LOL< baited.

What have I got to lose? It's like... maybe if I bang my head on the wall enough times you guys will magically understand what I'm talking about?

Not everyone doesn't get it by the way, just on this thread

Rhythm Wrote:Whether or not you take me seriously, whether or not I;m a smart guy, and whether or not guys like euphyro or kant -said it- has nothing to do with whether or not it's a false dichotomy.

*Plato. And I don't mean to appeal to authority, but in this case it's justified, because do you really think Plato would be taught for the last ~2500 years if he was obviously an idiot that got it wrong that easily? Go ahead Rhythm, teach an ethics class, because obviously you know something we don't. I mean c'mon...

Quote:Any proposition that insists on a person choosing between a or b when c (and d, and e) are all equally available is a false dichotomy. That's what it means for something to be a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy is an informal logical fallacy, and fallacious arguments are invalid.

There *is* only a or b, because it's mutually exclusive.

inb4 "but god doesn't exist" - no one cares. That doesn't suddenly make it a false dichotomy, because your belief doesn't negate philosophical arguments. And no, it's not even a logical third choice either, because otherwise what would it mean to philosophize? To repeat to yourself over and over again what you believe, so you can sleep warm at night? You're no better than Ham at philosophy parties, and that sucks Rhythm, because I remember you being different. Not sure what happened while I was gone.

Lol @ the argument from authority in favor of Plato.

You're forgetting Aristotle......

And Kant went way way way beyond Plato.

Dude like I said, both halves of the dilemma imply a god. So it's a false dichotomy. The fact you can answer the dichotomy with the word "neither" means it's a false dichotomy. That's what a false dichotomy is.

Ham Wrote:Lol @ the argument from authority in favor of Plato.

Explicate please.

Quote:You're forgetting Aristotle......

I thought he was a literary device?

Quote:And Kant went way way way beyond Plato.

Kant is the reincarnation of Plato.

Quote:Dude like I said, the dilemma both imply a God.

So what? Are you scared by that or something?

Quote: So it's a false dichotomy.

Feeling uncomfortable by merely contemplating a god doesn't make it false.

Quote: The fact you can answer the dichotomy with the word "neither" means it's a false dichotomy.

No, because that answer isn't entertaining the idea. Your default position should be that this is an hypothetical (uh-oh), since your beliefs don't account for any god. I don't understand why you and Rhythm are so inclined to only see your own beliefs being reflected in philosophical works. Put down your beliefs, corner the question into an hypothetical cage so that poor you doesn't get hurt, and address the goddamned question head on. "But I don't like gawd" isn't going to fly, unless you like playing philosopher for funsies.

(November 13, 2016 at 3:27 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(November 13, 2016 at 1:59 am)theologian Wrote: 1. Morality then is both made and not made in different sense. It is made in the sense of being a means and it is not made in the sense of being an end. That is so, because moral actions depend on nature, and nature is made by God, while the end of moral actions is God Himself, Whom is obviously not made.

I think that you're tying your god dick into knots now, when it's probably best left in your pants to begin with.  Is all of the above your subjective opinion, or your objective opinion?  [1]

Quote:2. I don't understand what you meant with objection of convenience. Care to demonstrate? Further, being unable to change morality is so compatible with relating morality to God as an end, for if God is the end of morality and God is unchanging, then it follows that nothing can change morality.

Clearly you don't, since you're fielding yet another post chock full of them. [2] 

Quote:3. So, what are you trying to say then?

That you need to learn to speak english.  You just keep butchering it.  [3] 

Quote:4. Well, that is simple. Whatever comes solely from the human person are subjective, but whatever comes from God or in God are objective.

It's simple, alright.    [4]

Quote:5. Care to demonstrate why I believe what I believe regarding morality yet don't know?

It's rather the reverse that's lacking.  You believe, but don't know, because you cannot demonstrate. [5]

Quote:6. You got it right that you may want to reference the wrongness of sexual abuse to the nature of man and nature of love etc. However, if we further ask, why do you refer the rightness or the wrongness of actions to nature? If there's no God, it will just be an arbitrary choice again. Hence, without God, there could not be an objective moral standard.

If you think that rape would only be arbitrarily bad, as a matter of choice, if there were no god...then I see little sense in having a discussion with you about morality.  You do not possess moral agency.  You merely obey what you believe to be a gods rules.  [6]

Quote:7. I think I'm clear here to prove that even if one relates the goodness or the wrongness of an action to the nature, which is objective, the question why it has to be referred to nature, without appealing to God, will make again morality subjective. Hence, if there is no God, then there will be no objective moral standard.

You probably think you're right alot of the time.  In fact, it could even be a useful heuristic for you.  Anytime you start to think that you've proven anything about a god or morality, you should take that as an indication of just how wrong you are.  Meanwhile, I'll be over here, in easy possession of my own moral standard that tells me that rape is bad - regardless.  [7]

Quote:8. The question begging I was referring doesn't matter anymore, if I am wrong to assume that what you are pointing out is my inconsistency regarding the separation of objective moral standard and God, as what you are really pointing at is that what's the difference regarding explaining morality with or without God. Simple. If there's no God, even appealing to nature will make morality subjective, because one may ask that why appeal to nature and how about not appealing to it. But if there's God, it will be easy to know that what is moral is what makes us keep going to Him Whom is our true end, and so we can appeal to nature objectively, for nature obviously comes from God.

You weren't referring to any question begging in the first place.  They aren't magic words, you know, lol.  If theres no god, you just keep saying.  Let me show you how to properly leverage the identification of a logical fallacy.  What you have, above, is a textbook appeal to consequences.  If there's no god, then so what?  Morality would be subjective? So what?  [8]

Would rape be any less subjectively bad than it is objectively bad, in your opinion, if it turned out you were just a superstitious cretin? [9]

Quote:No. It's just about whether you hold rape is bad a priori either because it's just an opinion which is subjective by denying God's existence, or by considering that God truly exist and therefore one can easily show how moral standards are objective too.

Meh, who cares about god...we're discussing morality?  I'm not the one that needs there to be a god for rape to be bad.  That's your bag.[10]

1. Some opinion can be objective, if it is in accordance with reality. Now, nature is real, and that is evident. God is also real, per sound argumentation like the Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas. It is real that man's essence is he able to know the truth and love the good and that God is Truth and Goodness Himself. So it is real that the end of Man is God that is what the definition of morality shows being defined as the standard of good actions. Hence, my opinion here is objective, while atheists whom deny God and are still holding morality are having subjective opinion, for it's an opinion not in accordance with reality. 

5. What is that I can't demonstrate? Please let me know so either I admit I cannot, or I will demonstrate. But, first, of course, let me know what to demonstrate.

6. No, I don't believe that rape being bad is just arbitrary, for I can demonstrate what objective morality is, while for atheists, they believe it to be bad arbitrarily in examining their thinking, for again, the only way to demonstrate that morality is objective is to affirm God's existence first, Whom is the Lawmaker. 

7. That's a very good demonstration of the subjective morality of atheists. Now, it's not that I think that I'm always right. I just hold to what reality shows for me to be objective so that in suggesting to others to act morally will not be an imposing of subjective opinion which atheist can't escape doing by denying the reality that there is God, and that he is the objective basis of morality. 

(November 13, 2016 at 3:51 am)robvalue Wrote:

(November 13, 2016 at 2:49 am)theologian Wrote: Erm... Sexual Abuse will always be immoral, for it is against God's will which is unchanging. So, it is based from God and not based from people.

It is not true that if well being and God's will are the same, then God is entirely irrelevant, for we can argue soundly that the source of well being is God. So, if there's no God, then there's no well being. But, there is God, per sound theistic arguments like the Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas. To deny the conclusions in Five Ways that God exists is to both deny things which are evident, (for the Five Ways starts with the things that are evident), and to deny laws of logic (for the Five Ways utilized valid logical forms).

But who is telling us what is god's will? You are. So if God turned up and said that actually his will is that sexual abuse is moral, what would you do then?[1]

Is he allowed to speak for himself? Because you're far from the only person telling us what god's will is, and when you guys disagree, at least one of you is just making it up.[2] 

My position is a lot clearer. God turns up and says "Having sex against someone's will is moral". I'd say, "Please explain how that is". If he had no argument to persuade me, then I'd dismiss him. I don't take moral judgements from anyone. It seems unlikely there is any such argument to be had, but I'm always open to discussion.[3] 

What would you say to him? If an atheist can entertain a hypothetical, surely you can.[4]

1. Let us first show if God is really saying that sex abuse is moral. After all, what we are knowing here is whether God is the basis of objective morality, and that can't be known by going in the particular moral standards, just as we cannot figure out by the chess rules alone to know what made the chess rules. 

2. I agree that contradiction can't be true. But disagreement among believer doesn't make us all wrong, for believers themselves are not the basis of morality, but God. And, yes, God can speak for Himself, for He have founded the instrument whom will speak for Him, and that is the Catholic Church. 

3. Since God created all the created objective things, then without an argument, what He proclaims must be true. It is a contradiction that an all knowing God would be mistaken. 

4. Well, I will say to Him that I accept His Word whole heartedly, for He, God, is the Truth Himself.

Okay, so if god says rape is moral, then to you it's moral. In other words, morality has nothing to do with the wellbeing of humans to you. All that matters is what an external being happens to think about things.

This is exactly why a dogmatic religious mindset is so dangerous.

(November 15, 2016 at 9:51 pm)FallentoReason Wrote:

Ham Wrote:Lol @ the argument from authority in favor of Plato.

Explicate please.

You used the argument from authority in favor of Plato

Quote:You're forgetting Aristotle......

(November 15, 2016 at 9:51 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: I thought he was a literary device?

Aristotle was a philosopher.

Quote:And Kant went way way way beyond Plato.

(November 15, 2016 at 9:51 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Kant is the reincarnation of Plato.

Kant went far beyond Plato.

Quote:Dude like I said, the dilemma both imply a God.

(November 15, 2016 at 9:51 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: So what? Are you scared by that or something?

It means it's a false dichotomy because the dilemma can be answered with "neither".

Quote: So it's a false dichotomy.

(November 15, 2016 at 9:51 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Feeling uncomfortable by merely contemplating a god doesn't make it false.

It's a false dichotomy because it can be answered with "neither".

Quote: The fact you can answer the dichotomy with the word "neither" means it's a false dichotomy.

(November 15, 2016 at 9:51 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: No, because that answer isn't entertaining the idea. Your default position should be that this is an hypothetical (uh-oh), since your beliefs don't account for any god.

It doesn't matter if it's a hypothetical. The hypothetical is still a loaded question that can be answered with "neither" and hence it's a false dichotomy.

Quote: I don't understand why you and Rhythm are so inclined to only see your own beliefs being reflected in philosophical works.

Neither of you has grasped my basic modal logic here but at least unlike you he's not an idiot.

Quote:Put down your beliefs, corner the question into an hypothetical cage so that poor you doesn't get hurt, and address the goddamned question head on. "But I don't like gawd" isn't going to fly, unless you like playing philosopher for funsies.

You're a fucking idiot. I've explained myself repeatedly already.

What a false dichotomy is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

(November 16, 2016 at 7:12 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(November 15, 2016 at 9:51 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Explicate please.

You used the argument from authority in favor of Plato

There's a reason why he's still taught ~2500 years on.

Quote:

Quote:You're forgetting Aristotle......

(November 15, 2016 at 9:51 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: I thought he was a literary device?

Aristotle was a philosopher.

I was thinking Socrates. My apologies. Not sure why Aristotle has been brought up, but never mind.

Quote:

Quote:And Kant went way way way beyond Plato.

(November 15, 2016 at 9:51 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Kant is the reincarnation of Plato.

Kant went far beyond Plato.

Agreed.

Quote:

Quote:Dude like I said, the dilemma both imply a God.

(November 15, 2016 at 9:51 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: So what? Are you scared by that or something?

It means it's a false dichotomy because the dilemma can be answered with "neither".

Quote: So it's a false dichotomy.

(November 15, 2016 at 9:51 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Feeling uncomfortable by merely contemplating a god doesn't make it false.

It's a false dichotomy because it can be answered with "neither".

Quote: The fact you can answer the dichotomy with the word "neither" means it's a false dichotomy.

(November 15, 2016 at 9:51 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: No, because that answer isn't entertaining the idea. Your default position should be that this is an hypothetical (uh-oh), since your beliefs don't account for any god.

It doesn't matter if it's a hypothetical. The hypothetical is still a loaded question that can be answered with "neither" and hence it's a false dichotomy.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Explicate why it's neither. Go.

Quote:

Quote: I don't understand why you and Rhythm are so inclined to only see your own beliefs being reflected in philosophical works.

Neither of you has grasped my basic modal logic here but at least unlike you he's not an idiot.

Are you sure it's not because it fails to be sound philosophy? Neither of you knuckleheads would be passing ethics 101 thus far, so I wouldn't be so quick to think you've got a coherent grasp of what you're saying.

Quote:

Quote:Put down your beliefs, corner the question into an hypothetical cage so that poor you doesn't get hurt, and address the goddamned question head on. "But I don't like gawd" isn't going to fly, unless you like playing philosopher for funsies.

You're a fucking idiot. I've explained myself repeatedly already.

What a false dichotomy is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

The dilemma gives you options that are mutually exclusive. There is no third option, but for the time being I'm suspending my belief until you can successfully explicate your absurd denial of the dilemma.