my version of the classic moral argument

Pixie has a major misconception about the version if thenirakargunet tahtI use. due to the nature of certain arguments this became important in several ways in discussision with Pixie. The Major point is he doens't understand which is my moral argument. He has the wrong one conquenctly he has not disproved mine.

Joe: you must answer his idea of morality as just one example, science cannot tell us that,

Pix:
If he can prove his idea of morality is true, then I will concede the point. But not until then.

Direct experience and Truth
By Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) - September 14, 2020
Dialouge betwe

comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.gblogID=6363362&postID=2330342897145644583&isPopup=true

Pixie says:
Of course the reality is that what you have is a circular argument.

1. There are objective moral truths
2. Therefore God exists
3. Therefore there are objective moral truths

You moral argument is sets 1 and 2. Your argument here is 2 and 3. As long as you keep them on separate pages, no one will notice they are circular, right? That is not my argument that's the verson I reject to propopse my own.


That is not my moral argument, That is below,it is not cirular, it baseically says morality is axiomatic for humans and God is the only really rationaljustification for a moral sytem. But it is not a proof but it does offer a reason to believe,that is knowledge science can't give us.

MONDAY, JUNE 13, 2016
This is my own version of the classic moral argument that I promised as part 3 in my answer to Counter Apologist.[1][2] This version I believe avoids all the pit falls or most of them that his arguments were about. The first and most basic pitfall is that it does not seek to prove the existence of God. So we don't have to worry about begging the question or assuming God because all that matters is that God is the best source of Grounding warrants believe it does not have to prove it (not proof but reason to believe).

Argument: (1) Humans are possessed of moral motions which we find to be real and important. We cannot deny the senes of moral outrage over "evil" or the sense that one "ought" to do that which we find "good."

(2) Such moral motions can be understood as grounded in terms of behavior in our genetic endowment, but no explanation can tell us why we find them moral or how to justify them as "ought's."

(3) Genetic explanations only provide an understanding of behavior, they do not offer the basis of a moral dimension (trying to turn "is" into "ought").

(4) Social contract theory offers only relativism that can be changed or ignored in the shifting sands of social necessity and politics (this is both a practical issue and a matter meta ethical theory).

(5) matters of feeling are merely matters of taste and should be ignored as subjective (the atheist dread of the subjective).

(6) God is possessed of a loving nature that makes the good a matter of rationale on the part of the creator and his status as creator means he is more than qualified to be judge to translate te good into moral values.

(7) Therefore, God is the only source of grounding which works as a regulative concept for our moral axioms and at the same time actually explains the deep seated nature of moral motions. Universal Moral Law.

The Apostle Paul tells us that there is a universal moral law written upon the human heart (Rm 2:6-14). We can see evidence of this universal law throughout the world. Now social science is quick to tell us that moral codes of all cultures differ throughout the world; some are so drastically different as to allow for multiple mirages, in some cultures gambling and even cheating each other are expected, and in a few cultures there doesn't seem to be any notion of right and wrong. But we shouldn't expect that all the moral codes of the world would be uniform just because there is a moral law. The evidence of a universal law is not seen in structured belief systems but in the humanity of humans. People in all cultures have concepts of right and wrong, even though they may attach different kinds of significance to them. There are a few cultures that are actually pathological examples, but in the main most people are capable of being good, exhibit a basic human compassion, and feel moral outrage at cruelty and injustice.

It is this sense of moral outrage and the ability to empathize and to feel compassion that marks the moral law best of all. In Nicaragua in the 1980s members of the contra army fighting the Sandinistas conducted a campaign of terror to prevent the people from supporting the revolutionary government. To enforce a sense of Terror they cut off the heads of little girls and put them on polls for all to see (see Noam Chomsky Turning The Tide...Chomsky's example comes from United Nations Human Rights Report in 1984). [3]

The modern equivalent is Isis. People are also repulsed their doings. There is something about this act, regardless of our political affiliations which fills us with anger and revulsion; we want to say it is evil.

Even those who believe that we must move beyond good and evil are hard pressed not to admit this sense of outrage and revulsion, yet if they had their way we would not be able to express anything more than a matter of taste about this incident for nothing is truly evil if there is no universal moral law. Moreover, the nature of the moral universe is such that we are capable of elevating basic moral motions to the level of ethical thinking. We understand by this that we must deliberate about moral conditions and to do that we must have free moral agency, a sense of the meaning of duty and obligation, and a notion of grounding for moral axioms. All of these things are without foundation in the relativist scheme but they are part and parcel of what ethical thinking is about.

Before trying to link the universal moral law to the existence of God we must first explore the objections to it.

PIT 1:As to the a pitfall the argument avoids, the first is the question begging nature of Craig's argument (the one attacked by the CAa0 and also the problematic nature of the objective argument.

Craig's argument is: (1) if God exists, there are objective moral values

(2) there are objective moral values

(3) therefore God exists.

(as stated by CA in part 1. The problem here is that all the atheist has to do is say there are no objective values and then the apologist would have to prove there are. But he can't prove that by appealing to God because it's supposed to prove the existence of God. My argument works in reverse. Rather than assert something I can't prove and hope they agree I argue that I don't; need to pro e iot because I', not arguing it, I didn't say objective morality proves God I said God is the best explanation for our aumption that morality is valid and meaningful. I do believe moral values are objective but rather than assert that I argue that God is the best explanation and that with God as grounding we have a good reason to accept the validity of objective values. It's not circular because I don't claim to prove the existence of God. Like Kant I argue that God is necessary as a regulative principle for ethical axioms. I think tye reason he accepts te premise that moral as values exist is because he thinks he can assure them for atheism with moral realisms. PIT 2: CA's "GMO." The Grand metaphysical Object. This he reads into theistic morality as an object of belief. He asserts that all theists think of morality as this metaphysical stuff that can't be understood but functions as the only valid object of ethical thinking. In my first response I dispelled this myth and explained how it's not true It's not true of any moral argument except the most amateurish perhaps.

I think my argument has a built in fail safe against it by appealing to God's loving nature rather than any sort of mystical holiness. Don't get me wrong I am all for mystical holiness. I just don't think we need to appeal to it to make the moral argument work (rom 6-7)..

PIT 3:He doesn't dispute that issue of it (the counter apologist-) He faults apologists for not being able to produce real reasons for objective moral values. He says those can work as well for atheism because they don't have to come from God, but apologists can't prove them. Apologists will often observe that life is unlivable without such moral values but that is not proof they exist. "Plus, such an appeal can do as much work for a moral system that is compatible with atheism."

pit 4 MorL realism FAILS. I think I gave it to moral realism pretty well in part 1. What he tries to stick theist ethicists with in his post he actually is stuck with in moral realism. rather than a big supernatural "object" of goodness he has moral values grounded in nothing. like presupositionaioists they try to bully them into place as "realism," Christian moral values are truly grounded in reason.


Notes

[1] Joseph Hinman, "The Counter Apologist's Attack on The Moral Argument," (part 2) Metacrock's Blog (Sunday, June 05, 2016)
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-counter-apologoists-attack-on-moral.html Ibid. part 1 May 29,2016,

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-counter-apologiost-attacks-moral.html

[2] The Counter Apologiost, "A much longer Counter to the Moral Argument." The Counter Apologist Blog. (May 13, 2016) URL:

https://counterapologist.blogspot.com/2016/05/note-this-is-much-longer-version-of-my.html?showComment=1464336604963#c3125601153601767783 accessed 5/28/2016

[3] Noam Chomsky, Turning the Tide:U.S. Intervention in Central America, South End Press; First Edition edition (July 1, 1999)


Comments

Anonymous said…
To put this in context, you claimed your moral argument provides ab example of a moral truth that has been proved (or at least shown to be reliable). I see no attempt to do that in your argument above.

Joe: That is not my moral argument, That is below,it is not cirular,

I did not say your moral argument was circular. I said using it to support your claim that a moral truth has been proved is circular.

Joe: it baseically says morality is axiomatic for humans and God is the only really rationaljustification for a moral sytem.

Here is what I said is circular:

1. There are objective moral truths
2. Therefore God exists
3. Therefore there are objective moral truths

Your moral argument is just 1 and 2. Here it is with your wording:

1. "morality is axiomatic for humans"
2. "God is the only really rationaljustification for a moral sytem"

I do not think you have addresses the issue from the original discussion at all.

Pix
Anonymous said…
I will go into more detail about your present argument.

Joe: (1) Humans are possessed of moral motions which we find to be real and important. We cannot deny the senes of moral outrage over "evil" or the sense that one "ought" to do that which we find "good."

Agreed. But it must be noted that morality is not universal. We feel a sense of outrage when an atrocity is committed, but presumably the perpetrators do not.

Joe: (2) Such moral motions can be understood as grounded in terms of behavior in our genetic endowment, but no explanation can tell us why we find them moral or how to justify them as "ought's."

I would say they are cultural or social, rather than genetic. They are rules mankind has developed to allow him to work in a community. We find them moral because our culture has conditioned us to, and that works because moral cultures survive better than amoral cultures (by amoral culture I mean one where individuals are free to steal and murder within the community).

Joe: (3) Genetic explanations only provide an understanding of behavior, they do not offer the basis of a moral dimension (trying to turn "is" into "ought").

Why should we suppose there is one? Sure, it would be nice to think there is, but that does not make it so.

Joe: (4) Social contract theory offers only relativism that can be changed or ignored in the shifting sands of social necessity and politics (this is both a practical issue and a matter meta ethical theory).

That does not make it wrong. Indeed, given the way morals change (eg with regards to slavery), a theory that allows for changing morality is preferable to one that does not.

Joe: (5) matters of feeling are merely matters of taste and should be ignored as subjective...

We are talking specifically about feelings! Your very first point was "We cannot deny the senes of moral outrage..."

Joe: (6) God is possessed of a loving nature that makes the good a matter of rationale on the part of the creator and his status as creator means he is more than qualified to be judge to translate te good into moral values.

Is this a premise or a conclusion? Do you know the difference? Here is a link that may help.
https://www.uky.edu/~rosdatte/phi120/lesson1a.htm

If you think this is a premise, then your argument is circular, it is based on the premise that God exists.

If you think it is a conclusion, can you explain how it follows from the previous 1 to 5, none of which mention God?

Pix
Anonymous said…
More on 6.

Joe: (6) God is possessed of a loving nature that makes the good a matter of rationale on the part of the creator and his status as creator means he is more than qualified to be judge to translate te good into moral values.

You seem to be saying God is better qualified to decide what is right or wrong. For example, murder is wrong, and as God possesses a loving nature and is the creator, he is going to know that better than anyone else, and is best positioned to let us know. That implies that murder is wrong whether God exists or not.

The usual alternative is to say murder is wrong because God has decided it is wrong, and thus it is an arbitrary choice by God. What we consider objective morality is really just a bunch of arbitrary rules he made up. He could as easily said eating pork or shellfish is morally wrong (and indeed he did). There is nothing inherently wrong about either murder or eating pork.

Of course, you might then say that the rules were not arbitrary; God had to declare murder and eating pork to be morally wrong because of his good nature. But that does not help. Either his good nature forces him to say murder and eating pork because they are inherent wrong, which is back to the first option, or murder and eating pork are not inherently wrong, and it was just God being arbitrary.

Pix
Anonymous Anonymous said...
To put this in context, you claimed your moral argument provides ab example of a moral truth that has been proved (or at least shown to be reliable). I see no attempt to do that in your argument above.

Joe: That is not my moral argument, That is below,it is not cirular,

I did not say your moral argument was circular. I said using it to support your claim that a moral truth has been proved is circular.

Joe: it baseically says morality is axiomatic for humans and God is the only really rationaljustification for a moral sytem.

Here is what I said is circular:

1. There are objective moral truths
2. Therefore God exists
3. Therefore there are objective moral truths

Your moral argument is just 1 and 2. Here it is with your wording:

1. "morality is axiomatic for humans"
2. "God is the only really rationaljustification for a moral sytem"

I do not think you have addresses the issue from the original discussion at all.

Pix

you are manipulating the outline to make it look circular when fact it is not. Perhaps I should say the counter apologist does this but you are using his mistake. The original argument is not circular in the way the outline shows a because it does not add step 3. The real argent says:

1 if objective morality exists it can only be established by God

2 objective morality exits

3 therefore there must be a God.

It does not try to prove objective morality by asserting God's existence, It asserts Objective morality based on axiomatic assumption of moral agents. One might plug in moral realism there.

My argument is very different but it certainly does not conform to the phony outline you imposed on it.

1. "morality is axiomatic for humans"
2. "God is the only really rational justification for a moral system"

add the logical conclusion
3. Therefore the axiomatic nature of molarity is best accounted for by belief in God,

where's the circle? it's a straight line from phenomena to solution


btw your precious post is actually a straw man argument, you constructed your version of an argument that you felt you could beat and that was not may argument, that's what a straw man is.


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Px: I will go into more detail about your present argument.

Joe: (1) Humans are possessed of moral motions which we find to be real and important. We cannot deny the senes of moral outrage over "evil" or the sense that one "ought" to do that which we find "good."

Px: Agreed. But it must be noted that morality is not universal. We feel a sense of outrage when an atrocity is committed, but presumably the perpetrators do not.

Universal does not mean every signal individual, I said universal to cultures and faiths,

Joe: (2) Such moral motions can be understood as grounded in terms of behavior in our genetic endowment, but no explanation can tell us why we find them moral or how to justify them as "ought's."

Px: I would say they are cultural or social, rather than genetic. They are rules mankind has developed to allow him to work in a community. We find them moral because our culture has conditioned us to, and that works because moral cultures survive better than amoral cultures (by amoral culture I mean one where individuals are free to steal and murder within the community).
You are falling back on social contract theory here, I've already dispensed with that, it's not enough to justify an ought. There are too many problems such as Nazi Germany. If we assume social contract is enough then Nazi Germany is a moral society,

Joe: (3) Genetic explanations only provide an understanding of behavior, they do not offer the basis of a moral dimension (trying to turn "is" into "ought").

Why should we suppose there is one? Sure, it would be nice to think there is, but that does not make it so.
We must assume there is a cayuse sufficient to explain the phenomenon because there usually is and it is endemic to medievalism That would be a huge contradiction on your part.

Joe: (4) Social contract theory offers only relativism that can be changed or ignored in the shifting sands of social necessity and politics (this is both a practical issue and a matter meta ethical theory).

Px:That does not make it wrong. Indeed, given the way morals change (eg with regards to slavery), a theory that allows for changing morality is preferable to one that does not.

My argument was that SCT doesn't explain things, you have not answered that, It is contradicted by the moral outrage. BTW I think it does make it wrong,

Joe: (5) matters of feeling are merely matters of taste and should be ignored as subjective...


PX: We are talking specifically about feelings! Your very first point was "We cannot deny the senes of moral outrage..."

The feeling itself is not sufficient to explain. It prompts us to see explaimaniation but is not an expiation in itself. You have a good point, I overstated my case I should not have said it should be ignored

Joe: (6) God is possessed of a loving nature that makes the good a matter of rationale on the part of the creator and his status as creator means he is more than qualified to be judge to translate te good into moral values.

PX:Is this a premise or a conclusion? Do you know the difference? Here is a link that may help.
https://www.uky.edu/~rosdatte/phi120/lesson1a.htm

It's not a major premise of the argument. It's preempting the counter argument, If we hold Christian beliefs we are gong to make that assumption, a premise.

PX: If you think this is a premise, then your argument is circular, it is based on the premise that God exists.

Bull it. It's a preemption so it's hypothetical. That point does not contribute to the conclusion as a God argument, Remember that was made specifically to answer the counter apologist

PX:If you think it is a conclusion, can you explain how it follows from the previous 1 to 5, none of which mention God?

/atheists have been known to argue that God;s opinion is no better than theirs in judging morality, the CA argued along those lines so if God exits His nature is such that he is the judge,

the argument basically says God is the strongest ground for moral ought, the separate lines in the arguent are there to preempt atheists obections,
Anonymous said…
Joe: you are manipulating the outline to make it look circular blah blah blah

Read what I actual typed. Hint: I did not say your moral argument is circular in the other discussion.

Joe: Universal does not mean every signal individual, I said universal to cultures and faiths,

So is slavery universally moral or immoral? Most cultures through out history would say moral. Does that make it moral?

Joe: You are falling back on social contract theory here, I've already dispensed with that, it's not enough to justify an ought. There are too many problems such as Nazi Germany. If we assume social contract is enough then Nazi Germany is a moral society,

But you are assuming that IS a justification for ought. Why should I think that that is so?

Joe: We must assume there is a cayuse sufficient to explain the phenomenon because there usually is and it is endemic to medievalism That would be a huge contradiction on your part.

The phenomenon is people think some things are right and some things are wrong. All we need is a cause that explains THAT. Social contract theory does that fine.

In fact it does it better than God, because it explains how morality can change. Centuries ago slavery was fine, now it is immoral. Slavery was fine because those enslaved were outsiders. Read Lev 25:44-46. Biblical rules for slavery are that you treat those in your group well, and who gives a hoot about the rest. That was not just the Bible, it was true of all cultures until really quite recently.

If SCT is right we would expect morality to arise to protect the group, not all humans. If God is the source of morality, we would expect morality to protect all humans. What we see today is a move towards the latter, but you do not have to go far back into history to see the former.

Joe: My argument was that SCT doesn't explain things, you have not answered that, It is contradicted by the moral outrage. BTW I think it does make it wrong,

You argument is that SCT does not explains things that you fail to show are the case.

Moral outrage is perfectly explained by SCT. We are raised in a culture that considers X to be wrong, when we see X committed on a large scale, we feel outrage. Simple as that.

How many in Germany felt moral outrage at the Holocaust before the end of the war? Very few. How can that be if you are right about moral outrage? I think it happened because within that culture there was a belief that killing Jews and other "undesirables" was morally okay.

Joe: It's not a major premise of the argument. It's preempting the counter argument, If we hold Christian beliefs we are gong to make that assumption, a premise.

So it is not a premise, but it is a premise. You want to stick with that, or have a re-think?

Joe: Bull it. It's a preemption so it's hypothetical. That point does not contribute to the conclusion as a God argument, Remember that was made specifically to answer the counter apologist

Does it follow from the preceding argument or not? Yes or no.

Does step 7 follow from it (in part) or not? Yes or no.

I strongly suspect you will be unable to answer these simple questions. If your reasoning is valid, you will be able to answer them both with ease. If, however, your reasoning is fundamentally flawed you will not, and will be obliged to bluster. We shall see...

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: you are manipulating the outline to make it look circular blah blah blah

that's real adult. just ignore the logic of the argument like a kid calling names. so childish! YOU know to call an argument curricular but you don't know or care why it is or even if it isn't,

Read what I actual typed. Hint: I did not say your moral argument is circular in the other discussion.

I responded to what you said in your post and I did not cover part of it with blah blah blah

Joe: Universal does not mean every signal individual, I said universal to cultures and faiths,

PX:So is slavery universally moral or immoral? Most cultures through out history would say moral. Does that make it moral?

You appear to be assuming that the one tie universality of slavery negates the notion of a universal basis for axioms. So apparently you put no stock in evolution? modern society recognizes the wrong nature of slavery


Joe: You are falling back on social contract theory here, I've already dispensed with that, it's not enough to justify an ought. There are too many problems such as Nazi Germany. If we assume social contract is enough then Nazi Germany is a moral society,

Px:But you are assuming that IS a justification for ought. Why should I think that that is so?

No you are assuming it you just got through arguing that slavery thong, If you have a better one lets hear it,



Joe: We must assume there is a cayuse sufficient to explain the phenomenon because there usually is and it is endemic to medievalism That would be a huge contradiction on your part.

Px:The phenomenon is people think some things are right and some things are wrong. All we need is a cause that explains THAT. Social contract theory does that fine.

It's not quite that simple since we agree morality matters then we have to really justify right and wrong not just find any BS reason why people think something,

Px: In fact it does it better than God, because it explains how morality can change. Centuries ago slavery was fine, now it is immoral. Slavery was fine because those enslaved were outsiders. Read Lev 25:44-46. Biblical rules for slavery are that you treat those in your group well, and who gives a hoot about the rest. That was not just the Bible, it was true of all cultures until really quite recently.

There is no problem understanding why morality changes from a theological perspective Moral evolution is part of social evolution and accounted for by my theory. But even within the framework of a given epoch people find it hard to stick with the morality they have due to sin.

Your view is not explaining anything, you reduce morality to a joke you explain it away rather to explain it. You have completely ignored the original dilemma.


If SCT is right we would expect morality to arise to protect the group, not all humans. If God is the source of morality, we would expect morality to protect all humans. What we see today is a move towards the latter, but you do not have to go far back into history to see the former.

you are blind as a bat, most cultures today and the world community acknowledge the individual as never before. Identity politics has focused the link between the individual and the group but it had not erased the individual,

your thinning on morality seems really confused, you almost seem to be saying it doesn't matter there's no right and wrong, yet you calmed to agree with the original premise,


Joe: My argument was that SCT doesn't explain things, you have not answered that, It is contradicted by the moral outrage. BTW I think it does make it wrong,

You argument is that SCT does not explains things that you fail to show are the case.

Moral outrage is perfectly explained by SCT. We are raised in a culture that considers X to be wrong, when we see X committed on a large scale, we feel outrage. Simple as that.

you are not explaining it you are explaining why we can ignore it. To explain it you have to take it seriously and show moral grounding for axioms. I took your tin out in the opening speech,

PX:How many in Germany felt moral outrage at the Holocaust before the end of the war? Very few. How can that be if you are right about moral outrage?

first of all the German pekoe did not say killing Jews was ok ,they denied it was being done. they also had a huge propaganda machine mailing their reactions.

Px: I think it happened because within that culture there was a belief that killing Jews and other "undesirables" was morally okay.

are you so blind? the real consequence of your argument is that it's ok to do the Holocaust, you are arguing Nazi society was moral. do you not see that? If you admit it's wrong then we are back at square one where you know there's a problem, and you have no solation.


Anonymous said…
Joe: that's real adult. just ignore the logic of the argument like a kid calling names. so childish! YOU know to call an argument curricular but you don't know or care why it is or even if it isn't,

Once again, it was a straw man. On the other thread I said your moral argument plus your argument there was a circular argument. I never said during that discussion that your moral argument on its own is circular.

Therefore your rant against that straw man got reduced to "blah blah blah".

Joe: I responded to what you said in your post and I did not cover part of it with blah blah blah

No, you responded to something I did not say.

Joe: You appear to be assuming that the one tie universality of slavery negates the notion of a universal basis for axioms. So apparently you put no stock in evolution?

How does THAT follow?

Joe: modern society recognizes the wrong nature of slavery

If we were have this discussion centuries ago you would be just as sure slavery was universally recognised as moral.

That is certainly enough to call into question your claim of a universal basis of morality.

Joe: No you are assuming it you just got through arguing that slavery thong, If you have a better one lets hear it,

What am I assuming? A better what? I have already pointed out how SCT is superior to your claim.

Joe: It's not quite that simple since we agree morality matters then we have to really justify right and wrong not just find any BS reason why people think something,

Morality matters to us because it allows us to live better lives. I am not spending my time worried someone will just decide to kill me or take my stuff, and can get on with other stuff. Why should I suppose there is anything deeper than that?

Joe: There is no problem understanding why morality changes from a theological perspective Moral evolution is part of social evolution and accounted for by my theory.

How?

Explain why God said eating shellfish is an abomination but slavery is okay, and yet nowadays Christians think God says the opposite.

Joe: Your view is not explaining anything, you reduce morality to a joke you explain it away rather to explain it. You have completely ignored the original dilemma.

The fact is that SCT fits the facts better than your theory does. Calling it a joke does not change that.

Joe: you are blind as a bat, most cultures today and the world community acknowledge the individual as never before. Identity politics has focused the link between the individual and the group but it had not erased the individual,

Today, yes, though the Black Lives Matter movement shows we still have some way to go.

However, you do not have to go to far back into history to find examples of a culture favouring the in-group at the expense of outsides. It is little more than half century since segregation stopped.

Remember, you claim is the morality is universal. That means not just across the world today, but right back into history. Read the Bible; it gives a great insight of what it was like back then. Each tribe cared only for itself, and would happily wipe out or enslave another tribe. More recently, the tribe extended to nations, and in Europe there were countless wars as one nation tried to subjugate another.

Are you really claiming that all those cultures through history valued people equally no matter if there are alien to that culture?

Joe: your thinning on morality seems really confused, you almost seem to be saying it doesn't matter there's no right and wrong, yet you calmed to agree with the original premise,

I am certainly NOT saying there is no right and wrong.

Are you saying that that is the position of SCT?

Pix
Anonymous said…
Last time I said

Does it follow from the preceding argument or not? Yes or no.

Does step 7 follow from it (in part) or not? Yes or no.

I strongly suspect you will be unable to answer these simple questions. If your reasoning is valid, you will be able to answer them both with ease. If, however, your reasoning is fundamentally flawed you will not, and will be obliged to bluster. We shall see...


I see you have responded to part of that post, but not to that.

I must admit I expected you to bluster, rather than just ignore it, but I think the point is proved that you cannot answer those two question. I think that is enough to show that not only is your argument BS, but you know it.

Pix
Joe: It's not a major premise of the argument. It's preempting the counter argument, If we hold Christian beliefs we are gong to make that assumption, a premise.

PX: So it is not a premise, but it is a premise. You want to stick with that, or have a re-think?

what did I say it was? an extension, so you dint on what that is, too bad you don't know there are more things in arguments than just premises and conclusions,


Joe: Bull it. It's a preemption so it's hypothetical. That point does not contribute to the conclusion as a God argument, Remember that was made specifically to answer the counter apologist

PX: Does it follow from the preceding argument or not? Yes or no.

I said it's hypothetical. So if God exits the he would have this character that would answer this argument get it? you tell me what it means in terms of premise or conclusion?

Does step 7 follow from it (in part) or not? Yes or no.

pxI strongly suspect you will be unable to answer these simple questions. If your reasoning is valid, you will be able to answer them both with ease. If, however, your reasoning is fundamentally flawed you will not, and will be obliged to bluster. We shall see...


you don't know anything, you can;t understand the answers you childish arguments are ones I;ve heard a million times, I just destroyed them, you dont even know it,
Anonymous said...
Joe: that's real adult. just ignore the logic of the argument like a kid calling names. so childish! YOU know to call an aent curricular but you don't know or care why it is or even if it isn't,

PX: Once again, it was a straw man. On the other thread I said your moral argument plus your argument there was a circular argument. I never said during that discussion that your moral argument on its own is circular.


how could it be a straw man ? Its my orional ardent? it can;t bea straw man if it;s not something I can attack, Yoy really do not know what a strawman is, Ialso proed it isnot cirucular, please learn someting.

Therefore your rant against that straw man got reduced to "blah blah blah".

Yu know nothing, what you took was an explanation of my own logic of my aruent, it could not have been about straw man

Joe: I responded to what you said in your post and I did not cover part of it with blah blah blah

No, you responded to something I did not say.

you did say it stupid!

Joe: You appear to be assuming that the one tie universality of slavery negates the notion of a universal basis for axioms. So apparently you put no stock in evolution?

How does THAT follow?

how does that follow ? can you really be this stupid? ok pay attention this time, my argument assumes our understanding of morality evolves, duh really hard hu?

Joe: modern society recognizes the wrong nature of slavery

If we were have this discussion centuries ago you would be just as sure slavery was universally recognised as moral.

Humans were not evoked enough to understand. It was largely Christianity that made us understand, That's why the abolitionist movement was ran by Christians,

That is certainly enough to call into question your claim of a universal basis of morality.

no it;s enough to see that we evolved

Joe: No you are assuming it you just got through arguing that slavery thong, If you have a better one lets hear it,

What am I assuming? A better what? I have already pointed out how SCT is superior to your claim.

I beat the shit out of that, go read

(1)you did not explain it you explained it away

(2) you walked right into y argument abut Nazi Germany and almost endorsed the Holocaust


Joe: It's not quite that simple since we agree morality matters then we have to really justify right and wrong not just find any BS reason why people think something,

Px:Morality matters to us because it allows us to live better lives. I am not spending my time worried someone will just decide to kill me or take my stuff, and can get on with other stuff. Why should I suppose there is anything deeper than that?\

since you can't provide a basis for Morality beyond bettering one;s lot the view you defend could used to rationalize the Holocaust, you have no idea what moral philsopisy is about



9/21/2020 09:43:00 AM Delete
Joe: There is no problem understanding why morality changes from a theological perspective Moral evolution is part of social evolution and accounted for by my theory.

How?
Evolution is part of Gods creation

Explain why God said eating shellfish is an abomination but slavery is okay, and yet nowadays Christians think God says the opposite.

God never said slavery is ok, By the time of St.Paul slavetraders are classed with the worst sinners,

Joe: Your view is not explaining anything, you reduce morality to a joke you explain it away rather to explain it. You have completely ignored the original dilemma.

PX: The fact is that SCT fits the facts better than your theory does. Calling it a joke does not change that.

(1) you failed to deal with the relativism problem
(2) you have not provided a grounding for axioms
(3)your view was tagged withustf8cationfiorNaazuism taht's a dismal record,


Joe: you are blind as a bat, most cultures today and the world community acknowledge the individual as never before. Identity politics has focused the link between the individual and the group but it had not erased the individual,

Today, yes, though the Black Lives Matter movement shows we still have some way to go.

I apparent your politics but you don't understand mora philsophy

However, you do not have to go to far back into history to find examples of a culture favouring the in-group at the expense of outsides. It is little more than half century since segregation stopped.

PX:Remember, you claim is the morality is universal. That means not just across the world today, but right back into history. Read the Bible; it gives a great insight of what it was like back then. Each tribe cared only for itself, and would happily wipe out or enslave another tribe. More recently, the tribe extended to nations, and in Europe there were countless wars as one nation tried to subjugate another.


you are just pretending I didn;t say all stuff about social evolution, we do fid morality throughout history we also find it eloping,

Are you really claiming that all those cultures through history valued people equally no matter if there are alien to that culture?

ok put your little ticking cap inad war, uptheold brain what does it mean to say we are evolving?

Joe: your thinning on morality seems really confused, you almost seem to be saying it doesn't matter there's no right and wrong, yet you calmed to agree with the original premise,

{XI am certainly NOT saying there is no right and wrong.

then what ls it based on?

Are you saying that that is the position of SCT?

It's flaw n the theory it sticks up with relativism,

Pix

Anonymous said…
Pix: Does it follow from the preceding argument or not? Yes or no.

Joe: I said it's hypothetical. So if God exits the he would have this character that would answer this argument get it? you tell me what it means in terms of premise or conclusion?

So does it follow from the preceding argument or not? Yes or no.

Either it does, or it does not - even if it is hypothetical. But you cannot say which because the truth is your argument is nonsense, and - worse - you know it.

Pix: Does step 7 follow from it (in part) or not? Yes or no.

Joe: you don't know anything, you can;t understand the answers you childish arguments are ones I;ve heard a million times, I just destroyed them, you dont even know it,

So does step 7 follow from it (in part) or not? Yes or no.

Again, you cannot say. Again you prove to the world your argument is nonsense.

I see no point in continuing this discussion; your argument has been demolished by your own inability to answer these questions.

Pix
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Pix: Does it follow from the preceding argument or not? Yes or no.

Joe: I said it's hypothetical. So if God exits the he would have this character that would answer this argument get it? you tell me what it means in terms of premise or conclusion?

So does it follow from the preceding argument or not? Yes or no.

Either it does, or it does not - even if it is hypothetical. But you cannot say which because the truth is your argument is nonsense, and - worse - you know it.


You do not understand the basics of argumentation, If I answered our question you would not understand my answer you do understand aaruments,

Pix: Does step 7 follow from it (in part) or not? Yes or no.

Joe: you don't know anything, you can;t understand the answers you childish arguments are ones I;ve heard a million times, I just destroyed them, you dont even know it,

So does step 7 follow from it (in part) or not? Yes or no.

Again, you cannot say. Again you prove to the world your argument is nonsense.

I see no point in continuing this discussion; your argument has been demolished by your own inability to answer these questions.

convenient exit strategy to save face, you;ve been beaten enough run away now
Anonymous said…
Joe: You do not understand the basics of argumentation, If I answered our question you would not understand my answer you do understand aaruments,

There are simple yes/no questions. I can assure you I will under either yes or no.

I also understand why you cannot answer yes or no.

Joe: convenient exit strategy to save face, you;ve been beaten enough run away now

Keep telling your fellow Christians that. I am sure they will believe you, because that is how religion works; conditioned to mindlessly believe what their brothers-in-faith say.

However, everyone else - everything one able to actually think for him- or her-self - will wonder why you cannot answer those two simple yes/no questions. And I am sure the vast majority will come to the same conclusion I have: You know full well your argument is BS.

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: You do not understand the basics of argumentation, If I answered our question you would not understand my answer you do understand aaruments,

There are simple yes/no questions. I can assure you I will under either yes or no.

I answered all your stupid questions; go look.

I also understand why you cannot answer yes or no.

I told you it; too complex to be yes or no but you are too stupid to understand that,

Joe: convenient exit strategy to save face, you;ve been beaten enough run away now

Keep telling your fellow Christians that. I am sure they will believe you, because that is how religion works; conditioned to mindlessly believe what their brothers-in-faith say.

fellow Christians doufus wants to know if my point 5 on the argent is a premise or a conclusion, I already told him he is too stupid to understand the answer

However, everyone else - everything one able to actually think for him- or her-self - will wonder why you cannot answer those two simple yes/no questions. And I am sure the vast majority will come to the same conclusion I have: You know full well your argument is BS.

he didn't understand, as I said. It is a primes but to an extension argument. do you get it?
Anonymous said…
Pix: So does it follow from the preceding argument or not? Yes or no.

Joe: I told you it; too complex to be yes or no but you are too stupid to understand that,

Ah, the Emperor's New Clothes gambit. Only really clever people can see the Emperor's new clothes, just as only really clever people can understand why a simple yes or no question is so complex.

The reality, of course, is that it is not complex at all. Look through any reasoned argument and you will be able to say if a statement is a conclusion, i.e., following on from the preceding, or a premise, and does not follow on.

It is only in Joe's pseudo-logic that a statement can do both at the same time.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Pix: So does it follow from the preceding argument or not? Yes or no.

I keep telling you 'it's an extension.' Does an extension follow from the thing it extends upon? Yes? or No?

Joe: I told you it; too complex to be yes or no but you are too stupid to understand that,

Ah, the Emperor's New Clothes gambit. Only really clever people can see the Emperor's new clothes, just as only really clever people can understand why a simple yes or no question is so complex.

People who understand logic can see the logic, Those who don't understand it should not pretend they do.

The reality, of course, is that it is not complex at all. Look through any reasoned argument and you will be able to say if a statement is a conclusion, i.e., following on from the preceding, or a premise, and does not follow on.

Is an extension a conclusion yes or no?

It is only in Joe's pseudo-logic that a statement can do both at the same time.

those who know logic understand enough to make a pesdo logic. those who know nothing are mystified and must fall back on imagined principles they don't really know
Anonymous said…
Joe: I keep telling you 'it's an extension.' Does an extension follow from the thing it extends upon? Yes? or No?

You tell me. It is your argument.

You do keep saying extension, but not originally. Why is that? Have you just made it up? Curiously, the first time you said it was "what did I say it was? an extension". That was not entirely true, as you had not at that point called it an extension. What you originally said was:

It's not a major premise of the argument. It's preempting the counter argument, If we hold Christian beliefs we are gong to make that assumption, a premise.

Back then it was not a major premise, but was a premise. And, rather more damning, an assumption that Christians hold to.

Does your "extension" follow on (in part) from the preceding argument? I still do not know.

More importantly, does step seven follow on (in part) from your "extension"? I still do not know. This is, of course, the big question. If it does follow on, then your conclusion is based on what you admit is just an assumption Christians hold to; that there i a loving God. If it does not follow on, then step six is irrelevant; its only purpose is cosmetic. And that leads us to question how the logic of steps one to five - which have no mention of God at all - can possible lead to a conclusion about God.

So there it is.

Either seven follows from six, and your argument is circular.

Or seven does not follow on from six, and is a non sequitur.

Which fallacy do you choose? So difficult to decide, right?
Anonymous said…
Here is that last step again:

(7) Therefore, God is the only source of grounding which works as a regulative concept for our moral axioms and at the same time actually explains the deep seated nature of moral motions. Universal Moral Law.

You start it with the word "Therefore", indicating that it follows from the preceding. You know the reasoning that led you to it. Does it follow from 1 to 5 alone? Does it still work if 6 is omitted?

Or does it only follow if we include 6 as well?

I am sure you will already know the answer to that. If you have a valid argument, you will have no problem answering.

However, if this is just pseudo-logic dressed up to fool the ignorant - and I am sure it is - you will continue to dodge the question.

Pix
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: I keep telling you 'it's an extension.' Does an extension follow from the thing it extends upon? Yes? or No?

You tell me. It is your argument.

No it's your argument You are the one who decided to try and fake like you know logic by demanding if its a premise or a conclusion.

You do keep saying extension, but not originally. Why is that?

Because you are lying because I have been saying it since you started your gambit to pretend you know logic.

Have you just made it up? Curiously, the first time you said it was "what did I say it was? an extension". That was not entirely true, as you had not at that point called it an extension. What you originally said was:

obviously you weren't paying attention when I said it before,

Joe: It's not a major premise of the argument. It's preempting the counter argument, If we hold Christian beliefs we are gong to make that assumption, a premise.

PX:Back then it was not a major premise, but was a premise. And, rather more damning, an assumption that Christians hold to.

o, lying know noting why don't you tell us now what makes something major or minor? Being an assumption doesn't make it illogical know nothing,

Does your "extension" follow on (in part) from the preceding argument? I still do not know.

the answer to that is pretty obvious, you don't know what it is. Here is the kicker that proves you really don't now your stuff; In saying it's a extension I actually answered your questions but you could not tell me why that was or what it meant. An extension has to extend from the thing it is an extension of so that tells us the position of p5 in relation to the argument, that answers all the questions: it's a minor premise because it is set to preempt other things, as I told you.

More importantly, does step seven follow on (in part) from your "extension"? I still do not know. This is, of course, the big question. If it does follow on, then your conclusion is based on what you admit is just an assumption Christians hold to; that there i a loving God. If it does not follow on, then step six is irrelevant; its only purpose is cosmetic. And that leads us to question how the logic of steps one to five - which have no mention of God at all - can possible lead to a conclusion about God.

That argument was designed to answer a specific thing by the counter apologist so it was strutted to answer his article

So there it is.

Either seven follows from six, and your argument is circular.

I am sorry that is not a circular ard t, P7 drives from the previous that is not circular.It's not circular, Need to learn some logic,

Or seven does not follow on from six, and is a non sequitur.

where the hell did you ever get that idea?

Which fallacy do you choose? So difficult to decide, right?

your ignorance of logic is really showing there

9/23/2020 12:02:00 AM Delete
Anonymous said...
Here is that last step again:

(7) Therefore, God is the only source of grounding which works as a regulative concept for our moral axioms and at the same time actually explains the deep seated nature of moral motions. Universal Moral Law.

You start it with the word "Therefore", indicating that it follows from the preceding. You know the reasoning that led you to it. Does it follow from 1 to 5 alone? Does it still work if 6 is omitted?

you really have some nuttie ideas about how logic works. it's the concussion, that's all we need to know.

Or does it only follow if we include 6 as well?

seven by itself is not really an argument,

I am sure you will already know the answer to that. If you have a valid argument, you will have no problem answering.

I have no problem answering..

However, if this is just pseudo-logic dressed up to fool the ignorant - and I am sure it is - you will continue to dodge the question.

You do not know logic, your ideas about logic are silly, but I want you to defend your stating. what makes it presidio logic as opposed to the opinion pieces you write>

9/23/2020 12:10:00 AM
Anonymous said…
Joe: Here is the kicker that proves you really don't now your stuff; In saying it's a extension I actually answered your questions but you could not tell me why that was or what it meant. An extension has to extend from the thing it is an extension of so that tells us the position of p5 in relation to the argument, that answers all the questions: it's a minor premise because it is set to preempt other things, as I told you.

Really? You are really going to say that:

God is possessed of a loving nature that makes the good a matter of rationale on the part of the creator and his status as creator means he is more than qualified to be judge to translate te good into moral values.

... is an extension of:

matters of feeling are merely matters of taste and should be ignored as subjective

Talk me through that Joe. As you say, I do not get how arguments work, and my ideas are silly. I would love to know how "God is possessed of a loving nature" is an extension of matters of feeling are merely matters of taste, because to me they look utter disconnected.

I guess love is a feeling, so that might seem a connection, except you just said feelings should be ignored!

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: Here is the kicker that proves you really don't now your stuff; In saying it's a extension I actually answered your questions but you could not tell me why that was or what it meant. An extension has to extend from the thing it is an extension of so that tells us the position of p5 in relation to the argument, that answers all the questions: it's a minor premise because it is set to preempt other things, as I told you.

Really? You are really going to say that:

sure that is not the point of the argument,

God is possessed of a loving nature that makes the good a matter of rationale on the part of the creator and his status as creator means he is more than qualified to be judge to translate te good into moral values.

... is an extension of:

matters of feeling are merely matters of taste and should be ignored as subjective

as a basis for meta ethical theory not as divine faculty and not as the basis human compassion

Px:Talk me through that Joe. As you say, I do not get how arguments work, and my ideas are silly. I would love to know how "God is possessed of a loving nature" is an extension of matters of feeling are merely matters of taste, because to me they look utter disconnected.

It doesn't even occur to you one is talking about God's capacity to understand his creation the other is about our own feelings; Surely even you can see the argument merely states that God has personal capacity it does not say that God's moral virtue derives from feelings alone. you have given me an idea to avoid confession it could be better to re write the argument see the new version Metacrock's blog.


Px:I guess love is a feeling, so that might seem a connection, except you just said feelings should be ignored!

As a basis of meta ethical theory not en toto.



Anonymous said…
Joe: sure that is not the point of the argument,

So what? If the argument is flawed, then the argument is flawed, whatever the point of it.

Joe: as a basis for meta ethical theory not as divine faculty and not as the basis human compassion

So you are now saying step 5 is matters of feeling are merely matters of taste and should be ignored as subjective as a basis for meta ethical theory not as divine faculty and not as the basis human compassion, right?

And that step 6, "God is possessed of a loving nature", is an "extension" of that? In what way is it an extension?

Joe: It doesn't even occur to you one is talking about God's capacity to understand his creation the other is about our own feelings;

Why would it? One is an "extension" of the other - or so you strongly affirm. How can a statement about our own feelings be extended to God's capacity to understand his creation?

It cannot. These are different things. And you are pretty much admitting they are two different things.

Joe: Surely even you can see the argument merely states that God has personal capacity it does not say that God's moral virtue derives from feelings alone. you have given me an idea to avoid confession it could be better to re write the argument see the new version Metacrock's blog.

You said step 6 is an "extension" of step 5. I asked you to explain how, and yet in your response I see nothing here even suggesting you still hold that opinion! Why is that?

To me, it looks like the whole "extension" thing was just a smoke screen. Again, I ask:

In what sense is step 5 an "extension" of step 6?

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: sure that is not the point of the argument,

So what? If the argument is flawed, then the argument is flawed, whatever the point of it.

you did not find a flaw in he argument, you failed to understand my answer as I said you would. Because you do not know what an extension is.

I said: "it's a minor premise because it is set to preempt other things, as I told you.
you said
Really? You are really going to say that:
I said:
sure that is not the point of the argument," That is not a flaw in the argument it;s just a matter of answering arguments that will probably be made against the major points, that's what an extension is, it's a term from debate.



Joe: as a basis for meta ethical theory not as divine faculty and not as the basis human compassion [in other words feeling is and emotions are good but they are not he basis of meta ethical theory, (meaning they are not what Makes good good) although Gods love is the basis it is not merely emotion alone but philosophical notions of love as well]

Px:So you are now saying step 5 is matters of feeling are merely matters of taste and should be ignored as subjective as a basis for meta ethical theory not as divine faculty and not as the basis human compassion, right?

No I changed the argument to take that out, you can see the new version on Metacrock's blog I posted it today. I had forgotten Eric Sotnac convinced me to change that argument with you reminded me of it.

And that step 6, "God is possessed of a loving nature", is an "extension" of that? In what way is it an extension?

An extension is not necessarily based upon previous points in the argument but is there to deal with attacks the other guy will make on the argument. An extension is how you develop the points in argument,

Joe: It doesn't even occur to you one is talking about God's capacity to understand his creation the other is about our own feelings;

Why would it? One is an "extension" of the other - or so you strongly affirm. How can a statement about our own feelings be extended to God's capacity to understand his creation?


It doest you mixing it all up. 5 is not an extension of four. it;s extension of the argument as a whole because it answers an attack,

It cannot. These are different things. And you are pretty much admitting they are two different things.

so?

Joe: Surely even you can see the argument merely states that God has personal capacity it does not say that God's moral virtue derives from feelings alone. you have given me an idea to avoid confession it could be better to re write the argument see the new version Metacrock's blog.

You said step 6 is an "extension" of step 5. I asked you to explain how, and yet in your response I see nothing here even suggesting you still hold that opinion! Why is that?

No I did not say that you just inferred it

To me, it looks like the whole "extension" thing was just a smoke screen. Again, I ask:

Because you don't understand the complexities, I told you this would happe,you prove again you don't know logic

In what sense is step 5 an "extension" of step 6?

It's not and I didn't say it was
Anonymous said…
Joe: you did not find a flaw in he argument, you failed to understand my answer as I said you would. Because you do not know what an extension is.

And you will be explaining, right? I have asked twice now how step six can be an "extension" of step 5.

Joe: sure that is not the point of the argument," That is not a flaw in the argument it;s just a matter of answering arguments that will probably be made against the major points, that's what an extension is, it's a term from debate.

So previously an "extension" was a part of a logical argument, now it is a term from debate.

Joe: [in other words feeling is and emotions are good but they are not he basis of meta ethical theory, (meaning they are not what Makes good good) although Gods love is the basis it is not merely emotion alone but philosophical notions of love as well]

Now please explain how "God is possessed of a loving nature ..." is an "extension of feelings and emotions not being the basis of meta ethical theory. I cannot help noticing you have still failed to do that.

Joe: No I changed the argument to take that out, you can see the new version on Metacrock's blog I posted it today. I had forgotten Eric Sotnac convinced me to change that argument with you reminded me of it.

So your new argument has dropped statement 5... but still has statement 6, which is an extension of it!

How odd. It is almost as though there is actually no connection between five and six whatsoever.

No wonder you cannot explain how 6 is an "extension" of 5.

Joe: An extension is not necessarily based upon previous points in the argument but is there to deal with attacks the other guy will make on the argument. An extension is how you develop the points in argument,

Heaven forbid we should have an "extension" actually "extends" anything! That would just make sense.

But wait. Previously you specifically said 6 is an "extension" of 5. Let me remind you:

"An extension has to extend from the thing it is an extension of so that tells us the position of p5 in relation to the argument, that answers all the questions"

Remember that? Sadly for you, I do. You stated that statement 6 is an "extension" of statement 5. Now you have changed your mind, and now statement 5 has been eliminated and statement 6 "extends" something, we know not what.

Joe: No I did not say that you just inferred it

I have repeatedly asked you about this, and the most you have been prepared to say is:

"An extension has to extend from the thing it is an extension of so that tells us the position of p5 in relation to the argument, that answers all the questions"

Admittedly this is vague - this is Joe's pseudo-logic, the last thing you want is to get pinned down. Keep it vague, then when you get caught out you can pretend you meant something else. And of course that will be even more vague.

Joe: No I did not say that you just inferred it

A few post ago (time stamp 9/23/2020 04:48:00 AM) my entire post revolved around how your were claiming statement 6 is an "extension" of statement 5. Your reply (time stamp 9/23/2020 07:38:00 AM) never once says I was wrong to think that.

Why is that?

Because you had not decided at that point that I was wrong.

Joe: It's not and I didn't say it was

1. You certainly gave that impression
2. The first time I posted about it you failed to say I was wrong
3 You have made zero effect to make clear what you really mean by "extension".

It all points to the simple fact that your argument is nonsense, and all this is just smoke and mirrors to hide that truth.

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: you did not find a flaw in he argument, you failed to understand my answer as I said you would. Because you do not know what an extension is.

And you will be explaining, right? I have asked twice now how step six can be an "extension" of step 5.

It is not. I told you this, that is not what extension means,

Joe: sure that is not the point of the argument," That is not a flaw in the argument it;s just a matter of answering arguments that will probably be made against the major points, that's what an extension is, it's a term from debate.

PX:So previously an "extension" was a part of a logical argument, now it is a term from debate.

It was always that, It is both, no reason why it can't be. Debate uses logic so no reason why a term from debate can't be both a part of a logical argument and a term from debate.

Joe: [in other words feeling is and emotions are good but they are not he basis of meta ethical theory, (meaning they are not what Makes good good) although Gods love is the basis it is not merely emotion alone but philosophical notions of love as well]

Px:Now please explain how "God is possessed of a loving nature ..." is an "extension of feelings and emotions not being the basis of meta ethical theory. I cannot help noticing you have still failed to do that.

You are running wild with terminology you don't understand, I used the term extension of one time now you are trying to make everything I say into an extension of everything else I say. There is no reasom to thin God's personal nature is an extension of p5. I never said it no reason to assume it.

Joe: No I changed the argument to take that out, you can see the new version on Metacrock's blog I posted it today. I had forgotten Eric Sotnac convinced me to change that argument with you reminded me of it.

So your new argument has dropped statement 5... but still has statement 6, which is an extension of it!

That is a stupid argument you cooked up because you don't understand and you don't listen. I never said is an extension of 6.It's an extension of the whole argument. Look open your eyes. The argument says God is the only grounding for moral Axioms that works, Then the arguments lists several alternatives and shows why they don't work such as social contract theory. Those are the extensions. they go from P3 through 6. They are not extensions of each other they are all extensions of the original idea encoded in P1-2.

Px:How odd. It is almost as though there is actually no connection between five and six whatsoever.

Yea how about that, Its also as though you never tired to understand my point,

PX: No wonder you cannot explain how 6 is an "extension" of 5.

Yea no wonder especially since I never said it was,



Joe: An extension is not necessarily based upon previous points in the argument but is there to deal with attacks the other guy will make on the argument. An extension is how you develop the points in argument,


that tells you that fie does mot have to be related to 6,


PX:Heaven forbid we should have an "extension" actually "extends" anything! That would just make sense.

stop makimng up your own meanings for the terms I use and pay to attention,


But wait. Previously you specifically said 6 is an "extension" of 5. Let me remind you:

NO I DID NOT I NEVER FUCNG SAID THAT1!!!!,

"An extension has to extend from the thing it is an extension of so that tells us the position of p5 in relation to the argument, that answers all the questions"

In this case that "thing" is PP1 and 2, not 6 from 5,

PX:Remember that? Sadly for you, I do. You stated that statement 6 is an "extension" of statement 5. Now you have changed your mind, and now statement 5 has been eliminated and statement 6 "extends" something, we know not what.

I just explained why tisis wrong ow read it,

Joe: No I did not say that you just inferred it

I have repeatedly asked you about this, and the most you have been prepared to say is:

"An extension has to extend from the thing it is an extension of so that tells us the position of p5 in relation to the argument, that answers all the questions"

Distorting my works, clear cut case, this is where you othtedumideathat 5isthe basisof

Admittedly this is vague - this is Joe's pseudo-logic, the last thing you want is to get pinned down. Keep it vague, then when you get caught out you can pretend you meant something else. And of course that will be even more vague.

It seems vauge because you are ignorant and you don't listen, you don;t want to understand you wont to understand,

you will not do this to my work anymore do you hear me? your parade of ignorance is finished here, talki to you is pointless. This thead is closed
I can see that ultimately it was my fault, I should have made the original argument simpler and easier to understand. I also apologize for falling into the insult pattern,
Anonymous said…
Joe: It is not. I told you this, that is not what extension means,

Not now, but it was earlier in the discussion. "Extension" means whatever you find convenient, and previously in was convenient for you to indicate it "extended" statement 5, so that is what it meant.

Now I have shown that to be nonsense, that meaning is no longer convenient, and it means something else.

So what does it mean now? You do not say. Why not? Because you do not want to get caught again.

Joe: It was always that, It is both, no reason why it can't be. Debate uses logic so no reason why a term from debate can't be both a part of a logical argument and a term from debate.

Sure. It is whatever is convenient at the time. Today it is a term from a debate, a few days ago was a part of a logical argument, tomorrow it could be something else.

It is pseudo-logic. Words are fluid, right?

Joe: You are running wild with terminology you don't understand, I used the term extension of one time now you are trying to make everything I say into an extension of everything else I say. There is no reasom to thin God's personal nature is an extension of p5. I never said it no reason to assume it.

You indicated statement 6 is an "extension" of statement 5. That is the one time use. I have never suggesting anything else is an extension of anything at all.

Fir reference, here is what you said:

"An extension has to extend from the thing it is an extension of so that tells us the position of p5 in relation to the argument, that answers all the questions"

I am re-reading that, and to me it still says the relationship to P5 is that of "extension". What did you really mean by that?

Joe: That is a stupid argument you cooked up because you don't understand and you don't listen. I never said is an extension of 6.It's an extension of the whole argument. Look open your eyes. The argument says God is the only grounding for moral Axioms that works, Then the arguments lists several alternatives and shows why they don't work such as social contract theory. Those are the extensions. they go from P3 through 6. They are not extensions of each other they are all extensions of the original idea encoded in P1-2.

So now statements 3 to 6 are all "extensions" of statements 1 and 2.

This is interesting if for no other reason that it is the first attempt you have made to clarify your position in five posts! Everything else has been telling me I am wrong, but no attempt to say how I am wrong; no attempt to clarify. Kind of like you do not want me to understand.

Joe: Yea how about that, Its also as though you never tired to understand my point,

I can only go on what you post. You just said statement 5 is an extension of statemets 1 and 2. That is the first time you have said anything to indicate that.

Perhaps if you could have revealed this vital fact earlier, I would have understood you better. We have been discussing this across several posts now; the fact that you did not say this sooner frankly makes it look like either you only just made it up or you want me to misunderstand.

Joe: Yea no wonder especially since I never said it was,

I quoted you doing just that. Can you quote where you first said it extends statements one and two?

Pix
Anonymous said…
So now statement 6 extends statements 1 and 2. Here are 1 and 2:

(1) Humans are possessed of moral motions which we find to be real and important. We cannot deny the senes of moral outrage over "evil" or the sense that one "ought" to do that which we find "good."

(2) Such moral motions can be understood as grounded in terms of behavior in our genetic endowment, but no explanation can tell us why we find them moral or how to justify them as "ought's."

And here is what they are extended to:

(6) God is possessed of a loving nature that makes the good a matter of rationale on the part of the creator and his status as creator means he is more than qualified to be judge to translate te good into moral values.

I think "extension" means "something vaguely related that I want to assume is true". I see no further connection that that.

The claim in 6 in no way follows from 1 and 2 - it cannot as 6 is about an entity, God, that is not mentioned in either 1 or 2.

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: It is not. I told you this, that is not what extension means,

Not now, but it was earlier in the discussion. "Extension" means whatever you find convenient, and previously in was convenient for you to indicate it "extended" statement 5, so that is what it meant.

Now I have shown that to be nonsense, that meaning is no longer convenient, and it means something else.

This proves only that you don't listen, I have always defined extension as the answer give in the next round. it is standard idea in debate,,
I told you this thread is closed. Future answers will be deleted

Anonymous said...
So now statement 6 extends statements 1 and 2. Here are 1 and 2:

(1) Humans are possessed of moral motions which we find to be real and important. We cannot deny the senes of moral outrage over "evil" or the sense that one "ought" to do that which we find "good."

(2) Such moral motions can be understood as grounded in terms of behavior in our genetic endowment, but no explanation can tell us why we find them moral or how to justify them as "ought's."

And here is what they are extended to:

(6) God is possessed of a loving nature that makes the good a matter of rationale on the part of the creator and his status as creator means he is more than qualified to be judge to translate te good into moral values.

I think "extension" means "something vaguely related that I want to assume is true". I see no further connection that that.

The claim in 6 in no way follows from 1 and 2 - it cannot as 6 is about an entity, God, that is not mentioned in either 1 or 2.

Pix

Here is how it works

1-2; the argent

3-7 arguments preempting attacks atheists usually give, those are extensions because they further the argument by answering objections,

Popular posts from this blog

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Why Christian Theism Is Almost Certainly True: A Reply to Cale Nearing

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

The Genre of the Gospel of John (Part 1)

Luke, the Census, and Quirinius: A Matter of Translation

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

The Meaning of the Manger

Scientifically Documented Miracles