Bill Snedden

In fact, it is you who apparently "fail to misunderstand the nature of a transcendental argument" if you think it possible to rebut one from within the presupposition. It is, by nature, impossible. The best anyone can hope for is to show that a particular presupposition is without value or inadequate to support a coherent worldview (argument by "retortion", as it were).

However, your worldview doesn't actually "account" for anything so much as assert that it does. In fact, if your god actually exists, morality is meaningless and human knowledge truly impossible.

Your "god" is no more than a slave master exerting his authority upon his slaves. To assert or argue that one sentient being creates or causes value for another is the epitomy of the abandonment of one's moral responsibility. To claim that the source of morality lies outside humanity is to reduce humans to slaves. As slaves, the morality dictated to us by the slave master has no real meaning for us; indeed, it is only his enforced yet illegitimate authority over us that allows him to dictate to us anything at all.

As for human knowledge, you have no guarantee other than your god's word that it does not deceive you constantly about the state of the world. Presupposing a "Cartesian demon" certainly doesn't place one any closer to a situation in which knowledge is possible than a worldview that explicitly denies the existence of such a creature.

Your objections are groundless.

1) If you were to examine all of Carl's views of morality, philosophy, & science in context, you would see that they are all perfectly constant. You can't just pick and choose an idea here and an idea there! Imagine if people attempted to do that with the Bible?!

2) Carl is, of course, the product of Reality, as Jesus is supposed to have been the son of God. Do you suppose God didn't exist before Jesus or the prophets or the Bible itself? Likewise, Carl strove to teach us the Truth about Reality. We may not have known about True Morality before Carl, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with its existence.

3) Who says Carl is gone? Of course, his physical body is no longer in existence, but his ideas (a reflection of reality) live forever.

Ahhh, the futility of grounding moral absolutes in a mythological creature!

Aaah, no. You have asserted that it is necessary, but you have not unequivocally demonstrated that it is. The two are different.

Because "morality" consists of a code delineating how humans should live. Not gods, but humans. Therefore, in order to have meaning to humans, it must have it's foundation in something human.

You've certainly strung together some words, and they appear to form sentences. Unfortunately, they don't convey any information - all you've offered is a bunch of meaningless doubletalk.

"Value" simply isn't possible without gain or loss. We value things because they add something to us, something that we would not have without them. As your god cannot possibly be without anything, it cannot possibly be said to value anything; it needs nothing, it desires nothing, it wants for nothing. It can neither gain nor lose, it merely is. There can be no "values" for such a creature.

Of course, there can certainly be commands and orders to a slave to behave in a certain way. However, these cannot possibly be of any real value to the enslaved. Why should the slave value his master's command?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

DaveJes1979

HRG
Dave: we must come into a right relationship with God, since He (as good and just) must punish those who are not in such a relationship.

Islam does not have any account of redemption at all. They have no doctrine of salvation. Just do good works and hope that God overlooks and ignores your sin. There is no consistent scheme of justice at all here.


Philosoft
Dave: but the point of Paul's discussion here is that God's laws are universal - thus we cannot sin to one's heart's desires. Secondly - it does refute your view of what, supposedly, our doctrine of original sin entails (the exponential accumulation of sins). This cannot be, since Romans 5 points out that the ONE (Adam) represents the many. Not that the one piles his sins onto the second, who piles his sins onto the third, etc. etc.

Dave: I didn't say anything about "purpose." I aksed you what makes something "right" or "wrong" based on the basis you gave for morality (evolution)? Why shouldn't I be an innovator, a rebel of sorts, against the evolutionary scheme (survival of the fittest)?

Dave: you missed the thrust of my jest. If you want to ground ethics in evolution "selecting" certain behaviors - I say you have to arbitrarily choose certain behaviors over others that are (supposedly) the product of evolution.

This also assumes that evolution exists - which is based on (supposedly) empirical evidence. But my question, then, is how you can get beyond empirical data and get to moral norms. You have to go from "is"-ness to "ought"-ness.

Jack the Bodiless
Dave: his "holy book" is just as defective as any atheistic system of morality.

Daqve: indeed, we would have ate the fruit, had we been in his place. His sin is our sin because he truly represented us.


Dave: Jesus bore the punishment for our sins because He was a willing sacrifice. He wanted to save His people.

The Bible does indeed state that the guilty shouldn't be punished for the crimes of others - when it is referring to the standards of CIVIL JUSTICE. Original sin (a creator-creature realtionship) is a seperate issue. Thus, there is no contradiction.

Dave: this does not amount to an epistemic account. Why should I care about such a rule?

Dave: some humans have apparently "evolved" a short order of empathy.

Dave: but different social circles developed different values. What makes any given set of such values 'right'?

Dave: the last emperor of China made plenty enemies, yet lived and died a comfortable life.]

Dave: which no dictator fears. I would also point out that there are plenty of a-moral people who do not break federal or state laws.

Dave: but maybe everyone around me is wrong, and I should push for reform!

Dave: then, SHOULD I believe that this code does not exist? "Should" implies an ethical mandate.

Dave: if objective ethics do not exist, then why should I value one thing over another? You cannot give me any reasoning beyond your preference - once again on the level of "I like chocolate ice cream."

Dave: of course there is contradiction between those two "measuring sticks". God's stick is different from man's.

Dave: God does express sorrow for some things that come to pass, but He does not repent as a human does (in the sense that he changes his mind).

Dave: there is nothing here that amounts to anything more than speculative conjecture based on the assumptions of modern "history of religion" studies.

Dave: how is the context "clear" in the sense you mean it? Why is there NECESSARILY the implication that all sacrifices are offered in the same way??

Dave: burnt and blood sacrifices are EXAMPLES, but they are not the only sacrifices.

Dave: how do you know there are "only two ways" of giving people as tribute? Slavery is another form I can think of.

Dave: this still does not mean that Jephtah could not have "gone over" the monopoly.

Dave: probably temple servants, according to most commentators.

Dave: it is a "contradiction" because you have failed to differentiate between the different uses of the word "sacrifice"????

Dave: when did we "establish" that "fact"??

Dave: there are some OT laws that are not binding - but there are eternal OT laws that always will be.

The reason why I have made the stand I have made is because the only reasoning you gave for me to believe that God accepts human sacrifices is based on the schoolboy error of equivocation (understanding "sacrifice" to mean the same thing in all instances).


Dave: that person obviously DID NOT pressupose that the Christian God exists. Being raised as a Christian does not guarantee any such thing!

I suggest you think these things through a bit more before you claim victory and call our view "incoherent."


Dave: before you claim victory prematurely (yet again), I would point out that the appeal to mystery, in the Christian worldview, is justified. That is because the divine mind does not always equate to the human mind (as finite). We would not expect that we know everything God does (including his morally sufficient reason for evil).

However, the atheistic alternative cannot claim a similar privelege - since the atheistic worldview has ONLY the human mind to reason at all. If humans do not know it, it cannot exist.

Although, if you REALLY want to know part of God's reason for evil - I can provide at least a partial answer. Evil exists for God's glory. That is because God triumphs over evil - destroying His enemies and saving (by grace) His people. That is the morally sufficient reason, since there is no higher good than God's glory.

Dave: God foreordains the unbelief of some because He is in control of ALL history, directing it for His own glory.

I would suggest you decist from the "glug glug glug" comments. You are making an ass out of yourself by assuming we don't have answers to certain questions - only to be immediately proven wrong.

Dave: gee, what a cogent response.

I would, first of all, point out that salvation is by predestination, faith alone, and by works. Those are not contradictory ideas at all. Predestination is involved in the ELECTION element of salvation. It is causally prior to the other two. Faith alone is the ground of the JUSTIFICATION element of salvation - where we are definitively forgiven. And WORKS is involved in the SANCTIFICATION element (which continues throughout our lives after justification).

Dave: yet another cogent, devastating rebuttal!


Bill Snedden

Dave: wrong. Presuppositions can be evaluted by their ability to provide non-arbitrary, meaningful forms of knowledge.

How can a worldview that posits, say, only matter in motion give rise to morality vs. an all-good, non-contingent, eternal, personal God?

Dave: why is it impossible?

Dave: why do you assume that this is the case?

Dave: that is unless, of course, that authority is legitimate - which you have a priori ruled out (which is precisely what Christianity affirms). God's morality does not reduce us to "slaves". God's laws, as the Psalmist wrote, are good and pleasing. It is only the apostate, corrupted human mind that thinks otherwise.

Dave: God's word is, by definition, the truth.

All of these things boil down to "God doesn't exist--unless, of course, He exists." It does not take into full account what God's existence entails.


Dave: even if this were so, it is doubtful that Carl actually lived out his own morality and philosophy with perfect consistency.

Dave: then you are, in effect, trying to ground ethics in something TRANSCENDENTAL to Carl Sagan. Not Carl Sagan himself.

Dave: but if God has delineated how humans should live, why is it that we must find the foundation in something human? These are all unsupported assertions.

Dave: how do you know "value" isn't possible without gain? You have told us how humans value - but why do you assume that God must value the same way as humans. God values certain things because they bring Him honor and glory. He sees His own reflection in good things. So it is not something that has been "added" to Himself. It is a reflection and manifestation of Himself.

Dave G.

rainbow walking

Dave: arbitrariness is certainly possible on the subjective end of things, but it does not follow that it is a necessary part of the objective standard. Much less does this fact make the standard itself arbitrary.

Rw: One arrives at objective standards and/or complies with them via subjective arbitration translated into community participation. Since humans are the object of such standards it is up to humans to designate their objectivity in relation to humanity based on life and liberty.

Dave: Or imagine this. Put 5 people into 5 different rooms, each with a copy of the Bible. They all come out with 5 interpretations. A problem, yes? Ahhh, but what is the variable in that scenario? The variable is PEOPLE. Thus, we have constructed a proof that one should not trust in people - not that the Bible is somehow not trustworthy.

Rw: Everything that passes within the perceptual or conceptual parameters of a human is open to interpretation. As I said before, what determines the veracity of any standard or idea is its maximum effectiveness or results/consequences. These are observable and quantifiable in the larger stream of the community and ultimately become the expression of that community as its culture.

Dave: what is this required? The whole point of objective truth is that it exists, and is true REGUARDLESS OF ANY SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS ON THE MATTER.

Rw: Agreed. Now when you establish the existence of god and/or a non-arbitrary code of ethics as an objective TRUTH we can talk. Presupposing these things is not equivalent to establishing them as objective truths.


Dave: I am not sure what you mean by "evidence." All evidences must be interpreted by a set of presuppositions.

Rw: And the epistemology must be grounded in fact in order to produce the maximum results. Have you established god’s existence as a fact or even a logical necessity?

Dave: I have argued that Christians presuppositions are necessary preconditions for man gaining any knowledge at all.

Rw: You have? I must have missed that argumentation. And all of this trickles back to god as necessary non-contingent being. The only problem is that neither you or Till or any other presuppositionalist has ever connected the dots. Why must god be a necessity of being or life or knowledge? The fact is there is no evidence to support a contention that an imaginary god is a necessary prerequisite of being or knowledge. It is part of your presuppositionalism that does not carry the weight it purports to carry precisely because of this lack of substance in your evidentiary claims. Just saying it don’t make it so and neither does believing it.

Dave: I have yet to see how atheism can account for forms of knowledge such as morality.

Rw: Stick around and I’ll show you how it’s done. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods, not a lack of intelligence and will to live as an autonomous agent. Intelligence and a will to live as an autonomous agent are all that’s required to establish a systematic moral base. Whatever is conducive to life and liberty is the foundation for this establishment regardless of what you believe. From this point forward we can progress to community which then induces politics, economics, education, and culture. No god needed.

Dave: So I have indeed ARGUED for my case.

Rw: Indeed, without the desired results, I might add.

Dave: then even in arguing with me, and attempting to put forward an alternate epistemology or theory of ethics, you have given me every reason to reject it, if arbitrariness is unavoidable.

Rw: I don’t care if you want to blame me for rejecting fact in favor of fiction. The fact is you can claim rejection but you can’t escape the necessity of arbitration. The moment you internalize a particular moral or ethic and that moral or ethic is challenged by a particular circumstance, arbitration will ensue…like it or not. You are a human being and that is your nature. You can try to sidestep the reality by labeling this arbitration as part of your sinful nature but you can’t escape the nature of your humanity. Because you are equipped with the capacity to rationalize, you could recognize this as the natural effect of balancing your personhood with community and environment. But if you choose to limit your capacity by appealing to faith you will experience the internal turmoil of guilt and anxiety that accompanies cognitive dissonance.

Dave: I might as well ground my theory of ethics in an ice cream cone than I would be compelled to accept your alternate scheme.

Rw: You already have…an imaginary ice cream cone at that.

Dave: do we arbitrate arbitrarily?

Rw: Of course, but not without ration, reason and consequences. It is from the consequences that we derive our standards.


Dave: I sincerely hope that you are not confusing arbitrary philisophical constructs with "arbitration". In any case, the ethical model you outlined is rather question-begging. Precisely, what makes something "beneficial" to do?

Rw: Its capacity to further the life and liberty of the individual within the constraints imposed by community and environment.

Dave: What makes a "universal tendency" ethically good?

Rw: Maximum results. Universality is irrelevant. People have a tendency to share their virtues and vices. This ensures maximum saturation within the community. When the saturation level begins to affect the community a standard is derived and/or enforced to either ensure its continuance or eradication. No god is required.

Dave: you keep attaching the phrase "we know" to your sentences. Precisely, how do you know?

Rw: By experience and tradition. It’s called education and is depicted as a learning curve.

Dave: Precisely, why do we values our lives?

Rw: The precise value of our lives is arbitrated into our identities which we derive from our community. Some value their lives more than others. Arbitration is not an exact science and proceeds more from a trial and error basis. Survival itself is hard-wired into us genetically as part of the evolutionary mechanism.

Dave: Should we?

Rw: Yes

Dave: How do you know you are not perfect? How do you define perfection? Your comments are all very question-begging.

Rw: First let’s define perfection: per·fect (pûr“f¹kt) adj. Abbr. perf. 1. Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind. 2. Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.

I know that I am not perfect because I am not without defect. I make mistakes, errors of judgment, accidents and suffer personal injury. I have body parts that are useless like wisdom teeth and appendixes. I will die. And this is not question begging as I have more than established the conclusion of the premises.


Dave: again, more assertions without substantiation.

Rw: Atheists live peacefully among their fellows. How can we do this without the help of an imaginary god or the ball and chain of original sin? Consider the premise substantiated. Have you yet substantiated your presuppositions?

Dave: chance regulates? Does chance have ontological existence as well as causal powers?

Rw: Abstractly so…yes.

Dave: How can chance "regulate" - and bring order, when chance is antithetical to uniformity of any kind?

Rw: It forces its anti-thesis by virtue of its existence. It compels upon us the necessity of planning and thinking.

Dave: you are assuming, here, that community existence somehow becomes, or ought to become normative. Why?

Rw: It is not assumption, it is fact, because humanity has learned that systematizing enables maximum results. Thus establishing norms and standards is an economy of intelligent processes. No need to re-invent the wheel. But non-arbitrariness cannot be factually established as a norm or as a prerequisite of a norm. It is not logical or practical. Chance and conflict will prevail upon each succeeding community to tailor their norms to their needs. That is why modern Christianity does not support the biblical acceptance of slavery as a normal way of life.


Dave: ahhh, you "prefer" that, huh? I prefer vanilla ice cream. So what? How do you turn preference into an ethical system?

Rw: By intelligent arbitration. Maximum results. Compare the results of Capitalism to Communism or Theocracy. Capitalism has its own unique set of ethics that are intrinsic to its politics and economics.

Dave: why do we, or should we believe they are valid?

Rw: By comparing them to other systems.

Dave: What is the criteria for validity,

Rw: The furtherance of life and liberty

Dave: and what methodology should we use to test this?

Rw: Experience, the legal system and maximum results.


Dave: and what, precisely, makes human life and liberty an ethically good thing?

Rw: What is the alternative? It is self evident.

Dave: more question begging.

Rw: You obviously do not know what “question begging” means.

Dave: How does one determine what the "desired result" is?

Rw: By observation of the consequences and arbitration to achieve maximum results.

Dave: Your ethical construct is not only arbitrary, but it raises more questions than it can answer by itself.

Rw: Oh really? I’ve fielded every single question you’ve put forth thus far with answers you have yet to refute outside of saying “nuh uh.”

Dave: A tower of meaningless assertions cannot stand.

Rw: Then you should abandon your world view and join humanity in its quest for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Dave: once again, Christian ethics do not somehow become arbitrary simply because unethical people exist.

Rw: Christian ethics are and will always be arbitrary until and unless you can provide us with some evidence that this god of yours actually exists, and even then they become his arbitrary say-so.

Dave: Thus, it is not a "pipe dream".

Rw: In other words, “nuh uh.”

Dave: And, yes, all human knowledge is dependent upon God- including the knowledge of ethical norms such as "murder is wrong".

Rw: Un-supported assertion, question begging at its finest, argumentum ad numerum, (to the number of times you’ve made this baseless assertion) and roman numericals just to cover the bases. Why don’t you start by establishing this dependency with some sound argumentation rather than assuming the truth of the premise.

Dave: you seem to ignore the fact that experience must be interpreted before it is meaningful.

Rw: So…?

Dave: But in order to attach ethical meaning to experience, one must already have an ethical system in place.

Rw: One does…it’s been hard wired in place and compels one to act in favor of preserving ones existence and thus concluding that ones existence is worthy to be preserved. Your god is obsolete and even detrimental as his moral system starts with a declaration that all human life is sinful and unworthy to be preserved.


Dave: all of your "what if" questions already presume that God doesn't exist. You are just arguing in circles.

Rw: And what rational, logical or factual reason do you offer to convince me that my presumption is erroneous?

Dave: what else is chance, except man's inability to predict the future with certainty?

Rw: chance (ch²ns) n. 1.a. The unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause. b. A force assumed to cause events that cannot be foreseen or controlled; luck: Chance will determine the outcome.


Dave: really, NO ONE knows? Just because you don't know, why do you assume that no one knows, or can know?

Rw: Evasion

Dave: because Hebrew slavery (as opposed to Roman slavery) was endorsed by Scripture.

Rw: Would that be the same scripture from which you derive your moral authority?


Dave: the Bible is accepted presuppositionally, not through inductive verification.

Rw: If I am to choose a moral code should I allow my choice to be guided by fact or fiction?





Dave: God's self-revelation in the Bible.


Rw: More evasion. Can you try to be more specific?

Dave: then, are we to believe that God doesn't have a will to "see things fit"?

Rw: First can we either factually or logically establish that there even is a god before we proceed to make generalizations as though the premise has already been established?



Dave: but your proposed ethical system entails that we actively confer value, and thus the right to live, based on our own standards of value.

Rw: So? We do anyway. Just because you claim that such conference is attributable to a god don’t make it so.

Dave: try actually answering the dozens of questions that I posted on the last post, and in this post.

Rw: You mean all those answers I’ve already provided from which you devised this present post? And all the answers to your present questions which I’m now providing? In spite of the many evasive replies you’ve provided in return?

rw: Your baseless assertions do not qualify as facts or axioms because they have yet to be established as either universally true or self evident. Just saying it don’t make it so.

rw: Show me the necessity Dave. Where’s the beef? Just saying it don’t make it so. Neither does believing it.

Dave: matter certainly has attributes, but attributes are abstract concepts.

Rw: Uh…Dave…isn’t that what I just said?

Dave: Gravity is still a material, physical force.

Rw: Uh…no Dave…gravity is not a material.

Dave: Abstraction entails more than invisibility.

Rw: Uh…no Dave…red is an attribute but it requires visibility so invisibility is non sequitur to abstraction.

Dave: Human thought is not an "attribute" of the human brain, although the human brain does facilitate human thought.

Rw: Uh…wrong again, Dave…thought certainly is an attribute of the brain. What else would you attribute it to…the heart?

Dave: Once again, if you define abstract concepts IN MATERIAL TERMS, then you have made the term meaningless.

Rw: Uh…you mean naturalistic terms, Dave? All concepts must relate to something within this universe to be meaningful. Whether they are attributed to matter, energy, imagination or fictional gods, to be meaningful these things must have some defining attribute. To be actual or possible they must also be shown to be either factual or logical.

Dave: more question-begging. Precisely, how do we evaluate our "needs", define "fulfillment", etc.

Rw: On the basis of life and liberty. How many times must I repeat myself? I bet when you get a paycheck you have to “evaluate” whether to pay a bill or purchase something else. Are you going to now posit that we need a god to create a budget for us? And your fulfillment will be defined by the degree of success you have at meeting your needs. This is not rocket science Dave and hardly requires an invisible sky daddy to accomplish. God is not a logical necessity of man’s existence.

Dave: Even a theist could agree that we should seek fulfillment and provision for our needs. You haven't presented us with a meaningful alternative yet.

Rw: When you present me with a meaningful theistic explanation of how your god facilitates the accomplishment of all these things for you, then I’ll have something to work with. Thusfar all you’ve done is blatantly evade and or blindly assert your claims without a shred of evidence or logical consistency to back them up.




Dave: maybe maximum results are bad. That is plausible, under the framework you have outlined for me.

Rw: Defining “bad” as that which does not facilitate the furtherance of life and freedom, any results that are “bad” are not maximum, so your claim is frivolous.
.
.

Dave: if there is no God, then why SHOULDN'T people just shrug? Again, its just matter in motion to the materialist. How can one be outraged by the products of chemical reactions?

Rw: because one of the products of those chemical reactions is the will to survive which has evolved into a complicated empathetic structure resulting in a complex community psyche. No god needed.

Dave: once again, implicit in this thinking is the idea that moral norms must inherently prevent anyone from breaking them. Moral norms only entail that GUILT and punishment comes upon the lawbreaker - not that it prevents the existence of lawbreaking. This is not a law of physics!

Rw: Listen Dave, you obviously don’t understand the purpose of systematic moral and ethical strictures. They are not about punishments and vengence but are established for the purpose of defining those areas of human behavior that will elicit unfavorable consequences. The purpose is to dissuade folks from indulging in those behaviors. It’s about prevention pure and simple. Their existence empowers men to enforce their parameters. But their goal is to encourage self-enforcement to achieve prevention. From them are derived statutory law.

Dave: because only the Christian view of theism can provide a coherent, non-arbitrary foundation for ethical conduct.

Rw: Another baseless assertion. You support this…how?

Dave: Allah, for instance, in the Quran is quite arbitrary, since He does not consistently dispense justice.

Rw: And your god has dispensed justice…when?

Dave: but what sort of "expansion" is desirable,

Rw: The sort of expansion that produces the least amount of resistance. It is accomplished by a balance of cooperation and competition.

Dave: and what things do/should the constituency desire, that their "spirit" not be broke?

Rw: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Dave: Why is community expansion even desirable to begin with?

Rw: To accommodate the increase in the population and the decrease in natural resources.


Dave: that doesn't meaningfully answer the question. We both agree that one finds meaning in reality. My question is, how can your "reality", your worldview, provide a basis for meaning amidst any historical event?

Rw: My worldview provided me with the basis to declare that the events of 9-11 where wrong and tragic, and I arrived at this conclusion without appealing to your invisible sky daddy. So the real question for you, who claim that I simply couldn’t have done this without appealing to your god, is how did I do it? I didn’t see the victims as images of your god but as images of me. I am the basis of my worldview. My existence is the essence of it and from which all further complex thoughts and feelings emerge. I need no god. I reject yours.


Dave: because this atrocity was a manifestation of his curse, his wrath on humanity. God is glorified even in his just wrath.

Rw: In other words…goddunnit. And you approve of this as a worldview? This, of course, stems from the basic tenet of your worldview that humans are damnable creatures fit for the furnace. You actually derive no empathetic value from this worldview, and declaring that people are made in the image of god while deeming their innocent destruction an act of god’s vengeance basically tells me that your god hates his image and seeks to destroy it every chance he can. And I’m suppose to embrace this?


Dave: these are "unsupported" because, as I pointed out before, they are axiomatic.

Rw: Axiomatic means to be universally true and self evident. If that were the case everyone would embrace your god.

Dave: so do I have the right to murder those who I have deemed have not yet actualized their own self-worth?

Rw: Only those who have not actualized their own self worth would consider murder as an option. And your question ignores their value to others. Often times people who would do harm refrain from doing so because they recognize their victim has value to someone they do not wish to hurt. Much the way a husband and wife will remain in an un-happy marriage to preserve the value of their children’s happiness.

Dave: Why not, since, on your own terms, they are worthless.

Rw: You mis-state my premises. Men who have actualized their own worth contribute more than anyone to help those who are struggling with their circumstances. Only men who have no self worth are capable of murder.

Dave: If I do not have this right, from where do you ground their human rights?

Rw: In their humanity which is equivalent to my own. Without self worth one has no identity and hence loses his humanity. They exist in a dangerous condition and it is in the best interest of the community to help them establish their self worth and find their identity.

Bill Snedden

Of course one can evaluate the presuppositions of others, but it is impossible to evaluate one's own presuppositions without stepping outside of them. As your own presupposition explicitly denies any "outside", just how do you propose to undertake this evaluation?

How can a worldview that posits, say, an invisible sky-wizard, give rise to morality vs. the real world of human values?

Apparently you only believe it impossible because you believe it impossible. I haven't seen any argument yet that hasn't been countered.

I don't assume it; it's the basis of your argument. How else would you describe a situation from which you may not escape and in which you are forbidden to determine your own values, and in addition all of your actions will be subject to review with the understanding that the harshest possible punishment will be meted out if they fail to conform to someone else's standards?

Sure sounds like slavery to me.

You are correct to state that I have ruled out the slavemaster's authority a priori. There is no legitimate authority that does not come from the consent of those over whom the authority is held. The slavemaster's authority cannot therefore be legitimate. There has to be a reason why we should consent to his right to govern us and it has to be more than "because he says so." Asserting that your god should have authority over us because he is "all-good" simply begs the question; it doesn't suffice.

God's laws cannot be considered "good and pleasing" simply because he says so. In order for the words "good" and "pleasing" to have any meaning for us, they must take meaning from our values. Is the taste of liver good because I say it is? Why would it be so simply because your "god" said it was? This is no more than the fallacy of special pleading.

But only because he says so. Why should a liar tell you that he's lying? Doesn't that kind of defeat his purpose? The point is that without an external standard, you have no way of knowing whether or not your god is lying to you. The Bible clearly states that God conceals the truth when it suits his purpose. You have absolutely no way to know that he is not doing this to you all the time.

No, it doesn't take into account what you assert is entailed by God's existence. Or, rather, what you assert his non-existence entails.

This won't do. Remember the presupposition? Is it doubtful that Jesus actually lived out his own morality and philosophy with perfect consistency? If not, then neither can it be doubtful for Carl.

Again, remember the presupposition. Don't you believe that Jesus and God are the same being? Carl is both Carl and Reality at the same time.

Assertions, yes. Unsupported, no. Your god cannot delineate how humans should live without assuming the role of slavemaster. If you find slavery to be a moral worldview, then this discussion will surely bear no fruit.

When we talk about "ethics" and "morality", we're talking about values. God could certainly tell us what things he thinks we should value, and why. However, that provides no compelling reason for us to value them. God's apparent pleasure over the smell of burning sacrifies creates no necessary compulsion for me to enjoy the aroma of charred flesh myself.

Human values come from humans. Our common humanity is a transcendent reality from which we can derive shared values. These values (like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) can form the basis of a rational system of ethics. This is what Humanism is.

Actually, I said "gain or loss", and I should think it self-evident. The things that we value are those that add something to who and what we are or that would detract from who and what we are were we to lose them. It is inherent in the meaning of the word "value".

Make a list of all of the things you value. Is there anything on that list that doesn't affect you in some way? That doesn't change you? That you wouldn't miss if you were to lose it? How many things on that list could you never lose?

We are not gods; why should we care what values they have? Besides which, "value" has only one meaning. It cannot mean one thing for humans and another for gods. This is another example of the fallacy of special pleading.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

DaveJes1979

rainbow walking
Dave: how does this follow from what was said? Indeed, humans are the objects of the standards, but it does not follow that the humans, therefore, are the ground of those standards. Just the opposite. The ground of the standards that men must follow must be transcendent to men - otherwise one may choose from any number of differing behaviors or values that different humans hold to. Life and liberty are certainly not universal virtues.

Dave: your utilitarianism ("maximum effectiveness") begs more questions than it answers. What, precisely, is the criteria of effectiveness? What about inter-communal ethics?

Dave: you are missing the argument. We posit God's existence because His existence is the NECESSARY precondition for non-arbitrary ethics. That is the proof. It is not just a presupposition, it is a necessary one.

Dave: wrong, epistemology is what governs the interpretation of fact. It is not grounded in fact.

Dave: we have "connected the dots" by pointing out that God's existence is necessary for particular knowledge forms. Specifically, we have been discussing ethical norms. Logic is another form (God's omnipotence and providence accounts for an ordered universe w/ humans who can think- thus logic is possible).

Dave: why should I believe that "life and liberty" is a proper foundation? Why should I adopt this ethical principle over, say, the ethical system of bin Laden et al.?

Dave: I think you are confusing arbitrariness (irrationality, unjustified thought) with subjective arbitration (decision-making). Arbitrartion is not necessarily arbitrary.

Dave: that is quite wrong. Consequences, by themselves, carry no innate value. They have to be interpreted by an a priori ethical system. Otherwise there is nothing to tell you what a "good" vs. "bad" consequence is.

Dave: you still haven't given us a reason to value life and liberty.

Dave: "maximum results" is question-begging. Precisely, what sort of results? Furthermore, if universal (objective) norms do not exist, you have no basis to differentiate between a "virtue" or "vice." Whatever happens just happens - no goodness or badness about it.

Dave: which tradition? Whose experience? What interpretive framework and criteria are used to analyze these two things?

Dave: this does not take into account those who are suicidal. Not only that, but everything you just said is descriptive. You have told us about genetics and what not. That is not prescriptive. Thus, there is no ethical system. You are going to have to get beyond "is"-ness to "ought"-ness.

Dave: still question-begging. What is the criteria that determines what a "defect" or "mistake, error" etc. is? You have provided us with antonyms to "perfect", not a workable philosophy of value.

Dave: atheists are not always peaceful at all. The rejection of God has been one of the core tenants of historic Communism, for example.

Dave: really, chance has causal powers? Even if you could defend this supposition, it still leaves you with an inability for "regulation" to exist, since chance is inherently antithetical to order or regulation of any kind!

Dave: chance "forces its antithesis"? How does chance turn into its opposite - order? If your theory of knowledge can tolerate concepts turning into their opposites, you have destroyed any hope of coherent thinking at all.

Secondly, I don't know how any of this would compel us to "plan and think" - nor does it provide us a basis or framework with which to plan.

Dave: more vague talk about "maximum results". And you are still not going beyond a description of what happens - rather than what OUGHT to happen (prescriptive). On what epistemological basis does a community filled with conflicting norms come to agreement? Why do and SHOULD some norms win out over others?

Dave: it is hardly "intelligent arbitration" if your system relies on preferences and nothing more, as your system entails.

Dave: Ok, we should make comparisons - but what is the substance that validates a given system?

Dave: many people don't value life and liberty as you do. Why should I choose your system of values of theirs?

Dave: and the legal system is derived from what basis? Experience is interpreted using what criteria and methodology? Maximum results is defined according to what? More questions than answers, as usual.

Dave: many would disagree, and think that tyranny is a great alternative.


Dave: and what determines which consequences or results are desirable or "maximum"?? What criteria is in place to determine this, using what methodology? You are going in circles, answering nothing.

Dave: God's existence entail that his "say-so" is not arbitrary. You aren't thinking through, consistently, the implications of His existence. If God exists, then He is good and just - thus His decrees would not be arbitrary. Secondly, God's existence is proven by the aforementioned means (His existence being necessary to knowledge)

Dave: you obviously still don't understand the nature of transcendental argumentation. My assertions are not ‘baseless'. They come from my worldview. They are the presuppositions of my thought. My worldview, as a whole, is proven by the fact that it is a necessary worldview to account for knowledge. Thus, I expound my worldview (what you call baseless assertions) in order to show how they lead to knowledge. I, likewise, critique your worldview (on its own terms) to show that it cannot lead to knowledge. So we are comparing worldviews ON THEIR OWN TERMS. This is not "question-begging" (because circular argumentation in epistemology is not a fallacy). Nor is it "baseless assertions." It is presuppositional critiquing.

Dave: obviously certain ethics have been "hard wired" into some people that disagree with your ethical system. So how can you object to their hard-wired ethics?

Dave: using a dictionary again? Come on, that is pathetic. These are philisophical questions. Please substantiate your belief that chance is some sort of ontological existent with causal powers in the universe.

Dave: pointing out that YOU made an unsupported statement is hardly "evasion"!

Dave: of course it is.

Dave: the differentiation between fact and fiction is guided by one's presuppositions. You have it backwards.

Dave: the Bible is a definite, fixed work of literature. How more "specific" do you want it?

Dave: you were the one who originally made the generalization reguarding God. You tell me.

Dave: "we do anyway" you say. You are not going beyond description. That is an "is" proposition ("we do"), not an "ought".

Dave: you have committed the fallacy of equivocation here. Gravity is a material force, not matter.

Dave: you are quite confused, friend. You said that red as an attribute "requires visibility". That is not what is being discussed. We are discussing the nature of an abstract attribute itself - not what it "requires" or not.

Dave: like I said, the human brain facilitates thought. Thought is a function of the brain, but thought is not an attribute of the brain itself. You can say that grayness or sponginess is an attribute of the brain.

Dave: since your "nature" seems to include only material existence, my criticism stands.

Dave: and you have given us nor eason to define "bad" as such.

Dave: how can bundles of matter and chemicals have "wills" or "empathize"? What makes our sack of chemicals any different from any other?

Dave: but merely "defining areas of human behavior that will elicit unfavorable consequences" does not itself provide any means of certain prevention! Not only that, but this entails that there is no such thing as moral guilt and it makes retributive justice impossible.

Dave: it is not a "when", it's a place called hell.

Dave: you addressed the side-effects of the expansion, but did not tell us what good expansion is vs. bad expansion. What constitutes progress?

Dave: apparently bin Laden didn't really care about "images of you." Why should he? You haven't given me any reason to adopt your ethics above his.

Dave: but humans, and thus the image of God, has been marred by sin. Thus, God is right to judge and pour out wrath. Nonetheless, God's image remains faintly, and thus we retain real value.

Dave: that is unless, of course, sin exists (as we contend).


Dave: how does this follow?

Dave: some people don't have any values to anyone else.

Dave: I don't know why you assume that those who have no self-worth are uniquely capable of murder. Nor do I see why some with no self-worth can't just keep to themselves in a back alley or gutter - or Manhattan condo, for that matter.

Dave: why is the humanity of others as valuable as my humanity? Perhaps "survival of the fittest" would dictate that certain people be wiped out for the "interest of the community".

Philosoft

Oh really? What point in one's sin-fest does scripture say is the 'point of no return'?

<strong> So 'sin' is both a nebulous thing that is inherited and a particular infraction of his worshipfulness' Objective Moral Code(tm)? Got it.

<strong> I mentioned this before and you apparently ignored it. Who said the behaviors that are selected for must be consciously motivated? Obviously, you could make a conscious decision to kill someone, but you don't. Why is that? Are you aware there's a large body of cognitive/neuro psych data that indicates the reptilian brain is responsible for a much greater percentage of human behavior than then mammalian brain. Not only could moral behavior be housed in the 'subconscious,' it's entirely likely that it is.

<strong> And you still are badly misrepresenting evolution to make your empty point. Evolution works at the population level. A behavior is selected for if its presence in a population greatly outweighs its absence (or the presence of the contrary behavior). Please don't ask for specifics, population genetics is not anywhere near my neighborhood. This does not mean that a particular behavior that is counter to that of a selected behavior will be eliminated entirely. Individuals can still exhibit the behavior. And, depending on the degree of pressure to remove the counter-behavior, some of those individuals may have offspring and may perpetuate the counter-behavior in limited numbers. Are you actually going to attempt to understand what I'm writing? I assume you're bright enough to learn if you don't but I just don't want to deal with your poor grasp of evolutionary theory any more.

<strong> I'd be careful how near my mouth I put my foot if I was you.

<strong> Your implicit assumption is that an "ought" has to be a consciously undertaken decision. This is incorrect for reasons I have shown.

HRG

Since he hasn't explained how we get from "God exists" (an "-isness") to "we should do what God commands" (an "-oughtness"), I wouldn't bother too much with his question.

His attempt to base morality on God's nature being good by definition is but a dimly veiled equivocation between "good-1" = "that what we should strive for" and "good-2" = "that what the Christian God is by nature". Without a petitio principii, there is nothing to link those two concepts.

I love it when apologists claim that property X holds for their god "by definition", but without telling us what that definition is. They should realize that the more properties they load upon the God concept, the harder it becomes to argue for the existence of an entity which simultaneously enjoys all those properties.

Regards,
HRG.

Typhon

Will…to…resist…overly…long…posting…failing!

No it is not. Ethics in humans are not arbitrary. They are dictated by our biology. It is no more a necessary precondition than having an invisible pink monkey in your pocket is a necessary precondition to being a primate.

Oh my, sorry but that's just nonsense. A god is neither necessary for ethics nor logic. As I am able to show that we possess both ethics and logic, while you and all the theists in the world have yet been unable to show that we have a god or gods, I would say that you have a long way to go before you can possibly argue for this preposterous position.

Bin Laden et al.? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Osama bin Laden is a political leader/figurehead who uses religion and force to advance his group/sect's/power base's goals. George Walker Bush is a political leader/figurehead who uses religion and force to advance his group/country's/power base's goals.

America is not just about "life and liberty" in the first place (sheesh, you even left out the whole "pursuit of happiness thing"). If you think that's all that exists in the policies that govern any large modern nation-state, you are sadly naïve and undereducated in the nature of political thought and political realities.

The activities on both sides of the conflict whose bold print headlines awoke many slumbering people in the US, despite not being a surprise to the rest of the world, or the country's own leaders I might add, are well within the range for humans worldwide. They are nothing new. Next you'll be telling us Osama bin Laden is the devil's henchman, lol. Personally, if god and the devil did exist, poor old bin Laden would be hard pressed to find elbow room in Satan's drawing room for all the members of the current administration and the US senate who are already there.

Anyway, I'm getting off track here and into a discussion of politics. Regardless of yours, I certainly don't see what this has to do with the fact that ethics and morals in humans are clearly the product of a naturalistic process. No god or gods needed, thank you.


Do you DaveJes1979, value your life and what liberty you are allotted by your current society/family group/corporation-company-work group/economic niche/etc.? Would you or any of your kin group, if you have any, find the removal of either to be onerous or unpleasant? And importantly as well, would you ever sacrifice either in the face of some necessity or severe emotional/physical stressor, such as to rescue your offspring from a burning house, to protect a friend from a killer's bullet, to call out an alarm to keep your neighbor from being unjustly kidnapped?

These are simple things DaveJes1979. It doesn't take rocket science to see where we get our reasons.

Suicidal? Again, what does suicide have to do with the fact that morals are naturalistic in origin? Yes some individuals can become suicidal, others, like religious nut-jobs, will martyr themselves like popcorn if you let them. Another argument against gods as far as I'm concerned.

It's too bad that you don't "get" the fact that we are the product of our genes, and our society is not surprising, a product of us. However, it doesn’t change the fact that it is true. "Prescriptive" has nothing to do with it.

And communism has what, killed more people than capitalism? Even with the excesses of Stalin, which had little to do with communism, but rather totalitarianism, you'd be hard pressed to make that argument. Considering that our current problems in the Middle East and in Indian and Pakistan are fueled in huge part by, you guessed it, religion, makes your stone throwing at communism particularly ignorant.

Capitalism is not a more "moral" system than communism. Neither one are truly systems of "morals." I don't know why you two are using these as examples.

Again, I say you are being vastly simplistic here. Most cultures do value life and liberty. It is their interpretation of what these are, and what their values are when placed against other compelling social needs, coupled with a vast array of complex political, social, regional, and historical needs and values, that cause your monocultural, rooted in the present, perception of these to appear different from your own.

Only tyrants. Seriously, quit being so obtuse. Do you really think that there are human cultures which prefer the arbitrary and involuntary loss of their own lives and own liberties? Tyranny comes into play when those groups which hold power, hold most or all of the available power. This is not only common, but can be the outcome of so many factors, that to say that they are the result of one culture being more accepting of tyranny than another is ludicrous, and not I might add, backed up by a careful study of world and historical cultures.

One. IF god exists. No reason to think so based on our species' experience so far.

Two. IF god exists, he is not necessarily good or just.

Three. Nothing suggested that a god is necessary precondition to knowledge.

You DaveJes1979, have never been successful in this claim. Not only that, as there is more evidence for a naturalistic world than a theist one, and knowledge exists, all the proof is currently on my side of the equation.

I don't have to object to the fact that some people like eating chips with mayonnaise on them, I just don't allow that foul, gelatinous substance on mine. However, I think I've liked malt vinegar from birth.

Our "sack of chemicals" (which has to be one of the most amusingly unpleasant descriptors I've seen for a living organism, however appropriate) differ greatly from other "sacks of chemicals" in that we are social animals, greatly dependent upon cooperative and collective behavior. If we were a species of solitary predators, who only interacted in order to mate, we'd be I assure you, quite a bit less "empathetic."

Again with the silly bin Laden stuff. Are we now heaping the whole of the world's evils on the head of some CIA trained Islamic reactionary?

I wish I had a sticker or a t-shirt that said "BIN LADEN DID IT" for every time some house burns down, a baby dies, a plane crashes, or the remote control gets lost under the couch. Human "tragedies" happen all the time, that's one of the things that makes them tragic. Death and suffering are a part of the high cost of living.

God doesn't care, because he and all his ilk aren't there either. If you damn fundies (of all creeds and flavors of superstition) would just get over your collective delusions, there would be a whole lot less suffering that I and my fellow Homo sapiens would have to be subjected to.

I'm going to be really upset when Indian and Pakistan start lobbing atomic bombs over which religious majority is to control some piss-ant stretch of the Himalayas.

Sigh. Sorry DaveJes1979, but that's just a load of superstitious faddle, that I do not hold to. Humans were not made in the image of any tin plate god or gods, we've never been "marred by sin" and not surprisingly, the whole of human history has been completely absent from any evidence for both such a being's existence, as well as any judgment or dolling out of wrath.

Contend till the cows come stumbling home with beer on their breath and lipstick smeared on their mouths, and sin will still be a purely man-made definition having to do with locally agreed upon, collective moral values.

And people get hurt every day. This is why people who do not have either kin-groups, strong personal power bases, or friends/allies, or the larger societal protection, are at high risk of becoming the victims of both predatory individuals and/or groups, as well as the natural vagrancies of a dangerous, uncertain world.

People with self-worth, do murder. Murder is an act that can occur for a variety of reasons. Murder is even something often sanctified by either church or state.

Groan. Yet another theist who hasn't a clue about that phrase "survival of the fittest." It's a poor term to use here, and not the same thing as natural selection at all. Survival is not solely a matter of competition. Cooperation is an established part of survival strategies in our species and others.

Well, I can't believe I managed to get through the entire mountain of comments. Sheesh, I though I was long-winded!

It seems to boil down to the fact that you, DaveJes1979, have got yourself in an unwinable position about a god being a prerequisite for human morality (and I think, even more far fetched, for knowledge as well).

Frankly, I haven't seen you able to post any evidence of either of these claims. I would also suggest that your understanding of evolutionary theory and current ideas about cooperation and altruistic behavior in animal species, is lacking.

Best,

.T.

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

Jack the Bodiless

Dave:
OK, now you're again saying that we are punished directly for what WE are, not specifically for what Adam did. So the punishment of innocents for the crimes of others is unjust, but does not apply here.

How long will you be able to hold that thought?
Nope, again the concept of justice has slipped out of your grasp. Now we're back to Jesus being punished for "original sin": for the crimes of others. Furthermore, now you're arguing that "original sin" is a special case that's exempt from "civil justice". However, you've already torpedoed your own argument several times on this issue: by insisting that God is perfectly just and provides a normative standard of good, and by your eagerness to explain the human sacrifice of Saul's grandchildren as "judicial punishment" for the crimes of Saul.
You don't want people to behave honorably towards you? Are you a masochist?
"Some humans, yes. But they are a minority.
Irrelevant. Social conditioning simply IS. However, all societies include conventions which support the efficient functioning of that society.
So you have no fear of making enemies? Because the last emperor of China got away with it, so will you? Nobody has ever been harmed or killed by a personal enemy? The depth of your self-delusion is fascinating.
And yet many immoral activities are also illegal. In fact, it's rather difficult to find a law that isn't grounded in some sort of moral principle.
Now you're just being an idiot. I have stated a feature of the worldview of metaphysical naturalism. You "should" believe it because you keep lying about this aspect not being "accounted for". I have already corrected your erroneous usage of "should": it implies a context, nothing more. In the context of engaging in the debate, in being seen to address the issues rather than burying your head in the sand, you are required to believe that an absolute, universal moral code DOES NOT EXIST within the worldview of metaphysical naturalism.
Five does not equal zero. I guess we should call this "Dave's arithmetic problem".
Then you have abandoned the Bible. Even Moses succeeded in persuading God to change his mind:
Back to human sacrifice:
Let's look at the context again:
So they were all sacrificed in the same manner: a "heave offering".
According to the Bible itself, the monopoly was enforced by God, not just the priesthood.
...Yeah, right! Butcher their parents and siblings, then turn them loose in your most sacred temples. "Most commentators" being fellow Christians in deep denial, I suppose.
No, the reason I gave for you to believe that God accepts human sacrifices is because the Bible says so. I am still waiting for you to explain why you choose to interpret the Bible in the manner that you do.

For instance, according to you, the killing of the Egyptian firstborn was "good" because God did it. You're prepared to bite the bullet and not twist the Bible to make excuses for THAT atrocity (because you can't). What's the difference? In your worldview, how can you possibly believe that God-ordained human sacrifice is morally wrong?
A person raised as a Christian might simply never believe it, but this is unusual. There are millions of ex-Christians who presupposed that the Christian God exists and then later abandoned their faith due to difficulties with Biblical morality. You are blatantly attempting to use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Strawman fallacy, and a grotesque one at that. In my worldview, there are plenty of things that are assumed to exist without human knowledge of them (the far side of the Moon before the first lunar probes, for instance). A blatant attempt to apply double standards: the atheist is expected to explain everything, while you just say "I dunno".
Then you have abandoned the Christian doctrine of omnibenevolence. You have also (again) abandoned the notion that God provides a normative standard of good. The notion that a good person CREATES evil and suffering just to act like a hero fighting it is absurd. Or would you honestly say that a "good" firefighter is also an arsonist? Maybe the New York fire department arranged the destruction of the World Trade Center in your dark fantasy world? This would be "good", right?
THIS is from the guy who keeps claiming that WE don't have answers to certain questions - only to be immediately and repeatedly proven wrong???

Jobar

Dave: I believe what I believe because I believe it. The universe must be the creation of God because it exists. Men are only moral because God exists; this same God is absolutely moral and perfectly just. If He kills babies and condemns entire civilizations to eternal damnation for sins which are temporal, then He is perfectly moral and just for doing so. If men act in ways which He foresaw when He made them and pronounced them good, then men are sinful and God is perfectly justified in condemning them howsoever he pleases. We should praise God because some small percentage of us are to be saved by faith, by works, and by predestination, which are not mutually contradictory...

Jobar: Yeah yeah right right.


<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />