(April 10, 2015 at 6:31 am)MysticKnight Wrote:Quote:Bold mine. What I said was your argument for an objective quality X fails when God can make it arbitrary. Sexiness is a subset of beauty. Sexiness only exist in minds, just like beauty and goodness. Then there is two possibilities,
1) your argument for an objective sexiness is invalid making the whole set (beauty) also invalid. The concepts of beauty and goodness have exactly the same properties. If the argument for objective beauty is invalid, then so is the argument for objective goodness.
2) Your god cannot make any quality that exist in the mind arbitrary.
You are saying sexiness is a subset of beauty. I would agree we are attracted to beauty, both outward and inward, but it doesn't make the whole of sexiness objective, only that some of it relates to objective qualities, like perhaps even virtue. I think there is two types of beauty, objective and subjective. Subjective is how every species has their own perception of beauty, but then there is the spiritual beauty which is objective.
Beauty is composition of other qualities; symmetry, proportions, sexiness, etc. If one of these properties is arbitrary, then the composition is arbitrary.
The introduction of another, special type of beauty is a dodge. You have not demonstrated any spirit or spiritual qualities but only assert them. So I can as easily assert they don't exist and we will be on the same footing.
Quote:However you didn't address the Euthyphro dilemma! This is the point I bring upon virtue. I think you need to address it.
Most virtues are subjective qualities. So us talking about beauty and goodness automatically includes virtues.
Quote:Quote:I don't buy your premise. The belief someone did something good is the only requirement to praise someone. That "good" can be something that is harmful to society like someone helping a robber. The robber will praise that person for helping him steal.I think you are denying obvious things now and just avoiding the topic by not really addressing the points I am bringing about objective goodness. But if the whole of Atheism rests on objective goodness not existing, I think it's obvious which one is of the two weaker stances.
What exactly am I avoiding that should be obvious? That praise can be given to anything for any reason. A psychopath can give praise to a bloody murderer. Also, you should know atheism doesn't rest on anything. It is a denial that the burden of proof for the existence of god has been meet. Atheism doesn't affirm anything, including if or not objective goodness exist.
Quote:Quote:Denying that objective goodness/beauty/sexiness is eternal.
But that premise is based on a conclusion, if follows if you agree with the premises before.
1. Goodness to be objective, cannot be arbitrary.
2. Objective Goodness exists (assumption).
3. If a Creator can decide/create what is goodness, then goodness would be arbitrary. (For example, if it can decide rape is good, then it would be arbitrary)
4. Therefore a Creator cannot create objective goodness.
5. If a Creator cannot create objective goodness, then nothing can, including evolution, as a Creator can create evolution, and anything that would be able to create morality.
6. Therefore objective goodness is eternal.
7. Goodness is not separate from consciousness.
8. Therefore consciousness is eternal.
9. Ultimate goodness is included in definition of objective goodness.
10. Therefore Ultimate goodness exists eternally.
6 follows from 5 and 2. 5 from follows from 4. 4 follows from from 3. 3 from follows from 1. 2 doesn't follow from anything and was your original objection. But if you accept both 2 and 1, it seems 6 follows. Therefore you have state why either 6 doesn't follow from the argument or state which premise you think is additionally wrong and doesn't follow from 1 and 2. Or is it 1 now that you dispute?
No it doesn't follow because the quality doesn't exist on it own. Goodness cannot exist without a mind, just like I cannot exist without my body.
