The Philosophy of Salah/Daily Connection/Prayer

[Mystic]

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. 


However you didn't address the Euthyphro dilemma! This is the point I bring upon virtue. I think you need to address it.

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.

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?

[Chas]

However you didn't address the Euthyphro dilemma! This is the point I bring upon virtue. I think you need to address it.

Actually, you rather miss the point of Euthyphro. 
It is a dilemma precisely because it is undecidable.  The conclusion is that we have to determine what is good on our own.

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?

• 8 does not follow from anything.
  
• "Ultimate goodness' is undefined.
  
• Ideas, judgments, concepts exist only in minds
  
• No ideas can precede existence.
  

Your argument fails - you are overreaching.

[Surgenator]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[robvalue]

I don't get the point of prayer.

Continually thanking God and telling him he's amazing: if he requires or demands this, that's his problem. You shouldn't give gifts to expect thanks in return. Certainly not eternal thanks. If he's going to punish you for not doing it he's an egotistical psycopath.

Asking God to do stuff: this implies god isn't already going to do the best course of action.

Also, God already knows what I'm thinking all the time anyway.

[Mystic]

I don't see the conversation going anywhere now. I think I will leave as is. I think you keep addressing the conclusion but not showing a flaw in the argument and also avoid the points I bring.

Goodness needs consciousness I agree, but that does nothing to deny the conclusion or the argument put forth.

 

---

• 8 does not follow from anything.
  

It follows because goodness needs mind/consciousness, so if goodness is eternal, so is consciousness.
 

[Surgenator]

I don't see the conversation going anywhere now. I think I will leave as is. I think you keep addressing the conclusion but not showing a flaw in the argument and also avoid the points I bring.

Goodness needs consciousness I agree, but that does nothing to deny the conclusion or the argument put forth.

 

---

• 8 does not follow from anything.
  

It follows because goodness needs mind/consciousness, so if goodness is eternal, so is consciousness.
 

Your argument asserts ideas must exist therefore minds must exist. But the dependence is backwards, ideas cannot exist without minds. So you first have to show a mind that exist eternally before you can assert the idea exist eternally. It's equivalent to arguing the monetary system exist before money existed. You first need to have money exist before you can show the monetary system exist.

[Mystic]

I don't get the point of prayer.

Continually thanking God and telling him he's amazing: if he requires or demands this, that's his problem. You shouldn't give gifts to expect thanks in return. Certainly not eternal thanks. If he's going to punish you for not doing it he's an egotistical psycopath.

The Quran in this connection says it's not that God asks us sustenance (ie. that he gains from our giving thanks and remembering him) but that he provides sustenance. In this connection, he being the most worthy goal, having the greatest right over us, and being the best reward, has favored us through acts of devotion towards him. He increases devotees with unseen beauty and honor, and robes them with blessings of his purity, through these acts, and favors people with knowledge of him, increase in guarding and vision of his beauty and majesty, and brings them in higher ranks through it.

Asking God to do stuff: this implies god isn't already going to do the best course of action.

Also, God already knows what I'm thinking all the time anyway.

What if the best course of action is allowing us to pray to him, recognizing his best of his will, and asking from it, and asking for divine favour and increase, so as to have a relationship with him and having a response type of Lord, instead of distant one.

---

Your argument asserts ideas must exist therefore minds must exist. But the dependence is backwards, ideas cannot exist without minds. So you first have to show a mind that exist eternally before you can assert the idea exist eternally. It's equivalent to arguing the monetary system exist before money existed. You first need to have money exist before you can show the monetary system exist.

The following is a valid argument:

An eternal morality exists.
Morality needs a mind to exist.
Therefore an eternal mind exists.

It's a valid argument. Whether it's sound or not, depends on the first two premises being true.

But if those two premises are true, then the conclusion follows. It's not circular to conclude that an eternal mind exists based on these two premises.

[Angrboda]

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.

In 6 you obtain that 'objective goodness' is eternal. In 7 you are no longer arguing from 'objective goodness' but plain old conceptual goodness. This is an equivocation, and 8 doesn't follow.

[Mystic]

In 6 you obtain that 'objective goodness' is eternal.

6 follows if you acknowledge 2, and you acknowledge 5. It's a valid conclusion. 

In 7 you are no longer arguing from 'objective goodness' but plain old conceptual goodness.  This is an equivocation, and 8 doesn't follow.

7 is a premise that is not based on argument, but I think is obvious. It's obvious goodness or objective goodness depends on a mind existing. Without a mind it cannot eternally exist.

8 follows if you accept objective goodness is eternal, and that objective goodness is not separate from consciousness. See the previous post before yours.

 

[Surgenator]

Your argument asserts ideas must exist therefore minds must exist. But the dependence is backwards, ideas cannot exist without minds. So you first have to show a mind that exist eternally before you can assert the idea exist eternally. It's equivalent to arguing the monetary system exist before money existed. You first need to have money exist before you can show the monetary system exist.

The following is a valid argument:

An eternal morality exists.
Morality needs a mind to exist.
Therefore an eternal mind exists.

It's a valid argument. Whether it's sound or not, depends on the first two premises being true.

But if those two premises are true, then the conclusion follows. It's not circular to conclude that an eternal mind exists based on these two premises.

Being objective does NOT make it eternal.

Please tell me which definition of objective? Because I'm using 1b which explicitly states "having reality independent of the mind." And none of these definitions say anything about eternal.


1a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy
1b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
1c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual
1d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena
2 : relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs
3a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
3b : of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum