(March 13, 2016 at 11:14 am)MysticKnight Wrote:(March 13, 2016 at 11:02 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Since you called me out (which is fine) can you explain this better? I'm not quite what you are saying that I denied. Thanks.Possible worlds is referred to as what is logically possible. Somethings are impossible in all possible worlds. Somethings are necessarily true in all possible worlds. They are such that no possible world exists but that they would be true.
Do you remember you agreed on the premise:
If a Creator can create goodness without it already existing, it can decide what it is.
If it can decide what it is, it can decide it would be good and right to torture a being forever intensely for no crime on it's own.
You agreed on these two premises.
You disputed at first, the premise "If the creator cannot create goodness without it already existing, then neither can evolution or anything for that matter" but when it was pointed out to you the Creator can create evolution or whatever things evolution creates, you withdrew this.
The premise that you disputed then was "It's necessarily the case in all worlds, it cannot be good torture a being forever and ever for no crime that it has done"
You said this is not true because morality is relative or subjective (can't remember which of these two you said).
But the reason why you denied it, is because the argument then goes on to say:
Therefore morality (as neither evolution or Creator can create it without already existing) is eternal.
Morality requires perception.
Therefore eternal perception of morality always existed.
You knew the conclusion followed. So you had to deny one premise. So you denied the one I just stated.
What it just means it's impossible that it is good to torture a being for no crime on it's own forever and ever.
So this shows it's impossible that a hypothetical creator creates it out of nothing because we agreed that would make it possible for it to be good to torture a being for no crime on it's own forever and ever.
Anyways....no one refuted the argument. It was not only valid, but it's sound. All the premises are true.
I apologize...I am not following most of this. I'm no expert in logic (especially not modal 'all possible worlds' stuff) and additionally I find your language rather confusing. Is your first premise that a hypothetical God can or CAN'T create morality from nothing? *scratches head*
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
