(April 23, 2013 at 11:27 pm)Tex Wrote: Unicorns do not participate in existence. One eye'd one horn'd flying purple people eaters do not participate in existence. The cat from "Cat in a Hat" does not participate in existence.

Then you should have no problem in understanding that God does not participate in existence either.

Oh, so funny!

...

God is the existence that we participate in.

(April 23, 2013 at 11:27 pm)Tex Wrote:

(April 21, 2013 at 12:22 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Something can't "participate in existence" if it first didn't exist so that it could participate "in existence". And... "Existence itself"??? All of this is meaningless, as in, I can't make sense of any of it because my understanding of existence is apparently very different to yours:

An object simply exists. It doesn't "participate" in this existence as if it had the choice to *not* participate, because to say a non-existent object "doesn't participate in existence" is already assuming it exists somewhere so that it can have the property of "non-participation in existence".

If existence itself doesn't exist, there is nothing that exists. I am not existence, therefore existence is exterior to me and is being given to me by existence itself. Whether I want to or not, I participate in existence.

I don't understand why you personify "existence". To say "I am not existence" doesn't make any sense, because you can't assume such an identity. Something simply exists, but nothing can be "existence" itself. Such a thing has just as much right to be "existence" as you and I, because what do we lack that "existence" has? All three of us.. simply.. exist.

Quote:Unicorns do not participate in existence. One eye'd one horn'd flying purple people eaters do not participate in existence. The cat from "Cat in a Hat" does not participate in existence.

The things you've mentioned participate in existence as concepts in our head. In reality, they do not exist.

Quote:"To exist is good" means "there is objective qualitative value in existing".

It sounds like a subjective assertion to me, unless you can prove said assertion.

Quote:

(April 21, 2013 at 12:22 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Game over.

Yes, but not for this reason:

(April 21, 2013 at 12:22 am)FallentoReason Wrote: You've conceded that there exists something *exterior* to God: "Good".

God gives what is internal to himself. That is also how I participate in existence; it is giving.

Do you fade into non-existence when you don't give?

Quote:The game is over and I do concede, not because I think I'm wrong, but I honestly have no idea how to prove "God is inherently Good" using the argument by necessary being.

I'll help you out and say it can't be proven. By now, our dialogue should have made you realise that the word "necessary" inherently depends upon external conditions. To say I necessarily had to eat an apple without giving a reason external to myself makes that necessity redundant. It's effectively an arbitrary action. Likewise with anything you can tell me about God. Objective morals, his nature, his attributes.. they're all arbitrary until you choose to identify for me what exists externally to God that dictates who God is, which then of course means we can all cut out the middle man and go to the source that controls God Almighty himself. Something that I'm assuming you wouldn't want to happen.

Quote:If I ever think of something, I'll make a argument in a new thread and we'll go from there.

I'm all ears

(April 23, 2013 at 11:46 pm)Tex Wrote: God is the existence that we participate in.

Breathing and living is the existence in which I participate.

(April 23, 2013 at 11:46 pm)Tex Wrote: Oh, so funny!

...

God is the existence that we participate in.

What an amusing way to strip god of his superpowers and relegate christianity to the dustheap - invoke panentheism. The existence we "participate in" is devoid of all your christian magic and myth - so if that's god - it ain't yours.

(April 24, 2013 at 8:33 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(April 23, 2013 at 11:46 pm)Tex Wrote: Oh, so funny!

...

God is the existence that we participate in.

What an amusing way to strip god of his superpowers and relegate christianity to the dustheap - invoke panentheism. The existence we "participate in" is devoid of all your christian magic and myth - so if that's god - it ain't yours.

Yep, with definitions like this who hasn't experienced god? I just keep calling it things like my dog, my friend and my car. In fact I'm typing on god right now. Of course the bible is god too but then again so is every other book. If god is everything, should we shit can the dictionary or should we just go on calling everything by its separate name for clarity's sake?

This thread has shifted away from ethics and toward ontology. Because it has some tangential bearing on ethics, I will briefly mention that I have come to consider the cosmological argument a dead end. When you propose the idea of a necessary being the logical question is "necessary for what?". When the believer responds with "the physical universe" he sets that universe within a larger reality that acknowledges modes of existence with none physical properties. And since the relationship between non-physical properties is a widely contested subject, the cosmological argument must refer to more complicated metaphysics and cannot stand on its own.

Now the reason I mention this is for the following reason. Adding the preposition for to "God is necessary for..." seems to actually imply "Belief in God is necessary for...". From there you do not make claims not about the truth of the God's existence. Instead, the focus shifts to other beliefs, like ethical ones, that depend on God. This approach highlights the faith-based nature of belief as an existential choice, following Kierkegaard. It also highlights the intellectual costs of non-belief. The logical conclusions of denying divinity, in part or in whole, can be shown to undermine presuppositions necessary for rational inquiry. The unavoidable contradiction is that the initial choice, between faith and denial, cannot itself be made rationally.

With respect to ethics, I mentioned above that IMNSHO, that ethics were subjective but not arbitrary. In Joshua 24:15 presents an example of this subjective ethical choice, "...choose this day whom ye shall serve...". Earlier I seem to have poorly presented my thesis which is this. You can avoid arbitrary moral decisions by weighing them against a consistent standard. I use the example of standardized weights and measures. At one time nations prepared a set of standard weights and measures used to compare copies made for everyday use throughout the country. With time the everyday sets diverged from the king's standard. In the event of a dispute about the accuracy of one person's set of standards and another's, the worn sets could be compared for accuracy with the official standard. Of course this approach relies on the contesting parties' agreement to accept the king's standard as the means of resolution. That mutual choice make's it subjective. At the same time the standard itself is not arbitrary, it serves as a true guide for the accuracy of divergent standards.

Now the question is what can be used as a consistent standard for moral decisions. But what exactly is it that you are comparing. It seems to me that for moral decisions, each person must rely upon their own judgment. And of course, judgments vary from one person to another. What is needed is a fair judge. Now in the case of disputes, even the opinions of judges vary also. So if there is to be any way of determining between judges, you must be able to appeal to a higher standard to which even judges are compared. It seems to me that religion provides such a higher standard in the form of an Ultimate Judge to which every one is held accountable.

No one is compelled to believe such an Ultimate Judge exists. However, if one is to rule out arbitrary moral judgment, then such a belief is required. In other words, belief in God is necessary for assuring a non-arbitrary standard for moral decisions. The key issue in this is not that we can fully know how we compare to such a standard, but rather knowledge that we must justify our actions in comparison to such a standard and be held accountable for the soundness of our judgement.

ChadWooters Wrote:

---

With respect to ethics, I mentioned above that IMNSHO, that ethics were subjective but not arbitrary. In Joshua 24:15 presents an example of this subjective ethical choice, "...choose this day whom ye shall serve...". Earlier I seem to have poorly presented my thesis which is this. You can avoid arbitrary moral decisions by weighing them against a consistent standard. I use the example of standardized weights and measures. At one time nations prepared a set of standard weights and measures used to compare copies made for everyday use throughout the country. With time the everyday sets diverged from the king's standard. In the event of a dispute about the accuracy of one person's set of standards and another's, the worn sets could be compared for accuracy with the official standard. Of course this approach relies on the contesting parties' agreement to accept the king's standard as the means of resolution. That mutual choice make's it subjective. At the same time the standard itself is not arbitrary, it serves as a true guide for the accuracy of divergent standards.

Now the question is what can be used as a consistent standard for moral decisions. But what exactly is it that you are comparing. It seems to me that for moral decisions, each person must rely upon their own judgment. And of course, judgments vary from one person to another. What is needed is a fair judge. Now in the case of disputes, even the opinions of judges vary also. So if there is to be any way of determining between judges, you must be able to appeal to a higher standard to which even judges are compared. It seems to me that religion provides such a higher standard in the form of an Ultimate Judge to which every one is held accountable.

No one is compelled to believe such an Ultimate Judge exists. However, if one is to rule out arbitrary moral judgment, then such a belief is required. In other words, belief in God is necessary for assuring a non-arbitrary standard for moral decisions. The key issue in this is not that we can fully know how we compare to such a standard, but rather knowledge that we must justify our actions in comparison to such a standard and be held accountable for the soundness of our judgement.

---

Thanks for this contribution, but I think it's a red herring. You're addressing possible problems that could spring up after we've all hypothetically agreed that objective morals + a divine being aren't a mixture destined for self-refutation. In fact, I explored the latter of the issues (i.e. how objective morality would play out in our lives) with my Christian friend more than exploring the initial problems. I basically said I'll hypothetically believe there are objective morals (i.e. a standard set by an "Ultimate Judge") and now please lead the way: show me this standard. I was disappointed that even if I granted him the possibility of an ultimate standard, the best he could do was unknowngly appeal to his understanding of *subjective* morality; primarily moral relativity. All he had to offer was point to how our generation isn't racist anymore and that raping people is bad. It was an awful effort considering that he's basing his entire life on this alleged "ultimate standard" he supposedly lives by, and we couldn't even pin one thing down as being objectively right/wrong. So, I'll pass on the problem to you (which we have sort of explored already): what/where is this standard?

Christians talk about this topic as if their shepperd has led them to greener pastures, but upon inspection (and much granting of fundamental problems of the entire concept) all that happens is that they realise they haven't actually grazed this mythical pasture of moral perfection, which can *only* mean they have been grazing the same pasture as me.

As for your first two paragraphs, I'll have to think more about them. I just wanted to respond to the latter of your post before I went to bed and forgot what I thought.

---

(April 23, 2013 at 11:46 pm)Tex Wrote: Oh, so funny!

...

God is the existence that we participate in.

You know it's all in your head when your improv apologetics has lead you to invoke panentheism as a defence for Christianity. Yahweh will strike you down for your blasphemous ways(!), or will he, Mr. closet panentheist!

(April 24, 2013 at 10:30 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Now in the case of disputes, even the opinions of judges vary also. So if there is to be any way of determining between judges, you must be able to appeal to a higher standard to which even judges are compared. It seems to me that religion provides such a higher standard in the form of an Ultimate Judge to which every one is held accountable.

The bolded bit is precisely what eradicates the notion of the italicized bit. You've accepted that we must be able to appeal - and then in the next breath arbitrarily made a limit to those appeals and called it the "ultimate judge". Why can't the first judge be the ultimate judge, why appeal anyway? What point is there in having appeals which terminate at some point defined by you?

I think I've already asked this in this thread -but just to be sure- what would a god ave to do with whether or not something was arbitrary? Adding a god does not remove the notion that any given moral standard could be or is arbitrary. You'll need more.

I, the "ultimate judge" declare so and so to be x morally valued by reference to this objective standard that exists independently of me - then the ultimate judge is superfluous, and the moral value is not dependent upon the existence of said judge.

I, the "ultimate judge" declare so and so to be x morally valued because it arises from me - and I am x morally valued -then it is arbitrary, whatever the ultimate judge was would be x morally valued - even if it were a diametrically opposed proposition.

(April 24, 2013 at 12:15 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: ... I'll hypothetically believe there are objective morals (i.e. a standard set by an "Ultimate Judge") and now please lead the way: show me this standard.

The standard takes the form of the final judge, the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. A bold statement, so let me explain. In his humanity Jesus is the Christian example of love perfected. I see a human being who endured the greatest injustice, torture and execution at the hands of evil doers. And through it all He was able love them, pray for them, and ultimately die for them. The standard them is this ability to love. A Christian compares his live to this standard. Can I demostrated this kind of love while making moral choices and making moral judgments. Now we all have role models. Muslims look to Mohommed as the 'perfect man'. Secular people chose a variety of leaders and humanitiarians as their role models. Part of the Great Commission is to point out, if we can, the superiority of using the Son of God for this purpose. Not only does He provide the example, but also judges us against the standard He set Himself as the manifestation of love-itself, i.e. "Be perfect, as I am perfect." Thus, there is no exterior source for judging whether perfect love is an acceptable standard (regardless of the form we think it takes), because there is no alternative.

(April 24, 2013 at 12:15 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: You know it's all in your head when your improv apologetics has lead you to invoke panentheism as a defence for Christianity. Yahweh will strike you down for your blasphemous ways(!), or will he, Mr. closet panentheist!

Hey Fallen, it looks like I might actually be having an influence!