JCFolsom:Knight of Bowow, seriously, dude, you need to stop with the selective quoting and constant abraisiveness. You're making Niccolo look calm and friendly, for God's sake. Geez.
FolsomPrison, you need to grow up.
You want to play some childish game? I'll treat you like a child. Either act like an adult or be treated as a child. Your choice; make it now.
Knight_of_BAAWA:You want to play some childish game? I'll treat you like a child. Either act like an adult or be treated as a child. Your choice; make it now.
Given that you are a *** to adults, I could really give a ***.
No, I simply give what I get. That you are thin-skinned is your problem, not mine.
And believe me: I won't let you blame me.
banned: Aww, what a crummy guy that God is for letting people have free will.
Aww, what a crummy guy that God is for letting people have free will.
Yeah. Its almost as if He's some sort of a libertarian, letting people make their own decisions no matter how offensive He finds them. He should CRACK DOWN on that S.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Knight_of_BAAWA: Of course it does. Talk about redefining things! And yet it's subjective from god's view, because it's whatever god wants. Ergo, subjective. Talk about redefining things!
Of course it does. Talk about redefining things!
And yet it's subjective from god's view, because it's whatever god wants. Ergo, subjective.
Talk about redefining things!
As the LORD is the Alpha and Omega, it does not seem correct to label it as subjective - the perception of all by one.
The LORD is all, He is the objective, so how can His will be subjective?
Sure is. Whatever god says is right because god is mighty. That's the reason behind it. That you are deluding yourself into believing otherwise isn't my problem.
No, the reason behind it is that whatever God says is truth because God is truth.
If truth defines truth and if God defines truth, then God is truth.
I propose that God defines truth because God created all and His will is impossible to deny.
Not possible with the christian god. At least the calvinists have this one right: free will is impossible with the christian god.
How is that so?
If God decides to grant man freedom of choice, then how can you say that He cannot?
Stick with denying His presence as oppossed to His will. Through God, everything is possible.
Yet the bible says god did.
Not particularly, but let's assume that God has - pre-Christ - done so.
What of it?
If the LORD defines truth, then His will is truth. No?
Funny: a lot of statists say that same thing about the state. Further, you would murder if god says so? That indicts YOU as the immoral one.
Not really. Most statists say that they'll do what they can for their country, but few will go to the levels of the exceptions.
In any case, I don't see what the state has to do with this. The state is made of men attempting to usurp the LORD.
If my actions were sanctioned by the LORD, it would be difficult to call them immoral actions.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
*boinks the lord* :)
Knight_of_BAAWA:Of course it does. Talk about redefining things! And yet it's subjective from god's view, because it's whatever god wants. Ergo, subjective. Talk about redefining things!
Niccolò:As the LORD is the Alpha and Omega, it does not seem correct to label it as subjective - the perception of all by one.
And yet it is correct to label it as subjective, since god can change his mind, right? RIGHT? After all, god changed his mind in the bible, and from what I've seen, you're a christian. So if you deny that god can change his mind, you deny what's written in the bible. And if your god does exist, I don't think he'd be much too pleased with your chutzpah.
Anyway, what's the difference between what you're saying and might makes right? Answer: nothing.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Sure is. Whatever god says is right because god is mighty. That's the reason behind it. That you are deluding yourself into believing otherwise isn't my problem.
Niccolò:No, the reason behind it is that whatever God says is truth because God is truth.
Circular reasoning is a fallacy. And what is that garbage "god is truth" anyway? It's like "god is love". Meaningless utterances. You can't just say god is some abstract concept unless you wish to then admit that god is solely in your mind and nowhere else. If you don't want to admit that, then I suggest you stop trying to make god into merely an abstract concept. Capisce?
Knight of BAAWA:Not possible with the christian god. At least the calvinists have this one right: free will is impossible with the christian god.
Niccolò:How is that so?
1. The christian god knows all.
2. The christian god created all.
3. Either the christian god knew all prior to creating everything or co-eval with it (from 1 & 2)
4. We have no free will, since the causal determinism of god's knowledge being instantiated by the creation act renders us mere players in the script god wrote and put into action. That we don't know what will happen is irrelevant; god knows and created us to do what he knew we would do. We cannot do anything other than what god created us to do. Thus, the whole "salvation scheme" is a farce. (from 3).
Niccolò:Stick with denying His presence as oppossed to His will. Through God, everything is possible.
Then jump off a tall building and see if you can fly. And do NOT cop-out with "I won't tempt god". If you do, you admit that you lack the courage of your convictions.
Knight of BAAWA:Yet the bible says god did.
Niccolò:Not particularly
Oh, sure he did. At least for some tribes. Check out Psalm 137, where it is god's will that babies' heads of a rival tribe be dashed against rocks.
Niccolò:If the LORD defines truth, then His will is truth. No?
And might makes right, no?
You can't escape that. Your stance boils down to might makes right.
Knight of BAAWA:Funny: a lot of statists say that same thing about the state. Further, you would murder if god says so? That indicts YOU as the immoral one.
Niccolò:Not really.
YA RLY. They would do whatever those in power say because those in power must be right. And "America: love it or leave it" still rings with a lot of people (as well as Whatevercountry: love it or leave it).
Niccolò:Most statists say that they'll do what they can for their country, but few will go to the levels of the exceptions. In any case, I don't see what the state has to do with this. The state is made of men attempting to usurp the LORD.
No, for there's no difference between god and the state, really, in terms of monopoly power and the like.
Niccolò:If my actions were sanctioned by the LORD, it would be difficult to call them immoral actions.
You keep forgetting the Euthyphro Dilemma; just because god sanctions something doesn't mean it's moral.
Knight_of_BAAWA:And yet it is correct to label it as subjective, since god can change his mind, right? RIGHT? After all, god changed his mind in the bible, and from what I've seen, you're a christian. So if you deny that god can change his mind, you deny what's written in the bible.
Go back and read Genesis. If God says it, it is so. As God is the all knowing ever present dictator of reality, what he says and wills will inevitably be reality.
Knight_of_BAAWA:No, for there's no difference between god and the state, really, in terms of monopoly power and the like.
Yes there is. Statists attempt to defy reality and impose subjective whims. God is reality and so are his whims.
Knight_of_BAAWA:You keep forgetting the Euthyphro Dilemma
The Euthyphro Dilemma is a flawed either/or.
banned:Go back and read Genesis. If God says it, it is so.
Might. Makes. Right.
And if what god wills will inevitably be reality, how can we then be said to have free will, when all is god's will and none can stand against it?
Note: apologetics will not be accepted.
banned:Yes there is. Statists attempt to defy reality and impose subjective whims. God is reality and so are his whims.
And you can't see how you're trying to have it both ways? tsk-tsk.
banned:The Euthyphro Dilemma is a flawed either/or.
No, it's not. It's one of the things Plato/Socrates got right.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Might. Makes. Right.
LMAO. I guess gravity's might makes it right in not letting me fly. Shucks.
Knight_of_BAAWA:And if what god wills will inevitably be reality, how can we then be said to have free will, when all is god's will and none can stand against it?
I already have explained this earlier on in this thread. Free will is simply a matter of perspective, and that holds true whether God is or isn't.
Free will is based on experienceing time within space-time. Humans are active observers within the realm of time. The future is not known, it is radically uncertain. That is how choice arises, it is unknown until it is known.
If man existed in a realm outside space-time, free choice would not be observable. The nature of all choices would already be known.
Knight_of_BAAWA:No, it's not. It's one of the things Plato/Socrates got right.
Okay, then I'll show you how it's wrong:
The main premise is that EITHER:
God says something is moral because it is moral.
OR:
Something is moral because it is commanded by God.
However, God is an all knowing, all powerful, ever potent being. If the Lord commands something, He will already know He has commanded it. If morality changes by God's command (the latter choice) from God's perspective, already knowing morality will and has changed by his command, God would command something BOTH BECAUSE it already is AND BECAUSE HE COMMANDS IT. From the experience and perspective of someone stuck in time, It might seem otherwise, but from the perspective of God, who already knows what is, indefinately, that which he commands, he commands because it is.
banned:LMAO. I guess gravity's might makes it right in not letting me fly.
False analogy. Y'see: god makes the commands right because god is mighty. Gravity is simply a natural property. Morality isn't. Got anything that's a valid analogy?
banned:I already have explained this earlier on in this thread.
Yeah, with that cop-out about "perspective". Didn't work then, won't work now. Just because WE don't know doesn't mean we can choose some other way. We can't. Doesn't matter that we don't know. No, it doesn't matter that we don't know. You can try to rationalize it away all you want, but it won't matter.
banned:Okay, then I'll show you how it's wrong:
You can't, since it's not.
banned:The main premise is that EITHER: God says something is moral because it is moral. OR: Something is moral because it is commanded by God.
And there's nothing wrong in there. Those are the only two options. That you wish to attempt to get around the problem by rationalizing the problem away doesn't matter.
banned:However, God is an all knowing, all powerful, ever potent being. If the Lord commands something, He will already know He has commanded it. If morality changes by God's command (the latter choice) from God's perspective, already knowing morality will and has changed by his command, God would command something BOTH BECAUSE it already is AND BECAUSE HE COMMANDS IT.
And yet that's still only #2. It's moral only because god commands it, as even though god knows what it will be, there's still a temporal component. Something isn't yet until god says so.
What I find interesting is that you're willing to shift the scope here, but not on free will. Why is that? Why the dishonesty?
For years in my teens, I engaged in this arguments ad nauseum. Then I realised that to argue with someone who takes as a premise, "Magic is real" is a waste of time. I have never had an argument with a theist which made any progress beyond the first three paragraphs. Those of us familiar with economics know that the laws of logic seldom have power against popular propaganda.
Knight_of_BAAWA: And yet it is correct to label it as subjective, since god can change his mind, right? RIGHT?
And yet it is correct to label it as subjective, since god can change his mind, right? RIGHT?
That's not really coherent.
Can objectivity change? I am proposing that objectivity exists within God and that God determines what is. This means that what God wills exists and thus objective morality is based upon the will of the LORD.
If I were to say that morality is relative - at least in the sense you mean - then morality would be little more than what individuals perceive to be correct.
Perhaps you mean, God determines what is moral and so what is moral is subject to God; this is far different from subjective morality.
After all, god changed his mind in the bible, and from what I've seen, you're a christian. So if you deny that god can change his mind, you deny what's written in the bible. And if your god does exist, I don't think he'd be much too pleased with your chutzpah.
I'm not sure what you mean by, "God changed His mind." I suppose you're confusing God's existence within the framework of your limited perception bound by dimensions.
Suppose, however, that God is bound by dimensions. What relevance does this possess?
I'm confused; you're arguments are quite schizophrenic. One second you're arguing that my beliefs in morality come from a subjectivist perspective and then the next you're coming from the opposite direction.
Do you think I believe that morality comes from a subjectives perspective or do you think it comes from a might-makes right (objective) perspecive?
In any case, what I'm saying does not apply to what you're saying. You are assuming that morality exists without the LORD and the LORD merely forces His morality on others. I am actually saying that the LORD is the determiner of morality and morality is not at all independent of Him.
Circular reasoning is a fallacy.
I fail to see how what I said was circular; it was more tautological - bastardized tautology, but tautology nonetheless.
And what is that garbage "god is truth" anyway? It's like "god is love". Meaningless utterances. You can't just say god is some abstract concept unless you wish to then admit that god is solely in your mind and nowhere else. If you don't want to admit that, then I suggest you stop trying to make god into merely an abstract concept. Capisce?
Calm down. There's really no need to resort to mocking another person's ethnicity and certainly no need to be so combative.
God is not just an abstract and He is not just one thing.
God defines truth, love, morality, reality, etc. Why? Well, God exists as the root of all that exists.
1. The christian god knows all. 2. The christian god created all. 3. Either the christian god knew all prior to creating everything or co-eval with it (from 1 & 2) 4. We have no free will, since the causal determinism of god's knowledge being instantiated by the creation act renders us mere players in the script god wrote and put into action. That we don't know what will happen is irrelevant; god knows and created us to do what he knew we would do. We cannot do anything other than what god created us to do. Thus, the whole "salvation scheme" is a farce. (from 3).
I belive philosophers call this a non sequitur.
How does it follow that God did not merely set everything in motion and then let it fly? How is it that the LORD cannot do both? Could the LORD have a grand plan without a direct controlling hand in manipulation? Could predestination exist along with free-will on a macro level? I believe so and I don't see a reason why the two cannot co-exist.
That is farther into my belief system, however. For now, I will merely ask. Who said that God must follow up with His creation? Have you ever rolled a ball down a hill and then left? Did you control the ball down the entire way?
I don't believe that is necessary, nor do I believe that God will help me survive. He has not asked me to do anything; He has never spoken to me, I'm afraid there is a rather overwhelming probability that I am not chosen to be a divine manifestation.
I'm perfectly fluent in the Bible - I actually contemplated joining the priesthood for a short time.
Psalm 137 is not a commandment it is a poetic verse by a Jew about their desire for justice from those that raised their city of Jerusalem specifically cross referencing several verses, one of the more prominent ones being in II Kings 8.
And might makes right, no? You can't escape that. Your stance boils down to might makes right.
You didn't answer my question.
I will, however, answer yours. No, might does not make right and I am not supposing that.
Well, most do whatever those in power say because A. They believe it is in their best interests and B. Their is enough perceive legitimacy to cover up what otherwise would be a clearly immoral act.
I don't know what the "Whatevercountry: love it or leave it" is referencing though.
Except, at the very least, the LORD created all. If you create a house do you not intend to be the lord of it?
The Euthyphro "Dilemma" has been addressed. I said I did not consider it a dilemma at all and I have absolutely no problem with accepting God's grace as an evident tautology, nor do I have a problem with accepting that the will of the LORD is inherently moral.
It's not a dilemma to me.
You know, there have been a few more philosophers since Plato; maybe you should look into them.
R.J. Moore II: For years in my teens, I engaged in this arguments ad nauseum. Then I realised that to argue with someone who takes as a premise, "Magic is real" is a waste of time. I have never had an argument with a theist which made any progress beyond the first three paragraphs. Those of us familiar with economics know that the laws of logic seldom have power against popular propaganda.
Please show where I make a logical error.
I was speaking of theism generally. The supernatural and god, defined in any meaningful or popular way, are logically incoherent. The no-cognitive-content argument, not to mention all observation of objective reality, are enough to seal it quite aside from the ten billion other myriad problems with any specific religion.
As I find debating theists to basically never be worth my time anymore, I'll stop here.
R.J. Moore II: Please show where I make a logical error. I was speaking of theism generally. The supernatural and god, defined in any meaningful or popular way, are logically incoherent. The no-cognitive-content argument, not to mention all observation of objective reality, are enough to seal it quite aside from the ten billion other myriad problems with any specific religion. As I find debating theists to basically never be worth my time anymore, I'll stop here.
So are you saying that there's no such thing as the supernatural - some people call it the paranormal or the spiritual?
Though I chide myself for getting drawn into this thread again, I am saying that. It is impossible by definition. George H. Smith is my favourite on this subject.
Knight_of_BAAWA:And yet that's still only #2. It's moral only because god commands it, as even though god knows what it will be, there's still a temporal component. Something isn't yet until god says so.
I was saying, if it is the second, it is also the first, and if it is the first, there is no conflict between it and the second.
Knight_of_BAAWA: What I find interesting is that you're willing to shift the scope here, but not on free will. Why is that? Why the dishonesty?
Oh, I don't know, it might have something to do with the fact that God's Commandments are made from the perspective of God Himself (being all knowing and ever potent, these commandments would be the absolute truth; objectivity.) and free will is an abstraction based on man's limited ability to understand what is and his limited perspective in the four dimensions. So a shift in scope might be called for, no?
Knight_of_BAAWA:And yet it is correct to label it as subjective, since god can change his mind, right? RIGHT?
Niccolò:That's not really coherent.
Except it is. With god-command morality, it's based upon whatever god desires aka SUBJECTIVE.
Knight of BAAWA:After all, god changed his mind in the bible, and from what I've seen, you're a christian. So if you deny that god can change his mind, you deny what's written in the bible. And if your god does exist, I don't think he'd be much too pleased with your chutzpah.
Niccolò:'m not sure what you mean by, "God changed His mind."
Oh, the salvation thing. The going from Tribal Phallic War God to Lovey-Dovey God. That sort of thing.
And please: don't try "it's magic" or the ad hominem fallacy of attacking "limited perception bound by dimensions". I know you want to. But that's not an explanation, and not a valid argument.
Oh wait--you did try that ad hominem fallacy. Sucks to be you.
Knight of BAAWA:Anyway, what's the difference between what you're saying and might makes right? Answer: nothing.
Niccolò:I'm confused
That differs from the norm how?
Niccolò:you're arguments are quite schizophrenic.
No, they're not.
Niccolò:One second you're arguing that my beliefs in morality come from a subjectivist perspective and then the next you're coming from the opposite direction.
No, I'm not. What is causing you to lie?
Niccolò:Do you think I believe that morality comes from a subjectives perspective or do you think it comes from a might-makes right (objective) perspecive?
Might makes right can be part of subjective, i.e. whatever god says is right (which can change based on god's whim--subjective) because god is mighty.
See what hapens when you don't think? You get all confused because you want to stick with rationalizing a fairy tale.
Niccolò:In any case, what I'm saying does not apply to what you're saying. You are assuming that morality exists without the LORD and the LORD merely forces His morality on others. I am actually saying that the LORD is the determiner of morality and morality is not at all independent of Him.
Then morality is subjective and based upon might makes right. QED
Knight of BAAWA:Circular reasoning is a fallacy.
Niccolò:I fail to see how what I said was circular; it was more tautological
I don't accept your premises--especially ones which beg questions. So it was circular reasoning.
-
Niccolò:Calm down.
Calm down. There's no reason to get upset. Calm down. Calm down. Calm down.
Niccolò:God is not just an abstract and He is not just one thing.
Then what, precisely, is god? And you need concrete, specific, objective terms. You cannot use fallacies or logical impossibilities. IOW: define god. Let me give you some things you can't use, because they violate the idea of the definition:
God is (emotion name)
God is (secondary quality name)
God is (creator of the universe or other begged question garbage)
God is (abstract term used to describe secondary quality of interaction)
Niccolò:God defines truth, love, morality, reality, etc. Why? Well, God exists as the root of all that exists.
Meaningless garbage.
Knight of BAAWA:1. The christian god knows all. 2. The christian god created all. 3. Either the christian god knew all prior to creating everything or co-eval with it (from 1 & 2) 4. We have no free will, since the causal determinism of god's knowledge being instantiated by the creation act renders us mere players in the script god wrote and put into action. That we don't know what will happen is irrelevant; god knows and created us to do what he knew we would do. We cannot do anything other than what god created us to do. Thus, the whole "salvation scheme" is a farce. (from 3).
Niccolò:I belive philosophers call this a non sequitur.
No, they don't; they call it an airtight, valid, sound, proper argument.
Niccolò:How does it follow that God did not merely set everything in motion and then let it fly?
I called it! You just denied that god knows everything.
Niccolò:How is it that the LORD cannot do both?
Logically impossible.
Niccolò:Could the LORD have a grand plan without a direct controlling hand in manipulation?
No. Stop trying to make a square circle.
Knight of BAAWA:Then jump off a tall building and see if you can fly. And do NOT cop-out with "I won't tempt god". If you do, you admit that you lack the courage of your convictions.
Niccolò:I don't believe that is necessary, nor do I believe that God will help me survive.
Then you admit that with god, not everything is possible. You lack the courage of your convictions.
Knight of BAAWA:Oh, sure he did. At least for some tribes. Check out Psalm 137, where it is god's will that babies' heads of a rival tribe be dashed against rocks.
Niccolò:I'm perfectly fluent in the Bible - I actually contemplated joining the priesthood for a short time. Psalm 137 is not a commandment it is a poetic verse by a Jew about their desire for justice from those that raised their city of Jerusalem specifically cross referencing several verses, one of the more prominent ones being in II Kings 8.
And yet it's part of god's will aka a command.
Knight of BAAWA:And might makes right, no? You can't escape that. Your stance boils down to might makes right.
Niccolò:You didn't answer my question.
Yeah, I did. I answered it by noting what your argument boils down to. That you are unable to grasp such is not my problem.
Knight of BAAWA:YA RLY. They would do whatever those in power say because those in power must be right. And "America: love it or leave it" still rings with a lot of people (as well as Whatevercountry: love it or leave it).
Niccolò:Well, most do whatever those in power say because A. They believe it is in their best interests and B. Their is enough perceive legitimacy to cover up what otherwise would be a clearly immoral act.
B boils down to"those in power must be right".
Niccolò: I don't know what the "Whatevercountry: love it or leave it" is referencing though.
Whatevercountry is a variable. Like X or Y. Just substitute the name of the country in question.
Knight of BAAWA:No, for there's no difference between god and the state, really, in terms of monopoly power and the like.
Niccolò:Except, at the very least, the LORD created all. If you create a house do you not intend to be the lord of it?
And parents create their children. Does that give parents time-unlimited control over their children? And speaking of parents: what sort of monstrous parent would deny his or her children knowledge of morality? Yeah, god supposedly did deny us knowledge of morality by telling adam to not eat of the tree of knowlege of good and evil (eve hadn't been created yet when god told adam that).
Knight of BAAWA:You keep forgetting the Euthyphro Dilemma; just because god sanctions something doesn't mean it's moral.
Niccolò:The Euthyphro "Dilemma" has been addressed.
You addressed it, but you didn't actually deal with it.
Niccolò:I said I did not consider it a dilemma at all and I have absolutely no problem with accepting God's grace as an evident tautology, nor do I have a problem with accepting that the will of the LORD is inherently moral.
So you have no problem with might makes right? How disgusting!
Niccolò:You know, there have been a few more philosophers since Plato; maybe you should look into them.
Is that supposed to mean something? Because we still use the knowledge of others from thousands of years ago. Take The Art of War, by Sun Tzu. Over 2,500 years old, and still used.
You may want to wipe the egg from your face.
Niccolò:So are you saying that there's no such thing as the supernatural - some people call it the paranormal or the spiritual?
Supernatural/paranormal/spiritual = fancy term for "It's magic! I don't know how it works, but I don't want to admit that I don't know, so I'll cover it up with a term like 'supernatural' and hope people don't think I don't know what I'm talking about."
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap