Thought Experiment

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
That is what He wants us to do. But He also doesn't want it to be so obvious that it takes away your free will.
If it's obvious to you, and you still have free will, why won't he make it obvious to me in such a way that lets me keep mine?

What freedom would I lose, if he "made it obvious", exactly?
 
Last edited:

El Cid

Well-known member
Sin is similar to a genetic mutation. When our representatives rebelled, as their descendents it became attached to our spiritual DNA and sometimes damaged spiritual DNA can damage our physical DNA. Just as sin can cause physical disease, such as promiscuous sex can cause you to get a STD.
Lets see some evidence to back this up.
It is implied in the Bible.
El Cid said:
Yes, He allowed it for a greater good, ie that evil could be destroyed forever among probably other things that we dont know about.
It doesn't look as though that's going to happen.
It will be fully accomplished at Christ's second coming.
 

El Cid

Well-known member
Which is the greater good

a) Having evil exist for thousands of years, then "destorying it forever", or
b) Never letting evil exist in the first place

?
c.) Giving people free will so that they can experience the infinite love of the king of the universe and experience great spiritual growth, with the potential side effect that evil may exist.
 

El Cid

Well-known member
Well so far it has not explained how rationality can come from non-rationality. They have come up with some theories but they are "just so stories".
Yes it does, it explains it very well.
Ok I am all ears.
You haven't explained how rationality can only come from rationality.
It happens every day when a child is born. Also, when the childs parents or teachers explain how to improve their reasoning. They definitely dont get it from a warm little pond.
El Cid said:
Most of us would not survive without understanding the basics of it. For example, most average intelligence people know that they and an eighteen wheeler cannot occupy the same space at the same time and in the same relationship.
That's not the law of non contradiction.
Yes, it is. From Wikipedia: the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.
Even so, people can understand your example without understanding the law of non contradiction. But so what? What's your point?
Thats right because logic is built into us. We dont need to be taught this foundational principle of logic. The point is it was built into us by a rational source, ie a Mind.
El Cid said:
Yes and your point is?
Our thoughts are objective by your definition.
Yes but only to non-humans.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Ok I am all ears.
Rationality gives a survival advantage.
It happens every day when a child is born. Also, when the childs parents or teachers explain how to improve their reasoning. They definitely dont get it from a warm little pond.
This only explains the process by which rationality is transferred at the present stage of human evolution, it doesn't show how rationality can only come from rationality. Rationality can come from a gradually increasing brain size that gives the ability of abstract thought.
Thats right because logic is built into us. We dont need to be taught this foundational principle of logic. The point is it was built into us by a rational source, ie a Mind.
This is quite a claim. Evolution is also an explanation, giving us brains capable of abstract thought.
Yes but only to non-humans.
So, our thoughts are objective to non humans, but not to us. So they are both objective and not objective at the same time, violating the law of non contradiction.
 

El Cid

Well-known member
No, you misunderstand. Non-human opinions objectively exist
Really?!
Can you give an example?
If chimps had an opinion it would objectively exist.
El Cid said:
but that does not mean that they are true or factual.
Ah - so your god's moral opinions do not constitute fact.
Exactly what I've been saying all along.
No, since God created a moral law incorporated into the universe based on His character, morality is not His opinion. It is based on His objectively existing character. Therefore, an objective standard of morality exists.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
If chimps had an opinion it would objectively exist.
There is a difference between "objectively exist" and "objectively true".

Is it possible for an opinion to be objectively true?
No, since God created a moral law incorporated into the universe based on His character, morality is not His opinion.
The bolded part makes it an opinion.
It is based on His objectively existing character.
If I base something on my objectively-existing character, is that also not an opinion?

What makes stuff based on his character, objective, but not stuff based on mine?
 
Last edited:

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
True but they are evidence.
No, they aren't - if billions of people preferred Bach to Beethoven, would it be evidence that Bach is objectively better than Beethoven?

No, because there is no such thing as objectively better when we are discussing opinions.


Facts and opinions are fire and powder - they negate each other. If something is a fact, all opinions about the matter die; if there are opinions about it, it is because there is no fact.

There are no opinions on the matter of whether or not Australia is south of Spain.
There is no fact in the matter of which of them is the superior holiday destination.
 

Lucian

Active member
No, they aren't - if billions of people preferred Bach to Beethoven, would it be evidence that Bach is objectively better than Beethoven?

No, because there is no such thing as objectively better when we are discussing opinions.


Facts and opinions are fire and powder - they negate each other. If something is a fact, all opinions about the matter die; if there are opinions about it, it is because there is no fact.

There are no opinions on the matter of whether or not Australia is south of Spain.
There is no fact in the matter of which of them is the superior holiday destination.
I don’t know why you assume that aesthetic judgements are purely a matter of opinion.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
I don’t know why you assume that aesthetic judgements are purely a matter of opinion.
Easy - they are made according to some standard.

Which standard is "correct", and how do we establish this?
If I choose a different standard from yours, why am I wrong, and you, right?
 

Lucian

Active member
Easy - they are made according to some standard.

Which standard is "correct", and how do we establish this?
If I choose a different standard from yours, why am I wrong, and you, right?
It’s probably not as simple as there being one standard explaining each person’s judgement (aesthetic reasoning can be pretty complex), but, more importantly, it’s not clear why you assume that these questions are necessarily unanswerable.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
It’s probably not as simple as there being one standard explaining each person’s judgement (aesthetic reasoning can be pretty complex), but, more importantly, it’s not clear why you assume that these questions are necessarily unanswerable.
In order for a thing to be better than another thing, there must be some standard/s by which each are evaluated.

In order for a thing to be objectively better than another thing, there must be some objectively correct standard/s by which each are evaluated - yes?
 

Lucian

Active member
In order for a thing to be better than another thing, there must be some standard/s by which each are evaluated.

In order for a thing to be objectively better than another thing, there must be some objectively correct standard/s by which each are evaluated - yes?
I don't know what you're driving at here, I'm afraid.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
I don't know what you're driving at here, I'm afraid.
Aesthetic evaluations cannot be objectively correct because the standard against which the evaluation is carried out, is arbitrary.

There is no cosmic look-up table that tells us how to determine which painting/film/music is the best one.
 

Lucian

Active member
Aesthetic evaluations cannot be objectively correct because the standard against which the evaluation is carried out, is arbitrary.
So you say. But I don't see any reason to grant this position, and the claim that such standards are arbitrary is also surely false, even if you're otherwise right.
There is no cosmic look-up table that tells us how to determine which painting/film/music is the best one.
Of course not. So what?
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Of course not. So what?
P1. If a thing is objectively good/bad/worst/best, it is good/bad/worst/best independent of opinion.
P2. The standards by which aesthetics are judged, are, necessarily, opinions.

C. It is not possible for a thing to be objectively aesthetically good/bad/worst/best.

Which of these do you dispute?
 
Top