Re: If There Is No God
 

[ QUOTE ]
As usual, you have failed to comprehend the whole argument. I already stated that the person in the state of grave pain WANTS to die. This is the state where they have not gone crazy yet due to the pain, but nevertheless cannot focus on anything else but ending the pain by any means necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I have been in that pain before and I didn't kill myself. Why was this? Because I wanted to live. I knew the pain to be temporary. People can logically realize that the pleasure of living after a great amount of pain would be greater than the amount of pain. However if I got shot in the belly with no one else around you in the middle of the desert, and I had a gun in my hand, pretty quickly I'd end it.

People go through the pain of dieting because they know they will get more pleasure later when thinner. People go through the agony of pain w/o killing themselves because
living without pain later will give them pleasure. But put me in a situation where I can't get out of a great amount of pain, then yes, I'll kill myself.

[ QUOTE ]
And speaking of intellectual honesty, I do not recall you answering me as to what is the rational distinction between two men sodomizing each other versus two brothers. Or maybe you approve of both.

[/ QUOTE ]

I apologize if I missed your post. I spend time at many threads which causes me to forget about others.

To answer your incest question. To me it doesn't matter what two consenting adults do. Although I don't think the pro-gay incest lobby is quite large enough to make this a serious issue for you or anybody. I'm worried about all my gay friends that may have a difficult future because of 'family values' politicians. If ever there's a civil rights movement to let two brothers do it with each other it wouldn't bother me, although it gets that negative emotional reaction out of me that you wanted when you pointed to an absurd extreme example.
The distinction you want is an easy one. It's the same distinction between a man and his girlfriend having sex and a man and his sister having sex. I don't think anyone other than conservatives buy into the "if we allow two guys to have sex then next thing you know incest and bestiality will take over the world" slippery slope (which is a logical fallacy, by the way) argument.
I may think gay incest is disgusting. I also think eating your own [censored] and vomit is disgusting. I don't think either are a big enough issue to worry about and even if they were I wouldn't want them to be illegal. I also think smoking is disgusting. I still want it legal.

Re: If There Is No God
 

[ QUOTE ]

Any of my definitions of Absolute Morality would be within the context of a God.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to have impassed us here, but maybe you'll see a way thru this for us if I recap -

Mr S posts - "Me and Not Ready say that if there are absolute morals then there must be a God"

I reply - "It's not hard to think of other reasons for absolute morals if the right half of the equation is left open."

You request an example. I ask for a definition of YOUR version of absolute morals so then I can give you another reason for it. You respond -

"Any of my definitions of Absolute Morality would be within the context of a God."

Haven't you just taken us back to Mr S's claim, but modified it? Perhaps I'm viewing this wrong, Mr S as claiming--
a) If There is this thing "Absolute Morality"
b) Then Only god can be the source.

I want to challenge him ( and now you) that there are other b's. To do that I need to get a description of this AM ( and not assume my interpretation of those words is the same as others are using).

You essentially state that there is no if-then a-b, only a premise statement 'a' "All AM belongs to God" or some such. Fair enough, but since now there's no logical claim, therefore no logical dialogue can ensue.

unless I've missed something, luckyme..
..if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

Re: If There Is No God
 

The statement is made that if AMs then God. You said it is not hard to think of other ways that there can be AMs other then God. I am just saying if you can find any, then you should be able to disprove the original. I asked for examples. If you have any, let’s hear ‘em. If they seem worthwhile, I will help you with your attempt. I say there are none outside a context of some “thing” that dictates by decree the AMs (they are really a “gift” but to not sound un-objective I use the words dictate and decree).

Re: If There Is No God
 

[ QUOTE ]

Either way, frameworks could exist which have the capability of existence either with or without God. You haven't demonstrated otherwise; you've only made assertions.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. It's a presupposition. You presuppose the opposite.

[ QUOTE ]

If God does not exist, how exactly do you propose that sense is destroyed?


[/ QUOTE ]

How can the irrational produce sense?

I want to repeat so maybe you will address it. This is not an argument invented by Christians. At least since Nietzsche it's a fundamental part of atheistic philosophy. Nietzsche said "There is no teleology. There are no absolute values". So you don't need to attack my position because I'm a Christian. You have modern atheistic philosophy to contend with as well.

Re: If There Is No God
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Either way, frameworks could exist which have the capability of existence either with or without God. You haven't demonstrated otherwise; you've only made assertions.

[/ QUOTE ]




Exactly. It's a presupposition. You presuppose the opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm allowing for all possibilities; you're not. I'm not taking a diametrically opposed position to yours. And my argument doesn't hinge on this point, whereas yours seems to: it matters not to my argument at all if there is, or is not, an absolute moral framework; nor if there is such, whether it does, or does not, derive from God. I'm just saying that you haven't made a strong case that such a moral framework, if it exists, MUST derive from God. And I personally doubt that such a framework if it exists MUST derive from God. As I pointed out, mathematical truths are an absolute framework, and nobody in this thread has shown that mathematical truths MUST derive from God--you've asserted as much by definition and your interpretation of the Bible, which is to say, without reasoned argument or proof.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If God does not exist, how exactly do you propose that sense is destroyed?

[/ QUOTE ]

How can the irrational produce sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't shown that the non-existence of God would be irrational in the first place. Would you care to elaborate?

[ QUOTE ]
I want to repeat so maybe you will address it. This is not an argument invented by Christians. At least since Nietzsche it's a fundamental part of atheistic philosophy. Nietzsche said "There is no teleology. There are no absolute values". So you don't need to attack my position because I'm a Christian. You have modern atheistic philosophy to contend with as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm not attacking your position because you are a Christian.

Your assertions and the assertion of Nietzche which you cited are very far from being PROOFS. The odd part is, I'm not even arguing for the existence of an absolute moral framework. I'm just saying that: 1) such a framework MIGHT exist, and 2) the assertion that it could ONLY exist if God also exists is an unproven assertion--and not only is is unproven but it doesn't even seem to be highly reasoned. Thus far you haven't offered anything but assertions to back up your conclusion/assertion. No offense meant but I fail to see why Sklansky shares your view on this.

Re: If There Is No God
 

[ QUOTE ]

I'm allowing for all possibilities


[/ QUOTE ]

That's a presupposition which presupposes the impossibility of the Biblical God.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm just saying that you haven't made a strong case that such a moral framework, if it exists, must derive from God.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is virtually self-evident. How could absolute morality exist apart from mind?

[ QUOTE ]

You haven't shown that the non-existence of God would be irrational in the first place


[/ QUOTE ]

If no God no Mind. No Mind no ultimate reason, ergo irrational.

[ QUOTE ]

Fine, but your assertions and the assertion of Nietzche you cited are very far from being PROOFS


[/ QUOTE ]

I tolja - it's not a proof. I agreed, it's an assertion, a presupposition. Nietzsche makes the opposite presupposition, that the universe is irrational. He doesn't prove it. He can't. He asserts it. Given that the universe is irrational, what logically follows? Forget that nothing CAN logically follow from the ultimately irrational. Irrationally apply logic anyway. Rationalize the irrational. Whatever you come up with is based ultimately on the irrational and is thus ultimately irrational.

[ QUOTE ]

No offense meant but I fail to see why Sklansky shares your view on this.


[/ QUOTE ]

He got this many hundreds of posts ago.

Re: If There Is No God
 

[ QUOTE ]
The statement is made that if AMs then God. You said it is not hard to think of other ways that there can be AMs other then God. I am just saying if you can find any, then you should be able to disprove the original. I asked for examples. If you have any, let’s hear ‘em.

[/ QUOTE ]



OK here is a loose attempt to give a possible moral framework:

1) All sentient beings living in the physical world must cause some harm in order to live (eating, crushing tiny insects underfoot, etc).

2) Harm done to other sentient beings out of necessity is acceptable.

3) Harm done to other sentient beings for non-necessity: for things such as discretionary enjoyment, etc.--are to be weighed against the degree and amount of harm done.

4) Thus, doing immense harm to other sentient beings for minor or frivolous gain is on the "bad" side of the sliding scale.

5) There could theoretically be measured the degrees of harm done for the amounts of gain or pleasure accrued, with exceptions made for necessity. "Moral" is taking the feelings and well-being of others into reasonable consideration under such a model; "immoral" is a purely selfish path irrespective of costs or considerations to others.

6) Since the everything is part of the universe, a sentient being minimizing instead of maximizing harm done (outside of necessity) is treading a more moral path. And of course helping others can be on the plus side of that too.

I'm not saying this IS the model, but it could be a rough representation of such a model. And since the universe itself might be considered a great organism of some sort, this would also make sense in another way as well.

Re: If There Is No God
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm allowing for all possibilities



[/ QUOTE ]


That's a presupposition which presupposes the impossibility of the Biblical God.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it just allows for other possibilities as well. I'm not ruling out the possibility of the Biblical God.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm just saying that you haven't made a strong case that such a moral framework, if it exists, must derive from God.

[/ QUOTE ]




This is virtually self-evident. How could absolute morality exist apart from mind?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's erroneous to think that it is self-evident. As I already said, imagine a moral framework in the weay that mathematical laws exist. The framework is just less clear or measurable to us at present. Mathematical truths DO exist even without our minds to think of them. A gorilla eating twice as many bananas as another gorilla is eating twice as much food--even without our minds.



[ QUOTE ]
Y[ QUOTE ]
ou haven't shown that the non-existence of God would be irrational in the first place

[/ QUOTE ]




If no God no Mind. No Mind no ultimate reason, ergo irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

More circular reasoning. You haven't shown: if no God no Mind; you've only used the Bible to imply that assertion. I'm not asking just what the Bible says or what you take it to imply; I'm asking for REASONED ARGUMENTS. If you're asserting that absolute morals can only exist from God, I can see why YOU would feel so, given that you feel the Bible is sufficient evidence. But why would Sklansky? Can you give a rationale that goes beyond just having complete faith in your interpretation of the Bible?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fine, but your assertions and the assertion of Nietzche you cited are very far from being PROOFS

[/ QUOTE ]

I tolja - it's not a proof. I agreed, it's an assertion, a presupposition. Nietzsche makes the opposite presupposition, that the universe is irrational. He doesn't prove it. He can't. He asserts it. Given that the universe is irrational, what logically follows? Forget that nothing CAN logically follow from the ultimately irrational. Irrationally apply logic anyway. Rationalize the irrational. Whatever you come up with is based ultimately on the irrational and is thus ultimately irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should the universe have to be either wholly rational or wholly irrational? Why couldn't it contain elements of BOTH?



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No offense meant but I fail to see why Sklansky shares your view on this.


[/ QUOTE ]



He got this many hundreds of posts ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well based on this thread thus far I think you and he are both quite likely wrong on this. An absolute moral framework does not NECESSARILY IMPLY the existence of God, and neither does an absolute mathematical framework. Granted they are not the same thing, but if one absolute framework does not imply the existence of God then there is little reason to suspect that the existence of another framework would so imply.

Re: If There Is No God
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you're asserting that absolute morals can only exist from God, I can see why YOU would feel so, given that you feel the Bible is sufficient evidence. But why would Sklansky?

[/ QUOTE ]

You touch on one reason I've been intrigued by this exchanges. I see the issue as begging the question/circular and normally I'd just say nothing since most people can't get out of their loop. However, when Mr S seems to support it I use a version of his theory ... a mind that may well be smarter than me would be very unlikely to propose such a flawed argument so it is very possible the real argument is correct and it is my take on it that is wrong. So far, it's remained circular but we haven't heard from Mr S yet to clarify his claim.

luckyme

Re: If There Is No God
 

Would you feel better if I said that even with God there was no absolute morality, just his wishes?