Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-02-2017, 11:07 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
CP lovely you're so polite and living your faith in trying to love everyone but you might want to kind of not do that here so much, my reasoning being that it could potentially open you up to being accused of trying to shut down or prevent criticism of your posts and ideas by being so uber pleasant it makes it difficult
for folks to be critical of you, some christians do do this I'm not saying you are though, also if you say something forthright and then go into uber polite mode folks may interpret that as being passive aggressive, again Im not saying this is what you are doing just that it might come off like that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
03-02-2017, 11:09 AM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2017 03:23 PM by Christian Philosophy.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 10:55 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 10:41 AM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  So many ad homs so little time. Again, the theist user gives actual arguments, while the atheists simply appeal to concerns about credentials (which are helpful sometimes, but need to be tied in with the evidence), and a somewhat limited understanding of academic philosophy. Within the field of metaphysics and philosophy of religion, questions about modality are taken very seriously, and are simply not glossed over. Possible world semantics is very important to any understanding of many relevant fields in philosophy, and necessity can (and I think the theist would agree), should for the case of this be grounded in it. While I am not the biggest fan of modal logic, being a "classical ontologist", I feel this is honorable, and shouldn't be chased out entirely. As for the special pleading, I don't think the theist did anything of the such. He simply discussed from the existence of contingent beings, which is far from indefensible (it is arguably self evidently true), that a necessary being with causal powers (and arguably standard theistic atributes given the principle of proportionate causality) is a valid inference. I would use language about the contingent beings esscences, and since these are entirely separate from their existence (as the scholastic would argue), a being whose essence is existence would be necessary to explain this. Since the being simply has not a potency (given other arguments from natural theology, since logical possibility is a sort of potency, although this is tougher to discuss), it follows to use a piece of negative theology, He cannot not exist. This is not special pleading because it isn't making God and exception to the rule. The intelligibility of God's existence would be due to His essence, while the beings of our experience simply do not have this inherent. Overall, the theists argument is somewhat unbattered, although I am just offering support. I for one have not a take on His views on classical theism, but given its validity, it seems quite reasonable.

Thanks for the time and may God bless you all,

Christian Philosophy

This is reminiscent of WLC's word-salad that he often uses in a vain attempt to confound his opponents in debates.

When you see this, "...it follows to use a piece of negative theology, He cannot not exist" you know you've run into a problem. It very much is special pleading by any measure one wishes to use, as well as begging the question and assuming a priori.

The best definition of theology I ever heard was:

Theology: made-up stuff about made-up stuff.

That's exactly what CP is doing here. I like the way he/she (sorry, didn't look) made the argument even if the argument itself collapses under the weight of it's own fallacies and assumptions.

Hi User,

Thanks for the reply! I am gracious you took the time to read my post, but I am not aware of any error made on my part. I am arguing via essentialism (I feel is largely defensible), which thinkers like Avicenna and Aquinas have used very extensively in metaphysical systems. I actually agree with you about a priori reasoning largely, which is why I am not a rationalist. I am a proponent of Aristotelean-Thomist epistemology, and hence I believe in a view of abstraction, being a moderate realist (or even a moderate nominalist, I am open here!, as most of the scholastics were). People like Leibniz, Clarke (who were in fact rationalists), and Aristotle did argue from things like the principle of proportionate causality to God, but ultimately this is simply an immediately apprehended principle in our cognition of change. So it isn't quite a priori. I do understand the mistake though, and I should be more clear. I appreciate your concern and I did find your reply quite cordial and I thank you for this.

Thanks for the reply again,

Christian Philosophy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 11:11 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 11:07 AM)adey67 Wrote:  CP lovely you're so polite and living your faith in trying to love everyone but you might want to kind of not do that here so much, my reasoning being that it could potentially open you up to being accused of trying to shut down or prevent criticism of your posts and ideas by being so uber pleasant it makes it difficult
for folks to be critical of you, some christians do do this I'm not saying you are though, also if you say something forthright and then go into uber polite mode folks may interpret that as being passive aggressive, again Im not saying this is what you are doing just that it might come off like that.

Sure sure, I understand. I do think there are worse things to be criticized for (not saying you were doing as such).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 11:11 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 10:41 AM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 10:16 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  I'm not asking for your agreement.

As for knowing what you learnt - you haven't dazzled me with brilliance so far.


No. I simply say that 4 years of so called research without simple grounding that University courses would gave you means shit. You're free to disagree with me, but your posts show different story.

You don't even know that what you do is special pleading which RS post showed.


Perhaps when you start college you will realize stupidity of all that necessary being shit?


So many ad homs so little time. Again, the theist user gives actual arguments, while the atheists simply appeal to concerns about credentials (which are helpful sometimes, but need to be tied in with the evidence), and a somewhat limited understanding of academic philosophy. Within the field of metaphysics and philosophy of religion, questions about modality are taken very seriously, and are simply not glossed over. Possible world semantics is very important to any understanding of many relevant fields in philosophy, and necessity can (and I think the theist would agree), should for the case of this be grounded in it. While I am not the biggest fan of modal logic, being a "classical ontologist", I feel this is honorable, and shouldn't be chased out entirely. As for the special pleading, I don't think the theist did anything of the such. He simply discussed from the existence of contingent beings, which is far from indefensible (it is arguably self evidently true), that a necessary being with causal powers (and arguably standard theistic atributes given the principle of proportionate causality) is a valid inference.

No, it isn't. How the universe came into being is not known, but to assume that it took a being is unwarranted.

Quote:I would use language about the contingent beings esscences, and since these are entirely separate from their existence (as the scholastic would argue), a being whose essence is existence would be necessary to explain this.

Great, now your trying to call 'essences' into existence without either evidence or even definition.

Quote:Since the being simply has not a potency (given other arguments from natural theology, since logical possibility is a sort of potency, although this is tougher to discuss), it follows to use a piece of negative theology, He cannot not exist. This is not special pleading because it isn't making God and exception to the rule. The intelligibility of God's existence would be due to His essence, while the beings of our experience simply do not have this inherent. Overall, the theists argument is somewhat unbattered, although I am just offering support. I for one have not a take on His views on classical theism, but given its validity, it seems quite reasonable.

More undefined, unevidenced crap.

Quote:Thanks for the time and may God bless you all,

Christian Philosophy

Piss off with your blessings.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
03-02-2017, 11:13 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 11:11 AM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 11:07 AM)adey67 Wrote:  CP lovely you're so polite and living your faith in trying to love everyone but you might want to kind of not do that here so much, my reasoning being that it could potentially open you up to being accused of trying to shut down or prevent criticism of your posts and ideas by being so uber pleasant it makes it difficult
for folks to be critical of you, some christians do do this I'm not saying you are though, also if you say something forthright and then go into uber polite mode folks may interpret that as being passive aggressive, again Im not saying this is what you are doing just that it might come off like that.

Sure sure, I understand. I do think there are worse things to be criticized for (not saying you were doing as such).

No not a criticism just a word to the wise Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
03-02-2017, 11:15 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 10:04 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 08:10 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Come back in 8 years when you're a man.

You see I'm not exactly sure if I can get anywhere in a discussion with you. Am I wrong in this assessment?

I don't know about Banjo, but where, exactly, are you trying to get to? We've heard these arguments for years (for many, decades). They're nothing new. Do you expect to hear, "Wow, we've never looked at it this way - you may be right!". Not gonna happen. Most of us have been exposed to these weak arguments for at least as long as you've been alive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 11:19 AM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2017 11:23 AM by Christian Philosophy.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 11:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 10:41 AM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  So many ad homs so little time. Again, the theist user gives actual arguments, while the atheists simply appeal to concerns about credentials (which are helpful sometimes, but need to be tied in with the evidence), and a somewhat limited understanding of academic philosophy. Within the field of metaphysics and philosophy of religion, questions about modality are taken very seriously, and are simply not glossed over. Possible world semantics is very important to any understanding of many relevant fields in philosophy, and necessity can (and I think the theist would agree), should for the case of this be grounded in it. While I am not the biggest fan of modal logic, being a "classical ontologist", I feel this is honorable, and shouldn't be chased out entirely. As for the special pleading, I don't think the theist did anything of the such. He simply discussed from the existence of contingent beings, which is far from indefensible (it is arguably self evidently true), that a necessary being with causal powers (and arguably standard theistic atributes given the principle of proportionate causality) is a valid inference.

No, it isn't. How the universe came into being is not known, but to assume that it took a being is unwarranted.

Quote:I would use language about the contingent beings esscences, and since these are entirely separate from their existence (as the scholastic would argue), a being whose essence is existence would be necessary to explain this.

Great, now your trying to call 'essences' into existence without either evidence or even definition.

Quote:Since the being simply has not a potency (given other arguments from natural theology, since logical possibility is a sort of potency, although this is tougher to discuss), it follows to use a piece of negative theology, He cannot not exist. This is not special pleading because it isn't making God and exception to the rule. The intelligibility of God's existence would be due to His essence, while the beings of our experience simply do not have this inherent. Overall, the theists argument is somewhat unbattered, although I am just offering support. I for one have not a take on His views on classical theism, but given its validity, it seems quite reasonable.

More undefined, unevidenced crap.

Quote:Thanks for the time and may God bless you all,

Christian Philosophy

Piss off with your blessings.

Well the point about the post was simply to converse about the plausibility of the argument. I didn't even mention a subargument for it. If you would wish to converse further about this, I am not sure a post about ethical humanism (which is the topic I suppose), would be fit for a full defense, a dedicated messaging or calling application would be much more for fir for this. So yes I am just hinting at things. I do have to say though, essentialism has both appeal from scientific realism, our apprehension of universals (not totally equivalent mind you, it even could work with moderate nominalism) and the common objective similarities in things (even cashing this out in terms of societal norms seems to presuppose there is some objective similarity between the individuals in the society, a sort of natural kind if you will). I would say this in and of itself is defensible, and of it isn't, then there are also issues with the Philosophy of Mind. I again, will however just hint at these things because of the nature of this thread. Lastly, the argument from the PSR presupposes the universe is eternal for the sake of argument. Leibniz gives the geometry book example and copying for all eternity (assuming I remember correctly, I am not a Leibniz specialist like Russell).

Thanks,

Christian Philosophy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Christian Philosophy's post
03-02-2017, 11:32 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 10:49 AM)unfogged Wrote:  I would say that it isn't that there isn't a valid argument but that no argument presented so far has been valid; at least none that I am aware of.

I have seen you make many assertions in this thread. If you made an argument for the existence of anything "necessary", let alone a "being", please point out where it was. It might help if you first define what you mean by "necessary" since others have used it in a way that required equivocation on the meaning.

I'll give the links gave earlier as well as a few others. There's quite a bit of material on this on IEP and Stanford. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modality-varieties/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/mod-meta/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmo...-argument/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/religion/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontol...arguments/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/trans-ar/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trans...arguments/

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 11:38 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 11:15 AM)kemo boy Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 10:04 AM)Naielis Wrote:  You see I'm not exactly sure if I can get anywhere in a discussion with you. Am I wrong in this assessment?

I don't know about Banjo, but where, exactly, are you trying to get to? We've heard these arguments for years (for many, decades). They're nothing new. Do you expect to hear, "Wow, we've never looked at it this way - you may be right!". Not gonna happen. Most of us have been exposed to these weak arguments for at least as long as you've been alive.

If you're unwilling to change your mind, why are you here?

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 11:41 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 10:41 AM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  God bless you...

No thank you. FSM disapproves of this message Wink And I for one, do not want to be boiled for my sins in a pasta cooker. So away with your blasphemy of the noodley spirit!

May the Noodle be forever upon you.

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jennybee's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: