April 4, 200719 yr Exactly. You would agree with my point then? That when someone is talking about moral actions, there has to be 1 fundamental axiomatic assumption that is made, and all other points come from the logical use of that assumption. Would you agree that relying on God for an absolute standard of morality is illogical then. Since the next step after assuming God exists is the assumption that Gods laws are moral? With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
April 4, 200719 yr Exactly. You would agree with my point then? That when someone is talking about moral actions, there has to be 1 fundamental axiomatic assumption that is made, and all other points come from the logical use of that assumption. Would you agree that relying on God for an absolute standard of morality is illogical then. Since the next step after assuming God exists is the assumption that Gods laws are moral? the idea of a God is that He is a perfect being...
April 4, 200719 yr Exactly. You would agree with my point then? That when someone is talking about moral actions, there has to be 1 fundamental axiomatic assumption that is made, and all other points come from the logical use of that assumption. Would you agree that relying on God for an absolute standard of morality is illogical then. Since the next step after assuming God exists is the assumption that Gods laws are moral? If you set up the argument like that, then yes. However, that's not my belief. Here is my belief: Assumption: A God whose very nature defines morality, exists. My belief in God includes the characteristics I believe him to have. It is not a separate premise.
April 4, 200719 yr If you set up the argument like that, then yes. However, that's not my belief. Here is my belief: Assumption: A God whose very nature defines morality, exists. My belief in God includes the characteristics I believe him to have. It is not a separate premise. Thats still two assumptions. God exists. God has those characteristics that defines morality. Unless you are assuming that if your God does not exist, no other God can exist? With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
April 4, 200719 yr If you set up the argument like that, then yes. However, that's not my belief. Here is my belief: Assumption: A God whose very nature defines morality, exists. My belief in God includes the characteristics I believe him to have. It is not a separate premise. Thats still two assumptions. God exists. God has those characteristics that defines morality. Unless you are assuming that if your God does not exist, no other God can exist? Of course that's my belief. It is only one assumption. I believe in a God that has x characteristic. I don't believe in a God that does not have x characteristic. It is only one assumption. I don't assume God exists and then assume that he has a quality. I believe that God with x qualities exists. Period.
April 4, 200719 yr Of course that's my belief. It is only one assumption. I believe in a God that has x characteristic. I don't believe in a God that does not have x characteristic. It is only one assumption. I don't assume God exists and then assume that he has a quality. I believe that God with x qualities exists. Period. And where do you get the basic principles of what Gods qualitys are from? With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
April 4, 200719 yr Of course that's my belief. It is only one assumption. I believe in a God that has x characteristic. I don't believe in a God that does not have x characteristic. It is only one assumption. I don't assume God exists and then assume that he has a quality. I believe that God with x qualities exists. Period. And where do you get the basic principles of what Gods qualitys are from? I'm not interested in having that discussion - it is irrelevant to the point at hand.
April 4, 200719 yr It's quite clearly not irrelevant. As if you say the bible your morals become illogical because you are making two assumptions again. The Bible is divinley inspired God with x qualities exists. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
April 4, 200719 yr It's quite clearly not irrelevant. As if you say the bible your morals become illogical because you are making two assumptions again. The Bible is divinley inspired God with x qualities exists. the idea of God is that He is a perfect and superior being to anything else in existence...that is what a God is :-w
April 4, 200719 yr It's quite clearly not irrelevant. As if you say the bible your morals become illogical because you are making two assumptions again. The Bible is divinley inspired God with x qualities exists. That's about the silliest thing I've heard - your point is quite irrelevant. But if you want, I will play your game. My assumption: The Bible is true. - Therefore, God existing is no longer an assumption. His qualities are no longer an assumption. Etc. Happy? Quit being pedantic. I'm done with discussing with you. I thought I'd give you another chance but you still just act ridiculous. Enjoy responding to no one.
April 4, 200719 yr Quit being pedantic. I'm done with discussing with you. I thought I'd give you another chance but you still just act ridiculous. Enjoy responding to no one. I think I'm done debating with you, as well actually. Everytime you seem to stoop to personal attacks as above. My question was completley valid, as you are still relying on two assumptions. My interpretation of the Bible is correct. God with x qualities exists. Which makes it illogical. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
April 4, 200719 yr Quit being pedantic. I'm done with discussing with you. I thought I'd give you another chance but you still just act ridiculous. Enjoy responding to no one. I think I'm done debating with you, as well actually. Everytime you seem to stoop to personal attacks as above. My question was completley valid, as you are still relying on two assumptions. My interpretation of the Bible is correct. God with x qualities exists. Which makes it illogical. That's one assumption. If we assume that the Bible is correct, then it follows logically without assumption that a God with x qualities exists since they are recorded in the Bible, which we are assuming to be correct.
April 4, 200719 yr This debate stems from you telling me that logic is your basis for absolute morality and me asking you to give me a moral situation where you can explain this. Unfortunately, you have not done such a thing because it is impossible. For this reason I love that I can requote your first reply to me on page nr 6... That doesn't quite fit the definition of arrogance. I know that you are trying to make a point about Christians being arrogant because it is true very often, but Insane has never conducted himself in a way someone could call arrogant - and you creating your own definition of the word is not going to work. Thus this whole debate stems from you not agreeing with me calling insane arrogant for his god = absolute morality and not god = not absolute morality statement. Logically, I conducted that you agreed with insane's view, considering you found that I couldn't say he's arrogant. However, now that we have finally agreed upon that the first statement is based on an assumption and the second statement is not true at all, you suddenly claim that you never denied that and that this discussion started about me saying that my absolute morals come from logic, which is simply not true. So there are a few reasons I did not get into my standard for absolute morality: 1) It was irrelevant, the discussion was about the whole claim that you can't have absolute morality without a god, so it didn't matter what I based my standards on. Considering we now finally seem to have established agreement on the point the arguement started with (even though you claim there never was disagreement on that and that the topic was about something totally different), it was indeed not necessary for me to specify my standards further. 2) I am however still not convinced either way, whether it is possible for absolute morality to exist with or without assumption. The is/ought cap raises a problem, but the is/ought cap is not perfect, even though you seem to love claiming that I "just don't understand it". :roll: 3) Furthermore, I never said I do not base my standards on an assumption either (feel free to check my posts on it) and if it makes you happy if I now say I do then fine, because that was not the reason I was debating here anyway. Although at the moment I keep my stance on 2) that I'm still not convinced either way. Point is, perhaps we may "logically" be able to define things like pain as bad, if we actually knew more about our own brain and what our brain interprets as 'bad' in the first place (as in, electric shocks or whatever, it's just a thought), little use discussing that though. Another way is what the article I referred to suggested: it sounds like common sense that pain is bad. Last way of looking at it is that you define good and bad as what each individual sees as good and bad. This removes your ability to give answers to broader questions like "Is killing animals good", because there will be people who see it as good and people who see it as bad, but it WILL still allow you to answer various hypothetical questions as "What if there is one person who finds pleasure in someone hurting him and what if some person finds pleasure in hurting that person - would it be moral for the second person to hurt the first person?" (yes weird hypothetical situation, don't mention), in which case you can answer yes as both all involved perceive the situation as good, thus the situation is good. I'm sure you'll refute all of these points faster than I wrote them with your all-mighty "is/ought gap" or something else, which probably still does not impress me anyway. 4) I don't like the tone of your posts at all. So feel free to try and discuss my opinions in a civilized way if you want and otherwise I believe I'm done debating here. The point I was arguing in here for apparently seems to be agreed upon now so it's all fine. The value of my bank at its height. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 250 billion+.Most likely the largest trade in RuneScape ever. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 70 billion+.
April 4, 200719 yr Quit being pedantic. I'm done with discussing with you. I thought I'd give you another chance but you still just act ridiculous. Enjoy responding to no one. I think I'm done debating with you, as well actually. Everytime you seem to stoop to personal attacks as above. My question was completley valid, as you are still relying on two assumptions. My interpretation of the Bible is correct. God with x qualities exists. Which makes it illogical. That's one assumption. If we assume that the Bible is correct, then it follows logically without assumption that a God with x qualities exists since they are recorded in the Bible, which we are assuming to be correct. Ok, one assumption God exists. I can handle that. Piling two other assumptions onto that and trying to make it look like one I can't. Your assuming (1) a God exists, then your assuming (2)she has X qualities you (3) assume from your interpretation from the Bible. Two assumptions that rest on your interpretation of the Bible. = Illogical Morality. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
April 4, 200719 yr Ok, one assumption God exists. I never said that was my assumption. My one assumption was that the Bible is correct. God existing and having x qualities stem from that assumption.
April 4, 200719 yr For this reason I love that I can requote your first reply to me on page nr 6... Thus this whole debate stems from you not agreeing with me calling insane arrogant for his god = absolute morality and not god = not absolute morality statement. Logically, I conducted that you agreed with insane's view, considering you found that I couldn't say he's arrogant. That was a discussion about you calling him arrogant. Afterwards, you said you believe in absolute morality and I asked you what it was based on: hence, this discussion. So there are a few reasons I did not get into my standard for absolute morality: 1) It was irrelevant, the discussion was about the whole claim that you can't have absolute morality without a god, so it didn't matter what I based my standards on. Considering we now finally seem to have established agreement on the point the arguement started with (even though you claim there never was disagreement on that and that the topic was about something totally different), it was indeed not necessary for me to specify my standards further. I never made the claim you can't have absolute morality without God - I said you can't have it without a standard. I then asked you what your standard was and you responded "logic." 2) I am however still not convinced either way, whether it is possible for absolute morality to exist with or without assumption. The is/ought cap raises a problem, but the is/ought cap is not perfect, even though you seem to love claiming that I "just don't understand it". :roll: The reason you are unconvinced is because you have still FAILED to supply ANY situation where you can determine morality WITHOUT breaking the is/ought gap. If you provided an example, I could show you how it's impossible. I'm not claiming you don't understand it, you keep showing that you don't understand it. For instance: The is/ought gap has nothing to do with scientific discovery, yet your example was about Newton discovering gravity. This shows that you do not understand the concept. 3) Furthermore, I never said I do not base my standards on an assumption either (feel free to check my posts on it) and if it makes you happy if I now say I do then fine, because that was not the reason I was debating here anyway. Although at the moment I keep my stance on 2) that I'm still not convinced either way. Yes you did. I asked you what you base it on and you said: Plus I already pointed out I believe in an absolute morality, derived from the simple rules of logic. Logic is not an assumption. Point is, perhaps we may "logically" be able to define things like pain as bad, if we actually knew more about our own brain and what our brain interprets as 'bad' in the first place (as in, electric shocks or whatever, it's just a thought), little use discussing that though. "Bad" is an opinion. It is not something we can logically prove. If it was, you would give me an example after I have asked you numerous times to do so. Another way is what the article I referred to suggested: it sounds like common sense that pain is bad. It's not a logical position for absolute morality like you said you believe in. What is bad to one person can be good to another. Last way of looking at it is that you define good and bad as what each individual sees as good and bad. This removes your ability to give answers to broader questions like "Is killing animals good", because there will be people who see it as good and people who see it as bad, but it WILL still allow you to answer various hypothetical questions as "What if there is one person who finds pleasure in someone hurting him and what if some person finds pleasure in hurting that person - would it be moral for the second person to hurt the first person?" (yes weird hypothetical situation, don't mention), in which case you can answer yes as both all involved perceive the situation as good, thus the situation is good. Except all that is morality subjective to the person. You said you believe in absolute morality. I'm sure you'll refute all of these points faster than I wrote them with your all-mighty "is/ought gap" or something else, which probably still does not impress me anyway. Because you don't understand it. Provide me with one example where logic is the sole tool in deciding the morality of something. Just one. I've asked you numerous times and you have yet to respond - yet even without you being able to give me ONE example, you still tell me that you are "unimpressed" with the logical theory I have presented you with.
April 4, 200719 yr with the logical theory I have presented you with Because I already told you one hundred times that the theory you're presenting is not flawless and makes assumptions itself. Your reply was exactly what I expected, so I have nothing more to say. You didn't even actually read my points. I only see you hammering that I don't understand something that I understand perfectly well and I'm done with it. The value of my bank at its height. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 250 billion+.Most likely the largest trade in RuneScape ever. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 70 billion+.
April 4, 200719 yr with the logical theory I have presented you with Because I already told you one hundred times that the theory you're presenting is not flawless and makes assumptions itself. Your reply was exactly what I expected, so I have nothing more to say. I only see you hammering that I don't understand something that I understand perfectly well and I'm done with it. I have challenged you numerous times to show me how my logical theory is flawed and you have failed to respond every time. Don't complain about me continually talking about it until you can show me an example where it is wrong.
April 4, 200719 yr Personally I think the issue has nothing to do with Christianity or any one religion in particular. Sorry if I rehash any points already covered. I am just walking through the issue step by step to reach what I feel is a solid conclusion. Feel free to disagree and post corrections/comments. The question is can humans define absolute morality or would it take a higher power to define it? It doesn't matter who or what that higher power is. It also doesn't matter if that higher power can be proven to exist or not because the question remains the same whether or not that higher power is there. The burden lies on the question is it possible for man to define absolute morality? If it can be shown that man cannot define this then by default it is shown that absolute morality could only stem from a higher power. First it absolute morality must be defined. I would describe it as "A truth defining the right or wrong way for men to think or act that is true under any circumstance." As an example I will say that it is absolutely wrong to go murder your neighbor and abduct his young beautiful wife to be your love slave. A person believing in absolute truth from a higher power would have no problem describing why this act is absolutely wrong. They would merely answer "Because God said it is absolutely wrong." Boom, end of issue for them. A person believing man could define absolute truth has a tougher time describing why this act is absolutely wrong. They could answer. 1. Society says it is wrong. 2. It caused pain to the murdered husband. 3. It caused pain to the kidnapped wife. 4. It is against the law. 5. It hurts the species by killing another member of the species. 6. It just feels like a wrong thing to do. *feel free to offer more reasons why this is absolutely wrong and I will address and add them assuming I don't miss the post they were contained in.* Here are the problems with those answers. 1. Society in New Guinea said eating people was good. Society in the US said buying overvalued stocks in 1999 was wise. Society in Mongolia thought it was ok to go slaughter other civilizations during the reign of the Golden Horde. Society has been wrong about so many things through the ages that you could never claim society as an infallible moral compass. 2. If there is no God then why is causing pain wrong? All the other person is is a freak mutation of chemicals that became more and more complex over billions of years. All they really are is a complex chemical conglomeration so who cares if a complex arrangement of chemicals is "rearranged" so that it doesn't quite interact the way it did before. 3. If people don't have souls then what exactly is emotional pain? It certainly wouldn't have any eternal ramifications. If a person is not comprised of something like a soul then all their "feelings" are just neurons firing in their brain and chemical reactions occurring while electricity moves from cell to cell. How is causing electrical and chemical reactions a bad thing? 4. The law is not flawless. There have been hundreds and thousands of incidents in the history of mankind of laws that were bad. 5. Actually evolutionarily speaking killing a weaker member to prevent them from spreading their weaker genes and replacing their weak genes with superior genetics would be a good thing for the species. It happens time and time again in nature. Males battle and sometimes die for the rights to impregnate the best females. This is nothing new or shocking, merely science in action. 6. How could we say what we feel is absolute truth when another person feels the complete opposite? How could we say we are absolutely right and they are absolutely wrong when it is merely based on feelings? There is no way to get around this. Anything merely based on feelings is subjective. Basically it all comes down to this, A perfect solution cannot come from a flawed source. For this reason absolute morality cannot be created by man. Man may form subjective morality that can guide him through life and it may actually coincide with a higher power's absolute truth but it could never be called an absolute truth based on man's testimony or reasonings alone.
April 5, 200719 yr If there is no God then why is causing pain wrong? All the other person is is a freak mutation of chemicals that became more and more complex over billions of years. All they really are is a complex chemical conglomeration so who cares if a complex arrangement of chemicals is "rearranged" so that it doesn't quite interact the way it did before. Except that leaving out god, does not necessarily mean that our body inclusive thoughts, knowledge and feelings are all just a bunch of chemical reactions. There is still a lot we don't know about what we experience as "free will". Perhaps it are indeed just all a bunch of chemical reactions, but perhaps not. 3. If people don't have souls then what exactly is emotional pain? It certainly wouldn't have any eternal ramifications. If a person is not comprised of something like a soul then all their "feelings" are just neurons firing in their brain and chemical reactions occurring while electricity moves from cell to cell. How is causing electrical and chemical reactions a bad thing? I guess it depends on how you define "bad". The way you are referring to it as "having eternal ramfications" is one way of looking at it, in which case I would agree that "good/bad" does not exist. The whole universe doesn't care forever if I suffered some pain or not. However, I also find it troublesome to claim that "good/bad" totally does not exist therefore, considering everyone on this planet knows what "good/bad" is (at least for himself!), which would at the very least point out that the concept of "good/bad" exists on an individual level. (oh really? :P) The question that remains, given that it exists on an individual level, is whether it also exists on a broader scale like the whole society? I guess it all becomes even more complex (logically speaking at least) if we are indeed only a bunch of electrical and chemical reactions: why do we experience things as good/bad in the first place then? (then again, why do "we" 'experience' anything at all :P) The value of my bank at its height. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 250 billion+.Most likely the largest trade in RuneScape ever. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 70 billion+.
April 5, 200719 yr Duke, you speak questions, not answers. Morality came into place because we are spirits. Our body cannot live without spirits. Its just meat. When you die, you are still alive, your a spirit and soul. No one should fear death, because we are all imortal. The only thing that dies is our flesh. However, even though you live, places like hell, for example, is called the second death. Do I obey God because I fear hell? No, all my sins are gone. Jesus tells me to obey him because I love him, not to obey God because I fear him. When we sin, it greifs God.. Have you ever had a really good friend.. maybe a girlfriend, and you hurt their feelings? It hurts you as well because you hurt them. You say your sorry and you apologize. Its the same way with God.. when you sin, it hurts him. Yes, God feels pain.. everyday. He also experiences joy, and has patience and long suffering. We are made in the image of God.. if we hurt, God can hurt.. if we cry, God can cry.. if we laugh, God can laugh. Were excatly like him.. except there is only 1 difference. We have freewill. Does God? Yes, but he has 100% decided and commited himself to his word. He'll never be a lier. He always has the choice to say otherwise, but he never will. Jesus was the excate thing as God was, but in the form of man.. who we percieve ourselfs with many flaws. To hear of a person to live a perfect life seems impossible. To us.. it is.. to God? It isn't. Most people have the idea of Jesus all wrong. Jesus is not a religion. Jesus is not a moral book to follow. Jesus is not a con artist to get rich. Jesus is not just a prophet. Jesus is not any other thing you think he is than what the Bible says he is. Jesus did not die so you could change who you are. Jesus died so you could have a relationship with God. To be apart of the family of God. Sounds crazy when I say it in todays times. It didn't sound so crazy a few hundred years ago, but times have changed. I believe today is the last days.. and Jesus will be returning as crazy as that seems. It seems our list of problems in todays society is bigger than the Bible, but not bigger than the Bible's Solutions. One thing satan wants us to believe is that he does not exist, hell is not a place anyone is destined. Amazing isn't it? That hell on earth exists.. but can't elsewhere? Intresting Indeed.. ~Defender~ If you love me, send me a PM. 8 - Love me2 - Hate me
April 5, 200719 yr I agree with defender. Without God, humans would just be really smart animals; no better than a monkey. But, God gave us souls that make us immortal, a conscience to tell right from wrong, and the ability to use reason and logic. You can't evolve any of these things. "Nobody cheers for Goliath" ~Wilt Chamberlain~
April 5, 200719 yr Duke, you speak questions, not answers. Indeed I do. Yet, everyone else seems to speak answers without facts. Now tell me, is it worse to speak questions if you don't know the answers or answer questions if you don't/can't know the facts? Your thoughts are interesting, except that it requires me to have a 100% believe in God, something I just can't do. I believe today is the last days.. and Jesus will be returning as crazy as that seems. I do wonder if people will still be saying that in some ten thousand years, when nothing happened. Then again, I'm not even sure whether even I believe humanity still exists by then, considering the crazy world these days. The value of my bank at its height. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 250 billion+.Most likely the largest trade in RuneScape ever. Estimated value at the peak of the rares market: 70 billion+.
April 5, 200719 yr Defender, that's all very nice, except there isn't a scrap of evidence for any of what you described in the first half of your post. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo"
April 5, 200719 yr Hey assassin_696 I understand your reasonings for disagreeing with defender. I would be curious to hear your thoughts on my above post. Except that leaving out god, does not necessarily mean that our body inclusive thoughts, knowledge and feelings are all just a bunch of chemical reactions. There is still a lot we don't know about what we experience as "free will". Perhaps it are indeed just all a bunch of chemical reactions, but perhaps not. If there is no afterlife or deity or supernatural then all we are left with is evolution and the fact that we are a mutated lump of chemicals. Without some sort of supernatural element out there that transcends the mere proteins and what not that make up our bodies then all that leaves us is the fact that we are just a bunch of complex chemical chain reactions. That's it. However, I also find it troublesome to claim that "good/bad" totally does not exist therefore, considering everyone on this planet knows what "good/bad" is (at least for himself!), which would at the very least point out that the concept of "good/bad" exists on an individual level. I completely agree with you. I called this concept of good/bad each individual decides they believe as subjective morality That is the only type morality that can exist without a higher being creating an absolute morality. That's the whole point of what I am saying. The question that remains, given that it exists on an individual level, is whether it also exists on a broader scale like the whole society? I addressed this as well in my example. Look at number 1 in the list of reasons it might be bad and refutations of why those can't create absolute moralities. I guess it all becomes even more complex (logically speaking at least) if we are indeed only a bunch of electrical and chemical reactions: why do we experience things as good/bad in the first place then? (then again, why do "we" 'experience' anything at all?) Exactly!
Create an account or sign in to comment