Philosophy Now Forum

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 12:43 pm I am curious to know if you’ve studied much natural history? Is your view of nature romantic?

[...]

Do you have a (non-romantic) contrary argument?

I'd be happy to answer your questions - and I have compelling answers - but just as to you...

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 12:43 pm This is not an unimportant issue

...getting closure on our prior misunderstanding is not unimportant to me, so, if you would be kind enough to first respond to this question...

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 6:05 am Does that seem plausible and fair?

...with one of the following two options, or an alternative one of your choosing if you prefer to be non-binary (which, in 2023, does seem to be a valid choice), then it would be much appreciated:

Yes sir, let's move on.
No bro, we need to hash this out some more.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 12:35 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 11:23 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 11:13 pm
IC:- "If human beings are, as the secular accounts hold, nothing but a kind of animal or material being like any other, then there's no good or evil in anything they do. There's only whatever they do, according to their own natures.

What do we mean, then, when we call some of what they do "evil"?"

Look, IC is, in my view, entirely correct here. No God means no objective morality.

No he's not, he and you are entirely incorrect. Just because atheists consider we are no other than animals with more intelligence - not created by an almighty - does not mean that humans, having such intelligence and social structures cannot be objective about moral code, and define what we consider is or is not evil.

Now that's entertainment!!!

NOTE to others:

Notice how iambiguous hasn't a leg to stand on with his agreeing with IC (that whether God exists or not makes a difference with respect to morality)

..my little quest of your ion isn't going away.

IC, there is no theodicy "problem". A theodicy is a solution to the problem (of evil).

Nor did this discussion of evil begin in the context of any problem being raised that explicitly involved or implied the need for a theodicy. It began with AJ's mention of Satan in the context of the Catholic Mass, which prompted hq to inquire into which of two possible viewpoints on human evil applied.

-

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 5:52 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 12:35 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 11:23 pm

No he's not, he and you are entirely incorrect. Just because atheists consider we are no other than animals with more intelligence - not created by an almighty - does not mean that humans, having such intelligence and social structures cannot be objective about moral code, and define what we consider is or is not evil.

Now that's entertainment!!!

Notice how iambiguous hasn't a leg to stand on with his agreeing with IC (that whether God exists or not makes a difference with respect to morality)

..my little quest of your ion isn't going away.

I QUEST_ION every_thing. Currently - it's U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9v-wKICCN8

Oops, wrong channel.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 4:45 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 2:46 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 1:03 am No one "loves" the theodicy problem.

It's an "invented" problem...

Of course, the only people who "invented" it were the secular skeptics who advanced the theodicy argument in the first place, and who seek to keep it viable.

But since they can't make it rationalize with their own worldview, they've got a serious logical problem.

No idea who advanced the theodicy argument without calling it that, when or by whom since the argument dates back centuries in various forms when "secular skeptics" weren't exactly in vogue. Also, have no idea why it would specifically have been advanced by secular skeptics in the first place knowing it would be impossible to "rationalize" within their worldview. I mean, where's the logic here? It doesn't add up. For one thing, theodicy requires a belief in god for its arguments to have any relevance which can be theologically or philosophically discussed in every minute esoteric detail on a forever basis. In what way would this have anything to do within a secular context?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 12:35 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 11:23 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 11:13 pm
IC:- "If human beings are, as the secular accounts hold, nothing but a kind of animal or material being like any other, then there's no good or evil in anything they do. There's only whatever they do, according to their own natures.

What do we mean, then, when we call some of what they do "evil"?"

Look, IC is, in my view, entirely correct here. No God means no objective morality.

No he's not, he and you are entirely incorrect. Just because atheists consider we are no other than animals with more intelligence - not created by an almighty - does not mean that humans, having such intelligence and social structures cannot be objective about moral code, and define what we consider is or is not evil.

Now that's entertainment!!!

Since the English, many of whom I respect in this field of philosophy are yawning their way out of bed.

Can any of you have the decency to point out where in my statement above I am in some way of flawed logic? Otherwise, at least confirm I have made a reasonable statement that should not be mocked as mere entertainment?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 9:30 am Since the English, many of whom I respect in this field of philosophy are yawning their way out of bed.

Can any of you have the decency to point out where in my statement above I am in some way of flawed logic? Otherwise, at least confirm I have made a reasonable statement that should not be mocked as mere entertainment?

Don't expect direct engagement with iambiguous, his theoretical techniques have been catalogued (by at least two different people) and very rarely is he capable of just honestly trading ideas and talking about them.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 9:30 am Just because atheists consider we are no other than animals with more intelligence - not created by an almighty - does not mean that humans, having such intelligence and social structures cannot be objective about moral code, and define what we consider is or is not evil.

Plenty of atheists agree with you!

I'm not one of them, I'm... well, I'm a fence sitter at the moment in regards to objective morality. I find myself swaying to one side or the other often.

Thanks Jesus. (the objective bit - iambiguous brought up - but morality generally - makes no difference God or no God)

He's a mocking twat.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 4:40 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 2:35 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 2:21 am Actually, it's a favourite of the skeptical set. Of all the arguments trotted out to try to fend off the knowledge of God, it's always among them, you'll find.

There is no "knowledge of God" to "fend off"! ...

Well, we'll see.

Yeah. Good luck. Hopefully, the Hebrew God won't send you to hell for alienating people from your Christianity any more than I'll get sent to hell for being skeptical. Apparently, it's just not an option for you to accept that God is as here for everyone else as much as s/he is for you.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 11:37 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 4:40 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 2:35 am
There is no "knowledge of God" to "fend off"! ...

Well, we'll see.

Yeah. Good luck. Hopefully, the Hebrew God won't send you to hell for alienating people from your Christianity any more than I'll get sent to hell for being skeptical. Apparently, it's just not an option for you to accept that God is as here for everyone else as much as s/he is for you.

Apparently the Hebrew God makes a nice cup of tea.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 5:20 am

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 12:43 pm I am curious to know if you’ve studied much natural history? Is your view of nature romantic?

[...]

Do you have a (non-romantic) contrary argument?

I'd be happy to answer your questions - and I have compelling answers - but just as to you...

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 12:43 pm This is not an unimportant issue

...getting closure on our prior misunderstanding is not unimportant to me, so, if you would be kind enough to first respond to this question...

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 6:05 am Does that seem plausible and fair?

...with one of the following two options, or an alternative one of your choosing if you prefer to be non-binary (which, in 2023, does seem to be a valid choice), then it would be much appreciated:

Yes sir, let's move on.
No bro, we need to hash this out some more.

I read this again:

By that I mean that I think that by "the actual bleeping truth" you misunderstood me as referring merely to descriptive truth, whereas I was actually referring to both descriptive and prescriptive (i.e., moral) truth.

I understood you as feeling frustrated that “the real snd actual truth” about what is moral and immoral (but there must be much much more, no?) is not clearly and definitively (objectively) known. Provable. Demonstrable.

I associate the phrase “the bleeping” or “the bloody truth” with many views and perceptions you have shared in the past. I associate your will (to define things in certain ways — for example that it is ethically problematic to snip tea leaves from a tea tree — as indicating a man in a frustrating, and unsolvable, personal situation.

As you may remember I once cajoled you that with your philosophy you chose such thorough renunciation that you became thoroughly tied up and unable to act — whereas in my philosophy I tended to see man as caught in a conundrum and yet justifying action (colonialism for example) with self-deceptive arguments.

I write here (selfishly if you wish) to clarify my own views and choices. I note a great deal of “noise” here (over the last pages for example) that does not get to an actionable core, but it is that core that interests me.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 12:35 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 11:23 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 11:13 pm
IC:- "If human beings are, as the secular accounts hold, nothing but a kind of animal or material being like any other, then there's no good or evil in anything they do. There's only whatever they do, according to their own natures.

What do we mean, then, when we call some of what they do "evil"?"

Look, IC is, in my view, entirely correct here. No God means no objective morality.

No he's not, he and you are entirely incorrect. Just because atheists consider we are no other than animals with more intelligence - not created by an almighty - does not mean that humans, having such intelligence and social structures cannot be objective about moral code, and define what we consider is or is not evil.

Now that's entertainment!!!

I can be a tad persistent, what was entertaining?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 9:33 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 9:30 am Just because atheists consider we are no other than animals with more intelligence - not created by an almighty - does not mean that humans, having such intelligence and social structures cannot be objective about moral code, and define what we consider is or is not evil.

Plenty of atheists agree with you!

I'm not one of them, I'm... well, I'm a fence sitter at the moment in regards to objective morality. I find myself swaying to one side or the other often.

Yes, as b4 the 'objective' bit attribute to iambiguous.

..what about morality, if God exists or doesn't - our morality remains the same, no?

You state U R on the fence (not good for the bollocks btw, let me help you as the good Christian that I am ).