Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk So if LJ doesn't know what actually justifies a belief in God and I gave him an adequate reason, how would he even be able to recognize that it is correct?
Well, first of all you've taken his statement out of context. His full post and the one it was in reply to were as follows:
FetchMyJunk: Aha got you. I don't think people believe in God because they believe in perfect justice. They believe in perfect justice because they believe in God.
LemonJello: Fine. If that is the case, then it is reasonable to expect that in attempting to justify that belief in God, they ought to be able to point to something other than a lame appeal to consequences regarding perfect justice (or lack thereof).
In other words, if people have reasons to believe in God other than a desire for or belief in perfect justice then they ought to be able to formulate an argument based on those other reasons rather than attempt using this fallacious appeal to adverse consequences. So it was part of a conditional and what he actually said in the other thread kind of answers your question without the need to start this one.
Originally posted by twhitehead The same way we verify anything that we are given. We check the facts / arguments etc to see if they are correct or valid.
But that is a completely separate issue from knowing whether or not something is an inadequate reason. It is certainly not necessary to know exactly what makes a reason adequate in order to know that a particular reason is inadequate.
Correct/ valid based on what? Your opinion of what is correct/valid?
Originally posted by DeepThought Well, first of all you've taken his statement out of context. His full post and the one it was in reply to were as follows:[quote][b]FetchMyJunk: Aha got you. I don't think people believe in God because they believe in perfect justice. They believe in perfect justice because they believe in God.
LemonJello: Fine. If that is the case, the ...[text shortened]... ually said in the other thread kind of answers your question without the need to start this one.[/b]
Fine. If that is the case, then it is reasonable to expect that in attempting to justify that belief in God, they ought to be able to point to something other than a lame appeal to consequences regarding perfect justice (or lack thereof).
Such as?
In other words, if people have reasons to believe in God other than a desire for or belief in perfect justice then they ought to be able to formulate an argument based on those other reasons rather than attempt using this fallacious appeal to adverse consequences.
But if he doesn't know what the other reasons are, how would he recognise them to be correct if I gave them to him?
Removed
Joined
03 Jan '13
Moves
13080
04 Sep '16 07:241 edit
Originally posted by DeepThought
College Ethics Teacher: -
"It's enough to know that 1 + 2 = 3 and that 1 + 1 is not equal to 1 + 2. To construct a formal argument Robinson arithmetic defines a successor operator s(.) each number has a successor and there is an axiom that s(x) = s(y) implies that x = y - in other words each successor has a unique predecessor. I need axioms that x + 0 = x and that x + s(y) = s(x + y) to recursively define addition and I'll define s(0) = 1 and s(2) = 3. From the axioms we have that x + 1 = x + s(0) = s(x + 0) = s(x). So we have 1 + 1 = s(1), because we know that 3 is the successor to 2 and so cannot be the successor to 1 we know that 1 + 1 != 3. This does not rely on me knowing that 1 + 1 = s(1) = 2 and so proves that we don't need to know that 1 + 1 = 2 to know that 1 + 1 != 3."
"It's enough to know that 1 + 2 = 3 and that 1 + 1 is not equal to 1 + 2. To construct a formal argument Robinson arithmetic defines a successor operator s(.) each number has a successor and there is an axiom that s(x) = s(y) implies that x = y - in other words each successor has a unique predecessor. I need axioms that x + 0 = x and that x + s(y) = s(x + y) to recursively define addition and I'll define s(0) = 1 and s(2) = 3. From the axioms we have that x + 1 = x + s(0) = s(x + 0) = s(x). So we have 1 + 1 = s(1), because we know that 3 is the successor to 2 and so cannot be the successor to 1 we know that 1 + 1 != 3. This does not rely on me knowing that 1 + 1 = s(1) = 2 and so proves that we don't need to know that 1 + 1 = 2 to know that 1 + 1 != 3."
Young College Student: -
"So I can sleep with my girlfriend ?"
What ethical issues are involved when considering the case of a college student and his partner sleeping together?
Originally posted by twhitehead You might be offending a deity which is clearly unethical (if you have empathy for deities).
There is also the question of whether or not you know about birth control, as the issue of unwanted pregnancy is very much an ethical one.
Well the second issue poses an ethical question, of course. Spreading disease would be another. And any elements of deception or coercion would be others.
But the first one ~ "offending a deity" ~ only qualifies as an "ethical issue" if someone believes in a supernatural being and also believes that this supernatural being has issued instructions regarding a student and his or her partner sleeping together. It seemed a strange example for sonship to present to Deep Thought who has never expressed any ideas that might suggest he sees a supernatural aspect to the ethics of sex.
Nor is there any particular reason to assume a 'College Ethics Teacher' or a 'Young College Student' have either. So it seemed an oddly priggish (albeit harmless) assumption for sonship to project onto a conversation about ethics he's having with a non-believer.
Originally posted by FMF [b]College Ethics Teacher: -
"It's enough to know that 1 + 2 = 3 and that 1 + 1 is not equal to 1 + 2. To construct a formal argument Robinson arithmetic defines a successor operator s(.) each number has a successor and there is an axiom that s(x) = s(y) implies that x = y - in other words each successor has a unique predecessor. I need axioms that x + 0 = x ...[text shortened]... s are involved when considering the case of a college student and his partner sleeping together?
Why would it be unethical for you to look at women with lust if you are married, as you claim to be doing, based upon your current beliefs?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk Why would it be unethical for you to look at women with lust if you are married, as you claim to be doing, based upon your current beliefs?
What is it you think I am claiming to be doing? Your question makes no sense to me.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk You said before, "I'm not really one for lusting after women other than my wife. I don't think it's all that hard to avoid this form of "sin".
Why do you view lusting after women other than your wife as unethical based on your current beliefs, or lack of beliefs?
That was from a thread asking the question "What's so difficult about not sinning?" And, using myself as an example, I said avoiding the "sin" of lusting after another woman doesn't seem so difficult. But of course, I don't believe in the existence of "sin" (except in the minds of people who think they know God's will). As long as I am not deceiving my wife or hurting her or cheating on her, I don't see any ethical problem with lustful thoughts. Good grief. It would seem you didn't understand that conversation on that thread, which I must admit I suspected at the time.
Originally posted by FMF That was from a thread asking the question "What's so difficult about not sinning?" And, using myself as an example, I said avoiding the "sin" of lusting after another woman doesn't seem so difficult. But of course, I don't believe in the existence of "sin" (except in the minds of people who think they know God's will). As long as I am not deceiving my wife or h ...[text shortened]... didn't understand that conversation on that thread, which I must admit I suspected at the time.
So you can avoid any form of sin if you wanted to? So from the start of your life till this point you could have been 'sinless' if you had wanted to? No sin was committed that you couldn't have stopped? And all sin that you have committed was because you wanted to? Is that what you are saying?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk So you can avoid any form of sin if you wanted to? So from the start of your life till this point you could have been 'sinless' if you had wanted to? No sin was committed that you couldn't have stopped? And all sin that you have committed was because you wanted to? Is that what you are saying?
No. Nothing of the sort, as I think you know only too well. Go back to that thread and take another look.
Justification for belief
03 Sep '16 19:21
Back to Top