(March 16, 2015 at 9:39 am)SteveII Wrote: God's nature is The Good (as the greatest conceivable being) and those properties simply determine what goodness is. So if God = The Good, to restate the dilemma would “Is The Good, good because it creates The Good or because it recognizes The Good?” Well, neither one – The Good is good because it is The Good. It does not make sense to ask this further--to keep pushing it back.

I like this statement.... God is "the good". It's a redefinition of the term "god" and an attempt to bring a whole lot of baggage to the simple matter of "what is good"?
Anything that's good in the world is in "the good", right?
Is this "the good" conscious? If so, then how would you be aware of that?
Is it aware of its goodness? If so, how would you know that?
Or is it just "the good" as an abstract thing?
Could this abstract thing (the good) be what the people attribute to the events they perceive as positive to themselves or their peers?

Also, please note that Steve has yet to tell us how he first determined that god was in line with "the good." I did ask that, after all; how do theists initially determine that the morality espoused by their chosen deity is good, sufficient to adopt that morality as their own? And if they never did make that choice, if they refuse to extend any consideration at all to the morality of their own religion, then why on earth should we take anything they have to say on the matter seriously?

(March 16, 2015 at 12:29 pm)Esquilax Wrote: how do theists initially determine that the morality espoused by their chosen deity is good, sufficient to adopt that morality as their own?

I think they never think about it.
Good things are self-evidently good and they're good because everyone else says so and everyone else says so because god "must" have put that thought in everyone's minds.

The initial part here is where most of us around here do take the time to think about it, read about others' guesses and form an opinion about how we think mankind, as it evolved from wild animals to societal groups, also evolved a form of inherent compassion for each other in the group.
If you refuse to accept the evidence hinting toward this evolution, then you're stuck with an arbitrary starting point where morality is already in place and no mechanism to account for such a complex behavioral code seemingly "self-evident".... hence, the ultimate answer to any gap in knowledge: god.

(March 16, 2015 at 12:15 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(March 16, 2015 at 9:39 am)SteveII Wrote: God's nature is The Good (as the greatest conceivable being) and those properties simply determine what goodness is. So if God = The Good, to restate the dilemma would “Is The Good, good because it creates The Good or because it recognizes The Good?” Well, neither one – The Good is good because it is The Good. It does not make sense to ask this further--to keep pushing it back.

I like this statement.... God is "the good". It's a redefinition of the term "god" and an attempt to bring a whole lot of baggage to the simple matter of "what is good"?
Anything that's good in the world is in "the good", right?
Is this "the good" conscious? If so, then how would you be aware of that?
Is it aware of its goodness? If so, how would you know that?
Or is it just "the good" as an abstract thing?
Could this abstract thing (the good) be what the people attribute to the events they perceive as positive to themselves or their peers?

That's part of Euthyphro's dilemma which Steve dismissed out of hand by way of the apologetic method otherwise known as circular reasoning, 'member?

(March 16, 2015 at 11:48 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 16, 2015 at 9:39 am)SteveII Wrote: God's nature is The Good (as the greatest conceivable being) and those properties simply determine what goodness is. So if God = The Good, to restate the dilemma would “Is The Good, good because it creates The Good or because it recognizes The Good?” Well, neither one – The Good is good because it is The Good. It does not make sense to ask this further--to keep pushing it back.

So, first of all, nuh uh. Not gonna happen. I'm not going to let you get away with ending your argument by just defining god to be good by fiat assertion, that's an absolutely lazy, bullshit excuse for an argument and I'm not having it. You can't just say "god is good because god is good and that's that," that's a tautology, a circular argument that I can't believe you would actually think someone would take seriously. The question: is "The Good" good because god says it is, or because it conforms to a prior notion of goodness? is still one that requires answering, and if you don't want to answer it, if you seriously want to hitch your wagon to the utterly insulting circular argument you've made here, then my morals are objective because they are objective, and it doesn't make sense to ask further questions. That gets us nowhere, Steve, and the sad thing is that you started us down this path because simple, reasonable answers weren't enough for you.

But then, the double standard is also on full display here now too, I've noticed. See, when we make recourse to axioms- please note that I never did, I was able to provide an actual decent reason for the basis of my morality that didn't rest on an axiomatic statement... that you then dismissed outright for no reason- you say that's not good enough, not objective enough in comparison with your god. But when you're pushed into a corner regarding your god, you respond with a fucking axiomatic statement. So it's okay when you do it, but not when we do it?

This is the problem, the huge glaring flaw at the heart of what you're doing here: you're privileging your own position for no good goddamn reason, and dismissing whatever else we say because it doesn't match up to the undemonstrated, largely imagined authority you've imbued into your argument. You don't have any evidence that what you're saying is true, you don't even have any better justification, as you've just demonstrated by relying on a circular, fiat axiom as your ultimate answer, but because you've decided that your god answer gets this special, mystical authority that nobody else can have, therefore it's superior. Well, until you stop assuming your answer is better because magic, nobody else has to take that seriously. You don't just get to invent this special "The Good," as a catch all panacea for the obvious problems in your argument and then stop talking.

Okay, so if I ask: “Is your evolved sensibilities (or however you want to phrase it) good because it creates morality or because it recognizes morality?" How do you stop the infinite regress? You need a stopping point where it no longer makes any sense to ask whether something creates ultimate morality or recognizes ultimate morality. God is a very plausible stopping point. What is the atheist's?

I find it interesting you will criticize belief in God but you wont allow for the standard definition of God: He is ontologically, metaphysically ultimate. To describe God's nature as the greatest good is not inconsistent nor a double standard nor fiat axiomatic statement from the blue. The Jews believed this before Plato ever lived.

Regarding "privileging your own position for no good goddamn reason", I cannot prove God exists any more than you can prove he doesn't. So in a discussion on divergent views of reality, you can expect that my beliefs will contain references to God and I will expect your will not.

There is no ultimate morality. It's a fiction.

I'd like to thank my sponsors, "Jim's ninja wear" which allow me to post these invisible messages, and to sneak out like I was never here.

Remember, it ain't ninja without Jim.

(March 16, 2015 at 1:40 pm)SteveII Wrote: I cannot prove God exists any more than you can prove he doesn't.

You cannot prove that dragons do not exist, but I do not see you having an illogical belief in their existence. After all, there are plenty of books depicting dragons, so they must be real according to those books. At least according to your ill logic.

You're essentially expressing "God is -the good- because I believe that god is -the good-". Which is good for you, obviously, good for god, granted, but good for nothing.....-to me or to the comments raised.

Yes, we know, you believe this to be true, you define those words that way - and?

(March 16, 2015 at 1:44 pm)Sionnach Wrote:

(March 16, 2015 at 1:40 pm)SteveII Wrote: I cannot prove God exists any more than you can prove he doesn't.

You cannot prove that dragons do not exist, but I do not see you having an illogical belief in their existence. After all, there are plenty of books depicting dragons, so they must be real according to those books. At least according to your ill logic.

Well that does it. If dragons don't exist, I am ready to become an atheist. Where do I sign up?

(March 16, 2015 at 1:40 pm)SteveII Wrote: Okay, so if I ask: “Is your evolved sensibilities (or however you want to phrase it) good because it creates morality or because it recognizes morality?"
How do you stop the infinite regress?

Very simply: Because that's how societies have defined good to be.

Like people have defined what a chair is, and what "wet" is and what "blue" is, so they have defined "good" and "bad" and "evil" and "awesome" and "flying" and "love" and "friend" and "hate" and "information" and "knowledge" and "experience" and "look" and all the myriad words in every conceivable dictionary.