iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 9:56 pm
And how exactly would I go about accomplishing that? Me, speaking for God Himself? Instead, I speculate about living in a world where, in fact, God does exist. He makes His existence known to us. And He focuses in almost entirely
on consequences: Heaven or Hell?
It just seems reasonable to me "here and now" that if any entity is going to broach [and then
enforce] moral Commandments, it would be the one who is omniscient and omnipotent. The Supreme Being who actually created us!!
Well, you asked me how would you go about accomplishing that: re: my request for your justification. Well, generally when one makes assertions and one is asked one explains that convinced us. In a philosophy forum that would be explaining some kind of justification. If you express incredulity that others could possibility disagree, than probably some other people are going to expect some pretty strong justification. So, I'm not quite sure why you're asking me, given you arrived at your conclusion by some process and that conclusion seems obvious to you. Heck, if you'd said: it just seem obvious, self-evident, intuitively clear. I wouldn't have granted this was convincing - and presumably you wouldn't have expected it to be. But if that was the process, well, fair enough that's your answer. I might in that case point out that it wasn't convincing for others, but, then we're at a final point, for now.
But you do go on, after asking me, to start justifiying......
1) It seems to me the 10 commandments are present in the form of orders. Rather than 'here's a way to be a good person (who also doesn't end up in Hell etc.). But I think Jesus may go ahead and make it more like a set of moral guidelines.2) I am not contesting that in this hypothetical situation such a deity has defined a set of rules and threatened us with judgment. 3) However you then phrase the next part If any creature is going to..... But it doesn't explain why we must take such a creature's proclamations as moral. It may think they are moral. But your actual sentences says if any, which leaves open the option that none do. Perhaps you're right, though I don't think you've justified it yet. Here you have justified a sentence like if any entity determines what is moral than it would be the omnipotent and omniscient one does. But it doesn't explain why we must choose any entity, even one like that. IOW it presumes it's a contest or at least that some entity in existence is the determiner. And if there is the Christian God, well, then that's the one.
Another way to put my objection is to point to PH's responses that just because this incredibly powerful entity has these preferences, this doesn't entail that they are objectively moral. I believe he thinks they cannot be.
I might ask why the most powerful entity need be moral? Do we notice that in the mundane world those who have the most power are more moral and more or closer to objectivity?
Your last sentence is about this being being our creator. I am not sure why this means this entity must be moral and that its preferences are objective.
I do have sympathy for the sense this is obvious, somehow, but I don't think it is. In any case I don't see it demonstrated.
I appreciate that you started to justify your position though. Really that's all I have been asking.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 8:53 pmYou made as assertion/assumption and appealed to incredulity that anyone could disagree that if such a being could be demonstrated to exist, then there is objective morality and it comes from that being.
Yep, and that still makes sense to me. Or is God himself unable to grasp the technical parameters of moral philosophy?
What if he's an asshole? I mean, I don't think such a being could ever convince me that really eternal damnation is objectively good, for example.
Now you're looking at this as: Well, by definition he is smarter than you iwannaplato, so if he thinks that's a good thing, it is.
But I think this is a category error.
And around and around we go.
No, no. You actually took some steps to answer my original request. I think we have got some forward moveement. Will we agree in the end and dance around the maypole? Doubtful, but who knows. On the other hand, looking at what seems obvious and trying to explain that to others is, well, to me anyway, part of what we are doing here. I realize that's not universally agreed upon, here, though I haven't heard anyone willing to say their not interested in that.
And, as always, you insist on making "the point" here my own failure to get "the point".
Right. Your understanding of substance here. And how my "assertions" and "claims" are unsupported because [in my view] they do not support your own.
I can easily see support for assertions that I don't agree with. Can't you?
And my posts here are sheer conjecture. I'm "supposing" that a God, the God, the Christian God does in fact exist. I'm noting that this omniscient/omnipotent God provides us with a Scripture containing moral Commandments. I'm noting those Christians who insist that if we fail to obey them the consequences are truly, truly dire.
Of course. Your assertions have been conditional. If this is then then X must be true. But we can still look at the assumptions and justifications for this.
And of course, in regard to God and religion, consequences are everything!!
Well, if they are everthing then it's a practical issue.
I'll let you and others take up the philosophical question of whether this God can lay claim to being the font for objective morality.
That seems reasonable to me...as sheer conjecture.
Well, then, sheer conjecture is all reasonable, it seems, according to you.
But look, you're acting a bit like I am being unreasonable asking for justification for, yes, conditional assertions. In answering such questions, you can come to understand your own assumptions and see if YOU think your own assumptions and justifications have merit.
I assume that's part of your goal in writing all these threads about determinism. To get clearer about things and, regardless of how small the chance, perhaps come to understand something better regarding these ontological issues.
Well, to do that you may need to look at your own and other people's assumptions. You certainly look at other people's and expect them to justify well and critique them when they fail to be convincing.
It shouldn't be a shock that others might have similar reactions to your assertions.
Or do you actually believe that mere mortals here who call themselves serious philosophers really can pin this down such that, what, they convince God Himself that He's not?
If I questions someone arguing X is true, it doesn't mean I must be able to demonstrate X is false. Why not stop using the, for you, pejorative 'serious philosophers'? It's is a philosophy forum. You made assertions, and they underlie explorations you've been doing for years. You've claimed that you would be happy if someone could demonstrate the existence of God X or some other answer to your core questions. So the issue and your assumptions around it are relevant to you.
So, my asking you what your justifications are is not some off base act. It's the kind of thing you do in response to others when they assert things.
It's not some cold, symbolic logic response.
And if you don't care about anything other than consequences, which you claim above, then you could simply have said that. Yes, I'd like to know it if theirs a deity and which one and what that one wants. And I'd wanna make sure to be on its good side and not go to hell. So, I don't care if it's objectively moral. I'd want to get into heaven adn avoid hell.
Fine.
I would have dropped the issue.
If you want to imply I'm ridiculous for asking for justification and somehow a negative kind of philosopher for doing precisely what you do in relations to the claims of others, don't be surprised if I ALSO get personal.
Here you actually replied. You actually did what I wanted. I think it's incomplete, and not yet convincing, unless you completely hold to the 'I only care about consequences'. OK, that's fine then, conversation over. It doesn't matter to you if that entity is objectively moral or not. And, as I said, I have sympathy for that position. I don't think it's mine, but it's hard to say what I would do if push came to shove. I don't think I'd do what Abraham was willing to do, but....I can't know for sure. I don't think Abraham made an objectively moral choice however.
In any case, I can't see how understanding your own assumptions and finding out your own justification could be negative for you. And I certainly don't think it was unreasonable to ask for it or point out that you weren't doing it, while acting as if my questions were ridiculous and anyone by a fool would agree with you.
I am going to leave it here. Because even if it was a small step. It's precisely the kind of step I've found it so hard to get. I don't know why it happened and I must say I am afraid the next step will be a regression. I congratulate us both for having taken a small step. And perhaps I'll see in a different context if a different small step could be taken. This might be seen as cowardly, but I see it as merely cautious.
