philechat

How do you know the God of the Bible is the One True God? What is the rationale as to determine the Christian standard of knowledge being superior to the knowledge of the other cultures? Okay this is the challenge: Try your best not to answer me with the circular argument of "because God say so".

Vorkosigan

automaton said:
How does their worldview, non-arbitrarily account for moral norms?

Dave Gadbois


Why don't you post this in the Morals Forum? You'll get plenty of responses there.

Vorkosigan

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

HRG,
Why shouldn't he? If God created the universe and all it's laws...why would these laws only include the physical and not the moral?


My main objection to this thinking is that it is completely non-sensical. IF God does exist THEN God defines the laws of good/evil (just like all other laws in the universe).

That is to say that IF God does exist THEN the 'standard' is set and is not up for debate.

As such it doesn't make sense to say 'IF God exists...why should he get to define good and evil?'

Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

HRG

Because physical laws and moral laws are totally different concepts which unfortunately are denoted by the same three letters l-a-w (or loi, Gesetz etc.).

Physical laws are descriptive; they say which events happen and which don't. They are our description of regularities we have observed in the universe.

Moral laws are prescriptive; they say what should be done and what should not be done. They are written in the imperative mood ("Do not ..."), not in the indicative one. They can be violated and often carry threat of punishment.

One can violate the law against stealing, thus committing a blameworthy act and incurring the danger of punishment. But it is absolutely ridiculous to say that Saturn could leave its orbit (thereby violating Kepler's law) and might be punished for it.

The analogy fails on so many levels that the sciences have abandoned the "law" terminology. Since 1900, no new "law" has come up in physics - only theories, equations, models etc.


Moral laws are not physical laws; see above. Standards are never unique; you can measure lengths in feet, meters or light-years.

[/quote]
As such it doesn't make sense to say 'IF God exists...why should he get to define good and evil?'
[/quote]

Not at all. It is just like saying "If God exists, why should he get to define yellow, temperature, republican or ugly?" All those concepts are our invention, and we set the definitions.

Regards,
HRG.

"Man is the measure of all things" (Protagoras)

DaveJes1979

Automaton

Dave: the fact that power cannot negate a logical impossibility (the existence of square circles) is proof of what I had said- that they are distinct philisophical categories.

Yet power and logic are not "unrelated", because it might be said that God uses His power in a logical fashion.

philechat


Dave: well, I get the feeling that you haven't been following the thread. I have gone to lengths to defend the validity of circularity in ethical and epistemological systems earlier.

I should also note that your criticism assumes that this is a culture war of some sort. It is not. It is a war of worldviews, and ultimate starting points for knowledge. To the extent that one compromises the Christian doctrine of God, one destroys the only basis for the intelligibility of the universe.

Dave Gadbois

Ron Singh

I am inclined to speak for DaveJes for a moment here if he doesn't mind and give my personal insight. Hopefully I will not contradict any of his holy scriptures, nor his personal philosophy, as I am not Christian and I am probably ignorant of them in comparison to him.

AutoMutton:
DaveJes is not inclined to disprove any other Gods. He is only inclined to believe in his own. With his own personal faith and reasons, he has proof enough to believe in his particular Christian God. Allah IS the same God, but is personified differently, according to Muslims. Nevertheless, suppose there is a distinct "muslim" God. He has no reason to delve into Islam to learn of another God. He himself believes in Monotheism. He himself prefers his own God. He finds his God logical. More importantly, he has reason and proof of his God, since he only believes in one God, he has no business to consider any other Gods, if the God he requires is already sufficing.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

HRG,

You may be missing my point here. However you wish to define physical and moral 'laws' and the relationship between the two is not the issue at hand.

If God made the universe (both spiritual and physical) how can you claim that he should not define morality (moral law, good/evil, whatever) in that universe?

What justification do you offer for this position?


This is like saying the potter should have no say in the shape of the pottery he is making.

Even worse...it's like the piece of pottery saying to the potter 'You should have no say in the shape of the pottery you make...the pottery you make should determine that.'


This seems ludicrous. At best this position is mere opinion and can in no way be defended logically.

Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas ]</p>

Philosoft

It is if you want to call both 'objective.'

<strong> He never said that. I think his point was that the word 'objective' confers a degree of absoluteness and immutability that "moral laws" don't have.

<strong> No, it's like the pottery saying, "Is there a reason you choose to make pottery in the shape you do, or is it an arbitrary decision?"

*Waits for the inevitable argument from God's nature*

<strong> Why don't you try attacking his actual position?

HRG

That's like asking how I can claim that he should not define what a grand slam counts in bridge, or what we understand by "impressionist painter".

He can define it for himself: "That's what I mean when I say g-o-o-d".
We may define it for ourselves: "That's what we mean when we say g-o-o-d". Those four letters have no a priori meaning, they need to be given a meaning.

Why should those definitions be the same ? And why should we do what God calls g-o-o-d ?

BTW, the difference to physical law is of course that you cannot define the spin of an electron: it is 1/2 (in proper units).

Morality is not about the shape of the pots, but what about the pots are supposed to do. BTW, I am a sentient, self-aware being, not a pot.

I am afraid you are still missing the essential difference between saying what is and saying what should be done - even if the first is determined by a creator god.

Regards,
HRG.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

HRG,
Not at all. These are examples of completely subjective ideals...they can differ from person to person.

Morality, like gravity, is not subjective.


I see the misunderstanding.

It is a mistake to assume that you can 'define' good in the first place.

IF God exists THEN perhaps good has already been defined. Simply redefining the english term 'g-o-o-d' does not change what 'good' really means just as redefining 'g-r-a-v-i-t-y' does affect gravity's existence or what it really is.


And herein lies your delimma:
For your argument to hold you MUST show that IF God exists AND he created the universe THEN he would not create/define morality in it.

What evidence do you have to support such a claim?


If you have no evidence....how can you argue that God would do such a thing?


Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

[ May 22, 2002: Message edited by: Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas ]</p>