Open Discussion With Lnc

[LNC]

True. Because the term "morality" only applies to humans and no other creature. Hence, morality as a concept can't be used outside of human nature. It has to only apply to human mind, intention, and behavior. So when animals show a "moral" behavior, it's because they're animals, not because they don't show having codes of conduct. So there is a basic code of correctness in social behavior, even with animals, but the term "moral" is subjective to humans only. So that's why morality is not absolute, since absolute (to me at least) would imply an inclusion of all existing beings. So I guess you agree with me then that "absolute" is not to be interpreted as a total and universal law for any and all beings in existence, but only to humans and their conduct?

 

And lets add to this, what about a 2 year old? Can they apply a correct moral decision to their behavior? Or does morality allow a flexibility to capacity and age? How about a mental handicapped person? Do we apply the same code to them for all things? What about someone with turrets?

 

And next question, what about death penalty, war, or self-defense? Do we apply the categorical imperative to those situations, or do we consider some "killing" acceptable depending on situation?

 

In other words, morality isn't simple, and it isn't absolute in the sense of "same rule, apply all the time, for all situations, for all people, everywhere," but rather, they are guidelines where we try to reach a certain condition, but we know that in most situations the answer is much more complex than that. Right?

 

I would agree that morality only applies to humans. We don't consider animals to be moral agents, nor do we treat them as such. I think your assumption that there is a "basic code of correctness in social behavior, even with animals" is question begging. How do you know that there is? You can say that there may be a set of norms that we see, but to apply the words "code of correctness" is to assume that which we are trying to prove and on what basis.

 

Also, to say that morals only apply to humans and therefore are subjective is equivocating on language. You are speaking of subjective in a different sense than the concept of "objective moral values," which has nothing to do with whether they apply only to humans or to all creation.

 

You are also jumping from the ontology question to the epistemology question when you speak of applying morals in the case of the 2 year old, etc. We should stick with the question of existence before we jump to the question of application. The same holds true for the death penalty and other such application questions, we need to answer the first question before we answer these. We can have objective morality that is applied subjectively, since we are humans and subject to error.

 

Okay. That's good. However I see "God" as the energy that IS everything. I don't see God's omnipotence as him being in the empty space between the quarks, but rather, God is the quarks, God is the dark matter, God is the braided space, God is energy... And we are one with God. So God as a word is really not the same to me as to you. I don't pray to God. I don't believe God to be necessarily conscious or interacting with us, at least not more than just God is Nature and us. We interact with God when we interact with each other and nature. Hence, God in my view becomes nothing but all that exists. Therefore the word "God" loses meaning, and I really don't need it, since it would be more of a word-game. God is not personal, but God is just what is. Very much like the idea of "I AM WHO I AM," but replace "I" and "WHO' with "IT" and "WHICH" or "WHAT".

 

So, God isn't separate in existence from the creation? An impersonal force could not make a personal decision that commanded "begin." I would agree with you that by your definition, the word God would lose meaning. In fact, I don't know why you would add God to your equation as it would not be parsimonious to do so. If God is not necessary, then why add him? However, this still leaves us with the problem of existence. If God is an impersonal force, then we have a problem understanding how the universe began a finite time ago. We also have to figure out the fine tuning problem. We also need to understand why we are personal beings rather than impersonal "machines." These are the questions that Rousseau asked of the Enlightenment thinkers and one for which he never found an adequate answer from them.

[Legion]

I can't think of anything which does not change.

What doesn't change is that things change.

smartass

[Skankboy]

I'd like to reiterate something brought up on another thread. If objective morality existed, it seems to me, there would be some acts that would be considered imorral regardless of the time and culture.

 

I have several times asked if anyone could provide such an example and have yet to receive one.

 

In every instance I've investigated, morality is defined by the culture and the time. Even the morality of Christianity has changed over time to fit changes to the culture(s) it finds itself in.

 

Just my 2 cents,

[Ouroboros]

I would agree that morality only applies to humans. We don't consider animals to be moral agents, nor do we treat them as such. I think your assumption that there is a "basic code of correctness in social behavior, even with animals" is question begging. How do you know that there is? You can say that there may be a set of norms that we see, but to apply the words "code of correctness" is to assume that which we are trying to prove and on what basis.

Because code of conduct isn't the same as code of moral conduct.

 

And how I know? Well, scientific studies show that apes do have a tacit agreements to behavior. Like they appoint arbiters for fights, and such. Also they have found evidence that dogs know about fairness. So it's not me claiming it, but rather just reporting what I have read in scientific journals.

 

Also, to say that morals only apply to humans and therefore are subjective is equivocating on language. You are speaking of subjective in a different sense than the concept of "objective moral values," which has nothing to do with whether they apply only to humans or to all creation.

Well, I think you are speaking about objective in a different sense than I do, so I guess we're even. You claim objectivity to apply only to humans, but that doesn't really work for me. Objective to me means a lot more than that. If objective morality did exist, then that morality is true for all beings, at least the way I see it. But you claim objectivity only apply to humans, and my response then is: that is not objective morality.

 

 

You are also jumping from the ontology question to the epistemology question when you speak of applying morals in the case of the 2 year old, etc. We should stick with the question of existence before we jump to the question of application. The same holds true for the death penalty and other such application questions, we need to answer the first question before we answer these. We can have objective morality that is applied subjectively, since we are humans and subject to error.

Since I think objective morality stems from the reality of nature, then you have your answer. And I think subjective morality is applied on top of it, through reason.

 

I think I answered this quite in depth before. You must have missed it.

 

And the application is important to understand that when you use your "absolute" moral, you are forced to apply reason and rational thought at every turn. Nowhere will you find any "absolute" foundation for your arguments, but you have to use logic, reason, and thought to get there, and as such, it exists without the need of a God.

 

Basically what you are trying to tell me is: Pi can only exist, if there exists a perfect circle. And I disagree.

 

So, God isn't separate in existence from the creation? An impersonal force could not make a personal decision that commanded "begin."

I believe our universe "began" without a command. And what caused it to "begin" was yet another force outside our universe, but not conscious.

 

I would agree with you that by your definition, the word God would lose meaning. In fact, I don't know why you would add God to your equation as it would not be parsimonious to do so. If God is not necessary, then why add him?

Exactly. If existence can be explained without God, then why keep on adding a God person who can't exist?

 

However, this still leaves us with the problem of existence. If God is an impersonal force, then we have a problem understanding how the universe began a finite time ago.

Not at all.

 

For instance, I have no problem to understand how a rock starts rolling down a hill after an earthquake. I do believe in an infinite universe beyond our universe, but not in control of a "mind".

 

We also have to figure out the fine tuning problem.

So are you saying that this universe is the only possible design? So does that mean heaven and hell are exactly identical to this universe, or that those two places exists within this universe?

 

We also need to understand why we are personal beings rather than impersonal "machines." These are the questions that Rousseau asked of the Enlightenment thinkers and one for which he never found an adequate answer from them.

Well, that question is more complex, and I'm not in the mood of going down that path too.

 

And I think it's extremely ridiculous to believe in the Great Flood... amazing... children's stories for grownups.

[Ouroboros]

I'd like to reiterate something brought up on another thread. If objective morality existed, it seems to me, there would be some acts that would be considered imorral regardless of the time and culture.

 

I have several times asked if anyone could provide such an example and have yet to receive one.

No, they can't. LNC is circulating around it without ever getting to it. Even if we admitted to his idea, he wouldn't be able to provide an example that would work. He's an idealist. Living in a dreamworld. Fantasizing about Jesus and imaging an eternal life in Heaven.

 

They think they answer the questions by avoiding those they can't answer, and misdirecting us in the rest. The best answer, is either a no-answer or a wrong-answer, in Christian apologetics. I think I have provided more than enough from my point of view to leave this debate now. I can tell from the last response that it has gone in full circle. The basic principle, "accept nothing, admit to nothing."

 

In every instance I've investigated, morality is defined by the culture and the time. Even the morality of Christianity has changed over time to fit changes to the culture(s) it finds itself in.

Most philosophers and psychiatrists agree with you. Some of them don't, because they have Jesus in their hearts and brains. Unfortunately the trend is that Divine Command Theory is on its way back. I guess at the same time as ID is trying to take science, DCT is trying to get a come-back into philosophy.

[Abiyoyo]

Man, this guy is still at it. LNC: don't you realize that no one is listening to you anymore? If we want to know what you "think" we'll just go to your "brain" and examine your "brain" for ourselves. It's right here: http://www.truthnet.org/Christianity/Apologetics/Truth2/

 

Hey, someone Pm him, it's so frustrating. I said earlier in the thread that he should look at all the replies and do a few quotes at a time to catch up. This guy is like 4-5 days behind, Does he even look at the current posts?

 

 

You just caught him coping and pasting, and still, no response to that.

[Ouroboros]

You just caught him coping and pasting, and still, no response to that.

Well, I'm done. He has not been able to provide a single argument for absolute moral. However, he did argue that "free will" is the greater good, i.e. greater good than moral itself. So why then argue for morals when the key here is that we are acting in accordance with God's will and God's greater good, when we are acting on free will rather than doing something good. In other words, the logic doesn't hold up. It's whacked. It's twisted, and spun three and quarter around the block, and then some, and no one is wiser. I'm not a great philosopher, but I've read enough and heard enough lectures to know LNC is far out in la-la land. Here's the rub, the smarter people are, the more they risk of becoming a bit cuckoo. Hopefully I'm not smart enough for that, but I'm worried about LNC. Defending Noah's Ark... Sorry... I can't help it... It will take a couple of weeks for me to laugh it off.

 

I'm almost at the point of banning him just because he's so annoying.

 

I don't see we are any step closer to any resolution, what so ever, so I'll give this thread a day or two more, then I'll close it (too long again). Also considering that the Ex-Christians have provided about 500 times more arguments than LNC, and no convincing argument has been provided at all for religious morality or God as a necessary source of some absolute morality. LNC reminds me of people who don't read to understand, but only read to find faults and attack without understanding what they're attacking.

[shantonu]

Man, this guy is still at it. LNC: don't you realize that no one is listening to you anymore? If we want to know what you "think" we'll just go to your "brain" and examine your "brain" for ourselves. It's right here: http://www.truthnet.org/Christianity/Apologetics/Truth2/

 

Hey, someone Pm him, it's so frustrating. I said earlier in the thread that he should look at all the replies and do a few quotes at a time to catch up. This guy is like 4-5 days behind, Does he even look at the current posts?

 

 

You just caught him coping and pasting, and still, no response to that.

 

I think your frustration comes from the fact that ( a ) he's doing a lot of copying from apologetics websites and ( b ) he's sorta like one of those "presuppostional" apologists. http://www.carm.org/apologetics/apologetic...nal-apologetics

 

And these folks are particularly annoying because they refuse to ever say anything constructive.

[shantonu]

I don't see we are any step closer to any resolution, what so ever, so I'll give this thread a day or two more, then I'll close it (too long again). Also considering that the Ex-Christians have provided about 500 times more arguments than LNC, and no convincing argument has been provided at all for religious morality or God as a necessary source of some absolute morality. LNC reminds me of people who don't read to understand, but only read to find faults and attack without understanding what they're attacking.

 

It takes more intelligence to defend a false principle than a true one. Still, I'd rather be dumb and right and smart and wrong. The people that defended the geocentric view of the universe were not stupid. If we were doing an IQ test, I'd bet on the creator of this site http://www.geocentricity.com/ as against myself. Intelligence is not enough. One also needs common sense, maturity, curiousity, and intellectual courage.

[agnosticator]

Morality is about how we treat each other within relationships-not just thinking about it.

 

Who's to say animals' reasonings don't include a form of "oughtness"? Humans are different than animals moreso in a matter of DEGREE, than type. Our brains didn't come from a separate alien being, or a god, but from life on earth. Just because we can't "read their minds" doesn't mean they can't possess some degree of "oughtness" in their reasoning.

 

Morality is about more than just behaviors, but is driven by motivations. It is those motivations that we cannot read in animals, and since we cannot communicate intelligently with them, we cannot know what motivated certain behaviors. We can only assume. Your question indicates this very idea. It is not that they don't possess this oughtness, just that we don't know and assuming that they do is not science, it is, well...assumption.

 

You assume they don't... duh! It has been proven by science, as HanSolo said, that animals possess a "code of conduct". It's not the same as a human "moral code", of course. Humans are more advanced because their brains are more developed. Like it or not, animals are related to you LNC. You aren't a separate and special being. Did it ever occur to you that god could have set it up to be so?

[Ouroboros]

Did it ever occur to you that god could have set it up to be so?

Of course it didn't. God can only have done things LNC thinks God did it, or else God is not as smart as LNC.

 

Actually, Plantigas argument is an argument for logical and rational foundation for morality, rather than God. Since Free Will and Logic is the highest order of God's nature, then morality and acting upon it is based on those foundations. Hence, if we act on free will, and use reason, we will be moral. It's an argument for nature as the source of morality too. So they co-exist. While God is not necessary.

[Ouroboros]

It takes more intelligence to defend a false principle than a true one. Still, I'd rather be dumb and right and smart and wrong.

When smart people are right, they are very right. But when they are wrong, they are very wrong.

[Abiyoyo]

I think your frustration comes from the fact that ( a ) he's doing a lot of copying from apologetics websites and ( b ) he's sorta like one of those "presuppostional" apologists.

 

Naw, In 4-5 days, he will finally get to today's posts and say; OH CRAP, they caught me.

[Justin]

I would agree with your opening statement here. I find that people are filtering the Bible through their 21st century filters all the time, especially on this site, and it leads to errors in understanding and interpretation. Now, because the Bible reports the sinfulness of man, why do you consider it to be less reliable? My local newspaper has been reporting a lot about corruption in our state as our Governor was recently impeached and removed from office. By reporting the corruption the paper is not endorsing the corruption. The same could be said of the Bible, by reporting this behavior, it doesn't mean that the Bible or God are endorsing these behaviors.

 

Now, I have to get back to my original point to you and everyone else on this site. You speak of barbarism, slavery, sexism, however, you haven't told me why these are any more than actions that you dislike. In other words, if you believe that these behaviors are really wrong then tell me on what basis you judge them such. Or, are you merely judging the Bible and God on your subjective standard?

 

But, the god of the Bible did tell the Israelies to go slaughter these people and butcher those people. The god of the Bible did lay out in his Holy word, rules about how to treat your slaves, how to treat your women, who to stone to death for what crime, etc. Nothing saying slavery and sexism is wrong, or how slaughtering an entire settlement is wrong and not to do it, or how it is insane to murder a woman for merely grabbing the testicals of her husbands attacker. All this in god's holy word. Seems to me that if i were god, i would have at least put a "thou shall not" in there some place. The Bible is not only reporting GOD'S behaviors, it's endorsing them. Your example of using the state Governor is actually fitting. For god is the corrupt governor in the Bible, to say the least, and the Bible records and reports it.

 

As for your second paragraph, i have already explained myself time and again to you. I will not do it any more.

[agnosticator]

Did it ever occur to you that god could have set it up to be so?

Of course it didn't. God can only have done things LNC thinks God did it, or else God is not as smart as LNC.

 

Actually, Plantigas argument is an argument for logical and rational foundation for morality, rather than God. Since Free Will and Logic is the highest order of God's nature, then morality and acting upon it is based on those foundations. Hence, if we act on free will, and use reason, we will be moral. It's an argument for nature as the source of morality too. So they co-exist. While God is not necessary.

 

It's a good thing god is not necessary, or we'd have to blame god for giving LNC his free will to drive everyone nuts with his flawed reasoning!

[shantonu]

I would agree with your opening statement here. I find that people are filtering the Bible through their 21st century filters all the time, especially on this site, and it leads to errors in understanding and interpretation. Now, because the Bible reports the sinfulness of man, why do you consider it to be less reliable? My local newspaper has been reporting a lot about corruption in our state as our Governor was recently impeached and removed from office. By reporting the corruption the paper is not endorsing the corruption. The same could be said of the Bible, by reporting this behavior, it doesn't mean that the Bible or God are endorsing these behaviors.

 

Now, I have to get back to my original point to you and everyone else on this site. You speak of barbarism, slavery, sexism, however, you haven't told me why these are any more than actions that you dislike. In other words, if you believe that these behaviors are really wrong then tell me on what basis you judge them such. Or, are you merely judging the Bible and God on your subjective standard?

 

But, the god of the Bible did tell the Israelies to go slaughter these people and butcher those people. The god of the Bible did lay out in his Holy word, rules about how to treat your slaves, how to treat your women, who to stone to death for what crime, etc. Nothing saying slavery and sexism is wrong, or how slaughtering an entire settlement is wrong and not to do it, or how it is insane to murder a woman for merely grabbing the testicals of her husbands attacker. All this in god's holy word. Seems to me that if i were god, i would have at least put a "thou shall not" in there some place. The Bible is not only reporting GOD'S behaviors, it's endorsing them. Your example of using the state Governor is actually fitting. For god is the corrupt governor in the Bible, to say the least, and the Bible records and reports it.

 

As for your second paragraph, i have already explained myself time and again to you. I will not do it any more.

 

Again (it seems we have to say this over and over) LNC is engaging in pure sophistry particularly in the bolded line above. Here's a dialogue that I hope finally brings the point home to LNC.

 

C: I think that John Grisham is the greatest writer of all time.

A: Ummm okay. What about Shakespeare? Most people think that he is the greatest.

 

C: Oh but that's that's just their opinion.

A: Well it's pretty well-established that Shakespeare was a great writer and that John Grisham is not.

 

C: But standards change. Before we even begin this conversation, you have to say, nay prove, whether your standards are Objective and unbounded in either time or space.

A: Well I can't say say that the standards of Western literary culture are Objective and eternal.

 

C: Well then you can't say anything about whether Shakespeare is a great writer. It's just your entirely subjective opinon that could change tomorrow.

A: But that makes little sense. We have books written about Shakespeare's poetry and plays that explain how he perfected both blank verse and the dramatic power of tragedy. We would have to say that all of our work in literary appreciation from Aristotle to Stanley Fish were nothing but the subjective opinion--no more than saying "Aristotle like his eggs hard boiled but not soft boiled."

 

C: Yes. That's exactly right. All judgments, no matter how many people agree, always reduces to the subjective opinion of the claimants.

A: But how could that be? Certainly, critics have come up with pretty good guides as to what is good literature. For example in tragedy we think think that there should be a catharsis. We know certain things about role of the tragic hero, tragic flaws and all that.

 

C: But these standards change. For example in ancient Greece the tragic hero had to be someone of great social standing, but modern tragedy can be about ordinary people, even people of low social status.

A: Well yes. The standards do change a bit. But that's just a part of human experience. Perhaps tragedies always could have been about low-status people, but it took certain writers to make that clear. That's why art develops. It doesn't mean we can't have conversation about art in the meantime or that my assessments are just my own. If I justify my judgment in terms of critical apparatus, then my judgment isn't just my own, but being couched in a shared language of criticism, becomes justifiable on objective grounds.

 

C: Nonsense. How can it be objective if it's changeable?

A: It's objective because its part of a shared way of looking at things. It's not merely my opinion any more than it's merely my opinion that $5.00 is worth five dollars. I conceed that it's not "Objective" in the large sense that you would require. But then nothing is.

 

C: God is.

A: But what access do we have to his judgments?

 

C: The Bible.

A: But the Bible says nothing about whether Shakespeare was a great poet or not.

 

C: So either of us could be right.

A: Not really. Go around saying that John Grisham is better than Shakespeare and you're liable to get funny looks.

 

C: But you haven't proved you're right.

A: Well that's because you've loaded the deck in such a way that I can't, but no one will take your argument seriously because you haven't really raised an argument. All you've done is said that the topic is pointless.

C: Maybe it is pointless.

A: What is it you think the English Department at Oxford Univeristy is doing with its time?

 

C: Just engaging in pure subjective speculation.

A: Really? It seems like they aren't earning their salary. Are you saying everything literary critics do is all nonsense?

 

C: Yes. Outside of the Bible, there's no way to judge anything. Thank God the Bible clearly determines right and wrong in Objective terms. For example, we know that murdering is wrong.

A: But the Bible itself shows that God sometimes orders the killing of women, children and babies. So is that also morally right?

 

C: I won't answer that until you tell me whether you have Objective Standards or subjective ones.

A: Well, both really. They are subjective standards in the sense of that they may or may not correspond to some timeless truth, but they are objective in the sense that shared standards, which as I've described form the basis of society's common values.

 

C: Well then the conversation is meaningless and I won't answer whether killing children was right or wrong.

A: But you seem to think it was right.

 

C: I never said that, I said the question was meaningless.

A: Well then you think it's wrong.

 

C: I'm not answering on the grounds that the question is meangless.

A: But you were happy to tell me that murder was wrong. Why wasn't the question meaningless then? Besides, I'm just asking your opinion.

 

C: But that's like asking me whether I like my eggs hard or soft boiled.

A: Perhaps, but I'd still like to know.

 

C: Soft boiled.

A: No about whether you would have followed God's order in 1 Samuel 15:3 to kill women and children.

 

C: The question is meaningless until you set forth your Objective reasons.

A: How is the question any more meaningless than whether you like hard boiled eggs? Can't you at least just tell me what you think?

 

C: No.

[C repeats ad infinitum]

[shantonu]

Needless to say, the above is completely stupid. We aren't expressing our subjective opinions about Shakespeare any more than we are expressing our subjective opinions about decapitating children anymore than we are expressing our subjective opinion when we say "This bag of apples is worth 1 dollar."

 

And even if we were just spouting off at the mouth, I'd still like to know whether LNC thinks he would have obeyed the order in 1 Samuel 15:3.

[Ouroboros]

Shantonu, that's head on accurate. This thread has been the epitome of circumlocution. So I'll be locked in a few days. I think I learned more all other participants than from LNC. I still don't know if LNC consider morality, love, logic, or free will to be the "greater good," because I see it changing depending on context and which argument he's trying to defend.

 

So everyone, get you closing comments in, in the next few days. I won't delete it, just lock it, because I see this discussion going nowhere.

[shantonu]

Shantonu, that's head on accurate. This thread has been the epitome of circumlocution. So I'll be locked in a few days. I think I learned more all other participants than from LNC. I still don't know if LNC consider morality, love, logic, or free will to be the "greater good," because I see it changing depending on context and which argument he's trying to defend.

 

So everyone, get you closing comments in, in the next few days. I won't delete it, just lock it, because I see this discussion going nowhere.

 

Yep. Give him a few days. Then by all means shut it down. We've been more than fair.

[chefranden]

LNC,

 

Yes we know what is moral and immoral based on feeling. The fact that many people find some of the same things immoral is an artifact of being the same species and having very similar physical and psychological needs. For example most people find the eating of shit disgusting because it smells bad. Dung beetles on the other hand can't get enough of the shit. Shit is good for one species and bad for another relative to the evolved needs of those species. It is not based on some external objective goodness or badness of shit. The objective reality is that morals are relative to the needs and feelings of individual humans as they act collectively.

 

 

Psychologists shed light on origins of morality

(3/2/2009)

Tags:

morals, perception

 

In everyday language, people sometimes say that immoral behaviours "leave a bad taste in your mouth". But this may be more than a metaphor according to new scientific evidence from the University of Toronto that shows a link between moral disgust and more primitive forms of disgust related to poison and disease.

 

"Morality is often pointed to as the pinnacle of human evolution and development," says lead author Hanah Chapman, a graduate student in the Department of Psychology. "However, disgust is an ancient and rather primitive emotion which played a key evolutionary role in survival. Our research shows the involvement of disgust in morality, suggesting that moral judgment may depend as much on simple emotional processes as on complex thought." The research is being published in Science on February 27, 2009.

 

In the study, the scientists examined facial movements when participants tasted unpleasant liquids and looked at photographs of disgusting objects such as dirty toilets or injuries. They compared these to their facial movements when they were subjected to unfair treatment in a laboratory game. The U of T team found that people make similar facial movements in response to both primitive forms of disgust and moral disgust.

 

The research employed electromyography, a technique that uses small electrodes placed on the face to detect electrical activation that occurs when the facial muscles contract. In particular, they focused on movement of the levator labii muscle, which acts to raise the upper lip and wrinkle the nose, movements that are thought to be characteristic of the facial expression of disgust.

 

"We found that people show activation of this muscle region in all three situations - when tasting something bad, looking at something disgusting and experiencing unfairness," says Chapman.

 

"These results shed new light on the origins of morality, suggesting that not only do complex thoughts guide our moral compass, but also more primitive instincts related to avoiding potential toxins," says Adam Anderson, principal investigator on the project and the Canada Research Chair in Affective Neuroscience. "Surprisingly, our sophisticated moral sense of what is right and wrong may develop from a newborn's innate preference for what tastes good and bad, what is potentially nutritious versus poisonous."

 

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by the University of Toronto

 

Link to article

[Ouroboros]

Thanks Chef,

 

Pretty much what we said, but now it comes from those evil, non-Christians scientists. Except for that I never made a connection to poison and toxins as a potential root to the congenital sense.

 

It's so nice to see when reality actually confirms reality, instead of imaginary hyperbole confirming delusions.

[mwc]

I am saying that by parsing my definition and attacking a part of it, you destroy the intent of the whole. That is where you built your straw man.

"Since God is, by definition, omnipotent, omniscient eternal and immutable, and the greatest possible being, he is perfect in all of his attributes."

 

I'll come back to this.

 

the summary from wikipedia on "perfect"):

[snip]

 

Are you still trying to argue through this long explanation that somehow Descarte and Leibniz understood God's perfection to include evil? Do you really want to go there? Are you going to tell me that great thinkers like Augustine just overlooked this in the explanation of God as a supremely perfect being? You, my friend, are creative in your attempts at logic, but not precise. To use colloquialisms like "perfect idiot", or "perfect scoundral" and then try to back in through equivocation to God having evil as an attribute of supreme perfection not only doesn't follow, but is really weak. Now, when someone refers to a perfect idiot, do they literally mean that the person is perfect in idiocy? What would it look like for someone to be literally perfect in idiocy? How about a perfect storm, can you describe that to me? These are colloquialisms, not literal descriptions and to use that to get to the conclusion that evil is somehow a part of God's perfection is "perfectly rediculous." Now, again, I am using a colloquialism and I don't mean that there is a literal state of perfect rediculousness. Again, a very creative and entertaining attempt, but a non-sequitur nonetheless.

First things first.

 

Colloquialism: A colloquialism is an expression not used in formal speech, writing or paralinguistics. Colloquialisms are also sometimes referred to collectively as "colloquial language". Examples: Some examples of informal colloquialisms can include words (such as "y'all" or "gonna" or "wanna"), phrases (such as "ain't nothin'", "dressed for bear" and "graveyard dead"), or sometimes even an entire aphorism ("There's more than one way to skin a cat"). (from wikipedia)

 

Taint nothin' in what I said 'bout god being perfectly evil that was a colloquialism. But that last sentence was.

 

Perfect is "to finish." To be complete. I tend to use the concept of an "ideal." No matter. If the object being referenced is "finished" in its "evil" then it is, by definition, "perfectly evil."

 

Lets come back to your definition. "perfect in all of his attributes." Is "evil" an attribute? Why yes it is. Your claim is that you god is, in fact, "perfect" or "finished" in "all of his attributes." Since there is no specific list I noted that "evil" was not excluded. That is what started us down this path. By definition, your definition, your god is evil. Perfectly so.

 

No need to be ashamed. The bible claims that all things come from your god. "Evil," the attribute, is a thing and must originate somewhere. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil must have been planted prior to the humans that were to tend it. The recognition of any evil would be contingent on the knowledge of evil itself. Your god must have this "evil" in all its forms in order to know it, understand it, recognize it and ultimately judge it. If not, your god would be ignorant of it altogether. And that would violate omniscient.

 

As to your questions about what would a "perfect idiot" (among other things) look like? I'm forming an opinion but I don't wish to comment at this time. Lack of imagination has no bearing on any of this however.

 

OK, I see what you mean in that sense of the word. And you are right in that sense that relative to everything else that exists, God is still greater. So, what does that do to make your case?

I'm happy that you understood what I meant with "greatest." I'm also glad that no objection was made to my taking that one bit of your definition and making it into a straw-man. Seems that your objection wasn't really much of an objection after all since we've taken bits and pieces of your definition and discussed those parts without any problems (ie. "perfection," "greatest"). The straw-man argument was apparently a red herring.

 

So dissecting the definition does not really detract from the whole especially since it is joined with several "and's" which allows us to analyze those parts individually. So let's go to it.

 

Section A: God is, by definition

God? Which "god?" Defined by?

 

Section 1: omnipotent, omniscient eternal and immutable

How are you using these terms? Within the realm of what can be or is your "god" unfettered and unrestricted? You've argued both.

 

Section 2: the greatest possible being

Relative to what? And in what ways? How is this measured?

 

Section 3: perfect in all of his attributes

Perfect meaning "finished" or "complete" as per the proper definition or meaning "good" making this statement "good in all of his attributes?" What are all of his attributes?" "Evil" is an attribute. You state your "god" is lacking this attribute (or is it simply not perfected in it). How do you know this? What else is your "god" lacking? How do you know? How can your "god" judge what it does not understand? What it lacks? What it cannot relate to? Does this not make your "god" incomplete or "imperfect?"

 

[snip stuff on Plantinga]

Very good. Plantinga makes a great argument.

 

Finally, Plantinga says that it may at least be possible that the natural evils in the world (floods, earthquakes and the like) are the result of malicious spirits. So Plantinga concludes that it is at least possible that God could not have created a world with moral good but no moral evil.

...

What is innovative about Plantinga's solution is that he is not arguing that it is true that God could not have created a world with moral good but no moral evil—he is merely arguing that it is possibly true.

As an atheist I would say this argument is as compelling as arguing which comic book characters could beat-up other comic book characters since I don't accept the slippery possibility of "malicious spirits" causing any sorts of issues for anyone. I set that right around 0%.

 

Further Plantinga basically argues, if I'm understanding this correctly, that all things that his "god" creates will eventually have a moral failing. According to those "in the know" not all angels will (and I'm thinking not all animals will either and while it may not be fair to include animals I'm thinking of one talking snake that set the standard for the rest). If not all angels (and animals even if it's just snakes) will, or even can, "sin" then his argument starts to break down at that point. Now it's just us humans (even across planets thanks to transworld depravity--which includes heaven from what I can tell) that can use "free will" to "sin" or suffer this "evil." That seems a bit strange to me. Now if we're just saying "it's possible." Well, anything is possible I guess. I can imagine that puppies once ruled the universe but, while possible, how likely is it? Unlikely enough it will stay in the realm of imagination. Poor puppy overlords.

 

So we have the problem of the angels all up in heaven, with "free will" and Satan decides to "sin." Evil suddenly leaps into existence because it's not an attribute of "god." It did not exist up to that point in "time" (whatever that was in heaven terms). All things were "perfect" (meaning "good" and good alone). So the heaven was good. The angels were all good. All things were 100% good. No "evil" could be found no matter how hard you tried. Then Satan managed to do something "evil." Via free will. Somehow "evil" came into existence. The only being that could create did not create it but it came into being nonetheless. And for some reason Satan wanted the other angels to worship him. Why? Who knows? And 1/3 them wanted to do so but for some reason YHWH didn't care for that. Why not? Was Satan really a threat? Does it matter? Not really at this point. The point really is "evil" came into being from nothing apparently. That 1/3 of the angels "sinned" somehow. None of this should have been possible but it supposedly happened. Then it "infected" earth.

 

This is all related to Plantinga's argument. He then decides the rest of the angels simply decided to not choose evil anymore. How nice. The animals I guess made the same choice. So it's just us. Just the humans. We just choose evil over and over again. How sad for us. We'll go to hell as a result. Then we'll get a new heaven/earth. But wait. Plantinga says that "god" cannot create anything with free will without this happening again. So what of this new improved heaven/earth? Looks like it's doomed to fail. Or will there be no free will? Or will "god" simply not have Plantinga there to muck it up with his theory? Seems like that may be the best route since if you accept it for this go around then you accept that this "god" can never, ever, create a "perfect" or "evil free" existence. Or, if he can, why didn't he do it this time around and save people from damnation? Seems a moral failing if he could but didn't.

 

mwc

[mwc]

Right, it is we who subjectively interpret it through our chronologically biased lenses, if we are not careful. That was my point.

If slavery is a-ok 3000, 2000, 1000, 500 and even 200 years ago then it's a-ok today. I want someone to do my shit work for free just like all those people during all those time periods did. There's no objective moral difference.

 

mwc

[chefranden]

Let's just suppose for the moment that the moral good* is objective and external to the human frame. So what? According to Paul it makes no difference to a human what or where good is, because no human can do it. No matter how hard one tries to do good one may as well just take a crap on God's living room carpet for all the good it does. In fact a human probably is just crap on God's carpet.

 

So it is not in human nature to do good. And what is the source of human nature? Well according to the story it has to be God. It seems Paul admits this to be so, but tells you not to bitch about it because God can make you any way he wants. So God made you fucked up because he wanted to be mad at you so that others he made well could be all smug because God wasn't yelling at them. Then they can be all like, "WOW isn't God just the coolest?!!!" (Translation: "Isn't it nice that God is not kicking our ass?!!!) This means of course you are being good by being bad. God the potter kept his objective standard good pot in mind as he made you into a pot fit for destruction least he make you good by mistake. If the Good is what God wants then since he wants you to be bad i.e. not to standard, then you are good for being bad because God can only make good stuff by definition. But of course it is your fault that you are a crappy pot. Are you insane yet?

 

On the other hand according to Ezekiel you can be good. That is you can choose the good and God actually credits you with this good. In fact if you fuck up and do evil for awhile you can undo it all simply by deciding to do good.

 

Zeke 18:21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

 

If there is an external objective good and if you have free will you ought to be able to do good well enough to be up to standard otherwise the objective good is pointless as far as humans are concerned. You wouldn't need a savior. In fact it would seem that a savior would be a violation of God objective law.

Zeke 18:20

The soul who sins is the one who will die.

The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

 

If God's law is objective then no savior is needed.

 

 

*This would also suggest to me that the moral evil is also objective and external to the human frame meaning that it must have its point of origin as God's creation or as one of God's atributes

[LNC]

How is a "code of conduct" displayed by animals different than calling it "morality"? Animals aren't as developed and complex as humans, but I don't see it as being totally not about morality. Consider one example: The gorilla at Brookfield Zoo a few years back gently picked up a human child that fell in her enclosure. While her own baby was on her back, she proceeded to the gate of the enclosure while growling at other gorillas to keep away. She then handed the child to a keeper. I don't see the difference.

 

Well, first, we don't know that animals have a "code of conduct" unless you can communicate with them to find this out. Yes, I do remember that story as I live in the Chicagoland area, however, we do not know what the intentions of that gorilla were, only the actions. That is why we can't say that animals are moral, nor do we judge them as such. The chimp that tore the face off the woman recently, if he would have lived, would not have been put on trial for attempted murder.