(July 13, 2012 at 12:09 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(July 13, 2012 at 10:49 am)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:

---

---

This is as if you told a lie, but it may not be fair to label you as a "Liar" as one of your attributes if this is not something that you do frequently.

The specific verse praises "him" (really, for what is "he" in need of a penis?) for his superlative deceiving prowess. In THAT context, it praises him for his ability AS A DECEIVER. All your other "99 attributes" label "him" for things "he" does not always do. You want your cake and eat it to. I call Special Pleading.

Quote:Same thing in the case of the verses that I talked about:

Allah deceives sometimes and does so only to certain people (i.e. those who try to plot against Him) - and for a good reason - but it is not correct to label him as a "Deceiver."

1-2-3, Mas Taqiyya!

Taq passes the comb to frodo, who scores another for Voldemort!

---

The argument I made can be substituted with greatness (with some premises rearranged and modified):


1. Greatness to be objective, cannot be arbitrary.
2. Objective greatness exists (assumption).
3. If a Creator can decide/create what is objective greatness, then objective greatness would be arbitrary. (For example, if it can decide rape is great, then it would be arbitrary)
4. Therefore a Creator cannot create objective greatness.
5. If a Creator cannot create objective greatness, then nothing can, including evolution, as a Creator can create evolution, and anything that would be able to create objective greatness.
6. Therefore objective greatness is eternal.
7. Ultimate greatness is included in definition of objective greatness.
8. Therefore Ultimate greatness exists eternally.
9. Ultimate greatness is not separate from consciousness.
10. Therefore consciousness is eternal.

Ultimate Greatness is equivalent to 'God'

your assumption is impossible to take seriously.

I just want to clarify something. Ultimate Greatness existing, can mean existing eternally in knowledge or reality. One more premise "Only God can fully know God" and then it proves God exists.

Also the existence of all non-arbitrary things have to exist in eternal knowledge. Hence it can be argued that shows God knows everything (doesn't prove he knows actual future though but perhaps in elaboration knows all possible futures).

---

(July 13, 2012 at 2:17 pm)Chuck Wrote: your assumption is impossible to take seriously.

Are you sure? At the very least, it seems like objective greatness exists. That is our intuition. Even if you are not sure, can you positively say it can't be taken seriously. This specially if you are agnostic, for all you know, God exists, hence objective greatness does exist. And if he does exist, why can't we have been given knowledge that objective greatness or objective morality does exist.

I respect remaining agnostic if you don't know, but, I don't understand the premise not being taken seriously.

WTF would this "objective greatness " look look like? How would it differ from, say, "run of the mill greatness", or (I suppose) "subjective greatness"? And what would each of THOSE look like?

All this extraneous addition of "objective/subjective" looks like nothing more than disingenuous, obfuscative semantic prestidigitation. You really need to either demonstrate WHY the addition of that extra bullshit stipulation "objective" is necessary and NOT just rhetorical tomfuckery that just attempts to hide circular presumptions, or drop that line of shit now and for good.

---

Same goes for this "ultimate" horseshit.It doesn't MEAN anything. And asserting "only gawd can know gawd is a Special Pleading fallacy.

MysticKnight Wrote:So animals I would say don't have objective morality, because they simply acting on instincts, even though some of these are love, compassion, empathy, etc...

I think you've run into a problem with this explanation, because now anytime a human acts on instinct, you have to say it was an amoral decision. If I see a child crossing the road while a car is barrelling down on him/her, I have no time to rationalize any decision I make, yet I leap into the road, grabbing the child just before the car hits him/her purely out of instinct. Would you see that as a good, bad, or neutral action?

(July 13, 2012 at 4:41 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

MysticKnight Wrote:So animals I would say don't have objective morality, because they simply acting on instincts, even though some of these are love, compassion, empathy, etc...

I think you've run into a problem with this explanation, because now anytime a human acts on instinct, you have to say it was an amoral decision. If I see a child crossing the road while a car is barrelling down on him/her, I have no time to rationalize any decision I make, yet I leap into the road, grabbing the child just before the car hits him/her purely out of instinct. Would you see that as a good, bad, or neutral action?

Split decisions can still be based on morality.

Then how can you rule out that an animal's actions, even if based on instinct, are moral?

(July 13, 2012 at 4:50 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Then how can you rule out that an animal's actions, even if based on instinct, are moral?

Because morality takes a higher conscious, it takes a belief in doing the right thing or more better/honourable thing...this can be done in a instance...or we can react instinctively with that belief that we should do something.

...animals on the other hand cannot relate to this objective morals, they don't have a belief in it, they simply act on instincts.

But my very point is that when a human acts on instinct, they are not accessing this 'higher conscious' as you call it. Are you saying the difference between humans and animals here is that we can decide afterwards if our actions based on instinct were moral?