A problem with some religous views

[chezlaw]

Following on from Rejecting God (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=3439346&page=1&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1) and the discussion with NotReady, this is why I believe some religous views must be mistaken.

consider the statement:

"we are all guilty of sins, those who believe can get redemption and those who don't believe have no chance of redemption and will be punished"

The religons I have a problem with claim that this statement (or something similar) is true.

My moral sense tells me that a god who enforces this view is morally repugnant.

So either I am being deceived by my feelings of right and wrong, god isn't good, or that religous view is mistaken.


There's more but it all relies on this simple argument. Any flaw in the logic?


chez

[ QUOTE ]

consider the statement:

"we are all guilty of sins, those who believe can get redemption and those who don't believe have no chance of redemption and will be punished"

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans are obviously fallible and far from omnipotent. The evidence for God is hardly clear cut, especially given certain people's exposure to all its details. Why would a God punish a creature which he himself created for not believing in what he himself is not revealing to the creature?

Might as well burn cats because they can't understand algebra.

[chezlaw]

Thanks for the response but I'm really hoping that anyone who thinks there is a flaw in my argument will point it out (whether they agree with the conclusion or not).

Also, happy for people to agree the argument is valid.

chez

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]


Might as well burn cats because they can't understand algebra.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I know what I am doing this Friday. Thanks!!

[David Sklansky]

The argument is fine but not particularly helpful. Almost everybody already knows that Not Ready is wrong about this stuff, including the vast majority of highly religious people and deep down, including Not Ready himself. There are bigger fish to fry.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument is fine but not particularly helpful. Almost everybody already knows that Not Ready is wrong about this stuff, including the vast majority of highly religious people and deep down, including Not Ready himself. There are bigger fish to fry.

[/ QUOTE ]


Agreed, bigger fish to fry but have you noticed you ain't frying any of them /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Got to start from where we agree not where we differ if we are to get anywhere. So I'm looking for concensus on something simple, then we try to build on it.


chez

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
those who don't believe have no chance of redemption and will be punished"

[/ QUOTE ]

Change don't to refuse to.

I could be wrong but I get the feeling that you think God just wants to punish people and send them to hell for all eternity.

I'm being sincere here when I say-I can't fathom how if you truly understood God, His nature, and His wishes for us that you would question His morals, character etc.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
those who don't believe have no chance of redemption and will be punished"

[/ QUOTE ]

Change don't to refuse to.




[/ QUOTE ]

No, you can't change the statement. If you're saying that you're religon doesn't believe the statement is true then the argument doesn't neccessarily apply to your views. We can deal with it later /images/graemlins/smile.gif

So is the argument valid?

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I could be wrong but I get the feeling that you think God just wants to punish people and send them to hell for all eternity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, you are wrong about this.

chez

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
(or something similar)

[/ QUOTE ]

If I can't change "don't" to "refuse to" then I would say yes the argument is valid, because it takes any choice we have in the matter out of the equation. BTW just because an argument is valid doesn't mean we have to agree /images/graemlins/grin.gif. (How's that for leaving myself some "outs"?)

Jeff

[chezlaw]

point taken about (something similar). By similar I mean something that doesn't change the argument.

So I think you agree with the argument being valid. Do you think the conclusion is true? if not which premise is false. I accept you can think the conclusion is true and that the statement doesn't reflect your religous view.

chez

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
that religous view is mistaken.


[/ QUOTE ]

Based on my previously reply, then yes I think the above would be true.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument is fine but not particularly helpful. Almost everybody already knows that Not Ready is wrong about this stuff, including the vast majority of highly religious people and deep down, including Not Ready himself. There are bigger fish to fry.

[/ QUOTE ]

A more serious response to your post:

I plan to build a shakey building on this simple foundation and at some point I may overstep the bounds of logic. All help keeping me on the straight and narrow is appreciated.

Nothing in this argument will make any difference to those who don't care to justify religon on rational grounds but I hope to have a useful dialogue with those who believe in rationality (you may already be able to see where I'm going and recognise it's futility but bear with me, I have to go slower than you).

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Almost everybody already knows that Not Ready is wrong about this stuff, including the vast majority of highly religious people and deep down, including Not Ready himself


[/ QUOTE ]

Now who's relying on what's in the heart?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

"we are all guilty of sins, those who believe can get redemption and those who don't believe have no chance of redemption and will be punished"


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with the form. Those who don't believe have a chance to believe. Instead, just say those who don't believe will not take part in God's provision of forgiveness, not that they don't have a chance.

[ QUOTE ]

So either I am being deceived by my feelings of right and wrong, god isn't good, or that religous view is mistaken.
Any flaw in the logic?


[/ QUOTE ]

There's a fundamental difficulty with saying God isn't good. The problem is if He is God He can be subject to no other standard of good. So I'm not going to agree with this conclusion.

I think you are right when you say you are being deceived by your feelings of right and wrong. This is really the other side of the above. If you and God disagree on what's right, you have to be wrong. There's no alternative.

But God's rightness isn't arbitrary. Part of your problem is not understanding the true nature of sin. God does not punish more that is just. He usually punishes far less. The Bible says He is compassionate and patient. The reason it may not seem so is because we take a very light view of sin.

[RJT]

Chez,

Here should be your starting point:

Read it (the Bible, especially the New Testament - or perhaps only the NT yourself.) Then you tell me if you would start with the premise as written.

I don’t think you would.

I know I wouldn’t. (Sorry to not answer your question directly. It simply isn’t that simple - your premise - nor the answer.)


I am sure you don’t have the time to actually read the Bible (not a bad read really, the NT - the OLD T is a bit tough). I am not trying to evangelize here. But just quickly read my Christianity Primer a few posts back. Even after that would you still be so confident in your premise as written?

Would you discuss “Moby Dick” without reading the book? If I tell you it is a story about a whale, I wouldn’t be giving you a wrong answer. Is it a good answer?


Another analogy: You think David S. et al wants us to play only literally by The Book (Small Stakes Hold “em)?


Cheers,

RJT

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Chez,

Here should be your starting point:

Read it (the Bible, especially the New Testament - or perhaps only the NT yourself.) Then you tell me if you would start with the premise as written.

I don’t think you would.

I know I wouldn’t. (Sorry to not answer your question directly. It simply isn’t that simple - your premise - nor the answer.)


I am sure you don’t have the time to actually read the Bible (not a bad read really, the NT - the OLD T is a bit tough). I am not trying to evangelize here. But just quickly read my Christianity Primer a few posts back. Even after that would you still be so confident in your premise as written?

Would you discuss “Moby Dick” without reading the book? If I tell you it is a story about a whale, I wouldn’t be giving you a wrong answer. Is it a good answer?


Another analogy: You think David S. et al wants us to play only literally by The Book (Small Stakes Hold “em)?


Cheers,

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean but the statement is not a premise in the argument. I'm claiming my argument is logically valid and its not very long so if you see a problem then let me know what it is.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"we are all guilty of sins, those who believe can get redemption and those who don't believe have no chance of redemption and will be punished"


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with the form. Those who don't believe have a chance to believe. Instead, just say those who don't believe will not take part in God's provision of forgiveness, not that they don't have a chance.

[ QUOTE ]

So either I am being deceived by my feelings of right and wrong, god isn't good, or that religous view is mistaken.
Any flaw in the logic?


[/ QUOTE ]

There's a fundamental difficulty with saying God isn't good. The problem is if He is God He can be subject to no other standard of good. So I'm not going to agree with this conclusion.

I think you are right when you say you are being deceived by your feelings of right and wrong. This is really the other side of the above. If you and God disagree on what's right, you have to be wrong. There's no alternative.

But God's rightness isn't arbitrary. Part of your problem is not understanding the true nature of sin. God does not punish more that is just. He usually punishes far less. The Bible says He is compassionate and patient. The reason it may not seem so is because we take a very light view of sin.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm struggling a bit with your repsonse. As far as I can tell you agree the argument is logically valid but disagree that the statement reflects your religious view - is that correct?

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chez,

Here should be your starting point:

Read it (the Bible, especially the New Testament - or perhaps only the NT yourself.) Then you tell me if you would start with the premise as written.

I don’t think you would.

I know I wouldn’t. (Sorry to not answer your question directly. It simply isn’t that simple - your premise - nor the answer.)


I am sure you don’t have the time to actually read the Bible (not a bad read really, the NT - the OLD T is a bit tough). I am not trying to evangelize here. But just quickly read my Christianity Primer a few posts back. Even after that would you still be so confident in your premise as written?

Would you discuss “Moby Dick” without reading the book? If I tell you it is a story about a whale, I wouldn’t be giving you a wrong answer. Is it a good answer?


Another analogy: You think David S. et al wants us to play only literally by The Book (Small Stakes Hold “em)?


Cheers,

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean but the statement is not a premise in the argument. I'm claiming my argument is logically valid and its not very long so if you see a problem then let me know what it is.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

"we are all guilty of sins, those who believe can get redemption and those who don't believe have no chance of redemption and will be punished" I was referring to that quote as the premise. It has been a while since I used formal logic.

Let me answer it this way and you can translate it into logic form. And correct yourself if it is flawed or answer your own question if it isn’t flawed. I am confused myself in trying to get it exactly right.

Basically it seems to flow, but it seems that you are just getting back to the original part.

If any religion claims this then your logic seems to flows (almost). You are stating that you have a problem with said religions. You are saying said religions exist. You say at the end “…or that religious view is mistaken”. If indeed there is such a religion , the religious view isn’t mistaken per se - it is just a view that you don‘t agree with. It might indeed be a mistaken view as far as what is the True religion. But, I am not sure that point is clear as written. So, I think this part needs ammended.

Do you mean to write at the end something like “the view of someone who told me about their religion is mistaken - or someone who told me this is their religion’s view is mistaken”

Again all I am trying to say is this - it sounds like you are talking about Christianity. And that isn't a correct statement to make about Christianity. (Well, I guess some would argue that it is a correct statement - just not a complete one. That was my Moby Dick comparision).

Hope this helps you and you can translate my words back to what you are formalizing if need be.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
If any religion claims this then your logic seems to flows (almost). You are stating that you have a problem with said religions. You are saying said religions exist. You say at the end “…or that religious view is mistaken”. If indeed there is such a religion , the religious view isn’t mistaken per se - it is just a view that you don‘t agree with. It might indeed be a mistaken view as far as what is the True religion. But, I am not sure that point is clear as written. So, I think this part needs ammended.

[/ QUOTE ]

If nothing else I am learning something because I thought this statement was accurate about some religous views.

Hpowever, nowhere in the argument do I assume that such religons exist. Sorry if what I said was misleading.

The (hopefully more clear) argument is that if I find a religon that subscribes to the view in that statement, then because I find the god of that religon morally repugnant then either my morality misleads me, god isn't good or the religon is mistaken.

Logically valid and do you agree with conclusion. If not, why not?

Thanks

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm struggling a bit with your repsonse. As far as I can tell you agree the argument is logically valid but disagree that the statement reflects your religious view - is that correct?


[/ QUOTE ]

The various premises can be stated as follows:

1. All mankind is guilty because of sin.
2. God is just.
3. Justice requires punishment.
4. God will, in justice, punish the guilty because of sin.

You conclude that God is immoral. Therefore you disagree with 2 and/or 4. Either He is not just (which basically redefines God) or God will not punish. You could also disagree with 1, but that doesn't seem to be your approach.

We could also look at premise 2 as the conclusion of another set of premises.

1a. God is perfect in all His attributes.
2a. Perfect justice requires punishment for sin.
3a. God will punish sin.
4a. Therefore: God is just.

You could now question 2a. Then we get into trying to define justice. At some point there will be a fundamental disagreement about a premise. I get my premises from Scripture. You are contesting the premises. You are stating either that God is not just or that justice doesn't require punishment. As to not punishing, that also doesn't seem to be your approach.

That leaves you questioning God's justice. Again, not an issue of logical reasoning but premises. So where do you get your premises? You refer to your moral sense. Let's assume you mean your standard of morality, which either you invented or refer to from someone else. Either way, you set this standard above God and judge Him by it. That means that God can't be absolute, but must Himself refer to a standard outside and above Himself. That means He isn't really God. Do you see that if the God of the Bible exists and is Who it says He is (and the goodness and justice of God are repeated throughout the Bible), that His Word about morality is right? If you deny this then you are just setting yourself up as God's judge. The Bible is also very clear about who will win this debate.

There is another important point. I believe that the character of God will be vindicated in the end. He is not a despot Who simply enforces whatever He wants in a capricious or evil way. His goodness and justice are not foreign to us. What we think about those concepts applies to God. But there is much more to Him than just our flawed idea. He is perfect in all His attributes and they all work together. All of His judgments are in accordance with His character and He is light, goodness, love and justice. There are many horrible things that have happened in the world and will continue to happen. The last judgment, whatever it is, will not be pleasant for unbelievers. None of us Christians like the suffering we see or that which will come. We also believe God doesn't like it either but has decided to allow it because somehow it's better than not. The only way to accept this in the face of "the horror, the horror" is through trust in Him.

One other point on God's justice. The Bible says that in Christ God is "Just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Christ". God's justice is satisfied for those who believe because Christ gave Himself as a sacrifice. "He bore our sins in His own body on the tree". So it isn't unjust for God to declare unjust sinners to be justified because the penalty was paid by Christ. God's love is satisfied because He has provided the sacrifice for us, the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world. "He shows His love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us".

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If any religion claims this then your logic seems to flows (almost). You are stating that you have a problem with said religions. You are saying said religions exist. You say at the end “…or that religious view is mistaken”. If indeed there is such a religion , the religious view isn’t mistaken per se - it is just a view that you don‘t agree with. It might indeed be a mistaken view as far as what is the True religion. But, I am not sure that point is clear as written. So, I think this part needs ammended.

[/ QUOTE ]

If nothing else I am learning something because I thought this statement was accurate about some religous views.

Hpowever, nowhere in the argument do I assume that such religons exist. Sorry if what I said was misleading.

The (hopefully more clear) argument is that if I find a religon that subscribes to the view in that statement, then because I find the god of that religon morally repugnant then either my morality misleads me, god isn't good or the religon is mistaken.

Logically valid and do you agree with conclusion. If not, why not?

Thanks

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds more like what you seem to want to say. It is what I think you should say, if that means anything.

[chezlaw]

That is not my argument.

The premise is:

1. My moral sense tells me that a god that enforces the given statement is repugnant.

The argument is:

If 1. is true then either my moral sense misleads me, god is not good, or any religon that subscribes to the view in the statement is mistaken.

Thats the whole argument. I will go on to claim more but need to start somewhere, have I got anything wrong so far?

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
That is not my argument.

The premise is:

1. My moral sense tells me that a god that enforces the given statement is repugnant.

The argument is:

If 1. is true then either my moral sense misleads me, god is not good, or any religon that subscribes to the view in the statement is mistaken.

Thats the whole argument. I will go on to claim more but need to start somewhere, have I got anything wrong so far?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

chez,

This sounds good. I have to get some sleep. But I want to leave you with some ideas (David S. touched upon these quite a bit actually) :

What about the baby in Africa who just died form AIDS at 4 days old? Or the Buddhist monk who never heard of Jesus? Or your own gift to us The Who’s Tommy? My God will be harsher on me who does believe than these examples?

RJT

[NotReady]

You have two numbered as 1.

The first:

[ QUOTE ]

1. My moral sense tells me that a god that enforces the given statement is repugnant.


[/ QUOTE ]

is just a statement of your moral code.

The second number 1. :

[ QUOTE ]

If 1. is true then either my moral sense misleads me, god is not good, or any religon that subscribes to the view in the statement is mistaken.


[/ QUOTE ]

combines the premise of the first number 1 and implicitly adds the premises I stated.

Your logic is not necessarly wrong but it is stated in a confused way, which is why I tried to rearrange it.

Ignoring my attempt at formal logic, what I said in my other post still applies.

I'm also not sure what you mean when you say:

[ QUOTE ]

If 1. is true then either my moral sense misleads me


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean it is true that your moral sense tells you this or

Do you mean your moral sense is true and God would be immoral if He punished sinners?

[siegfriedandroy]

i would argue that your 'moral sense' is meaningless if you believe atheism is true. if your 'moral sense' is legitimate, then there must be an absolute moral standard. an absolute moral standard, as Sklansky can attest to (dont know why im appealing to sklansky!), is inconsistent with a godless universe.

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument is fine but not particularly helpful. Almost everybody already knows that Not Ready is wrong about this stuff, including the vast majority of highly religious people and deep down, including Not Ready himself. There are bigger fish to fry.

[/ QUOTE ]

The argument is invalid and not particularly helpful. Almost everybody knows that Sklansky is wrong about this stuff, including the vast majority of highly secular people, and deep down, including Sklansky himself, who knows there must be some sort of 'God', but has rejected Him

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
an absolute moral standard, as Sklansky can attest to (dont know why im appealing to sklansky!), is inconsistent with a godless universe.

[/ QUOTE ] It would appear that no only is an abosolute moral standard inconsistent in a godless universe, it also is inconsistent with a Godful one.

For instance. Not sure what commandment is thou shall not kill, but the old testament states that in times of self-defense, rightous war, and the commission of justice it is gods will for you to murder.

[jester710]

[ QUOTE ]
Consider the statement:

"we are all guilty of sins, those who believe can get redemption and those who don't believe have no chance of redemption and will be punished"

The religons I have a problem with claim that this statement (or something similar) is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you arguing against only the religions who have views such as these, or are you trying to argue against ALL religions? This doesn't necessarily affect your logic, I'm just curious as to what your ultimate intentions are. The way you phrased it, it sounds like you have a specific problem with Calvinism.

[ QUOTE ]
My moral sense tells me that a god who enforces this view is morally repugnant.

So either I am being deceived by my feelings of right and wrong, god isn't good, or that religous view is mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only logical problem I see has already been touched upon: the fact that you are assuming an absolute morality that both you and God are subject to, and can both appeal to. God could be subject to a completely different moral code than you are , in which case your moral code could quite rightly tell you that it is wrong, and God would still be good.

Also, there's the chance that all three of the possibilities you listed could be correct, as they are not mutually exclusive.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
i would argue that your 'moral sense' is meaningless if you believe atheism is true. if your 'moral sense' is legitimate, then there must be an absolute moral standard. an absolute moral standard, as Sklansky can attest to (dont know why im appealing to sklansky!), is inconsistent with a godless universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

My moral sense is a feeling and I definitely have feelings and they are real. Agreed they are massively less important if there is no god but either way they can mislead me.
In what way is the argument invalid. i.e how can the premise be true and the conclusion false.

If you feel the need I am happy for you to assume there is a god.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The only logical problem I see has already been touched upon: the fact that you are assuming an absolute morality that both you and God are subject to, and can both appeal to. God could be subject to a completely different moral code than you are , in which case your moral code could quite rightly tell you that it is wrong, and God would still be good.

Also, there's the chance that all three of the possibilities you listed could be correct, as they are not mutually exclusive.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not making any assumption about an absolute morality for me. The only assumption for me is that I have moral feelings which I do.

It doesn't matter if all the possibilities are true as long as they can't all be false when the premise is true.

I'm not arguing against all religons (at least don't think so, but its possible I suppose) but my intention will become clear if we can agree on this simple logical argument (which seems in doubt at the moment /images/graemlins/grin.gif)

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You have two numbered as 1.

The first:

[ QUOTE ]

1. My moral sense tells me that a god that enforces the given statement is repugnant.


[/ QUOTE ]

is just a statement of your moral code.

The second number 1. :

[ QUOTE ]

If 1. is true then either my moral sense misleads me, god is not good, or any religon that subscribes to the view in the statement is mistaken.


[/ QUOTE ]

combines the premise of the first number 1 and implicitly adds the premises I stated.

Your logic is not necessarly wrong but it is stated in a confused way, which is why I tried to rearrange it.

Ignoring my attempt at formal logic, what I said in my other post still applies.

I'm also not sure what you mean when you say:

[ QUOTE ]

If 1. is true then either my moral sense misleads me


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean it is true that your moral sense tells you this or

Do you mean your moral sense is true and God would be immoral if He punished sinners?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I see the confusion. All that is meant by the single premise being true is that it is true that I have the moral feeling not that the moral feeling is correct.

Does that make sense now?

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]

What about the baby in Africa who just died form AIDS at 4 days old? Or the Buddhist monk who never heard of Jesus? Or your own gift to us The Who’s Tommy? My God will be harsher on me who does believe than these examples?

[/ QUOTE ]

I met Pete Townsend in the street once and we used to go to the same pub occasionally. We never spoke.

Before we get to the application, I'm hoping to get some consensus on the theory.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
i would argue that your 'moral sense' is meaningless if you believe atheism is true. if your 'moral sense' is legitimate, then there must be an absolute moral standard. an absolute moral standard, as Sklansky can attest to (dont know why im appealing to sklansky!), is inconsistent with a godless universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

having read Notready's response I realise a source of the confusion is the idea that I am making some big claim about my moral feeling being true.

I'm not, all I mean is that I feel something is wrong in the same way I feel pain. Presumably you can accept I have feelings whether or not I believe in god.

Given that clarification is there any way I can have that feeling and the conclusion not follow. If you think it is possible then can you tell me how?

Thanks

chez

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
consider the statement:

"we are all guilty of sins, those who believe can get redemption and those who don't believe have no chance of redemption and will be punished"

The religons I have a problem with claim that this statement (or something similar) is true.

My moral sense tells me that a god who enforces this view is morally repugnant.

So either I am being deceived by my feelings of right and wrong, god isn't good, or that religous view is mistaken.


There's more but it all relies on this simple argument. Any flaw in the logic?


[/ QUOTE ]

You're thinking about this in the wrong sense. It's not that God isn't good because He is only saving those who believe. If God did what was fair, we'd all be cast into the fires of Hell. It is through His grace and mercy that He chooses to save those who accept the sacrifice that Jesus suffered on the cross.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
consider the statement:

"we are all guilty of sins, those who believe can get redemption and those who don't believe have no chance of redemption and will be punished"

The religons I have a problem with claim that this statement (or something similar) is true.

My moral sense tells me that a god who enforces this view is morally repugnant.

So either I am being deceived by my feelings of right and wrong, god isn't good, or that religous view is mistaken.


There's more but it all relies on this simple argument. Any flaw in the logic?


[/ QUOTE ]

You're thinking about this in the wrong sense. It's not that God isn't good because He is only saving those who believe. If God did what was fair, we'd all be cast into the fires of Hell. It is through His grace and mercy that He chooses to save those who accept the sacrifice that Jesus suffered on the cross.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thinking about what in the wrong sense? I'm not claiming that statement reflects any particular religous view or is true.

I think I've clarified this in the thread, can you let me know if its clear and what you think of the logical argument?

chez

[ QUOTE ]
It is through His grace and mercy that He chooses to save those who accept the sacrifice that Jesus suffered on the cross.

[/ QUOTE ]

Save us from what?

He is all-powerful and created the universe, so what is there to save us from?

And since we are his own creations, why are we culpable for having weaknesses?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
So either I am being deceived by my feelings of right and wrong, god isn't good, or that religous view is mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you are looking for as what I am about to say has been explained in the thread several times already. You are being deceived by your feelings of right and wrong. The reason for this is because absolute morality comes from God.

Think about a compass. Just as a compass can be made to read incorrectly due to local magnetic fields (minerals, etc.), so is the same with a person's moral compass if he or she is not focused on God.

From what I've read in this thread, you don't seem to object to the statement that we are all sinners. What I meant by my earlier post, is that the fair thing would be for God to send everyone of us to Hell because of our sin. So how is saving a few from the fires of Hell morally repugnant? His offer is open to everyone. It is you who are rejecting it.

[ QUOTE ]
Think about a compass. Just as a compass can be made to read incorrectly due to local magnetic fields (minerals, etc.), so is the same with a person's moral compass if he or she is not focused on God.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it that so many mopral compasses of people and cultures which do not believe in your god appear to operate correctly? And so many moral compasses of those who do profess belief in your god, do not? In fact, it might be a hard sell to show any differences between the moral compasses of christians through history and those of non-christians. So much for that unfounded theory.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So either I am being deceived by my feelings of right and wrong, god isn't good, or that religous view is mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you are looking for as what I am about to say has been explained in the thread several times already. You are being deceived by your feelings of right and wrong. The reason for this is because absolute morality comes from God.

Think about a compass. Just as a compass can be made to read incorrectly due to local magnetic fields (minerals, etc.), so is the same with a person's moral compass if he or she is not focused on God.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're agreeing the argument is logically valid, am I right about that?

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Save us from what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Punishment.

[ QUOTE ]

why are we culpable for having weaknesses?


[/ QUOTE ]

Sin is more than weakness.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is through His grace and mercy that He chooses to save those who accept the sacrifice that Jesus suffered on the cross.

[/ QUOTE ]

Save us from what?

He is all-powerful and created the universe, so what is there to save us from?

And since we are his own creations, why are we culpable for having weaknesses?

[/ QUOTE ]


Save us from what? The consequence of sin which is the eternal torment of Hell.

He is all-powerful and created the universe, so what is there to save us from? It's not that God is saving us from the devil or some other evil being. God is holy and completely righteous. Everything that enters His presence must be so as well. Because we are sinful, we cannot enter His presence on our own. Hell is eternal separation from God. It is through the sacrifice of Jesus that God is saving us from eternal separation from Him.

And since we are his own creations, why are we culpable for having weaknesses? Because He gave us free will. Only creatures capable of rejecting Him can fully love Him as well.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Save us from what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Punishment.

[/ QUOTE ]

AH! So we need God to save us from God?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

AH! So we need God to save us from God?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm tempted to post a link I have to a list of 250 characteristics of atheist fundamentalists.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

AH! So we need God to save us from God?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm tempted to post a link I have to a list of 250 characteristics of atheist fundamentalists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha. So you respond that God must save us from his own punishment, and then now you want to smear characters as a rebuttal. When logic fails, there's always personal attack, right?

(And P.S., I'm not atheist in that I believe there is no god, I am agnostic in that there is no objective evidence for god as described by religion. There is a difference.)

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Think about a compass. Just as a compass can be made to read incorrectly due to local magnetic fields (minerals, etc.), so is the same with a person's moral compass if he or she is not focused on God.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it that so many mopral compasses of people and cultures which do not believe in your god appear to operate correctly? And so many moral compasses of those who do profess belief in your god, do not? In fact, it might be a hard sell to show any differences between the moral compasses of christians through history and those of non-christians. So much for that unfounded theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring specifically to one individual's feelings of right and wrong. The reason the "moral compasses" of various cultures who do not believe in God appear to operate correctly is because of absolute morality. It's an innate sense of right and wrong that God places in each one of us.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, it might be a hard sell to show any differences between the moral compasses of christians through history and those of non-christians.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly my point. Right and wrong comes from God whether you believe in Him or not. In various individuals not focussed on Him (notice I did not say "not believing in Him"), right and wrong may become cloudy. For the most part, though, throughout history cultures have believed the same basic things to be right and the same basic things to be wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Right and wrong comes from God whether you believe in Him or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

And your evidence for such a claim?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Haha. So you respond that God must save us from his own punishment, and then now you want to smear characters as a rebuttal. When logic fails, there's always personal attack, right?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm attacking your posts, not you personally. You aren't being logical but are trying to twist words to give a literal appearance of logic, much as a child does when arguing with adults.

[ QUOTE ]
You aren't being logical but are trying to twist words to give a literal appearance of logic, much as a child does when arguing with adults.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me: Save us from what?

You: Punishment.

Me: So we need God to save us from God?


How is this so illogical and twisting words? I simply restated that we need God to save us from His punishment, which is what you said.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right and wrong comes from God whether you believe in Him or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

And your evidence for such a claim?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's start with my last post:

"In fact, it might be a hard sell to show any differences between the moral compasses of christians through history and those of non-christians."

For the most part...throughout history cultures have believed the same basic things to be right and the same basic things to be wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right and wrong comes from God whether you believe in Him or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

And your evidence for such a claim?

[/ QUOTE ]

...

For the most part...throughout history cultures have believed the same basic things to be right and the same basic things to be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is clearly not evidence of the claim that this morality comes from God. It could be a natural consequence of beings which generally must rely on each other for survival, thus community ethics evolve similarly across cultures so that communities can for the most part exist peacefully and prosperously.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
This is clearly not evidence of the claim that this morality comes from God. It could be a natural consequence of beings which generally must rely on each other for survival, thus community ethics evolve similarly across cultures so that communities can for the most part exist peacefully and prosperously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stay with me here. If what you say is true, then by what standard is "right" defined?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is clearly not evidence of the claim that this morality comes from God. It could be a natural consequence of beings which generally must rely on each other for survival, thus community ethics evolve similarly across cultures so that communities can for the most part exist peacefully and prosperously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stay with me here. If what you say is true, then by what standard is "right" defined?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not.

What standard is "right" defined amongst wolves in a pack?

[chezlaw]

Any chance of you and notready interupting your interuption to respond to the last responses I made to you.

chez

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
What standard is "right" defined amongst wolves in a pack?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wolves in a pack is not an example of a civilization. Wolves don't have laws against murder and stealing. We do. Therefore, in order to define murder and stealing as "wrong" by our laws, we have to have some standard by which "right" is defined. I'm asking you what that is?

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, in order to define murder and stealing as "wrong" by our laws, we have to have some standard by which "right" is defined.

[/ QUOTE ]

No we don't. I'm not aware of the need to define a moral standard in our legislative process, outside of constitutionality.

Let's look at federal law: 50+% of representatives vote, 50+% of senators vote, and signed by Prez (ibcrease to 2/3 vote if Prez vetoes). Nope, don't see any need to refer to an absolute moral standard in that law-making process.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Any chance of you and notready interupting your interuption to respond to the last responses I made to you.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't find anything to add to what I've already said. It's a question of whether or not a good God can punish sin. If you "feel" this is wrong then your "feelings" disagree with what the Bible says.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Any chance of you and notready interupting your interuption to respond to the last responses I made to you.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't find anything to add to what I've already said. It's a question of whether or not a good God can punish sin. If you "feel" this is wrong then your "feelings" disagree with what the Bible says.

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds in accord with my argument. You are saying god not being good is not possible so either my feeling is misleading or the bible (include other religous views here) is wrong. I don't want to dismiss the possibility of god not being good but assume you are just saying that on my simple argument it looks possible but on further inspection it proves not to be.

Do we agree by? Forgive me for harping on about this but if we can't understand each other at this simple level then we have no chance of progessing further.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't want to dismiss the possibility of god not being good


[/ QUOTE ]

It's contradictory to say God isn't good. That would mean good is defined by something higher than God which would mean He isn't God as usually defined.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't want to dismiss the possibility of god not being good


[/ QUOTE ]

It's contradictory to say God isn't good. That would mean good is defined by something higher than God which would mean He isn't God as usually defined.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not contradictory, but only is if you assume that the creator of the universe must be good, which is not necessarily true. If I set up a fish tank and create an environment for the fish, this does not necessarily define me as "good" from their vantage point. In fact, by isolating them in the fish tank (as we are isolated in this universe), my intentions may be very far from good.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't want to dismiss the possibility of god not being good


[/ QUOTE ]

It's contradictory to say God isn't good. That would mean good is defined by something higher than God which would mean He isn't God as usually defined.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine but nothing in my argument is altered if that is true so are we in agreement as to the logic of my argument? (even if you think that one of the possibilities in my conclusion is redundant).

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If I set up a fish tank and create an environment for the fish, this does not necessarily define me as "good"


[/ QUOTE ]

You aren't absolute.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If I set up a fish tank and create an environment for the fish, this does not necessarily define me as "good"


[/ QUOTE ]

You aren't absolute.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. You don't know that the creator of the universe is either.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Fine but nothing in my argument is altered if that is true so are we in agreement as to the logic of my argument?


[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing you've said is in the form of an argument. Logic refers to the reasoning process contained in a stated argument. I'm saying your premise that God is not good is wrong. This isn't a logical argument, it's a statement that may form part of a logical argument.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. You don't know that the creator of the universe is either.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm talking about definitions. I define God as absolute. The question is His existence as defined. If a moral standard is above God then God as defined doesn't exist.

[RJT]

Chez,

Wanted to give you a heads-up. Kidluckee seems to be stealing your thoughts here under a post he made at 1:27pm 9/22/05 under the thread “Nietzsche’s question”

Better hurry up with your final thought.

RJT

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Fine but nothing in my argument is altered if that is true so are we in agreement as to the logic of my argument?


[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing you've said is in the form of an argument. Logic refers to the reasoning process contained in a stated argument. I'm saying your premise that God is not good is wrong. This isn't a logical argument, it's a statement that may form part of a logical argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

The argument is:
if
Premise 'negative moral feelings about a religon'
then
conclusion 'being mislead about feelings, god not being good, or the religon being mistaken'

Can you not recognise that as having the form of a logical argument?

chez

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, in order to define murder and stealing as "wrong" by our laws, we have to have some standard by which "right" is defined.

[/ QUOTE ]

No we don't. I'm not aware of the need to define a moral standard in our legislative process, outside of constitutionality.

Let's look at federal law: 50+% of representatives vote, 50+% of senators vote, and signed by Prez (ibcrease to 2/3 vote if Prez vetoes). Nope, don't see any need to refer to an absolute moral standard in that law-making process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it wrong to steal? If laws are in fact made as arbitrarily as you seem to think, then there must be some civilizations in which stealing is an acceptable practice, right? Can you name these cultures?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Can you not recognise that as having the form of a logical argument?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to get into a discussion of formal logic. Your two statements don't comply with any textbook logic I've seen. Other than that I think I've answered your question as far as I can understand what you're asking.

You can only conclude that God isn't good because you have negative feelings if you include the premise that your feelings give you correct information about morality and that these feelings are superior to God.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to get into a discussion of formal logic. Your two statements don't comply with any textbook logic I've seen. Other than that I think I've answered your question as far as I can understand what you're asking.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we can't even agree on whether this is a valid logical argument (or even whether its a logical argument) then its pretty obvious we aren't going to agree about very much.

Perhaps we both agree about the above statement.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, in order to define murder and stealing as "wrong" by our laws, we have to have some standard by which "right" is defined.

[/ QUOTE ]

No we don't. I'm not aware of the need to define a moral standard in our legislative process, outside of constitutionality.

Let's look at federal law: 50+% of representatives vote, 50+% of senators vote, and signed by Prez (ibcrease to 2/3 vote if Prez vetoes). Nope, don't see any need to refer to an absolute moral standard in that law-making process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it wrong to steal? If laws are in fact made as arbitrarily as you seem to think, then there must be some civilizations in which stealing is an acceptable practice, right? Can you name these cultures?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say the laws were arbitrary. A federal law requires 50% vote of each house and the Prez signature. Do you disagree? Where in there is there a reference to an absolute moral standard for the law to be passed?

The fact that stealing is not allowed in most cultures is irrelevant. I've said before that cultural ethics may arise along similar lines without need for their source to be God. But anyway, some cultures have allowed "stealing" based on the arbitrariness of the people. For example, the Nazis confiscated Jewish possessions in accordance with certain laws, our govt can seize private property and give it to private developers in accordance with eminent domain laws, taxes may be disproportionate to minorities and their wealth thus confiscated and given to other groups, etc. Thus, yes, if the people will it, they can have laws allowing stealing.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps we both agree about the above statement.


[/ QUOTE ]

We seem to have different concepts of logic.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. You don't know that the creator of the universe is either.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm talking about definitions. I define God as absolute. The question is His existence as defined. If a moral standard is above God then God as defined doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I define unicorns as absolute. All morality is derived from unicorns.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I define unicorns as absolute. All morality is derived from unicorns.


[/ QUOTE ]

Define what you like as you like. Since we don't agree on the subject matter or the question there remain no grounds for discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
Chez,

Wanted to give you a heads-up. Kidluckee seems to be stealing your thoughts here under a post he made at 1:27pm 9/22/05 under the thread “Nietzsche’s question”


[/ QUOTE ]

???

I responded to questions posed to me in that thread and if answers are similar to anything Chez wrote, well so be it. And YOU better stop stealing silly thoughts from St. Paul.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I define unicorns as absolute. All morality is derived from unicorns.


[/ QUOTE ]

Define what you like as you like.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems to be your approach.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chez,

Wanted to give you a heads-up. Kidluckee seems to be stealing your thoughts here under a post he made at 1:27pm 9/22/05 under the thread “Nietzsche’s question”


[/ QUOTE ]

???

I responded to questions posed to me in that thread and if answers are similar to anything Chez wrote, well so be it. And YOU better stop stealing silly thoughts from St. Paul.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just busting stones. Similar thoughts come up all the time here - it seems, almost simultaneously. Maybe has to do with Jung.

St. Paul? He was a character, I’ll give you that.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say the laws were arbitrary. A federal law requires 50% vote of each house and the Prez signature. Do you disagree? Where in there is there a reference to an absolute moral standard for the law to be passed?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are dodging the point of this discussion, but I am going to stick with you. How does a congressman decide to vote for or against a certain bill? Does he just flip a coin?

As for the stealing issue, you know to what I was referring. Whether it be stealing or whether it be murder, there are certain things viewed universally as wrong. This is absolutely not irrelevant, but the exact point of this discussion. The cultural ethics of which you speak are based on a higher standard of what is right and wrong. That's what I will show you if you'll answer the question above.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say the laws were arbitrary. A federal law requires 50% vote of each house and the Prez signature. Do you disagree? Where in there is there a reference to an absolute moral standard for the law to be passed?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are dodging the point of this discussion, but I am going to stick with you. How does a congressman decide to vote for or against a certain bill? Does he just flip a coin?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahahahaha!!! Are you really seriously suggesting that Congressmen vote based on an objective reference to absolute morality?????????

C'mon, dude. You have really crossed the line into delusion now!

The more you try to argue your case, the more absurd the assumptions you are forced to make. This occurs in many of these type of threads where someone appeals to some premise which is not factually sound and they are forced to invent rationalizations as they progress.

[jester710]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument is:
if
Premise 'negative moral feelings about a religon'
then
conclusion 'being mislead about feelings, god not being good, or the religon being mistaken'

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, if I understand you correctly, you're saying you have a feeling that this belief is morally repugnant. You are making no assumptions about the validity of your belief, just confirming that your belief exists.

If possibility A is true and your belief is incorrect, then both B and C could also be true, although it doesn't necessarily follow that both or either of them are true by virtue of you being tricked by your feelings.

If possibility B is true, it neither validates your belief nor invalidates the religion. Similarly, if C is true, then it doesn't necessarily follow that A is false, B is true, or vice versa.

This is my primary problem with your argument. It seems to me that you've tried to say, "I feel this belief is wrong, therefore either A, B, or C." I don't think you can logically make that step, since the statement "I feel this belief is wrong, therefore A, B, AND C" is just as possible.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say the laws were arbitrary. A federal law requires 50% vote of each house and the Prez signature. Do you disagree? Where in there is there a reference to an absolute moral standard for the law to be passed?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are dodging the point of this discussion, but I am going to stick with you. How does a congressman decide to vote for or against a certain bill? Does he just flip a coin?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahahahaha!!! Are you really seriously suggesting that Congressmen vote based on an objective reference to absolute morality?????????

C'mon, dude. You have really crossed the line into delusion now!

The more you try to argue your case, the more absurd the assumptions you are forced to make. This occurs in many of these type of threads where someone appeals to some premise which is not factually sound and they are forced to invent rationalizations as they progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

Answer my question, and answer it honestly. Don't make assumptions about what my response is going to be. Here's a hint: If a congressman was asked to vote on whether or not murder should be illegal, upon what is his vote based? Does he flip a coin? Perhaps he asks himself what will do the most good for his fellow citizens? Perhaps he considers what will be the best for himself personally? He has to base his decision on something, doesn't he? I'm asking you what you think that is.

And by the way, I haven't made a single assumption throughout this thread. I'm simply asking you questions to which you refuse to respond.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say the laws were arbitrary. A federal law requires 50% vote of each house and the Prez signature. Do you disagree? Where in there is there a reference to an absolute moral standard for the law to be passed?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are dodging the point of this discussion, but I am going to stick with you. How does a congressman decide to vote for or against a certain bill? Does he just flip a coin?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahahahaha!!! Are you really seriously suggesting that Congressmen vote based on an objective reference to absolute morality?????????

C'mon, dude. You have really crossed the line into delusion now!

The more you try to argue your case, the more absurd the assumptions you are forced to make. This occurs in many of these type of threads where someone appeals to some premise which is not factually sound and they are forced to invent rationalizations as they progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

Answer my question, and answer it honestly. Don't make assumptions about what my response is going to be. Here's a hint: If a congressman was asked to vote on whether or not murder should be illegal, upon what is his vote based? Does he flip a coin? Perhaps he asks himself what will do the most good for his fellow citizens? Perhaps he considers what will be the best for himself personally? He has to base his decision on something, doesn't he? I'm asking you what you think that is.

And by the way, I haven't made a single assumption throughout this thread. I'm simply asking you questions to which you refuse to respond.

[/ QUOTE ]

A congressmen bases his vote quite often on what's in his best interests (re-election, legacy, popularity, party committee positions), which often align with his district, and occasionally I suppose align with his belief system and the law of the land. Rarely would I say the appeal to absolute morality is the yardstick. If I were a congressmen and we were voting on the issue of murder, my vote would be on the constitutionality of such a law and I'd vote against it as legislating such criminal code is not a function of the federal government. However you care to spin this, there is no way to get from here to providing evidence to your claim that all morality (and all laws) in each culture is derived from your god.


This was your claim:
[ QUOTE ]
Right and wrong comes from God whether you believe in Him or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

My response was: "And your evidence for such a claim?"

And since then you've just asked questions about how laws are passed which is not evidence of your claim, nor will lead to such evidence. Find another route fast.

[txag007]

The point of all this is that in order to classify something as "wrong" there must be some standard by which "right" is based? You claimed that there was not.

Your reasoning was that federal law is created by votes and a signature, not by deciding whether an action should be considered wrong and therefore made illegal. The reason I asked you to define the basis upon which a congressman makes up his mind is because in doing so he is appealling to some standard of "right".

If it is "voting yes here is "right" because it will get me reelected." or "voting no here is "right" because my party leadership does not support this bill and I want that committee chairmanship." what that congressman is appealling to is that "right" is defined as what is best for him personally.

If instead his decision is based upon what will keep more citizens of this country safe, then his decision is based upon utilitarianism. Either way, he is appealing to a standard of "right" in order to make his decisions. This is what you refused to admit earlier.

Now, we haven't even gotten to absolute morality yet. Do not jump to conclusions. What you have to realize first is that in order to make a decision, one has to have some sort of definition as to what defines "right".

[ QUOTE ]
The point of all this is that in order to classify something as "wrong" there must be some standard by which "right" is based? You claimed that there was not.

Your reasoning was that federal law is created by votes and a signature, not by deciding whether an action should be considered wrong and therefore made illegal. The reason I asked you to define the basis upon which a congressman makes up his mind is because in doing so he is appealling to some standard of "right".

If it is "voting yes here is "right" because it will get me reelected." or "voting no here is "right" because my party leadership does not support this bill and I want that committee chairmanship." what that congressman is appealling to is that "right" is defined as what is best for him personally.

If instead his decision is based upon what will keep more citizens of this country safe, then his decision is based upon utilitarianism. Either way, he is appealing to a standard of "right" in order to make his decisions. This is what you refused to admit earlier.

Now, we haven't even gotten to absolute morality yet. Do not jump to conclusions. What you have to realize first is that in order to make a decision, one has to have some sort of definition as to what defines "right".

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are unfounded assumptions. (1) I didn't say that you didn't need a standard for "right" in order to classify "wrong", I said you didn't need an absolute standard for right to legislate laws, (2) you are wrong in asserting that congressmen must resort to absolute morality in order to legislate.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Those are unfounded assumptions. (1) I didn't say that you didn't need a standard for "right" in order to classify "wrong", I said you didn't need an absolute standard for right to legislate laws,

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what you said. Here it is:
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, in order to define murder and stealing as "wrong" by our laws, we have to have some standard by which "right" is defined.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No we don't. I'm not aware of the need to define a moral standard in our legislative process, outside of constitutionality.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
(2) you are wrong in asserting that congressmen must resort to absolute morality in order to legislate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't said that. What I am going to say (if you will quit jumping to conclusions about where I am headed instead of letting me lead you there) is that the common standards which many use to define "right" in their decisions is incorrect in so much as there is a higher standard attached to them.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
The point of all this is that in order to classify something as "wrong" there must be some standard by which "right" is based? You claimed that there was not.

Your reasoning was that federal law is created by votes and a signature, not by deciding whether an action should be considered wrong and therefore made illegal. The reason I asked you to define the basis upon which a congressman makes up his mind is because in doing so he is appealling to some standard of "right".

If it is "voting yes here is "right" because it will get me reelected." or "voting no here is "right" because my party leadership does not support this bill and I want that committee chairmanship." what that congressman is appealling to is that "right" is defined as what is best for him personally.

If instead his decision is based upon what will keep more citizens of this country safe, then his decision is based upon utilitarianism. Either way, he is appealing to a standard of "right" in order to make his decisions. This is what you refused to admit earlier.

Now, we haven't even gotten to absolute morality yet. Do not jump to conclusions. What you have to realize first is that in order to make a decision, one has to have some sort of definition as to what defines "right".

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you freely admit that you think god puts a moral compass in people, why is it not feasible to think that a moral compass could be within us for reasons related to evolution, psychology, physiology, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those are unfounded assumptions. (1) I didn't say that you didn't need a standard for "right" in order to classify "wrong", I said you didn't need an absolute standard for right to legislate laws,

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what you said. Here it is:
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, in order to define murder and stealing as "wrong" by our laws, we have to have some standard by which "right" is defined.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No we don't. I'm not aware of the need to define a moral standard in our legislative process, outside of constitutionality.

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]



Your own post supports my statement.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps we both agree about the above statement.


[/ QUOTE ]

We seem to have different concepts of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]


Mine's pretty simple. An argument has premises and conclusions. Its valid if its impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. (If valid its sound if the premises are true).

Here the premise is about me have a feeling. If I have that feeling the premise is true. The conclusion is that at least one of three things is true.

Its valid unless its possible that I have that feeling and none of the three possibilities are true.

What's different in your concept of logic?

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
This is my primary problem with your argument. It seems to me that you've tried to say, "I feel this belief is wrong, therefore either A, B, or C." I don't think you can logically make that step, since the statement "I feel this belief is wrong, therefore A, B, AND C" is just as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Jester

I should have avoided 'either/or' as its confusing, I'll change it to 'or' in future but I don't mean an exclusive or. The conclusion is true if any of A,B,C is true.

(I had to look it up in to check because 'either/or' doesn't imply 'not both' to me - the encyclopedia says its misleading and frequently implies the disjunction so I'll try to avoid it in future)

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What's different in your concept of logic?


[/ QUOTE ]

Every syllogism I've ever seen has at least two premises. You draw 3 contingent conclusions from 1 premise.

Basically you're confusing conclusion with premise.

Try this form:

Premise 1: All men are mortal
(Notice you can't draw a conclusion from this premise, at least not within the rules of logic)

Premise 2: Socrates is a man.

Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Every syllogism I've ever seen has at least two premises. You draw 3 contingent conclusions from 1 premise.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe its not an Aristotilian syllogism but I never claimed it was.

P is prime therefore p=2 or p is odd. Any problem with that

I find it hard to see why you care about the number of premises. If you think its not enough to guarantee the truth of the conclusion then why not just say why you think that.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

P is prime therefore p=2 or p is odd. Any problem with that


[/ QUOTE ]

You are assuming some premises here. You do the same with the way you have formulated the main question.

You asked me about the logic of your position. I'm trying to understand what it is.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

P is prime therefore p=2 or p is odd. Any problem with that


[/ QUOTE ]

You are assuming some premises here. You do the same with the way you have formulated the main question.

You asked me about the logic of your position. I'm trying to understand what it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am asking if its possible that I have that feeling and none of the three possibilities in the conclusion are true.

If you think it is possible then please say why you think that.

chez

[jester710]

[ QUOTE ]
The conclusion is true if any of A,B,C is true.


[/ QUOTE ]

Chez-

Now you've confused me. What conclusion are you referring to? That, since you've had this feeling, one of those 3 possibilities must be true, and that it doesn't matter which (or how many) is true? Are you asking us to simply confirm or deny that these are the only three possibilities that arise from you having this belief? Please let me know so that I can be sure we're at least talking about the same thing.

Thanks,
jester

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The conclusion is true if any of A,B,C is true.


[/ QUOTE ]

Chez-

Now you've confused me. What conclusion are you referring to? That, since you've had this feeling, one of those 3 possibilities must be true, and that it doesn't matter which (or how many) is true? Are you asking us to simply confirm or deny that these are the only three possibilities that arise from you having this belief? Please let me know so that I can be sure we're at least talking about the same thing.

Thanks,
jester

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Jester

The conclusion is that one or more of:
1) My feeling is misleading me.
2) God isn't good.
3) The religon is mistaken
are true.

I'm asking if it is possible that I have that feeling and that none of 1), 2), 3) are true.

chez

[jester710]

Ok, I think I understand you now. I would agree that one of them must be true, because it seems like you're saying "either x or not x." However, I still think there isn't a link between the statement and the conclusions; that is, I believe one of the conclusions has to be true, but that it might have nothing to do with your original statement.

For example, you say that your feeling says that since God condemns some people for nonbelief, He cannot be good. It could be that He is not good, but His lack of goodness has nothing to do with condemning people, in which case your feeling is indeed misleading you, yet B is still true. I don't know if this affects any future points you hope to make on this subject.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I think I understand you now. I would agree that one of them must be true, because it seems like you're saying "either x or not x." However, I still think there isn't a link between the statement and the conclusions; that is, I believe one of the conclusions has to be true, but that it might have nothing to do with your original statement.

For example, you say that your feeling says that since God condemns some people for nonbelief, He cannot be good. It could be that He is not good, but His lack of goodness has nothing to do with condemning people, in which case your feeling is indeed misleading you, yet B is still true. I don't know if this affects any future points you hope to make on this subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I understand what your saying then its not a problem. As long as its impossible that the conclusion is false when the premise is true.

I'm a bit worried that you say there isn't a link between premise and conclusions. Surely if the premise is false then the conclusion could be true or false. Only when the premise is true must the conclusion be true.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

No, I am asking if its possible that I have that feeling and none of the three possibilities in the conclusion are true.


[/ QUOTE ]

Statement 1.

My moral sense tells me that God isn't good

Statement 1a.

I am being deceived by my feelings of right and wrong,

False = feelings are true = God isn't good.
True = feelings are false = God is good. You could feel that God isn't good even though God doesn't exist so you should have an "if" in there somewhere.

Statement 1b.

God isn't good,

False = God is good = feelings are false.
True = God isn't good = feelings are true.

Statement 1c.

The religous view is mistaken.

I don't think this affects the first two.

If 1a is false so that your feelings are true then 1b can't also be false.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Statement 1.

My moral sense tells me that God isn't good

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we might be getting there but your statement 1 is not my premise.

The premise is:

My moral sense tells me that a god who enforces this view (the one in the statement) is morally repugnant.

That's why the third option of the religon (that claims the statement is true) being mistaken is needed.

So with the correct premise, is it possible the I do have that moral feeling and none of the three possibilities in the conclusion are true.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So with the correct premise, is it possible the I do have that moral feeling and none of the three possibilities in the conclusion are true.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not that I can see.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So with the correct premise, is it possible the I do have that moral feeling and none of the three possibilities in the conclusion are true.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not that I can see.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great, I do believe we understand each other.

siegfriedandroy, txag007, anyone else, think we are missing anything?

chez

[DougShrapnel]

A 4th option where all 3 are correct was brought up by me and 2nded is possible, provided something is hidden from you. For instance in this particular case, the nature of heaven is hidden from you. If we assume heaven is exactly like this world, and no other relavant info is hidden, then at least 1 of the 3 options must be correct. But if heaven is different, then your moral sense could be correct, God could still be good, and the views of the religoin could still be correct.

[chezlaw]

Thanks for moving it here.

kidluckee agreed with you and gave this example:

[ QUOTE ]
Then you better change your conjecture, because you are stating that your moral feelings are deceiving you, not that they are operating just fine but lacking all the necessary information. If I see a man strike a woman, my moral feelings may tell me this is repugnant, but if the woman just tried to stab the man and I didn't see that, then it's not the fault of my moral feelings being deceptive or defective. I predict that ignoring this flaw now will lead to your coming conclusion to be already open to question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I responded:
[ QUOTE ]
In your example:

I see the man hit the woman, my moral feelings lead me to believe the man is a bad man. This belief turns out to be wrong.

I want to call that being mislead by my moral feelings, I'm not claiming that my moral feelings are at fault in some way.

Have I missed your point or do I just need a way of clarifying this.

[/ QUOTE ]

kidluckee responded
[ QUOTE ]
That was my point. But if you are defining that situation as being mislead by your moral feelings, then I'm with you so far and accept your premise.

[/ QUOTE ]

okay with you, or have we missed your point.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
okay with you, or have we missed your point.

[/ QUOTE ] Well it brings up the legitimacy of your abilty to make the moral judgement. It basically reduces this problem to.

My moral sense tells me that a relgious view is repugnant. I am either right or wrong. It does not however say anything about the religous view or nature of god. Only if you are right does it say something about the nature of God, or the correctness of examined religous view.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
okay with you, or have we missed your point.

[/ QUOTE ] Well it brings up the legitimacy of your abilty to make the moral judgement. It basically reduces this problem to.

My moral sense tells me that a relgious view is repugnant. I am either right or wrong. It does not however say anything about the religous view or nature of god. Only if you are right does it say something about the nature of God, or the correctness of examined religous view.

[/ QUOTE ]

I more or less agree but I'm going to introduce some more stuff which I will claim does add significance to my moral sense leading me to the wrong conclusions.

For now, I need to establish that there is nothing invalid about this claim. Let me know if you're not satisfied about that and you can bash me on the rest later.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
okay with you, or have we missed your point.

[/ QUOTE ] Well it brings up the legitimacy of your abilty to make the moral judgement. It basically reduces this problem to.

My moral sense tells me that a relgious view is repugnant. I am either right or wrong. It does not however say anything about the religous view or nature of god. Only if you are right does it say something about the nature of God, or the correctness of examined religous view.

[/ QUOTE ]

I more or less agree but I'm going to introduce some more stuff which I will claim does add significance to my moral sense leading me to the wrong conclusions.

For now, I need to establish that there is nothing invalid about this claim. Let me know if you're not satisfied about that and you can bash me on the rest later.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

chez if it's not a oversite please continue.

[jester710]

My point is that your conclusions might not necessarily follow from your premise. Bear with me a second while I review everything.

Premise: Certain religions state that God punishes people for non-belief. My moral sense tells me this is wrong.

Conclusions:
1. My moral sense is misleading me.
2. God is not good.
3. Those religions are wrong.

Let's assume #1 is correct and you're being misled. It seems to me that you're saying that, if you are indeed being misled, then God is good. However, it could be the case that you are being misled on this specific point, and yet God is not good for another, totally unrelated reason.

If you're just trying to prove or disprove God's goodness on this one particular issue (condemning people for nonbelief), then I think you might still be ok. If, however, you're trying to use this issue to postulate about God's goodness on the whole, then I don't think it's logically airtight.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that your conclusions might not necessarily follow from your premise. Bear with me a second while I review everything.

Premise: Certain religions state that God punishes people for non-belief. My moral sense tells me this is wrong.

Conclusions:
1. My moral sense is misleading me.
2. God is not good.
3. Those religions are wrong.

Let's assume #1 is correct and you're being misled. It seems to me that you're saying that, if you are indeed being misled, then God is good. However, it could be the case that you are being misled on this specific point, and yet God is not good for another, totally unrelated reason.

If you're just trying to prove or disprove God's goodness on this one particular issue (condemning people for nonbelief), then I think you might still be ok. If, however, you're trying to use this issue to postulate about God's goodness on the whole, then I don't think it's logically airtight.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to conclude anything about god's goodness on the whole from this argument. Just that the premise guarantees that at least one of the three possiblities in the conclusion is true.

I'm officially asleep at the moment but hope that makes some sort of sense.

chez

[txag007]

I cannot reason with an unreasonable person. It can't be done.

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot reason with an unreasonable person. It can't be done.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know the feeling.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I cannot reason with an unreasonable person. It can't be done.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know the feeling.

[/ QUOTE ]


You seem to have two terrible habits that prevent us from engaging in intelligent conversation:

1. Oversimplifying complicated explanations. I'm not sure if you do this because you don't fully understand the point being made or if it is because you don't take the time to truly think about it before responding. Regardless, your simplifications result in a loss of accuracy, and that changes the course of the discussion.

2. Jumping to conclusions. You make assumptions about what a person is going to say before they say it. Most of the time, these assumptions are incorrect due to point #1. Again, I'm not sure if you don't really understand what is being discussed or if you just do this because you are trying to be irritating. Either way, if makes intelligent conversation impossible.

This is what I meant about being unable to reason with an unreasonable person.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I cannot reason with an unreasonable person. It can't be done.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know the feeling.

[/ QUOTE ]


You seem to have two terrible habits that prevent us from engaging in intelligent conversation:

1. Oversimplifying complicated explanations. I'm not sure if you do this because you don't fully understand the point being made or if it is because you don't take the time to truly think about it before responding. Regardless, your simplifications result in a loss of accuracy, and that changes the course of the discussion.

2. Jumping to conclusions. You make assumptions about what a person is going to say before they say it. Most of the time, these assumptions are incorrect due to point #1. Again, I'm not sure if you don't really understand what is being discussed or if you just do this because you are trying to be irritating. Either way, if makes intelligent conversation impossible.

This is what I meant about being unable to reason with an unreasonable person.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let the reader judge who is being unreasonable in this thread.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Let the reader judge who is being unreasonable in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

[RJT]

Kiddo and taxman:

I just notice your posts are taking on a somewhat personification of chez’s soon to be formalized argument.

This statement:

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to have two terrible habits that prevent us from engaging in intelligent conversation.

[/ QUOTE ]

assumes one of the following:

One is intelligent.
Both are intelligent.
Neither is intelligent.

Choose at least one of the above.

I am just joking guys. No opinion of eithers’ intelligence is intended.

Now, back to the show this is it.... *

* from an old cartoon.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]

"we are all guilty of sins, those who believe can get redemption and those who don't believe have no chance of redemption and will be punished"

[/ QUOTE ]

standard for human society. If you sin against your brother and do not acknowledge this to him, you will not be forgiven. If you sin against your government and plead guilty, you will serve a lesser punishment. If you sin against God and still deny Him, you will be damned.

so, we're all [censored] basically