Why are you trying to avoid the question? I never said that i would refuse you. But then again i know why its true that it is wrong. I asking you to explain why you are saying its true. On what grounds are you judging it to be truly wrong?
Why is it true that it is wrong; thats all i am asking.
Oh. I thought you were saying that it is right for someone not to buy from her because of her religion, or lack thereof. You are asking where the morality comes from, as we wouldn’t have evolved to have that morality?
I believe there are a number of inadequacies. Why does* our* lack of moral justification entail the actual existence of inscrutable evil? How do we really know it is inscrutable evil? What does it mean not to know a justification for inscrutable evil?
As your definitions use somewhat undeveloped justifications to define of inscrutable evil, I’ll have to disagree that I must accept the 2nd premise as constructed by your argument.
A disclaimer doesn’t not nullify the fact your argument may not be probable or free from logical errors. If inscrutable evil is a real entity, then that statement atheism is true is not tenable. For if inscrutable evil is a real entity, it must be shown to be absolutely inscrutable, which you cannot demonstrate. Further, an infinite entity would not find evil inscrutable, therefore an inscrutable evil cannot exist.
It’s not surprising that you cannot see the implicit circularity of your argument. You’ve imbedded within the premise and conclusion with a provisionally implicit statement that atheism is true.
I’m afraid you’ve failed to impress upon me the legitimacy of your argument. Perhaps you could clarify it further. As it stands, your argument that the existence of inscrutable evil it is evidence for atheism is weak. You’ll need to demonstrate that inscrutable evil is a real entity. Since you did not (or cannot) then you do not have evidence but a simply a weak assertion.
I’m not trying to avoid the question! The word I used was appalling. You used the worlds morally wrong, and I agreed with you. In short, discriminating against people is wrong. It hurts people. And my ‘‘evolved morality’’ tells me that is bad for us as individuals and as a species. A society that inflicts needless hurt on it’s memebers will quickly find it is not functioning effectively, safely or effeciently and leaves itself vulnerable to imploding.
I’m not sure, I’ve never claimed that. As I said in my last reply, “These definitions aren’t meant to posit their definiendum as existents.” You’re not committed to the existence of unicorns just because you propose a definition of what unicorns are. All my argument says is that we’d expect to observe IE if atheism is true. It doesn’t say whether we do observe IE, or whether atheism is true.
We’re justified in believing some event E is an inscrutable evil/suffering if (i) E is an instance of evil/suffering, and (ii) you know of nothing which would morally justify E’s occurrence.
It means to be ignorant of any greater good for the sake of which the evil could be justifiably permitted.
The reason you must accept (2) is unrelated to whether the notion of justification in inscrutable evil is developed. It’s simply because you must reject (2)'s antecedent. Since (2) is a material conditional, it’s only false if its antecedent is true and its consequent is false, otherwise it’s true.
I already answered your quarrel with whether it needs to be shown that inscrutable evil is absolutely inscrutable by clarifying the definition of inscrutable evil above. This clarification also addresses your concern about an infinite being.
This doesn’t make sense to me because my argument is a hypothetical syllogism. That means that all of my premises are conditionals.
The claim that inscrutable evil is evidence for atheism is distinct from the claim that there actually exists inscrutable evil. My argument bears significant weight for the former claim, in fact, it’s a full out proof. The next step would be to identify inscrutable evils.
You have not told me why its truly wrong. What you have said amounts to utility disguised as morality. You are saying that it is not in your particular taste, or that you do not like the consequences. Why should somebody feel guilty for not buying from you on the basis of your beliefs? Why is it truly wrong. I am not asking you what flavor ice-cream you like.
I told you why to me it is truely wrong.
So, all we can do is speculate - but, our current universe from this current Big Bang is dated by scientists - so, it really has not been here forever.I was thinking a little bit more about that statement.
If I say:
Nothing created the Universe
The Universe has always existed
Would you say that is being irrational?
However, we can see the universe, we know it exists, we can measure it to a degree, and we can predict it’s behavior and understand how it operated.
Now, if I say:
Nothing created God
God has always existed
Would you say that is being irrational?
If not, why not?
It is fundamentally no different to the first statement.
Sarah x
Its sufficient to you according to your subjective idea of perfect. However its not rational unless it reflects the true nature of objective reality. Something is not truly wrong merely because you dislike it.
That is precisely what you are saying by telling somebody that their behaviour is wrong. Any time you call somebody a bigot or a racist or prejudice, you are implying that they ought to feel ashamed and guilty about their behaviour, that their behaviour is truly immoral, regardless of whether they see it that way or not.
Why is it wrong to discriminate? The word discrimination presupposes that a human being has true value. You haven’t told my why a person has true value
You told me that you don’t like a certain flavour of human behaviour. But you didn’t give me sufficient grounds to think its wrong.
You distaste for discrimination is nothing more than a matter of taste, unless you can show me objective rational grounds why it is true that some human behaviour is immoral. I am not interested in what flavour you appeal to. Human beings either have value or they don’t; it is irrelevant whether on not you hold a subjective value for them.And Im sure youre perfectly capable of asking a question without bringing icecream preferences into the equation
That’s fine then.
atheistgirl, I would just like to say “hi” and point you to my username. It used to be “atheistgal” but when I became a theist I took out that first “a”.
To you and to those who are arguing with you, I’d just like to point out that, in my own experience, no one argued me into the faith, and in fact, it was theists arguing with me in forums like this who actually KEPT me from the faith for a long time.
Some of them used bad or way-overused apologetics, which I was easily able to refute (believe me, there are NO new arguments out there on either side!). Worse, some of them actually got angry with me when they saw that I was refuting them, and either dismissed me or responded with hostility. Naturally, that did NOT make me more sympathetic to their position!
What finally made me believe? A combination of things - events in my personal life, and people I met whose actions were more convincing than words. All of which little or nothing to do with anything I’d ever encountered in these endless online debates.
Bottom line is: the only Person who can really make you believe in God is - God. And I believe He will – but in His own time, and in His own way.
Meantime, the only thing I would ask you, atheistgirl, from a former “atheistgal”, is please don’t make the mistake I did of judging all of Christianity (or atheism, for that matter!) just by what you read about it online by its adherents, and especially not at a forum like this. Better to watch real people, people you admire and respect, and see how their beliefs (or lack thereof) affect their actions in life.
I cant see how youve addressed what I said? Yes, God is ‘‘conceived of’’ as creater etc, but just because it is a common belief, does not mean, per sae, it is necessarily a rational belief.
Well, I will kindly tackle this one, and it is just my opinion. BUt I believe it is more rational to believe that physical nature was made from something outside of physical nature than to believe that physical nature has always been, which is rooted in energy cannot be created or destroyed. Spirit is not energy or physical, so it is more rational to think that it has always existed. I don’t have proof, but to me it is more rational.
And Im not interested in your flavors of icecream!
Oh, so now I have a subjective value of the worth of human beings do I!
Argument from personal incredulity is not the best one to make. For ancient people electricity would not sound rational.Well, I will kindly tackle this one, and it is just my opinion. BUt I believe it is more rational to believe that physical nature was made from something outside of physical nature than to believe that physical nature has always been, which is rooted in energy cannot be created or destroyed. Spirit is not energy or physical, so it is more rational to think that it has always existed. I don’t have proof, but to me it is more rational.
I admit that it is nearly impossible if not impossible, at this point in time, to prove God’s existence, and that a certain amount of faith is involved. God reveals Himself through time and it is not time for scientific evidence yet. I present my ideas, and that is all that I can do. If you do not find it rational, then you have to find what does. But I believe what I believe is true and what other religions believe or don’t believe is wrong or flawed. I can give a rational argument and provide rational, evidence through argument, but that is all I can do.
I cant see how youve addressed what I said? Yes, God is ‘‘conceived of’’ as creater etc, but just because it is a common belief, does not mean, per sae, it is necessarily a rational belief.
Most all kids believe at some point in Santa - without ever questioning the rationality of flying reindeer or a single out of shape overweight guy covering every house in the world, delivering presents, in under 24 hrs
I cant see how believing the universe always existed (and we do know it currently exists) is any less rational than believing God always existed (when He cannot be seen and requires belief rather than knowledge, in Him).
I know we currently say the universe has a birth date - but theres some fascinating stuff being proposed that might indicate the universe in fact has always existed and goes through cycles of expansion and contraction.
Ive always been intrigued at how people balk at even thinking about the universe always being in existence and the utter irrationality of such a statement, and in the same breath dont bat an eyelid in saying God always existed - based on a revelation in the Old Testement.
I have no objection to anyone engaging or planting, or discussing. That is what this is about after all.
