MYTH-FACT: JUDICIAL FILIBUSTERS

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Prove it. Prove Premise A. I just don't see how you could do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't, nor did I claim to. all I can do is offer a reasonable defense of this premise. I dont claim to offer any sort of empirical proofs here, thats not what we are dealing in.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

False dichotomy was the claim that either someone is atheist or accepts the religious point of view.
There are also the views of partial acceptances of certain religious views, and the views of acceptance of various uncertainties as well (including various agnostic stances).

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

Mea culpa, bad choice of words on my part. That should have read initially what my response did, that either the religious point of view is correct, or the atheistic point of view is correct. I think that makes more sense, no? I agree my original usage of words was poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Makes more sense, yes, thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
OK, but why would the existence of God be a prerequisite to there being an ultimate framework? As I pointed out, mathematics is an objective framework and it would exist as such either with or without God. So why couldn't a moral framework exist irrespective of God? Granted it may not, and the subject is indeed less clear, but if one framework may exist objectively regardless of God, how can it be definitively asserted that another framework cannot exist objectively irrespective of God?

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

Again, I think you are comparing apples and oranges. In the atheistic world view, we are a just random results of the interactions of the physical universe, a universe that churns along oblivious to human purpose. How can you can derive any moral obligation from that source?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you or I might not know the answer to some seemingly mysterious questions does not imply that no answer exists (nor do similar questions imply the existence of a Creator. Some such questions might suggest such things but they do not imply such things). So your question is far, far, far from a proof of what you are trying to show with it.

As for how one might derive a moral obligation from that worldview, I already gave an example: simply out of concern for the feelings of others, whom you know have feelings similar to yours. Whether the universe was created by God, or was created through a more mundane process, is irrelevant to the fact that at present, others have feelings like your own.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
As for how one might derive a moral obligation from that worldview, I already gave an example: simply out of concern for the feelings of others, whom you know have feelings similar to yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are straying away from my point again(due to poor wording on my part again). You can derive to your hearts content. There is nothing that proves that your derivation is objectively better than what I derive.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

You are straying away from my point again(due to poor wording on my part again). You can derive to your hearts content. There is nothing that proves that your derivation is objectively better than what I derive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying there is anything that proves the derivation I suggest as a possibility is better than your derivation. I'm saying you can't claim the converse, basing that upon a circular sort of reasoning or upon mysterious questions which may or may not have findable answers.

In other words I don't think you've shown even slightly that an objective moral framework must depend on or derive from God.

I'm not just arguing this to be difficult, and I don't have much of a preference for either side of this coin: if there is some SOUND chain of such reasoning I would like to read it. But what you've presented thus far in this thread appears to me to be full of holes.

[vulturesrow]

Sorry for taking so long to reply, busy day today.

[ QUOTE ]
In other words I don't think you've shown even slightly that an objective moral framework must depend on or derive from God.

[/ QUOTE ]

With out some sort of ultimate standard, any moral derivation is purely subjective. I may not be explaining it as well some could, but by no stretch this outside the mainstream of philosophical thought.

you are hitting close to one shortcoming of this particular argument. It doesnt necessarily prove the existence of a monotheistic, creator type God that I believe in. Ill quote Kreeft and Tracelli here, who say "It is compatible with Platonic idealism and other beliefs that orthodox Christians find terrible deficient. But this general religious view is incompatible with materialism , and with any view that banishes value from the ultimate objective nature of things.That is the important point."

So you wer sort of right MMMMMM and I was being some disiengenuous, since you are one of the few people willing to engage me on this sort of topic with an open mind.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]


you are hitting close to one shortcoming of this particular argument. It doesnt necessarily prove the existence of a monotheistic, creator type God that I believe in.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't, and that is a requisite but missing link in the chain of reasoning.

It also doesn't prove that an absolute framework must depend on or derive from God. And the counterexample of the framework of mathematics suggests the opposite: that absolute framework(s) can exist irrespective of God. So if anything, the "absolute framework must depend on or derive from God argument" appears dubious.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll quote Kreeft and Tracelli here, who say "It is compatible with Platonic idealism and other beliefs that orthodox Christians find terrible deficient. But this general religious view is incompatible with materialism , and with any view that banishes value from the ultimate objective nature of things.That is the important point."

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I would need to see that quote in context to really understand what they were saying.

[ QUOTE ]

So you wer sort of right MMMMMM and I was being some disiengenuous, since you are one of the few people willing to engage me on this sort of topic with an open mind.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well whatever; I just find it interesting;-) Thanks

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
It also doesn't prove that an absolute framework must depend on or derive from God. And the counterexample of the framework of mathematics suggests the opposite: that absolute framework(s) can exist irrespective of God. So if anything, the "absolute framework must depend on or derive from God argument" appears dubious.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already answered why this must be. If you want to objectively evaluate something that cant be empirically proving, it has to derive from something. Comparing mathematics and objective morality is is incorrect because we evaluate their truth in completely different ways.



[ QUOTE ]
I think I would need to see that quote in context to really understand what they were saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually there isnt much missing. The quote was the first paragraph of their answer to the question: This proof doesnt conclude to God, but to some vague religious view. Isnt this religious view compatible with much more than traditional theism? Their answer it what I posted plus the following:

"It seems most reasonable that moral conscience is the voice of God within the soul, because moral value exists only on the level of persons, minds, and wills. And it is hard, if not impossible, to conceive of objective moral principles somehow floating around on their own, apart from any persons.But we grant that there are many steps to travel from objective moral values to the Creator of the universe or the triune God of love. There is a vast intellectual distance between them. But these things are compatible in a way that materialism and belief in objective values are not. To reach a personal creator, you need other arguments, (cf. arguments 1-6), and to reach the God of love you need revelation. By itself, the argument leaves many options open,and eliminates only some. But we are surely well rid of those it does eliminate."

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

It also doesn't prove that an absolute framework must depend on or derive from God. And the counterexample of the framework of mathematics suggests the opposite: that absolute framework(s) can exist irrespective of God. So if anything, the "absolute framework must depend on or derive from God argument" appears dubious.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I already answered why this must be. If you want to objectively evaluate something that cant be empirically proving, it has to derive from something. Comparing mathematics and objective morality is is incorrect because we evaluate their truth in completely different ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

So OK, let's hypothesize it has to derive from something. That doesn't mean imply that that something has to be God. It might instead derive from some fundamental order of the universe, for instance.

Also, just because we might not be capable of proving something empirically, does not imply it cannot be proven period. Maybe we just don't have enough information at this time, for instance.


[ QUOTE ]
I think I would need to see that quote in context to really understand what they were saying.
---------------------------------------------------------
Actually there isnt much missing. The quote was the first paragraph of their answer to the question: This proof doesnt conclude to God, but to some vague religious view. Isnt this religious view compatible with much more than traditional theism? Their answer (combining the two paragraphs here):

I'll quote Kreeft and Tracelli here, who say:

"It is compatible with Platonic idealism and other beliefs that orthodox Christians find terrible deficient. But this general religious view is incompatible with materialism , and with any view that banishes value from the ultimate objective nature of things.That is the important point.

It seems most reasonable that moral conscience is the voice of God within the soul, because moral value exists only on the level of persons, minds, and wills. And it is hard, if not impossible, to conceive of objective moral principles somehow floating around on their own, apart from any persons.But we grant that there are many steps to travel from objective moral values to the Creator of the universe or the triune God of love. There is a vast intellectual distance between them. But these things are compatible in a way that materialism and belief in objective values are not. To reach a personal creator, you need other arguments, (cf. arguments 1-6), and to reach the God of love you need revelation. By itself, the argument leaves many options open,and eliminates only some. But we are surely well rid of those it does eliminate."

[/ QUOTE ]

All that really seems to me to be full of implied assertions presumed to be fact.