Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - babyeatsdingo

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17
131
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Do you belive in the Devil
« on: June 21, 2007, 09:42:25 AM »
For context, the argument in dispute again:

1. If God is not real then there are no moral facts.
2. There are moral facts.
3. God is real.
4. Every non-religious worldview is false.

the argument is valid, but premise #1 is wrong.1

there's no good reason prima facie to believe that #1 is true2. moreover, if it's true, then it proves the existence of god, since there are moral facts 3. since god doesn't exist (at least, since there's no independent evidence that she does)4, then the truth of #1 entails a false fact (or a proposition that's not corroborated by any evidence).

you try to lay the burden of proof on those who want to dispute #1. this is unreasonable. a reasonably skeptical person would require the truth of #1 to be established with some affirmative evidence.5

My responses below are written as footnotes to your words above.

1If the first premise is wrong, as you say, then there exists something other than God to ground moral fact. What is this alternate ground?

2As just noted, the first premise invites the question: what other than God would ground moral fact? Since we know of nothing other than God to ground moral fact we are justified in thinking only God grounds moral fact unless and until we have a more likely alternative. This line of reasoning constitutes a prima facie reason to tentatively accept the first premise as true.

3You are correct here. If there are moral facts, as you say, and if we admit the first premise, as I argue we should until and unless we find a more likely ground of moral fact than God, then it follows necessarily that God exists.

4If the argument is valid, as you admit, then you cannot deny the conclusion, as you do above, unless you deny the premises from which the conclusion "God is real" follows. You do not deny the existence of moral fact so you must provide a better ground of moral fact than God in order to deny the first premise and avoid the conclusion you apparently dread.


I note that you say the first premise is wrong (or false, I take it) and cite as justification your belief that there is no good prima facie reason to accept the first premise. If you know of no good prima facie reason to think the first premise is true then you are justified to suspend belief with respect to the first premise but you are not justified in thinking it false or wrong. But in view of my argument above, you do now have a good prima facie reason to think the first premise is true. Since you admit the existence of moral fact, you must also admit the existence of God unless you provide a more likely alternative ground to moral fact.

132
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Do you belive in the Devil
« on: June 20, 2007, 04:44:04 PM »
Here's the rub: my argument presents a dilemma and forces the secular critic to fall on either one horn or the other. Let's look at the argument again:

1. If God is not real then there are no moral facts.
2. There are moral facts.
3. God is real.
4. Every non-religious worldview is false.

Since the argument is valid you must deny 1 or 2 in order to avoid 3 and preserve your non-religious worldview. If you deny 1 then you must ground moral fact in something other than God, which is monumentally difficult if at all possible. If you deny 2 then you admit all sorts of moral absurdities (e.g., it is not really wrong to abuse infants for one's own amusement) and the livability problem. I'll have to get into these things tomorrow though as I'm out of time for today.

133
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Do you belive in the Devil
« on: June 20, 2007, 04:20:16 PM »
Quote
I'm not suggesting that it's right to abuse infants for one's own pleasure.

Are you saying you agree that it is always wrong to abuse infants for one's own pleasure? Please clarify.

Quote
Let's accept that there are moral facts that are absolute and that one of them is stated above.  How do you know it is so?

Well, there are only so many plausible candidates to ground the existence of an absolute moral standard, one that always applies to everyone, everywhere. Human standards may and do change. The character of an immutable being like God does not. So between the two, the second is the more likely ground of moral facts. This is why many naturalists simply prefer to deny the existence of moral facts. But this move has it's own set of problems.

134
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Do you belive in the Devil
« on: June 20, 2007, 04:17:12 PM »
Quote
The phrase "moral fact" itself assumes a religious, rather than philosophical, truth.

The phrase "moral fact" does not assume religion or religious truth. Some non-religious, naturalist philosophers accept the existence of moral facts though they are at a loss to explain them satisfactorily (maybe the future legal community can help them). Also, religion and philosophy are not mutually exclusive. Many universities have philosophy of religion departments. Some of the world's most rigorous thinkers and writers are philosophers of religion (e.g., Plantinga).

Quote
But, that does not mean that God is required for morality to exist.


I'm not saying God must exist in order for men to make up rules for behavior. I'm saying God must exist in order for a moral rule to express a truth that applies to everyone in every place at every time.

135
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Do you belive in the Devil
« on: June 20, 2007, 04:06:17 PM »
Quote
Morality is not an absolute; it may be to any individual or even within a particular community, but it does not exist in an objective vacuum at some meta-ethical level.

I take it from this, your intimation toward a sort of moral relativism, that you deny the existence of moral facts. To be clear, do you dispute my second premise?

1. If God is not real then there are no moral facts.
2. There are moral facts.
3. God is real.

136
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Do you belive in the Devil
« on: June 20, 2007, 03:59:10 PM »
This one would logically prove what you are trying to prove (and the conclusion is stated correctly).

1. God is real.
2. Moral facts exist.
3. Without God moral facts cannot exist.
4. Every non-religious worldview (with respect to morality) is false.

My order goes like this:

1. A
2. B
3. ~A > ~B

Whereas your order goes like this:

1. ~A > ~B
2. B
3. A

All you've done is switch the position of the first and third lines. You've not fixed anything.

A worldview includes what they call a meta-ethic. If the meta-ethic is wrong then the worldview to which it belongs is wrong. I argue that every non-religious worldview does meta-ethics wrong and so every non-religious worldview is wrong. So I don't need to restate my original conclusion.

137
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Do you belive in the Devil
« on: June 20, 2007, 03:50:24 PM »
Quote
It could easily go like this:

1. If God is not real then there are no moral facts.
2. There are moral facts.
3. But God isn't real.
4. So the first statement is incorrect.

Echoing 4, I agree that if 3 is true then 1 must be false. Ironically, if you affirm 3 prior to showing 3 then you beg the question, as you say. Moreover, 3 requires you to demonstrate a negative (the non-existence of God), which, if you've read Hume, you know can't be done. Since you can't show 3, the argument is unsound.


138
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Do you belive in the Devil
« on: June 20, 2007, 03:33:36 PM »
Quote
1 is assumed. The implicit assumption is that God is real or 3.

My argument follows the form:

1. ~A > ~B
2. B
3. A

You claim I somehow sneak A into line 2 and/or 1. How so?

Quote
Because if there are moral facts that exist while God does not then 1 cannot be true.

If God does not exist and there are moral facts then my first premise is false which would mean my argument is unsound but even if my argument were false and unsound it wouldn't follow from this that my argument also assumes what it is meant to prove (begging the question, as you say).

I must admit I am surprised we're still talking about this. The argument is clearly valid. The only question is whether the first and second premises are more reasonable than not.

139
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Do you belive in the Devil
« on: June 20, 2007, 03:17:20 PM »
Quote
1. If Blue is not real then there are no mega babes that have big juggs.
2. There are mega babes that have big juggs.
3. Blue is real.
4. Blue likes mega babes that have big juggs.

3 follows from 1 and 2 but 4 is a non sequitur (follows from no premise) so the argument is invalid. If we remove 4 and present the argument thus:

1. If Blue is not real then there are no mega babes that have big juggs.
2. There are mega babes that have big juggs.
3. Blue is real.

then I admit that the argument is valid. But is it sound? If by "mega babes" you mean "beautiful women" and if by "big juggs" you mean "large breasts" then I agree with line 2 since I am married to a beautiful woman with large breasts. Line 1 says that the existence of the color blue is incompatible with the existence of beautiful women. If we admit the existence of beautiful women with large breasts then we must deny that the color blue exists. But since we know the color blue exists, we must instead deny 1. Thus, the argument is unsound.

140
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Do you belive in the Devil
« on: June 20, 2007, 03:02:28 PM »
Quote
"Moral facts"?  Not sure what you mean by that phrase.

Water boils at 100C at sea level. This is a scientific fact. It is true for everyone, everywhere at every time irrespective of what people do or don't believe.

2 + 2 = 4. This is a fact of mathematics. It is true for everyone, everywhere at every time irrespective of what people do or don't believe.

It is wrong to abuse infants for one's own pleasure. This is a moral fact. It is true for everyone, everywhere at every time irrespective of what people do or don't believe.

There are many kinds of facts. A moral fact is a kind of fact.

Quote
Morality refers to the principles and guidelines by which we organize our communities (whether secular or religious), judge others and govern our own behavior.  I'm not suggesting that capital-G God is not a valid source of morality for those who believe in Him, I'm just pointing out that He's not the only source.  Not by a long shot.

I'm not asking for a definition of morality. I ask you to explain how moral facts could obtain if God is not real.

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17