(March 12, 2016 at 8:32 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

(March 12, 2016 at 8:08 am)bennyboy Wrote: MK, I believe the expression you are looking for is "circular logic."  And yes, this does seem to be a case of circular logic.

Double implications exist.

A -> B
B -> A
Therefore A <->B. 

It's not circular reasoning. It's that both imply one another.

If there existed a child, there existed a parent.
If there existed a parent, there existed a child.

That's a double implication in the definition of child and parent.

The same can be true of morality because of it's relationship to God as the source.

Where there's shit, there must have been an ass, and that's another example of a thing with an exclusively known cause. Not so on morality, which can be just as easily a product of evolved, and sociable humans. Therefore, your argument stinks.

(March 12, 2016 at 6:10 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(March 12, 2016 at 3:49 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I said it can be lessened. I didn't say it was entirely mitigated, all the time, for every case. Every case is different. Furthermore, a predisposition to do bad things doesn't mean a person will do bad things. There are many people who were abused and neglected as children and never grow up to rape and kill others. It's not automatic, and people still have a choice.

How do you reconcile free will and omnipotence?  Be specific.

Honestly I don't see what the conflict is in the first place. Can you explain? The way I see it, He had the power to give us free will, and so He chose to do so. How does this contradict his omnipotence? 

(And to clarify, God is omnipotent only as it applies to His nature, which is good)

(March 12, 2016 at 6:57 am)MysticKnight Wrote: You did well Catholic Lady, it's red herring after another. You brought up the topic of why morality and God go together. They turned into bible and Catholic church debate, then into the problem of evil debate (theodicy debate), then now want to talk about your personal belief as well as the issue of knowledge of the future with free-will (I believe that a lot of the future is not known to God because of the nature of free-will, and God is testing us to know us and so the future is not all written in stone). I would avoid the topic.

Bring it back to the original issue. Does morality and God go together such that both prove one another? (double implications of one another?)

Objective morality and God, in my opinion, go together. I personally can't see or make sense of how objective morality can exist without some sort of God(s).

(March 12, 2016 at 7:51 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 12, 2016 at 3:51 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: It's not a cop out at all. I can't judge the heart and soul of another person because I can't see those things. 

I'm not trying to produce evidence. Just answering your questions about what my views are.

If you cannot answer moral questions, then you are not engaged in the philosophy of morality.  Here's how this thread, in that case, should go:

You: I believe in God, and I think there's an objective morality-- I can't explain it, or give examples, or support it with evidence.  But I believe it.

Everyone else: Thanks for sharing.  Next time, please post in the "religion" section.

You're not asking me to answer a moral question. You're asking me to judge the heart and soul of another human being. I believe that can only be done by God.

(March 12, 2016 at 11:48 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(March 12, 2016 at 6:57 am)MysticKnight Wrote: You did well Catholic Lady, it's red herring after another. You brought up the topic of why morality and God go together. They turned into bible and Catholic church debate, then into the problem of evil debate (theodicy debate), then now want to talk about your personal belief as well as the issue of knowledge of the future with free-will (I believe that a lot of the future is not known to God because of the nature of free-will, and God is testing us to know us and so the future is not all written in stone). I would avoid the topic.

Bring it back to the original issue. Does morality and God go together such that both prove one another? (double implications of one another?)

Objective morality and God, in my opinion, go together. I personally can't see or make sense of how objective morality can exist without some sort of God(s).

Then on this you're one up one me.  I can't see how objective morality can exist at all.  

(March 12, 2016 at 8:32 am)MysticKnight Wrote: [quote='bennyboy' pid='1223815' dateline='1457784537']Double implications exist.

A -> B
B -> A
Therefore A <->B. 

It's not circular reasoning. It's that both imply one another.

If there existed a child, there existed a parent.
If there existed a parent, there existed a child.

That's a double implication in the definition of child and parent.

The same can be true of morality because of it's relationship to God as the source.

We have evidence of the parent/child association.

Where is the evidence for the god/morality association?

(March 12, 2016 at 6:57 am)MysticKnight Wrote: You did well Catholic Lady, it's red herring after another. You brought up the topic of why morality and God go together. They turned into bible and Catholic church debate, then into the problem of evil debate (theodicy debate), then now want to talk about your personal belief as well as the issue of knowledge of the future with free-will (I believe that a lot of the future is not known to God because of the nature of free-will, and God is testing us to know us and so the future is not all written in stone). I would avoid the topic.

Bring it back to the original issue. Does morality and God go together such that both prove one another? (double implications of one another?)

Absolutely not. Morality does not prove your god any more than it proves the evolution of humanity, and your god cannot be proven at all.

(March 12, 2016 at 8:03 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 12, 2016 at 3:49 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I said it can be lessened. I didn't say it was entirely mitigated, all the time, for every case. Every case is different. Furthermore, a predisposition to do bad things doesn't mean a person will do bad things. There are many people who were abused and neglected as children and never grow up to rape and kill others. It's not automatic, and people still have a choice. What happened to the likes of Hitler, Stalin, etc after they die is still a mystery to us though, as it's not our place to judge who's in Hell.

Who says it can be lessened?  God?  Did God tell you this?  Did Catholic leaders tell you this?  What happened to your "objective morality" (remember the OP?) in which things are either right or wrong, just because they are and not because of context or circumstance?

As for the many people who were abused but didn't grow up to rape and kill others-- this argument was expected, but it is weak.  WHAT, exactly, differentiates those who do flip out and those who don't?  Is it brain function?  The degree of trauma with which they remember the rape?  Was it a spiritual condition?

EVEN IF it is the spiritual quality of a person which causes them to fail the test and commit evil where others do not, what person chose his own spiritual quality?  The prime causal event which led to that person being in a state in which he commited evil was not in that person's control-- it was in God's control.  So the person hasn't really failed God's test; God has failed the person, in not giving him the same spiritual qualities that you or others were fortunate enough to be born with.

I'm expecting you to answer, "I don't know," and leave the actual rationale to God.  But if you don't know anything about morality and the consequences of moral and immoral decisions, I wouldn't say your position is a very useful one.  Your instincts to do good are much more useful than your ideas.

What we believe is that an act can be objectively wrong, in and of itself. Like, killing innocent people for example. That's objectively wrong in our beliefs. But a person who is mentally insane and just blacks out one day, grabs a gun, and walks into a mall shooting at people, has less culpability than a person who is completely conscious and meticulously plans out and executes a mass shooting. 

Our justice system works in a similar way, actually. Murder is illegal, period. But a killer who is insane and blacks out one day will get a much lighter sentence than one who is not insane and premeditated the murder. Murder is still murder. It's still illegal. But culpability can change depending on circumstances, state of mind, etc.

(March 12, 2016 at 10:58 am)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(March 11, 2016 at 11:35 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: You can feel remorse without getting the chance to go to confession. And you can go to confession without actually feeling remorse. It's what's in the person's heart that matters.  

As for your last question, that actually doesn't bother me. Over time, we come to learn more and understand more, through what we believe to be the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

So then the whole confessional and penance business is just a game to keep the priests busy? Do Catholics pay (make special donations to) the priests who hear their confessions?

Slick!

No and no.

(March 12, 2016 at 11:58 am)Whateverist the White Wrote:

(March 12, 2016 at 11:48 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Objective morality and God, in my opinion, go together. I personally can't see or make sense of how objective morality can exist without some sort of God(s).

Then on this you're one up one me.  I can't see how objective morality can exist at all.  

Very understandable. Since you don't believe in God, objective morality doesn't really make sense.