My Current Apologetic System for All To See

a reply to: Wang Tang

I trust professional philosophers about as much as I trust professional doctors. I trust doctors to operate on me in emergencies, but otherwise I throw away my medication 90% of the time.

Fair enough. I've seen the majority of these written out in symbolic logic they are valid in form to my knowledge, and I only mentioned professional because they are usually not so careless as to put out something with invalid form.

a reply to: Wang Tang

Unless you concede that morality exists separate from the existence of God, morality cannot be used to prove God's existence because the existence of morality is contingent on the existence of God.

This seems false as the moral argument I sent you is valid in form. Here is a symbolization of the derivation of the conclusion:

1. ¬ p → ¬ q (Premiss)

2. q (Premiss)

3. ¬ ¬ q (Double negation, 2)

4. ∴ ¬ ¬ p (Modus tollens, 1, 3)

5. ∴ p (Double negation, 4)

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Plantinga shortened "maximal greatness" to the omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence because he felt these were extremely easy to agree upon.

My friend, I know you can do better than this

All I have to do is disagree and Plantinga's definition of maximal greatness is discredited because it is no longer extremely easy to agree on.

Here is my continued objection to omnibenevolence.

Consider the great kings in human history such as Alexander, Genghis Khan, and Napoleon. They undoubtedly had superior intelligence. They undoubtedly exercised near-absolute power over their domains. But were they morally good? I do not believe any historians would attribute benevolence as a quality of the great kings, yet we still recognize them as the greatest. Perhaps the perception of justice by those subjugated under these kings helped to maintain their obedience, but I would not call it benevolence.

If benevolence is not a requirement for the great rulers of men, why should it be a requirement for the greatest possible being? I believe morality is irrelevant to the question of greatest possible being. Morality does not make one great.

There is no requirement for an all powerful God to be morally perfect, unless we are discussing the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God. But we are not trying to prove the existence of a certain conception of God. We are trying to prove the existence of any God.

Unfortunately I cannot comprehend your symbolic logic, your logical reasoning and programming ability are far beyond that of mine. I only have a basic knowledge of logical symbolism.

a reply to: Wang Tang

My friend, I know you can do better than this All I have to do is disagree and Plantinga's definition of maximal greatness is discredited because it is no longer extremely easy to agree on.

Or Maybe disagreeing with these three properties is not as easy as you think

Consider the great kings in human history such as Alexander, Genghis Khan, and Napoleon. They undoubtedly had superior intelligence. They undoubtedly exercised near-absolute power over their domains. But were they morally good? I do not believe any historians would attribute benevolence as a quality of the great kings, yet we still recognize them as the greatest.

I think if we use the same type of reasoning you have used here we can show that morality is indeed a great making property. Now I am not sure this is the best approach, but it is the one you obviously find convincing so I will mimic it. Now let us consider the great ethical leaders of human history Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jesus, Confucius, and Siddhartha Gautama. These men are also consider great, but their greatness does not stem from having a higher extent of power, but rather were closer to moral perfection than other men. Some might even argue that these men have more influential power than that of some of the greatest leaders of the world, and therefore exceed them in certain areas of power. You see when we consider the criteria of the greatest possible being the quality of power is not all we must consider. Remember, Anselm defined the greatest possible being as a being that has those and only those properties which are better to have than not to have to their highest possible extent. So in your line of reasoning with the kings we are considering power but a king with a higher extent of power would be greater than a king with a lower extent of power. Using the same reasoning with ethical leaders, a person who is closer to moral perfection than another is greater in the sense of morality.

If benevolence is not a requirement for the great rulers of men, why should it be a requirement for the greatest possible being?

Yet it is a requirement for great men in the field of ethics.

There is no requirement for an all powerful God to be morally perfect, unless we are discussing the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God. But we are not trying to prove the existence of a certain conception of God. We are trying to prove the existence of any God.

I think what you mean here is that omnipotence and moral perfection are distinct qualities of a thing. So basically your saying just because something has omnipotence, it does not follow that it would also be morally perfect. I would agree with that, but God is not defined as solely an omnipotent being so again this would seem to be a type of strawman .

Unfortunately I cannot comprehend your symbolic logic, your logical reasoning and programming ability are far beyond that of mine. I only have a basic knowledge of logical symbolism.

Ah you definitely can. I am a laymen as well, but the programming definitely helps. I'll go thru it one line at a time so that you can see if the premises are true then the conclusion must also be true. P and Q simply are variable that represent statements. P would be the statement "God exist". Q would be the statement "objective moral values and duties exist." The "¬" symbol simply means to negate the statement, "→" simply means implication and is expressed as a "then" in the word form of a proposition and "∴" simply means therefore. There is also something known as the logical rules of inference. The only one you need to know for this argument is modus tollens. These rules are how you determine if a premiss actually follows from some of the other premises. With this in mind we look at it as follows:

1. ¬ p → ¬ q (Premiss)
If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. q (Premiss)
Objective moral values and duties exist

3. ¬ ¬ q (Double negation, 2)
So from two we derive three which is simply double negation which is the same as saying it is not the case that objective moral values do not exist

4. ∴ ¬ ¬ p (Modus tollens, 1, 3)
Therefore, via the negated form of modus tollens using premise 1 and 3, it follows that it is not that case that God does not exist

5. ∴ p (Double negation, 4)
Therefore God exist via double negation which is the same thing we did in 3. Hopefully that makes it clear if not oh well

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Thank you for explaining your logic, it makes sense to me now. My objection is with premise 2: objective moral values exist. I do not think we can definitively make this claim. It is not that I don't believe it's possible. But I don't see enough evidence for this premise to conclusively believe it.

So naturally, in the case of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., I would say they were not objectively morally superior. They peacefully fought against perceived social injustices of the time to great effect. But does fighting social injustice make you morally superior? For example, Liberal Americans today are protesting in the name of social injustice... Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, the unfairness of Trump getting elected, etc... Are they morally superior to those that served and died for our country in Afghanistan? (I am trying my best not to sound biased)

It is ironic that you include Buddha... I would not consider myself an expert in Buddhism by any means, but if I remember correctly I believe he rejected the existence of objective moral values.

My Position Would Have To Be, In Earnest And In Respect:

"I Dont Make The Rules! I Just Bare Them For Goodness Sake!

a reply to: Wang Tang

Thank you for explaining your logic, it makes sense to me now. My objection is with premise 2: objective moral values exist. I do not think we can definitively make this claim. It is not that I don't believe it's possible. But I don't see enough evidence for this premise to conclusively believe it.

Quote from OP:

When I assert 'this is good' or 'that is evil', I do not mean that I experience desire or aversion, or that I have a feeling of liking or indignation. These subjective experiences may be present; but the judgment points not to a personal or subjective state of mind but to the presence of an objective value in the situation.

The claim that moral values and duties don't exist has always astounded me. We experience this on a daily basis in our moral reality. You seem to be eluding to the fact that during in a moral dilemma people may experience desire or aversion to one side or the other, but the fact that there is judgement points to the presence of an objective value. So I would say you are confusing the subjectivity of a person with the subjectivity of a value. What you are in effect saying is that there is no real truth value to the proposition, "Killing the innocent is morally wrong." This is a value you judgment. You are judging the intrinsic worth of a human being. Values are objective, though our opinions of these values may vary. Let us take the example outside of the moral realm, beauty and ugliness. Just because people disagree on what is beautiful and what is ugly does that mean there is no objective difference between beauty and ugliness. The value judgement of beauty is objectively what pleasing to the eye of the beholder, and the value judgement of ugliness is quite simply the opposite of that. So as I said earlier, I believe you confuse the subjectivity of a person with subjectivity of a value. The claim seems to be obviously true to me, and its antithesis seems to be obviously false. So by process of elimination at the very least I can say objective moral values do exist.

So naturally, in the case of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., I would say they were not objectively morally superior. They peacefully fought against perceived social injustices of the time to great effect. But does fighting social injustice make you morally superior? For example, Liberal Americans today are protesting in the name of social injustice... Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, the unfairness of Trump getting elected, etc... Are they morally superior to those that served and died for our country in Afghanistan? (I am trying my best not to sound biased) It is ironic that you include Buddha... I would not consider myself an expert in Buddhism by any means, but if I remember correctly I believe he rejected the existence of objective moral values.

Above I made the claim that it is quite obvious in day to day life that objective moral values exist. Note in your response here that you have made a judgement about that which is just and not just in a particular society and chosen to phrase your sentence as they fought against social injustice. Well the judgement you just made is that of an objective value. The value judgement of whether something is just or not just is the same as the value judgement with beauty. The value judgement of whether intent or action was just is saying that it agrees with what is considered by the individual to be morally right or good, and the value judgement of injustice is again simply the opposite of that. The sentence you expressed to me told me that you or the people who you were speaking of think these acts do not agree with what is morally right or good and so they are protesting them. Now whether I make the same value judgement as other is completely up to me but the value itself is quite obviously objective. No society strives to be immodest, though some societies may judge what is modest and immodest differently. This points us not only to and objective value but also a truth value to moral claims, hence the reason philosophers speak of moral facts. I would argue that since values are objective that these men were objectively superior in the realm of morality at least to that of the law in their land at the time, and as such this is the reason we consider them great ethical men of history.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Sure, moral values do exist. But why can't they be relative moral values? I believe moral values are an emergent property based upon our quality of life. When we have a low quality of life, and our survival instinct kicks in, it often twists our moral values.

What is the purpose of moral values anyways? It seems moral values protect us by acting in a way that is pleasing to others. But what happens when acting in a way that's pleasing to others will lead to your death? Perhaps I do not properly understand the nature of morality, and that is why I do not believe in its objectivity. But from my perspective it seems like morality only serves those that are living comfortably and want to keep it that way.

a reply to: Wang Tang

Sure, moral values do exist. But why can't they be relative moral values? I believe moral values are an emergent property based upon our quality of life. When we have a low quality of life, and our survival instinct kicks in, it often twists our moral values.

What do you mean by relative? Do you mean opinion? Also what do kind of claim are you making when you say that something is evil? Is it a truth claim? Are you claiming that in reality said action is appalling?

What is the purpose of moral values anyways? It seems moral values protect us by acting in a way that is pleasing to others. But what happens when acting in a way that's pleasing to others will lead to your death?

The purpose of a moral value is to define what is really right and what is really wrong. Moral duties tell us what moral obligations we have to other human beings. An interesting thing to note is that humans need some form of intrinsic worth before a moral reality of any kind can be applied to life. The atheistic world view seems to lack this.