It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the Moral Argument logically valid?

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

What point are you trying to make here?




posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

That morality can exist without a god



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

Right like the categorical imparitive he keeps ignoring.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier




I already provided the arguement. Of you don't get it then that's another story. I don't feel the necessity to copy and paste an arguement that's been playing out in philosophy for the last 350 years. If you take classes you very well know what the arguements your asking for state. Since your forcing my hand here.


Yes you provided an argument and I pointed out two underlying assumptions of this argument and asked you to provide evidence for the assumptions of the logical problem of evil.


Maybe I should be more clear:

1 If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2 If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3 If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4 If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5 Evil exists.
6 If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7 Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

Okay so premise one I can agree with. Premise 2 is demonstrably false. Omnipotence does not necessarily entail that a being can eliminate all evil. How could anyone ever know the truth of premise 4? What reason do we have for believing that an all good God would want to eliminate all evil? I by my own admission am evil, but if God is truly Good I would hope he would forgive me for being what I am and express his love to me anyways.




I can prove some morals are not objective at all. So you can't say morals are objective. That would be false.


I do not think you can provide any examples of subjective moral values. Either murder is good or it is not. When something is true your opinion of it is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you think 2+2 in base 10 equals 185. 2 + 2 in base 10 equals 4. Objectively. The fact that someone may disagree doesn't make it any less objective it simply means someone was mistaken....



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

Please show me how this can be so? I've always wanted to here how this statement could be true. How can their be an objective standard of goodness without God?



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

But morality is not a two plus two is it.

In Muslim moral law it's ok to kill certain people

In some faiths homosexuality is immoral though there is no grounds for it.


You can't demonstrate to me anything I haven't already read 25 years ago on college. It's the same stalemate arguement.

Do I really need to go pick out the hundreds of pages on this so we can cut and paste arguements you very well know exist.

Murder is not the only morality.

What about infidelity? A concept created by man. Same as marriage.

Is it immoral to have sex with who ever you want if the kids are taken care of and your sex partner is ok with it?

Some say yes some say no. You can't prove without using scripture polyamourous relationships are any worse.

There are objective morals. Bit there are subjective morals. You can play fast and loose all you want .

I honestly do appreciate desire to debate this.

However you are late to the party. There is good reason philosophers don't accept this arguement as universal fact.

However I do consider abortion murder once the fetus is conscious. Even though I am a heretic.

Like I said morality is an effect of psychological evolution and it's demonstratively proveable.

Why are we creating more societies with human rights and justice now ? Why when people are less religious did this start happening? How did creating secular states bring about justice for all? Why do theists discriminate sexuality which led to injustice?

Again adress the categorical imparitive you keep ignoring. It's objective morality without God

edit on 25-6-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Also your take on omnipotent God as you know is very controversial. You said it was demonstratively false then proceed to say doesn't necessarily mean. That implies it also does not necessarily not mean that either. If you want to have the omnipotent god debate we can do so. Personally I don't find the rebuttles convincing.

Metaphysics is not an objective subject. Thats why the logic chains are failed attempts at using reason for more than just God

Like Anselm's ontological arguement it is very shaky at best.
edit on 25-6-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall




Given:
a: The sun is made of gas.
b: 3 is a prime number. Problem: Write a->b as a sentence. Then construct a truth table for this conditional.
Solution: The conditional ab represents "If the sun is made of gas, then 3 is a prime number."
a b a->b
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
In Example 2, "The sun is made of gas" is the hypothesis and "3 is a prime number" is the conclusion. Note that the logical meaning of this conditional statement is not the same as its intuitive meaning. In logic, the conditional is defined to be true unless a true hypothesis leads to a false conclusion. The implication of a->b is that: since the sun is made of gas, this makes 3 a prime number. However, intuitively, we know that this is false because the sun and the number three have nothing to do with one another! Therefore, the logical conditional allows implications to be true even when the hypothesis and the conclusion have no logical connection.


www.mathgoodies.com...

You are changing your statements for your truth tables. You are occasionally saying P and other times your are saying not P. Also be careful not confuse logical meaning with intuitive meaning.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb



I do not think you can provide any examples of subjective moral values. Either murder is good or it is not.


Right there....subjective morality! In your mind, murder is always "not good", unless the murdering is being done by "god", then it's good and moral.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier




But morality is not a two plus two is it.


It most certainly is as moral claims are truth claims about reality.




In Muslim moral law it's ok to kill certain people


Okay so some muslims may believe it is okay to kill certain people? How does that prove morals are subjective? All that shows is that people disagree about what is and is not moral. It tells us nothing about the ontology of moral values.





Is it immoral to have sex with who ever you want I'd the kids are taken care of and your sex partner is ok with it?


Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. The fact is it is either one or the other not both....your opinion doesn't matter. We are talking about ontology here you are aware of that right?



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




Right there....subjective morality! In your mind, murder is always "not good", unless the murdering is being done by "god", then it's good and moral.


God cannot murder.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Never heard of a paradox or antimony. Maybe next semester

And no it does not have to be one or the other.

That is a fallacy. Nobody in philosophy thinks metaphysics have to be one or the other.
edit on 25-6-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier




Also your take on omnipotent God as you know is very controversial. You said it was demonstratively false then proceed to say doesn't necessarily mean.


2 If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.

Yes this is demonstrably false.

If God is omnipotent and God creates free creatures, then God can be omnipotent but he is not able to eliminate all evil unless of course he eliminates any free creature that would willingly choose to do evil. It is certainly possible for a world to exists of free creatures that only do good things but this world is not feasible for an omnipotent being. An omnipotent being cannot create free creatures and then determine what they will do as they wouldn't be truly free.




Like Anselm's ontological arguement it is very shaky at best.


Anselm's may have some holes in it but Plantinga's modal version does not..



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Again false. He has plenty of critics.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

How does God create free creatures when he knows what they will do and has the power of creation?



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: windword




Right there....subjective morality! In your mind, murder is always "not good", unless the murdering is being done by "god", then it's good and moral.


God cannot murder.


Why not? According to the Bible he can, did and does.


edit on 25-6-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

How can you explain the categorical imparitive having no necessity in God.

It works just fine in a logic equation.

Much better than any example you gave.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier




Never heard of a paradox or antimony. Maybe next semester


I am well aware of what an antimony or paradox is. It is a contradiction real or apparent, between two principles or conclusions, both of which seem equally justified.

So what you are saying is the statement torturing babies for fun is good and torturing babies for fun is evil are equally justifiable statements? I fail to see how that is the case...




And no it does not have to be one or the other. That is a fallacy.


What you are saying is that a statement and that same statements negation can be true. So God exists and God does not exists can both be true statements this is simply absurd. Truth is not subjective....



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

It's not murder if God did it.

This is why is subjective as well.

I don't believe that at all.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join