Profile of ArgonGruber
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ArgonGruber
KeithS wrote: Do you think it is likely we will all be viewed as highly unethical in 25 years?
Whether we are or not does not matter. We live now, not 25 years in the future. If things change, things change.
Sure, I'm totally fine with viewing morality as objective. Some things are wrong, period. Some things are right, period. Unfortunately, I can't necessarily have absolute certainty at knowing if a particular action is one or the other. Maybe rape and murder are right, period, but the human condition is so backwards and confused that we think they are wrong, period. It's possible!!
If someone is unwilling to discuss their actions, like Iran, then Iran is being immoral once, if not twice over. Simple.
I personally think moral principles are given by God, my question was about non-Chrisitan sources for morality. I allowed for no rules in my OP. I've read a lot of atheist papers and discussions on what moral principles to use, from the 3 Humanist manifestos, to hedonism, pragmatism, and nihilism. These are all theoretical, so I was curious about what people really use to guide their choices.
How do you separate out what you believe for pure cultural reasons or peer influence so you're not just responding to socialization and the influence of the people around you?
Why does whether we are responding to cultural reasons or socialization or anything else matter?
1. Somethings are good.
2. Somethings are bad.
3. It is each of our jobs to figure out if a particular thing is good or bad.
4. We can discuss disagreements like human peoples.
That's all there is in my book. Sometimes I'll think something is good and you'll think that thing is bad. When that occurs, we discuss it like human people.
Codifying morality into specific, unchanging commandments will hurt society and lead to strife.
Some things are right.
Some things are wrong.
We can discuss disagreements as human peoples, without relying on external lists.
My question to you is this: why do you think we need to have some version of the 10 commandments?
troyjs wrote: That may be so.
It seems though, that you agree with me, that the form of the argument is not invalid as you earlier argued. If you agree that conceivably, you were an only child, then you must agree that if there is an x...., your earlier objection is fatally flawed.
No, I don't agree. If I were an only child then my existence is indistinguishable from my parent's existence. This is false. My parents could exist without me existing.
TheProblemOfAtheism wrote: Like Plantinga's modal?
Let's just run the argument in reverse.
- There is no entity which possesses maximal greatness.
- (Hence) There is no possible world in which there is an entity which possesses maximal greatness.
Plainly enough, if you do not already accept the claim that there is an entity which possesses maximal greatness, then you won't agree that the first of these arguments is more acceptable than the second. So, as a proof of the existence of a being which posseses maximal greatness, Plantinga's argument seems to be a non-starter.
The above is from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/#PlaOntArg
I didn't say it does. Just that the logic to prove God would be the same to disprove him and so both sort of expose the entire thing as useless.
Well, I say the logics are different.
If I can totally prove that God exists in ANY world, I can totally prove that God exists in OUR world.
If, on the other hand, I can totally prove that God does not exists in OUR world, then I can prove that he exists in zero worlds utterly.
I disagree. If a necessary being exists it exists in all possible worlds. If and only if.
Well, yes. I agree. If a necessary being exists, it exists in all possible worlds.
Take any possible world, no restrictions. If God exists there, he exists in this world, too.
Take any possible world, no restrictions. If God does not exist there, neither does he exist in this world.
This does not "prove" that God does not exist.
emailestthoume wrote: Therefore, if it is possible that there there is no God, there is not.
The Ontological Argument misuses the word "necessary" because, by definition, it is not possible that there is no God, because God is necessary.
If God does not exist in this world, his existence is impossible.
The Ontological Argument does not prove God does not exist (so I disagree with OP).
troyjs wrote: Hi ArgonGruber,
1. There is an ArgonGruber, where ArgonGruber implies ArgonGruber's Mother, and ArgonGruber's Father, and there is no non-ArgonGruber where ArgonGruber's Mother and/or ArgonGruber's Father is implied.
2. ArgonGruber's Mother exists.
3. Therefore ArgonGruber exists.
4. Therefore ArgonGruber's Father exists.
If ontological objectivism is true, then it has a metaphysical ground, and an epistemic ground.
Our epistemic ground may be the fact that we can't help but believe in ontological objectivism.
If naturalism implies ontological relativism, then the falsity of onto- relativism implies the falsity of naturalism.
Umm... I have a twin. He is a non-ArgonGruber who implies ArgonGruber's parents.
Lion_IRC wrote: [
You say ''thousands of variants''.
But alternate spellings are not lies.
Punctuation differences are neither a sin nor are they something people try to sneak in.
The movable Nu (νῦ) is a function of grammar not a deceit.
Thank you for the welcome.
In this video, Dr. Craig explains Dr. Ehrman's point: Dr. Ehrman, who is a textual historian, has found different versions of the Bible. There are, today, so many different versions of the Bible that it is impossible to know with sufficient certainty which version contains the greatest amount of the original, first-generation Bibles.
This is more than just spelling and punctuation.
According to Dr. Ehrman, Bibles today contain passages of information which Bibles a thousand years ago did not contain, and Bibles a thousand years ago themselves contained passages of information which Bibles even further in the past did not contain.
emailestthoume wrote: For X to be explained by God, we do not need to know that X is the best explanation we can conceive. Say that there is such a thing as a perfect actor. To assert that a perfect actor (call him John Perfecton) was in a movie, we do not need to know with any degree of certainty anything about his acting in this movie. Provided that we see his name on the credits or his face in the movie, or even see his hands or the side of his face, we know he was in this movie.
What does God's face look like? Or hands, or anything else? We don't know. All we see in the movie are hands, faces, people, and things, but we have no idea who or what John Perfection looks like.
1a - If moral fact don't exist, then nothing with objectionable features exists.
1b - If nothing with objectionable features exist, then epistemic facts don't exist.
These two imply:
1- If moral facts don't exist, then epistemic facts don't exist.
You have now said that if the lack of existence of moral facts implies the lack of existence of epistemic facts.
1) If there are no objective moral facts, then there are no objective epistemic facts.
2) There are objective epistemic facts.
3) Therefore, there are objective moral facts.
You have now stated that the existence of epistemic facts implies the existence of moral facts.
Does the existence of of epistemic facts imply the existence of moral facts? Yes, according to this argument.
Does the non-existence of moral facts imply the non-existence of epistemic facts? Yes, according to this argument.
This means that if one type of facts exists, the other type of facts must exist.
This means that if one type of facts does not exist, the other type of facts must not exist.
This is false. Moral facts and epistemic facts are different and exist independently. The existence of one does not prove the existence of the other, period.
3. Therefore x
4. Therefore p.
The problem with this is that x and q are now indistinguishable. If 1 is true, then x can be used to justify any p.
X just is P and Q.