01 Apr 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeHilariously, if this argument of yours is correct, then it follows that we should look upon it with extreme skepticism. If it is not correct, then we have no reason to accept your conclusion.
It all depends on definitions and most (not in math for instance, .... ahaaa .... ) most definitions only use words to describe the object of definition. Words are inherently more or less vague. Therefore definitions using words are inherently more or less vague. Reasoning based on definitions using words is therefore vague. Conclusions reached using vagu ...[text shortened]... erefore be looked upon with a wagonload of scientific scepticism and professional suspicion.
🙄
01 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarr
Hilariously, if this argument of yours is correct, then it follows that we should look upon it with extreme skepticism. If it is not correct, then we have no reason to accept your conclusion.
🙄
Yes hilarious, isn't it ?
Please look upon my reasoning with extreme scepticism and point out the flaws, if there are any, and please also address if and to which extent "The fallacy of Ambiguity" also applies to my reasoning.
01 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesPlease reread my post very carefully and try to understand, I know it is very difficult since I necessarily use ambiguous words, the notion I want to communicate. At least BBar has grasped the heart of the matter.
LOL. All of mathematics and its definitions can be entirely expressed in words.
The symbols that are often used are only a convenient shorthand for the words.
Any symbolic expression of mathematics can be unambiguously rendered i ...[text shortened]... gned using rigorous mathematics of engineering, flying in the air?
EDIT: Great effort is being done in math to remove the obvious ambiguity of words ...... and very succesfully I may add.
01 Apr 05
1 edit
BBarr: "Morally Perfect (def): An entity G is morally perfect if and only if for any two acts, events, or states of affairs A and B, if A is morally preferable to B then G prefers that A occur or obtain rather than B, and G acts accordingly."
1. The choice of the lesser evil, but still evil, is included in this definition. How can a god be morally perfect if he is forced to choose evil.
2. The god from the argument is robbed from his freedom. The God of Abraham is totally free.
3. The "Fallacy of the False Dichotomy" is present here.
01 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeBoth of your contentions are false.
BBarr: "Morally Perfect (def): An entity G is morally perfect if and only if for any two acts, events, or states of affairs A and B, if A is morally preferable to B then G prefers that A occur or obtain rather than B, and G acts accordingl ...[text shortened]... l.
2. The "Fallacy of the False Dichotomy" is present here.
The choice of a lesser evil is not 'included in this definition'. The definition entails that a morally perfect person will choose the lesser evil only when the lesser evil is the least evil of any available alternatives.
Here's an example:
Suppose there are three options available:
A: Very Evil
B: Lesser Evil
C: Not Evil
The definition entails that the morally perfect person will choose C. It is inconsistent with the definition that the morally perfect person will choose B.
Again, I am making no claims here as to what the term 'evil' means, other than that 'more evil' entails 'less morally preferable'.
Your claim about the False Dichotomy is mistaken because I am not claiming that there are ever only two options. I am claiming that whenever a morally perfect decides between an action and some other action, he chooses the morally preferable action.
EDIT: I see you added a further contention, that the God of Abraham is free. Nothing in any of my definitions is incompatible with this claim.
01 Apr 05
BBarr: "Omniscient (def.): An entity G is omniscient if and only if G knows every true proposition."
Is that really the definition of Omniscience ? In order to give a perfect and correct definition of "omniscience" one has to be omniscient oneself.
What fallacy is that? An implicit Appeal to False authority ?
01 Apr 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeYes, that is really the definition. You do not have to be omniscient to define the term 'omniscient', just like you do not have to be a bachelor to define the term 'bachelor'.
BBarr: "Omniscient (def.): An entity G is omniscient if and only if G knows every true proposition."
Is that really the definition of Omniscience ? In order to give a perfect and correct definition of "omniscience" one has to be omniscient oneself.
What fallacy is that? An implicit Appeal to False authority ?
01 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrMorally Perfect (def): "An entity G is morally perfect if and only if for any two acts, events, or states of affairs A and B, if A is morally preferable to B then G prefers that A occur or obtain rather than B, and G acts accordingly."
Both of your contentions are false.
The choice of a lesser evil is not 'included in this definition'. The definition entails that a morally perfect person will choose the lesser evil [b]only when the lesser evil is the least evil of ...[text shortened]... othing in any of my definitions is incompatible with this claim. [/b]
I asked you whether your definition entails the possible choice of the lesser evil. You answered "yes".
Bbarr: "Suppose there are three options available:
A: Very Evil
B: Lesser Evil
C: Not Evil
..... sure, and if A and B are "available" then B will be chosen.
Bbarr: " I am claiming that whenever a morally perfect decides between an action and some other action, he chooses the morally preferable action."
That's not being morally perfect. We humans in an imperfect world deal with morality this way. We simply call such a person a "moral" person. Someone who lets his, correctly developed, conscience speak.
01 Apr 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeIvanhoe, you are losing track of the argument.
Morally Perfect (def): "An entity G is morally perfect if and only if for any two acts, events, or states of affairs A and B, if A is morally preferable to B then G prefers that A occur or obtain rather than B, and G acts accordingly."
I asked you whether your definition entails the possible choice of the lesser evil. You answered "yes".
Bbarr: ...[text shortened]... son a "moral" person. Someone who lets his, correctly developed, conscience speak.
If there are only two options available, and one option is less evil than the other, where 'less evil' means more morally preferable, then the morally perfect person chooses the less evil option.
All this means is that morally perfect persons choose the most morally preferable option among available alternatives.
That is all the definition is getting at, Ivanhoe. It is not intended as a definition of 'moral' or 'morally preferable'. The definition is completely silent on the nature of morality.
Again:
All the definition is claiming is that a morally perfect person will choose the most morally preferable option from among the available alternatives.
Now, what is the problem here?
01 Apr 05
BBarr: "BBarr: "Omniscient (def.): An entity G is omniscient if and only if G knows every true proposition."
Your definition only mentions "every true proposition". You are referring to reasoning and to the outcome of correct reasoning, the Truth.
What about knowing the facts, what about knowing reality, without neading to reason about it ? There are many ways of knowing. Animals know for instance without knowing "true propositions".
Your definition is limited because of the above mentioned reasons and therefore flawed.
01 Apr 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeThese are all included in the definition, Ivanhoe. Knowing a fact F is knowing that F is the case. Knowing that F is the case is the same as knowing that the proposition 'F is the case' is true. Knowing reality is nothing over and above knowing all the facts, which is nothing over and above knowing all the true propositions. Animals also know by knowing true propositions. Propositions are the objects of mental states like believing, desiring, hoping, fearing, etc. When I hope that it will rain, and I believe that it will rain, these two mental states have in common their content. Their content is the proposition 'it will rain'.
BBarr: "BBarr: "Omniscient (def.): An entity G is omniscient if and only if G knows every true proposition."
Your definition only mentions "every true proposition". You are referring to reasoning and to the outcome of correct reasoning, the Truth.
What about knowing the facts, what about knowing reality, without neading to reason about it ? There ...[text shortened]... ".
Your definition is limited because of the above mentioned reasons and therefore flawed.
Your claim that my definition is flawed is false. Even if you included, as seperate types of knowing, knowledge of facts, or states of affairs, or whatever, being omniscient would still entail knowing all true propositions. Hence, even if you included these other things, my argument would not need to be altered in any manner whatever. No premises of the argument would need to be changed.
01 Apr 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou have yet to point out a flaw in the argument. You are making claims that are irrelevant to the argument. Nothing you have said would require altering even one premise in the argument. Even if I supplemented my definitions in accord with your suggestions, the premises would still not need to be altered in any way.
BBarr: "Ivanhoe, you are losing track of the argument"
The argument has flaws and if I try to point out the flaws and try to discuss them, I'm losing track of the argument. I have to remember that one !
01 Apr 05
Originally posted by bbarr
Ivanhoe, you are losing track of the argument.
If there are only two options available, and one option is less evil than the other, where 'less evil' means more morally preferable, then the morally perfect person chooses the less evil option.
[b]All this means is that morally perfect persons choose the most morally preferable option among available a ...[text shortened]... y preferable option from among the available alternatives.
Now, what is the problem here?[/b]
BBarr: "It is not intended as a definition of 'moral' or 'morally preferable'. The definition is completely silent on the nature of morality."
I know, that is one of its flaws. The ambiguity of words and terms remember ?
BBarr: "All the definition is claiming is that a morally perfect person will choose the most morally preferable option from among the available alternatives."
Now, what is the problem here?
I seem to have failed in my attempts of making this clear.