RE: How to easily defeat any argument for God
August 12, 2019 at 12:34 am
(This post was last modified: August 12, 2019 at 12:37 am by GrandizerII.)
(August 12, 2019 at 12:16 am)Acrobat Wrote:(August 11, 2019 at 11:34 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Acrobat, I don't believe in a Platonic good, so comparing it to the sun in your analogies is pointless because I don't accept the analogy.
Good is purely abstract, there is no physical object to which we can point to and say "That is the good".
That doesn't mean that therefore good must be based on personal tastes.
I agree, there is no physical object we can point to and say that is the good.
If the moral goodness and wrongness of things can be objective truths, whatever space these objective truths occupy, it's immaterial.
In order for it to be an objective truth, it can't just be an idea in my head, but one out there.
All the world exists as picture in our head, yet we distinguish a world of our imagination, and the world that's out there. The beach I'm sitting at, is just in my imagination, as I dream of warmer weather and a vacation, while the room I'm seeing now, is not. This room is here, a part of reality.
Some atheists would say that the good you and I see is just our imagination, if we mistake it for out there, we're just seeing an illusion of objectivity, but not truly something objective. Is that your view?
It's out there implies it's physically there. But there is no "out there" for that thing you call the good. I don't know what you're asking anymore. What illusion? Some acts truly are good or bad, regardless of how we feel. Something about the act is what makes it good or bad. If it harms, then we're generally going to intuit it as bad. If it promotes flourishing, we're going to generally intuit it as good. Nothing to do with your God, and nothing to do with personal feelings. We intuit the way we do because mainly evolution.
(August 12, 2019 at 12:16 am)Acrobat Wrote:(August 11, 2019 at 11:34 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Acrobat, I don't believe in a Platonic good, so comparing it to the sun in your analogies is pointless because I don't accept the analogy.
Good is purely abstract, there is no physical object to which we can point to and say "That is the good".
That doesn't mean that therefore good must be based on personal tastes.
I agree, there is no physical object we can point to and say that is the good.
If the moral goodness and wrongness of things can be objective truths, whatever space these objective truths occupy, it's immaterial.
In order for it to be an objective truth, it can't just be an idea in my head, but one out there.
All the world exists as picture in our head, yet we distinguish a world of our imagination, and the world that's out there. The beach I'm sitting at, is just in my imagination, as I dream of warmer weather and a vacation, while the room I'm seeing now, is not. This room is here, a part of reality.
Some atheists would say that the good you and I see is just our imagination, if we mistake it for out there, we're just seeing an illusion of objectivity, but not truly something objective. Is that your view?
(August 12, 2019 at 12:08 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Lol, you wanna take a fourth stab at it, Acro? You look exponentially more foolish every time you evade the question. I mean, really. This should be easy. Babies, ffs. Here we go. #4’s a charm:
Why is it objectively wrong to torture babes?
*popcorn*
Hum, let's try answering it the way someone here might.
Because harming innocents babies cause unnecessary suffering, is harmful for both the health and wellbeing of the child and society.
Then it could be asked. why is causing unnecessary suffering, harming the wellbeing of society, objectively wrong?
Eventually at the end of that chain, wrongness becomes like the color of the thing being described, as opposed to the way it makes us feel.
So what makes unnecessary suffering objectively wrong then? God? In what world is unnecessary suffering reasonably a good thing?
