No Absolute Morality WITH God Either

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Its deja vu again"

Finding one of my best jokes was a bonus.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

chez,

are you saying this is one of your best jokes? If so, you might not realize that is a quite common one over here and fairly old too. Hope this doesn't burst your bubble , but I know you would want to know the "truth". [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

RJT

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its deja vu again"

Finding one of my best jokes was a bonus.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]


chez,

are you saying this is one of your best jokes? If so, you might not realize that is a quite common one over here and fairly old too. Hope this doesn't burst your bubble , but I know you would want to know the "truth". [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]
no, 'saying is not believing' was one of my best jokes.

I could prove this is true but it would be a painful experience.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
Society sets up laws which (In the case of our own.) are derived from biblical principles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true.

[RJT]

I want to re-word your whole post to make sure it is what you are saying (it is how I understand what you said) If you are not saying #1 then I would like to get back to it in another thread at some point, so that I can understand that issue fully.

1)For those who did not already realize it, my concession to Not Ready that there is no absolute morality without God did not include a concession to the converse: 2)That God necessarily provides absolute morality. 3) He might simply provide rules. Rules that he wants obeyed… 4) He might not even necessarily provide AM or rules, but here the issue is that if he provides rules then there is no reason to ascribe to the rules as some sort of absolute rightness.

Continuing on to my re-worded #2,3,4:


But, do you think if God really gives AM and/or rules that anyone would actually disagree? Do you have something in mind?

Using your example, one might say that one prefers Jackson Pollack to Renoir. And neither are ruled the better artists. But, would anyone actually say Pollack’s abstraction is more “beautiful”? Sure, one can actually say this and perhaps even think it. I am just saying I find it improbable. Or to put it another way, if God gives AM and/or rules, one certainly has the option to disagree. But, I would think that if we knew all the “facts” - what the AM is, what the rules are, the “rationale” behind them, it seems improbable that one would disagree. One certainly might, but especially if a “good” God, I find it unlikely is all.

Still another way to get at what I am thinking: We can very easily misunderstand the rules, I just doubt that if there are “rules” from God that anyone would find them debatable (again assuming a “good” God. Certainly is easy to find debatable to what we think of as a “bad” God.)

[RJT]

Sorry David for the brief hijack, but levity never hurt any of us.

[ QUOTE ]
no, 'saying is not believing' was one of my best jokes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, pretty good chez.

I find this this image pretty funny too, though; if I were feeling sadistic, I might even challenge you to prove it:

[ QUOTE ]
I could prove this is true but it would be a painful experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

[snowden719]

The reason you think the euthyphro dilemma entails the denial of the existence of God is because you have a very poor understanding of the euthyphro dilemma.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The reason you think the euthyphro dilemma entails the denial of the existence of God is because you have a very poor understanding of the euthyphro dilemma.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you explain it to me?

[atrifix]

The Euthyphro dilemma is directed against Divine Command Theory, not religion. The conclusion is that either morality exists independent of God (which is what most theists find acceptable, but obviously contradicts DCT), or one faces the problem of morality being arbitrary. Most people are more willing to reject DCT than accept arbitrary morality.

[snowden719]

well put

You are being obtuse and I did read your link. Natural Law and the rights of man flow from a biblical perspective stemming from Western Civilization. If you doubt that religion had any persuasion over the Western style of law, look at the Supreme Court's architecture and sculpture.

We may disagree with religion but it is a FACT that western civilization has it roots in Christianty.

Look up Common law under the the Brits (Lord Blackstone to be precise.) and tell me religion had no part in it. Our Founders did not use religion and in this you are correct, however, my point is that the whole of Western Civilization has its roots in Christianity.

That is a fact. I never said anything about the 10 commandments or anything close to a religious point of view.

We as a country are based on Natural Law and the common laws of Englnd as a matter of historical fact. The link you gave me is anti-religious, so what. I am myself an atheist.

The Founders based most of their ideas against ancient Rome. IMHO, they made our Republic better. To think they were not as a majority Christian is wrong.

Think what ever you want. You can read what they said if you open a book.

Are you really so daft as you think ALL of our political customs swearing to God just popped up out of no where?

Tell yourself that this country is not based on Western Civilizations principles and religion. I am not a subscriber to it but to deny it is idiocy at best, deliberate propoganda at worst.