As you can see above, you change the question in your last post, or else you conflate justification and proof, which a reasonable fellow like you would want pointed out to him, yes?
Justification and proof are two distinct epistemic categories. Outside of mathematics and logic, there's nothing that is proved in the strict sense. You can't prove to me that you exist outside my mind, and I can't prove that you exist outside my mind. This is Philosophy 101. The Problem of Other Minds.
So it can't be proof of anything you're asking for, being the reasonable fellow that you are. For even science falls short of proof in everything it "discovers."
So let's be clear about this. You are asking for a justification. You are asking how belief in God the Lawgiver is justified, yes?
Are we on the same page?
It is conflating, sure as God made little green apples.
It is conflating, sure as God made little green apples.
I didn't sneer about morality and atheism; I snorted.
Morality and atheism are a pig in a poke.
Morality and theism are the Real Deal.
We're just not on the same page, my good fellow. Too bad.
And that is the Epilogue.
Really? And what is that? Do tell.
That's a good question. The universe offers no such explanation. Without God as a premise, secular morality is a hopeless endeavor.
What is this "same thing" I'm doing that I snorted at atheists about?
Really? And what is that? Do tell.
Here are my snorts:
What is this "same thing" I'm doing that I snorted at atheists about?
Well, first off, I cannot read your first charge. I think you mean that I cannot show that secular morality is a hopeless endeavor.
Well, first off, I cannot read your first charge. I think you mean that I cannot show that secular morality is a hopeless endeavor.
But that's also your second charge.
If that's what you mean, then first of all, I already "showed" you why it's hopeless: one cannot derive ought from is.
And second, how is my showing or not showing anything the same thing I snorted at atheism about?
I snorted at atheism for its hopelessness as regards morality.
You're not being clear, or not being fair-minded, I'm not sure which.
I offered to justify belief in God the lawgiver, and you called "end of story" because you wanted proof of something or other and I reminded you that there's no proof that anything exists but a single mind.
I'm starting to get an inkling that you're not a serious and reasonable interlocutor, my friend -- that, as that other member posted who's known you for years, you're only posting on this topic to put down others. Not to discuss. Tsk, tsk.
You're flailing, my friend.
You're flailing, my friend.
You've switched the terms of discussion repeatedly in the course of a dozen posts, while never once answering a question yourself or acknowledging any point made in answer to you.
Seems you're not listening, or not thinking, or both.
Just look at this latest post of yours -- here you challenge me to show:
1. that "absolute morality" exists, and
2. that there exists a non-secular basis for morality
And carrying over the earlier question:
3. that secular morality is a hopeless endeavor.
So. Where are we?
I've already answered #3 twice over, and #2 is answered by #1, and #1 is answered by Christianity, to name only one religion.
Now it's high time you anted up.
Show me -- you're favorite expression -- show me what basis there is for secular morality.
Dollars to donuts you evade my question!
Now it's high time you anted up.
Show me -- you're favorite expression -- show me what basis there is for secular morality.
Dollars to donuts you evade my question!
The basis of which is our evolved altruism.
I have been on forums for years and not once has anyone ever managed to back up a claim of an absolute objective morality. Lots of people seem to 'know' it but, they can't show it.
And the basis for absolute morality is a justified belief in a cosmic warranty for moral principles.
And the basis for absolute morality is a justified belief in a cosmic warranty for moral principles.
There! Now we have a clear starting point for our differing points of view.
My argument is that upon the secular basis you subscribe to, morality has no justified claim to universality, whereas upon the cosmic basis, universality is justified.
With these points in mind we may carry on, as long as we both proceed in good faith.
Can you show that your belief that "the basis for secular morality is enlightened self interest, and also empathy and sympathy" is justified?
If you can, please do so forthwith. If you can't, why ask for same from others?
Can you show that your belief that "the basis for secular morality is enlightened self interest, and also empathy and sympathy" is justified?
If you can, please do so forthwith. If you can't, why ask for same from others?
And if you can and do, then I'll do same, as offered a day ago.
Ah, when people try to shift the burden and get wrecked even without having to be told about the fallacy they have committed.
You're on shaky ground here, RAMOSS. That apes or any other animals are guided by what we call morality is at best highly speculative science, and at worst mere anthropomorphism.
You're on shaky ground here, RAMOSS. That apes or any other animals are guided by what we call morality is at best highly speculative science, and at worst mere anthropomorphism.
The fallacy is on the other foot, WR.