Absurd Escapism

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Progress is only really made when you travel in a straight line (as opposed to going in circles, which gets you nowhere).

Some would argue that that a straight line is an infinite circle. 😛

So do you think the circular logic that is used in science and mathematics gets you nowhere?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Some would argue that that a straight line is an infinite circle. 😛

So do you think the circular logic that is used in science and mathematics gets you nowhere?

There is no circular logic in science and mathematics.

Originally posted by sonship

A "Blind Watchmaker groping along" definition of evolution? Sorry, I don't know what that means.

An undirected, unintelligently guided, purposeless, goalless, process is responsible for the entire biological sphere.

[quote]
me;
Did mind emerge from matter without the direction of a superior intelligence? If so, why should we tr ...[text shortened]... be valid ? Personal taste is not enough. Personal like or dislike for God is not nearly enough.

An undirected, unintelligently guided, purposeless, goalless, process is responsible for the entire biological sphere.

Sorry, but that's not a definition.

I would like to see a little less pedagogy and classification of arguments and issues and a little more dealing with the arguments even if not so neatly arranged to your sophistication.

And I would like to see you actually start respecting notional distinctions that are both substantive and relevant to the discussion, as opposed to simply running roughshod over them. You continue to ignore such distinctions to your own argumentative detriment.

”…. But Christian theism holds that human life has value and purpose because humans reflect God's very nature and that the purpose of human life and history also reflect God's nature. So the value and purpose of life are neither arbitrary nor grounded in something outside God. They are grounded in God's nature."

How exactly does this solve the Euthyphro dilemma? Please clarify and explain.

At any rate, this is starting to feel like déjà vu. Please revisit this thread: Thread 158249. As discussed there, a viable option for getting around the charge of arbitrarity here is to adopt a form of restricted theological voluntarism (as you appeared to do in this old thread). But, as I discuss there, this comes at a big cost to your view, in the form of some major concessions.

I suppose I should take from that that you do not believe there is an objective standard of morality. And I think you're saying there is not only no abstract perfect standard of justice to correct injustice but there is no less than perfect one either.

Gee, I would have thought that if I stated that I am not committed to the existence of abstract objects, you should just take it to mean exactly that. What's this extra crap you're trying to saddle me with now? Maybe you should just try to stick with what I explicitly do say, since you're obviously rather inept at redescribing it in your own terms. To be clear, I'm okay if you're intent to present some argument that goes like "Well, your commitment (or lack thereof) to X will also commit you to Y, and here are the reasons why….And, by the way, Y is problematic for you because of these following reasons…." I’m fine with that: go ahead and make an argument. But this just redescribing what I say in grotesque fashion isn't going to fly with me. Sorry.

So supervenience has its weakness which I will talk to latter.

I will await those arguments of yours against supervenience physicalism with bated breath.

But now you're saying the entire thought of an intelligent Creator is "childish".

No. Good grief, man, learn to read. You're the one who tried to saddle me with the position that it is “childish is to think Someone bigger than you and I has designed us” (that was your quote). I was replying that, no, that's not what I am saying is childish. What I am saying is essentially childish; what I have consistently maintained to be essentially childish; are some particular features of your moral view and deliberative patterns. See the other thread that I explicitly started on that exact topic if you are still, for whatever reason, having trouble understanding that point: Thread 157928.

You've mentioned my Premise (1) a few times and its weaknesses.

Now, let's get back on track. Here's the initial formulation I proposed:

(1) If justice is only imperfectly realized, then it doesn't exist in the first place.
(2) Only God can perfectly realize justice.
(3) Hence, God is necessary for the existence of justice.

You implied this is a “fair” first shot. But premise (1) is clearly false, agreed? You stated you were going to think about how to reformulate the argument (in particular, Premise (1)). Well, I'm still waiting: what's your reformulation?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well I checked the book was shipped, I'll be reading it soon.

Hey KJ, that's great. The relevant Joyce case is developed over his chapters 1-4. Again, if you are strapped for time, I would recommend starting in at chapter 2.

I have the Willard book and have started on chapter 1.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Hey KJ, that's great. The relevant Joyce case is developed over his chapters 1-4. Again, if you are strapped for time, I would recommend starting in at chapter 2.

I have the Willard book and have started on chapter 1.

I'll hit the first 4 as soon as I get it, hopefully any day now. Let me know what you think of
the Willard book.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Let me know what you think of
the Willard book.

Sure thing. It will take me a little time to get into it, but after that I will plan to start a new thread where we can discuss the work.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Sure thing. It will take me a little time to get into it, but after that I will plan to start a new thread where we can discuss the work.

Great looking forward to it.

How exactly does this solve the Euthyphro dilemma? Please clarify and explain.

It makes it no more a dilemma by introducing a third valid alternative.
Clarify and explain why you don't understand that.

Sorry, but that's not a definition.

Its adequate, unless you want to play dumb.

I will await those arguments of yours against supervenience physicalism with bated breath.

You could take the initiative to write about your viewpoint more. You don't have to take a completely defensive posture waiting for me to raise objections I might have (though I realize I said I would).

Do like you did in the opening OP. Explain something about why supervenience is the best view of Physicalism.

Originally posted by LemonJello

Now, let's get back on track. Here's the initial formulation I proposed:

(1) If justice is only imperfectly realized, then it doesn't exist in the first place.
(2) Only God can perfectly realize justice.
(3) Hence, God is necessary for the existence of justice.

To which you said

Premise (2) may well be true. But Premise (1) is totally implausible, if not just self-contradictory. If justice is imperfectly realized, then justice exists but just in an imperfectly realized state. See, no problem.

To which, I think I generally said "Yes, I can see some problem there."


You don't seem to notice that more than once I agreed that the first Premise is problematic. You also don't seem to notice that I said, for me, its not a proof but I think it informs me that I am on the right track to believe God as the source of absolute moral standard.

Essentially, I think I have taken an attitude " Okay, you have a point that its weak in rigor." I know you want me to play in your ball park. Maybe syllogisms are your strength.

So we have -

You implied this is a “fair” first shot. But premise (1) is clearly false, agreed? You stated you were going to think about how to reformulate the argument (in particular, Premise (1)). Well, I'm still waiting: what's your reformulation?

Did I promise a reformulation? I don't think so. You may be waiting for something i did not promise. I may come up with something better. I don't promise you another syllogism though.

So while I'm considering your objections I have started some parallel tracks to examine your beliefs. IE. Look to changing evolution for the source of our morals.

"Get back on track." If I arrive at the destination of showing is more likely that God is than is likely that atheism is in the realm of our moral sense, any track is good enough for me.

You insisting and re-insisting that your summary of my initial thoughts are not yet proved, when I admitted that a proof I don't think I have ? Are you going to insist that I make it a rigorous proof ?

I have given plenty of reasons why a moral agent is more plausible than something impersonal and on a lower level of being than "living" should be the enforcer of moral duties.

It is to a WHO I think we are obligated more than a WHAT.
And a WHAT that arrived by Evolution is not believable to me.

Even if imperfect justice only exists as a remedy for injustice, it seems to me it is still a matter of obligation to a moral WHO rather than a non-living moral WHAT.

Karma was raised by someone. I said Karma requires a programmer to design it to bring about moral justice. The programmer is a intelligent moral agent more likely than something else.

You want to ignore that by getting involved in definitions. .
I think the Blind Watchmaker brand of Evolution is understandable to you.

And I don't think you have an answer for the parallel I made between intelligent design of our physical being entails the same intelligent design of our moral being. The latter you called "childish". That implies the former is also a childish assumption. Some who disagree with you on the former notion i don't think do so childishly. i mentioned Newton and Einstein.


I asked you about some of your presuppositions. IE. God has never spoken to communicate anything about Himself to man. I don't think that takes history seriously.

Originally posted by sonship

How exactly does this solve the Euthyphro dilemma? Please clarify and explain.

It makes it no more a [b]dilemma by introducing a third valid alternative.
Clarify and explain why you don't understand that.[/b]

The point is that even if God's morality happens to suit humans if morality is what it is because God says it is then it is arbitrary. So all you've done is chosen a horn of the dilemma. I don't think your statement resolves or in any way avoids the dilemma. Either morality is relative to God or God has no power over what morality is and is not omnipotent. Take your pick.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The point is that even if God's morality happens to suit humans if morality is what it is because God says it is then it is arbitrary. So all you've done is chosen a horn of the dilemma. I don't think your statement resolves or in any way avoids the dilemma. Either morality is relative to God or God has no power over what morality is and is not omnipotent. Take your pick.

The point is that even if God's morality happens to suit humans if morality is what it is because God says it is then it is arbitrary.

i don't see it that way. You have the Law of God as what God said. But apart from the Law God's righteousness is God Himself. This is more than an divine attribute. This is God Himself as righteousness. What flows out of Him as His nature is just Right, is Just, is Justice.

So all you've done is chosen a horn of the dilemma. I don't think your statement resolves or in any way avoids the dilemma. Either morality is relative to God or God has no power over what morality is and is not omnipotent. Take your pick.

I don't know what you may want to mean by omnipotent. The Bible says that God CANNOT lie (Titus 1:2) . So is omnipotent mean God has the power to lie ? Then we have to consider the limits of "omnipotent" and not make a mistake about God for the sake of a theological term.

Does "omnipotent" mean God has the power to make a married bachelor or a square circle? I am not sure what you mean when you want to hold to the phrase "But God is omnipotent". He cannot lie. He cannot die. He cannot fail to be faithful to the redemptive work of the Son.

if this means to you "Then He's not omnipotent" maybe we have look what we mean by that word.

It is important to see that God Himself is Righteousness and Christ as God incarnate to be our salvation is Righteousness.

From Life Study of Romans by Witness Lee, Message #5, Living Stream Ministry
My bolding

http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?cid=1B

I. THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD

A. God in Justice and Rightness

What is the righteousness of God? We may say that the righteousness of God is what God is with respect to justice and rightness (Rom. 3:21-22; 1:17; 10:3; Phil. 3:9). God is just and right. Whatever God is in His justice and rightness constitutes His righteousness. Furthermore, all that God is in His justice and rightness is actually Himself. Therefore, the righteousness of God is God Himself. The righteousness of God is a Person, not merely a divine attribute.

B. Christ as the Righteousness of God
to the Believers

Many Christians say incorrectly that they have the righteousness of Christ. We should not say this. Our righteousness is not the righteousness of Christ; it is Christ Himself. Christ Himself as a Person, not His attribute of righteousness, has been made the righteousness of God to us (1 Cor. 1:30). Do not say that the righteousness of Christ has become your righteousness. Instead you should say, “Christ is my righteousness. My righteousness before God is the living Person of Christ, not an attribute. The righteous Christ is mine.” God has made Christ, who is the very embodiment of God Himself, our righteousness.

Originally posted by DeepThought
There is no circular logic in science and mathematics.

"Circular logic is perfect and flawless. Because of this perfection, all mathematics and science are based on circular logic."

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Circular_Logic