On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-03-2017, 12:40 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
Tomasia, I think you resort to relativism far too easily. Once we define "good" with enough coherence, most or all of the subjectivity evaporates. Let's take my definition as an example. Good is that which maximizes the well-being of sentient creatures and/or minimizes the unnecessary suffering thereof, while evil is anything which is antithetical to that. There are very objective things that can be said about any particular action with respect to that definition. It is not a matter of personal opinion that genocide causes sentient creatures to suffer unnecessarily. It can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of anyone who is both lucid and honest.

Of course, you can argue that the definition of "good" is arbitrary, but ultimately, any word's meaning is arbitrary. That arbitrariness does not render language useless for making objective propositions and then evaluating them. All we need is to agree on the definitions of the words we use, at least within the context of the particular discussion we're having.

The only sacred truth in science is that there are no sacred truths. – Carl Sagan
Sōla vēritās sancta in philosophiā nātūrālī est absentia vēritātum sanctārum.
Ἡ μόνη ἱερᾱ̀ ἀληθείᾱ ἐν φυσικῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ ἐστίν ἡ ἱερῶν ἀληθειῶν σπάνις.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Glossophile's post
15-03-2017, 12:43 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 12:40 PM)Glossophile Wrote:  Tomasia, I think you resort to relativism far too easily. Once we define "good" with enough coherence, most or all of the subjectivity evaporates. Let's take my definition as an example. Good is that which maximizes the well-being of sentient creatures and/or minimizes the unnecessary suffering thereof, while evil is anything which is antithetical to that. There are very objective things that can be said about any particular action with respect to that definition. It is not a matter of personal opinion that genocide causes sentient creatures to suffer unnecessarily. It can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of anyone who is both lucid and honest.

Of course, you can argue that the definition of "good" is arbitrary, but ultimately, any word's meaning is arbitrary. That arbitrariness does not render language useless for making objective propositions and then evaluating them. All we need is to agree on the definitions of the words we use, at least within the context of the particular discussion we're having.

Reality is the entire universe and all the implications of its existence is meaningless (arbitrary). This reality does not detract from your point Wink

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2017, 01:52 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(14-03-2017 06:38 PM)Alla Wrote:  My question: What is "good"?

Your question.

(14-03-2017 06:52 PM)Alla Wrote:  Thanks for your answer, Glossophile.
I don't think the Bible is clear on what God's nature is. I also think the Bible is not clear on what it means "God is good".

The bible is not clear regarding anything. The work was thrown together when the Roman Emperor Constantine ordered the many books were sorted in some fashion. Otherwise those at the Council of Nicea would be put to death.


(15-03-2017 06:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Tomasia, lying motherfucking son of a bitch.

WTF are you doing here you lying cunt???

Fuck off! CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensored

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
15-03-2017, 01:53 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 12:40 PM)Glossophile Wrote:  Tomasia, I think you resort to relativism far too easily. Once we define "good" with enough coherence, most or all of the subjectivity evaporates. Let's take my definition as an example. Good is that which maximizes the well-being of sentient creatures and/or minimizes the unnecessary suffering thereof, while evil is anything which is antithetical to that. There are very objective things that can be said about any particular action with respect to that definition. It is not a matter of personal opinion that genocide causes sentient creatures to suffer unnecessarily. It can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of anyone who is both lucid and honest.

We are quite unlikely to define good the same way. You and some room full of your buddies, perhaps some room full of liberal humanist might have more success with that, than you and a virtue ethicist, or non-consequentialist.

You and your buddies may just as well create a description of what you mean by good, a shared description and criteria, like folks who have similar taste in music, clothes, films might be able to. This doesn't make it any less subjective. Just like I might be able to provide you a set of criteria that defines what I find attractive, in fact you may even be able to point to individuals that I would find attractive based on that criteria, without sharing that standard yourself. None of which makes it any less subjective, or resolves any of the problems they're purported to address.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2017, 01:54 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 01:53 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm a bullshit artist, lying sack of shit and should have been banned 2000 posts ago.

[Image: full_johnny_cash_artist_photo1.jpg]

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
15-03-2017, 01:58 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 01:52 PM)Banjo Wrote:  WTF are you doing here you lying cunt???

Fuck off! CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensored

Just get off it mate.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2017, 02:07 PM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2017 02:16 PM by Cheerful Charlie.)
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 01:27 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  If god is indeed incomprehensible, then it's ludicrous to say that it is "good". We would have no idea about its intentions.

People want an imaginary friend, so the friend has to be nice. Or at least, to be aligned with their personal bigotries.

It is an old idea that God is incomprehensible, for example, Augustine and William of Okham. And later Martin Luther and John Calvin. Except for revelation. The Bible is supposed to be God's revelation and is a trustworthy source of knowledge about God's attributes.

If we take that seriously, then serious logical problems present themselves. God's alleged goodness and the problem of evil for example. Demonstrating that revelation must logically be wrong.

If the theists then take refuge in the "God is incomprehensible" gambit, we can call that intellectual nihilism, God no longer has any meaning at all. In the end, all we have is efforts to avoid admitting God is an illogical proposition, based on special pleading.

Isaiah 55:8-9
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Romans 11:33
33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

Here are two Bible verses the incomprehensibalists like to use. Thus the Bible contains the seeds of it's own disconfirmation

Yog Sothoth! Yog Sothoth! Come back old ones! Yog Sothoth!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post
15-03-2017, 02:21 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
@Tomwhatever

You seem to be grossly oversimplifying a complex issue. You declaring it to be subjective does not make it so, per say. As a nihilist I don't fully disagree that morality and ethics are somewhat subjective. As an intelligent person I know that there's far more to the argument than just that.

From what I can tell, You take a complex subject and stop at what you perceive as step 1 and then decide you've found the answer.

I sense a level of obtuseness in your argument that smells a bit stinky, almost.... troll like.... I'm not quite sure yet though.

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like JesseB's post
15-03-2017, 02:36 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 02:21 PM)JesseB Wrote:  @Tomwhatever

You seem to be grossly oversimplifying a complex issue. You declaring it to be subjective does not make it so, per say. As a nihilist I don't fully disagree that morality and ethics are somewhat subjective. As an intelligent person I know that there's far more to the argument than just that.

It's always interesting to encounter nihilist defending some form of undefined quasi-moral realism.

I don't disagree with you that morality is a complex issue, for starters our moral beliefs, views and attitudes, have the long stench of thousands of years of religions framing those perceptions and attitudes, whether we recognize the long reaching consequences of those influences or not. And that interplay is quite complex, and has resulted in a great deal of incoherency amount secular moral attitudes that grew out of them.

And there's few subjects that people are likely to feel quite sensitive about, than their own moral attitudes, particularly when they get reduced to being subjective, and framed the way we do every other thing we refer to as subjective. So to treat morality the way we do subjective things like taste, appears quite offensive to them, even if at some level they agree.

And if you think there's far more to be said, something that as nihilist you want to correct about my previous post, I welcome it, and will try to address your criticisms the best I can.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2017, 02:53 PM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2017 02:57 PM by JesseB.)
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 02:36 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-03-2017 02:21 PM)JesseB Wrote:  @Tomwhatever

You seem to be grossly oversimplifying a complex issue. You declaring it to be subjective does not make it so, per say. As a nihilist I don't fully disagree that morality and ethics are somewhat subjective. As an intelligent person I know that there's far more to the argument than just that.

It's always interesting to encounter nihilist defending some form of undefined quasi-moral realism.

I don't disagree with you that morality is a complex issue, for starters our moral beliefs, views and attitudes, have the long stench of thousands of years of religions framing those perceptions and attitudes, whether we recognize the long reaching consequences of those influences or not. And that interplay is quite complex, and has resulted in a great deal of incoherency amount secular moral attitudes that grew out of them.

And there's few subjects that people are likely to feel quite sensitive about, than their own moral attitudes, particularly when they get reduced to being subjective, and framed the way we do every other thing we refer to as subjective. So to treat morality the way we do subjective things like taste, appears quite offensive to them, even if at some level they agree.

And if you think there's far more to be said, something that as nihilist you want to correct about my previous post, I welcome it, and will try to address your criticisms the best I can.

Hmm.... perhaps the best way I can put it is, to me, Nihilism is an observable fact about the universe, about my life, about politics everything. Personally I fully accept this, yet I draw (or rather create) meaning for my life through existentialism, philosophy, empathy, logic, rational thought, and occasionally pragmatism. Just because there is no intrinsic meaning in the universe does not mean I can't create meaning.

One of the biggest problems I have with your position is it's simply not pragmatic, or practical when put into practice. This takes the discussion far beyond just the idea of "relativism" which to be frank and honest, I don't really have a problem with recognizing there's a certain subjectivity to it all. That does not override the need for practical application and analysis of the various structures as a whole.

How do I put it.... Perhaps a good place to start might be slavery, you could say that all the points of view on it were subjective. But I think we came to the right conclusion (however subjective you may think that statement is) based on stepping back and looking at the bigger picture, and the application of empathy, and following the logic to its various natural conclusions and over all end results for all people involved.

Empathy is one of the biggest tools in determining these positions as it helps cross bridges from one set of moral imperatives to another, and ultimately is one of the best tools for determining which one over all is the best. Discounting that is a flaw I think.

I don't think there's necessarily an objective morality, any more than I think that science can be 100% certain of anything. Instead I look at it as we can come as close as its possible to come (just like within science). You're argument seems to be a false dichotomy to me (and slightly surface level as well), it sounds as if you feel that there's 2 sides. One side would be at 0% and the other at 100% (with subjective, and objective at the respective sides). First I'm not sure anyone here is even on the 100% side, and second as I stated before it's simply far more complex than you seem to be willing to get into.

Edit^ Made some minor errors, haven't eaten so my wording was a bit off.
Edit^ Corrections.... yea exactly.. lol I need to eat.

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JesseB's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: