(June 30, 2013 at 11:34 pm)Inigo Wrote: Note that this argument is not fallacious. It is deductively valid. Of course, it may be unsound. But 1 is a conceptual truth, surely? So 1 is rock solid. 2, well – it seems true to me. I can’t conceive of how anything other than an agent can issue an instruction. Maybe you can, but I await a counterexample.

I do not note that at all. It is rubbish for all the reasons that have already been pointed out to you. You sure spin the words together real nice, just like one of them there philosopher guys. Too bad you are so intent on making bull shit make sense instead of following what makes sense to its natural conclusions. Must not have been the truth you were after. Oh well, good luck with believing all that crap and try to have a nice life now, you hear?

Is it just me, or is Inigo defining morality as something not made by humans, and thus declaring it must not be made by humans?

Your fallacy today is begging the question. Of COURSE morality isn't made by people, if you include "not made by people" in the definition of morality. Kindly demonstrate that morality has ever been anything but a human invention.

MikeTheInfidel Wrote:Is it just me, or is Inigo defining morality as something not made by humans, and thus declaring it must not be made by humans?

It is just you. My definition of morality (which is partial) is encapsulated in the premises of my arguments. I define morality as, in part anyway, consisting in instructions and favourings whose existence confers reason to comply with them.

So that's the definition. My arguments have a god as a CONCLUSION. In other words, I haven't put god in, I've gotten god out. Arguments just extract the implications of their premises. That's what I've done. I've shown that the implication of that definition of morality is that morality is composed of the instructions of a god. (that is not 'question begging'. If you insist that is 'question begging' then all valid arguments are question begging and it is no longer a flaw! An argument begs the question when one of its premises asserts the truth of the conclusion. None of my premises do that!)

Now, you might think that this shows there to be something wrong with the definition (not sure why you'd think that - but some people decide what something can and cannot assume before investigating the matter, which is a bit like deciding who committed the murder before looking at the evidence. but meh). Well, what? In other words, look at those premises and figure out which one is false.

(July 1, 2013 at 4:04 am)Inigo Wrote:

MikeTheInfidel Wrote:Is it just me, or is Inigo defining morality as something not made by humans, and thus declaring it must not be made by humans?

It is just you. My definition of morality (which is partial) is encapsulated in the premises of my arguments. I define morality as, in part anyway, consisting in instructions and favourings whose existence confers reason to comply with them.

Kind of like... math?

(June 30, 2013 at 6:30 pm)Inigo Wrote: I'm not sure this is a conversion story as such, and anyway it goes in the wrong direction. So, if anything, I am here to see if anyone can show me the error of my ways so that I can go back to atheism.

I was brought up an atheist and would have described myself as such until very recently. However, I no longer have any great confidence in the truth of atheism. This is not due to any kind of religious experience. Rather, it is entirely due to reflection on the nature of morality and reason. I now take seriously that both may presuppose a god of some sort. Not, note, a Judaeo Christian god. Just a powerful supernatural agency.

And so I am here to see if I am misguided in some way. I have no sympathies with any religious groups or beliefs - indeed, I take all religions to be just so much mumbo jumbo. And I have no time for those who believe in a god on the basis of faith.

Quote:Rather, it is entirely due to reflection on the nature of morality and reason.

Morality does not define truth, only evidence does. In human evolution humans display both compassion and cruelty, both good and bad behavior. That has never changed and never will change.

Hypocrisy in claiming morals only shows hypocrisy, it does not negate a position. The only good CORE reason to hold a position is evidence, nothing else.

(July 1, 2013 at 4:04 am)Inigo Wrote: My arguments have a god as a CONCLUSION. In other words, I haven't put god in, I've gotten god out.

So your presuppositions lead to a conclusion. But they're still presuppositions right?

The sensation of pain is also instructional. Do you believe that requires a god?

Punches FNM in the face *like a god*

(July 1, 2013 at 3:02 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Punches FNM in the face *like a god*