(December 2, 2023 at 3:19 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(December 2, 2023 at 12:31 pm)Ahriman Wrote: I guess I could try explaining how this works, but I'm not going to. It would be like trying to teach Spanish to a cat.

El Gato Encantato. Ever hang out there?

The Charming Cat?

Boru

(December 2, 2023 at 3:45 pm)Angrboda Wrote: It's also worth noting that Christian values would not be our values had they not been adopted by Rome, which operated in Europe.  Europe had natural advantages over China and India, for example, and were the situations reversed, we'd be owing our values to Buddha or Vishnu or Laozi or Confucius.  So having the values we have owes as much to the choices of Rome and the accident of its geographical location as it does to any specifically Christian merits.

An outstandingly good point.

Still waiting for SC to explain why Christian history proves the existence of the Christian god (my hopes are not high).

Boru

(December 2, 2023 at 2:35 pm)SimpleCaveman Wrote: Hi Boru,

Sorry for the delay. Thanks for playing along and thinking this through.

(November 29, 2023 at 7:51 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: But if our values come from Christian history (they don’t, but I’ll play along), then it absolutely doesn’t matter if God exists, from a moral/ethical standpoint.

Interesting point.

(First a small flight of fancy. It makes me think of a time travel paradox situation. (Bodies didn’t address theirs. Travelers did.) If our values come from Christian history, then it doesn’t matter if God exists or not. We have those values regardless. But would we have Christian history if God didn’t exist? Dammit Boru! I’m a statistician, not a philosopher. :-)

I am contending that it is our Christian history that gives us our values. And, obviously to my thinking, we have that history because God exists.

You’re point is that if we have the Christian virtues, then we don’t need God to exist anymore, assuming that he ever did. And I would say yes. Yes we do.

Consider, in the last 100 to 200 years, and the last 60 in particular, we have moved from a Christian society to a post-christian society. The 19th-century poet Matthew Arnold once spoke of the “long, withdrawing roar” of the “Sea of Faith,” leaving us with “neither joy, nor love, nor light.”

Those values have still been with us but, as I see it, are going away, getting replaced by greater selfishness, antagonism, etc. The world is not getting better without that Christian worldview.

If God didn’t exist, then even though, somehow, the Christian worldview lasted that long anyway, it will soon die out. Without the Christian worldview, what is there to get us back on track? And not only without that worldview, but replaced by many, many worldviews, almost to the point where everyone has their own unique worldview. It seems to me that it will be impossible to keep those virtues. Who will define what is inhumane, when everyone has a different idea of what humane is? How will we have compassion for victims when everyone is a victim? How can we have community and brotherhood, when our culture fights for radical individualism? I don’t know.

On the other hand, if God does exist, then (try not to do a spit-take here) His plan of salvation is constantly at work. He is letting us wallow in our own sinfulness, like He did with the Israelites in the OT. We Christians have to recognize that we have lost our moral vision. You all say this all the time: When you see how Christians act, why would you want to be Christian?

If Christians can stop being buttheads (can I say that here?) and start being Christ-like, then we can again be a light to the world. Now back to the point, we could not do that on our own. On our own, we will always be buttheads, where eventually, we’ll be going to hell in a bucket, and not even enjoying the ride. As evidence of this I show you the last 200, 100, 60 years.

But because God exists, He can guide us back to those virtues, (and I say He is).

For today, no, it may not matter whether God exists as long as the people around you have that worldview. But tomorrow they may not, and then it matters.

If Christians can stop being buttheads (can I say that here?) and start being Christ-like, then we can again be a light to the world

When your gang leader, Yahweh, stops creating buttheads we will all be better off


@SimpleCaveman

Is yahweh a Christian?

(December 2, 2023 at 3:47 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(December 2, 2023 at 3:19 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: El Gato Encantato. Ever hang out there?

The Charming Cat?

Boru

The Enchanted Cat. It's from a John Varley trilogy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaea_trilogy. I've read those three about seven times.

(December 2, 2023 at 2:49 pm)SimpleCaveman Wrote: Hi Grand Nudger,

I know I’m a day late and a dollar short so ignore me if you want.

TL;DR: (Though I hope you do read it) God wants and commands what is best for us. It is good for us because it fits with how He made us. He can’t command something that violates His reason because His intellect is perfect.

The Grand Nudger’s question is trying to get at why something is good? Let’s be honest and say that while Plato may have honestly asked the question, I’d be very surprised if the Grand Nudger is doing it for any other reason than as a trap. But no worries, it’s a good question. Interesting to think about.

I'll end up as the sole moral realist in thread.  Do it all the time, lol.

Quote:Following theologian and apologist, Karlo Broussard, I think we can summarize what the Big Nudge :-) is trying to say with three premises.

First, he says, “Are these things worthy because they shine out of gods wherever, or do they shine out of gods wherever because they are worthy?” The word “worthy” here is being used as a substitute for the word “good.” The statement is usually stated as “Is an action good because God commands it, or does God command an action because it’s already good?” Thus I would state the first premise as

1) Either an action is good because God commands it, or God commands an action because it’s already good.

Then he plays the gotcha and says “if badness, hate, falsity, ugliness, vacuity, and cowardice were what was shining out of gods wherever.. those things would be the set of the worthwhile.” He wants us to say, "well, I guess they would be worthwhile." It’s a gotcha because it makes the goodness of God into an arbitrary thing. To a theist it’s a logical contradiction, which is what Confused-by-christianity was pointing out. Let’s say the second premise as

You're wrong.  I expect a functioning moral agent to say "no, no, that's wrong, I misspoke".

Quote:2) If an action is good because God commands it, then God could arbitrarily command any evil act (like “curbstomping infants”), and that act would be good, which is absurd.

He also “wins” if we say that it’s not worthwhile just because God commands it. That means (at the surface) that there is a criteria for goodness independent of God, which a theist would not hold. Let’s say the third premise as

Why is it absurd?  Are logical consequences to purported conditionals absurd?  No.  It's absurd because it's what no one believes about right and wrong.  Least of all the people who say it - like fucking idiots.

Quote:3) If God commands an action because it’s already good, then there is a standard of goodness independent of God, in which case God is not necessary for morality.

Conclusion: Since a theist can hold neither option, it follows that a theist’s claim that God is necessary for morality is undermined.

A theist can hold either option..and I'd say that a theist who doesn't want to be immediately identified as a loon, a charlatan, or a sociopath..must.  That there are standards apart from god is manifestly obvious, regardless of whether you agree with those standards. You invoke them....yourself..when you babble on about the horrors of a post christian america.

Quote:[Grand Nudger, if I have stated these wrong, please correct. Don’t rant yet, though. Give me time to update my logic.]

Since this post is long, we’ll only look at the third premise. If someone wants to consider the second, let me know.

I do not have any problem affirming that God commands an action because it’s good. The fallacy here is in the way of thinking what good is.

What fallacy?  If there's a good for a god to be then there's good.  End of.  I don't give a shit about a god.  I seek the good for it's own sake.  God could blip into or out of existence and it doesn't matter a single iota, to the good.

Quote:Because what is good and bad for human beings is determined by the ends set for us by nature. Any behavior that facilitates the achievement of our natural ends is considered good. If it frustrates those ends, then it is considered bad. For example, the way we were created/evolved says that drinking water is a good because it preserves our life. Procreation and rearing kittens are good for cats because they preserve the species.

It's precious when the faithful say this not realizing that their gods goods and bads must..then..be equally set by our nature.  I'm over here saying maybe don't do everything that's natural to you.  Especially if you're a goddamned sociopath.  I know sociopaths can't really understand moral instruction so consider it practical.  

Quote:And so, yes! God commands all actions that facilitate the achievement of our natural ends. Those actions he is commanding are good. He prohibits actions that frustrate those ends, “bad things, man.”

In summary, for premise 3, since human nature determines what is good and bad for us, and since God is the author of our nature, affirming that God commands something because it is good does not imply a standard of goodness independent of God.

Like I said, I'll end up the only realist in the thread.  You're describing theological subjectivism.  Through biological subjectivism, no less. What is good or bad is what is natural to us. Naturalness is the good-making property. I disagree. We do all sorts of..oh, what was the term..."devil stuff". Don't you think? I'm pretty sure it's natural to us. What do you think. What would that say about the author of human nature, if that were true? Does it not know better, or is there just no better?

Hi Boru,

Interesting thing here. When I replied to your post, intending to quote it, it didn’t keep the portion from your previous post. I had to go back to the original post you made. Surprising. I wonder why. Maybe so we don’t have Inception moments.

Before, you had said,

(November 29, 2023 at 7:51 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: But if our values come from Christian history (they don’t, but I’ll play along), then it absolutely doesn’t matter if God exists, from a moral/ethical standpoint.

Then I was all like,

(December 2, 2023 at 2:35 pm)SimpleCaveman Wrote: I am contending that it is our Christian history that gives us our values. And, obviously to my thinking, we have that history because God exists.

<I continued with an argument about why it would still matter, from a moral/ethical standpoint, whether God existed or not.>

And you responded with,

(December 2, 2023 at 2:58 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Of course you’d have Christian history if God didn’t exist - that’s blatantly obvious. The history of a religion - any religion - isn’t dependent on whether the god(s) of that religion exist. Simply because we have Aztec history is no reason to believe that Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli exists.

You’ve take a very silly, very indefensible position.

I was very surprised. It did not appear that you got past that sentence.

(December 2, 2023 at 3:55 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Still waiting for SC to explain why Christian history proves the existence of the Christian god (my hopes are not high).

And then you said this. And now I’m sure you didn’t read or grok the rest of the post. This isn’t what you asked or what (the majority of) my post was about.

Maybe you did read it all and still focused on this point. That’s fine. And, obviously, you can respond or not respond to whatever you want in the posts. No issues there. As Chuck Berry said, “This is a free country, live like you wanna live, baby!”

I’m just saying I took you as someone who rises above the usual level of <ahem> discussion.

Pax et bonum

It's difficult to get past anything so blatantly false, especially if your point is premised on it. I think you may be experiencing precisly that difficulty right now. There's plenty to debate and discuss about meaning and morality and wherevers without choosing to die on such a silly hill.

We do it all the time. You might even find that, outside of your doomed compulsion to proselytize for your faith - you don't actually disagree with a great many people here on meaning-making properties. If you want a little pro advice...you're going to find it very difficult to argue that there's much more, or anything more, than "human nature" going on in moral statements. God is redundant to your shared opinion with the majority of people on this board. I know I do.

(December 2, 2023 at 9:36 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It's difficult to get past anything so blatantly false, especially if your point is premised on it.  

It’s not. Engage in the discussion rather than dance around it.

People pointing out that a foundational assumption you make and that is required for your position is demonstrably and self-evidently false doesn't seem to be "dancing around" anything.

Would you like to talk about that?

Good Morning, Grand Nudger,

I just realized a possible reason you have that handle. Nudging is pushing. And you are someone who does a great job of pushing other people’s buttons. “Grand Nudger” is very suitable and well-deserved.

(December 2, 2023 at 10:07 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: People pointing out that a foundational assumption you make and that is required for your position is demonstrably and self-evidently false doesn't seem to be "dancing around" anything.  

Would you like to talk about that?

The position does not require that statement, what you call “a foundational assumption.” I would ask you to go back and read the post again, but I doubt you would. Here is the post without that comment so that you and Boru can more easily respond to the argument.
---------------------------------------  
I know my tone has changed. I’m sorry about that. I’m getting frustrated. I came for good discussions, and they seem to happen, then don’t. If I start getting full on snarky, then I’ll probably step away for a while.
---------------------------------------  
I am contending that it is our Christian history that gives us our values. You’re point is that if we have the Christian virtues, then we don’t need God to exist anymore, assuming that he ever did. And I would say yes. Yes we do (edit) need to think that God exists.

Consider, in the last 100 to 200 years, and the last 60 in particular, we have moved from a Christian society to a post-christian society.

Those values have still been with us but, as I see it, are going away, getting replaced by greater selfishness, antagonism, etc. The world is not getting better without that Christian worldview.

If God didn’t exist, then even though, somehow, the Christian worldview lasted that long anyway, it will soon die out. Without the Christian worldview, what is there to get us back on track? And not only without that worldview, but replaced by many, many worldviews, almost to the point where everyone has their own unique worldview. It seems to me that it will be impossible to keep those virtues. Who will define what is inhumane, when everyone has a different idea of what humane is? How will we have compassion for victims when everyone is a victim? How can we have community and brotherhood, when our culture fights for radical individualism? I don’t know.

For today, no, it may not matter whether God exists as long as the people around you have that worldview. But tomorrow they may not, and then it matters.