sweep

well, you don't believe in god so why would any of the four propositions have any meaning to you? Please don't use your 'this isn't relevant' line again. It won't cut it with me.

you haven't got an argument demrald- you tell me what is inconsistent about any of it> I am moral, I can stop immoral acts but I will not, and it isn't immoral to stop an act I deem as immoral. Well? So far, I haven't seen anything to shout about. You can't just pull us to bits all day. Illustrate, dammit!

I suggest you drop the whole thing and move on-I did rush in a little early on, and then decided to lower my tone, but now I really can't see what your getting at.

Alright, you're trying to illustrate inconsistency in a supposed groups line of thought. Then what?

Am I right> that you want to have a cheap swing at some theists? And don't give me that irrelevant to the discussion crap- what are your intentions demrald? Or can't you admit or explain the point or pointlessness of this thread?

demrald

sweep
So, whether or not I believe in God determines if 'God' has meaning? Do I have this power over other words, as well?
I didn't create relevancy; it was already here when I arrived.
I didn't say your argument was inconsistent; I asked what it has to do with my argument.
Your suggestion is noted, but shall go unheeded (for now).
Then their beliefs about reality can't be accurate.
My intentions are simple: to try to take over the world!
Tell me how you really feel, sweep.

sweep

I feel full, and a little bit ill after eating a reheated cherry pie & custard. The starter was nice though. I feel content- thanks for asking

I won't give you anymore fuel- please take the lead and continue. Tell me:

1. how the logic is inconsistent in the conservative christian view.

2 why it matters if their beliefs aren't accurate.

lets try and be honest then we can all learn something- I don't mind being shown that I am an ass, so long as people explain in a way that benefits the ignorant. Otherwise, I'll carry on bleating, in my ignorance, if that is the case.

demrald

sweep
The answer to this question is the argument which appears in the OP.
If you truly want this question to be addressed, start another thread dealing with it. This thread is only intended to deal with the argument presented in the OP.

Infinity Lover

Sticking to the theist perspective, I'd say God wants us to do his dirtywork. Otherwise why would he require to pass his words on, or need followers period?
God puts in his 2 cts after you kick te bucket, and that's supposed to be ample incentive.

As far as the word of God ultimately not making any sense goes; what else is new?

demrald

Infinity Lover
What about whether or not God can be said to be moral?

Jamie_L

demrald:
Restating what I said. We agree so far.

Perhaps. Your premise 1 assumes "morality" is a standard apart from God against which he can be measured. Most divine command theorist I've heard do not actually believe this. They believe God defines morality. Morality only has meaning with respect to humans. To define God as moral or immoral is a meaningless statement to these people. In effect, I believe your premise 1 is viewed by divine theorists to be false. God is not moral. God is also not immoral.

I don't think divine theorists believe God is the standard. They believe God is the authority. He sets rules that must be obeyed. Period. This is the problem I have with divine command theory. It essentially renders right and wrong in terms of commands and obedience. My problem with divine command theory is that God is not actually a standard, just an autocrat. That seems like a sad way to view right and wrong to me.

Jamie

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Jamie_L ]</p>

dk

dk: Wag the dog. An argument is intelligible when the underlying premises are sound, sound being that which communicates and idea consistently, logically, and coherently. The implications of an unintelligible argument is nil or misleading. The idea of a ‘perfect morality’ communicates an order of absolute determinism inconsistent with values of right and wrong. As I understand it, morality regulates conduct with reason by forms of right and wrong suited to human nature.
dk: - Tentative or otherwise the concept of “perfect morality” is flawed. Morality regulates conduct to protect the greater good (potential) of humanity and those things over which people have dominion. “What is good?” remains an open and non-trivial question of potential, well beyond the domain of positive human knowledge. Justice reconciles moral principles to the particulars with judgments on a case by case basis. Therefore moral quality resides in judgments of the active intellect, not the depository of positive human knowledge.
dk: - I’ve already argued the premise of “a perfectly moral [g][G]ods][ess][es]” is nonsense because it contemplates the regulation of supreme good. To suggest supreme good should be dispensed, horded or rationed by supreme law is unreasonable hence immoral. The greater good flows from the intimacy of good will returned by the currents of social intercourse. Morality serves (regulates) under the principle of subsidiarity to protect the innocent and vulnerable from the corruptions that malign the currents of social intercourse with murder, lies, theft, infidelity, and false promises. Rooting out corruptions in totality is wrong (unreasonable) because in practical terms in means “to throw the baby out with the dirty bath water”. People have free will and that makes human life good, but free will also makes the world an imperfect place.
dk: - God being the supreme good is relevant only if God exists in a dual or plural reality. Why? If evil/good are both an aspect of [g][G]ods][ess][es] (the supreme good) then free will becomes an illusion of the ego (absolute monism), and evil a spurious concept.
dk: - A hermeneutical justification for moral relativism? To date I’ve found none to be very persuasive.
dk: - You explicitly said, “Rather than disproving God's existence, this argument attempts to demonstrate an inconsistency in the (conservative) Christian worldview. Christians typically reject 4, but it certainly seems to follow from 1-3.” To me a Christian worldview entails the open ended contemplation of “What is good?” that befuddles moral relativists. I suggested an alternative argument, to start from “What is evil” because the subject is so much more malleable and close ended.

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

demrald

Jamie_L
Not necessarily. I've known people who have presuppositionalist tendencies to assert that God was perfectly moral.
The argument cannot show these people to be inconsistent, then. Though, if they were to claim, "God is good" (which I believe is itself stated in the Bible), I suppose they would need to explain how this is not ascribing a moral attribute to God.
Perhaps not, but I was simply pointing out that God could be the standard for morality and their stilly be a worldview conflict for some Christians.

demrald

dk
Where are you getting this? I've never seen such a description applied to arguments, and it's nonsensical, from the standpoint of logic per se, to talk about "sound premises." Arguments can be sound; premises cannot.
What justifies this conclusion? More importantly, how is it relevant to my argument?
This isn't an argument about the epistemic or metaethical status of normative ethics, nor will those issues be addressed here. Perhaps you're looking for RR&P?
Spouting further irrelevant nonsense like this doesn't make your previous assertions relevant in any sense.
And again. . . Earth to dk!
No, a hermeneutical justification that Protagoras was promoting moral relativism. In a seperate thread, however, please.
If you have an "alternative argument" you would like to see addressed, you're free to start a thread on it. As it stands, this thread is intended to address the argument made in the OP.