- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
06 Sep 16
4 edits
Originally posted by LemonJello
A "Blind Watchmaker groping along" definition of evolution? Sorry, I don't know what that means.
An undirected, unintelligently guided, purposeless, goalless, process is responsible for the entire biological sphere.
me;
Did mind emerge from matter without the direction of a superior intelligence? If so, why should we trust in such a mind?
LJ:
Are you familiar with Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism?
Yes.
It is probably the argument that most fully develops this concern of yours (or to where I presume this concern is leading). There are several past threads devoted to it that you can reference, in which I and others have argued at length against the soundness of Plantinga’s argument. Here are a couple:
Thread 121260
Thread 139677
At any rate, you're conflating two separate issues. You asked me before about how the human moral faculty came about. That's a question that deals with the descriptively specifiable origins of our capacity to think in moralized terms, employ moral concepts, make moral judgments, etc. On the other hand, there's a further question regarding whether or not those moral judgments and predications pick out something actual, and to what extent. These are two very different questions. The first is an exercise in biological anthropology and descriptive ethics; the second is meta-ethical.
I would like to see a little less pedagogy and classification of arguments and issues and a little more dealing with the arguments even if not so neatly arranged to your sophistication.
If you don't want to stoop to talk with me about it I'll carry on the discourse with someone else.
You need to get your house in order and, first of all, understand this basic distinction and then, secondly, figure out what exactly you are arguing. You may intend to argue that God is somehow necessary for explanation of the first kind (very dubious, given that contemporary evolutionary explanations are eminently plausible); or that God is somehow necessary for explanation of the second kind (again very dubious, given the problems that attend the Euthyphro dilemma).
Other than your say so that it is " very dubious," there's nothing much here but casual and cavalier dismissal.
The Euthyphro dilemma is not a dichotomy that gives me trouble.
It is neither that Good is arbitrarily dictated by God.
Nor is it that Good stands above God.
The two sides of the "dilemma" are not the only choices. Good flows from God's nature.
... the Euthyphro dilemma. It assumes that either God confers meaning and value on life arbitrarily or else he does so because it already has meaning and value independently of him. But Christian theism holds that human life has value and purpose because humans reflect God's very nature and that the purpose of human life and history also reflect God's nature. So the value and purpose of life are neither arbitrary nor grounded in something outside God. They are grounded in God's nature."
[ Scaling the Secular City, J P Moreland, pg 131, Baker Academic]
me:
Thinking and moral decisions involve abstract (moral propositions, laws of logic, ethical comparison, etc). Were these abstractions out there somewhere in the universe waiting for thinking minds to emerge from earthen dirt, to handle them ?
If so then it seems that some things as transcendent abstractions of a mind and moral nature already existed waiting to be manipulated by a material think lucky enough to emerge somehow into a thinking entity.
LJ:
That's one take on it, but, sorry, it is not a take to which I subscribe. I am not committed to the existence of abstract objects. If you do not find such an account particularly convincing, then I suppose I can empathize with you.
I suppose I should take from that that you do not believe there is an objective standard of morality. And I think you're saying there is not only no abstract perfect standard of justice to correct injustice but there is no less than perfect one either.
But I thought you were saying before injustice could be addressed by less than perfect justice.
me:
you are not or you are a Physicalist ?
Yes, I would consider myself a physicalist. At least on a minimal level, I am committed to a form of supervenience physicalism. So what?
So supervenience has its weakness which I will talk to latter.
What is childish is to think Someone bigger than you and I has designed us.
Newton - childish then ?
Einstien - childish then ?
Even if Albert Einstein was a Deist of sorts thinking God was not personal, he considered it an insult to ask such a scientist as himself if he believed in God.
You would accuse him here of being childish. He said he wanted to know God's thoughts after him by examining the design of the universe. That of course includes man.
You're amusing here.
Nope, you're just not getting it. If you had good epistemic reasons to think that we were designed by some higher power, then I would see nothing childish about that.
With this I think looking at your two Threads where you recommend Plantingo is refuted is probably a waste of time. Up to this point I was going to go over and read them.
Tell me all about the DNA molecule not being designed.
Wait, first let me get into a good lotus position. You're going to school me in the "illusion" of design ?
This kind of "adulthood" you imagine is just childish resenting someone with more smarts then you have. This is a snotty teenager's walking the other way when his parent comes into the room because he thinks he knows everything.
Nope LemonJello, things like the reproductive system don't happen any other way except by design. Darwin may have had some excuse to think a cell was just a blob of jelly like substance. Now we know that if we made a factory to do everything that one human cell does, it would probably be the size of the state of Connecticut.
Even if you had poor reasons to think this, it would not necessarily be childish.
You're really overplaying the "childish" card.
This is beginning to sound like the Fairy Tale "The Emperor's New Cloths". The child in the story could see through the pretensions of the adults.
Again, the childish aspect has to do with the nature and structure of your moral deliberations. I've already explained this multiple times in this thread and the previous one.
But now you're saying the entire thought of an intelligent Creator is "childish".
Well if a physical design from a superior intelligence is clear to me there is no reason why I should doubt that a moral design is "childish".
Maybe like the spoiled adolescent you just don't want to acknowledge any dependence on anyone. Maybe you have an arrested adolescent development.
Agreed, appeal to consequences does not get the job done. Of course, this should go without saying, which is why it is rather sad that I have had to point it out to you multiple times now.
Your not concerned with getting the job done.
Your committed to the belief that it is impossible.
I don't need to prove that God is the ultimate moral law giver.
I am satisfied to know that we're more likely on the right track to believe so.
But we'll just have to move on without you.
Great. Then let's stick to that, instead of getting sidetracked. Obviously, though, that initial formulation does not work, since Premise (1) is totally dubious if not just self-contradictory. So, I'm still waiting for your reformulation. Please provide it, and then maybe we can make some constructive progress here.
You've mentioned my Premise (1) a few times and its weaknesses.
Isn't your Premise (1) something like "God does not exist" ?
Or I gather your Primises (1) for any form of you arguments is that God has not communicated anything to mankind.
Prove either one of these assumed first Premises of yours. Why should I assume it just has to be valid ? Personal taste is not enough. Personal like or dislike for God is not nearly enough.
06 Sep 16
Originally posted by sonshipIf ever there were three sentences that indicate how your circular-logic-driven mantras simply come a cropper whenever you subject them to the kind of scrutiny that Lemonjello offers, here they are.
I don't need to prove that God is the ultimate moral law giver.
I am satisfied to know that we're more likely on the right track to believe so.
But we'll just have to move on without you.
06 Sep 16
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFSo nothing you believe in contains any circular-logic?
If ever there were three sentences that indicate how your circular-logic-driven mantras simply come a cropper whenever you subject them to the kind of scrutiny that Lemonjello offers, here they are.
Did you know that all science and mathematics is based upon circular logic?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
If you had good epistemic reasons to think that we were designed by some higher power, then I would see nothing childish about that.
We have undeniably a moral sense. We undeniably do not always live up to it.
Put aside for the moment that the Bible says something went terribly wrong with man.
The moral standard is something man looks up to. If it is grounded in some THING man is looking up to something that is on a lower level of being than a human being. Life is looking up to something below life for the origin of his morality.
I would argue that man is looking up not to something non-living but to Someone living - God. And God's nature is that standard. The buck of moral responsibility stops with an unchanging God whose nature is the origin of highest morality.
God then rather than a non-life matter is the ground and source of human life's value.
Some have said the karma enforces moral correction. How does karma have this purpose in mind if not put there by a moral agent ? Even if some balancing force works to reward and punish moral behavior, something like a moral life and agent had to program karma to execute in this way.
I would ask WHO is the programmer of karma?
Why should karma "care" about good and evil?
The agent with moral sense behind the programming or creating of karma must be the concerned being.
06 Sep 16
Originally posted by FMFI take it you feel there is something wrong with the use of circular logic?
If there's any argument I've made that you believe is based on circular logic then just go ahead and take issue with it.
So tell we what exactly is wrong with circular logic and why should I take issue with it?
06 Sep 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkCircular logic is where "there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion." [wiki]
I take it you feel there is something wrong with the use of circular logic?
So tell we what exactly is wrong with circular logic and why should I take issue with it?
If you feel I have used circular logic in my conversations with you, go ahead and point it out.
06 Sep 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkProgress is only really made when you travel in a straight line (as opposed to going in circles, which gets you nowhere).
I take it you feel there is something wrong with the use of circular logic?
So tell we what exactly is wrong with circular logic and why should I take issue with it?
06 Sep 16
Originally posted by FMFCould you give me one example of a belief you hold that does not contain circular logic?
Circular logic is where "there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion." [wiki]
If you feel I have used circular logic in my conversations with you, go ahead and point it out.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIt doesn't work like that. I have expressed all manner of beliefs and made all manner of arguments in recent conversations with you, for instance. If you feel I have used circular logic in any of those cases, go ahead and point them out.
Could you give me one example of a belief you hold that does not contain circular logic?