Absurd Escapism

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Circular_Logic

From its profile page:

Uncyclopedia is an encyclopedia full of misinformation and lies. Absolutely no POVs are enforced at Uncyclopedia. [...] The mission of Uncyclopedia is to provide the world's misinformation in the least redeeming and most searingly sarcastic and humorous way possible.

Originally posted by FMF
From its profile page:

Uncyclopedia is an encyclopedia full of misinformation and lies. Absolutely no POVs are enforced at Uncyclopedia. [...] The mission of Uncyclopedia is to provide the world's misinformation in the least redeeming and most searingly sarcastic and humorous way possible.

Many a true word is spoken in jest.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Many a true word is spoken in jest.

What do think the "many a true word" is in this case?

Originally posted by sonship

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. Wh ...[text shortened]... ne.” God has made Christ, who is the very embodiment of God Himself, our righteousness. [/quote]

Denying that there is a dilemma does not make it go away. Your attempt at mysticism does not produce a convincing escape from the dilemma. Embedding the meta-physical object (objective morality) within God does not escape the problem that God has no control over what objective morality is. In what you have presented God is not omnipotent, in fact does not have sovereignty over morality. Making it part of him does not get out of the problem. If anything it makes it worse as God doesn't even have power over himself.

A square circle isn't a problem, it is just a matter of setting the metric up in the right way. A Bachelor of Arts or Sciences is a bachelor and could well be married.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
"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

I quite liked the cat/buttered toast anti-gravity machine and this page is brilliant:

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/UnNews:Mayflower_immigrants_to_be_deported

Originally posted by sonship

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

[quote] Premise (2) may well be true. But Premis ...[text shortened]... poken to communicate anything about Himself to man. I don't think that takes history seriously.

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

I don't understand that because it seems to do nothing of the sort. Rather, it chooses one horn of the dilemma and then asserts, apparently on the basis of nothing which amounts to question-begging, that it does not suffer from a usual objection regarding that horn. Again, here is what you quoted:

”…. 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."

Again, the fundamental dilemma regards explanative priority, and there are only two options. There's an underlying commitment here that is something like "If X is reflective of God’s nature, then X has value and purpose". But, there are two ways this could be realized, depending on the nature of how they relate. On one hand, it could be that X has value and purpose because (or in virtue of the fact that) X is reflective of God's nature. On the other hand, it could be that X is reflective of God's nature because (or in virtue of the fact that) X has value and purpose. If you're saying that there is a third option here, you haven't provided it. The text you have quoted simply chooses the first one. And there are several serious objections that attend that horn. Chief among them is the arbitrarity objection.

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.

Nah, I'll just wait until you present your arguments against supervenience physicalism. I guess you have some reason to think such presentation is relevant to this thread? I don't know why you think my launching into some argument in favor of supervenience physicalism would be in keeping with the OP. It would have nothing to do with the OP as far as I can tell. I don't claim that a commitment to supervenience physicalism is in any sense necessary for matters of high existential seriousness. This seems to differ materially from your commitments related to the existence of God.

"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.

So could you please clarify what exactly you are trying to show? The first formulation I provided (and which you stated was fair) works to the conclusion that God is necessary for something like justice. Now you seem to be content with arguing toward something considerably weaker and more watered-down: that given facts regarding the human moral sense, it is more likely that God exists than not. Please, figure out what exactly you intend to argue. If you want to abandon the first formulation and not attempt any reformulation of it, then okay. But then what are we discussing here?

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.

At bottom, what I claim is childish is endorsing a moral directive unquestioningly – that is, without giving any thought to what would serve to justify such a directive beyond merely the fact that it is externally imposed by some authority figure. Please re-read the other thread that I specifically started on this very topic (and to which I have already provided the link) to see why I think this deliberative behavior is reasonably classified as childish. Now, your question seems to be: why does this not simply transfer to cases regarding "intelligent design of our physical being"? Why am I not thereby committed to labeling general belief in intelligent design as essentially childish too? First, they involve totally different types of deliberative reasoning. Moral deliberation regards practical reasoning over courses of action; whereas deliberating about whether or not intelligent design is true is an appointment with theoretical reasoning about descriptive matters and explanation. Now, it may be that what is essentially childish is unquestioning endorsement of something handed down by an authority figure regardless if it is a matter of practical reasoning or a matter of theoretical reasoning. That may very well be right. But, that said, there is nothing regarding general belief in intelligent design that necessarily suggests that the belief is based on nothing but unquestioning, blind deference to an authority. For all I know, the relevant views of Newton and Einstein (supposing you have faithfully redescribed them, which I don't know and don't care here) are based on genuine and intellectually honest study of the evidence, even if I wouldn't happen to agree with them. Now, in contrast to this, a childishness to moral deliberation is actually systemically built into the very fabric of some particular theological voluntarist views. And it is for this reason and related reasons that I claim that such views are essentially childish. Again, please see the other thread for details.

This brings me to perhaps the most important point here: I certainly don't claim that all theistic moral views are childish (see the other thread, where I make this point explicitly). It is only a specific locus of views, of which yours is a member, that I claim has this feature. So, you cannot even reasonably infer from my view to the general idea that "intelligent design of our moral being" is childish, let alone from there to the general idea that "intelligent design of our physical being" is childish.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk

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

Classic. 😀

You probably get all your daily news from The Onion too, right?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Many a true word is spoken in jest.

Like some of the words on this page:
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/God

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
"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

That page is hilarious. I especially like the "The inherent beauty of circular logic makes it inherently beautiful" section.

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.

I am holding in my hand "The Evolution of Morality" by Richard Joyce...let the reading
begin. 🙂

Originally posted by DeepThought

Denying that there is a dilemma does not make it go away.

I don't count I am making it go away by wishful thinking.

If God is not the source of this moral rightness, there must be some source. Right ?

If you insist that is above God then something must be above God as its source.
But by definition God is not below anyone or anything. So rather than my wishing the dilemma away, I count you as wishing that it remains.

Your attempt at mysticism does not produce a convincing escape from the dilemma. Embedding the meta-physical object (objective morality) within God does not escape the problem that God has no control over what objective morality is.

This matter of God having no control alludes me. If this morality is sourced in something above God then that THING or Someone just removes your objection up a level.

So you imagine something above God which has control over whether it wants to be righteous or unrighteous. So your cherished delimma is moved up a story.

It arbitrarily chooses one or the other. I think you wish to preserve the dilemma for no other reason than to rationalize that God does cannot exist, You'd prefer to put something more to your liking as the ultimate source or objective moral standard.

And this preferable other thing - arbitrarily chooses because it has control ?
This preferable other thing - has more self control ?
But it has no self to begin with nor will to decide.

In what you have presented God is not omnipotent, in fact does not have sovereignty over morality. Making it part of him does not get out of the problem. If anything it makes it worse as God doesn't even have power over himself.

I think this is a nonsensical view.

A square circle isn't a problem, it is just a matter of setting the metric up in the right way. A Bachelor of Arts or Sciences is a bachelor and could well be married.

Oh come now. Puns .. wordplay ? That's a fallacy called an amphiboly, I think
You have a faulty interpretation of the word bachelor. Your argument is based on this faulty interpretation of what i meant by bachelor. Or it is an equivocation of some sort. Whichever it classifies to its a bad trick objection.

Originally posted by LemonJello

For now I'm just going to let you enjoy your good hearty laughter.
Since this is so very "hilarious" to you, for the moment, I'll just let you enjoy the hilarity of the whole thing.

Until i figure out why your fine distinction between meta ethics and the origin of a objective moral standard makes it impossible for you to discuss the latter, I'll pass on arguing further with you right now.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Denying that there is a dilemma does not make it go away. Your attempt at mysticism does not produce a convincing escape from the dilemma. Embedding the meta-physical object (objective morality) within God does not escape the problem that God has no control over what objective morality is. In what you have presented God is not omnipotent, in fa ...[text shortened]... ic up in the right way. A Bachelor of Arts or Sciences is a bachelor and could well be married.

For now I am right about here on the Euthyphro Delimma

William L. Craig - Euthyphro Dilemma Refuted
YouTube

Originally posted by sonship
For now I'm just going to let you enjoy your good hearty laughter.
Since this is so very "hilarious" to you, for the moment, I'll just let you enjoy the hilarity of the whole thing.

Until i figure out why your fine distinction between meta ethics and the origin of a objective moral standard makes it impossible for you to discuss the latter, I'll pass on arguing further with you right now.

Are you seriously miffed that I find the "uncyclopedia" entry to be hilarious?!? Seriously?!? Have you taken a look at it? It is just obnoxious joke after obnoxious joke, but some of them are clever (hence, the hilarity). The Uncyclopedia aims for sarcasm and humor as its mission.

In fact, if you read the uncyclopedia entry that Fetchmyjunk cited, it beggars belief that anyone would offer it as a factual reference in good faith. That would take dumb to a whole new level.

My offer of a reading exchange with subsequent discussion to follow still holds, if you are interested.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I am holding in my hand "The Evolution of Morality" by Richard Joyce...let the reading
begin. 🙂

Nice. 🙂