Earlier in the thread I refereanced that there appears to be two different kinds of moral decrees. Granted that was directed at future.Originally Posted by DIO
The first is like the command to not eat the forbiden fruit, which I concieded could be different the next day, but the context would have changed.
The second is more elemental, such as the driving morality which makes it good for Man to obey God and not eat the fruit.
It is in regards to the second that our conversation has taken place, or ... that it would apply. Though I would say that it would still apply to the former in that God could not issue any moral statement that violated any of the aspects of his nature.
The first just allows for multiple consistent statements. So god could command a person to walk down the street, and he would have a duty to obey.
So his "say so" is still very relevant in some aspects.
Of course that is not my argument. My argument is grounded in the validity of the statements, not in the person who is saying them.Originally Posted by DIO
I have not once appealed to my own authority or my own perception as the thing which makes the claims valid.
This mistakes the truth claims for our access to them. Sure we all experience the universe with the same tools.Originally Posted by DIO
That doesn't make all claims equally valid, or equal in nature. That is a categorical error.
Otherwise I can simply reply "that is just your opinion that it's just my opinion", and we get nowhere and say nothing.
I am not going to contend with the merits, I do however object that they are similar claims.Originally Posted by DIO
In the end, one is the claim about the objective, and the other is a claim about the subjective.
Even granting the reasonableness of the harm pricniple it is not logically possible for it to establish duties in anyone.
This is the good/ough fallacy.
Just because somethng is good, doesn't mean you ouht to do it. It is good for you to be a Dr, but you dont have a moral obligation to become a Dr.
See my conflicting feelings on the level to push this issue.
Well, I have heard of some, but I wasn't aware that it would put atheists on the same footing as theists, because most atheists do not appeal to an objective moral standard.Originally Posted by DIO
I honestly wasn't aware that you were appealing to an objective morality of your own.
If it is indeed an objective claim, as the theist makes, then then the objection would be to their equivilance of plausibility and expanitory power.
Which is a merit argument. As your not interested in that.....
It would be necissary for you to defend it, if you are going to forward the claim that they are both on the same footing, because that requires them to be equally plausible.
Again, a merit issue.
Am I to ignore the claim then? or challenge you to support if you are going to contiue to make it?
I mean, i don't want to force you into a debate your not interested in, however you shouldn't get to make claims that you are not going to support.
... i'm conflicted.
Should we just leave it at your opinion is noted?
I'm not sure why, as there is no distinction between Gods goodness and his Justice, they are both different aspects of his nature.Originally Posted by DIO
You simply rejected the former as a valid answer, and accepted the later. ..but they are essentially the same, as both are aspects of God.
That is what it means to be logically contrary to God, which is my original answer.
Look, we shouldn't bicker and argue about who killed who, this is supposed to be a happy time. I just don't want to be accused of not offering an answer, when I earnestly feel that I did, and spent a lot of time attempting to communicate it to you.
Saying an answer is unacceptable is not the same as not offering an answer.
I would say that given the pointing to of gods goodness in relation to Gods commands, is a common defense of DCT.Originally Posted by DIO
I don't think it is reasonable to conclude that Gods commands become irrelevant, or that he doesn't make them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBvi_auKkaI
Bookmarks