Happy Atheist Forum

Hey guys,
I wrote this piece a little while back and stumbled across it again today. I know Euthyphro's Dilemma has been discussed before and has led to some heated discussions but I was hoping for some civilized feedback which (among other reasons) is why i'm at the "Happy" Atheist Forum. I will warn you now that the grammar may be (seriously) flawed, but for the sake of discussion I would appreciate it if you guys evaluated the argument based upon its strength or lack thereof. It's nowhere near where it needs to be which is why I was hoping you guys could help point out the flaws, weaknesses, and any other errors present. I will do my best to respond timely to the feedback.

I appreciate all the help I've received in the formulation of the argument in the past. Discussing meta-ethics makes me very happy.

Thanks very much.

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

One objection that has been raised regarding a theistic view of morality as absolute and objective is that of Euthyphro’s Dilemma. The dilemma was posed by the philosopher Socrates to a religious scholar named Euthyphro, since then it has been reformulated for a monotheistic God. The dilemma simply poses the question: Does God will certain acts because they are moral, or are certain acts moral because they are willed by God?” In this article I will argue a solution that seems not only possible, but necessary given the theists definition of God.
The theist has been trapped into a corner with two seemingly impossible solutions. The first horn asserts that God merely recognizes morality. The obvious problem with arguing for this option is that there is some standard that is above God, a standard which God must conform to. If God is moral in the sense that he fits the mold of an external moral law morality is independent of God, which is exactly the opposite of what the theist is attempting to prove. The second horn poses a different problem, for if morality is whatever God decides, than morality is arbitrary. God might have decided that rape and murder were moral actions. As Bertrand Russell once said, “If the only basis for morality is God’s decrees, it follows that they might just as well have been the opposite of what they are” (pg. 48). If morality is whatever God decides it to be, morality loses all authority and becomes subjective which is precisely what the theist is trying to argue against.
For a solution to be viable for the theist it must meet two requirements. First the alleged solution must make morality objective. And second the alleged solution must make God the foundation for this objective morality. My proposed argument goes as follows:

P1: It is greater to be the standard of morality than to conform to it
P2: If God is the greatest conceivable being then he must be the standard of morality.
P3: If God is the standard of morality His nature is necessarily morally perfect.
C: Therefore since His nature is necessarily perfect, God can serve as a foundation for objective moral truths.

P2 must be accepted by the one posing the dilemma as discussion can only occur when the poser evaluates a certain view of God and His relation to morality. The burden of proof is on the one posing the dilemma to find a flaw in a proposed solution, as the dilemma is a positive assertion.
P1 is philosophically solid as it is a greater thing to be the paradigm of goodness than to conform to an external standard, for if one conforms to an external standard that one is subject to a thing greater than itself. Since P2 defines God as the greatest conceivable being, by the theist’s own definition this God is necessarily the standard of morality. Since he is the standard of morality there is no other standard by which he can be judged making his nature necessarily morally perfect. The moral nature of God is an essential property of Gods meaning that there is no possible world in which God according to the theist’s definition could have existed and yet lacked that property. This must not be confused with accepting the second horn of the dilemma, for if God was not necessarily morally perfect then morality is subjective. Since God is necessarily morally perfect according to the theist’s definition the theist sees no problem is claiming that this deity can serve as a foundation for objective values. God is moral neither because of the way He happens to be nor because of His fitness with reference to an external standard of morality, His moral nature is an essential quality of His which if existing according to the theistic definition must make him the moral standard.
The solution proposed is not without its objections. One common objection is that if goodness is what God must be, why call bother calling Him good? Calling God good is merely saying that God is consistent with his nature. Regardless of its truth, this argument is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, for to argue this would be to confuse moral ontology with moral semantics. Christian philosopher William Lane Craig states that “The claim that moral values and duties are rooted in God is a meta-ethical claim about moral ontology, not moral semantics […] It is fundamentally a claim about the metaphysical status of moral properties, not a claim about the meaning of moral sentences” (pg. 212). In addition most theists see no problem in accepting that goodness and morality are merely words used to describe God.
Another objection might be that the theist is begging the question when he or she assumes P2. Since God’s perfect goodness is part of his greatness, the theist is assuming that God is the standard for objective morality before the argument is made. It must be reiterated that all the theist is attempting to accomplish is show a possible state in which God can serve as a possible standard for objective moral truths. All the theist must do to solve the dilemma is to offer a view of God who is the perfect standard of absolute morality by virtue of His existence. If any being is perfect by definition, then if that being exists it has the power to be a standard by which others can be measured to. The theist can simply say that they believe God to be necessarily perfect in every regard, which would render the dilemma useless against this particular definition of God. God, described as the greatest conceivable being, if existing is the standard for objective morality by very definition. The solution is not stating that God is the objective moral standard because theists believe God to be the objective moral standard, for this would be tautology and circular reasoning. Rather, the argument is that God can be the standard for objective morality because of Gods necessary moral perfection.
While this dilemma posed a formidable problem for the polytheist who like Euthyphro believed the gods to be a group of limited individuals, the modern day monotheist can avoid this dilemma by using the modern day concept of God as a maximally great being. To answer the dilemma the theist can offer a third solution rendering it a false dilemma, and state that acts are deemed either moral or immoral based upon their conformity or lack thereof to Gods moral nature, which is essential to His being.

Craig, L William “Philosophy of Religion”
Rutgers University Press (2002)

Russell, Bertrand “Why I am not a Christian”
Taken from a lecture given on March 6, 1927 to the National Secular Society.

For me, the premise about god being the greatest conceivable being is a warning flag. It seems like whenever an argument contains this clause, it is used to break the rules. However, in this case, I think the problems lie elsewhere.

I think the argument could be boiled down to,

God sets the morals
God is perfect
Therefore, the morals god sets are perfect

Does this not simply force god to comply to another external standard? Namely perfection. At best you could argue he also sets what perfection is judged to be, but this seems to make the argument circular (god is morally perfect, so the morals he sets are perfect)? Surely to judge god as perfect, we need to agree what perfect is, other than being like god?

Straying outside the argument though, it becomes readily apparent that god is in fact, not a very moral chap. All the killings, the hate, insane laws that change when he feels like it, presence of lots of suffering to name but a few. When taking these into account, even the most nimble of mental gymnasts would have trouble with seeing him as moral.

QuoteFor me, the premise about god being the greatest conceivable being is a warning flag. It seems like whenever an argument contains this clause, it is used to break the rules. However, in this case, I think the problems lie elsewhere.

Just for clarification are you saying this is a flaw in the argument? I tried to explain why I don't think it is but if that wasn't clear I would really like to know. You mentioned that the problems lie elsewhere so I'm going to skip this one for now. Let me know if you think it should be addressed in more detail.

QuoteI think the argument could be boiled down to,
God sets the morals
God is perfect
Therefore, the morals god sets are perfect

Does this not simply force god to comply to another external standard? Namely perfection. At best you could argue he also sets what perfection is judged to be, but this seems to make the argument circular (god is morally perfect, so the morals he sets are perfect)? Surely to judge god as perfect, we need to agree what perfect is, other than being like god?

I hope i'm not missing the mark when I try to answer this, but I think I understand what you are arguing. In my third premise I claimed that "If God is the standard of morality His nature is necessarily morally perfect." This almost goes without saying. It would be impossible for God to be the standard of morality and then (according to that standard) not be perfect. I think that what you are arguing is that if this is the case how then can we deem God perfect unless we have a standard that is not God. If I am correct you are claiming that all this proves is that God is God. I hate to do this but i'm going to quote a section of the article which I think addresses this.

QuoteOne common objection is that if goodness is what God must be, why call bother calling Him good? Calling God good is merely saying that God is consistent with his nature. Regardless of its truth, this argument is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, for to argue this would be to confuse moral ontology with moral semantics. Christian philosopher William Lane Craig states that “The claim that moral values and duties are rooted in God is a meta-ethical claim about moral ontology, not moral semantics […] It is fundamentally a claim about the metaphysical status of moral properties, not a claim about the meaning of moral sentences” (pg. 212).  Most theists (including myself) see no problem in accepting that goodness (perfection) and morality are merely words used to describe God.

If I am correct you had the same objection. If not, please clarify.

QuoteStraying outside the argument though, it becomes readily apparent that god is in fact, not a very moral chap. All the killings, the hate, insane laws that change when he feels like it, presence of lots of suffering to name but a few. When taking these into account, even the most nimble of mental gymnasts would have trouble with seeing him as moral.

You are quite right that this has nothing to do with the argument, I am curious however as to whose standard of morality you are deeming God (if existing) immoral. Yours, Gandhi's, Hitlers? What weight does it carry?

Regardless, I appreciate your response.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"

QuoteFor me, the premise about god being the greatest conceivable being is a warning flag. It seems like whenever an argument contains this clause, it is used to break the rules. However, in this case, I think the problems lie elsewhere.

Just for clarification are you saying this is a flaw in the argument? I tried to explain why I don't think it is but if that wasn't clear I would really like to know. You mentioned that the problems lie elsewhere so I'm going to skip this one for now. Let me know if you think it should be addressed in more detail.

You're right, but it is a point that often niggles me, and I thought it worthy of comment

QuoteI think the argument could be boiled down to,
God sets the morals
God is perfect
Therefore, the morals god sets are perfect

Does this not simply force god to comply to another external standard? Namely perfection. At best you could argue he also sets what perfection is judged to be, but this seems to make the argument circular (god is morally perfect, so the morals he sets are perfect)? Surely to judge god as perfect, we need to agree what perfect is, other than being like god?

I hope i'm not missing the mark when I try to answer this, but I think I understand what you are arguing. In my third premise I claimed that "If God is the standard of morality His nature is necessarily morally perfect." This almost goes without saying. It would be impossible for God to be the standard of morality and then (according to that standard) not be perfect. I think that what you are arguing is that if this is the case how then can we deem God perfect unless we have a standard that is not God. If I am correct you are claiming that all this proves is that God is God. I hate to do this but i'm going to quote a section of the article which I think addresses this.

QuoteOne common objection is that if goodness is what God must be, why call bother calling Him good? Calling God good is merely saying that God is consistent with his nature. Regardless of its truth, this argument is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, for to argue this would be to confuse moral ontology with moral semantics. Christian philosopher William Lane Craig states that “The claim that moral values and duties are rooted in God is a meta-ethical claim about moral ontology, not moral semantics […] It is fundamentally a claim about the metaphysical status of moral properties, not a claim about the meaning of moral sentences” (pg. 212).  Most theists (including myself) see no problem in accepting that goodness (perfection) and morality are merely words used to describe God.

If I am correct you had the same objection. If not, please clarify.
I realise we are going along the same lines here, albeit in different directions. I find WLC's defence to be unsatisfactory. He claims you can separate the origin of morals (ontology) from their meaning (semantics), in this case, I don't think you can. He tries to neatly side step the question of whether these morals are worth a damn, but I am not willing to let it go that easily. I think the circularity of the argument renders the morals meaningless, and therefore, they cannot be said to exist in any way more meaningful than any other set of morals.

QuoteStraying outside the argument though, it becomes readily apparent that god is in fact, not a very moral chap. All the killings, the hate, insane laws that change when he feels like it, presence of lots of suffering to name but a few. When taking these into account, even the most nimble of mental gymnasts would have trouble with seeing him as moral.

You are quite right that this has nothing to do with the argument, I am curious however as to whose standard of morality you are deeming God (if existing) immoral. Yours, Gandhi's, Hitlers? What weight does it carry?His own

Regardless, I appreciate your response.

I would be interested in hearing your own response to WLC's argument argument, it is obvious you have given it some thought.

I don't see that this argument is new.  The logic seems to be circular, "objective morals must come from God, God by necessity must be morally perfect, therefore objective morals come from God, etc."  This has already been mentioned before in this thread, as has the subjectivity of the words "perfect" and "greatest."

So we are left with trying looking to the only sources of information independent of God, the imperfect religious texts.  Which leads us down the spiral of doubt as the veracity of each of those texts as factual and not allegorical or political or deliberate fiction are in question.  Even if we are to assume that any one particular text was an article of fact, unbiased and accurate, as a source of what God did, does, thinks, and behaves we are left with a set of morals that most of humanity seems to be at odds with.

Example:
Old Testament God didn't have a problem with mobs killing people based on accusations, slavery, and possibly genocide.  Assuming God is a morally perfect being and the template from which we should all base our own morality we would be lead by God's example to run around in vigilante mobs, still be owning other people as property, and be gearing up to commit or defend ourselves from the genocidal acts of our neighbors.

The big problem as I see it:
While your logic probably is fine for the theist/believer this does nothing for the atheist.  The entire logical device you spelled out in your original post assumes the existence of at least one God and assumes that this God is accurately described in at least one known religious text somewhere on the planet by at least one human being.

EDIT:
A question, assuming that God exists:
If God can choose at all, [strike:3np0w6ht]then even the example set by God of what is moral is subjective.[/strike:3np0w6ht] and we are supposed to view God as the template to follow, then the definition of moral objectivity becomes subjective to the will of God.

The only way to make the claim that God sets the objective example of morality is to deny God the ability to make a decision.  God is supposed to be omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient correct?  But would not denying God the power to choose invalidate the three "omni's?"

QuoteI realise we are going along the same lines here, albeit in different directions. I find WLC's defence to be unsatisfactory. He claims you can separate the origin of morals (ontology) from their meaning (semantics), in this case, I don't think you can. He tries to neatly side step the question of whether these morals are worth a damn, but I am not willing to let it go that easily. I think the circularity of the argument renders the morals meaningless, and therefore, they cannot be said to exist in any way more meaningful than any other set of morals.

The question of whether or not God can be the source for objective moral values is an ontological question. This is all the ED is trying to show impossible. All my argument is trying to do is show that objective moral values can exist and that God can be the source for this morality. You claimed that in this case you cannot separate the origin of morals from their meaning. You didn't really say why so i'm curious if you could elaborate. I think the Euthyphro Dilemma is clearly an ontological question. I don't see how moral linguistics are relevant to the argument. to quote WLC again "Our concern is with moral ontology, that is to say, the foundation in reality of moral values. Our concern is not with moral semantics, that is to say, the meaning of moral terms. The theist is quite ready to say that we have a clear understanding of moral vocabulary like “good,” “evil,” right,” and so on, without reference to God."
You mentioned that he sidesteps the question; again, I would appreciate it if you elaborated.

Pointing back to my argument which abbreviated goes something like this:
P1) The theists definition of God is the greatest conceivable being
P2) It is greater to the the paradigm of morality than to conform to to an external standard.
P3) Since God is the standard of morality His nature is necessarily morally perfect.
P4) Since God's nature is necessarily morally perfect He can serve as a foundation for objective moral values.

I agree that if the acceptance of P1 was optional then the argument would be circular. Since it isn't optional I don't think the argument is. I would like to know what you think is circular. For me it seems as though anyone who holds to a definition of God as the greatest perceivable being escapes the dilemma. That's all the argument is trying to do - help us escape the dilemma.

QuoteYou are quite right that this has nothing to do with the argument, I am curious however as to whose standard of morality you are deeming God (if existing) immoral. Yours, Gandhi's, Hitlers? What weight does it carry? His own

If God is the standard of morality than any action preformed by Him must be moral, regardless of whether or not you or I see it that way.  Now I guess for this to mean anything I'm going to need you to agree with me that "God (if existing) is by necessity the standard of morality". Since I don't think you do agree with that statement arguing about this seems irrelevant until the Dilemma is done away with.

QuoteI would be interested in hearing your own response to WLC's argument argument, it is obvious you have given it some thought.

The original problem I had with his argument was (I think) similar to yours. God is perfect, according to God standards ect. When we say that God is good we are merely saying that God is God. I don't think this is a problem though which is why I wrote the response in the article. The ontological question seems to have been answered. Calling God good is merely stating that God is consistent with His nature, which is what most theists believe anyways. I'm going off on tangents now -- I better stop.

On to the next.

QuoteI don't see that this argument is new. The logic seems to be circular, "objective morals must come from God, God by necessity must be morally perfect, therefore objective morals come from God, etc." This has already been mentioned before in this thread, as has the subjectivity of the words "perfect" and "greatest."

So we are left with trying looking to the only sources of information independent of God, the imperfect religious texts. Which leads us down the spiral of doubt as the veracity of each of those texts as factual and not allegorical or political or deliberate fiction are in question. Even if we are to assume that any one particular text was an article of fact, unbiased and accurate, as a source of what God did, does, thinks, and behaves we are left with a set of morals that most of humanity seems to be at odds with.

Example:
Old Testament God didn't have a problem with mobs killing people based on accusations, slavery, and possibly genocide. Assuming God is a morally perfect being and the template from which we should all base our own morality we would be lead by God's example to run around in vigilante mobs, still be owning other people as property, and be gearing up to commit or defend ourselves from the genocidal acts of our neighbors.

The big problem as I see it:
While your logic probably is fine for the theist/believer this does nothing for the atheist. The entire logical device you spelled out in your original post assumes the existence of at least one God and assumes that this God is accurately described in at least one known religious text somewhere on the planet by at least one human being.

EDIT:
A question, assuming that God exists:
If God can choose at all, then even the example set by God of what is moral is subjective. and we are supposed to view God as the template to follow, then the definition of moral objectivity becomes subjective to the will of God.

The only way to make the claim that God sets the objective example of morality is to deny God the ability to make a decision. God is supposed to be omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient correct? But would not denying God the power to choose invalidate the three "omni's?"

For starters let me address the "big problem". Euthyphro's Dilemma is merely offering a description of God which positions Him as the standard of objective moral truths. It is not an attempt to prove God's existence which is why it is not a problem to assume the existence of a God. I'm not sure where you think I assume God is accurately described in at least one known religious text. This argument would similarly apply to a God who did not reveal himself to humanity. The argument has as far as I can tell nothing to do with God's revelation.

As for your question, I think you have a skewed view of the omni God. Most theists agree that there are things that God cannot do. For instance God cannot act in contradiction to His nature. The bible even states that god cannot do certain things like deny himself or lie Hebrews 6:18; 2 Timothy 2:13 for doing this would be a contradiction to His nature. It seems to me you are throwing out the "Can god create a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it" question which seems to have been already dealt with. If you would like a further explanation just let me know or you could probably google it.

There were a lot of points you made in your post and i'm sure I didn't answer them all -- just the ones I thought were most important. Let me know if there is something else you think warrants a response.

Thanks for all of the replies. I appreciate them.
Again, please forgive spelling and grammatical errors.

Here is why I think the argument is circular

God is perfect, he has morals, his morals are therefore, perfect.

How do you define perfect? Perfect=being like god, now lets see what happens when we substitute.

God is "like god", he has morals, his morals are therefore, "like god". That right there is circular.If you try and define perfection in any other way, you have god complying to an external standard. It has also struck me how lucky I was to start my first post with the bit about god breaking rules, this is a classic case. Once he is defined as the greatest conceivable being, people then try and claim he can set the standard, and still have the standard be objective. If the standard is based on any person, any mind, it cannot be objective, it is a case of using the whole "Greatest conceivable" thing to break the rules.


When I say god fails his own standard of morality, I was working on the implicit assumption that saying "Do not kill", and then killing people, is an infraction of the moral code. If we simply go along with "whatever god does is moral", then yea, sure, but you then define morality as the things god does, so we end up with "Whatever god does, is what god does"

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"For starters let me address the "big problem". Euthyphro's Dilemma is merely offering a description of God which positions Him as the standard of objective moral truths.

  Okay...

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"It is not an attempt to prove God's existence which is why it is not a problem to assume the existence of a God. I'm not sure where you think I assume God is accurately described in at least one known religious text. This argument would similarly apply to a God who did not reveal himself to humanity.

If nobody knows what the objective moral is, what's the point?

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"It is not an attempt to prove God's existence which is why it is not a problem to assume the existence of a God. I'm not sure where you think I assume God is accurately described in at least one known religious text. This argument would similarly apply to a God who did not reveal himself to humanity.

If nobody knows what the objective moral is, what's the point?

The point would be that if objective morality exists it enables us to not slip into the disparaging concepts of ethical nihilism.  If there is objective morality, then there is the possibility that we can someday know what it is and expect everyone to follow it.

I'd ask the opposite question, honestly.  If there is no objective morality, are you really willing to say things so horrible as murder and rape are not "bad" or "wrong" but just 'distasteful to me'?   If someone killed someone special to you but didn't leave any evidence and got of scotch free, I doubt you'd say "dang, well they didn't really do anything 'wrong'... they just did something 'different'"

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"I'd ask the opposite question, honestly.  If there is no objective morality, are you really willing to say things so horrible as murder and rape are not "bad" or "wrong" but just 'distasteful to me'?   If someone killed someone special to you but didn't leave any evidence and got of scotch free, I doubt you'd say "dang, well they didn't really do anything 'wrong'... they just did something 'different'"

I've seen "objective morality" flying around in a few posts. I figured I'd pick on you because it's something you debate a lot. By "objective morality" do you mean "moral absolutism" or "moral universalism" or something else? Wikipedia suggests it means "moral universalism". Just checking .

Quote from: "SSY"Here is why I think the argument is circular

God is perfect, he has morals, his morals are therefore, perfect.

How do you define perfect? Perfect=being like god, now lets see what happens when we substitute.

God is "like god", he has morals, his morals are therefore, "like god". That right there is circular.If you try and define perfection in any other way, you have god complying to an external standard.

I'm pretty sure that I addressed a very similar problem in the original article

 

QuoteAnother objection might be that the theist is begging the question when he or she assumes P2. Since God’s perfect goodness is part of his greatness, the theist is assuming that God is the standard for objective morality before the argument is made. It must be reiterated that all the theist is attempting to accomplish is show a possible state in which God can serve as a possible standard for objective moral truths. All the theist must do to solve the dilemma is to offer a view of God who is the perfect standard of absolute morality by virtue of His existence. If any being is perfect by definition, then if that being exists it has the power to be a standard by which others can be measured to. The theist can simply say that they believe God to be necessarily perfect in every regard, which would render the dilemma useless against this particular definition of God. God, described as the greatest conceivable being, if existing is the standard for objective morality by very definition. The solution is not stating that God is the objective moral standard because theists believe God to be the objective moral standard, for this would be tautology and circular reasoning. Rather, the argument is that God can be the standard for objective morality because of Gods necessary moral perfection.

If that didn't answer your question let me elaborate further by rephrasing/taking out certain aspects of the argument --
P1. If God is the greatest possible being
C. God can serve as a standard for objective moral truths.

Now it's more of a statement than anything else -- The other steps are meant to help as an explanation but I right now i'm thinking you could boil it down to that. The reason I didn't pose the argument is because the other steps help clarify.

Saying god is perfect is about as relevant as saying god is consistent with his nature. As I mentioned before, while this may be an interesting topic it is irrelevant to the dilemma. (ontology/semantics) My argument is not trying to prove that God is perfect --rather it is trying to prove that god can serve as the standard for objective moral truths which is (in this case) what the Euthyphro Dilemma is challenging.

QuoteIt has also struck me how lucky I was to start my first post with the bit about god breaking rules, this is a classic case. Once he is defined as the greatest conceivable being, people then try and claim he can set the standard, and still have the standard be objective. If the standard is based on any person, any mind, it cannot be objective, it is a case of using the whole "Greatest conceivable" thing to break the rules.

You are correct in saying that if morality is mind dependent than it is not objective. This is why the term necessity is so important. If God is who He is not because of the way He chooses to be, nor the way he happens to be but rather the way (if existing) he must be by necessity than morality can very well be objective.
William Lane Craig clarifies what it means to say God has certain essential properties

QuoteTo say that some property is essential to God is to say that there is no possible world in which God could have existed and lacked that property. God didn’t just happen by accident to be loving, kind, just, and so forth. He is that way essentially. - WLC

QuoteWhen I say god fails his own standard of morality, I was working on the implicit assumption that saying "Do not kill", and then killing people, is an infraction of the moral code. If we simply go along with "whatever god does is moral", then yea, sure, but you then define morality as the things god does, so we end up with "Whatever god does, is what god does

I'm guessing that you are saying God (or at least the God of the Bible) is inconsistent with his own set of morals you first must understand that this has nothing to do with the dilemma. To clarify I am assuming that you are referring to the Christian God of the bible. Specifically referring to the 6th commandment if i'm not mistaken. Having taken Hebrew myself I can confidentially say that murder, not killing is the correct term. If i'm remembering correctly only the KJV which has outdated English uses the word kill. All of the other translations as I recall use the word murder. I think the bible defines murder as an unjust killing. A fine but very important difference between a just killing.

Thanks again for the thought you are putting into this.

Quote from: "AlP"

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"I'd ask the opposite question, honestly.  If there is no objective morality, are you really willing to say things so horrible as murder and rape are not "bad" or "wrong" but just 'distasteful to me'?   If someone killed someone special to you but didn't leave any evidence and got of scotch free, I doubt you'd say "dang, well they didn't really do anything 'wrong'... they just did something 'different'"

I've seen "objective morality" flying around in a few posts. I figured I'd pick on you because it's something you debate a lot. By "objective morality" do you mean "moral absolutism" or "moral universalism" or something else? Wikipedia suggests it means "moral universalism". Just checking :D

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"If that didn't answer your question let me elaborate further by rephrasing/taking out certain aspects of the argument --
P1. If God is the greatest possible being
C. God can serve as a standard for objective moral truths.
.

If you are trying to prove god can be a standard for absolute morals, by saying, god is perfect, so is the standard for absolute morals, then we are not really having much of an argument here. This is effectively the Christian saying "NO! He can so be the standard for objective morals!". The steps really don't clarify as I don't see the morals of a perfect being, as being the same as objective morals.

One thing that might be helpful, is to define perfection, this may help.

Quote from: "SSY"

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"If that didn't answer your question let me elaborate further by rephrasing/taking out certain aspects of the argument --
P1. If God is the greatest possible being
C. God can serve as a standard for objective moral truths.
.

If you are trying to prove god can be a standard for absolute morals, by saying, god is perfect, so is the standard for absolute morals, then we are not really having much of an argument here. This is effectively the Christian saying "NO! He can so be the standard for objective morals!". The steps really don't clarify as I don't see the morals of a perfect being, as being the same as objective morals.

One thing that might be helpful, is to define perfection, this may help.

I guess I would define perfection as "without flaw". When I say God is perfect I am saying God is without flaw. If He could have flaw then He couldn't be God because their would have to be a standard to which He conformed to tell Him he had flaw ect. Since God can have no flaw what He decrees is morally perfect by necessity. These commands (do not murder, steal ect.) are morally correct regardless of whether or not you or I believe them to be. They are true by virtue of God's existence. Ultimately the concept that most theists have of God makes the dilemma irrelevant for those who hold that concept.

I hope this cleared things up. I hope i'm not coming across as ignorantly stubborn, I genuinely don't see a flaw in the argument.

When you say "Without flaw", you are making the same mistake. A flaw is a deviation from the ideal standard. By saying god is without flaw, you simply say he conforms to this standard, which is one of the conditions of the dilemma. I really can't see anyway of describing him as perfect without comparing him to some other standard. As soon as you compare him to some other standard, the dilemma wins, as god is merely conforming to some other standard, and it is not his morals that are objective. If you define perfect as "like god", then we just end up in circles.

I genuinely can't see how anyone could be convinced by this argument, the dilemma has all the bases covered, this argument tries to snake down a gap between the two that is not there.

Quote from: "SSY"When you say "Without flaw", you are making the same mistake. A flaw is a deviation from the ideal standard. By saying god is without flaw, you simply say he conforms to this standard, which is one of the conditions of the dilemma. I really can't see anyway of describing him as perfect without comparing him to some other standard. As soon as you compare him to some other standard, the dilemma wins, as god is merely conforming to some other standard, and it is not his morals that are objective. If you define perfect as "like god", then we just end up in circles.

I genuinely can't see how anyone could be convinced by this argument, the dilemma has all the bases covered, this argument tries to snake down a gap between the two that is not there.

When I say God is without flaw I am saying God is consistent with himself. A flaw is a deviation from the ideal standard - by saying that the ideal standard is God then I am saying that God cannot deviate from who He is, this is true by virtue of Gods existence. I am not saying that what is good is good because God recognizes good from some sort of external standard, and I am not saying that good is determined by virtue of Gods arbitrary decrees. (the two horns) I am saying that God's goodness which is an essential part of His nature is the standard by which actions can be deemed good/bad based upon their conformity or lack thereof to that standard. If God was God because of the way He chose to be or because of the way He happens to be than morality would be arbitrary. If God is God because of the way He must be than morality is mind independent. Objective moral values can then be derived.

OK, lets work through this.

Let us assemble a list of possible gods, and then try and find the greatest conceivable one, the only real one. As we check through them, we see a load of them all who have the power, the knowledge etc etc etc, but they have different morals. We know it must be one of these ones. However, we know, that it is an essential part of his character that the morals god has, are good ones. Great, now we can work it out, as we know god is the greatest conceivable being, there can be only one thing on our list that is really him.. How are we to check through and find out which one is the real god? Well we need the one with good morals, simple enough, but the only way to find out which of the moral sets are good, is to compare them to some external standard of goodness. We can't use a set of any of the gods before us, as they will all be self consistent (no flaws compared to themselves). Is there any other way to pick out the real god? I can't see any.

This demonstrates, that for the morals of god to be good, they must be compared to some external standard, not only the standard that the god himself sets.

Quote from: "SSY"OK, lets work through this.

Let us assemble a list of possible gods, and then try and find the greatest conceivable one, the only real one. As we check through them, we see a load of them all who have the power, the knowledge etc etc etc, but they have different morals. We know it must be one of these ones. However, we know, that it is an essential part of his character that the morals god has, are good ones. Great, now we can work it out, as we know god is the greatest conceivable being, there can be only one thing on our list that is really him. How are we to check through and find out which one is the real god? Well we need the one with good morals, simple enough, but the only way to find out which of the moral sets are good, is to compare them to some external standard of goodness. We can't use a set of any of the gods before us, as they will all be self consistent (no flaws compared to themselves). Is there any other way to pick out the real god? I can't see any.

This demonstrates, that for the morals of god to be good, they must be compared to some external standard, not only the standard that the god himself sets.

First of all just to be clear (I think you acknowledge this) there can only be one God according to the definition of God as the "greatest conceivable being". I think you agree with this as you state that there can be only one "real" God. You are arguing that the only way to tell which God is the real god we would have to know which God has the "good morals". So we have a bunch of fake posing gods and one real god. You are claiming that unless we have a standard by which to judge the Gods we cannot know which one is good and which ones are fake. Correct? (by the way, please let me know if I am misinterpreting your argument).
You ask how then can we know which God is the real God. I think their is a fundamental problem which you are overlooking. I mentioned in my original post that the idea that objective moral values are rooted in God is a claim concerning moral ontology that is "the foundation in reality of moral values". It is important not to confuse this with moral epistemology "how we come to know what is moral". In your situation I believe that you are arguing that because there is no way for us to know which God is good then that God isn't good which does not logically follow. Even if nobody knew which God was good that wouldn't change the fact that he is Good (consistent). You acknowledge that the one real God is necessarily good, this is essentially all you need to know to defeat the Dilemma. Our knowledge of this God's goodness is irrelevant to the Dilemma. Moral epistemology is an interesting topic by all means but it's not really what I'm interested in.

Your main issue with my argument seems to be the fact that we cannot call God good unless we judge him according to another standard. You have to understand that the theist calling God good is simply saying that God is consistent. Theists use the words good, perfect, moral ect. to describe God's character. We deem actions good/bad, right/wrong based upon their conformity or lack thereof to God's character (nature) which is the way it is by necessity.

Thank you for your insights, I'm enjoying this conversation. Please let me know if you think I misinterpreted your argument.

No, I think you got most of the argument, but you missed a key point.

All the gods in the list have consistent morals, so they all would be equally suitable under your regime, but we know there is only one. When you say god is good, and by good you mean self consistent, there could be multiple gods that fill that description. It still seems to me that your simply saying that because god is the greatest, he must have objective morals, and there is simply too big a gap in-between there for me to fill in.

To me, when I hear that god has to be good, that to me sounds like god has to conform to an external standard, I can't see anyway round this. You can either describe god as conforming to some other standard, or simply conforming to himself, the first is an obvious problem, and the second is simply circular. If a Christian says, "God's morals are consistent with himself", then that's great, but it is in no way objective, when you say "Ah yes it is objective, because we know it is an essential character of God to have good morals", you simply compare him to an external standard. Put another way, if you said it is an essential aspect of his character that he is made of paper, he would be conforming to an external standard of paperyness, not defining what is and is not paper. If you decide to change the definition of paper to "The stuff god is made out of", then an iron god, or a jelly god would still have this essential character ( being made of "paper"), but now, the paper would not be scrunchy and flammable, but heavy or sticky, ie, completely different. When all you require of god's morals is that they are consistent with god, any set of morals would do, ones that advocate rape, or ones that condemn it.

Also, we seem to be the only ones in here

echo

 echo

 echo  

Quote from: "SSY"No, I think you got most of the argument, but you missed a key point.

All the gods in the list have consistent morals, so they all would be equally suitable under your regime, but we know there is only one. When you say god is good, and by good you mean self consistent, there could be multiple gods that fill that description.

Since theists (monotheists) define God as the greatest conceivable being there can be no other beings equal too or greater than this God. If there could, than God wouldn't be God ect. Since the monotheist God if existing must be the greatest possible being no other "fake" gods could serve as an objective standard. Because they would be lesser beings and would have to conform to the real Gods standard. Putting this into perspective lets get rid of all the gods, and substitute humans. I am consistent with myself; however, since I am not the greatest conceivable being I cannot serve as the standard for moral values. Remember that one of my  premises was that "it is greater to be the standard of morality than to conform to an external standard". Consistency in and of itself does not make anything the standard of morality. The greatest possible being must be the standard of morality. And there can only be one greatest possible being.

QuoteIt still seems to me that your simply saying that because god is the greatest, he must have objective morals, and there is simply too big a gap in-between there for me to fill in.

I'm not sure what you mean by "he must have objective morals" I'm saying that God can serve as a foundation for objective moral truths. The original argument's purpose was to fill in the gaps. Reworded/rearranged but essentially the same
1. God is the greatest possible being (must be accepted)
2. It is greater to be the standard of morality than to conform to an external standard of morality.
3. Since God must be the standard of morality his nature is necessarily flawless. (He is consistent)
C. Since God is necessarily flawless He can serve as the foundation for objective moral values. (what is good/bad is based on conformity/lack thereof to God's character)

This is a rough version but I think it gets the point across, is their any particular point you are objecting to? Let me know.

QuoteTo me, when I hear that god has to be good, that to me sounds like god has to conform to an external standard, I can't see anyway round this. You can either describe god as conforming to some other standard, or simply conforming to himself, the first is an obvious problem, and the second is simply circular. If a Christian says, "God's morals are consistent with himself", then that's great, but it is in no way objective, when you say "Ah yes it is objective, because we know it is an essential character of God to have good morals", you simply compare him to an external standard. Put another way, if you said it is an essential aspect of his character that he is made of paper, he would be conforming to an external standard of paperyness, not defining what is and is not paper. If you decide to change the definition of paper to "The stuff god is made out of", then an iron god, or a jelly god would still have this essential character ( being made of "paper"), but now, the paper would not be scrunchy and flammable, but heavy or sticky, ie, completely different. When all you require of god's morals is that they are consistent with god, any set of morals would do, ones that advocate rape, or ones that condemn it.

I think we have already settled that God is who He is by necessity of His existence. He is not the way He is by chance or choice but by necessity. This is a crucial point and If you don't understand it let me know.
Now if we decided that God is essentially made of paper (meaning if He exists he must be made out of paper) and we decided that He for some unknown reason could be made only of paper otherwise he would be different (not God) than worrying about whether or not God was made of jelly, stone would be useless. It's kind of like saying:

P1. If an Apple exists it must be a fruit and cannot be a vegetable.
P2. Apple exists.
C. What if the apple is a vegetable?

If we accept P1+P2 it is impossible that an Apple could be a vegetable, thus worthless to think about.

Putting this into perspective this is why I can say that child rape is objectively wrong. It could never (in any circumstance) be right if God exists. In every possible world where God exists it is wrong because if God exists than it is always contrary to His character. God could not exist and be any different. I'm not hammering the hell out of this point just to be redundant. I'm trying to say it in as many different ways as I can so there is no confusion.

QuoteAlso, we seem to be the only ones in here

echo

 echo

 echo  

I think we scared everyone else away. Looks like we're on our own.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"

Quote from: "SSY"Also, we seem to be the only ones in here

echo

 echo

 echo  

I think we scared everyone else away. Looks like we're on our own.

Nono, I'm quite interested in this conversation.  You two most certainly have lurker(s) here. Carry on. : P

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"Nono, I'm quite interested in this conversation.  You two most certainly have lurker(s) here. Carry on. : P

Super ditto.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"

Quote from: "SSY"No, I think you got most of the argument, but you missed a key point.

All the gods in the list have consistent morals, so they all would be equally suitable under your regime, but we know there is only one. When you say god is good, and by good you mean self consistent, there could be multiple gods that fill that description.

Since theists (monotheists) define God as the greatest conceivable being there can be no other beings equal too or greater than this God. If there could, than God wouldn't be God ect. Since the monotheist God if existing must be the greatest possible being no other "fake" gods could serve as an objective standard. Because they would be lesser beings and would have to conform to the real Gods standard. Putting this into perspective lets get rid of all the gods, and substitute humans. I am consistent with myself; however, since I am not the greatest conceivable being I cannot serve as the standard for moral values. Remember that one of my  premises was that "it is greater to be the standard of morality than to conform to an external standard". Consistency in and of itself does not make anything the standard of morality. The greatest possible being must be the standard of morality. And there can only be one greatest possible being. This is the problem though, if we conceive of a list of gods, we know only one of them can be the greatest, but what is the standard we use to decide which one is the greatest in our list?

QuoteIt still seems to me that your simply saying that because god is the greatest, he must have objective morals, and there is simply too big a gap in-between there for me to fill in.

I'm not sure what you mean by "he must have objective morals" I'm saying that God can serve as a foundation for objective moral truths. The original argument's purpose was to fill in the gaps. Reworded/rearranged but essentially the same
1. God is the greatest possible being (must be accepted)
2. It is greater to be the standard of morality than to conform to an external standard of morality.
3. Since God must be the standard of morality his nature is necessarily flawless. (He is consistent)
C. Since God is necessarily flawless He can serve as the foundation for objective moral values. (what is good/bad is based on conformity/lack thereof to God's character)

This is a rough version but I think it gets the point across, is their any particular point you are objecting to? Let me know.You are saying, "god is great,in order to be great, he must have a really kick ass set of morals", this is true, but the morals would be kick ass whether or not he held them, god's word has nothing to do with it in this case.When you say something is morally kickass if it conforms to god's character, you are really just saying that it conforms to the kickassery standards of the morals themselves.

QuoteTo me, when I hear that god has to be good, that to me sounds like god has to conform to an external standard, I can't see anyway round this. You can either describe god as conforming to some other standard, or simply conforming to himself, the first is an obvious problem, and the second is simply circular. If a Christian says, "God's morals are consistent with himself", then that's great, but it is in no way objective, when you say "Ah yes it is objective, because we know it is an essential character of God to have good morals", you simply compare him to an external standard. Put another way, if you said it is an essential aspect of his character that he is made of paper, he would be conforming to an external standard of paperyness, not defining what is and is not paper. If you decide to change the definition of paper to "The stuff god is made out of", then an iron god, or a jelly god would still have this essential character ( being made of "paper"), but now, the paper would not be scrunchy and flammable, but heavy or sticky, ie, completely different. When all you require of god's morals is that they are consistent with god, any set of morals would do, ones that advocate rape, or ones that condemn it.

I think we have already settled that God is who He is by necessity of His existence. He is not the way He is by chance or choice but by necessity. This is a crucial point and If you don't understand it let me know.
Now if we decided that God is essentially made of paper (meaning if He exists he must be made out of paper) and we decided that He for some unknown reason could be made only of paper otherwise he would be different (not God) than worrying about whether or not God was made of jelly, stone would be useless. It's kind of like saying:No, becuase if we say it is essential god is made of paper, then he must conform to some external standard, namely, he must be scrunchy and flammable.

P1. If an Apple exists it must be a fruit and cannot be a vegetable.
P2. Apple exists.
C. What if the apple is a vegetable?

If we accept P1+P2 it is impossible that an Apple could be a vegetable, thus worthless to think about. This does not address the point I made at all.

Putting this into perspective this is why I can say that child rape is objectively wrong. It could never (in any circumstance) be right if God exists. In every possible world where God exists it is wrong because if God exists than it is always contrary to His character. God could not exist and be any different. I'm not hammering the hell out of this point just to be redundant. I'm trying to say it in as many different ways as I can so there is no confusion.Now we may get somewhere. How can you say child rape is wrong? If there is a real, solid reason it is wrong, (reasons of the type "because god says so", will not do), please give it. Why is god against child rape?

QuoteAlso, we seem to be the only ones in here

echo

 echo

 echo  :D

QuoteThis is the problem though, if we conceive of a list of gods, we know only one of them can
be the greatest, but what is the standard we use to decide which one is the greatest in our list?

First off it seems as though you agree that only one can be the greatest, I think you also agree that it is
irrelevant as to how we discover which God is the greatest. Your main issue it seems is that you think we need an
external standard to judge God as great for Him to be great. When I say that God is the greatest conceivable being
I am saying that He has the most power, knowledge ect. logically possible. The traditional omni God. If He had less
than what was possible he would be quasi maximally great. If it was possible for a being to have equal or more
power, love, knowledge than God simply wouldn't be God. I have claimed that the theists very definition of God
refutes the dilemma. By claiming God is the greatest conceivable being I am claiming that God is maximally
powerful/knowing ect. and that if any other being was equal to or greater than God than God wouldn't be God.

QuoteYou are saying, "god is great,in order to be great, he must have a really kick ass set of
morals", this is true but the morals would be kick ass whether or not he held them, god's word has nothing to do
with it in this case.When you say something is morally kickass if it conforms to god's character, you are really
just saying that it conforms to the kickassery standards of the morals themselves.

God is great, and part of this greatness is the fact that He is morally perfect (flawless). When I say that something is morally correct I am saying that it conforms to God's character, which is essentially saying that it conforms to the standard of morality which is God. The standard of morality is not external to God. Moral excellence is essential to God, thus God being the standard of morality is essential to His very existence.

QuoteNo, becuase if we say it is essential god is made of paper, then he must conform to some external standard, namely, he must be scrunchy and flammable.

Let me try to explain where this analogy fails. Paper is not the standard of crunchy (flammable). Therefore to claim it is crunchy we need to appeal to an external standard. If paper was the standard of crunchiness than crunchiness would merely be a word to describe paper. There are crunchier/more flammable things than paper because it is not the standard of crunchy/flammable. If God was not the standard of morality than to deem him Good we would
need to appeal to an external standard. Because He is the standard of goodness, He is not good because he fits some sort of external standard.

QuoteNow we may get somewhere. How can you say child rape is wrong? If there is a real, solid
reason it is wrong, (reasons of the type "because god says so", will not do), please give it. Why is god against
child rape?

In the theological/philosophical sense child rape is wrong because it is contrary to who God is. God is against child rape because it goes against His flawless moral standard. It does not line up with who He is. Now of course there are emotional/cultural reasons that (hopefully) affirm this. By claiming that I know child rape is wrong I am making a claim about my knowledge of God's character. If it was wrong merely because God said so than I would be impaling myself on a horn of the dilemma. Remember that God is who He is by necessity of His existence, not by choice or chance. This is why morality is mind independent (objective). Now, how we come to understand what is good, right and wrong is another very interesting matter entirely, we our concerned about whether or not God can serve as the foundation for objective moral values.

QuoteEdit, while we are here, could you define "good" for me?
Edit 2, and "greatest", if you would be so kind  

I'll do my best,
Theologically speaking "Goodness" is a essential part of God's moral character. An action is considered good if it acts in accordance to God's Character.
"Greatest" in reference to God refers to the belief that God is omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent ect. In the same way I that stated is greater to be the standard of morality than to conform to external standard I believe it is sound to say that is greater to possess these attributes than not to ect. I don't feel as though I explained this adequetly but it seems to be coherent. Even if it isn't coherent I don't see why the theist couldn't refer to God as necessarily omni-benevolent. Which would in and of itself be enough to escape the dilemma, unless there lies a contradiction in God's omni-benevolence. As always, I will eagerly wait for your critique.

Also - Note to lurkers: Feel free to chip in. If this was a debate was exclusive to me and SSY it would be in the one on one section. Let me know what your thoughts are.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"

QuoteNow we may get somewhere. How can you say child rape is wrong? If there is a real, solid
reason it is wrong, (reasons of the type "because god says so", will not do), please give it. Why is god against
child rape?

In the theological/philosophical sense child rape is wrong because it is contrary to who God is. God is against child rape because it goes against His flawless moral standard. It does not line up with who He is. Now of course there are emotional/cultural reasons that (hopefully) affirm this. By claiming that I know child rape is wrong I am making a claim about my knowledge of God's character. If it was wrong merely because God said so than I would be impaling myself on a horn of the dilemma. Remember that God is who He is by necessity of His existence, not by choice or chance. This is why morality is mind independent (objective). Now, how we come to understand what is good, right and wrong is another very interesting matter entirely, we our concerned about whether or not God can serve as the foundation for objective moral values.

As you have requested a chip in or two...

I'd say that if we argue the normal theistic position (as I understand it), child rape (or any rape for that matter) can be considered objectively wrong if only one premise is accepted.  The premise I am speaking of is the premise that humans, by character definition, possess inherent value placed into the during a theistic creation (classically defined as a 'spirit', if you will.)  To violate another human's spirit is to treat the gift God has given them with no respect, or more accurately stated, with grave disrespect.  If we are to accept all of this, then I don't think it would be intellectually dishonest to assign the phrase 'objectively wrong' as "any action (or thought) which is purposefully disrespect toward God or anything valued by God."

Obviously if you do not accept deistic/theistic thought, one can only accept the idea that humans are just another animal, which honestly can't lead to anything but 'all is permissible which isn't discouraged by society'...  and even actions discouraged are technically permissible, I suppose, you'll just end up getting the societal response expected--be it prison, corporal punishment, torture, or death... or whatever.  To sum it up even more succinctly: ethical nihilism, pure atheistic thought's ultimate destination.

-Ihateusernames

I'm sorry, but I think your whole argument tanked, and tanked hard when you explained what you mean by greatness ad goodness.

When talking about god being the greatest. If we are trying to select which god is the greatest from our list, then we must be able to discover which is greatest. Greatest power, greatest knowledge etc are simple to determine, but the greatest morals are not. If we find 2 gods on our list, who are as powerful, as knowledgeable as each other, but one permits child rape, and one does not, how do we tell which set of morals, and therefore, which of these two gods is the greatest? I did say in an earlier post about this point, but maybe this will make it clearer. Saying great=like god, will not work in this instance, as both of them are like themselves, the only way to do it is with some objective, external standard. Please address how you would tell apart a good and a crappy set of morals in this scenario.

I don't think you quite understood the paper analogy. To say, "God is *anything*", like all knowing, all powerful, and moral, you must have definitions of these words that are not dependant on god, otherwise, when describing god, you end up with "God is like God, like God and like God". If I tried to decribe things as "Oh, my feet? they are kind of like my feet" or "The Whitehouse looks a lot like the Whitehouse", I am not conveying anything about the subjects, how are you supposed to glean any information about my feet or the white house from those statements?

As for the child rape, why is it contrary to god? Why is it greater to be anti child rape than pro child rape? If his morals are objective then there should be a way of proving this, other than "It just is"

As for my first statement in this post, I will try and expand it. When you said greatest, in your very first post, I thought it actually meant something, you have clarified for me, that it in fact is tautologous. If we go all the way back, and fill in a new definition for great and perfect, it does not look pretty.

P1: It is more like god to be the standard of morality than to conform to it
P2: If God is the most god-like conceivable being then he must be the standard of morality.
P3: If God is the standard of morality His nature is necessarily like god.
C: Therefore since His nature is necessarily like god, God can serve as a foundation for objective moral truths.

As you may be able to tell from the above, that argument, makes NO sense. It seems to me, you started off with the argument, but then we saw that for soemthign to be "great", it must conform to some other standard of greatness. To get around this, the definition of "great" was changed, and it became circular.

Quote from: "SSY"I'm sorry, but I think your whole argument tanked, and tanked hard when you explained what you mean by greatness ad goodness.
When talking about god being the greatest. If we are trying to select which god is the greatest from our list, then we must be able to discover which is
greatest. Greatest power, greatest knowledge etc are simple to determine, but the greatest morals are not. If we find 2 gods on our list, who are as
powerful, as knowledgeable as each other, but one permits child rape, and one does not, how do we tell which set of morals, and therefore, which of these two
gods is the greatest? I did say in an earlier post about this point, but maybe this will make it clearer. Saying great=like god, will not work in this
instance, as both of them are like themselves, the only way to do it is with some objective, external standard. Please address how you would tell
apart a good and a crappy set of morals in this scenario.

You mentioned that it is simple to determine greatest power, knowledge, but not morality. We need to address something here. Recall that I said God's
greatness based on his power, knowledge, morals etc. There cannot be two beings with greatest power correct? that in itself is a contradiction. There
can only be one being with greatest knowledge or none at all etc. If the other being is lacking in any of these two examples than he/she is cannot be the
greatest possible being and therefore is not the real God. Now if it was impossible to determine greatest power, or greatest knowledge I think you might have
a point. I'll elaborate a little farther down. You seem to think it is simple to determine greatest power or greatest knowledge. I would appreciate if you would elaborate for my benefit. Again, my definitions were rough at best but I will hold by them until given adequate reason not to. I will try to explain at the end of this post when I address God's greatness that I think that given who God is it is a logical impossibility that a being could exist outside God's standard of greatness.

QuoteI don't think you quite understood the paper analogy. To say, "God is *anything*", like all knowing, all powerful, and moral, you must have
definitions of these words that are not dependant on god, otherwise, when describing god, you end up with "God is like God, like God and like God". If I
tried to decribe things as "Oh, my feet? they are kind of like my feet" or "The Whitehouse looks a lot like the Whitehouse", I am not conveying anything
about the subjects, how are you supposed to glean any information about my feet or the white house from those statements?

I've been stating all along that saying God is good is essentially saying that God is God. To try and break this down you seem to think that it is
uninformative to make the claim that God is good.You claim that we learn nothing about God by making this claim we are merely stating that God is God. I've
said it before but I'll say it again, the theist calling God good is simply naming a specific aspect of God's character. It's like taking a chunk of who God
is and naming it. The process by which we recognize God's nature is a different topic all together. In your example if for some reason the shoe you had was
the standard of shoeness it would roughly be the equivalent of me saying I'm going to call this section of the shoe the heel, and this section of the shoe
the laces etc. I believe It is informative to our understanding of who God is to call Him good. Now depending on his/her beliefs the theist usually depends
on God's Revelation, commands, innate knowledge etc. to discover what these characteristics of God are. To step in the theists shoes it is informative to call
God good because God has told us what good is, He has given us examples of things that display goodness. He has given us innate ideas about right, wrong and
so forth.

QuoteAs for the child rape, why is it contrary to god? Why is it greater to be anti child rape than pro child rape? If his morals are objective then there should
be a way of proving this, other than "It just is"

I claimed that Child rape is contrary to God, You ask why it is contrary to God and to that I would say because it violates His necessarily perfect standard.
I'm going to address the greatness question a little farther down.

QuoteAs for my first statement in this post, I will try and expand it. When you said greatest, in your very first post, I thought it actually meant something, you
have clarified for me, that it in fact is tautologous. If we go all the way back, and fill in a new definition for great and perfect, it does not look
pretty.
P1: It is more like god to be the standard of morality than to conform to it
P2: If God is the most god-like conceivable being then he must be the standard of morality.
P3: If God is the standard of morality His nature is necessarily like god.
C: Therefore since His nature is necessarily like god, God can serve as a foundation for objective moral truths.
As you may be able to tell from the above, that argument, makes NO sense. It seems to me, you started off with the argument, but then we saw
that for something to be "great", it must conform to some other standard of greatness. To get around this, the definition of "great" was changed, and it
became circular.

I'm not sure what you thought my definition of greatness was before mainly because I don't think I had defined it for myself. It seems to me that it is crucial to understand what it means when we say God is great. The theist it seems has two options, the first being that God is the standard of greatness and the second being that God conforms to an external standard of greatness. Now the question becomes, well which is greater. It seems as though both answers are plausible but they may have problems. Given the first option it could be said that greatness is not arbitrary to who God is but is  essential to His nature (similar to the claim that God is good) However if this is the case the argument I first laid out may need to be revised which I have no problem with, in fact it was the reason I posted it here, not to try an convince you or anyone else but for criticism. If I didn't make that clear in the original post I should have. The argument would then become: God is the standard of greatness thus he is necessarily perfectly great. It is necessarily greater to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent than not according to God's standard of greatness which is by necessity the standard of greatness by virtue of Gods existence. It would be impossible for any being to not be accountable to this standard of greatness just as it would impossible for any being to be outside God's standard of logic. There is no being that could create a square circle and in the same way there is no being who could lie outside of God's standard of greatness.I think that claiming God is great is the same basic idea as saying God is logical, William lane craig describes what he thinks it means to call God logical. "There must be necessary truths. However, it does not follow from the necessity of the truths of logic and mathematics that "the fundamental truths of mathematics and logic exist in some way (as abstract objects) and God is subject to them,"  Rather, the Theist should say that the necessary truths of logic (and perhaps mathematics) are representations of the way God's mind essentially thinks." It seems as though it could be said that if God exists than He must be the ultimate standard. By stating that God is the ultimate standard we would be claiming that God must be the standard of  logic, morality, greatness, power, etc. Maybe it's our definition of God that needs to be changed which would require P1 to be altered. With this in mind the argument could become - P1 God is the ultimate standard by virtue of His existence. P2 God is then the standard of morality. P3. If God is the standard of  morality then He is necessarily morally perfect. C. Since God is morally perfect He can serve as the foundation for objective moral values. It seems as though this rids us of the fake gods problem. By defining God as the ultimate standard the theist would be claiming that everything is accountable to God's standards of morality, logic, power etc. Asking whether or not a being could exist outside of God's standard of greatness is similar to asking whether or not a square circle could exist or a married  bachelor. It would be logically absurd, and thus irrelevant to think about.They are false by definition of God. Now as to whether or not it is uninformative to deem God good, logical, powerful I don't see why it wouldn't be. When God reveals, commands what it good, great etc. through whatever means the theist believes in He is revealing what His character is like. When we call God good we are essentially saying that God is the ultimate standard of goodness by necessity. When the theist sees an act of goodness on earth he/she can relate that to God's nature. To summarize this first option: greatness is internal to God, greatness is an essential aspect of His nature. To say that any being could exist outside of God's standard of greatness would be as absurd as stating that there could exist a being outside the standard of logic.

Regarding the second option if we are to claim that greatness is external to God, we  must have a standard to which God must conform to. My first thought would be that it is a bad idea to have God conforming to a standard outside of Himself. However it could be said that in both cases God is conforming to a standard and maybe that isn't such a bad thing, regarding the first option God is conforming to the standard of necessity. God cannot act any different than the way He does, and this is a good thing. If God had the power to be inconsistent with His nature than he could decide to step outside the bounds of logic, and create a square circle etc. God conforming to an external standard might be a good thing. This line of thinking is seems similar to the first option. God cannot do certain things, therefor the theists view of omnipotence, omniscience etc. should not be all powerful, knowledgeable, rather it should be maximally powerful, maximally knowledgeable, etc. If God could do anything than he could contradict his nature etc. I don't think this idea is contradictory to what most theists believe (God cannot lie Titus 1:2). God would not be subject to a external standard, rather He would be consistent with His own standards.

The first option seems more plausible, it's almost as if the second option is a misconstrued view of who God is and his relation to his attributes.

Regardless, I think we are making progress. Thank you for your contributions to the formulation (or destruction) of the argument. I hope by the end of all of this   the argument is stronger, or irrelevant.

You keep coming back god being the standard of greatness, but you keep missing my point.

If we had two possible conceptions of god, both of whom were all powerful, both of whom were all knowing, but one of them was pro, and the other opposed to child rape, how would we tell which one is greater? Since we do do not know which one is the "real" god, we cannot appeal to the nature of the "real" god to inform us, we must make a decision ourselves, on what basis do you propose we make this decision? When I asked why it is contrary to his nature, and replied that it violates his perfect moral standard, I was honestly, slightly annoyed. Just before, you claimed his moral standard was a consequence of his nature. S, which is it? Why is it contrary to his nature? Or why is it contrary to his perfect moral standard?

Also, the alternate argument you present at the end of your post

" P1 God is the ultimate standard by virtue of His existence. P2 God is then the standard of morality. P3. If God is the standard of morality then He is necessarily morally perfect. C. Since God is morally perfect He can serve as the foundation for objective moral values."

Starts with the premise of god being the ultimate standard, and ends with the conclusion of him being the standard for morality, surely you see the fallacy in that? If that is the way in which this argument must proceed, I see little point in carrying on, even WLC could prove things like that, if we let him get away with it.

Maybe it would help if I give a broader overview of my problem with this. For morals to be objective, I want there to be an answer to the question "Why is child rape wrong?", an example of an answer I would accept is "Child rape causes suffering, and all unnecessary suffering is wrong" This would be fine for me, assuming we both agreed about suffering being wrong, if you tried to sue this answer to prove that unnecessary suffering is wrong, I would be displeased.. As it stands, your answer goes "Child rape is wrong, because it goes against god, and god determines what is wrong", this is not fine with me, as we are in fact, arguing over the final part of that answer.

Quote from: "SSY"Maybe it would help if I give a broader overview of my problem with this. For morals to be objective, I want there to be an answer to the question "Why is child rape wrong?", an example of an answer I would accept is "Child rape causes suffering, and all unnecessary suffering is wrong" This would be fine for me, assuming we both agreed about suffering being wrong, if you tried to sue this answer to prove that unnecessary suffering is wrong, I would be displeased.. As it stands, your answer goes "Child rape is wrong, because it goes against god, and god determines what is wrong", this is not fine with me, as we are in fact, arguing over the final part of that answer.

I understand that you hate circular reasoning, however take a few seconds to think about what you just said you would accept.

1.Child rape causes suffering, and all unnecessary suffering is wrong.
2.All Unnecessary suffering is wrong because I deem it wrong.
3.I deem it wrong because I think it is wrong.

I hate to say it but whenever your version of morality deviates from nihilism (which is what happens whenever you a make moral judgment), you are also utilizing circular reasoning.   Nihilism might be bleak, but it is all the rational atheist has.  Sure there are pragmatic reasons for saying some things are "good" and some things are "bad" but certainly not rational reasons.

I've always viewed it like a board game.  If you are going theistic-ish, the creator of the board game (God) set up the rules when the game (universe) was created.  Thus any of the players (free-will based beings) deviating from these rules can easily be considered doing 'evil'--'evil' being defined as deviating from the rules established by the creator.  If your going atheistic-ish, there is no rules, so nothing is 'wrong' (even things like child rape or worse)--'wrong' being defined as...... indefinably nonexistent.  I have always found it interesting that us (free-will based beings) seem so strongly to believe that there are rules, if there really aren't as nihilism postulates.

Anyway all of your two discourse really boils down to atheistic thought vs theistic.  If a God exists, obviously it could have established a moral law (basing it of the God's essence, desires, or pure fancy--it really doesn't matter)  Taking the assumption that God exists, On the flip side, if a god does not exist, rationally speaking, ethical nihilism is all that is left.    With the child rape example, it really does leave us with the uncomfortable If God exists, it may be evil.  If a God doesn't exist, it absolutely cannot be evil because there is no such thing as evil.  I'll leave you two to decide which side you really are on.

-Ihateusernames

PS: SSY, you may argue for ethical nihilism, but I would wager quite a bit that you don't actually live like it is true as I've never met anyone who really does.

PPS: If you two wish to continue this, I'd personally suggest focusing on the "greatest" aspect, as it is really the only difference between you two.  The rest is just logical outworkings.  The defining 'greatest' can be substituted with 'absolutely loving'.  'Loving' is a unique verb in that inter-personal love is something that can only be uniquely understood between two free-will based players.  The argument that "loving" is an external standard, imo, doesn't apply here. Obviously I will have to elaborate on this idea, but as I am extremely exhausted IRL atm I will do that at a later point in time ; D

Quote from: "SSY"You keep coming back god being the standard of greatness, but you keep missing my point.

If we had two possible conceptions of god, both of whom were all powerful, both of whom were all knowing, but one of them was pro, and the other opposed to child rape, how would we tell which one is greater? Since we do do not know which one is the "real" god, we cannot appeal to the nature of the "real" god to inform us, we must make a decision ourselves, on what basis do you propose we make this decision? When I asked why it is contrary to his nature, and replied that it violates his perfect moral standard, I was honestly, slightly annoyed. Just before, you claimed his moral standard was a consequence of his nature. S, which is it? Why is it contrary to his nature? Or why is it contrary to his perfect moral standard?

I apologize if I’m annoying you, that is not my intent. My goal is to get to the bottom of this.

I tried to address this situation in my last post. To summarize I said that it is logically absurd that a being could exist and not be subject to God's standard of goodness. In the same way that it would be logically absurd to believe that a being could exist outside God's standard of logic. If there were two beings that existed and one of them was God the other would by necessity be subject to the real God's standards. I feel this to be a sound argument; however, this was just one example you gave. If you see a hole in it let me know.

The process by which we determine which God is the real God is as I have mentioned before a topic of moral epistemology. Let my try to point out why. In this case we have two beings which are equally powerful an equally knowledgeable (already logical flaws, I will ignore these for now) Now we know that one of these beings is God according to the definition of “ultimate standard” the other being is a poser. The poser would have to be subject to the real Gods standards of morality to even be a logical possibility. Let us then say that the real God is anti rape and the poser is pro rape, the process by which we determine which one is the real God from the poser is essentially the same as the process we come to know what is really good and what isn't. That’s basically what moral epistemology is, the study of how we come to know what is, and what isn’t good. The fact that one is morally perfect is all we need to deal with. It seems as if you are attacking a faulty concept of God. I could be wrong though, let me know if I am.

Regarding moral epistemology some might argue that we know what is moral innately and this innate knowledge of right and wrong can be used to discover God’s moral nature, some might argue that we can know discover and know God’s moral nature through His commands, special revelation etc. When I said that something is immoral because it contradicts God’s standard of morality it is similar to saying that something is illogical because it contradicts God’s standard of logic. You are correct that God’s moral standard is an essential part of God’s nature; it is contrary to God’s standard because if God exists by definition of ultimate moral standard than it must be. Now I’m using child rape as an example; it could be said that if God exists according to the definition given some actions conform to His standard, and some do not. The actions that do not are immoral. These actions contradict Gods nature because God exists. The process by which we come to the conclusion that child rape does not conform to God’s standards is a completely different topic.

QuoteAlso, the alternate argument you present at the end of your post

" P1 God is the ultimate standard by virtue of His existence. P2 God is then the standard of morality. P3. If God is the standard of morality then He is necessarily morally perfect. C. Since God is morally perfect He can serve as the foundation for objective moral values."

Starts with the premise of god being the ultimate standard, and ends with the conclusion of him being the standard for morality, surely you see the fallacy in that? If that is the way in which this argument must proceed, I see little point in carrying on, even WLC could prove things like that, if we let him get away with it.

The conclusion isn't that God is the standard of morality; rather it is that Objective moral values can be rooted in God. Being the standard of morality in and of itself does not make morality objective. For morality to be objective it must be mind independent. This is why it is informative to call God necessarily good. God is not who He is because he chose, achieved, or randomly became the way He is. He is the way He is by necessity, which is why right and wrong can be mind independent. There is no possible world where God could exist and not hold the same standard of morality. The argument starts with a definition of God as the ultimate standard. It ends with the claim that morality can be objective and rooted in God. After looking it over for a day I really don’t think that it begs the question. If you are still convinced that it does please let me know.

QuoteMaybe it would help if I give a broader overview of my problem with this. For morals to be objective, I want there to be an answer to the question "Why is child rape wrong?", an example of an answer I would accept is "Child rape causes suffering, and all unnecessary suffering is wrong" This would be fine for me, assuming we both agreed about suffering being wrong, if you tried to sue this answer to prove that unnecessary suffering is wrong, I would be displeased.. As it stands, your answer goes "Child rape is wrong, because it goes against god, and god determines what is wrong", this is not fine with me, as we are in fact, arguing over the final part of that answer.

I’m really glad you brought this up because I think that the Dilemma has immense implications. First of all I feel as though I have been clear in claiming that “God determines what is wrong” is NOT a plausible answer, Morality is then mind dependant and subjective. You would be rightly displeased. If morality is mind dependant than it is subjective, this must be clear. Since your claim that “unnecessary suffering is wrong” is mind dependant it is not objective. If a crazy claimed that unnecessary suffering was right there would be no mind independent standard to deem one position valid and the other invalid.

Again, I hope I’m not annoying you and I apologize if I did, thanks for the insights.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"

Quote from: "SSY"You keep coming back god being the standard of greatness, but you keep missing my point.

If we had two possible conceptions of god, both of whom were all powerful, both of whom were all knowing, but one of them was pro, and the other opposed to child rape, how would we tell which one is greater? Since we do do not know which one is the "real" god, we cannot appeal to the nature of the "real" god to inform us, we must make a decision ourselves, on what basis do you propose we make this decision? When I asked why it is contrary to his nature, and replied that it violates his perfect moral standard, I was honestly, slightly annoyed. Just before, you claimed his moral standard was a consequence of his nature. S, which is it? Why is it contrary to his nature? Or why is it contrary to his perfect moral standard?

I apologize if I’m annoying you, that is not my intent. My goal is to get to the bottom of this.

I tried to address this situation in my last post. To summarize I said that it is logically absurd that a being could exist and not be subject to God's standard of goodness. In the same way that it would be logically absurd to believe that a being could exist outside God's standard of logic. If there were two beings that existed and one of them was God the other would by necessity be subject to the real God's standards. I feel this to be a sound argument; however, this was just one example you gave. If you see a hole in it let me know. we are not talking about two beings existing, we are talking about two ideas of god, written down on a piece of paper, and then use trying to decide which one is greater.

The process by which we determine which God is the real God is as I have mentioned before a topic of moral epistemology. Let my try to point out why. In this case we have two beings which are equally powerful an equally knowledgeable (already logical flaws, I will ignore these for now) Now we know that one of these beings is God according to the definition of “ultimate standard” the other being is a poser. The poser would have to be subject to the real Gods standards of morality to even be a logical possibility. Let us then say that the real God is anti rape and the poser is pro rape, the process by which we determine which one is the real God from the poser is essentially the same as the process we come to know what is really good and what isn't. That’s basically what moral epistemology is, the study of how we come to know what is, and what isn’t good. The fact that one is morally perfect is all we need to deal with. It seems as if you are attacking a faulty concept of God. I could be wrong though, let me know if I am. I am not asking how it would be possible for us to know something, i am asking what the difference actually is, whether or not it is known to any person is irrelevant. Why could god's set of morals never include one that allows child rape? What is it about child rape , and his morals, that makes them incompatible? In my example, I said it causes suffering, and that suffering is contrary to my morals, I am not claiming those morals to be objective, good, perfect, or anything else, but I am showing why something is condemned under them, I want you to show how child rape could be condemned under gods morals.

Regarding moral epistemology some might argue that we know what is moral innately and this innate knowledge of right and wrong can be used to discover God’s moral nature, some might argue that we can know discover and know God’s moral nature through His commands, special revelation etc. When I said that something is immoral because it contradicts God’s standard of morality it is similar to saying that something is illogical because it contradicts God’s standard of logic. You are correct that God’s moral standard is an essential part of God’s nature; it is contrary to God’s standard because if God exists by definition of ultimate moral standard than it must be. Now I’m using child rape as an example; it could be said that if God exists according to the definition given some actions conform to His standard, and some do not. The actions that do not are immoral. These actions contradict Gods nature because God exists. The process by which we come to the conclusion that child rape does not conform to God’s standards is a completely different topic.
You still will not answer my question, all I want to know, is, why is child rape contrary to god's nature, why does it violate his perfect moral standard? Why can a perfect set of morals not include child rape being OK?

QuoteAlso, the alternate argument you present at the end of your post

" P1 God is the ultimate standard by virtue of His existence. P2 God is then the standard of morality. P3. If God is the standard of morality then He is necessarily morally perfect. C. Since God is morally perfect He can serve as the foundation for objective moral values."

Starts with the premise of god being the ultimate standard, and ends with the conclusion of him being the standard for morality, surely you see the fallacy in that? If that is the way in which this argument must proceed, I see little point in carrying on, even WLC could prove things like that, if we let him get away with it.

The conclusion isn't that God is the standard of morality; rather it is that Objective moral values can be rooted in God. Being the standard of morality in and of itself does not make morality objective. For morality to be objective it must be mind independent. This is why it is informative to call God necessarily good. God is not who He is because he chose, achieved, or randomly became the way He is. He is the way He is by necessity, which is why right and wrong can be mind independent. There is no possible world where God could exist and not hold the same standard of morality. The argument starts with a definition of God as the ultimate standard. It ends with the claim that morality can be objective and rooted in God. After looking it over for a day I really don’t think that it begs the question. If you are still convinced that it does please let me know.This relies on his morals being perfect, if they are not perfect, we can not claim them to be objective, yet, as we went through before, tediously, to you, perfect means "like god", when we replace the definition of perfect in the dictionary, with this one, the argument ceases to make sense. You may not, may NOT, have two definitions of the same word, and use it with both definitions simultaneously. Perhaps from now on, you should restrict yourself to only using your perfect, that is, whenever you would write down perfect, or greatest, you instead, write down "like god", if the definition is good, and your arguments of a valid logical form, they should still make sense.

QuoteMaybe it would help if I give a broader overview of my problem with this. For morals to be objective, I want there to be an answer to the question "Why is child rape wrong?", an example of an answer I would accept is "Child rape causes suffering, and all unnecessary suffering is wrong" This would be fine for me, assuming we both agreed about suffering being wrong, if you tried to sue this answer to prove that unnecessary suffering is wrong, I would be displeased.. As it stands, your answer goes "Child rape is wrong, because it goes against god, and god determines what is wrong", this is not fine with me, as we are in fact, arguing over the final part of that answer.

I’m really glad you brought this up because I think that the Dilemma has immense implications. First of all I feel as though I have been clear in claiming that “God determines what is wrong” is NOT a plausible answer, Morality is then mind dependant and subjective. You would be rightly displeased. If morality is mind dependant than it is subjective, this must be clear. Since your claim that “unnecessary suffering is wrong” is mind dependant it is not objective. If a crazy claimed that unnecessary suffering was right there would be no mind independent standard to deem one position valid and the other invalid.

Again, I hope I’m not annoying you and I apologize if I did, thanks for the insights.

Before I start, I apologize for the delayed response - I'll do my best to make sure I respond in a timely manner. I apologize that it took me as long as it did to find time to respond to this.

Quote

I am not asking how it would be possible for us to know something, i am asking what the difference actually is, whether or not it is known to any person is irrelevant. Why could god's set of morals never include one that allows child rape? What is it about child rape , and his morals, that makes them incompatible? In my example, I said it causes suffering, and that suffering is contrary to my morals, I am not claiming those morals to be objective, good, perfect, or anything else, but I am showing why something is condemned under them, I want you to show how child rape could be condemned under gods morals.

God’s set of morals could not include certain things (rape, etc) because God exists. I know that sounds a little strange so let me elaborate. If we define God as the ultimate standard, and we assume that He exists, then beings external to God can either conform to His standard or not. Since every being outside of God must be subject to God’s standards then whatever God’s standard of morality is must be the standard of morality. Since God is who He is by necessity His moral standard is not arbitrary. It is mind independent because God is not who He is by choice, achievement etc. but by necessity. You claim that child rape is wrong because it causes suffering; I am claiming it is wrong because it violates the standard which humanity is subject to (because of God’s existence). It is socially and emotionally wrong on many other different levels. The theist can condemn rape because the theist can refer to an objective standard of morality to which all are subject to.

QuoteYou still will not answer my question, all I want to know, is, why is child rape contrary to god's nature, why does it violate his perfect moral standard? Why can a perfect set of morals not include child rape being OK?

Anything contrary to God’s standard, whether it be child rape, kicking kittens etc. Is contrary by necessity. Evil/Wrong is that which is contrary to God, in the same way â€"A is contrary to A. Figuring out that child rape is part of â€"A is a different topic. I think you understand what it means when it is said that God’s characteristics are essential to Him, what it seems to me that you are asking is “why is God’s essential character the way it is” Why isn’t his standard of morality such that child rape is acceptable”. Whatever God’s standard of morality is must be perfect (like God). If God’s standard of morality was one where child rape was acceptable then child rape would be acceptable; however, this does not mean that Child rape in some possible world is acceptable because God is who He is by necessity and if God does not deem child rape to be acceptable than it could never be acceptable. The question that we are left to figure out is “Which actions conform to God’s nature and which actions don’t” and this as you understand is a question regarding moral epistemology. In short, whatever God is, evil is the contrary. God is who He is not by chance but by necessity. When I claim that rape is morally wrong I am making a claim about my knowledge of the nature of God.

QuoteThis relies on his morals being perfect, if they are not perfect, we can not claim them to be objective, yet, as we went through before, tediously, to you, perfect means "like god", when we replace the definition of perfect in the dictionary, with this one, the argument ceases to make sense. You may not, may NOT, have two definitions of the same word, and use it with both definitions simultaneously. Perhaps from now on, you should restrict yourself to only using your perfect, that is, whenever you would write down perfect, or greatest, you instead, write down "like god", if the definition is good, and your arguments of a valid logical form, they should still make sense.

If God is the ultimate standard, by definition he must be morally flawless (perfect) because he is the standard of morality. It’s essentially saying, “God if existing must be God”. This should be obvious and I think you understand this. If God is the standard of morality by virtue of His existence (mind independent) He can serve as a foundation for objective moral truths. Since perfect as it relates to God’s standard is merely a word that describes God’s character I am saying that God as the ultimate standard of morality has a standard of morals that are consistent with His nature. It seems as though you think that for morality to be objective God’s standard of morality must be perfect according to an external standard. I don’t see why this is the case.

God is the ultimate standard of morality by necessity, this entails that his nature is necessarily flawless, since God’s nature is mind independent morality can be objective and because God is perfect (like God) His commands must be perfect (consistent with God)

An assumption to all sides of this discussion seems to be that human logic is capable of analyzing a premise the size of God.

If an entity exists that can create billions of galaxies,  (Billions.  Galaxies.)  what is the chance that you and I would be able to understand or define such an entity?

Wouldn't that be kind of like asking an amoeba it's opinion on evolution or tax reform?

Are we worshiping human logic with blind faith if we assume without questioning that human logic is a useful tool for this task?

Quote from: "Typist"An assumption to all sides of this discussion seems to be that human logic is capable of analyzing a premise the size of God.

If an entity exists that can create billions of galaxies,  (Billions.  Galaxies.)  what is the chance that you and I would be able to understand or define such an entity?

Wouldn't that be kind of like asking an amoeba it's opinion on evolution or tax reform?

Are we worshiping human logic with blind faith if we assume without questioning that human logic is a useful tool for this task?

Trying to understand who God is through the mind has it's limitations to be sure; however, just because it has limitations does not mean it's useless. For example, I think it's informative to say that God's character is essential to His existence, we learn something about who God must be (if he exists). We can learn about God's existence or lack thereof through logical analysis, no it's not perfect but it's something to work with. We conclude different things about God (what He could and could not be) through logic etc. If god is somehow logically impossible then belief in Him seems much more implausible, If not downright insane. Humans are going to use the tools they have to try and understand the universe, logic is one of our "tools".

thanks for the comment.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"Trying to understand who God is through the mind has it's limitations to be sure; however, just because it has limitations does not mean it's useless.

Yes, I agree.    Using the mind to explore the God premise can be quite entertaining for we philosopher types.   Life is short, fun is good, this is a value that is worthwhile.  I think the proof of this value is that we keep doing it, over and over for thousands of years, even though we never really get anywhere.   So we agree, not useless.

QuoteHumans are going to use the tools they have to try and understand the universe, logic is one of our "tools".

Yes, agreed again.   It's who we are.  

It doesn't automatically follow however that the tool we use to ask these questions is even vaguely qualified to deliver an accurate answer to this particular question.  

Picture this.   You've had a few beers.  You're standing over a big ant pile, casually deciding whether to kick the whole thing over, just to see a million ants run out.

Deep within the ant pile, they're having a big discussion.  A big debate!   For years they've been discussing whether there is an intelligence higher than ants, and some of them call this concept "The Big Ant".   They've given this "Big Ant" all the amazing powers any ant would really like to have.

Are they right?  Is there an intelligence higher than ants?  

Yes!  You!  

And they have not the slightest clue you are only a few feet away, thinking about kicking over their ant pile.  They simply don't have the equipment to understand you at all.  They want to, they just can't, no matter how hard they try.

When you finally kick over the ant pile, they'll blame it on the Big Ant, and keep arguing among themselves for another million years.

In my ant pile kicking opinion...

Quote from: "Typist"An assumption to all sides of this discussion seems to be that human logic is capable of analyzing a premise the size of God.

If an entity exists that can create billions of galaxies,  (Billions.  Galaxies.)  what is the chance that you and I would be able to understand or define such an entity?

Wouldn't that be kind of like asking an amoeba it's opinion on evolution or tax reform?

Are we worshiping human logic with blind faith if we assume without questioning that human logic is a useful tool for this task?

Human logic is more than sufficient to deduce that god is a human invention.

Quote from: "i_am_i"Human logic is more than sufficient to deduce that god is a human invention.

Then let's put that logic to good use.

It could be 100% true that everything every human being has ever said about the premise God is entirely silly and wrong, and there still be something in reality that could fairly be called a god.

Even if we assume that it's possible to prove that all religious people are all wrong, that wouldn't prove anything except that religious people are wrong.

Logic.  We don't know what we don't know.

Logic is a human invention.

Quote from: "Typist"

Quote from: "i_am_i"Human logic is more than sufficient to deduce that god is a human invention.

Logic is a human invention.

The difference, of course, is that no one pretends that logic isn't a human invention. Nor is it in any way diminished for being so.

Quote from: "elliebean"The difference, of course, is that no one pretends that logic isn't a human invention.

Well, some theists think Somebody Else invented it.     Sorry, just nitpicking and goofing around...

Quote from: "elliebean"Nor is it in any way diminished for being so.

Not goofing now.  

Logic is entirely diminished by being a human invention.   That is, it is the workings of one species on one tiny planet in one small moment of time, in a reality of unimaginably enormous proportions.  

A notion that a force as small as human logic can be trusted to be a reliable guide to evaluating a proposal of something that created EVERYTHING is as much a comic book invention as any God.

People who take logic worship to that level are making the same mistake that was made when earlier people's assumed that the entire universe revolved around the earth, because you could just look up, and see it for yourself.

Sorry guys, neither we nor our logic are the center of the universe.

Logic is good for lots of things, is not equal to, logic is good for everything.

Quote from: "Typist"

Quote from: "elliebean"The difference, of course, is that no one pretends that logic isn't a human invention.

Well, some theists think Somebody Else invented it.     Sorry, just nitpicking and goofing around...

Quote from: "elliebean"Nor is it in any way diminished for being so.

Not goofing now.  

Logic is entirely diminished by being a human invention.   That is, it is the workings of one species on one tiny planet in one small moment of time, in a reality of unimaginably enormous proportions.  

A notion that a force as small as human logic can be trusted to be a reliable guide to evaluating a proposal of something that created EVERYTHING is as much a comic book invention as any God.

People who take logic worship to that level are making the same mistake that was made when earlier people's assumed that the entire universe revolved around the earth, because you could just look up, and see it for yourself.

Sorry guys, neither we nor our logic are the center of the universe.

Logic is good for lots of things, is not equal to, logic is good for everything.

I'm sorry, trypist, but you speak as a person who has not really had any life experience, has never had to make any serious decisions and has never had to stand up for any principle. Everything you say is theoretical. I just don't see very much thought behind your words.

You quite come across as a college student who's majoring in philosophy.

I'm sure it's all a lot of fun for you but you need to remember that there are people here who have arrived at their conclusions by actually living in the real world.

I'm not asking for your resume. I'm just saying that the glibness of your tone makes it hard to take you seriously.

Ok i_am_i, no problem.   There's no law requiring anybody to take me seriously, and seriously speaking, I hope I don't too often.

Can I ask your age?

Or are we only going to talk about my life experience?

Quote from: "Typist"Ok i_am_i, no problem.   There's no law requiring anybody to take me seriously, and seriously speaking, I hope I don't too often.

Can I ask your age?

Or are we only going to talk about my life experience?

Call me J.

Yeah, sure. I'm fifty-six years old. Married, no childen. I've been a professional musician all my life. I play the drums. I'm also a jazz composer. I dropped out of high-school to begin pursuing my career so I'm basically self-educated. I've played all over the world and I've read everything I could get my hands on, including cook books. I'm a damned good cook.

Right, finished here. You refuse to argue in a logical way, your entire argument is based on you saying "It is is, because it is, because it has to be", as far as I am concerned, you have proven nothing, except your complete failure at using rigorous logic. This thread has been a massive waste of my time, I only wish I had worked out sooner that you are either unwilling or unable to answer questions, or properly defend your proposition, then I could have rescued several hours of my life. Next time you want to go on a three page wind up, I will not be willing to smash my face against the thick skull you present here. If you ever wish to debate with someone again, I suggest you actually listen to their responses, rather than coming up with ten different ways of repeating your argument, despite the massive circularity of the argument. Thanks a lot for wasting my time.

Also, Typist, logic is a system for determining the soundness of conclusions drawn from true premises. If you follow the rules of logic, and have true premises, then your conclusion will be correct. It is nothing more than this, but what it is, is incredible, it is the fundamental way for divining truth in the universe. Your belittling of it as a human invention, does it a great disservice, it is much more than that.

QuoteYes, I agree.    Using the mind to explore the God premise can be quite entertaining for we philosopher types.   Life is short, fun is good, this is a value that is worthwhile.  I think the proof of this value is that we keep doing it, over and over for thousands of years, even though we never really get anywhere.   So we agree, not useless.

Sure it can be entertaining but logic is much more than entertainment. It can be informative. I'm not sure what you mean by "we never really get anywhere" If you are inferring that logic is uninformative and somehow immune to to development then I think you are wrong, an elementary example of how logic has influenced our perception of reality can be found in Descartes meditations "Cogito, ergo sum". This information which was obtained through reason and logic is useful. Not just entertaining. Logic is a a way to separate truth from fiction. How can that not be informative?

QuoteYes, agreed again.   It's who we are.  

It doesn't automatically follow however that the tool we use to ask these questions is even vaguely qualified to deliver an accurate answer to this particular question.  

Picture this.   You've had a few beers.  You're standing over a big ant pile, casually deciding whether to kick the whole thing over, just to see a million ants run out.

Deep within the ant pile, they're having a big discussion.  A big debate!   For years they've been discussing whether there is an intelligence higher than ants, and some of them call this concept "The Big Ant".   They've given this "Big Ant" all the amazing powers any ant would really like to have.

Are they right?  Is there an intelligence higher than ants?  

Yes!  You!  

And they have not the slightest clue you are only a few feet away, thinking about kicking over their ant pile.  They simply don't have the equipment to understand you at all.  They want to, they just can't, no matter how hard they try.

When you finally kick over the ant pile, they'll blame it on the Big Ant, and keep arguing among themselves for another million years.

In my ant pile kicking opinion...

I'm not 100% sure where you are taking this analogy but I will address it as best I can (as off topic as it is).
Most theists who believe in God claim to have some sort of revelation from that God by which they know Him/Her/Them. These sources of revelation from this/these God(s) have differences/contradictions ect. which give rise to different religions. Humanity (according to the theist) must decide which of these sources of revelation are accurate and which are not. The theists goal is to discover which view or perception of God is in line with reality. The process by which the theist does this separation of truth and fiction can be accomplished many different ways. Logic is one of the ways the theist can weed out the rubbish from the truth. Logic can and does change our perception of who God is, it can help the theist determine what concepts of Him/Her/Them are BS and which are plausible. Sure it could be that a giant drunk bully god is about to kick the earth into oblivion, it could be that out perception of logic is distorted and that we are all crazies all blinded by a false reality; however, I don't have any reason to believe that there is or we are.

QuoteRight, finished here. You refuse to argue in a logical way, your entire argument is based on you saying "It is is, because it is, because it has to be", as far as I am concerned, you have proven nothing, except your complete failure at using rigorous logic. This thread has been a massive waste of my time, I only wish I had worked out sooner that you are either unwilling or unable to answer questions, or properly defend your proposition, then I could have rescued several hours of my life. Next time you want to go on a three page wind up, I will not be willing to smash my face against the thick skull you present here. If you ever wish to debate with someone again, I suggest you actually listen to their responses, rather than coming up with ten different ways of repeating your argument, despite the massive circularity of the argument. Thanks a lot for wasting my time.

First and foremost, than you for the hours you spent arguing your points. I appreciate the time, effort, and energy that went into them.
My goal was not to prove anything; my goal was to understand the argument. While I appreciate you taking the time to write your posts I feel as though it is rather ignorant to conclude that because I did not see the validity in your claims I must not have spent time reading them. For what it’s worth, I spent quite a few long nights reading, re-reading, writing, and then re-writing. I always tried to make sure that before I responded I had a more than adequate understanding of your argument(s). I feel as though I accomplished what I set out to accomplish. I’m sorry you don’t feel the same way. I benefited greatly from our discussions and for that, thank you.

That being said, I can’t let you escape with the last word, so for the sake of other lurkers who have been following this thread I will try to break down your thoughts. You seem to think that my argument is that “God is good because he is Good, because he has to be Good” regardless of its truth this is not my argument. My argument essentially is that the dilemma isn’t relevant because the theist’s view of God is that of a being who is essentially God (the ultimate standard). Because of this view of God, whose standard of morality is perfect and mind-independent, the theist has every right to hold to objective moral truths because the dilemma does not apply. It is not (philosophically speaking) a problem for the current monotheist.

Quote from: "i_am_i"Yeah, sure. I'm fifty-six years old. Married, no childen. I've been a professional musician all my life. I play the drums. I'm also a jazz composer. I dropped out of high-school to begin pursuing my career so I'm basically self-educated. I've played all over the world and I've read everything I could get my hands on, including cook books. I'm a damned good cook.

Hey J,

We seem to have some things in common.   We're the same age (58 next week) both married, no kids, and share an interest in music, especially jazz.   In our kitchen, I'm the helper.   I do all the prep, and all the clean up, and my wife does everything that requires intelligence.  

Nice to meet ya.

Quote from: "SSY"Thanks a lot for wasting my time.

Um, there are no victims on Internet forums.   You read and replied because you wished to, why not just leave it at that?

QuoteAlso, Typist, logic is a system for determining the soundness of conclusions drawn from true premises.

How about "evaluating the soundness"?   As example, at one point in history it was perfectly logical to look up in to the sky, and conclude that the universe rotated around the earth.   That conclusion was a fair evaluation of the premise at that time, given the available data, but it was not a "determination" as in, the final true answer.

QuoteIf you follow the rules of logic, and have true premises, then your conclusion will be correct.

See last example.   The thing is, we may THINK we have true premises, for very good reasons, and still be completely wrong.

QuoteIt is nothing more than this, but what it is, is incredible, it is the fundamental way for divining truth in the universe.

As in, "the one true way"??   I'm sorry, apologies, but it's statements like this that cause some to quite logically conclude that for some, science and logic is a religion.

QuoteYour belittling of it as a human invention, does it a great disservice, it is much more than that.

I'm not belittling logic.  It's an excellent tool for very many things.   Respectfully, you are taking that fact, and then making an illogical leap to logic being an excellent tool for everything.  Everything is a very big place.

Blind faith in logic is the same process as blind faith in religion.    As human beings, we have an incurable need to KNOW.  We are obsessed by the need to understand and explain everything.   We used to declare that our holy books could explain everything, and now we want to declare that science and logic can explain everything.  

All I'm suggesting is that we be clearly aware of this built-in basis, and have some humor about it.

Quote from: "Typist"

Quote from: "SSY"Thanks a lot for wasting my time.

Um, there are no victims on Internet forums.   You read and replied because you wished to, why not just leave it at that?

I can understand SSY's frustration.  When you get into a debate with someone, the hope is that it will be an enriching conversation and not one person debating while the other person uses fallacious tactics in order to repeat their point over and over without actually debating their position.  The later is disingenuous and it is a waste of time because if you're a patient person and are willing to give the other person the benefit of the doubt, you end up spending a lot of time re-explaining yourself to someone who says they aren't catching your point when in reality, they're just waiting for their turn to reiterate their position and have no interest in your point.  Saying that it's the honest person's fault for believing and being patient with a liar doesn't really make sense to me, internet forum or not.

Hi Pinkocommie,

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Saying that it's the honest person's fault for believing and being patient with a liar doesn't really make sense to me, internet forum or not.

I'm not trying to assign fault or blame.   I'm trying to suggest that our forum experience will be greatly enhanced if each of us take responsibility for our own experience.  

As example, my experience here is happening inside my head, not inside yours.   If an emotional trash pile starts to accumulate inside of my mind, it's my property, and my job to clean it up.  

You see, on the Net, nobody can dump emotional trash in to my mind but me.  

I decided to visit this forum, where I knew heated debates would likely appear.  I decided to visit this thread.  I decided to read your post.  I decided to have whatever internal reaction I've had to your post. On the net, nobody can force me to do any of these things.

What often happens is that we deliberately run to threads where we know we're going to find conflict, and then we claim to be victims of that conflict.     And then the thread becomes all about "me, me, me!" instead of the topic, which is probably more interesting.

So pinkocommie....

You made me type this!   Your post made me burp these bloviations!   You are a bad person!  I am such a victim, boo hoo, boo hoo, wail, etc! Troll!!  Spam!!  Moderator!!!    

Quote from: "Typist"Hi Pinkocommie,

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Saying that it's the honest person's fault for believing and being patient with a liar doesn't really make sense to me, internet forum or not.

I'm not trying to assign fault or blame.   I'm trying to suggest that our forum experience will be greatly enhanced if each of us take responsibility for our own experience.  

As example, my experience here is happening inside my head, not inside yours.   If an emotional trash pile starts to accumulate inside of my mind, it's my property, and my job to clean it up.  

You see, on the Net, nobody can dump emotional trash in to my mind but me.  

I decided to visit this forum, where I knew heated debates would likely appear.  I decided to visit this thread.  I decided to read your post.  I decided to have whatever internal reaction I've had to your post. On the net, nobody can force me to do any of these things.

What often happens is that we deliberately run to threads where we know we're going to find conflict, and then we claim to be victims of that conflict.     And then the thread becomes all about "me, me, me!" instead of the topic, which is probably more interesting.

So pinkocommie....

You made me type this!   Your post made me burp these bloviations!   You are a bad person!  I am such a victim, boo hoo, boo hoo, wail, etc! Troll!!  Spam!!  Moderator!!!    

You're ignoring the fact that the conflict isn't that an argument occurred, the conflict is that SSY seems to feel that the argument occurred and lasted as long as it did under entirely false pretenses.  As for the last line of your comment - I find strawmen neither funny nor cute.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"You're ignoring the fact that the conflict isn't that an argument occurred, the conflict is that SSY seems to feel that the argument occurred and lasted as long as it did under entirely false pretenses.

Is this a fact, or just a claim?    Are we gods, do we know what all posters are thinking when they post?  

But, let's go ahead and assume the claim is true, just to move things along.   This is the Internet.   This is an ideology forum.   We have chosen to be anonymous, and dialog with total strangers on one of the most controversial topics of all time.  

All of us knew all this, and we came here anyway.   How do we travel from these well known facts, to victim status?    Where is the logic?

Quote from: "pinkocommie"As for the last line of your comment - I find strawmen neither funny nor cute.

I'm sorry for your loss.  

Seriously, let's try to be clear minded and precise.  

If I experience offense at your dismissal of my so called  "humor", who is it exactly that decided to have this experience of offense?  

And who is the one and only person who can remove this experience from inside of my mind?

Yeah, see, I don't really care.  I can see why SSY is frustrated.  You can't because the internet blah blah blah.  Whatever.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Yeah, see, I don't really care.  

Uh huh.  Yeah, see, I um, don't really believe you.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I can see why SSY is frustrated.  You can't because the internet blah blah blah.  Whatever.

What's really annoying about me is that I do see why _any of us_ get frustrated in these situations.  Because we want to.  

Evidence.  Nobody makes us do it.  Nobody CAN make us do it.

Quote from: "Typist"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Yeah, see, I don't really care.  

Uh huh.  Yeah, see, I um, don't really believe you.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I can see why SSY is frustrated.  You can't because the internet blah blah blah.  Whatever.

What's really annoying about me is that I do see why _any of us_ get frustrated in these situations.  Because we want to.  

Evidence.  Nobody makes us do it.  Nobody CAN make us do it.

See, people who use straw men in their arguments have no issue using fallacy in order to try to prove a point.  I have no interest in dealing with fallacy, it's tiring.  So, instead of going to SSY route and getting frustrated, I'm recognizing that you're not the kind of person I want to waste my time talking to and moving on.  Say what you need to about my posts to make yourself happy/feel better/feel smart/whatever.  Again, don't care.  :D  Have fun.

Ok, at your request, here's the evidence....

Quote from: "pinkocommie"See, people who use straw men in their arguments have no issue using fallacy in order to try to prove a point.  I have no interest in dealing with fallacy, it's tiring.  So, instead of going to SSY route and getting frustrated, I'm recognizing that you're not the kind of person I want to waste my time talking to and moving on.  Say what you need to about my posts to make yourself happy/feel better/feel smart/whatever.  Again, don't care.  :D  Have fun.

Quote from: "Typist"What's really annoying about me is that I do see why _any of us_ get frustrated in these situations.  Because we want to.

Actually, what's really annoying about you is that you contribute nothing. You don't engage, you don't seem to take anything anyone says here seriously. It's your lack of respect and the way it seems that you're having fun at our expense that makes you annoying.

"Trippy! Ah man, the colors!"

Now what the hell is that supposed to mean or contribute? I think you're one of those who talks just to hear himself talking. There is nothing of substance in anything you've written here, sir.

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "Typist"What's really annoying about me is that I do see why _any of us_ get frustrated in these situations.  Because we want to.

Actually, what's really annoying about you is that you contribute nothing. You don't engage, you don't seem to take anything anyone says here seriously. It's your lack of respect and the way it seems that you're having fun at our expense that makes you annoying.

"Trippy! Ah man, the colors!"

Now what the hell is that supposed to mean or contribute? I think you're one of those who talks just to hear himself talking. There is nothing of substance in anything you've written here, sir.

well, his worldview is "ignorant" afterall... ; D

Ok, this seems to be becoming the Typist thread.   It's ok with me if we return to the original topic, but until then, let's keep the record straight.

QuoteActually, what's really annoying about you is that you contribute nothing.

It would be more accurate to say I contribute nothing that interests you.  And that's ok for you to feel and say.  I make no claim to be interesting to all readers.  

Actually though, it seems me personally does interest you, as you keep bringing me up.  Again, I don't mind, but if I don't contribute anything, why are you still reading my posts and replying to them???  

QuoteYou don't engage,

Sorry, exactly wrong actually, I engage too much, as this post proves.  

Quoteyou don't seem to take anything anyone says here seriously.

The fact is, here I am, spending time on this little forum, instead of any of the millions of other forums out there.   Documented proof of taking you seriously.  Actions speak louder than words, but it seems you want the words.  

QuoteIt's your lack of respect

Sigh...   I don't take you seriously, I don't respect you etc etc.  C'mon man, you claim to have lots of life experience.   Why not use it?   Why do you care whether I respect you or not?    And why should I respect your posts if they're going to about me, a pretty boring topic?

Quoteand the way it seems that you're having fun at our expense that makes you annoying.

I don't take you seriously, I don't respect you, I'm having fun at your expense etc etc.   Truth is friend, is I'm having fun, because fun is fun, and it has nothing at all to do with you.   Y'ok?

QuoteThere is nothing of substance in anything you've written here, sir.

Then it should be easy to address the points I've made in a number of threads, and show them to be worthless.   Why not proceed with that, I'm agreeable to a dialog on the topic of the forum.

Hi Phillysoul,

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"Sure it can be entertaining but logic is much more than entertainment.

Please note I said, "Using the mind to explore the God premise".   I didn't mean to say all use of logic is just entertainment.

QuoteI'm not 100% sure where you are taking this analogy but I will address it as best I can (as off topic as it is).

Thanks.

QuoteMost theists who believe in God claim to have some sort of revelation from that God by which they know Him/Her/Them. These sources of revelation from this/these God(s) have differences/contradictions ect. which give rise to different religions. Humanity (according to the theist) must decide which of these sources of revelation are accurate and which are not. The theists goal is to discover which view or perception of God is in line with reality. The process by which the theist does this separation of truth and fiction can be accomplished many different ways. Logic is one of the ways the theist can weed out the rubbish from the truth. Logic can and does change our perception of who God is, it can help the theist determine what concepts of Him/Her/Them are BS and which are plausible. Sure it could be that a giant drunk bully god is about to kick the earth into oblivion, it could be that out perception of logic is distorted and that we are all crazies all blinded by a false reality; however, I don't have any reason to believe that there is or we are.

Can we look at the facts?   When this process started some people believed in God, and some didn't.   After thousands of years of such analysis (or hundreds if you want to limit it to science) the situation is the same.  Some people believe in God, and some don't.   Where is the evidence that human logic is currently capable of settling this particular question?

The ants have a quite sophisticated "civilization".   But they simply don't have the physical equipment to understand what a human being is, or what California means etc.  They just can't, no matter how hard they try.

I'm suggesting we may be in that same position.  We're very clever indeed at what we're clever at, but we may simply not have the hardware to comprehend something the size of the God premise.

Quote from: "Typist"We're very clever indeed at what we're clever at, but we may simply not have the hardware to comprehend something the size of the God premise.

Here we go again. I'll say it once more: we have all the hardware and software necessary to comprehend that the overwhelming evidence shows that the "God premise" is nothing more than a human invention, and as such is as easy to understand as the evolution of the plow.

It's hardly a fair comparison, though, considering that the plow actually does something.

Ok J, I'll take your assertion as a time saving summary of your view.    So now that we get your main point,  perhaps we could explore it together in more detail.

I'm open to consider a theory that everything any theist has ever said about God is made up and wrong.   I don't know this to be true, but neither do I know it to be false.   It's worth considering.

For the moment, let's assume it is true.

How does this prove that something we could call a God does not exist?

Quote from: "Typist"Ok J, I'll take your assertion as a time saving summary of your view.    So now that we get your main point,  perhaps we could explore it together in more detail.

I'm open to consider a theory that everything any theist has ever said about God is made up and wrong.   I don't know this to be true, but neither do I know it to be false.   It's worth considering.

For the moment, let's assume it is true.

How does this prove that something we could call a God does not exist?

It doesn't.

Sure there may be a God, just as there may be planets billions of light years away that are just like our own. There may be a lot of things that we know nothing about, there have to be. But that isn't the point. The point is that whatever anyone now claims to know about God is based on nothing more than a human invention, and if you can't see the far-reaching implications of that then brother I don't know what to tell you.

Quote from: "i_am_i"Sure there may be a God,

Thus, some of these theists might be right.   Or, more likely, might have stumbled on to some little corner of the truth, which they then mangled in the translation, and then turned in to a power trip etc etc.

Quote from: "i_am_i"The point is that whatever anyone now claims to know about God is based on nothing more than a human invention,

How can you say this with such certainty, when you just said above that "sure there may be a god"?   If there is a God, and you and I don't know anything about it, how do we then proceed to claim that all God claims are made up crap?

Do you see?   Unless we can prove there is no God, or can prove we know what God is, we have no way to definitively declare somebody else's conception of God an illusion.

All we can do is what theists do, which is say, "it feels like this to me, my inclination is", etc.

Quote from: "i_am_i"and if you can't see the far-reaching implications of that then brother I don't know what to tell you.

You've presented a theory, an assertion.   Lots of folks share this assertion, so yes, it does have a big effect on our culture.  

You seem to be implying there are far reaching implications of some established fact, of which I see none.   Just saying, that's the view from here, that's all.

Your turn.

Quote from: "Typist"Your turn.

Everything I've ever seen about God, any old God you want to talk about, has the hand and the mind of man all over it. It's obvious. There was a time when men themselves claimed to be Gods. The "face of God," the "hand of God," the "will of God," "the judgement of God." All a human projection, anthropomorphising this concept into a character that we can all understand by its human traits.

Could there be some sort of infinite super-intellegence that does whatever an infinite super-intellegence does? Sure, why not? I find it highly unlikely and I really don't care one way or the other. And neither, evidently, does anyone who is perfectly happy with any traditional religious man-made depiction of such a being.

Quote from: "i_am_i"All a human projection, anthropomorphising this concept into a character that we can all understand by its human traits.

Yes, I agree that this humanizing of God is a very common process, and seems to illustrate theists limited ability to consider non-human forms of intelligence.  

We see this same human-centric focus from atheists who insist human logic must be suitable to evaluate whether there is a "super-intelligence" proposed to be a billion times more powerful than our own.  

Quote from: "i_am_i"Could there be some sort of infinite super-intellegence that does whatever an infinite super-intellegence does? Sure, why not? I find it highly unlikely and I really don't care one way or the other.

Thanks for your frankness.   In mutual honesty, I get the impression that many Internet atheists (don't know whether this applies to you or not) aren't really interested in these topics, they're just looking for some group to be superior too.   In our era of political correctness, theists are one of the few groups left that are acceptable to slam.    

You know, if we were to make blanket statements about blacks, gays, jews, women, ethic groups etc, we would be chastised by our peers.   But we can yell "theists are moronic idiots!" and get a big round of applause on atheist forums.  The fact that theists are probably the largest group in human history, and thus are incredibly diverse, is usually skipped over.

Quote from: "i_am_i"Everything I've ever seen about God, any old God you want to talk about, has the hand and the mind of man all over it. It's obvious. There was a time when men themselves claimed to be Gods. The "face of God," the "hand of God," the "will of God," "the judgement of God." All a human projection, anthropomorphising this concept into a character that we can all understand by its human traits.

Could there be some sort of infinite super-intellegence that does whatever an infinite super-intellegence does? Sure, why not? I find it highly unlikely and I really don't care one way or the other. And neither, evidently, does anyone who is perfectly happy with any traditional religious man-made depiction of such a being.

QFT

And anyway, even if there were such a being that we couldn't comprehend it with our "limited intelligence" we couldn't know anything about it anyway, which would make it indistinguishable from non-existance, hence the mootness of any debate on the subject.