Question for Christians on Morality

T

The Pixie

Well-known member
SteveB said:
Irritating! Isn't it!!!
That's what happens when you are not johnny on the ball, and present for such events.
Sorry I didn't think to record it for you. Not like I was aware of your existence back then.

Sorry too for having 4 more cancer surgeries after that, and having other, far more important and life-threatening issues face me following that event.

Next time I'll make sure that you are invited.
Will that help you?
Click to expand...
No it will not.

Either you present the argument, or you do not. If you think there is an argument, but you cannot remember what it is, that is no argument.

Oh, I don't know.
Looking at north Korea, communist China, Islamic governments, and other tyrannical governments on planet earth, it's pretty clear to me that morality is like a breeze.

Without any outside accountability, it changes with the changing winds.
Click to expand...
Can you show any instance when there was such outside accountability - but not from man?

Which means that the fact you are aware that morality exists and the violation of a moral code is a problem means that YHVH wrote it on your heart.
Click to expand...
Or some other god did. Or our culture did. Or maybe there is an absolute morality out there, existing apart from any god.
 
SteveB

SteveB

Well-known member
Electric Skeptic said:
Not interested in your ad hominem and insult.
Click to expand...
Curious how you find factual truth to be insulting.
Electric Skeptic said:
Not interested in your ad hominem and insult.
Click to expand...
Curious how you find factual truth to be insulting.

Electric Skeptic said:
It doesn't.
Click to expand...
And yet it is.
Tens of millions, indeed, hundreds of millions of human beings are being slaughtered like animals.


Electric Skeptic said:
And?

And?

And?

And?
Click to expand...
So you really don't understand....

I suppose that's what happens when you close yourself off from a reality that doesn't agree with your views.


Electric Skeptic said:
I'm not the one claiming that reality is what "seems" to me.
Click to expand...
Yes you are.
You just got done demonstrating that you find reality insulting and ad hominem.



Electric Skeptic said:
Yes, it is and no, it's not an event - it's a bunch of unsupported claims by you.
Click to expand...
It was indeed an event which occurred some 22 years ago, here in Carson city NV, at a local eclectic restaurant that no longer exists. The building is still there. There's a teriyaki and sushi shop in there now.


Electric Skeptic said:
Not interested.
Click to expand...
Of course not. Yet you continue to demonstrate that you are arrogant enough to think you should.

Electric Skeptic said:
Not interested in your ad hominem.
Click to expand...
Well, considering that you have previously established that you believe factual truth and reality are ad hominem and insults, that's a problem you'll apparently have to live with.




Electric Skeptic said:
The point is your unsupported religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
People who follow Jesus support them with our lives every single day.
It's not our fault you're not interested in learning to understand, and instead, throwing temper tantrums.
Electric Skeptic said:
Pointless biblical quotes - not interested.
Click to expand...
As long as you continue to exclude yourself from learning to understand and know, this is exactly why you are throwing temper tantrums.
So, as my wife's grandmother used to say-- tough titty said the kitty!

Electric Skeptic said:
Can you actually make argument outside of insults, ad hominem and "God said so"?
Click to expand...
Well, since you have previously decided that factual truth is insulting, ad hominem, and bible quotes, I'd say that you're on the outside, trying to understand what you don't want to actually know or learn.

I can't help you resolve your problem with reality.
 
Y

ydoaPs

New Member
Eightcrackers said:
Let G = "god exists" and O = "objective moral facts exist", and re-render the above:

1. ¬(¬G -> O)
2. ¬(G OR O)
3. ¬G AND ¬O
4. ¬G.

The problem lies with #2 - while you are correct that the premise entails "not one OR the other", the OR here is really an XOR, not an inclusive OR, and De Morgans law only applies to the latter.

The possibility remains that BOTH G and O are true.
Click to expand...
Nope. Material Implication gives you an inclusive or. That's why you can do things like:

1) p [premise]
2) p or q [disjunction introduction: 1]
3) Therefore, p->q [Material Implication: 2]

And if you just consider the truth table semantics for the material conditional, the result is clearly valid: the only case in which a material conditional is false is when the antecedent is true while the consequent is false.

Points for trying to come up with something, though. Good try.
 
E

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
ydoaPs said:
Nope. Material Implication gives you an inclusive or. That's why you can do things like:

1) p [premise]
2) p or q [disjunction introduction: 1]
3) Therefore, p->q [Material Implication: 2]

And if you just consider the truth table semantics for the material conditional, the result is clearly valid: the only case in which a material conditional is false is when the antecedent is true while the consequent is false.

Points for trying to come up with something, though. Good try.
Click to expand...
2. is, if the OR is inclusive,

"neither god nor objective morals exist".

How does this follow from "not (if not god, then objective morals)"?
 
Electric Skeptic

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
SteveB said:
Curious how you find factual truth to be insulting.

Curious how you find factual truth to be insulting.

And yet it is.
Tens of millions, indeed, hundreds of millions of human beings are being slaughtered like animals.

So you really don't understand....

I suppose that's what happens when you close yourself off from a reality that doesn't agree with your views.

Yes you are.
You just got done demonstrating that you find reality insulting and ad hominem.

It was indeed an event which occurred some 22 years ago, here in Carson city NV, at a local eclectic restaurant that no longer exists. The building is still there. There's a teriyaki and sushi shop in there now.

Of course not. Yet you continue to demonstrate that you are arrogant enough to think you should.

ell, considering that you have previously established that you believe factual truth and reality are ad hominem and insults, that's a problem you'll apparently have to live with.

People who follow Jesus support them with our lives every single day.
It's not our fault you're not interested in learning to understand, and instead, throwing temper tantrums.

As long as you continue to exclude yourself from learning to understand and know, this is exactly why you are throwing temper tantrums.
So, as my wife's grandmother used to say-- tough titty said the kitty!

Well, since you have previously decided that factual truth is insulting, ad hominem, and bible quotes, I'd say that you're on the outside, trying to understand what you don't want to actually know or learn.

I can't help you resolve your problem with reality.
Click to expand...
When you can respond to me without constant ad hominems and insults, I'll bother to take the time to respond.
 
S

shnarkle

Well-known member
Howie said:
No. Without God human morality is subjective.
Click to expand...
Why would human morality not be subjective with God? I see people, even Christians who go around admitting that they sin and that isn't possible unless they come up with some subjective rationale in the first place.
 
Y

ydoaPs

New Member
Eightcrackers said:
2. is, if the OR is inclusive,

"neither god nor objective morals exist".

How does this follow from "not (if not god, then objective morals)"?
Click to expand...
It should be noted, however, that you can get out of this by denying the Law of Excluded Middle, in which case Material Implication becomes one way and not the direction needed for this. You can also adopt something called a Relevance Logic, which denies the Law of Noncontradiction.

But if you want the Logical Absolutes, you're stuck with the two-way Material Implication rule that gives this result.
 
H

Howie

Well-known member
shnarkle said:
Why would human morality not be subjective with God?
Click to expand...
Human morality is subjective with, or without God. Human morality changes; God's morality doesn't.
shnarkle said:
I see people, even Christians who go around admitting that they sin and that isn't possible unless they come up with some subjective rationale in the first place.
Click to expand...
That's right, and that fact does change God's morality.
 
rossum

rossum

Well-known member
Howie said:
Human morality changes;
Click to expand...
Agreed. Human morality changes with our choice of religion, or of none.

Howie said:
God's morality doesn't.
Click to expand...
Disagree. God's morality once said it was immoral to eat pork or clam chowder. That has changed. God's morality once said it was moral for men to have more than one wife: Abraham, David, Solomon and others. That has changed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top