My views on objective morality

[LadyForCamus]

No, free will is bollocks and I've never heard anything remotely approaching an argument from it.

Just saying "God gave us free will" is about as useful as saying "the man gave me a lollipop after killing my parents". If you can't explain why free will excludes God from responsibility, then it's worthless.

I dunno Rob, I think it depends on what kind of lollipop we're talking about here. I mean a bubblicious with the gum inside is pretty awesome, but those tootsie roll ones...yuck. [emoji12]

[Mister Agenda]

Hmm. I don't think so. God is sufficiently different from us by definition that it's not necessarily special pleading to hold God to a different standard. A mortal can be taken to account and, if necessary, forced to explain their reasoning. Whether real or imagined, that's impossible with God.

Okay, forgive me for being stupid, probably annoyingly so.  I'm going to post a definition here; I am NOT being snarky.  I just want to you to help me figure out what I am not getting about this:

"Special pleading - is a logical fallacy asking for an exception to a rule to be applied to a specific case, without proper justification of why that case deserves an exemption. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency."  (From RationalWiki)

So, the exception to the rule being: watching a rape and not intervening is always morally wrong, except for when God does it.

Are you saying that by god's very nature, his "unknown reasons" are always a proper justification for exemption?  In other words, are you saying this logical fallacy can never be applied to issues involving God, or just in this case of objective morality?  

Thanks for your patience, not trying to be difficult.  I'm just trying to understand where in my line thinking I'm going off the rails here.

No worries. My skin isn't particularly thick, but it's almost impossible to annoy me while being polite and sincere.

The question is whether an exception for God is properly justified. In the case of arguments that posit God as a solution to infinite regression, the fallacy of special pleading is being committed. It is asserted that everything must have a cause, that this would mean an infinite regression of cause and effect, that an infinite regression is impossible so there must be a First Cause, and the First Cause is God. That an infinite regression is impossible is assumed, and God not needing a cause is asserted only to provide a solution to the assumption without establishing that even if a First Cause is necessary, that it must be a conscious being. Special pleading isn't the only flaw in the argument.

For the problem of evil (and let me state outright that the theodic version of God is rife with its own problems), we are bringing in an entity that is, or very nearly is, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. If you accept the definition for the sake of argument, it necessarily follows that there must be an overriding reason to allow evil, or such a being wouldn't allow it. You can argue, I'm pretty sure successfully, that our state of affairs is inconsistent with a being that literally can do anything, literally knows everything, and would never allow any evil it could prevent. And believers usually dial one or more of their version of God's attributes down to account for this. But it's not special pleading to claim that a being so far beyond mortal limitations that sets all the rules can't be judged by mortal standards.

Does the God of theodicy exist? No. It's a big awkward pile of Omni-attributes that are not only in contradiction to the observed world but to each other (particularly if you claim God has free will, which is a nearly universal claim among theists) that is clearly the end result of generations of a 'my God is better than your God' contest. But if it did exist, would everything it does be good and right by definition? Yes. Would any perceived injustice or malice on its part be due to our not having all the information that it has? Also yes.

Of course my certainty doesn't mean I'm necessarily right. It's just what I think.

[Mister Agenda]

You can attack a person aggressively for holding a viewpoint, but you're not likely to change their mind doing so. The viewpoint is the actual problem, why not focus on that?

As Ma Thump used to say, "You get more flies with honey than vinegar."

Not that the saying doesn't make a good point, but to be pedantic, it turns out that flies like vinegar better.

http://www.sfgate.com/homeandgarden/arti...602246.php

[LadyForCamus]

Oh, I know Thump.  I was just looking for an excuse to use the word "cuntmuffin" again.  I told you I was going to keep it up my sleeve for use at a later time!  [emoji39]

It is after all a beautifully hilarious word. All it lacks is a pat of butter and some blueberries on the side.

Mmmmm....buttered cunt muffins.

Ew, lol.

[Whateverist]

Nothing ew about that mixed metaphor. I'd have two but I'm on a diet.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

@ Hanky: Hmm... I'd like to know when I called you out in this thread, specifically. I called out no one. In later posts, once your panties got all in a wad, you fired at me and I responded back. It would appear that you can't take the heat when you've been shown what a true jackass you are. As for you claiming to have any sort of sensitivity? Puleaze. Give us all a break. If you were as sensitive as you say, you wouldn't continue your worn out use of the word cunt. Congratulations on going from calling me one, to now, three of us are cunts. Maybe the only sensitivity you have is being too sensitive to handle the truth and the best you can come back with is to start calling people vulgar names. If that's the best you've got then I refuse to continue having a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

I was willing to let you have the last word and just let it fade away so the topic could get back on track but you seem all to eager to continue calling me a cunt. If that's what eases your small mind, so be it. I have no use for the rantings of a derranged lunatic. Go play in heavy traffic with a blindfold on.

 

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Is "free will" a proper defense against the problem of evil.  Christians say that it is.  However it's not entirely clear why.  If it's a good that justifies the acceptance of some evil, then that runs into LadyforCamus' objection.  The other possibility I see is that by allowing free will, humans become the responsible party in any evil transaction and it's no longer God's duty to stop them, as doing so would be an unreasonable restraint on their free will.  However, God denies us certain actions by design, why would disallowing rape, either by intervention or design, be an unreasonable restraint?  Is free will not free will if you are denied the option of evil?  

Is there a version of this argument from free will which lets God off the hook.

(As an observation on the thread, I did not clearly see why people were claiming C_L was complicitous in rape until LfC clarified her objection to the line of reasoning at my request.  So it's entirely possible that C_L simply didn't understand why people were leveling their charges at her.)

It's also entirely reasonable that the lynch mob for the protection of CL's ignorance still doesn't understand that on her position, nor mine. I believe you are right that CL didn't understand the charges, which is why I and those who stuck around felt compelled to try and explain.

[LadyForCamus]

Nothing ew about that mixed metaphor. I'd have two but I'm on a diet.

Oh! You should try the low-calorie buttered cunt muffins! They don't taste quite as good but you can eat like, four without ANY of the guilt! If I remember correctly, Hannaford has a nice selection. [emoji13]

[Mister Agenda]

So going back to God, it is clear that Catholics believe God has a much more higher awareness of things, and is supposed to be the epitome of moral perfection. If that's the case, then it would be very reasonable to expect such a grand being to hold himself much more accountable for certain inactions than we limited beings should.

If there is a God who has a much higher awareness of things and is the epitome of moral perfection; he IS holding himself much more accountable than limited beings can. We're just too limited in comparison to God to see it.

[Mister Agenda]

You insensitive jerk.  You actually think you are entitled to courtesy when you yourself have none.  The temerity of it.

What your words make you is a jerk.  Jerks who've demonstrated their mettle are entitled to no respect nor courtesy.

Well, fuck the three of you, Whatever, Thump and Nympocunt! You three cunts have been hounding me because you've decided I'm an easy target for your bile, and you really do have serious issues, all of you. I'm no worse than most people here, and I'm truckloads more sensitive, and boatloads more sincere than you. Go fuck yourselves!

Nothing to do with the hole you keep digging deeper for yourself, eh? Is there a prize for lack of self-awareness here that I haven't heard about?