The bad thing about Christians

Originally posted by Coletti
God tells me. Primarily by putting it in writing. In effect, I have a perfect source for knowing good and evil - God.

Now you need to answer how do you know what the "natural laws" are? And just as important, where did they come from?

No, people wrote down what they believe a God wanted to be as a moral law. Those writings are in the same category as Aquinas or Aristotle or Kant or Rawls; human beings trying to discern moral law. Natural Law comes from the reason of Men; that SURELY exists. Why shouuld I accept the writings of men regarding something that may or may not exist (God) over the writings of men regarding something that certainly exists (human reason) as to the source of Moral Law?

Originally posted by Coletti
God tells me. Primarily by putting it in writing. In effect, I have a perfect source for knowing good and evil - God.

Now you need to answer how do you know what the "natural laws" are? And just as important, where did they come from?

I have answered your question with another question, but I think I understand it now. You want me to say because it is not of God to commit such a heinous crime.

Originally posted by Coletti
Well then by all means, show me how. How do you delineate right from wrong? How do you know what is morally right and wrong?

With your hand, you have physically senses - sight and touch. We can go into the metaphysical, but that does not justify ethics. There are no "physically senses of morality.

do you not ever think for yourself? do you not have an inner constitution that wasn't penned by other men long dead? i sometimes forget your views on free will, but i think your crutch of a book spells it out pretty plainly in genesis that men do have knowledge of good and evil.

if you want to deny this and cling to your assertion that written words are necessary for said knowledge, then you ought to know that the implications of such a view are pretty absurd. consider the man who knows nothing of your crusty books (book, book, what's a book?). am i to believe that said man has no knowledge of right and wrong? absurd.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, people wrote down what they believe a God wanted to be as a moral law. Those writings are in the same category as Aquinas or Aristotle or Kant or Rawls; human beings trying to discern moral law. Natural Law comes from the reason of Men; that SURELY exists. Why shouuld I accept the writings of men regarding something that may or may not exis ...[text shortened]... s of men regarding something that certainly exists (human reason) as to the source of Moral Law?

You are not answering my question. Where does "natural law" come from and how do you know it? Reason can not give you moral law without some basis. So on what basis do you derive any single "natural law"?

Originally posted by LemonJello
consider the man who knows nothing of your crusty books (book, book, what's a book?). am i to believe that said man has no knowledge of right and wrong? absurd.

If he has any knowledge of right and wrong - how did he get it? What is the source of his knowledge? Was he born with it, or did he learn it? And if it is to be real knowledge, it must be more than mere opinion. For it to be knowledge, you should be able to account for it.

Originally posted by Alpha10
I have answered your question with another question, but I think I understand it now. You want me to say because it is not of God to commit such a heinous crime.

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you ackowledging the God is the source of the knowledge of right and wrong, or are just saying that is my position. What is your position?

Originally posted by Coletti
I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you ackowledging the God is the source of the knowledge of right and wrong, or are just saying that is my position. What is your position?

I am saying that is YOUR position. My parents taught me right and wrong, and I abide by what they have taught me.

Originally posted by Coletti
If he has any knowledge of right and wrong - how did he get it? What is the source of his knowledge? Was he born with it, or did he learn it? And if it is to be real knowledge, it must be more than mere opinion. For it to be knowledge, you should be able to account for it.

this has gone from silly to slapstick.

i think it's funny that you have in this thread remarked that such innate knowledge is as if from 'magic'. the reason that is funny to me is because your book that you don't dare drop lest it hit the floor basically says just that: the talking snake told man's wife (born of a rib mind you) to eat the magic apple in fantasyland; she in turn, coaxed man (born of dust of course) to also partake. but of course. what insight.

obviously, your book has no idea where said knowledge comes from. given that the only gas you run on is the written word, it's no wonder you are hopelessly confused.

Originally posted by LemonJello
this has gone from silly to slapstick.

i think it's funny that you have in this thread remarked that such innate knowledge is as if from 'magic'. the reason that is funny to me is because your book that you don't dare drop lest it hit the floor basically says just that: the talking snake told his wife (born of a rib mind you) to eat the magic appl ...[text shortened]... n that the only gas you run on is the written word, it's no wonder you are hopelessly confused.

So you can't answer the questions. You have no arguments to counter my world view. Your knowledge of good and evil is unaccounted for, mine is. In effect, you can have no ability justify why anything might be right or wrong.

Originally posted by Alpha10
I am saying that is YOUR position. My parents taught me right and wrong, and I abide by what they have taught me.

How did they know?

Originally posted by Coletti
You are not answering my question. Where does "natural law" come from and how do you know it? Reason can not give you moral law without some basis. So on what basis do you derive any single "natural law"?

Of course I answered your question: Natural Law comes from the processes of nature like the Law of Gravity. Reason gives you the ability to ascertain what it is, but it's existence is not based on any individual's reasoning process. How did we derive a single Law of Gravity? By observing natural phenomena and coming to reasoned conclusions about what caused them. We ascertain moral law by observing natural phenomena (us) and coming to conclusions as to what is innately moral to us by virtue of the way we are. This is simple and logical and requires no magical Gods or fairies or pink unicorns. Individuals might disagree about the exact components of Natural Law, but since theists disagree about the Eternal Law as well this objection only logically "proves" that there is no moral law at all.

I posit that there is a Natural moral Law based on who and what we are, not on any mythical constructs. Please try to direct your posts to showing why you believe differently rather than continuing to ask a question that I have already answered several times.

Originally posted by Coletti
How did they know?

How does a worker ant know what it is supposed to do? That is it's nature. We know what we are morally supposed to do because it is our nature. If one worker ant was different in some way so that it acted in an aberrant fashion, that would not "prove" that ants aren't supposed to act in a certain way. Ditto the fact that some violate or do not understand the Natural Law doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Coletti
How did they know?

Good God, you're too difficult. They knew because their parents taught them, because their parents taught them, etc.

Originally posted by Coletti
So you can't answer the questions. You have no arguments to counter my world view. Your knowledge of good and evil is unaccounted for, mine is. In effect, you can have no ability justify why anything might be right or wrong.

no, my knowledge is not 'unaccounted for'. the things that i know are predicated upon things which i believe to be true propositions. these in turn are based on observations of how i perceive (with all my senses) the world. from what i can tell, this process tends to be pretty self-similar between men, whether friends or foes. even bad men know they are bad men, and they don't need the bible to tell them so.

i think your problem is that you seem to think things must be written in stone (literally) in order for us to have knowledge. knowledge for you is something handed down, not something discerned. which stone tablet told you that you have hands?

EDIT: i would also remark that in my opinion it is a frail mind that craves the stone tablets. it's easier to blindly follow some written words; it's harder to think for yourself. i urge you to remove the shrink wrap from your brain and take it for a test drive. see what it's like to navigate with no maps.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Since you concede its existence, I'm not sure why I should; Aquinas' definition is fine, just not his ultimate argument that a divinity is necessary for there to be Natural Law (as no divinity is necessary for the Law of Gravity). I will give a definition, but if all you're going to do is degrade the argument into a semantic one, I'll bail ...[text shortened]... is morally right by practical reason.

http://www.acton.org/research/reading/natural_law.html

I'm not trying to degrade the argument into a semantic one - I asked for a definition precisely so that it wouldn't degrade into one. (I admit that my arguments can seem like semantic quibbles on several occasions - that is never my intention and I apologise for such instances.)

Aquinas' definition of Natural Law is "the participation of the eternal law in the rational creature", hence it clearly will not do if you're trying to demonstrate that God's existence is unnecessary for Natural Law to exist. Which is where an alternative definition (which you've provided) is required.

Re: your response to Coletti. According to your assertion, Natural Law is a property of human nature - which is not the case with Gravity or Divine Law. Hence, differences in human view do not imply anything about the validity of these laws.

However, if Natural Law is purely a matter of human nature (as, for instance, the fact that human beings have 23 pairs of chromosomes), then any human being using human reason must be able to derive the precepts of Natural Law. Further, when a human being uses reason properly/correctly he must arrive at the precepts of Natural Law.

Now, if two people differ on a matter of morality, then either:

1. One of them is not using human reason properly/correctly.
2. There is no single Natural Law - both humans are reasoning correctly but deriving different precepts from different natural laws.

You're clearly rejecting case (2). So, according to you, (1) must be the case. Now, if bbarr and Joe Blow differ on whether genocide is always wrong, one of them must be using his reason incorrectly. But which one? If bbarr is using his reason incorrectly, then it is impossible for him to use the same unreliable reason to ascertain whether he was the one using reason incorrectly. Ditto for Joe Blow. This is the point Coletti is raising.