1. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    10 May '10 12:54
    What do you think I mean when I say

    I don't accept your claim that morality needs to be pinned on God (or any other supernatural agent)

    ???
  2. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    15 May '10 19:51
    Originally posted by Agerg
    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]
    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 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?
  3. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    15 May '10 20:281 edit
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    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?
    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.
  4. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    16 May '10 20:19
    Originally posted by Agerg
    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.
    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 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.
  5. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    16 May '10 21:251 edit
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    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.
    Oh yeah...you just make up this crap as you go along doncha 😴

    wtf are you on about??? 😕
  6. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    17 May '10 05:12
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    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?
    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.

    How in the world did you get that from what he said?
  7. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    17 May '10 05:16
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    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.
    You should probably lay off the drugs.

    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?
  8. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91614
    17 May '10 06:092 edits
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    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.
    If 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.
    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).
Back to Top