Absolute / Relative Morals

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i don't understand how you are so sure god doesn't exist

Thats because you didn't read my proof. I have already in this thread proved beyond reasonable doubt that your God does not exist.
1. You claim that morals are created by man and are relative.
2. You claim that God judges people.
3. You avoid any question relating to how God judges.
4. Your God is an incoherent concept.
5. Incoherent concepts cannot exactly match existent beings.
6. Your incoherent God concept cannot possibly be the description of an existent being.
7 Your God does not exist.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Thats because you didn't read my proof. I have already in this thread proved beyond reasonable doubt that your God does not exist.
1. You claim that morals are created by man and are relative.
2. You claim that God judges people.
3. You avoid any question relating to how God judges.
4. Your God is an incoherent concept.
5. Incoherent concepts cannot ...[text shortened]... od concept cannot possibly be the description of an existent being.
7 Your God does not exist.

quite a few jumps in logic there. how do you jump from 3 to 4? when have i avoided questions on how god judges?


nevermind, we shall answer the questions, though i say you killed a nice debate with tieing it (again) to proving you are a mighty freethinker and god doesn't exist.

morals are created by man and are relative. this doesn't mean god hasn't got his own set of morals which again are relative(we know that because he thought of better ones when he sent jesus) god judges people based on his own morals and on circumstances(for example, when judging truman, he will not send him to hell for the bomb until listening to the circumstances). so we will hope that when we be judged, we have enough attenuating circumstances if our morals differ from God's.


not to mention that since god doesn't call anymore, we would be foolish to remain unchanged when he did give us intelligence and reason. when the world changes around us and God has stopped holding our hands, we should bloody well behave like adults.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I already gave the key to the proof. Any given God concept is incoherent. An incoherent entity cannot exist.

[b]One reason that I think cog cannot be proven, is that there is so many gods out there - the hindi gods, the african gods, the shaman gods - which one of the gods would you like to prove? And would you like to disproove the rest too?
I co ...[text shortened]... ound like an explanation but it isn't really. Surprisingly many people however think it is.[/b]

We have the same faith, you and I.

The thing that differs us from eachother is that you think that gods existance can be disproven, I don't.

We also define 'religion' differently. I define 'religious' as having the belief that there is things beyond the natural laws, and 'religion' as that you lean on when you are religious. In my definition, religion can't be prooven, because then it is ruled by the natural laws. I don't thik so, I think that you do.

Apart from this, we have the same faith.

The wind exists. Quarks exist. So does anti-matter and tau-neutrinos. In our chaos-tending universe, many things that exist are by their very nature incoherent. Declaring God to be incoherent, and then declaring all things incoherent "not to be", is circular, self-serving pseudo-logic.
I find that "proof" quite poorly derived.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
In our chaos-tending universe, many things that exist are by their very nature incoherent. Declaring God to be incoherent, and then declaring all things incoherent "not to be", is circular, self-serving pseudo-logic.

WTF?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
The wind exists. Quarks exist. So does anti-matter and tau-neutrinos. In our chaos-tending universe, many things that exist are by their very nature incoherent.

You clearly have no idea what 'incoherent' means.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
We also define 'religion' differently. I define 'religious' as having the belief that there is things beyond the natural laws,

I had a whole thread on the idea that the concept of the supernatural as being 'beyond the natural laws' is incoherent. I don't think anyone really disagreed with me.
Do you think that an entity that always lies and never lies can exist? If I say that my God has those properties would you say that it is perfectly possible for my God to exist?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I had a whole thread on the idea that the concept of the supernatural as being 'beyond the natural laws' is incoherent. I don't think anyone really disagreed with me.
Do you think that an entity that always lies and never lies can exist? If I say that my God has those properties would you say that it is perfectly possible for my God to exist?

😴

Metaphysical claims -- not empirically verifiable -- by definition. Therefore: the rules you seek to impose -- inappropriate -- category mistake. Your method of reasoning -- enormous wicker man.

Metaphysics incoherent in itself? Perhaps. Must read Prolegomena to any future metaphysics to avoid censure from beyond the grave by that horrible old Kant.

Back to my undogmatic slumber.

(Perhaps you will reveal to me in a dream the key to your absolute moral code, since you don't seem anywhere near doing that here.)

😴

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
... category mistake.

From what I was able to determine last time we discussed it, you use the phrase 'category mistake' to mean 'I'm talking nonsense so nobody can question me because its nonsense by definition'.
You did not however use it in any way that I could find discussed on the internet (and still are not doing so). I suspect you simply think it is a get out of jail free card to be used to justify your desire to hold on to a concept that you know to be incoherent and illogical.
Logic is universal and for you to claim that something illogical can be considered existent is simply incoherent (and nonsensical).

(Perhaps you will reveal to me in a dream the key to your absolute moral code, since you don't seem anywhere near doing that here.)
Thats probably because I didn't say there was one (as far as I remember). But rather I said all moral codes are absolute. I was mostly objecting to people who tried to imply that morals change over time when the evidence they presented was infact that different people have different moral codes. The given moral codes however are applicable universally.

Originally posted by twhitehead
From what I was able to determine last time we discussed it, you use the phrase 'category mistake' to mean 'I'm talking nonsense so nobody can question me because its nonsense by definition'.
You did not however use it in any way that I could find discussed on the internet (and still are not doing so). I suspect you simply think it is a get out of jail f ...[text shortened]... ple have different moral codes. The given moral codes however are applicable universally.

so what you are saying is that moral laws don't change, people do. how does that work exactly?

if you say killing people is absolutely wrong(LAW A), and then a society says killing people is right(LAW B), how does your theory apply? the latter society didn't change the absolute law, it just took a new law? is the "no killing law" still absolute if nobody holds it true? and is the new law absolute now if everybody believes it to be true? and if yes, how can two laws that contradict each other be both absolute?

Originally posted by twhitehead
From what I was able to determine

Yep. Hence my lack of interest in discussing anything with you. Carry on, crusader.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Yep. Hence my lack of interest in discussing anything with you. Carry on, crusader.

And similarly my lack of interest in you. You make sure that you are vague about everything and resort to evasion when challenged to clarify.
Remember that you stepped into this thread and implied a few things, but stayed rather vague about what you really wanted to say (under the pretense of being bored by it all). And now that you are challenged, you decide to withdraw rather than admit that you were talking nonsense.

Why cant you just be honest and admit that you have no idea what 'category mistake' means or you intentionally applied it incorrectly in the hope of looking intelligent.
Or you can explain what you meant by it in terms that I can understand rather than your usual extremely vague rather meaningless sentences.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
so what you are saying is that moral laws don't change, people do. how does that work exactly?

No, I am saying that different people have different moral codes. I did not say people change.

if you say killing people is absolutely wrong(LAW A), and then a society says killing people is right(LAW B), how does your theory apply?
First of all, I don't think laws are equivalent to morals. Most societies have laws that the majority of its members would consider immoral to some degree.
Second, what I am saying is that if I say that killing people is wrong then it is wrong for me to kill, for you to kill, for people in society B to kill and even for Jesus, God and Moses to kill.
You on the other hand seemed to be claiming that it was OK for people in the OT to kill but not OK for someone living today to kill. But you justified that by pointing out two different moral codes and comparing differences. What I believe to be the mistake you were making was to claim that it was infact one moral code which changed over time.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I am saying that different people have different moral codes. I did not say people change.

[b]if you say killing people is absolutely wrong(LAW A), and then a society says killing people is right(LAW B), how does your theory apply?
First of all, I don't think laws are equivalent to morals. Most societies have laws that the majority of its memb ...[text shortened]... mistake you were making was to claim that it was infact one moral code which changed over time.[/b]

no. are we speaking the same language? i don't even know what you are claiming anymore. my original view was that you asked whether there exist or not absolute moral laws. like "Killing a child" is absolutely wrong no matter the circumstances. and you said that yes, some morals are absolute and true no matter the society in discussion. now you claim that morals don't change, just that different societies adopt new morals.


do you claim that some morals are absolute?

and again you placed God in the issue. we are now talking about a God free environment. if it helps, consider me an atheist for the duration of this argument.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"Killing a child" is absolutely wrong no matter the circumstances.

What about euthanasia of a new born with severe genetic diseases and terminal cancer that will live out the rest of its short existence in the most terrible pain.

Would that be "absolutely wrong"??

Or would it be absolutely wrong to prolong the child's agony, when death is the only hope of reprieve?