Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge

[Thumpalumpacus]

Ok...so it comes down to:

If you know it's impossible we make it that it's morally right/good for us torture intensely a child with intense torture for no crime all the way to it's adulthood till it dies.....then we know morality is eternal and eternal one who sees it existed.

You want to say we can't know it's impossible for us to make it morally right for us to do so, just decide it...then that's up to you.

Do I believe I have proven an eternal source of morality in this argument. I do.

But let's see what our LadyForCamus decides.

You're forgetting another possibility -- that morality is a human construct.

[GrandizerII]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why can't the Creator decide morality?

The why is in the conclusion. It's nature is eternal (God is eternal and the source of morality) and morality must be eternal necessarily. The question is how does this argument lead to that understanding? I think I've explained this many times. So perhaps you point out what you are not understanding, where exactly are you not leading up to that conclusion.

What I'm referring to is here:

However if it can't do that, and it can create the structures created by evolution, it follows that all structures created by evolution can't either.

What can't it do? Decide morality? If so, why not?

[Angrboda]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why can't the Creator decide morality?

The why is in the conclusion. It's nature is eternal (God is eternal and the source of morality) and morality must be eternal necessarily. The question is how does this argument lead to that understanding? I think I've explained this many times. So perhaps you point out what you are not understanding, where exactly are you not leading up to that conclusion.

[Mystic]

What can't it do? Decide morality? If so, why not?

Are you asking how the argument leads to that conclusion or why I think it can't?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's a vicious loop isn't it Jorg?  You can explain why the argument doesn't lead to this understanding (or any understanding), you can use the technical language for why..you can walk it out in natural language question by question....and when you're done......this guy is going to ask you why you don't think the argument leads to this understanding, as if you hadn't been discussing -precisely that- for 30 goddamned pages.

He must, Mystic, be asking you about the latter..because your "argument" -doesn't-...and -can't- lead to that conclusion.

[Mystic]

How I showed it can't decide, is different to why it can't decide. How we know it can't decide, I've shown already. We know it's necessarily the case goodness cannot be that it's morally good to torture a child for fun. However, if Creator or we can decide what is morally right, the Creator can decide it's morally good to torture a child for fun. So even it cannot decide what it is.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, you haven't.  You merely said that it was obvious. As you're about to do again:

We know it's necessarily the case goodness cannot be that it's morally good to torture a child for fun.

No, we don't. Demonstrate that.

However, if Creator or we can decide what is morally right, the Creator can decide it's morally good to torture a child for fun.

Tautology, yes, agreed..and this statement puts the lie to the statement -directly- above it. Make up your mind.

So even it cannot decide what it is.

this refers to and follows from....what?

[Mystic]

We know it's necessarily the case goodness cannot be that it's morally good to torture a child for fun.

No, we don't.  Demonstrate that.

I will wait LadyForCamus, maybe she believes it's impossible like me, and I don't need to. If she doesn't, then I will argue for this (I do have arguments for this).

[The Grand Nudger]

You're hoping to wait until someone with lower standards comes along, and also hoping that Camus is that person?  You're a real piece of work.

It won't help your argument if anyone -does- accept that, you realize?

[Edwardo Piet]

I'd like to see MK with a more aphoristic side.

If only because it's less TL;DR