A problem with some religous views - Page 7

chezlaw · #61 09-22-2005, 01:35 PM

[ 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 · #62 09-22-2005, 01:42 PM

[ 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.

#63 09-22-2005, 01:44 PM

[ 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 · #64 09-22-2005, 01:45 PM

[ 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 · #65 09-22-2005, 01:47 PM

[ 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 · #66 09-22-2005, 01:55 PM

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 · #67 09-22-2005, 01:55 PM

[ 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 · #68 09-22-2005, 02:03 PM

[ 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 · #69 09-22-2005, 02:11 PM

[ 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 · #70 09-22-2005, 02:19 PM

[ 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