God and morality

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, that's "malevolence" defined...but what makes it "evil." Where is it written in the secular code of things, if such exists, that a man is not allowed to choose to be malevolent?

Personally, I think man defines “the earth” as evil.

Well, then "evil" is a word with no particular meaning at all. For if everything is "evil," then nothing is evil, because everything is simply the same.

You need a better answer, I would say.

“Evil” is a peculiarly charged category, isn’t it?

Maybe, but you can use any value-implying word, and the same problem re-emerges from it. We could use the word "bad" or "useless," or "unwanted," or "inconvenient," and the question would still come back, "What's grounding that negative judgment?"

And so far, it's nothing.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I do not use the word “evil”. Good and bad are largely sufficient.

Well, then "evil" is a word with no particular meaning at all.

That is obviously not the case. Not in the secular world, and not in the religious and theological worlds.

"What's grounding that negative judgment?"

For most, a vague subjectivism. Or language conventions. Personalized experience? Subjective mood …

Why are you asking me these questions?

[Fanman]

I came up with this regarding our discussion, Alexi,

Where there can be no substantive epistemic conclusion, there can be no absolute judgement. That is because logical distinction requires sufficient information to make a conclusion. We lack sufficient information about divine ontology; therefore, logic cannot give us a conclusive (or absolute) answer. However, based on the information that we do have, speculation is plausible.

So, can we apply the full scope of human morals to a divine being? Speculatively, yes. But doing so conclusively is not currently plausible.

I can go along with that argument, its structure. But “theology” (in various schools) establishes and concludes differently. When you introduce “inspired intelligence” the picture changes.

Then we're settled, mate; we're free to [coherently] speculate on how human morality can relate to or be applied to divine beings.

Also, keep this from Flash, but ChatGPT also recognises that the argument is logical, and it is a powerhouse AI in my experience. ChatGPT stated:

My verdict: yes, the statements are logical as a qualified philosophical position. They distinguish speculative possibility from conclusive justification, and the word currently preserves openness to further evidence or reasoning.

[FlashDangerpants]

I came up with this regarding our discussion, Alexi,

Where there can be no substantive epistemic conclusion, there can be no absolute judgement. That is because logical distinction requires sufficient information to make a conclusion. We lack sufficient information about divine ontology; therefore, logic cannot give us a conclusive (or absolute) answer. However, based on the information that we do have, speculation is plausible.

So, can we apply the full scope of human morals to a divine being? Speculatively, yes. But doing so conclusively is not currently plausible.

I can go along with that argument, its structure. But “theology” (in various schools) establishes and concludes differently. When you introduce “inspired intelligence” the picture changes.

Then we're settled, mate; we're free to [coherently] speculate on how human morality can relate to or be applied to divine beings.

Also, keep this from Flash, but ChatGPT also recognises that the argument is logical, and it is a powerhouse AI in my experience. ChatGPT stated:

My verdict: yes, the statements are logical as a qualified philosophical position. They distinguish speculative possibility from conclusive justification, and the word currently preserves openness to further evidence or reasoning.

Uhm, surely ChatGPT recognised that "Where there can be no substantive epistemic conclusion, there can be no absolute judgement" is just a tautology.

Powerhouse. LOL.

[Fanman]

Has that whiny little AI fiend stopped complaining about me yet?

Don't get any worse than you already are Jacobi. Begging AI to tell you how cool you are is just a way to show how weird you are.

In theory, this should be my last response to you, Flash (fingers crossed).

Hmmm... seems not.

Oh, by the way, your critical error (IMO) was mocking ChatGPT for calling me "physically disciplined". How would you plausibly know I'm not? You are the poster child for biblical foolishness, as far as I am concerned. You don't have a single drop of evidence against me to substantiate a valid reason for your abusive behaviour. All you can do is act tough online, big man. Good luck.

Jeez. Why the Hell would chatbot call you "physically disciplined"? The issue is your obliviousness to what is being discussed here.

How bad is your dependency on AI that you've reached the point where you don't even understand why people think it's preposterous that you are posting attaboys from a robot congratulating you for doing push ups or whatever?

You should really be easily able to read between the lines why I think it's weird to ask ChatGPT if you are weird. If not, and if you really haven't been diagnosed with ASD, you gotta talk to your doctor about this, not me, and not a chat bot. You need to take a test.

Pathologising, that's original. Round and round the rhetorical merry-go-round, a new narrative for every post, literally. Yes, because it's completely normal human social behaviour to be systematically abusive to people you don't know, Flash. You're such a biblical fool. Blind to your own flaws, yet you see everyone else's with 20/20 vision. Good luck with your filosophy. Joker.

[Fanman]

I can go along with that argument, its structure. But “theology” (in various schools) establishes and concludes differently. When you introduce “inspired intelligence” the picture changes.

Then we're settled, mate; we're free to [coherently] speculate on how human morality can relate to or be applied to divine beings.

Also, keep this from Flash, but ChatGPT also recognises that the argument is logical, and it is a powerhouse AI in my experience. ChatGPT stated:

My verdict: yes, the statements are logical as a qualified philosophical position. They distinguish speculative possibility from conclusive justification, and the word currently preserves openness to further evidence or reasoning.

Uhm, surely ChatGPT recognised that "Where there can be no substantive epistemic conclusion, there can be no absolute judgement" is just a tautology.

Powerhouse. LOL.

It's not tautological. Conclusion and judgement are not identical. Neither are substantive and absolute, in my opinion. I'll check the dictionary.

[FlashDangerpants]

I came up with this regarding our discussion, Alexi,

Where there can be no substantive epistemic conclusion, there can be no absolute judgement. That is because logical distinction requires sufficient information to make a conclusion. We lack sufficient information about divine ontology; therefore, logic cannot give us a conclusive (or absolute) answer. However, based on the information that we do have, speculation is plausible.

So, can we apply the full scope of human morals to a divine being? Speculatively, yes. But doing so conclusively is not currently plausible.

I can go along with that argument, its structure. But “theology” (in various schools) establishes and concludes differently. When you introduce “inspired intelligence” the picture changes.

It's structure is shit. You wouldn't know a philosophical argument if it kicked you in the ballbag you pretentious yokel
Where there can be no substantive epistemic conclusion, there can be no absolute judgement. Is a tautology, the proof of the second clause is written directly and openly into the first. You might as well say where there can be no vegetables there can be no carrots. There is nothing to be learned by following up to answer why, if there can be no vegetables does that mean there can be no carrots. That's why real philosophers don't try to argue from tautologies, you get no insight into the world from them.

Aside from that issue. The conclusion is not a deductive product of the presented reasoning, and therefore it is not guranteed by that reasoning. It's either a non-sequitur if it means anything at all, or it is sort of just gibberish. Does it really mean anything? I tend to think it doesn't. What exactly is the quesiton "can we apply the full scope of morals to a divine being" actually asking?

Why wouldn't we expect a divine being who has the power to understand right from wrong to apply that understanding? There's nothing in this argument to explain that, it's an attempt at smoke and mirrors.

[FlashDangerpants]

Then we're settled, mate; we're free to [coherently] speculate on how human morality can relate to or be applied to divine beings.

Also, keep this from Flash, but ChatGPT also recognises that the argument is logical, and it is a powerhouse AI in my experience. ChatGPT stated:

Uhm, surely ChatGPT recognised that "Where there can be no substantive epistemic conclusion, there can be no absolute judgement" is just a tautology.

Powerhouse. LOL.

It's not tautological. Conclusion and judgement are not identical. Neither are substantive and absolute, in my opinion. I'll check the dictionary.

orly? what would you be meaning by these terms "substantive epistemic conclusion" and "absolute judgement" that doesn't amount to the first being a builtin presupposition of the second?

[Fanman]

I came up with this regarding our discussion, Alexi,

Where there can be no substantive epistemic conclusion, there can be no absolute judgement. That is because logical distinction requires sufficient information to make a conclusion. We lack sufficient information about divine ontology; therefore, logic cannot give us a conclusive (or absolute) answer. However, based on the information that we do have, speculation is plausible.

So, can we apply the full scope of human morals to a divine being? Speculatively, yes. But doing so conclusively is not currently plausible.

I can go along with that argument, its structure. But “theology” (in various schools) establishes and concludes differently. When you introduce “inspired intelligence” the picture changes.

It's structure is shit. You wouldn't know a philosophical argument if it kicked you in the ballbag you pretentious yokel
Where there can be no substantive epistemic conclusion, there can be no absolute judgement. Is a tautology, the proof of the second clause is written directly and openly into the first. You might as well say where there can be no vegetables there can be no carrots. There is nothing to be learned by following up to answer why, if there can be no vegetables does that mean there can be no carrots. That's why real philosophers don't try to argue from tautologies, you get no insight into the world from them.

Aside from that issue. The conclusion is not a deductive product of the presented reasoning, and therefore it is not guranteed by that reasoning. It's either a non-sequitur if it means anything at all, or it is sort of just gibberish. Does it really mean anything? I tend to think it doesn't. What exactly is the quesiton "can we apply the full scope of morals to a divine being" actually asking?

Why wouldn't we expect a divine being who has the power to understand right from wrong to apply that understanding? There's nothing in this argument to explain that, it's an attempt at smoke and mirrors.

I'm not going to bother with substantive and absolute because it's obvious that they mean different things. I checked on conclusion and judgment, and this is what I found on WikiDiff:

As nouns the difference between conclusion and judgment is that conclusion is the end, finish, close or last part of something while judgment is the act of judging.

Based on the difference in meaning between the words used, the statement is not tautological. We can reasonably say:

We have not reached a substantive epistemic conclusion. Therefore, we cannot make an absolute judgment.

That is wise in my opinion. So, I wouldn't expect you to understand, Flash.

Flash stated: Why wouldn't we expect a divine being who has the power to understand right from wrong to apply that understanding?

My response: That's not what we're arguing, Flash.

[FlashDangerpants]

I can go along with that argument, its structure. But “theology” (in various schools) establishes and concludes differently. When you introduce “inspired intelligence” the picture changes.

It's structure is shit. You wouldn't know a philosophical argument if it kicked you in the ballbag you pretentious yokel
Where there can be no substantive epistemic conclusion, there can be no absolute judgement. Is a tautology, the proof of the second clause is written directly and openly into the first. You might as well say where there can be no vegetables there can be no carrots. There is nothing to be learned by following up to answer why, if there can be no vegetables does that mean there can be no carrots. That's why real philosophers don't try to argue from tautologies, you get no insight into the world from them.

Aside from that issue. The conclusion is not a deductive product of the presented reasoning, and therefore it is not guranteed by that reasoning. It's either a non-sequitur if it means anything at all, or it is sort of just gibberish. Does it really mean anything? I tend to think it doesn't. What exactly is the quesiton "can we apply the full scope of morals to a divine being" actually asking?

Why wouldn't we expect a divine being who has the power to understand right from wrong to apply that understanding? There's nothing in this argument to explain that, it's an attempt at smoke and mirrors.

I'm not going to bother with substantive and absolute because it's obvious that they mean different things. I checked on conclusion and judgment, and this is what I found on WikiDiff:

As nouns the difference between conclusion and judgment is that conclusion is the end, finish, close or last part of something while judgment is the act of judging.

Based on the difference in meaning between the words used, the statement is not tautological. We can reasonably say:

We have not reached a substantive conclusion. Therefore, we cannot make an absolute judgment.

That is wise in my opinion. So, I wouldn't expect you to understand, Flash.

Ok... erm. Does that not break your presented argument though? You seem to be converting that cannot into a serruptitious ought-not. We cannot make an absolute judgment stops being a premise in a deductive argument and just becomes practical advice in a prudential one. If you are attempting to make a case for category mistake then you would need this to be deductive.

Your rewritten argument suddenly looks like this..
Where there can be no substantive epistemic conclusion, we cannot make an absolute judgment. That is because logical distinction requires sufficient information to make a conclusion. We lack sufficient information about divine ontology; therefore, logic cannot give us a conclusive (or absolute) answer. However, based on the information that we do have, speculation is plausible.

So, can we apply the full scope of human morals to a divine being? Speculatively, yes. But doing so conclusively is not currently plausible.

... no bueno. That's not deductively sound even if we overlook all other issues. The "currently" at the end sort of undercuts you as well, why is it there?

Flash stated: Why wouldn't we expect a divine being who has the power to understand right from wrong to apply that understanding?

My response: That's not what we're arguing, Flash.

Except what I wrote is sort of what it means to "apply the full scope of human morals" to any being, human or super-human isn't it? This super God guy can understand right and wrong can't he? He can live according to the requirements of rightness can he not? He is really very capable, or so I am told.

[Fanman]

It's structure is shit. You wouldn't know a philosophical argument if it kicked you in the ballbag you pretentious yokel
Where there can be no substantive epistemic conclusion, there can be no absolute judgement. Is a tautology, the proof of the second clause is written directly and openly into the first. You might as well say where there can be no vegetables there can be no carrots. There is nothing to be learned by following up to answer why, if there can be no vegetables does that mean there can be no carrots. That's why real philosophers don't try to argue from tautologies, you get no insight into the world from them.

Aside from that issue. The conclusion is not a deductive product of the presented reasoning, and therefore it is not guranteed by that reasoning. It's either a non-sequitur if it means anything at all, or it is sort of just gibberish. Does it really mean anything? I tend to think it doesn't. What exactly is the quesiton "can we apply the full scope of morals to a divine being" actually asking?

Why wouldn't we expect a divine being who has the power to understand right from wrong to apply that understanding? There's nothing in this argument to explain that, it's an attempt at smoke and mirrors.

I'm not going to bother with substantive and absolute because it's obvious that they mean different things. I checked on conclusion and judgment, and this is what I found on WikiDiff:

As nouns the difference between conclusion and judgment is that conclusion is the end, finish, close or last part of something while judgment is the act of judging.

Based on the difference in meaning between the words used, the statement is not tautological. We can reasonably say:

We have not reached a substantive conclusion. Therefore, we cannot make an absolute judgment.

That is wise in my opinion. So, I wouldn't expect you to understand, Flash.

Ok... erm. Does that not break your presented argument though? You seem to be converting that cannot into a serruptitious ought-not. We cannot make an absolute judgment stops being a premise in a deductive argument and just becomes practical advice in a prudential one. If you are attempting to make a case for category mistake then you would need this to be deductive.

Your rewritten argument suddenly looks like this..
Where there can be no substantive epistemic conclusion, we cannot make an absolute judgment. That is because logical distinction requires sufficient information to make a conclusion. We lack sufficient information about divine ontology; therefore, logic cannot give us a conclusive (or absolute) answer. However, based on the information that we do have, speculation is plausible.

So, can we apply the full scope of human morals to a divine being? Speculatively, yes. But doing so conclusively is not currently plausible.

... no bueno. That's not deductively sound even if we overlook all other issues. The "currently" at the end sort of undercuts you as well, why is it there?

Flash stated: Why wouldn't we expect a divine being who has the power to understand right from wrong to apply that understanding?

My response: That's not what we're arguing, Flash.

Except what I wrote is sort of what it means to "apply the full scope of human morals" to any being, human or super-human isn't it? This super God guy can understand right and wrong can't he? He can live according to the requirements of rightness can he not? He is really very capable, or so I am told.

Flash, I don't see a single reason to change what I said in my previous post based on what you said above. Proverbially, I'm going to stick. Why would I twist based on the inane musings of a biblical fool? Please, leave me alone.

[FlashDangerpants]

I'm not going to bother with substantive and absolute because it's obvious that they mean different things. I checked on conclusion and judgment, and this is what I found on WikiDiff:



Based on the difference in meaning between the words used, the statement is not tautological. We can reasonably say:



That is wise in my opinion. So, I wouldn't expect you to understand, Flash.

Ok... erm. Does that not break your presented argument though? You seem to be converting that cannot into a serruptitious ought-not. We cannot make an absolute judgment stops being a premise in a deductive argument and just becomes practical advice in a prudential one. If you are attempting to make a case for category mistake then you would need this to be deductive.

Your rewritten argument suddenly looks like this..
Where there can be no substantive epistemic conclusion, we cannot make an absolute judgment. That is because logical distinction requires sufficient information to make a conclusion. We lack sufficient information about divine ontology; therefore, logic cannot give us a conclusive (or absolute) answer. However, based on the information that we do have, speculation is plausible.

So, can we apply the full scope of human morals to a divine being? Speculatively, yes. But doing so conclusively is not currently plausible.

... no bueno. That's not deductively sound even if we overlook all other issues. The "currently" at the end sort of undercuts you as well, why is it there?

Flash stated: Why wouldn't we expect a divine being who has the power to understand right from wrong to apply that understanding?

My response: That's not what we're arguing, Flash.

Except what I wrote is sort of what it means to "apply the full scope of human morals" to any being, human or super-human isn't it? This super God guy can understand right and wrong can't he? He can live according to the requirements of rightness can he not? He is really very capable, or so I am told.

Flash, I don't see a single reason to change what I said in my previous post based on what you said above. Proverbially, I'm going to stick. Why would I twist based on the inane musings of a biblical fool? Please, leave me alone.

Other than I wrote sound where I clearly should have written valid - an hilariously noob error on my part - you should probably note that I am the only person in this conversation who can reliably recognise whether arguments are deductively valid. Your argument is shit.

I really don't know what the term biblical fool is about, don't really care, but it's not relevant to the logic of the case I just made. You have repeatedly claimed that nobody addresses your arguments, but you are avoiding the counter when it is presented in this case by saying something about fools, in all others by just announcing that you paid AI friend agrees with you.

[FlashDangerpants]

Powerhouse was a good one though. This discussion has been largely shit, but at least we got that slice of fun.

[Fanman]

Ok... erm. Does that not break your presented argument though? You seem to be converting that cannot into a serruptitious ought-not. We cannot make an absolute judgment stops being a premise in a deductive argument and just becomes practical advice in a prudential one. If you are attempting to make a case for category mistake then you would need this to be deductive.

Your rewritten argument suddenly looks like this..
Where there can be no substantive epistemic conclusion, we cannot make an absolute judgment. That is because logical distinction requires sufficient information to make a conclusion. We lack sufficient information about divine ontology; therefore, logic cannot give us a conclusive (or absolute) answer. However, based on the information that we do have, speculation is plausible.

So, can we apply the full scope of human morals to a divine being? Speculatively, yes. But doing so conclusively is not currently plausible.

... no bueno. That's not deductively sound even if we overlook all other issues. The "currently" at the end sort of undercuts you as well, why is it there?


Except what I wrote is sort of what it means to "apply the full scope of human morals" to any being, human or super-human isn't it? This super God guy can understand right and wrong can't he? He can live according to the requirements of rightness can he not? He is really very capable, or so I am told.

Flash, I don't see a single reason to change what I said in my previous post based on what you said above. Proverbially, I'm going to stick. Why would I twist based on the inane musings of a biblical fool? Please, leave me alone.

Other than I wrote sound where I clearly should have written valid - an hilariously noob error on my part - you should probably note that I am the only person in this conversation who can reliably recognise whether arguments are deductively valid. Your argument is shit.

I really don't know what the term biblical fool is about, don't really care, but it's not relevant to the logic of the case I just made.

What?! What planet do you come from? You think you have credibility? Seriously, you accused me of boasting. By the way, that's hypocritical in my opinion. I'm sure you know what that is about, tough guy. But it's good, bro; your fantasies are starting to reveal themselves. It was only a matter of time. Show your true colours, man; let them shine. I'm sure they're beautiful.

[Fanman]

Powerhouse was a good one though. This discussion has been largely shit, but at least we got that slice of fun.

What do you know about power? You're an internet bully.