(March 13, 2016 at 3:41 pm)Losty Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 12:53 am)Irrational Wrote: What kind of discussions? I'm serious, what's the aim exactly? Just to be heard?

It seems you want us to not challenge what you say.

Thread summary so far:

- This is what I believe. I have no reason for believing it. No evidence for convincing that it even might be right. I'm not trying to convince anyone else to believe it. But it's what I believe.

- Neato

/thread

/thread

I think the argument Catholic_Lady brought up is to prove:

If objective morality exists, so then does God exist.

The video was about proving this. It wasn't about proving objective morality exists, but that if you do believe in that, you should believe in God.

Then everyone went off all sorts of red herrings and we talked about all sorts of topics.

You know what I remember when I first came on these forums. People always said that William Lane Craig was making up that premise out of his ass. Well this thread shows reasons that indicate it is true.

People than went off topic with all sorts of things. Her original OP was to the point. It's her view that objective morality and God go together. A lot of Atheists in fact agree upon this, but deny objective morals existing.

::bold mine::

Quote:It means if it's possible a Creator can create morality without it already existing, it can decide what it is. (Sure, okay)

If can decide what it is, it can decide it's good and right and moral to torture a being for no crime forever and ever. (not sure how you are defining 'good' here, but alright.)

However this doesn't assert that it's actually possible such a Creator to exist.

It's not in any possible world the case that it is good to torture a being forever and ever for no crime. (why not? Because you say so?)

It Doesn't follow! Your first premise claims that if a God could create morality from nothing then he could make torturing an innocent person forever morally right. You then go on to say that it's not morally right in any possible word that such an act could be considered moral. I think you refuted your own premise with your personal, subjective opinion that it could never be "right" in any world to do such a thing to an innocent person.

And anyway, in order for any of this to have any practical meaning I'd have to just accept the assertion that objective morality exists in the first place, which I don't, because no one has demonstrated that it does. How are you supposed to demonstrate any specific attribute of objective morality when you can't even demonstrate that it's a real thing in the first place? That's like me saying "this argument is going to prove that my unicorn is pink, not green."

Eh, "if" doesn't always indicate it would be possible or is possible in any possible world. It's saying, if it were possible sort of thing. Then this would be. And then this would be. BUT it's not possible for that the latter to be..therefore the initial thing is not possible.

(March 13, 2016 at 3:30 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 3:18 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: You've just defined a God who is a passive witness to morality.  That's not the God of any JudeoChristian religion.

I don't understand what you are saying. Is Christian and Jewish God not the source of morality? I think you should watch what William Lane Craig says on the false dichotomy of the Euthyphro Dilemma and the third option he presents.

I've read Craig on the Euthyphro dilemma. It's a dodge. He's saying that there is no how question so long as we just agree that it "just is." This ontological / epistemological distinction is just a smokescreen for not answering the question. Even if God "just is" the Good, that doesn't explain in what way the Good functions so it's just an empty utterance. It'd be like saying John "just is" a good person, even though you can't define what makes a person good. But you're the one enamored with Craig's explanation, why don't you explain to me how it makes the epistemological question irrelevant? And how that answers the Euthyphro dilemma? (How, mind you; not 'that'.)

As to how you've defined a passive God, you've claimed that God's being can have no influence over what is or is not objectively moral. That puts morals outside God, and he just becomes a bystander.

(March 13, 2016 at 3:59 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Eh, "if" doesn't always indicate it would be possible or is possible in any possible world. It's saying, if it were possible sort of thing. Then this would be. And then this would be. BUT it's not possible for that the latter to be..therefore the initial thing is not possible.

What I am asking you is how do you know that "it's not the case in any possible world that it is good to torture an innocent being forever" is a true statement?

(March 13, 2016 at 3:54 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: And anyway, in order for any of this to have any practical meaning I'd have to just accept the assertion that objective morality exists in the first place, which I don't, because no one has demonstrated that it does.  

We can make a topic just about whether or not objective morality exists or discuss what you truly believe about this issue deep down. But if you accept it's moral fact that it's wrong to torture a being forever and ever....that proves an objective moral.

So it seems you have gone back to denying that premise.

(March 13, 2016 at 4:04 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 3:54 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: And anyway, in order for any of this to have any practical meaning I'd have to just accept the assertion that objective morality exists in the first place, which I don't, because no one has demonstrated that it does.  

We can make a topic just about whether or not objective morality exists or discuss what you truly believe about this issue deep down. But if you accept it's moral fact that it's wrong to torture a being forever and ever....that proves an objective moral.

So it seems you have gone back to denying that premise.

No...YOU asserted it to make your argument work. And isn't that what this 100 page thread was created for? To talk about evidence for objective morality? I haven't seen any yet so why bother making a new thread for the same crappy arguments?

(March 13, 2016 at 4:02 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 3:30 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I don't understand what you are saying. Is Christian and Jewish God not the source of morality? I think you should watch what William Lane Craig says on the false dichotomy of the Euthyphro Dilemma and the third option he presents.

I've read Craig on the Euthyphro dilemma.  It's a dodge.  He's saying that there is no how question so long as we just agree that it "just is."  This ontological / epistemological distinction is just a smokescreen for not answering the question.  Even if God "just is" the Good, that doesn't explain in what way the Good functions so it's just an empty utterance.  It'd be like saying John "just is" a good person, even though you can't define what makes a person good.  But you're the one enamored with Craig's explanation, why don't you explain to me how it makes the epistemological question irrelevant?   And how that answers the Euthyphro dilemma?  (How, mind you; not 'that'.)

As to how you've defined a passive God, you've claimed that God's being can have no influence over what is or is not objectively moral.  That puts morals outside God, and he just becomes a bystander.

Not really, somehow God's knowledge of morality needs to be vested into us. He is the Good and the standard (WLC uses the word, God is the standard as well). Anyways, to explain the relationship between God and creation I agree is important, and how we have knowledge of morality through him is important, but don't you think such topic would be very deep and spiritually intense? 

If you are up for such a book, perhaps you want to read Misbahal Hidayah by Imam Khomeini. It's been translated into English online.

(March 13, 2016 at 4:07 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 4:04 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: We can make a topic just about whether or not objective morality exists or discuss what you truly believe about this issue deep down. But if you accept it's moral fact that it's wrong to torture a being forever and ever....that proves an objective moral.

So it seems you have gone back to denying that premise.

No...YOU asserted it to make your argument work.  And isn't that what this 100 page thread was created for?  To talk about evidence for objective morality?  I haven't seen any yet so why bother making a new thread for the same crappy arguments?

No this thread was to show objective morality and God go together. That if you accept one, you accept the other. Or at least you should.