Suffering

[pocaracas]

Don't know why, but whenever I see the title of this thread, I think of this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFnFr-DOPf8

But, of course, Plinkett has debunked this order of things.... (start at 2:55, or just skip to 3:54 for the juicy part)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIWKMgJs_Gs&t=3m54s

[FallentoReason]

I made an argument that goes a long the lines of this.

(a) (Objective/real) Morality
(b) God exists
© a -> b

I argue if we know © to be true, then (a) is true.

Knowing © to be true, implies (a) to be true, and it implies (b) to true (by chain).

You've lost me with this. How can we know 'c' to be true if it requires 'a' to be true, which is actually the very thing you're trying to prove?

I think I know what you meant, but I'd like to see you explain it again for yourself, if you don't mind of course.

[Mystic]

I made an argument that goes a long the lines of this.

(a) (Objective/real) Morality
(b) God exists
© a -> b

I argue if we know © to be true, then (a) is true.

Knowing © to be true, implies (a) to be true, and it implies (b) to true (by chain).

You've lost me with this. How can we know 'c' to be true if it requires 'a' to be true, which is actually the very thing you're trying to prove?

I think I know what you meant, but I'd like to see you explain it again for yourself, if you don't mind of course.

a -> b is "If (objective) morality exists, then God exists".

I further argue, that this means we know the reality of objective morality. We know it must originate from a eternal higher reality and we are to be linked to it. We know there must be eternal basis to all levels of morality. This means we have knowledge of objective morality, which only makes sense if the objective morality is true.

It's not a knock out argument, it's just something that makes intuitive sense to me.

It doesn't make sense to me, to say we know for sure morality to be true must come from God, we know this absolute fact about it, but then it may or may not exist.

However, I would say the most controversial premise in all that, is "If (objective) morality is true, then God is true".

I've made some threads why I think this is the case though.

[FallentoReason]

a -> b is "If (objective) morality exists, then God exists".

But this is circular, which is what I was getting at originally. "If objective morality exists, then God exists, which would then prove 'a'; that objective morality exists". This is what you have said in terms of 'a', 'b' and 'c' but I've written it out in English.

[Mystic]

a -> b is "If (objective) morality exists, then God exists".

But this is circular, which is what I was getting at originally. "If objective morality exists, then God exists, which would then prove 'a'; that objective morality exists". This is what you have said in terms of 'a', 'b' and 'c' but I've written it out in English.

A->B Doesn't usually say anything about whether A is true. However, in this case, I would say with morality, it does show it to be true for certain reasons.

However it doesn't really prove A to be true unless you accept both: A -> B to true. And [A -> B] ->A to be true

[Tobie]

I made an argument that goes a long the lines of this.

(a) (Objective/real) Morality
(b) God exists
© a -> b

I argue if we know © to be true, then (a) is true.

Knowing © to be true, implies (a) to be true, and it implies (b) to true (by chain).

Your logic failure here is that knowing © to be true doesn't mean (a) is true. We can declare © to be true, but declaring it true does not make objective morality exist.

For a "reducto ad absurdum" example;
I can conclude that having an 8 foot long penis would make walking around quite difficult. If we go by the logic in your post, it would mean I had an 8 foot long penis.

[Phish]

TrollHamerem!!!!!!!!!!

P.S:Are you really so poor,that you can't afford a real cross?Why the hell did you make it out of paper clips?

[genkaus]

a -> b is "If (objective) morality exists, then God exists".

In logic, that's called a non-sequitur.

I further argue, that this means we know the reality of objective morality. We know it must originate from a eternal higher reality and we are to be linked to it. We know there must be eternal basis to all levels of morality. This means we have knowledge of objective morality, which only makes sense if the objective morality is true.

It's not a knock out argument, it's just something that makes intuitive sense to me.

Actually, it's not an argument at all. Objective morality means "morality independent of anyone's thoughts, whims or opinions and based on facts of reality". There is no call for any "higher" reality - this one should suffice. There is no need for an eternal basis. Morality which is based on this reality - and changes according to this reality - would be objective as well.

You shouldn't rely too much on your intuition. Especially when it can be shown to be so dead wrong.

It doesn't make sense to me, to say we know for sure morality to be true must come from God, we know this absolute fact about it, but then it may or may not exist.

Who says that?

However, I would say the most controversial premise in all that, is "If (objective) morality is true, then God is true".

Controversial? I don't think so. Nonsensical is more like it.

I've made some threads why I think this is the case though.

And you've been shown to be wrong in all them. And yet, you continue to do so. I wonder why that is?

[FallentoReason]

But this is circular, which is what I was getting at originally. "If objective morality exists, then God exists, which would then prove 'a'; that objective morality exists". This is what you have said in terms of 'a', 'b' and 'c' but I've written it out in English.

A->B Doesn't usually say anything about whether A is true. However, in this case, I would say with morality, it does show it to be true for certain reasons.

However it doesn't really prove A to be true unless you accept both: A -> B to true. And [A -> B] ->A to be true

I'm just not sure how A->B can be assumed to be true on its own if A hasn't shown to be true. By using A->B you have assumed A to be true and hence proving B (i.e. God, which is the thing of concern) and then this allows you to go back and [wrongly] accept that A must be true for the whole thin to be able to work.

Maybe I've missed the point. I'm not sure.

[Mystic]

A->B Doesn't usually say anything about whether A is true. However, in this case, I would say with morality, it does show it to be true for certain reasons.

However it doesn't really prove A to be true unless you accept both: A -> B to true. And [A -> B] ->A to be true

I'm just not sure how A->B can be assumed to be true on its own if A hasn't shown to be true. By using A->B you have assumed A to be true and hence proving B (i.e. God, which is the thing of concern) and then this allows you to go back and [wrongly] accept that A must be true for the whole thin to be able to work.

Maybe I've missed the point. I'm not sure.

A-> B in itself says nothing about whether A is true or B is true. It only says if A is true, then B is true. Therefore A ->B doesn't assume A is true.