of individualism. Basically, it is the position that 'moral standards are what I say they are' and that the individual is the sole arbiter of ethics. While I value individualism, and individual rights, and would never suggest that they be restricted, absent a larger conception of ethics, it often reduces ethical attitudes to 'whatever is right for me'. And you end up with a very selfish society, which today's often seems to be.
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 04:37 pm
@CharmingPhlsphr,
CharmingPhlsphr;155329 wrote:
Slavery is never held as good, but authorized and never is it authorized in the New Testament.


1 Timothy 6:1-2 - PassageLookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

Quote:
All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.
This is saying that Christian slaves should be good little slaves even if their master is a Christian. That seems like condoning slavery to me.

---------- Post added 04-22-2010 at 05:41 PM ----------

Extrain;155331 wrote:
Duh. That's exactly my point. Run that through again with respect to moral beliefs.


The same goes with moral beliefs. I never held that just because we can't agree on X that means X is subjective. That's an idiotic argument, like most straw man arguments are.

The difference between the height of the Statue of Liberty and the wrongness of abortion is not that we can't all agree on their values. That much should be obvious because in both cases not everyone will agree on height or wrongness, yet one is objective and the other is subjective.
CharmingPhlsphr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 04:43 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;155334 wrote:
I don't share CharmingPhlsphr's religious orientation, but am more in agreement with his side of the argument.

Something that could be said is that the insistence on morality being 'subjective' is completely consistent with the philosophy of individualism. Basically, it is the position that 'moral standards are what I say they are' and that the individual is the sole arbiter of ethics. While I value individualism, and individual rights, and would never suggest that they be restricted, absent a larger conception of ethics, it often reduces ethical attitudes to 'whatever is right for me'. And you end up with a very selfish society, which today's often seems to be.


Awhile back, I was thinking on life being defined by one's position and reverence of God. The consequence of this is that humanity, without being God-centered, is inherently hedonistic and that would attribute to the perception that our "society" or culture is selfish.
0 Replies
 
Extrain
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 04:48 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;155335 wrote:
That much should be obvious because in both cases not everyone will agree on height or wrongness, yet one is objective and the other is subjective.


Why? For the last time, this isn't argument. This is a claim. And I disagree with this claim.
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 04:50 pm
@Extrain,
Extrain;155344 wrote:
Why? For the last time, this isn't argument. This is a claim. And I disagree with this claim.


Which part? That height is objective or that wrongness is subjective?
CharmingPhlsphr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 04:51 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;155335 wrote:
1 Timothy 6:1-2 - PassageLookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

This is saying that Christian slaves should be good little slaves even if their master is a Christian. That seems like condoning slavery to me.


Is that really what it is saying?

"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them."

It is continuing the notion of submission. The act of submission while in slavery is for the purpose of ensuring that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered and that our brothers would benefit from our service because they are our brothers. Jesus, for that matter, as worthy as He is for the exact opposite, submitted to washing His disciple's feet (John 13:1-17). I was going to continue this line of thought, but got distracted and the train, derailed. Surprised
0 Replies
 
Extrain
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 05:03 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;155347 wrote:
Which part? That height is objective or that wrongness is subjective?


Why are all moral judgments subjective? And why are all judgments about height objective? The distinction is arbitrary, not to mention false.

Just as people can be correct and incorrect about the actual height of object X, people can be correct and incorrect about an moral quality of an action X.

The height of object X is 10 meters.
The moral quality of an action X is a morally wrong action.

Raping toddlers is a morally wrong action.

And people can mistakenely think raping toddlers was not a morally wrong action. So "Raping toddlers is morally wrong" is an instance of an objective moral judgment.
Amperage
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 05:27 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;155286 wrote:
Judges 21:20-22

"They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When you see the young women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to the land of Benjamin to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be sympathetic. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find wives for all of them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not actually give your daughters to them in marriage."
Keep reading just a tiny bit further....Judges 21:25 , "In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes."

Yeah, God was not a part of this at all. And believe me the nation of Israel has paid severely for instances just as this...
0 Replies
 
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 05:29 pm
@Extrain,
Extrain;155351 wrote:
Why are all moral judgments subjective? And why are all judgments about height objective?


Because if we disagree about the height of something we can just go measure it. You can't measure wrongness.
Extrain
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 05:32 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;155364 wrote:
Because if we disagree about the height of something we can just go measure it. You can't measure wrongness.


Wrongness is not measurable property. But wrongness is still a property.

And it is arguable whether anyone can actually measure the actual height of a building with any degree of accuracy anyway. So all judgments about the building's actual height will be false. So does that make height a subjective property because it cannot actually be measured?

Actutally, given STR, there is no such thing as an actual height of the building anyway. So height is relative to a frame of reference.
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 05:38 pm
@Extrain,
Extrain;155366 wrote:
Wrongness is not measurable property. But wrongness is still a property.

And it is arguable whether anyone can actually measure the actual height of a building with any degree of accuracy anyway. So all judgments about the building's actual height will be false. So does that make height a subjective property because it cannot actually be measured?

Actutally, given STR, there is no such thing as an actual height of the building anyway.


What do you mean we can't measure a buildings height? Of course we can, we've got lasers that can measure it more precisely then practically necessary. In principle we can measure it down to the Planck length.

I dare you to tell the judge at your next speeding ticket hearing that things like height and speed can't be measured or don't exist. I guess you won't be able to measure the time you spend in jail either.
Amperage
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 05:40 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;155364 wrote:
Because if we disagree about the height of something we can just go measure it. You can't measure wrongness.
yeah and?.....not being able to 'measure' it doesn't necessarily mean it's not objective. Why should it?

Vitali sets are apparently an example of such a thing.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/10/2024 at 09:13:38