Moderators Bravus Posted January 8, 2013 Author Moderators Share Posted January 8, 2013 You've said a couple of times that your perspective can be tested. I'd like to hear more about that. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 The scary thing with those who claim that absolute morality Terrifying. Here is another very interesting example of the inconsistency of your worldview. You claim you do not accept absolute moral standards. But then you make judgements like this that are moral judgements appealing to an absolute moral standard. You see, if there are no absolute moral standards, there is no "right and wrong", there is no "scary thing", there is not "terrifying" behaviour. Everything just "is". So whilst you claim to reject absolute moral standards, you make "absolute moral judgements", which shows your mind does work on the principles of "absolute right and wrong". Which of couse is consistent with the Christian Worldview, but totally inconsistent with the worldview you argue... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 You've said a couple of times that your perspective can be tested. I'd like to hear more about that. Very simple, if it wasn't true, the universe couldn't be accounted for and couldn't exist. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 I better expand on that I suppose. :-) Whatever worldview can logically account for transcendental laws of logic, science and ethics, must be the correct worldview. :-) In other words, the worldview that can explain the concepts of "mind" and "matter" and all of its associated laws, giving a logical account of it, must be the correct worldview... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted January 8, 2013 Author Moderators Share Posted January 8, 2013 You really believe it's impossible to be scared without a universal framework of terror against which to compare the fear? Tell it to the small, squeaky, crunchy animals... I don't think they're doing that mental check in the shadow of the hawk. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 You really believe it's impossible to be scared without a universal framework of terror against which to compare the fear? Tell it to the small, squeaky, crunchy animals... I don't think they're doing that mental check in the shadow of the hawk. That wasn't the point we were discussing. You are denying absolute moral standards and then appealing to absolute moral standards. Which shows your actions do not follow your professed worldview... You do not practice what you preach as they say. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted January 9, 2013 Author Moderators Share Posted January 9, 2013 Nope. Give a single example in which I have appealed to absolute moral standards. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cricket Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Remember that one time... (LOL) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted January 9, 2013 Administrators Share Posted January 9, 2013 Originally Posted By: Twilight II What I am interested in though Bravus, is how you justify a bankrupt worldview that only allows for subjective morality. You may deny this, but you have offered no other alternative. You argue for subjective moral standards, but have seemed to fail to grasp that subjective moral standards can only be identified if there is an absolute moral standard to measure them against in the first place. So your own worldview fails the most basic tests of credibility... Yet you argue from that and claim the Christian Worldview is not correct. How can you make such claims when your own worldview lacks any credibility when it comes to accounting for morality? It's very difficult indeed to conduct a reasoned discussion with someone who simply ignores what I say and instead projects on to me views that I simply do not hold - and then expects me to defend those views. Please address the arguments I *am* making, not the ones you are having with yourself. I do not argue for subjective morality. I have said so clearly and repeatedly. I do argue against objective morality. Within your simple binary framework, where there are only two possibilities, you have decided that arguing against objective morality is the same thing as arguing for subjective morality, but it is not. What you tend to do is simple assume your own framework to be true, without making any arguments to support its truth, then judge and reject the arguments of others based on it. Or, even more precisely, fail to understand (or if you understand, to engage with) the views of others if they do not fit your framework, and reject different arguments that they were never making in the first place. I guess this is the 'meta' post - the discussion about the discussion. I'll get a coffee and make a more content-full post about intersubjective morality... the 'or...?' in the title of this thread. While on its face it may be a "meta" post, it really is relevant to the issue at hand, namely the very human ability (or lack thereof) to comprehend, interpret and accurately convey ideas communicated by another. The problem of projection, distortion, misrepresentation of another human's words is self-evident. Why do we assume we would do any better with words from God? Quote "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted January 9, 2013 Administrators Share Posted January 9, 2013 There are two uses of the word morality. 1. Peoples responses to a situation. 2. A standard of morality. What Bravus is using here is what is called a logical fallacy of equivocation. He is taking peoples responses to a situation and then trying to state that those responses themselve are a standard of morality. No. It is you who err. If I may, you are using what is best described as a logical fallacy of a false dichotomy. (In the list of possible fallacies there are probably at least a half dozen others that you have clearly demonstrated... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies ) By ignoring even the possibility of other alternatives than your own two you create a false dichotomy. In simply terms you are saying you are right and all other possibilities have to be wrong. Nobody can have a reasoned analysis of the topic unless everyone accepts the possibility that they themselves may be wrong. Otherwise it is the classic juvenile tug-of-war shouting match between two children arguing over a toy - "It's mine!" "No, it's mine!"... Maybe it doesn't belong to either of them at all or better yet, the playground morality is that they should share the toy. Quote "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Originally Posted By: Twilight II There are two uses of the word morality. 1. Peoples responses to a situation. 2. A standard of morality. What Bravus is using here is what is called a logical fallacy of equivocation. He is taking peoples responses to a situation and then trying to state that those responses themselve are a standard of morality. No. It is you who err. If I may, you are using what is best described as a logical fallacy of a false dichotomy. (In the list of possible fallacies there are at least there are probably at least a half dozen others that you have demonstrated... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies ) By ignoring even the possibility of other alternatives than you own two you create a false dichotomy. In simply terms you are saying you are right and all other possibilities have to be wrong. Nobody can have a reasoned analysis of the topic unless everyone accepts the possibility that they themselves may be wrong. Otherwise it is the classic juvenile tug-of-war shouting match between two children arguing over a toy - "It's mine!" "No, it's mine!"... Maybe it doesn't belong to either of them at all or better yet, the playground morality is that they should share the toy. Strawman... I have not ignored the possibility of alternatives, I have just pointed out that none have been presented. That the argument Bravus has presented has been one of equivocation on the word "morality". Therefore, he has not provided the third he has argued... As to the other generalised charges, you would have to specifically point them out, rather than arbitrarily claim I have engaged in them. That arbitrary generalised claim you have made is of itself logically absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Nope. Give a single example in which I have appealed to absolute moral standards. I already did... But don't worry, you will do the same again at some other point, and I will promise to point it out to you again then. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 While on its face it may be a "meta" post, it really is relevant to the issue at hand, namely the very human ability (or lack thereof) to comprehend, interpret and accurately convey ideas communicated by another. The problem of projection, distortion, misrepresentation of another humans words is self-evident. Why do we assume we would do any better with words from God? Again a logical fallacy of equivocation. 1. Men respond inconsistently to Gods Morality. 2. Therefore Gods Morality cannot be absolute. Very very basic logical fallacy here Tom... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted January 9, 2013 Administrators Share Posted January 9, 2013 And then of course there is the ultimate logical fallacy - Assuming oneself to be logical, or at the very least more so than others. Quote "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 And then of course there is the ultimate logical fallacy - Assuming oneself to be logical, or at the very least more so than others. Now you see, this is just pure ad hominem Tom. What is interesting however, is that to perform this judgement, you had to place yourself as the one in "authority", therefore assuming the position you condemn. Which of course is again inconsistent and arbitrary... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Thats quite a rabbit hole you are getting yourself into there Tom... And I am not sure, why you as a Christian, would want to reject the idea that God has the ability to reveal His absolute moral standards to humanity? Which your support of Bravus would seem to indicate... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 The use of Ad Hominem is usually the last resort of someone who has not been able to validate their own viewpoint logically, but wants to lash out rather than admit their own logical fallacies... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators debbym Posted January 9, 2013 Administrators Share Posted January 9, 2013 twilight you are standing on assertions based in faith. Assertions based in Faith cannot be proven by human logic, it is basically beyond logic, or above logic according to some views. Here is some rhetoric on conditional assertions. It is not logical to debate things that are above human logic. God is greater then all, his thoughts are described as being light years and light years above out thoughts. it is so human to put God in a box, even if it is the biggest box we can make. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/assertion/logic.html middle of the website conditional assertions. deb Quote deb Love awakens love. Let God be true and every man a liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil D Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Originally Posted By: Bravus Benefit is not absolute and it's often complicated - the benefit I gain might come at a cost to someone else, for example. Something like 'the greatest good for the greatest number', coupled with a level of altruism, would be the most beneficial - not because it's 'right', but because it *works*. Which is just another way of saying subjective morality. Who gets to decide who wins and who loses? If YOU are abiding in your morality, absolutely, is it absolute morality? does your 'absolute morality" allow for different interpretations or growth of understanding? Then how do you know that it is an 'absolute' morality as opposed to a subjective one? Quote Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.  George Bernard Shaw  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted January 9, 2013 Administrators Share Posted January 9, 2013 Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore And then of course there is the ultimate logical fallacy - Assuming oneself to be logical, or at the very least more so than others. Now you see, this is just pure ad hominem Tom. What is interesting however, is that to perform this judgement, you had to place yourself as the one in "authority", therefore assuming the position you condemn. Which of course is again inconsistent and arbitrary... No. Review definition of "ad hominem" and re-read what I said more carefully. That you take something personally does not make it ad hominem. I phrased it as non-personal and all inclusive. Just as one may wish to think of themselves as being objective, ones perception of ones own sense of logic is self-authenticating, which is an unreliable standard. It was not directed at you specifically. I worded it carefully and intentionally so as to not exclude myself. Whether you think it applies to you is up to you. Quote "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted January 9, 2013 Administrators Share Posted January 9, 2013 The use of Ad Hominem is usually the last resort of someone who has not been able to validate their own viewpoint logically, but wants to lash out rather than admit their own logical fallacies... And what do you admit to be your own logical fallacies? Moderator Note: After a quick review of this scrimmage, I am calling an audible. Enough of the talking about logical fallacies, etc. It is seriously close to derailing the whole point and substance of the topic. So let's all get back on track and stick to the substance of the topic at hand. Quote "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 twilight you are standing on assertions based in faith. Assertions based in Faith cannot be proven by human logic, it is basically beyond logic, or above logic according to some views. Here is some rhetoric on conditional assertions. It is not logical to debate things that are above human logic. God is greater then all, his thoughts are described as being light years and light years above out thoughts. it is so human to put God in a box, even if it is the biggest box we can make. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/assertion/logic.html middle of the website conditional assertions. deb No Deb, I am standing on a pre-suppositional argument, just like every other human on this planet. The difference is that this one passes logical tests, unlike all other worldviews... So I do not accept your claim on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Originally Posted By: Twilight II Which is just another way of saying subjective morality. Who gets to decide who wins and who loses? If YOU are abiding in your morality, absolutely, is it absolute morality? does your 'absolute morality" allow for different interpretations or growth of understanding? Then how do you know that it is an 'absolute' morality as opposed to a subjective one? I have already dealt with this point with Bravus. It is a common fallacy of equivocation, using one word with two meanings in the wrong way to suit the argument... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Originally Posted By: Twilight II Now you see, this is just pure ad hominem Tom. What is interesting however, is that to perform this judgement, you had to place yourself as the one in "authority", therefore assuming the position you condemn. Which of course is again inconsistent and arbitrary... Just as one may wish to think of themselves as being objective, ones perception of ones own sense of logic is self-authenticating, which is an unreliable standard. Actually the laws of logic are absolute and not dependent on any individual in any way as they are a reflection of Gods thoughts. Unless of course you are arguing that laws of logic like the law of non-contradiction are not absolute and are really only subjective in nature... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight II Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Originally Posted By: Twilight II The use of Ad Hominem is usually the last resort of someone who has not been able to validate their own viewpoint logically, but wants to lash out rather than admit their own logical fallacies... And what do you admit to be your own logical fallacies? Moderator Note: After a quick review of this scrimmage, I am calling an audible. Enough of the talking about logical fallacies, etc. It is seriously close to derailing the whole point and substance of the topic. So let's all get back on track and stick to the substance of the topic at hand. How can we discuss anything if we are not allowed to use logic or talk about logical fallacies? They are totally pertinent to the discussion... Of course if we have a moratorium on logic then: The squid back next for at been nine. ^^Therefore I am right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.