afunugsamongus wrote: @johnB: your reasoning is very sloppy
"For even if some kind of god exists the believer has no reasonable way to know anything about such a god"
JohnB wrote: I can think of three sloppy things that happen to be quite good.
Because He came to this earth to die for our sins and in that He demonstrated His love for us.We are sinners and need a savior. How is there anything tricky about this?
One question that I have for religious believers is how they would distinguish between the following:(1) An all-powerful deity created and guides the universe ultimately towards a good purpose;and(2) An all-powerful deity created and guides the universe ultimately towards an evil purpose, but have chosen to maliciously presented himself as benevolent to play a trick on created beings.How could one refuse (2)? Only based upon one's religious beliefs that (1) must be true. The problem is that one's beliefs that (1) must be true could be part of the cosmic joke in scenario (2), and thus there is no real way to differentiate between (1) and (2) for a religious believer.
afunugsamongus wrote: Quote from: JohnBI can think of three sloppy things that happen to be quite good.What are you talking about. Are you serious.Because He came to this earth to die for our sins and in that He demonstrated His love for us.We are sinners and need a savior. How is there anything tricky about this?Santa Claus comes to your house every Christmas and he rewards you if you've been nice. We aren't all nice so we need incentives. How is there anything tricky about that?
I can think of three sloppy things that happen to be quite good.
afunugsamongus wrote: Since you missed the point I will spell it out for you. RobertH made claims about God's behavior and our nature without giving any evidence. I mocked this by giving analogous claims that are more obviously false. My post was itself a request for substantive argument.
Inference from felt values to an external (not to mention personal and perfectly good) source, is totally illogical.
A metaphysically cheaper explanation, of moral feelings as attitudes, undermines the whole affair.
Our epistemological faculties (5 senses + memory) form a mutually supportive structure which explains all moral, aesthetic, and logical phenomena.
No combination of these latter 'perceptions' begins to explain the 5 senses or memory.
Just like inference from felt perception to an external world is illogical, right? Or the inference from the apparent logicality of certain statements to an external, objective reality to which that appearance refers, is also totally illogical, yes?
Close examination of the notion of moral oughts quickly dispels this, I feel. When one says that one ought not to do something, one means something very different from having some attitude towards that thing. You have to sacrifice part of the meaning of the notion to jam it into a naturalistic explanation.
You have to at least assume belief in the genral reliability of your logical faculties in order to justify anything at all. The structure is built on logic, it does not justify logic. If there are such basically trustworthy faculties, why not admit conscience, which seems similar?
To say God is objectively evil is ridiculous. How could a being who preceded all and is more powerful, intelligent, and knowledgeable than all and who created all (but Himself) ever be deemed objectively evil? To say something is evil is to say it doesn't coincide with the moral standard by which it is measured. However, if the objective moral standard is God, then how could contingent beings ever claim that their maker is objectively wrong? Wrong by the standards of contingent beings? Good luck with that.