RE: The idea of God always existing
March 8, 2012 at 1:12 pm
(This post was last modified: March 8, 2012 at 1:14 pm by NoMoreFaith.)
(March 8, 2012 at 11:54 am)MysticKnight Wrote: 1) Morality points to Ultimate High Authority by virtue of commanding to ultimate high authority
Classic circular argument going on here. I'm responding to your notes on each item as well thou.
This argument confuses me utterly. Your explanation is nothing but assertion that morality has infinite ultimate authority, however no point of your argument supports this. You just assert that it "just makes sense to you" for it to have an ultimate origin, but no substance.
I do enjoy reading your posts, but assertions with no logical substance bore me a little. You keep stating its not logic and neglect to point out HOW. Without a how, the argument is like God, unprovable, unknowable, and ultimately, surplus to requirement.
Quote:2) Morality nature manifests as being eternal
How. In what fashion does it manifest as eternal. Especially regarding the changes in what is considered moral over the aeons.
To me, morality is much more simple than morality being God or an aspect to him... God is not required, and you have not shown that he is, nor have you even tried to.
In return, let me offer you this. Shared moral values promote the growth and subsistence of society. Different moral values which are detrimental to the growth and subsistence of society lead to the degeneration of the society and its failure to succeed. These independent eternal moral truths you imagine are nothing more than the continually developed baseline for societies to maintain their existence.
You need only look at modern news and history to see that where basic rules for the success of society are broken, causes a less efficient, less successful society which cannot compete with societies (interchange with countries in many cases) whom share a social consensus. The application of a anthropomorphic supernatural being to this process is superfluous and unnecessary. God is simply the whip that society uses to ensure it will subsist where they are given to anarchic tendencies due to lack of education and knowledge.
Increase knowledge and education, and the whip becomes less necessary.
Increase knowledge and education, and God becomes less necessary.
The correlation to me, is not coincidence.
The contention that it is an eternal concept embodied by God however, has no basis of rationale behind it.
I don't claim my own personal views are perfectly accurate, but I'm at least willing to explain why I hold them, which is more comforting than the ultimate GodDidIt view of morality which lacks the flexibility to guide society to greater heights, instead of chaining it to cliff which will erode over time and collapse upon itself.
Quote:3) There needs to be an absolute correct morality which we either are correct with reference to or are wrong with reference to.
Once again, WHY. The post still has not substance as to why this is so, or logical reason why it should be.
On the contrary, I contend above, that absolute correct morality requires flexibility to wield itself with the zeitgeist of modern views, especially where impacted by technology and global circumstance (global is a bad word, but I'm tired, I simply mean overbearing requirement on a whole society rather than in reference to the whole world).
A good example is climate change. The effects of climate change has an overbearing requirement on the whole of society (in this case, indeed global society) and requires an adjustment to moral views, especially in regards to capitalism. We are becoming more aware of capitalist "evils" which not so long ago were capitalist "good". The treatment of the climate change issue and financial crisis displays why those "moral goods" could possibly require a bit of tweaking.
The point I am getting to, is that you speak of Moral Absolutes, moral imperatives that are innate and eternal, without backing the statement up with anything close to support it, when the indication(I am wary of stating evidence, as I am happy to state this is my view, rather than a provable theory) that morality is an ever-shifting code of social consensus to ensure its survival, or in some cases a means to promote the status quo of a society which appears to be successful.
For instance, the subjugation of women is a good example of non survival "moral" requirement which did nothing but promote a status quo of a functioning society. The subjugation of women was not seen as evil, and in fact seen as necessary. It was seen as "moral". That has now changed, primarily due to changes in how society operates and the requirement for a greater workforce to address this immoral inequality that persisted from antediluvian mode of thinking.
You state that morality cannot be allowed to be relative. History shows us that is has always been relative.
Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. ― Kel, Kelosophy Blog
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
