RE: Very short version of the long argument.
September 12, 2017 at 2:19 am
(This post was last modified: September 12, 2017 at 2:22 am by Mystic.)
(September 11, 2017 at 12:21 pm)bennyboy Wrote:(September 11, 2017 at 8:39 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Sir, I see a contradiction between the 1st sentence and the 2nd. Do I need to elaborate?
Yes.
If who you are is objective knowledge to goodness, then it's not relative.
(September 11, 2017 at 1:53 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:(September 11, 2017 at 8:17 am)MysticKnight Wrote: If we know to some degree something about the highest possible goodness there is a connection to it.
If there is a connection to it, it exists.
We do know something about the highest possible goodness.
Therefore there is a connection it.
Therefore it exists.
The disputable premise might be we know something about it but even atheists argue that God who allows suffering without benign purpose cannot be ultimate good. And they argue by some knowledge of the ultimate good to assert it cannot exist. At the end, no true knowledge of a transcendent goodness beyond our limits can be know without a connection! And if there is a connection than just as we exist on one hand what we are connected to exists as well!
If you wish to see elaboration to each premise, see the long but worth it thread.
Bold mine. I certainly don't accept this premise. I could feel a deep, personal connection to unicorns or Santa, but that doesn't mean those things necessarily exist in reality. It only means that they exist, in concept, in my mind. Just like your god.
(September 11, 2017 at 8:17 am)MysticKnight Wrote: If we know to some degree something about the highest possible goodness there is a connection to it.
If there is a connection to it, it exists.
We do know something about the highest possible goodness.
Therefore there is a connection it.
Therefore it exists.
The disputable premise might be we know something about it but even atheists argue that God who allows suffering without benign purpose cannot be ultimate good. And they argue by some knowledge of the ultimate good to assert it cannot exist. At the end, no true knowledge of a transcendent goodness beyond our limits can be know without a connection! And if there is a connection than just as we exist on one hand what we are connected to exists as well!
If you wish to see elaboration to each premise, see the long but worth it thread.
What's disputable is your assumption that some intangible value or idea that you've labeled "ultimate goodness" exists in the first place. You have to demonstrate that it's an actual thing before you can draw any truthful conclusions from an argument that uses it in its premises.
What you are using the word "connection" as it is not what I meant. Words have different meanings in different contexts. And that is not my meaning.
(September 11, 2017 at 10:05 am)Alex K Wrote:(September 11, 2017 at 8:32 am)MysticKnight Wrote: That is true. Nothing to do with my argument, however, since I never said: "we cannot know anything about anything without it actually existing".
But yes you do, isn't that precisely the first part of your very argument?!? "We know something about X -> X exists"
No, even in the brief elaboration, I made no generalizations, I talked about transcendent nature of goodness in this regard to emphasize why would we need a connection. I can go more details if you like.
