(November 19, 2013 at 12:44 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: You and I both recognize that it is bizarre. The question is that why is it bizarre? The reason why it is bizarre is analogous to what I’m saying about the position you are defending.
And my answer was that it's bizarre because we tend to ignore these assumptions and probably don't initially know the reasoning as to why they're assumptions.
Much of the rest of your post is confusing some things. Stal's and my point was you can't use "You could be completely delusional" as an argument against theists any more than they can use it against you. Gravity is a fact, given certain assumptions. But even without those assumptions, that I perceive that I experience the effects of gravity is indisputable.
Quote:If there is no distinguishable standard, then all must be allowed.
You are wandering into Euthyphro's dilemma if you say God is the standard, and are walking into a world of more questions you don't have answers to.
Actually, saying that God's essential nature is an answer to at least the simpler formulation of the Euthyphro Dilemma. In fact, that's how you solve the dilemma, period. For a secular consequentialist, why is negatively imacting well-being 'evil'? Because that's what they MEAN when they're talking about morality in that view. The only real use of the Euthyphro Dilemma is to expose the language barrier between theistic and secular moral discussions.
