RE: Objective morality as a proper basic belief
July 2, 2017 at 2:07 am
(This post was last modified: July 2, 2017 at 2:13 am by Little Henry.)
(July 2, 2017 at 12:21 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:(July 1, 2017 at 9:41 pm)Little Henry Wrote: Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma.
Well it's a good thing that I didn't give the Euthyphro dilemma then isn't it?
Gods nature is not arbitrarily good. It is necessary.
(July 1, 2017 at 9:41 pm)Little Henry Wrote: It fails to take int account the 3rd option.
Wrong. You've failed to actually read the dilemma I've given you, and substituted your own false version.
Again, your version is based on an incorrect assumption that his nature of goodness is arbitrary.
(July 1, 2017 at 9:41 pm)Little Henry Wrote: Goodness is grounded in Gods nature and his commands flow from that.
Hurr durr! This is not a valid response to the dilemma I've posed. Try actually reading what I wrote instead of what you imagine I might write.
Again, your version is based on an incorrect assumption that his nature of goodness is arbitrary.
(July 2, 2017 at 1:32 am)Astonished Wrote:If Gods nature is perfectly good and JUST, then any act God does is good and JUST including creating free willed human beings who have the choice to reject him.(July 1, 2017 at 11:29 pm)Little Henry Wrote: Re reasoning, This presupposes a TRUTH exists, hence OM.
You just cant escape it, no matter how hard you try and dance around it.
Explain, simply, how god giving no regard whatsoever to our consent to be created or terminated in any fashion he so flippantly chooses is 'good'. By definition acting upon someone without their informed consent is a serious violation, and any number of crimes stem from it (rape, fraud, assault). Or is his mere existence above requiring the consent of others? Because you can't get around the fact that it's a violation, all you can do is twist words around and say that a violation isn't wrong if it's at god's hands. Do you not see how you have to fuck the whole concept of morality until it looks like Swiss cheese to make your god fit into it?
(July 2, 2017 at 1:33 am)Astreja Wrote:(July 1, 2017 at 9:41 pm)Little Henry Wrote: But everytime you look at an act like rape and murder, you are admitting to objective morality.
Nope. I subjectively do not want to be raped or murdered, nor do I want it to happen to others because I can imagine the pain that it would cause them.
"Objective": You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Which is just as valid as the offender who subjectively wants to rape you.
If their is no objective right or wrong, then its just preferences and desires.
You not wanting to be raped is just as valid as the rapist who wants to rape you.
Objective means it is true or right regardless of what anyone thinks about it.
The earth rotates around the sun. It doesnt matter what you or i or anyone wants, wishes or believes it, the earth rotates around the sun.
This is what we mean by objective.
Even Richard Dawkins gets it.
"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
