Posts: 7388
Threads: 168
Joined: February 25, 2009
Reputation:
45
RE: My own moral + ontological argument.
November 18, 2011 at 7:32 pm
(This post was last modified: November 18, 2011 at 7:33 pm by Oldandeasilyconfused.)
Quote:And a lot of theists do find this argument sound.
Argumentum ad populum( argument by consensus) and irrelevant..
Also a non sequitor based on a false dichotomy.; the existence of objective morality would imply (suggest) but not prove the existence of God. The argument presupposes that a god is the possible source of objective reality. This assumption is false.
The claim that no objective morality proves no God is also invalid,for the same reason.
Still bored.
PS "a lot of theists" are fucking idiots.
Posts: 4234
Threads: 42
Joined: June 7, 2011
Reputation:
33
RE: My own moral + ontological argument.
November 18, 2011 at 8:57 pm
This kind of silly circle dance is so boring. Can't xtians make interesting arguments that have any basis in reason?
Oh. Right.
Trying to update my sig ...
Posts: 81
Threads: 1
Joined: February 21, 2011
Reputation:
3
RE: My own moral + ontological argument.
November 19, 2011 at 12:41 am
This is really unnecessarily complicated and has numerous fallacies and problems.
Definitions: You don't define what "eternal basis" is. You don't define what "greatness" is. You only equate them in the middle, ultimately equating them with God.
Strawman: You misrepresent the philosophical positions regarding morality. You claim that everyone else who disagrees with you would accept your premise.
Equivocation: Equate eternal basis with moral greatness with God with the God of Christianity (implicitly). Equating your moral greatness, which is based on knowledge of morality not obedience, while the common interpretation of morality is the opposite.
False assumptions: You assume the universe cannot be arbitrary. You assume the universe was created. You assume an entity created the universe. You assume morality needs your "eternal basis".
Hidden definition: You assume the "eternal basis" is a conscious observer in your definition of it requiring "knowledge" yet you make no such definition in your requirement of morality. You assume morality is objective but claim that ultimate moral greatness can only be ultimate if no one else has as much "moral knowledge" as it does - implying subjective value.
False dichotomy: you assume that only one entity can have "ultimate moral knowledge".
I'm sure the list goes on.
Posts: 1473
Threads: 20
Joined: November 12, 2011
Reputation:
26
RE: My own moral + ontological argument.
November 19, 2011 at 10:52 am
(November 18, 2011 at 3:56 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: (November 18, 2011 at 10:51 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Why must morality have an eternal basis to be real?
Why can't humans make up morality as we go along - as we have done.
When I mean morality is real, I don't mean whether it exists, but if there is really a "should" or "better" way to act, and it's not merely just an opinion.
I showed by thought experiment, if a Creator existed and didn't have knowledge of everything, would it be able to create morality and make it up? I think making it up would make it arbitrary and it would cease to be morality as we know it.
Also, your assuming God doesn't exist in your question really. Because if you believe God exists, and is the source of morality, then the reason morality must have eternal basis, can be very well explained because it is that way by it's nature of having God as it's basis.
Suppose God is the Source of morality, and gives out his morality to others, in degrees, creating with a link to his own reality, with eternal basis, would not the nature of that morality be such that it's based on eternal reality? Whom says it wouldn't display that...
Suppose free-will doesn't exist, there is no free-will, everything is determined by laws of nature and free-will is an illusion. I would say that would make morality unreal, because if there is no free-will, then morality as we know it is unreal, it's a delusion as well.
The same I can say is true of it needing eternal basis, and we can see that, because that is simply how it is and it's in nature and it's displayed in it's nature.
Of course to really argue against this, you would have to show God isn't the source of morality.
Other wise if he is, then it's not odd that morality would display having eternal higher source as it's basis. If it's a light from God, and linked to God, and divine instinct linked to his essence, why wouldn't it display properties of being sourced in eternal higher reality?
It's like the same case of God being properly basic knowledge. If God exists, why wouldn't he give us properly basis knowledge of his existence and attributes?
If morality has a eternal basis, why wouldn't morality display that as property?
But morality has not got an eternal basis because some things in the bible laid down as moral guidelines (for example, kill gays) we would say are immoral today.
Therefore morality is NOT eternal - if it was it would be everlasting and CONSTANT, not ever changing depending on the humans that view it.
All the evidence points to us instilling our own moral code (which is a good thing) and if this is true, it is not a reason to believe in god, you'll need to find another one.
PS I find deists infinitely more annoying that even theists - at least theists have a book to base their belief in a deity on, as silly as it is.
You are currently experiencing a lucky and very brief window of awareness, sandwiched in between two periods of timeless and utter nothingness. So why not make the most of it, and stop wasting your life away trying to convince other people that there is something else? The reality is obvious.
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: My own moral + ontological argument.
November 19, 2011 at 11:23 am
Morality is created by man. If not, then, as one poster requested, give me one example of morality that is not created by man.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: My own moral + ontological argument.
November 19, 2011 at 4:37 pm
(November 19, 2011 at 10:52 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: But morality has not got an eternal basis because some things in the bible laid down as moral guidelines (for example, kill gays) we would say are immoral today.
Therefore morality is NOT eternal - if it was it would be everlasting and CONSTANT, not ever changing depending on the humans that view it.
When there is a change of a view of morality, can you say one can be morally correct then the other? One is more moral then the other? Can a past view have been wrong and corrected? Or do we simply change views with no basis to it? You see if there is no eternal basis the way I see it, is that you can't ever state we improved in morality, there will be no better or worse, it's all just an opinion, which means morality is not real.
Posts: 4234
Threads: 42
Joined: June 7, 2011
Reputation:
33
RE: My own moral + ontological argument.
November 19, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Morality is a word.
Trying to update my sig ...
Posts: 482
Threads: 76
Joined: March 6, 2010
Reputation:
9
RE: My own moral + ontological argument.
November 20, 2011 at 8:38 pm
(This post was last modified: November 20, 2011 at 9:11 pm by The_Flying_Skeptic.)
There are arguments based on facts and there are fuzzy arguments.
(November 18, 2011 at 3:56 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: (November 18, 2011 at 10:51 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Why must morality have an eternal basis to be real?
Why can't humans make up morality as we go along - as we have done.
When I mean morality is real, I don't mean whether it exists, but if there is really a "should" or "better" way to act, and it's not merely just an opinion.
Morality is not generally an opinion. Morality may be the sum of behaviors that are accepted or rejected in a society, but not based on opinion. Morality is mostly based on human experience. Morality has changed in general as individual humans have realized that if they want to increase their odds of living a comfortable life or a less stressful life, a life without the fear of getting clubbed, there had to be rules that reduced conflict among humans. The ideal morality is the morality that produces the least conflict among humans. Unfortunately, some groups of humans hold on to outdated versions of morality, a version for example that doesn't allow homosexuals to get married. The bottom line is that morality is the sum of behaviors that are accepted or rejected in a society, but what is rejected or accepted will likely change (as we have seen it change) to reduce significant conflict because conflict costs too much. Morality is a very real phenomena: there are behaviors that are accepted or rejected and what is accepted or rejected varies by geographical location.
Posts: 4234
Threads: 42
Joined: June 7, 2011
Reputation:
33
RE: My own moral + ontological argument.
November 20, 2011 at 9:43 pm
Still one of the better essays written on the topic:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/eins...igion.html
Trying to update my sig ...
Posts: 1473
Threads: 20
Joined: November 12, 2011
Reputation:
26
RE: My own moral + ontological argument.
November 20, 2011 at 10:20 pm
(November 20, 2011 at 8:38 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: There are arguments based on facts and there are fuzzy arguments.
(November 18, 2011 at 3:56 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: (November 18, 2011 at 10:51 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Why must morality have an eternal basis to be real?
Why can't humans make up morality as we go along - as we have done.
When I mean morality is real, I don't mean whether it exists, but if there is really a "should" or "better" way to act, and it's not merely just an opinion.
Morality is not generally an opinion. Morality may be the sum of behaviors that are accepted or rejected in a society, but not based on opinion. Morality is mostly based on human experience. Morality has changed in general as individual humans have realized that if they want to increase their odds of living a comfortable life or a less stressful life, a life without the fear of getting clubbed, there had to be rules that reduced conflict among humans. The ideal morality is the morality that produces the least conflict among humans. Unfortunately, some groups of humans hold on to outdated versions of morality, a version for example that doesn't allow homosexuals to get married. The bottom line is that morality is the sum of behaviors that are accepted or rejected in a society, but what is rejected or accepted will likely change (as we have seen it change) to reduce significant conflict because conflict costs too much. Morality is a very real phenomena: there are behaviors that are accepted or rejected and what is accepted or rejected varies by geographical location.
For me, that is an excellent description of morality.
You are currently experiencing a lucky and very brief window of awareness, sandwiched in between two periods of timeless and utter nothingness. So why not make the most of it, and stop wasting your life away trying to convince other people that there is something else? The reality is obvious.
|
