(November 16, 2016 at 7:56 am)FallentoReason Wrote: There's a reason why he's still taught ~2500 years on.

Again, argument from authority. Pathetic.

Quote:Aristotle was a philosopher.

(November 16, 2016 at 7:56 am)FallentoReason Wrote: I was thinking Socrates. My apologies. Not sure why Aristotle has been brought up, but never mind.

Aristotle came after Plato and corrected many of his errors.

Quote:Kant went far beyond Plato.

(November 16, 2016 at 7:56 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Agreed.

And yet you don't get me making an argument from authority about Kant. Kant was wrong about a bunch of stuff just like Plato was. He was just less wrong.

(November 16, 2016 at 7:56 am)FallentoReason Wrote: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Explicate why it's neither. Go.

Because it can be answered with "neither".

"Is God good because he's good or is goodness good because it's Godly?" Can be answered with "Neither".

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

(November 16, 2016 at 7:56 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Are you sure it's not because it fails to be sound philosophy?

You're an idiot. A=A can't be wrong.

Quote: Neither of you knuckleheads would be passing ethics 101 thus far,

Bullshit.

Quote: so I wouldn't be so quick to think you've got a coherent grasp of what you're saying.

You're just too stupid to understand me.

Quote: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.

You're a fucking moron. I'm not denying the dilemma, I'm saying it's a false one. Learn a little logic and what a false dichotomy is or fuck off.

(November 16, 2016 at 8:10 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(November 16, 2016 at 7:56 am)FallentoReason Wrote: There's a reason why he's still taught ~2500 years on.

Again, argument from authority. Pathetic.

...the reason being that maybe his logic is sound. Think before you speak.

Quote:

Quote:Aristotle was a philosopher.

(November 16, 2016 at 7:56 am)FallentoReason Wrote: I was thinking Socrates. My apologies. Not sure why Aristotle has been brought up, but never mind.

Aristotle came after Plato and corrected many of his errors.

Quote:Kant went far beyond Plato.

(November 16, 2016 at 7:56 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Agreed.

And yet you don't get me making an argument from authority about Kant. Kant was wrong about a bunch of stuff just like Plato was. He was just less wrong.

Trivial to the discussion at hand.

Quote:

(November 16, 2016 at 7:56 am)FallentoReason Wrote: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Explicate why it's neither. Go.

Because it can be answered with "neither".

"Is God good because he's good or is goodness good because it's Godly?" Can be answered with "Neither".

You are not justifying your reasoning. Explicate.

Quote:

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

(November 16, 2016 at 7:56 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Are you sure it's not because it fails to be sound philosophy?

You're an idiot. A=A can't be wrong.

Your entire argument was miles away from the OP. Let's not revisit past failures please.

Quote:

Quote: Neither of you knuckleheads would be passing ethics 101 thus far,

Bullshit.

I wish it was.

Quote:

Quote: so I wouldn't be so quick to think you've got a coherent grasp of what you're saying.

You're just too stupid to understand me.

Trololol.

Quote:

Quote: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.

You're a fucking moron. I'm not denying the dilemma, I'm saying it's a false one. Learn a little logic and what a false dichotomy is or fuck off.

You're denying it by claiming its false on wrong grounds. Now, actually address the dilemma, or explicate why neither horn is correct. Last chance before I'll have to save you from the embarrassment.

(November 16, 2016 at 8:21 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(November 16, 2016 at 8:10 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Again, argument from authority. Pathetic.

...the reason being that maybe his logic is sound. Think before you speak.

That's not what you said. You made an argument from authority.

Instead of admitting you were wrong you just move the goalposts. You're extremely intellectually dishonest.

Quote:Aristotle came after Plato and corrected many of his errors.


And yet you don't get me making an argument from authority about Kant. Kant was wrong about a bunch of stuff just like Plato was. He was just less wrong.

(November 16, 2016 at 8:21 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Trivial to the discussion at hand.

Your trivial errors are still errors.

Quote:Because it can be answered with "neither".

"Is God good because he's good or is goodness good because it's Godly?" Can be answered with "Neither".

(November 16, 2016 at 8:21 am)FallentoReason Wrote: You are not justifying your reasoning. Explicate.

It can be answered with "neither". Grow a brain.

Quote:You're an idiot. A=A can't be wrong.

(November 16, 2016 at 8:21 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Your entire argument was miles away from the OP. Let's not revisit past failures please.

Your OP is incoherent bullshit that presupposes A=A and 2+2=4 implicitly and then claims not to explicitly.

As I have said repeatedly: Universes and hypotheticals are based on TLOI, not the other way around.

You want me to explicate but when I do you don't understand.

Quote:Bullshit.

(November 16, 2016 at 8:21 am)FallentoReason Wrote: I wish it was.

It is. You claim I'd fail at ethics 101 but you base that on your own inability to understand what I'm talking about.

You're one of those retards who fails to understand something and concludes that the person is talking nonsense rather than try and learn something.

(November 16, 2016 at 8:21 am)FallentoReason Wrote: You're denying it by claiming its false on wrong grounds. Now, actually address the dilemma, or explicate why neither horn is correct. Last chance before I'll have to save you from the embarrassment.

Look, retard, I'm not saying neither horn is correct I'm saying it's a false dichotomy because it can be answered with "neither". The fact that "neither" is even an option makes it a false dichotomy. Learn what a false dichotomy is before pretending to know what it is you disingenuous fucktard.

Jesus Christ, you sound like a fucking closet theist. I'm only saving you from the embarrassment just this once.

If you knew a single damn thing about the dilemma you're so boldly calling out, is that you'd realise I'm defending a refutation against Divine Command Theory. Had you actually, just for once, logically worked through both horns, you would have concluded neither horn is a good outcome for the theist. And the embarrassment begins when you fucking reply with precisely what the theist would say, because here it is - the only thing that makes it 'neither' is because the theist wants to say it's in god's nature to be good, or some convoluted non-answer.

Congratulations, you just failed ethics 101.

You're a fucking moron. All I said was that it was a false dichotomy and it is. Now go fuck yourself retard.

(November 16, 2016 at 8:49 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: You're a fucking moron. All I said was that it was a false dichotomy and it is. Now go fuck yourself retard.

You failed to ever explicate your mysterious stance on why it's neither, you failed to recognise an argument in favour of your own position and now you fail to explicate why you don't think these are colossal fuck ups.

Learn philosophy before we speak again, because I'm not wasting time correcting your wankery.

(November 16, 2016 at 5:51 am)robvalue Wrote: 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.

Now, what is dangerous is not considering the whole truth. The whole truth considers that God is Goodness Himself. But, your point here is not considering the whole truth, for one can only say that if for God, rape is moral, then it will be moral for people. Hence, it is not that everything that dogmatic that is dangerous. What is dangerous is your reasoning which proclaimed a contradiction that God Whom is Infinitely Good shall be the source of evil.

The same can be said regarding the conclusions that lead to atheism. In science, one cannot found God. Hence there is no God, so as they reason. But, is it indeed the case, or this is a case of not considering the whole truth? It seems that it is the latter. For, the scope of science are all those which are verifiable and all that which are quantifiable. But, not all reality are verifiable and quantifiable. Take for example the hidden premise of reasoning "since in science, there is no God, therefore it is indeed that there is no God". The hidden premise of that is that everything that is real must have a scientific evidence. But, that hidden premise itself doesn't have a scientific evidence, for it is a philosophical claim! Therefore, the hidden premise is self-defeating ,and therefore the hidden premise is false, and so the reasoning that "there is no God, because in science, there is no God and only those which have scientific evidence are real" is a false reasoning. That's how dangerous then to reason from an incomplete premise. Hence, the soundness of the Metaphysics of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, which reason from the perspective of being, for what is common to all are being. So, what is not only dogmatic, but also dangerous here is the scientism of the atheists.

(November 16, 2016 at 8:58 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(November 16, 2016 at 8:49 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: You're a fucking moron. All I said was that it was a false dichotomy and it is. Now go fuck yourself retard.

You failed to ever explicate your mysterious stance on why it's neither, you failed to recognise an argument in favour of your own position and now you fail to explicate why you don't think these are colossal fuck ups.

Learn philosophy before we speak again, because I'm not wasting time correcting your wankery.

I understand the philosophy I'm talking about unlike you.

"Neither because the gods don't exist" is a possible third horn. That makes it a false dichotomy. A true dichotomy contains the word "not". With a true dichotomy there is no third option.

It's not a position. It's a fact that if a dichotomy can be answered coherently with "neither" then it's false. You have a position. Your position is denying that a false dichotomy is a false dichotomy. And the dichotomy itself has no relevance to your incoherent failed hypothetical in the OP.

(November 16, 2016 at 9:10 am)theologian Wrote:

(November 16, 2016 at 5:51 am)robvalue Wrote: 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.

Now, what is dangerous is not considering the whole truth. The whole truth considers that God is Goodness Himself. But, your point here is not considering the whole truth, for one can only say that if for God, rape is moral, then it will be moral for people. Hence, it is not that everything that dogmatic that is dangerous. What is dangerous is your reasoning which proclaimed a contradiction that God Whom is Infinitely Good shall be the source of evil.

The same can be said regarding the conclusions that lead to atheism. In science, one cannot found God. Hence there is no God, so as they reason. But, is it indeed the case, or this is a case of not considering the whole truth? It seems that it is the latter. For, the scope of science are all those which are verifiable and all that which are quantifiable. But, not all reality are verifiable and quantifiable. Take for example the hidden premise of reasoning "since in science, there is no God, therefore it is indeed that there is no God". The hidden premise of that is that everything that is real must have a scientific evidence. But, that hidden premise itself doesn't have a scientific evidence, for it is a philosophical claim! Therefore, the hidden premise is self-defeating ,and therefore the hidden premise is false, and so the reasoning that "there is no God, because in science, there is no God  and only those which have scientific evidence are real" is a false reasoning. That's how dangerous then to reason from an incomplete premise. Hence, the soundness of the Metaphysics of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, which reason from the perspective of being, for what is common to all are being. So, what is not only dogmatic, but also dangerous here is the scientism of the atheists.

How can rape be evil if God says it is good? That's not a contradiction. It's good, and not evil, because God says so. Unless there is some way of deciding what is good/evil external to God, then "good" and "evil" are just arbitrary labels he gives things. If there is in fact a way of determing it external to God, then his word is not required.

Atheism has nothing to do with science. Science does not say "There is no God". You're drawing up a system of strawmen.

Are you telling me you need God to tell you what is right and wrong? I consider what is best for human and animal wellbeing, and then use reason. I don't need God to think for me.

So which is it? Is something good because God says it is good, or is God just really good at spotting what is good? Can you choose one and stick to it?

(November 9, 2016 at 2:26 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Here's an example:

Suppose you need to really badly pass an exam. You will it that selling cheat sheets is universally acceptable. Now cheat sheets are the norm, which means the lecturers have to change the way exams are done to remove the problem, I dunno, a unique set of questions for each student on the computer. Your universal rule didn't logically help you achieve your will, and coincidentally it's often regarded that cheating is wrong.

And another one:

Suppose you need to borrow money from your friend but you have no way of paying back. You will it that keeping promises isn't necessary. Now your friend can't trust any promises since it might be a lie. Therefore you weren't able to get what you wanted, and coincidentally it's often regarded that lying is wrong.

Cheating and lying are against the truth. Now, God is Being Himself, as proven by sound theistic arguments for God's existence. But, Being, and Truth and Goodness are one and the same reality, those are just viewed in different ways : Being is Being in Itself, Truth is just Being viewed in Intellect, and Goodness is just Being viewed in the will. So, since cheating and lying are against truth, and God is Truth Himself; lying and cheating is against God; and that God is the end of man, and the morality of man is based on the end of him, it follows that lying and cheating are bad.