|
|
#31
10-27-2005, 03:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: No Absolute Morality WITH God Either
[ QUOTE ]
well put [/ QUOTE ] So why do you think I don't understand it? I've said what it is many times before. What I also say is it's a false dilemma because neither horn is required. The solution is that God is good in His essence, His character, and the morality He pronounces stems from His character. Michael Martin tries to avoid this solution by saying the only way we can know that God's character is good is because of an independent standard. All that does is reassert the dilemma by ignoring the presupposition that God IS good. That's why I say it's just an attempt to deny the possibility of God. And according to the non-theist's presupposition, God is impossible. I believe that's what Plato was aiming for in the dialogue. He may not have had a personal absolute in mind, but I think he wanted to establish the supremacy of human reason. We get to judge anyone or anything that claims to be higher than us, which of course at least makes us equal to if not higher that the one being judged. Non-theists can be placed on the same dilemma.If you use an independent standard to judge God, how do you know that standard is good? If you say, for instance, that God is unjust, by what standard do you say it? Someone or something has to be the highest. Theists say God is that Someone. Non-theists say man's reason or some other standard, just so long as it isn't the Absolute, Personal God of the Bible. 
|
|
#32
10-27-2005, 04:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: No Absolute Morality WITH God Either
"Someone or something has to be the highest."
Even if there is no God? Why?
|
|
#33
10-27-2005, 09:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: No Absolute Morality WITH God Either
No no, you dont get it. He posted a link from a blog, and thus everything you said was refuted, along with the work of numerous historians and other scholars who acknowledge the enormous influence Christianity has had on our culture and yes, even our laws. You are obviously new at this. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#34
10-27-2005, 10:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: No Absolute Morality WITH God Either
[ QUOTE ]
Even if there is no God? Why? [/ QUOTE ] If there is no God nothing CAN be highest, by definition. But if you assume hypothetically that God exists in order to employ Euthyphro then the statement stands.
|
|
#35
10-27-2005, 10:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: No Absolute Morality WITH God Either
Which is it man?!? Natural law or Biblical law. I'll repeat your quote:
[ QUOTE ] Society sets up laws which (In the case of our own.) are derived from biblical principles. [/ QUOTE ] Now who is being obtuse?? You say our societal laws are derived from biblical principles. Then you say it's based on Natural Law. You know these aren't the same thing, right?
|
|
#36
10-27-2005, 10:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: No Absolute Morality WITH God Either
[ QUOTE ]
No no, you dont get it. He posted a link from a blog, and thus everything you said was refuted, along with the work of numerous historians and other scholars who acknowledge the enormous influence Christianity has had on our culture and yes, even our laws. You are obviously new at this. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] That's funny... True, a blog that said what I wanted to say without me having to type it. What's funny, is that Fierce agrees that our laws are based on Natural Law... but then says they are based on the Bible. Those are two entirely different things. It's very funny.
|
|
#37
10-27-2005, 01:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: No Absolute Morality WITH God Either
You said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr /> What's funny, is that Fierce agrees that our laws are based on Natural Law... but then says they are based on the Bible. Those are two entirely different things. It's very funny. [/ QUOTE ] What Fierce said: </font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr /> Natural Law and the rights of man flow from a biblical perspective stemming from Western Civilization [/ QUOTE ] Natural law has everything to do with a biblical perspective. Yeah our laws werent copied down straight from the Bible. No one said that so the blog post you linked is tearing down a strawman. All the basic assumptions of our system of law, have their roots in the Christian perspective. This isnt anything radical I am saying here. Its just a fact of the history of Western civilization.
|
|
#38
10-27-2005, 02:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: No Absolute Morality WITH God Either
[ QUOTE ]
What Fierce said: [ QUOTE ] Natural Law and the rights of man flow from a biblical perspective stemming from Western Civilization [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] My initial response was to this: [ QUOTE ] Society sets up laws which (In the case of our own.) are derived from biblical principles. [/ QUOTE ] Our laws do not reflect the biblical principles that most people (including me) think of when you say "biblical principles". At this point, you or Fierce will need to outline these "biblical principles" that supposedly our laws and "Natural Law" are based on. My understanding is that "natural law" originated with the Stoics... several hundred years before Jesus. I can't wait to see which "biblical principles" are used in "natural law" that can be seen in our current legal system.
|
|
#39
10-27-2005, 08:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: No Absolute Morality WITH God Either
I still don't think you get my point. It is merely that what is morally right or wrong is a matter of opinion. God may have good reasons to ask for actions. But that doesn't mean that they are moraL. Perhaps this is just semantics.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
