Conquer Club

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:

Neoteny wrote:
Over-discussed it isn't, and read it I have done.

Have you ever read The End of Faith by Samuel Harris? Excellent book. The part I really like is how he puts forth the possibility of an absolute moral code that's not grounded in an external all-powerful being. If you simply start from the assumption that things that cause more happiness than suffering are good, and things that cause more suffering (physical, emotional, phsychological, or anything) than happiness are bad, then potentially a sort of "science" of good and evil could be developed. The concept has some flaws, but I like the overall idea.

I think that by defining good and evil, he seems to be establishing himself as God.
As an atheist I don't see why you would accept that basic assumption.

So we're back with the assumption that good and evil can only come from God?

Well it has to come from somewhere, and for the sake of argument I'm semantically labeling that source as "God." Personally, I am unwilling to allow anything short of an all-powerful being define good and evil for me, which is why I'm curious why someone would allow some random guy to define it for him.

But according to what standards does god define what is good and evil? Is it just because he's god? In that case he's really just making it up as he likes. And if he uses some sort of criteria to define it he's not needed to define what is good and evil, because then there's nothing to say that we can't have access to those criteria and work it out on our own.

MeDeFe wrote:But according to what standards does god define what is good and evil? Is it just because he's god? In that case he's really just making it up as he likes. And if he uses some sort of criteria to define it he's not needed to define what is good and evil, because then there's nothing to say that we can't have access to those criteria and work it out on our own.

If the source of morality is "God" as I am familiar with him, then I''d have to say he defines good and evil using his own nature as the criteria. God is. The "I am." Before the Universe, God was all that there was. As such, God's nature governs morality because God is all-powerful.

Which is why I would only accept definitions of good and evil to come from the all-powerful being who created the universe. To have some guy simply "assume" what good and evil is strikes me as absurd. He claims to be making a proof for absolute morality in the absence of a God. That's absolutely ridiculous, because he begins his proof by "assuming" the nature of good and evil. So to prove absolute morality he's assuming absolute morality.

Snorri1234 wrote:So we're back with the assumption that good and evil can only come from God?

I think that would be wrong to assert. It would be better to assert that in the end good and evil are postulates, we can "assume" them but we cannot logically derive them in a way that we can prove. Just like the "parallel postulate" it's a wonderful tool for the here and now which may not be true in all possible cases. (Like non ecludian geometry.)

The best idea of "good"/"evil" that I've seen came from a Dragon magazine article back when the 2nd Edition of AD&D by TSR was still being played. (For those not familiar with gaming D&D is now in 4th edition and is owned by Wizards of the Coast - WoTC.)

Evil was defined as the persuit of the goals of self in opposition to the goals of others.
Good was defined as the persuit of the goals of others in opposition to the goals of self.

Thus happiness would be seen as a "goal" but not the only goal.

You don't really need a god to define this but there is no force other than just assumption. In one sense morality isn't really a "science." It's more of an art.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:If the source of morality is "God" as I am familiar with him, then I''d have to say he defines good and evil using his own nature as the criteria. God is. The "I am." Before the Universe, God was all that there was. As such, God's nature governs morality because God is all-powerful.

Which is why I would only accept definitions of good and evil to come from the all-powerful being who created the universe. To have some guy simply "assume" what good and evil is strikes me as absurd. He claims to be making a proof for absolute morality in the absence of a God. That's absolutely ridiculous, because he begins his proof by "assuming" the nature of good and evil. So to prove absolute morality he's assuming absolute morality.

So god makes it up as he likes it, got it.

For your second point, it only seems presumptuous and absurd to you because you are steeped in the belief that the concepts of "good" and "evil" stem from god. What the guy is really doing is applying two existing labels to two ideas that bear some resemblance to what is usually meant by those labels.
How's that absurd?

tzor wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:So we're back with the assumption that good and evil can only come from God?

I think that would be wrong to assert. It would be better to assert that in the end good and evil are postulates, we can "assume" them but we cannot logically derive them in a way that we can prove.

Well I can digg that.

You don't really need a god to define this but there is no force other than just assumption. In one sense morality isn't really a "science." It's more of an art.

Interresting position. You might have a point in saying that indeed God would be the only one able to define good and evil as humans are to flawed for that, but without god good and evil would still exist we just wouldn't be able to know them for sure.

ugh... I explained that whole thing horribly, I can see. I need to go to school now, but what I can do is recommend the book, "the end of faith" by samuel harris. great book, for believers and athiests alike. I read it once when I was a die-hard catholic, and fount it interesting and not too offensive, and I read it again recently and love it. Harris is a very reasonable man, and I think his ideas are hard for anyone else to express. Read the chapter "A science of good and evil", if nothing else.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:

Neoteny wrote:
Over-discussed it isn't, and read it I have done.

Have you ever read The End of Faith by Samuel Harris? Excellent book. The part I really like is how he puts forth the possibility of an absolute moral code that's not grounded in an external all-powerful being. If you simply start from the assumption that things that cause more happiness than suffering are good, and things that cause more suffering (physical, emotional, phsychological, or anything) than happiness are bad, then potentially a sort of "science" of good and evil could be developed. The concept has some flaws, but I like the overall idea.

I think that by defining good and evil, he seems to be establishing himself as God.

As an atheist I don't see why you would accept that basic assumption.

So we're back with the assumption that good and evil can only come from God?

Well it has to come from somewhere, and for the sake of argument I'm semantically labeling that source as "God." Personally, I am unwilling to allow anything short of an all-powerful being define good and evil for me, which is why I'm curious why someone would allow some random guy to define it for him.

Well, I absolutely do believe in God, but the answer to your question is NO.

Morality doesn't have to come from God or from a "spirit" or "higher power". In athiestic terms, morality is what benefits either society as a whole or the individual. Usually, the former.

Athiests come at this through logic, more or less "within themselves". Religions teach us to look "outside"/"apart from" ourselves (even when God is to be found inside us, God is still separate and therefore in this sense "outside") ... though many religions teach people to compare this to what they "feel" or "know" inside.

I don't believe there's a higher power (logic), but I really hope/wish there was...

It's possible that a technologically advanced civilization or race from beyond our our solar system that could be akin to what we call God, but other than that, God's existance is fundamentally impossible..I suppose no one may share my same ratiocination, but that's my exegesis of religion I guess hehe.

Circular argument:
(i) There is good and there is evil.
(ii) Man cannot define what is good and evil.
(iii) Only God can define good and evil.
(iv) Therefore there is a god , see(1) above

I prefer...(posts and then goes to look up exact phrase)

"(a + b to the power of n)/n + x, donc dieu existe".

Just because we as human beings can't define it in absolute terms, doesn't mean it doesn't exist in of itself.

Gravity existed before we could quantify and measure it, but that doesn't mean we had to leave it at, "we only fall to the ground because God wants us to". Whether or not you believe in the existence of God, we still went on to quantify, measure, and analyze gravity.

We might be able to do the same thing with "good" and "evil". Read the book.

(We might, if a lot of thought and time is dedicated to the matter over decades, be able to start to do the same thing with "good" and "evil". Read the book anyway.)

jonesthecurl wrote:Circular argument:
(i) There is good and there is evil.
(ii) Man cannot define what is good and evil.
(iii) Only God can define good and evil.
(iv) Therefore there is a god , see(1) above

I prefer...(posts and then goes to look up exact phrase)

If YOU can't define something, how does that constitute proof of god? I'm pretty sure that just because everyone has their own ideas of good and evil, doesn't make it undefineable.

And doesn't the fact that you know that it exists(good & evil) mean that you CAN define it?
Otherwise we would have no idea what the F you just said????

Errr......... wait......... you were being sarcastic? I couldn't tell.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Circular argument:
(i) There is good and there is evil.
(ii) Man cannot define what is good and evil.
(iii) Only God can define good and evil.
(iv) Therefore there is a god , see(1) above

I prefer...(posts and then goes to look up exact phrase)

If YOU can't define something, how does that constitute proof of god? I'm pretty sure that just because everyone has their own ideas of good and evil, doesn't make it undefineable.

And doesn't the fact that you know that it exists(good & evil) mean that you CAN define it?
Otherwise we would have no idea what the F you just said????

Errr......... wait......... you were being sarcastic? I couldn't tell.

not sarcastic exactly, just summing up the arguments of those I don't agree with.
Now, duck please: here comes some sarcasm:
It was really really hard to understand that this was not my own opinion. I really really didn't point that out by heading the post "circular argument"

...and then adding the "donc dieu existe" post - go take a google.

My bad. I don't speak Korean. I apologize.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:

Neoteny wrote:
Over-discussed it isn't, and read it I have done.

Have you ever read The End of Faith by Samuel Harris? Excellent book. The part I really like is how he puts forth the possibility of an absolute moral code that's not grounded in an external all-powerful being. If you simply start from the assumption that things that cause more happiness than suffering are good, and things that cause more suffering (physical, emotional, phsychological, or anything) than happiness are bad, then potentially a sort of "science" of good and evil could be developed. The concept has some flaws, but I like the overall idea.

I think that by defining good and evil, he seems to be establishing himself as God.

As an atheist I don't see why you would accept that basic assumption.

So we're back with the assumption that good and evil can only come from God?

Well it has to come from somewhere, and for the sake of argument I'm semantically labeling that source as "God." Personally, I am unwilling to allow anything short of an all-powerful being define good and evil for me, which is why I'm curious why someone would allow some random guy to define it for him.

But ' God ' is also a random concept and you seem happy to go with that.

Juan_Bottom wrote:My bad. I don't speak Korean. I apologize.