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 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17
141
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.

142
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.

143
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Do you belive in the Devil
« on: June 20, 2007, 02:17:05 PM »
Quote
3 does not stand unless 1 and 2 stand. This means that 3 is assumed by 1 and 2. That is a logical fallacy known as begging the question. That's why I keep saying it.

If 1 and 2 assume 3 then you would see "God is real" somewhere in line 1 and/or 2 but since you don't, neither 1 nor 2 assume 3. Rather, 3 is a valid inference from 1 and 2. I hope this point is clear now.

Quote
How would you like me to argue that abusing infants is morally wrong.

However you may.

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.

1 says there can be no state of affairs where God does not exist and some moral fact also obtains. So let us suppose God does not exist. Can you on this supposition give me an example of a moral fact that you believe will survive close scrutiny?

144
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Do you belive in the Devil
« on: June 20, 2007, 01:58:18 PM »
Quote
Are you serious with this?
As a heart attack.

145
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Do you belive in the Devil
« on: June 20, 2007, 01:46:22 PM »
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.

3 follows from 1 and 2 by Modus tollens (a rule of inference). 4 is a corollary of 3. The argument is valid. Is it sound? It does not seem any has overtly denied 2 yet but 1 is apparently controversial so let's talk about it. Can there be moral facts without God? If you think so then please explain how the moral judgment "abusing infants for one's own amusement is always wrong" expresses an objective fact apart from an appeal to God.

146
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Do you belive in the Devil
« on: June 20, 2007, 01:27:49 PM »
Quote
But it all relies on assuming he is in fact speaking from a non-religious viewpoint.

The writer is writing from a religious or non-religious point of view. Which is more likely? In view of his phrasing, I'd say the latter. More personal info could tip the balance the other way, however.

Quote
Don't mean to pee in your cornflakes, but it sounds to me as though you're trying to use Big Words and Big Ideas but still aren't saying much of anything.

I use Big Words and Big Ideas so you will think I'm the most awesome anonymous writer you've never met.

I'll boil the winding prose down to four lines each written in small words:

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.

Quote
Do you honestly believe that one cannot separate morality from religion?

Let me put it this way: atheists can be good people but the term "good" is only meaningful if God is real. If he isn't real then saying someone is good is at best like saying you so happen to like them, which is still no more significant than saying you like chocolate ice cream.

147
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Do you belive in the Devil
« on: June 20, 2007, 12:55:19 PM »
The Satan of the Bible is quite real. The Devil and devils of Renaissance imagination (cf. Dante, Botticelli etc.) are not. Folks often mistake the second for the first.

Quote
i have noticed how many so called religious people actually appear to be quite evil...

There is no adequate non-religious/secular basis for declaring anything or anyone "evil" in any meaningful/non-trivial way. Which is to say that the secular person must borrow from a religious world view like historical orthodox Christianity (i.e., "mere Christianity) in order to make meaningful value judgments.

Whoa ho ho! So the basis for any value judgement is religious? Or do you just mean it's the basis for any judgement of "evil"?

The apparently non-religious or secular writer I quote above makes a value judgment (i.e., he ascribes the property/quality "evil" to certain "religious people") which cannot be or is at least unlikely to be true except upon a religious foundation, which is ironic since the point apparently escaped his notice.

Said otherwise, if the non-religious or secular worldview the writer writes from is correct, at least with respect to it's moral philosophy component (i.e., most likely some form of moral relativism, such as private subjectivism), then it is false that religious people really are evil. Rather, he simply does not like them, their character or their conduct. Non-religious moral philosophies invariably reduce right and wrong to personal preference, or something even moral trivial such as non-cognitive emotive utterance, since they cannot ground real right and wrong (i.e., moral facts such as "it is always wrong to abuse infants for one's own amusement). But since there are moral facts (e.g., "Hitler was absolutely wrong to kill Jews for being Jewish"), no non-religious moral philosophy or worldview can be correct.

More to your questions, this bit is not about whether the moral judgments people make actually and always proceed from religious conviction but is instead about whether a secular point of view can even support a thing like true moral judgments in the first place.

148
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Do you belive in the Devil
« on: June 20, 2007, 09:34:29 AM »
The Satan of the Bible is quite real. The Devil and devils of Renaissance imagination (cf. Dante, Botticelli etc.) are not. Folks often mistake the second for the first.

Quote
i have noticed how many so called religious people actually appear to be quite evil...

There is no adequate non-religious/secular basis for declaring anything or anyone "evil" in any meaningful/non-trivial way. Which is to say that the secular person must borrow from a religious world view like historical orthodox Christianity (i.e., "mere Christianity) in order to make meaningful value judgments.

149
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Is Radiohead no longer significant?
« on: June 19, 2007, 02:26:09 PM »
I would argue that if moral and/or aesthetic value is not real (i.e., objectively, absolutely, universally real) then this sort of discussion is akin to a debate on whether chocolate is "better" than vanilla, which is trivial and a waste of time.

150
I'll read. Please PM. Please also include a description of the criteria against which I should evaluate if at all possible.

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