15 May 10
Originally posted by AgergI think you mean that one can hold that certain things are morally wrong/right without knowing why they are wrong/right. All you need is a conviction that certain things are wrong or a consensus of human opinion. Is that close ?
What do you think I mean when I say
[b]I don't accept your claim that morality needs to be pinned on God (or any other supernatural agent)
???[/b]
If that is so then how is morality any different from aesthetics? The idea that a certain painting is beautiful is based on conviction , opinion and consensus.
But what if I felt that Monet's waterlillies was ugly and disgusting? Would I be wrong , or just expressing an eccentric , but valid, opinion?
So if I say torturing babies is good , am I eccentric or evil?
15 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo, not close...the point I'm trying to make is that one can assign little meaning to the notion of what is moral if one defines
I think you mean that one can hold that certain things are morally wrong/right without knowing why they are wrong/right. All you need is a conviction that certain things are wrong or a consensus of human opinion. Is that close ?
If that is so then how is morality any different from aesthetics? The idea that a certain painting is beautiful is based ntric , but valid, opinion?
So if I say torturing babies is good , am I eccentric or evil?
what is moral is that which God says is moral
For as it has been mentioned to you time and time again, if your god was an utter b***ard then gouging babies eyes out would be perfectly moral if your god thought this to be so.
It makes no sense whatsoever to define any entity as a basis for objective morality.
16 May 10
Originally posted by AgergBut what you forget is that that's not what I am saying. Something does not become moral because God "says it is so" , anymore than gravity goes in reverse because gravity "decides" that is so.
No, not close...the point I'm trying to make is that one can assign little meaning to the notion of what is moral if one defines
what is moral is that which God says is moral
For as it has been mentioned to you time and time again, if your god was an utter b***ard then gouging babies eyes out would be perfectly moral if your god thought this to be so.
It makes no sense whatsoever to define any entity as a basis for objective morality.
Gravity is what it is . God is who he is. He is made of pure righteousness and holiness. He does not "decide" to act righteously , he acts according to his nature.
Therefore because he is Love (to use an example) then Love and the moral Law of loving one's neighbour is an objective moral fact. It cannot be otherwise. God cannot be non-God. He is what he is , just like granite is made of granite and not made of jelly. Period.
The Bible does not describe God as an entity who decides what morality is - it desribes righteousness and love as God's very nature - ie the very stuff he is made of - a unimaginable holy fire of eternal love and power that would make the energy of the big bang look like a mere sparkler. This is righteous eternal love is the very power on which all existence rests and eminates from.
Therefore , God is the objective moral fact of all existence and he is in a completely different catagory from an orange. Now , if God was made of "orange" then moral facts would be orangy , and this would be entirely consistent.
16 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterOh yeah...you just make up this crap as you go along doncha 😴
But what you forget is that that's not what I am saying. Something does not become moral because God "says it is so" , anymore than gravity goes in reverse because gravity "decides" that is so.
Gravity is what it is . God is who he is. He is made of pure righteousness and holiness. He does not "decide" to act righteously , he acts according to his of "orange" then moral facts would be orangy , and this would be entirely consistent.
wtf are you on about??? 😕
17 May 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterI think you mean that one can hold that certain things are morally wrong/right without knowing why they are wrong/right. All you need is a conviction that certain things are wrong or a consensus of human opinion.
I think you mean that one can hold that certain things are morally wrong/right without knowing why they are wrong/right. All you need is a conviction that certain things are wrong or a consensus of human opinion. Is that close ?
If that is so then how is morality any different from aesthetics? The idea that a certain painting is beautiful is based ...[text shortened]... ntric , but valid, opinion?
So if I say torturing babies is good , am I eccentric or evil?
How in the world did you get that from what he said?
17 May 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou should probably lay off the drugs.
But what you forget is that that's not what I am saying. Something does not become moral because God "says it is so" , anymore than gravity goes in reverse because gravity "decides" that is so.
Gravity is what it is . God is who he is. He is made of pure righteousness and holiness. He does not "decide" to act righteously , he acts according to his ...[text shortened]... of "orange" then moral facts would be orangy , and this would be entirely consistent.
Your post here entails that God is an agent. Your post also entails that God is a fact. Your post also entails that God is made of pure righteousness and holiness, whatever that means. Your post also entails that God is love. Would you like to claim that God is anything else while you're at it?
17 May 10
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterIf these sweeping claims were true then wouldn't everyone on the planet be christians in the km model? All our problems would be solved and no one in their right mind would go against the word of this God.
But what you forget is that that's not what I am saying. Something does not become moral because God "says it is so" , anymore than gravity goes in reverse because gravity "decides" that is so.
Gravity is what it is . God is who he is. He is made of pure righteousness and holiness. He does not "decide" to act righteously , he acts according to his of "orange" then moral facts would be orangy , and this would be entirely consistent.
Alas , this is not the case, and the only thing that is becoming apparent (through the application of modern science-especially quantum), is that we know less about God and It's nature than we thought we did.
I contend that there are two ways to discover the nature of the universe ,(ie.the nature of "God" )-
1. Through direct experience.
2. Scientifically via the process of elimination.
Of course there are other ways to gain information,(books,stories,etc.), about the nature of reality, but these can often be partially if not totally be false,(as has be proven time and again throughout history).