Mirdaths Logic.

[Mirdath]

Now, I don’t mean to intrude on your intelectual discussion, BUT I think that you are looking for God in the wrong place. Try about 12-18 inches lower, depending on your stature. God is already there. He is the force within each of us that causes us to defy our own nature, which is one of self-serving greed and apathy… He is love itself: love being not a feeling, but rather the desire for the greatest wellfare of the beloved. This is not inherently human nature, for you yourself have said, if I recall corectly, that one cannot have dual natures.

All well-put and very noble-sounding, but I simply don’t agree with your definitions (‘God is Love’ instantly raises the problem of evil). Loving is something I do, not the workings of an external force upon me.

It’s not that I’m ‘looking for God’ either: having searched, having thought about exactly what I was looking for, I came to the conclusion that unless God wants to be found and makes himself evident he won’t be.

You have overlooked a quote from my original post: "For those who believe, no explanation is neccessary, for those who [cannot] none is sufficient. You can go on debating with the other well-intentioned minds here for another 1,000 posts if you wish, but the fact remains that we cannot prove God’s existance anymore than you can disprove it. It is not a matter of mere human logic, for that will always fall short, no matter how inteligent one is…

I’m not out to disprove God; as you note, that’s just as foolish and proud an endeavor as seeking to tame him with whips of reason. I understand if it may look like that (especially in the ongoing back-and-forth over Anselm) but that’s mostly because there aren’t any strong atheists here trying to bring me down on the other side of the fence

I further propose that you try acting as if God did exist for at least one week. Yell at him, complain that he has not revealed himself to you yet, whatever. But above all, look for him in people and in all that you see around you. Look where you have not before, and withhold your obviously imense intelect for a while.

Just a week? The last time someone dared me to do something like this it was three! I probably made Jeremiah look like Pollyanna by comparison

Sure, I don’t have anything to lose. Simply acting ‘as if’ a generally good-natured God exists isn’t going to change much of anything from how I normally act, though.

But okay. Ia! Ia! Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu Rl’yeh wgah’nagl fhtagn!

 

[anthony022071]

We were speaking of reasons to believe not founded in either logic or feelings.

Two reasons would be the order,the orderliness,that is seen in the world,and in the fact that life is extrinsic,not intrinsic,to Nature and to species.

Order is understood by minds, but as with the bottles of sediment, oil, and vinegar untouched by human hands (or the crystalline structure of rocks, or any of a zillion more examples), it is not necessarily a product of reason.

Order is something which has been put into order,arranged;
and therefore it is the result of will and intention.
It is not just a phenomenon resulting from the reacting and bonding of matter.

If we say that order is only understood by minds,and cannot be said to really exist in Nature,then our understanding must be wrong.

Sure it complicates it. It may sound simpler to say ‘life is spirit’ than whatever materialist explanation may be proffered, but adding spirits to the mix adds a whole new dimension of Stuff to account for, without the need for that addition being shown.

There’s no materialist explanation at all. Scientists choose to stick with naturalistic explanations. And yet,not everything in Nature is alive,while everything that is alive in Nature dies,leaving dead matter. So life is an unknown quantity which is from outside of Nature,and goes outside of Nature. If the natural scientists can’t analyze or calculate life,then life is not natural,but supernatural.

 

[freesoulhope]

Why must God be real? Doesn’t that imply that reality is greater than deity?

Depends on what you mean by the words “reality” and “deity”.
Christians believe that God is “ultimate reality”, upon which everything else is dependent.
If, when your talking about reality, you mean the universe, then God is above its reality, so much so, that he is the the foundation of it. An ultimate reality cannot be below the thing which it cuases. A thing is either a creation of God as in a construct of Gods will, or it is what God is. What it means to be ultimate reality and whether or not we can understand it with logic, is beside the point. It’s the concept of an “ultimate reality” which should be our starting point; since we can at least comprehend what that means in principle. What ever and where ever that ultimate reality is, this is what we call God; because God is the highest being.

God is spaceless, eternal, timeless, immaterial and personal; he is other then the physical attributes of the universe, making him distinct, which allows us to know what we are looking for. We can then, to a reasonable degree, conclude from nature’s finiteness and dependency on a first cause, that the ultimate cause of space time and energy is most probably God.
If one is looking for a thing which can sufficiently terminate the chain of natural cause and effect with out being itself one more link in the chain, then a God who has the privilege of those attributes which are distinct from the universe has more explanatory power when looking for an explanation for why the natural world exists; this being because, in the act of reducing existence to the Laws of Nature with all its principles of being, we reduce the ultimate cause to a state which requires a cause. An eternal entity which is immaterial and has an eternal will, needs no cause.

It seems reasonable that there must be an ultimate reality from which everything extends—an all encompassing something from which everything receives its nature of existing. There has to be some kind of existence which has always existed, before anything can exist. Even if I became agnostic like you, I for one could never take seriously the idea that something can magically appear outside of the realm some kind of causal-factor. I believe in miracles, but at least I believe something actually “caused” them, even if such a cause doesn’t share the same nature as the universe. The nature of things suggests that there should be a concluding factor to why a universe exists; on top of that we have to explain why a thing has a “nature of being” or “behavior”. Everything has a distinct behavior. A physical constant. Where do the laws of nature come from? An infinite regression of finite objects might avoid the need to consider an ultimate physical cause, but it fails to provide an explanation for why a thing has any particular mode of behavior or nature. What kind of reality do we exist in that has the potentiality to bring forth rational beings? Apart from the fact that we have a physical nature, rational-will is a completely new and alien form of causality. It is alien because it is intelligent, whereas “Natural Causes” are not. One cannot take these things for granted. I don’t just think God is possible, I think he highly probable based on what we know of the universe to date. In any case, the concept of “ultimate reality” helps us to understand that a thing comes from a definite founding-reality—what ever that may be.

 

[freesoulhope]

My acceptance or doubt of the material world has little to do with my ethics. ?

Ethics can be shaped by what is true of the objective world. An ethical truth which is objectively true, has allot more justification and authority, then a mere opinion of the things we see. If slavery is objectively wrong, aslong as my thinking it wrong isn’t just some chemical reaction in the brain which is given me a false sense of reality, then I can confidently say to a slave owner that such a thing is wrong, and that they are obliged by the ultimate reality of things to release those slaves. The point is not that they will believe me; the point is that what I am saying is actually true of the real world, rather then mere emotional black mail.

Destruction of anything which belongs to someone else (who hasn’t given permission to destroy it) is wrong, full stop. ?

It’s not a nice experience, I know, but it doesn’t follow from your premises that it is “wrong”. What is your basis and justification, other then your feelings of the actions involved, for saying that any given action is right or wrong? A thing is not good or immoral on the basis of it providing pleasure or pain. What is good for the individual might not be good for society; however, an individual is not obliged to feel ashamed or immoral for acting out a natural desire, unless he is actually going against the nature of his or her ultimate cause (the foundation of reality). If the foundation of reality is intrinsically good; then you actions are wrong in comparison, because you are going against the root nature of things. Your not supposed to be evil; if one chooses to live imperfectly (opposed to the greater good in anyway shape or form) then we cannot expect perfection, since perfection is naturally opposed to any thing which goes against its will. How a created person is supposed to behave, and how you would like people to behave, is two different things.

I don’t consider radical skepticism (or at the very least radical doubt) anything to be ashamed of. ?

You are not radically skeptic of the things you “desire” most. A Christian remains a Christian, mostly because he desires it.

 

[Mirdath]

Two reasons would be the order,the orderliness,that is seen in the world,and in the fact that life is extrinsic,not intrinsic,to Nature and to species.

Neither seems to me to be particularly unnatural.

Order is something which has been put into order,arranged;
and therefore it is the result of will and intention.
It is not just a phenomenon resulting from the reacting and bonding of matter.

Then if I flip a coin twice and it comes up heads both times, do you attribute that order to chance or to God cheating on the toss?

There’s no materialist explanation at all. Scientists choose to stick with naturalistic explanations. And yet,not everything in Nature is alive,while everything that is alive in Nature dies,leaving dead matter. So life is an unknown quantity which is from outside of Nature,and goes outside of Nature. If the natural scientists can’t analyze or calculate life,then life is not natural,but supernatural.

You assume we know everything about nature already. We don’t. Try finding a single scientist who says we know everything there is to know, and that there are no more unknowns in nature. Anyone who’d say that isn’t a scientist.

freesoulhope:

Christians believe that God is “ultimate reality”, upon which everything else is dependent.
If, when your talking about reality, you mean the universe, then God is above its reality, so much so, that he is the the foundation of it. An ultimate reality cannot be below the thing which it cuases. A thing is either a creation of God as in a construct of Gods will, or it is what God is. What it means to be ultimate reality and whether or not we can understand it with logic, is beside the point. It’s the concept of an “ultimate reality” which should be our starting point; since we can at least comprehend what that means in principle. What ever and where ever that ultimate reality is, this is what we call God; because God is the highest being.

The idea of a separate or transcendental ‘ultimate reality’ makes no sense to someone who doesn’t think any greater reality than the one we operate in exists.

There has to be some kind of existence which has always existed, before anything can exist.

Has to be? When did ‘we don’t know… yet’ become an unreasonable answer to the question ‘what made everything happen?’?

Ethics can be shaped by what is true of the objective world. An ethical truth which is objectively true, has allot more justification and authority, then a mere opinion of the things we see. If slavery is objectively wrong, aslong as my thinking it wrong isn’t just some chemical reaction in the brain which is given me a false sense of reality, then I can confidently say to a slave owner that such a thing is wrong, and that they are obliged by the ultimate reality of things to release those slaves. The point is not that they will believe me; the point is that what I am saying is actually true of the real world, rather then mere emotional black mail.

And you wouldn’t say it’s wrong if you harbored doubt as to the reality of slaves and slavery? I would. It doesn’t matter if it’s real or not: don’t you pass judgment on what you imagine as well as what you perceive?

It’s not a nice experience, I know, but it doesn’t follow from your premises that it is “wrong”. What is your basis and justification, other then your feelings of the actions involved, for saying that any given action is right or wrong?

What premises? I didn’t offer any premises for that statement. You already know, I think, that I’m a Kantian insofar as ethics are concerned: I do not act in a particular way unless I think that way would be well-applied universally (assuming I’m a good Kantian, which I’ll admit I’m not always – but then, I’m human… what can one expect?).

I am not a utilitarian or by extension a moral relativist, as you seem to suppose for some reason.

You are not radically skeptic of the things you “desire” most. A Christian remains a Christian, mostly because he desires it.

If you are not actually psychic, I must recommend you try to avoid telling me what I think. You’re most likely wrong.

 

[freesoulhope]

The idea of a separate or transcendental ‘ultimate reality’ makes no sense to someone who doesn’t think any greater reality than the one we operate in exists…

It makes no sense to me that an “ultimate reality” is that which begins to exist.

Has to be? When did ‘we don’t know… yet’ become an unreasonable answer to the question ‘what made everything happen?’…

For what we dont know through empiricism, we can know through probability. Knowledge of a trancendent reality can be aquired indirectly by observing and understanding the Universe in which we exist.
Saying i don’t know something emprically, can become an excuse to avoid other methods of investigation.

And you wouldn’t say it’s wrong if you harbored doubt as to the reality of slaves and slavery? I would. It doesn’t matter if it’s real or not: don’t you pass judgment on what you imagine as well as what you perceive?.

If something is objectively true, then one is obliged by objective reality to accept it. If one acknowledges that a thing is not objectively true, then it is simply false to state something as being true or being wrong, when it is not. When one says that something is immoral, it implys that somebody is objectively entitled to be treated in a certain way or that a human being should act in a specific way despite other peoples personal opinon on the subject. When we say that a thing is immoral, we are appealing to somebodys sense of morality. In other words, people accept something to be wrong, because they believe it to be universally and objectively true of a particulor act; and we expect the wrong doer to be ashamed of such acts. The accusers do not think in their head, “It is only wrong in my opinon”. If something is only wrong in my opinon; then that opinoin only applies to me, and nobody else is obliged to feel as if they have done something wrong.

What premises? I didn’t offer any premises for that statement. You already know, I think, that I’m a Kantian insofar as ethics are concerned: I do not act in a particular way unless I think that way would be well-applied universally (assuming I’m a good Kantian, which I’ll admit I’m not always – but then, I’m human… what can one expect?)…

What do you mean by good? If theres no God i expect you to be an animal, and to become aware that the concept of humanity is a myth. If there is no objective law which is binding on all humanity and is transcendent of human opinion, then there is no law. Human beings make up rules to control there enviroment; but none of those rules are binding on objective reality or my self. I have no reason to feel bad.

I am not a utilitarian or by extension a moral relativist, as you seem to suppose for some reason…

You may believe that a certain act is wrong for anybody to do, but this is your opinon; it has no objective reference or measure, and neither is it universally binding. One usually believes in right and wrong becuase in some cases, for reasons of survival, it is in their best interest to convince others of it. Even though it is a fallacy. I am not obliged to consider any objective act as wrong. It is simply an act upon which you impose meaning. What you call wrong, is simply natural. Its natural for other animals to enslave other animals; its called survival of the fittest. Unless there is some objective transcendent measure which singles out human behavior from animals and condems or opposes a particulor act such as rape, then there is no reason to call something “immoral”; other then for the shallow fact that i do not want to be enslaved. Without an objective moral law, morality is about like and dislikes; nothing more. Moral relitivism necessarily follows the death of objective morality. The problem with moral relitivism is; when people catch on to the idea that morality is all a lie and that they are not morally obliged to behave in a particulor way, humanity will give in to what it trully is. Just another animal in the jungle. Enter the age of “Nilism” since there is no reason to practice virtue unless one percives a given act as bennificail. Evolution wins. Check mate!
Christian morality on the other hand provides a basis which fullfills are sense of right and wrong and gives us a higher sense of humanity and human dignity, as in, it gives us a reason to think that we ought to be treated in a certain, because the ultimate objective reality of things demands it.

If you are not actually psychic, I must recommend you try to avoid telling me what I think. You’re most likely wrong.

I am only responding to a post in which you more or less made it clear that you do not desire a belief in God becuase you want to be your own master. Correct me if i am wrong.

 

[Mirdath]

It makes no sense to me that an “ultimate reality” is that which begins to exist.

It makes no sense to me to postulate an eternal reality unless it is demonstrated that one is required.

For what we dont know through empiricism, we can know through probability. Knowledge of a trancendent reality can be aquired indirectly by observing and understanding the Universe in which we exist.
Saying i don’t know something emprically, can become an excuse to avoid other methods of investigation.

In other words, what you don’t know you can guess, but you can’t do better than that. And if your guess cannot be tested and proven, what good is it as knowledge? Hypotheses which by their very nature cannot be verified have no place in discussion of certain knowledge.

The accusers do not think in their head, “It is only wrong in my opinon”. If something is only wrong in my opinon; then that opinoin only applies to me, and nobody else is obliged to feel as if they have done something wrong.

No, you’re correct: they think ‘it is absolutely wrong in my opinion’, if they have half a shred of honesty. If everybody had the same opinion on morality, there wouldn’t be any accusations to make! Absolute and objective are two completely different things. You and I are both absolutists, but I at least maintain that other people have different standards and can hold actions I consider immoral to be moral, or vice versa. That they think differently of an action does not affect how wrong or right I think it, or whether I might collude or attempt to stop them from doing it.

What do you mean by good? If theres no God i expect you to be an animal, and to become aware that the concept of humanity is a myth. If there is no objective law which is binding on all humanity and is transcendent of human opinion, then there is no law. Human beings make up rules to control there enviroment; but none of those rules are binding on objective reality or my self. I have no reason to feel bad.

I’m afraid ‘what you expect’ and ‘reality’ seem to be completely at odds here. I am not an animal, I am a human being – whether or not there is a God or a natural moral law.

You may believe that a certain act is wrong for anybody to do, but this is your opinon; it has no objective reference or measure, and neither is it universally binding.

And so with your moral beliefs. Neither of us can honestly claim our ethics are objectively true, since if they were there would be no such thing as moral confusion. Ethics can only be absolute, never objective.

Without an objective moral law, morality is about like and dislikes; nothing more.

Hardly. That covers utilitarianism and Objectivism, no more.

Christian morality on the other hand provides a basis which fullfills are sense of right and wrong and gives us a higher sense of humanity and human dignity, as in, it gives us a reason to think that we ought to be treated in a certain, because the ultimate objective reality of things demands it.

Christianity is neither the first nor the only idea to do that, although I would strike your last phrase out. Isn’t one of Christianity’s core beliefs that we don’t deserve anything but damnation?

I am only responding to a post in which you more or less made it clear that you do not desire a belief in God becuase you want to be your own master. Correct me if i am wrong.

You’re wrong. That I am my own master follows as a consequence of lack of belief in an involved God. It is not the cause, but an effect.

 

[Neithan]

…]
And so with your moral beliefs. Neither of us can honestly claim our ethics are objectively true, since if they were there would be no such thing as moral confusion. Ethics can only be absolute, never objective.

Interesting that you should say that. I attended a debate recently (between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. John Robert Shook) on Theism vs. Atheism; the atheist (Shook) stated in response to the Moral Argument that morality is objective because the majority of people in a society can agree on it, but not *absolute *because it can change over time and differs from one society to the next.

You’re wrong. That I am my own master follows as a consequence of lack of belief in an involved God. It is not the cause, but an effect.

But how can you claim that with any certainty? How do you know that subconscious desires are not inhibiting your belief in God?

Peace

 

[Mirdath]

Interesting that you should say that. I attended a debate recently (between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. John Robert Shook) on Theism vs. Atheism; the atheist (Shook) stated in response to the Moral Argument that morality is objective because the majority of people in a society can agree on it, but not *absolute *because it can change over time and differs from one society to the next.

Dr Shook is using the words in a different sense than that I use them in. His ‘objective’ is something that can be reached by majority consensus; my ‘objective’ is something that can be seen clearly by anyone, even those who might disagree. His ‘absolute’ is closer to my use of ‘objective’! My idea of absolute morality is a moral code that is immutable, yes – but it need not be agreed to by anyone else. Moral codes that change (by which I mean flip-flopping, not mere expansion to cover unforeseen questions) are simply not absolute.

I haven’t read any of his work, but from what you’ve said it seems the only real disagreement we have is in our definitions.

But how can you claim that with any certainty? How do you know that subconscious desires are not inhibiting your belief in God?

Obviously I don’t know for sure what my subconscious is up to, but I’m pretty sure that that inhibition is due to somewhat higher functions. As to the ‘my own master’ question, sure, I’m as certain of that as I am of anything: if I actively rejected God out of a desire to blaze my own trails, freesoulhope’s causal chain would be correct. However, I have not willfully rejected God; my situation is more analogous to that of a blind man who once dreamed he could see – and woke up. And since I cannot see God, I’m basically left to fend for myself.

You seem to hold that belief in a higher power is the ‘default’ state of any given human being. Why is that? Doesn’t it make more sense to assume that the default is agnosticism, which may be overridden (or, if you prefer, outgrown) by faith?

 

[freesoulhope]

It makes no sense to me to postulate an eternal reality unless it is demonstrated that one is required.

In a world where Time Space and Energy begins to exist in a state of motion, expanding toward the future, it would seem that there is more to reality then Time Space and Matter.

If you do not realize this, I give up. I for one know that it is entirely reasonable to postulate an Ultimate-Eternal-Reality from the above premise. Those who cannot see it; I can only suspect they are in denial.

Hypotheses which by their very nature cannot be verified have no place in discussion of certain knowledge;

There is no such thing as certain knowledge.

God has no place in an “Empirical science investigation”, I agree. However; Philosophy and logic is a different matter. A logical philosophical question is not a shot in the dark; it is an informed argument based on the empirical data.

No, you’re correct: they think ‘it is absolutely wrong in my opinion’, if they have half a shred of honesty.

Honesty, in respect of morality, has no objective meaning if moral law is simply make-belief. If moral law is not objectively true; then you are not telling the truth about the real world. A lie is just an aid to survival; it has no moral significance; and those who participate in being deceptive have no reason to feel guilty. Morality is objectively meaningless without God; and what we imagine in are hearts with out reference to objective reality, has no authority as a possible or logical “truth”.

I am a human being – whether or not there is a God or a natural moral law.

That is just what we call our selves. I do not deny that we place imaginary value on things to bring comfort to our insecurities, just as much as we make up imaginary Gods. The rest is blind evolution and chemical reactions in the brain. A name, by itself, gives us no more objective moral privilege or value then a snail or an ant. If there is no God, then I am an animal; nothing more.

Hardly. That covers utilitarianism and Objectivism, no more.

I don’t understand your objection. Your basis for thinking or judging that a thing is immoral, is flawed.

Christianity is neither the first nor the only idea to do that.?

It is irrelevant whether or not people have similar ideas as another group or religion. The requirements for “Moral Truth”, still hold.

Isn’t one of Christianity’s core beliefs that we don’t deserve anything but damnation?

What man ultimately deserves is between God and man. How one should treat another human being in light of God, is a different matter.

 

[Mirdath]

If you do not realize this, I give up. I for one know that it is entirely reasonable to postulate an Ultimate-Eternal-Reality from the above premise. Those who cannot see it; I can only suspect they are in denial.

Suspect away.

God has no place in an “Empirical science investigation”, I agree. However; Philosophy and logic is a different matter. A logical philosophical question is not a shot in the dark; it is an informed argument based on the empirical data.

Which empirical data you have as much as said outright doesn’t exist, by your statement that God ‘has no place’ in an empirical investigation.

Honesty, in respect of morality, has no objective meaning if moral law is simply make-belief. If moral law is not objectively true; then you are not telling the truth about the real world. A lie is just an aid to survival; it has no moral significance; and those who participate in being deceptive have no reason to feel guilty. Morality is objectively meaningless without God; and what we imagine in are hearts with out reference to objective reality, has no authority as a possible or logical “truth”.

I think we have a difference in our definitions of ‘objectivity’ here. I explained mine a couple posts up. What definition are you working from?

That is just what we call our selves. I do not deny that we place imaginary value on things to bring comfort to our insecurities, just as much as we make up imaginary Gods. The rest is blind evolution and chemical reactions in the brain. A name, by itself, gives us no more objective moral privilege or value then a snail or an ant. If there is no God, then I am an animal; nothing more.

If there is no God, you go ahead and run around on all fours eating grass like Nebuchadnezzar, but I think I’ll stay human.

I don’t understand your objection. Your basis for thinking or judging that a thing is immoral, is flawed.

And so it devolves into a somewhat more polite ‘neener neener neener’, hm? What exactly gives you the idea that my ethics are grievously impaired? Is it that I disagree with you?

What I said is simply that it is quite possible to base one’s ethics neither upon an imaginary ‘natural moral law’ nor upon mere want. What’s so hard to understand about that?

 

[anthony022071]

Neither seems to me to be particularly unnatural.

They should seem un-natural,considering that not all of Nature is orderly and not all of Nature is alive,while matter naturally inclines to disorder and deadness.

Then if I flip a coin twice and it comes up heads both times, do you attribute that order to chance or to God cheating on the toss?

It wouldn’t even be order in a proper sense. It’s just chance.

You assume we know everything about nature already. We don’t. Try finding a single scientist who says we know everything there is to know, and that there are no more unknowns in nature. Anyone who’d say that isn’t a scientist.

The greatest unknown in Nature is life itself,and where it comes from.
Natural scientists can’t even define life itself,because it is a metaphysical subject.
One of the proofs of the supernatural origin of life is the fact that life is not measurable or testable by the natural sciences like everything else in the natural world is.

 

[Hastrman]

What I said is simply that it is quite possible to base one’s ethics neither upon an imaginary ‘natural moral law’ nor upon mere want. What’s so hard to understand about that?

Um…everything?

How about, it’s not logical?

How about, if you deny that things have natures that carry with them intrinsic goods (natural law ethics), all you are left with is the Master Morality of Nietzsche.

Unless you’ll give me some other grounds for thinking you have rights, than that they inhere in you by nature. Social contract is only the Master Morality applied when all are equally weak (or strong). The Categorical Imperative is simply blind fiat. So what is your ethics based on?

Ich glaube mich dies ist englishe Flachkopfheit.

 

[Mirdath]

They should seem un-natural,considering that not all of Nature is orderly and not all of Nature is alive,while matter naturally inclines to disorder and deadness.

Order is an integral part of nature: the protons and neutrons arranged just so, a specific number of electrons around them, and so on and on – down to smaller particles even if you like, but that’s not my forte. A clump of kudzu may seem chaotic, but that’s only an appearance.

Order, chaos, the living, and the unliving are all parts of nature. Why should I expect any of them to originate from another source?

It wouldn’t even be order in a proper sense. It’s just chance.

But that chance produced order: two heads in a row.

The greatest unknown in Nature is life itself,and where it comes from.
Natural scientists can’t even define life itself,because it is a metaphysical subject.
One of the proofs of the supernatural origin of life is the fact that life is not measurable or testable by the natural sciences like everything else in the natural world is.

Sure it’s measurable and testable. Every reputable biology textbook in the world says ‘the cell is the basic unit of life’ or words to that effect. We know how they work and how they stop working.

Hastrman:

How about, it’s not logical?

How not?

How about, if you deny that things have natures that carry with them intrinsic goods (natural law ethics), all you are left with is the Master Morality of Nietzsche.

False dichotomy, again – and from my understanding of Nietzsche, a little bit of misappropriation. The ‘master morality’ you attribute to him includes compassion, sacrifice, and aiding others without expectation of recompense in kind. If you’d put Ayn Rand’s name in, you’d have made more sense.

Unless you’ll give me some other grounds for thinking you have rights, than that they inhere in you by nature.

And if I tell you I don’t have inherent rights, period?

Social contract is only the Master Morality applied when all are equally weak (or strong). The Categorical Imperative is simply blind fiat. So what is your ethics based on?

The CI is hardly blind fiat – it’s a tool. The user decides what to do with it. If you want fiat, you need look no further than the Decalogue.

Ich glaube mich dies ist englishe Flachkopfheit.

Kein Anlass zur Unhöflichkeit, mein Liebling.

 

[Hastrman]

How not?

Because you’re acting as though things you made up are objective. Natural law supposes that things have inherent rights and wrongs because of what they are. On any other basis, it’s just how you feel–and I am under no obligation to take your feelings into account.

False dichotomy, again – and from my understanding of Nietzsche, a little bit of misappropriation. The ‘master morality’ you attribute to him includes compassion, sacrifice, and aiding others without expectation of recompense in kind. If you’d put Ayn Rand’s name in, you’d have made more sense.

Not really. Compassion, sacrifice, and aiding others are acts the Strong undertake for their own pride–because of their strength. Nietzsche, a literary critic and philologist, was, essentially, trying to create an ethic of bada**ness–actions are to be judged on how cool they are, since you’ll be repeating them forever.

There is nonetheless no justifcation for ever complaining about how you’re treated, because there is no good or evil–only good or bad: advantageous, or not, to the strong. And their advantage is to be judged according to that standard of aesthetics.

And if I tell you I don’t have inherent rights, period?

Then if I torture you to death, you have no logical right to judge me. Oh, you can complain–but that’s just your feelings. And I don’t much care how you feel. Why should I? Please, give me a logical reason. Natural law supposes you have a right not to be tortured, but you deny that.

The CI is hardly blind fiat – it’s a tool. The user decides what to do with it. If you want fiat, you need look no further than the Decalogue.

And what makes you think we have ever been under the Decalogue? We are not, precisely, under the Law.

The Categorical Imperative removes all objective framework from morality. Therefore there is no logical reason to judge the actions of anyone but yourself–which renders society asinine and therefore impossible, and removes its right to exist.

Absent natural law, the only basis of standards is “What we can make you do.”

 

[Mirdath]

Because you’re acting as though things you made up are objective. Natural law supposes that things have inherent rights and wrongs because of what they are. On any other basis, it’s just how you feel–and I am under no obligation to take your feelings into account.

Where have I claimed it is objective?

There is nonetheless no justifcation for ever complaining about how you’re treated, because there is no good or evil–only good or bad: advantageous, or not, to the strong. And their advantage is to be judged according to that standard of aesthetics.

You persist in this idea that either one has a natural moral law, an intangible companion to the law of gravity, or that ethics must needs be Darwinian and subjective. It just ain’t so.

Then if I torture you to death, you have no logical right to judge me. Oh, you can complain–but that’s just your feelings. And I don’t much care how you feel. Why should I? Please, give me a logical reason. Natural law supposes you have a right not to be tortured, but you deny that.

I can judge you by my standards perfectly well – and if you are torturing someone else, I can judge you and then act to stop you.

You don’t have to care how I feel – unless, of course, you have an interest in a working society.

The Categorical Imperative removes all objective framework from morality. Therefore there is no logical reason to judge the actions of anyone but yourself–which renders society asinine and therefore impossible, and removes its right to exist.

Certainly there is a reason to judge: the actions of others affect you, and vice versa.

And when exactly did abstract, implicit or explicit contracts get ‘rights’ in your ethic?

 

[Hastrman]

I can judge you by my standards perfectly well – and if you are torturing someone else, I can judge you and then act to stop you.

You don’t have to care how I feel – unless, of course, you have an interest in a working society.

First, no, you can try to stop me–and I can kill you. But neither of us is right because there is no right, just your preferences and mine.

Second, why should I have an interest in a working society, as long as it doesn’t hurt me? You happen to like other people; suppose I don’t. Suppose I think they’re most amusing when they’re screaming. Am I wrong? If so, why? Because it makes society unable to run? Circular reasoning–I don’t care about society, remember?

Oh, but society will stop me anyway. OK, but their only legitimacy is that there are more than them than of me: force again. Unless you can explain why they have the right to intervene?

Anyway, you seemed to think it would be wrong, on another thread, to deny atheists rights–but Rousseau, Voltaire, and Robespierre all thought that the irrationality of those who deny God would render society unable to run. So now you are wrong, and we’re going to stop you. Hide behind anything except a transcendental, and eventually that thing will turn on you.

Aside from the fact that if you deny natures as such, you’re either a Materialist, so yes, ethics must be Darwinian and arbitrary, or you’re a Monist–and then right and wrong are alike parts of Being. And if you’re capable of logical thought you can’t be a Materialist.

Certainly there is a reason to judge: the actions of others affect you, and vice versa.

And when exactly did abstract, implicit or explicit contracts get ‘rights’ in your ethic?

Society should not be destroyed, i.e. it has a right to exist, only insofar as it helps grant goods not attainable under the state of nature. If it does not do that, or impedes goods that are, it should be destroyed.

 

[anthony022071]

Order is an integral part of nature: the protons and neutrons arranged just so, a specific number of electrons around them, and so on and on – down to smaller particles even if you like, but that’s not my forte. A clump of kudzu may seem chaotic, but that’s only an appearance.

Yes,the atoms that compose matter are orderly and stuctured within themselves,but beyond that they do not create order. Grains of dust,composed as they are of orderly,structured atoms,are themselves only passive matter blown by the wind. They don’t create order or life. All atoms are equal in their passivity and deadness.
The only difference between the atoms that compose a human body and those of a grain of dust is the fact that the atoms of a human body belong to an entity that has spirit
whereas the atoms of a grain of dust do not. And when a human body dies for absence of spirit,the natural inclination of the body is to decompose back into dust.

Order, chaos, the living, and the unliving are all parts of nature. Why should I expect any of them to originate from another source?

Order and life are not intrinsic to Nature,as chaos and deadness are – that is the difference.

But that chance produced order: two heads in a row.

That can hardly be called an example of order.
It’s just a sequence.

Sure it’s measurable and testable. Every reputable biology textbook in the world says ‘the cell is the basic unit of life’ or words to that effect. We know how they work and how they stop working.

Yes,a unit of life,a living organism – not life itself. Cells are not life itself – they die and cease to be units of life. Biologists may know how,but they don’t know what makes cells work or stop working.

 

[Mirdath]

First, no, you can try to stop me–and I can kill you. But neither of us is right because there is no right, just your preferences and mine.

There may be no right according to you, and you may act as if that is so if it pleases you; but that will have no effect on how I live my life and form my ethics.

Second, why should I have an interest in a working society, as long as it doesn’t hurt me? You happen to like other people; suppose I don’t. Suppose I think they’re most amusing when they’re screaming. Am I wrong? If so, why? Because it makes society unable to run? Circular reasoning–I don’t care about society, remember?

No, you’d be wrong because you’re acting contrary to what I consider right. You may not think you’re wrong, but I do – and that’s quite enough for me. Even your ‘natural moral law’ has boundaries; you cannot force another to follow it, only act according to it yourself (which may well include trying to persuade others to do the same, but you will never be able to make anyone do that).

Anyway, you seemed to think it would be wrong, on another thread, to deny atheists rights–but Rousseau, Voltaire, and Robespierre all thought that the irrationality of those who deny God would render society unable to run. So now you are wrong, and we’re going to stop you. Hide behind anything except a transcendental, and eventually that thing will turn on you.

In such a case, the foundation of my ethics has not turned on me – other people have. As a Christian, I would hope you are aware that they are wont to do such things, considering your religion’s past.

Aside from the fact that if you deny natures as such, you’re either a Materialist, so yes, ethics must be Darwinian and arbitrary, or you’re a Monist–and then right and wrong are alike parts of Being. And if you’re capable of logical thought you can’t be a Materialist.

I do hope you’re aware that that’s basically saying you’re looking at either a lemon or an ovoid citrus fruit. I am at the very least a monist, I suppose, because it seems sensible; materialism vs. idealism is a question I am not sure we are equipped to answer.

Society should not be destroyed, i.e. it has a right to exist, only insofar as it helps grant goods not attainable under the state of nature. If it does not do that, or impedes goods that are, it should be destroyed.

That’s not a right, that’s merely sufferance. You’ll put up with it as long as you get something in return. Not at all what you were talking about when you said ‘rights’ previously.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

…

Mirdath’s WHAT!?

That’s quite the conjectural juxtaposition you’ve made there!

I’m not sure the fabric of the universe can handle those two words, Mirdath and Logic, in such close proximity!

Beware! Danger Will Robinson! Danger Will Robinson!