Ramshutu’s Razor

Author: Ramshutu

Posts

Total: 315
Topic's author
#31
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@PGA2.0
You said, "2.) The goals and properties of the gods of all current human religions can be better fulfilled with a different universe that humans can think odd - therefore those Gods do not exist."

What does this mean? Better according to you? Why should your shifting, subjective, relative standard be the one all others follow?
Firstly, I’m not talking about whether cake or ice cream are better. The idea that all judgements are subjective as you’re implying is odd, and frankly a bit illogical. The important aspect as I pointed out: I’m not using my criteria to Judge - I’m using the goals religion tells me about God. If God values fairness, justice, doesn’t want people to suffer unnecessarily- if I can imagine a more jist universe with less suffering (but still allows for sin and free wil) - that value is measured off the value the religion gives me.

What should generally happen, is with a potential universe, you shoul be able to find plausible reasons why the universe isn’t better. 

I suspect you know you wont be able to do that; hence why you’re arguing that in a universe where Hod exists, and objective morality is a thing - somehow humans are unable to make objective value judgements using Gods objective rules.





If you tell me God wants X, and I am able to provide A universe that better satisfies X, your God cannot exist. 
So far you are just begging the question that you can. What is X? Why is X better, because you like it?
Begging the question is where the Conclusion is being assumed in the premise. That’s not what’s happening here. Assuming “better” is impossible to determine; and then conclude “you can’t show X is better than Y” is assumed in the premise you’ve taken. 

That is begging the question.


"Better" is just an opinion and preference unless you can demonstrate a final, ultimate, universal standard or measure. What do I care about what you believe is "Better" unless you can produce such a standard and reference point? Your view is no "better" than any other view if you have no fixed reference. So, again, I ask, what is this standard that has a qualitative valued system that you can term something "better?" YOU? Your opinion?

You are not a necessary being. Why is your moral opinion any "better" than mine or Kim Jong-un's? 
Again; I’m using Gods own goals, and own principles the value by which I’m judging the universe.

Are those “objective” values to use? Religious people like yourself seem to think so.

You could argue that it’s impossible for humans to use Gods goals to make objective value judgements. 

That destroys the objective morality argument completely - if no one can objectively quantify morality, how can you say it’s objective?

The reality of it, is pretty simple. If minimizing overall pain is a goal, while I cannot say whether a paper cut is better or worse than a stubbed toe; I can objectively tell that a flicked ear is better than a broken leg.

In the same vain: explain to me what purpose is served objectively by the existence of paedophilia, if God simply didn’t include the ability to be sexually attracted to children in humans - the same way he doesn’t include the ability to be sexually aroused by pulling your intestines out through your nose; what aspect of justice and elimination of unnecessary suffering is not made better? How is any of the red lines of God - free will, etc, affected by that?

Remember - you can’t beg the question by presuming that there must be some explanation no matter how obscure and obtuse (assumed because you conclude God exists)



In reality that proof would look like a theist saying “While there is no plausible or reasonable condition that I can posit why your posited universe is not objectively better - I am forced to believe it is, and the benefit is just unknown”. 

I have what is capable of making sense of better and is a necessary condition (omniscient, omnipresent, unchanging, eternal, living, loving, omnibenevolent Being). Demonstrate you do have such a standard that is necessary and can make sense of morality since you are bringing to the discussion qualitative values (better than what and in whose opinion?).
So, you believe you are capable of making sense of better; yet you arbitrarily assert that I am unable to assess the same?
#32
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu

Again; I don’t entirely know what planet you’re on: but the concept here is that if your God exists, I should not be able
to imagine a universe that better fulfills the goals attributed to him. If I can, that God cannot exists.

There is nothing rational about this argument. In fact, it is so stupid the person who came up with it is deserving of mockery.



#33
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@n8nrgmi
if free will can only exist in an imperfect world, then an imperfect world makes sense. or in other words, what sounds imperfect is in some sense perfect for the purposes of God. 
Is heaven not a perfect world?

#34
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
God's existence is a prerequisite for moral realism, so "better" can't be meaningful.

No god(s) needed only a universal self evident standard. The fact that neither would appear to exist does not mean the two are contingent upon each other.
#35
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
There are a lot of "ifs" and hypotheticals floating around here but the question is how do you come up with a better without an omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, unchanging, eternal Being? 
How does the existence of such a being make what is better or worse anything but a subjective opinion?

Topic's author
#36
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mopac
Please explain to me where, exactly, the logical flaw in the following argument is:

P1: If your God exists, the universe we see would be the best possible universe
P2: The universe is not the best possible universe
C: Your God doesn’t exist.


I can quite happily point you in the direction of the logical error you make:

P1: God is reality.
P2: Reality exists.
C: God exists.

The error you make; is that God is not ONLY reality, he has a mind, will, powers. While we can tell reality exists, we can’t tell whether the reality has a mind, will or powers: so it doesn’t justify the conclusion that god exists.

I can rephrase your argument simply:

P1: Superpowerful Chuck Norris is Reality
P2: Reality exists.
C: Superpoweful Chuck Norris exists.


The reason Chuck Norris fails is the same as why your argument fails.
#37
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
More pretentious drivel. 
Topic's author
#38
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@janesix
Given that this is a debate website, where the exchange of discussion and ideas: if you have some intelligent feedback to offer, by all means.

Simply name calling instead of addressing any of the issues is meaningless, and proves nothing other than you do not appear be willing or able to refute what is being offered.
#39
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
That you fail to understand the argument is certainly worthy of derision.
#40
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
There are a lot of "ifs" and hypotheticals floating around here but the question is how do you come up with a better without an omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, unchanging, eternal Being? 
How does the existence of such a being make what is better or worse anything but a subjective opinion?

God's existence and revelation give a fixed, unchanging, ultimate, universal, omniscient (knows all things) standard of appeal (i.e., Thou shalt not kill; Do not steal; Do not lie, etc). Thus, there is a best we can compare good, better and evil with. Without such a standard then evil, good, and better, are shifting and changing. Human beings can claim good is evil and evil is good. Hitler's Germany can be no better than Obama's America or Netanyahu's Israel. In one country they promote the killing (murder) of Jews, in another many are anti-semite, in the third Jews are loved and defended. Each country makes up its own values that can be diametrically opposite which brings to mind which is the logically correct position since the Law of Identity has been violated. A does not equal A. A dog is not a dog. Good is not good. It can mean whatever the person assigns it to mean.  
#41
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
God's existence and revelation give a fixed, unchanging, ultimate, universal, omniscient (knows all things) standard of appeal
Please explain how this standard of appeal is anything but some hypothetical god(s) subjective opinion?

Topic's author
#42
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@PGA2.0
You’re making a major logical error in your response here. Your issue appears to be divorcing itself from the realities.


So you feel you have an objective mechanism of measuring good, bad, evil. Etc. You believe that is based upon Gods revelation.



Whether God exists or not, you are still posting on this forum that you have a method of objectively determining good, bad and better.


So; if your god exists, your mechanism is objective, and I should never be able to apply it to a fictional universe and determine that the fictional universe I have created is better: because this universe I must already be the best.

if your Or doesn’t exist, your mechanism is not objective, and I would be able to apply it to a fictional universe and determine that the fictional universe I have created is better; because everything is arbitrary.


So even if EVERYTHING you say about arbitrary and objective mechanisms for measuring good, bad and better - the only universe in which I could postulate a universe that is better - is one where your god doesn’t exist.



#43
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Mopac
There is nothing rational about this argument. In fact, it is so stupid the person who came up with it is deserving of mockery.
Absolutely brilliant argument, the kind I've come to expect from folks around here. Of course, we are all stupid and deserve to be mocked according to Mopac who has long divorced himself from logic, reason, rationale and most of reality.

#44
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@janesix
More pretentious drivel. 
Translation: "I hate smart people!"
#45
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
It is sufficient that the universe is the way it is.

You are judging based on your arbitrary sense of personal aesthetics and your own superstitions concerning God.

Topic's author
#46
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mopac
Again no.

I’m judging based on the Goals and rules of Morality you claim God adheres to. So I’m hanging your God bu his own rules, not mine. I know you don’t seem to want to deal with that, but this is an issue with your own ability to accept criticism than an issue with my argument.


Likewise, while you maybe completely comfortable accepting whatever belief you have without question or investigation. This really is a recipe for self delusion.

If youre not willing to explore,  investigate and scrutinize your beliefs, and challenge them where possible: you’re basically hiding your opinions away from reality and protecting them from any correction.

Your lack of willingness to explore demonstrates that you realize how fragile and illogical your belief is. People who believe they are correct have no problem or reticence in exposing their beliefs to challenge or refutation

#47
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
I’m judging based on the Goals and rules of Morality you claim God adheres to
I have made no such claim at all, quite the contrary. I am calling you superstitious.

And you can make all these claims about me all you want, but they won't stick because I know that you are ignorant. Really, you are not in the position to teach me about God. You are, after all, denying  the existence of ultimate reality. If you knew what that meant, you would know that you aren't standing on anything.
Topic's author
#48
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mopac
So let’s unpack this nonsense.

Firstly, I’m not denying the existing of reality, I’m denying that reality is your God. No matter how much feet stamping you do, it doesn’t make Yor God unto realty any more than me vociferously claiming that Godzilla is reality suddenly summons the beast into existence.

By all means explain what evidence through which you conclude that reality has a mind (note: claiming reality is God and so it has a mind is called beginning the question)


Secondly, vociferously denying that I am using Gods criteria and measurement is not an argument. I am most assuredly using the criteria laid down by religions about what God is and what he wants and am using this to disprove God.


In fact, I laid out the key logical error with your position, and posted my exact logical reasoning: if all you have is unwarranted denial, no matter how ardent; it’s fairly clear that you have no meaningful objection.
#49
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
You don't actually know my God, you just think you do.

No, the ultimate reality is literally our God. That is why our discipline is about cleansing the nous. How would this make sense unless it was in the context of Truth worship? Why do we care so much about ridding ourselves of spiritual delusion?


You don't know our God. If you knew the God we worship, you certainly would not deny its existence.

No, what you have in your mind is a conception of what you think my conception of God is. The Ultimate Reality is not a conception, it is existence in the truest sense of what that means.

It is never too late to learn, you know.

First lesson. The word "God" with a capital "G" refers to The Ultimate Reality. There is no argument against the existence of God that can stand.




Topic's author
#50
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mopac
 By all means, feel free to point out what aspects of God I have Hotten wrong and why; I broadly covered them in one of my first replies to N8garmi, and in my first general reply to you.

What have I gotten wrong, or mischaracterized?

#51
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
Right off the bat you make God something other than the ultimate reality.

I am the only Orthodox Christian in this room. 

Topic's author
#52
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mopac
No I don’t.

For the purposes of the argument, I assume he is the ultimate reality. It is literally one of the presuppositions I make.



#53
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
If you grant that God is the ultimate reality, then you should also grant that no sophistry can undermine God's existence.


The Ultimate Reality can never not be The Ultimate Reality.

Topic's author
#54
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mopac
You’re argument is ridiculous, circular; and thus illogical. But you came so close.


Lets presume, for a moment, that your not a raving madman, and you were logical.


You ask yourself what if God was the ultimate reality. No amount of my arguments could prove it wrong...

So if one of my arguments could prove it wrong... he can’t be the ultimate reality















#55
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
You still think I am refering to a conception of God as God.


No, God is what God is.


It is not an argument, it is apodictic truth. It isn't "such and such is God and this is the ultimate reality" it is "The word "God" means the ultimate reality".

Whatever the ultimate reality is, that is God. That is what the word means. 

When I say God, I am refering to The Ultimate Reality.


And that is always how we have understood God.



There is no "if".

Topic's author
#56
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mopac
”hatever the ultimate reality is, that is God.”

so if the ultimate reality isn’t a spiritual super being, and has no mind: that’s God?
#57
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Ramshutu
You said, "2.) The goals and properties of the gods of all current human religions can be better fulfilled with a different universe that humans can think odd - therefore those Gods do not exist."

What does this mean? Better according to you? Why should your shifting, subjective, relative standard be the one all others follow?
Firstly, I’m not talking about whether cake or ice cream are better.
That is right. Let's not confuse a tangible measure like ice-cream and cake (a quantitative value) with an intangible measure such as a value or moral (a qualitative value). Please, do not mix the two together as the same kind. With a quantitative value, we have a physical measure. We can see and physically verify what we are measuring to a fixed sight standard. We have a standard that quantitative values are measured against.

The question is how do you, Ramshutu, measure a qualitative value? What is the standard you use?

The idea that all judgements are subjective as you’re implying is odd, and frankly a bit illogical.
Yet it can be demonstrated throughout history, even though it is illogical. Hitler or Kim Jong-un or President Xi have different "tastes" or preferences than many other people. Thus Hitler viewed killing those he saw inferior as a justifiable standard. Some classes of people in different societies and cultures are treated as less favourable than in other cultures by the majority or by those in power. These minorities are victimized, dehumanized, discriminated against and devalued even to death. Thus, they are not viewed as being "good" as others are. 

The point I am making is how do you arrive at a fixed ultimate qualitative moral value from a subjective mindset? Please explain this to me.

The important aspect as I pointed out: I’m not using my criteria to Judge - I’m using the goals religion tells me about God.
You are the one claiming that such values (God's values) do not work because you are arguing against God (and I'm right there with you regarding gods, just not God Himself. Gods - small g - are just fictions in human minds and I do not believe they are real). So, once you deny God then what standard are you appealing to as binding that does not shift and change? 

Once you answer my last question (your standard) then justify your claim.


If God values fairness, justice, doesn’t want people to suffer unnecessarily- if I can imagine a more jist universe with less suffering (but still allows for sin and free wil) - that value is measured off the value the religion gives me.
Suffering is permitted by God for a purpose, hence with the Fall of Adam and humanity God cursed the ground (entropy), barred humanity from living forever, created pain in childbirth, and separated humanity from His immediate presence.

The world is unjust because we do not seek out God nor abide by His perfect standard of love, which does no harm to our neighbour. 


What should generally happen, is with a potential universe, you shoul be able to find plausible reasons why the universe isn’t better.
So you recognize that it could be potentially "better" but it is not within your power to change it (is it?). Heaven is such a place that is better! Trusting God leads to a better life and place after our physical bodies pass away. 

The universe is exhibit A. History is exhibit B in speaking to us about the problems of this world. We witness the inhumanity of people who ignore and bypass God as the greatest measure of goodness. Once we put ourselves in the place of God all kinds of problems happen and we seek ways and escapes to avoid these problems.


I suspect you know you wont be able to do that; hence why you’re arguing that in a universe where Hod exists, and objective morality is a thing - somehow humans are unable to make objective value judgements using Gods objective rules.
Humans are capable of recognizing objective morals. The problem is acting on them. They would rather live by their own standards. That is what we call sin. Sin pits itself against God and His goodness. 






If you tell me God wants X, and I am able to provide A universe that better satisfies X, your God cannot exist. 
So far you are just begging the question that you can. What is X? Why is X better, because you like it?
Begging the question is where the Conclusion is being assumed in the premise.
You assume you can live "better" without God. You assume that you can meet a standard that is better without God. That is your conclusion and because of this, you justify to yourself that He does not exist. The problem is why should I live by your arbitrary standard? You look at the God standard and see it is not being followed thus you disclaim God rather than recognize that it is not God that is the problem but you and me. (And I keep asking you to reveal such a standard that replaces God so I can see how it can be evaluated as "better." So far you will not comply). 

#58
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Ramshutu

That’s not what’s happening here. Assuming “better” is impossible to determine; and then conclude “you can’t show X is better than Y” is assumed in the premise you’ve taken.
And in the premise you have taken, you assume better is possible to determine yet you won't say how. It is just an assertion. We could get into specific examples if you want? That way we can test your "better."

That is begging the question.
No, I disagree and have given my reasoning. 



"Better" is just an opinion and preference unless you can demonstrate a final, ultimate, universal standard or measure. What do I care about what you believe is "Better" unless you can produce such a standard and reference point? Your view is no "better" than any other view if you have no fixed reference. So, again, I ask, what is this standard that has a qualitative valued system that you can term something "better?" YOU? Your opinion?

You are not a necessary being. Why is your moral opinion any "better" than mine or Kim Jong-un's? 
Again; I’m using Gods own goals, and own principles the value by which I’m judging the universe.
God's own goals or the ones you have made up for Him?

What principles are those you are judging the universe by? You never say. You just allude to "God's own goals and principles." Spit them out so we can discuss your perceptions and see if they conform to what you say are God's.


Are those “objective” values to use? Religious people like yourself seem to think so.
Yes, I do think so. The question is how do you get to an objective moral value without a fixed, unchanging, ultimate, omniscient, universal, objective Being who has revealed them? It immediately brings up the question of why your subjective view is qualitatively better???


You could argue that it’s impossible for humans to use Gods goals to make objective value judgements.
God's goals or principles?

How else do you arrive at objective morality with a subjective mind? God's mind is objective. He sees and knows all things.
 

That destroys the objective morality argument completely - if no one can objectively quantify morality, how can you say it’s objective?
That is your presupposition, not mind. I know it is wrong to murder, to lie, to steal, to covet something that is not mine, to dishonour my parents and above all to dishonour God with idols or by not giving Him what is rightfully His, honour and glory and majesty as the Creator and Sustainer.


The reality of it, is pretty simple. If minimizing overall pain is a goal, while I cannot say whether a paper cut is better or worse than a stubbed toe; I can objectively tell that a flicked ear is better than a broken leg.
There is a purpose for pain and suffering. If we did not experience it and were not watchful we would not know enough to take our hand off of a hot stove until our hand is burnt off.

When we see suffering or experience it ourselves we look for what is better and an end to it. Sometimes, with some, we turn to God to help us, and I would argue, this makes the difference.


In the same vain: explain to me what purpose is served objectively by the existence of paedophilia, if God simply didn’t include the ability to be sexually attracted to children in humans - the same way he doesn’t include the ability to be sexually aroused by pulling your intestines out through your nose; what aspect of justice and elimination of unnecessary suffering is not made better? How is any of the red lines of God - free will, etc, affected by that?
It is a moral injustice, a wrong, an atrocity that boils our blood and reminds us that some things are objectively wrong and should not be done. These are things that some people choose to do ignoring here is what the Lord Jesus warned would happen:

Matthew 18:6 (NASB)
6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, “Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Justice will be required for such offenders. 


Remember - you can’t beg the question by presuming that there must be some explanation no matter how obscure and obtuse (assumed because you conclude God exists)
I'm not begging the question. Either there is an explanation or ultimately nothing matters. I'm making sense of why some things are or should be unjust. I'm inviting you to do the same. Make sense of why what you believe is moral is actually so. 




In reality that proof would look like a theist saying “While there is no plausible or reasonable condition that I can posit why your posited universe is not objectively better - I am forced to believe it is, and the benefit is just unknown”. 

I have what is capable of making sense of better and is a necessary condition (omniscient, omnipresent, unchanging, eternal, living, loving, omnibenevolent Being). Demonstrate you do have such a standard that is necessary and can make sense of morality since you are bringing to the discussion qualitative values (better than what and in whose opinion?). 
So, you believe you are capable of making sense of better; yet you arbitrarily assert that I am unable to assess the same?


I'm inviting you to try without first presupposing God and an objective (unlimited in knowledge and thus able to distinguish the difference), universal (applying to all humanity), unchanging (not shifting like is the case we witness in history, and countless examples can be given), and eternal (applying for all times).

#59
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
God's existence and revelation give a fixed, unchanging, ultimate, universal, omniscient (knows all things) standard of appeal
Please explain how this standard of appeal is anything but some hypothetical god(s) subjective opinion?

I'm saying it is necessary for making sense of morality. Other than God all you have is subjective preference and the question becomes why is Hitler's preference any worse than Mother Teresa's. He kills others and she loves others. Which do you prefer becomes the question?

Show me why your moral preference is any better than any other moral preference without first showing me an objective, fixed, universal best from which "better" can be compared? Go on! Instead, will you sidestep my questions and continue to ask your own which I have bothered to answer?
Topic's author
#60
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@PGA2.0
So the issue is that you seem to be arbitrarily mixing and matching my opinion, and the presuppositions of an argument. It appears to that you believe that I as an Atheist are unable to pressupose that morality, for example, is objective and that my judgement is subjective whilst you also argue that you; sitting in the same universe that operates by the same rules don’t have the same problem.

So, as I pointed out: religions are normally very clear on what God wants or doesn’t, what is general desire and aims are with the universe. free will, faith, etc: we can presuppose some aspects of those can be justified with the universe.

Now: the part of tour argument that makes no sense, is that its impossible for me to render a value judgement, even if I know the value your religio gives me. You’ve highlighted objective morality you hold, and the values by which you assess.

The issue is that whilst I may have a hard time assessing whether Hitler is better than Stalin, I have no issues if I pressupose your moral and religious framework I’m assessing that Hitler is morally worse than Adam Sandler.

Sure, in an atheist framework, you could argue that neither could be argued as “better”.... but I’m not arguing from an Atheist Framework. I’m arguing from your own religious framework. I am adopting your rules and applying them to the universe.


In this case, if God abhors unnecessary suffering; a universe that minimizes unnecessary suffering is preferential by the standard religion sets for itself. At the same time - if God also wants suffering to lead to positive things, then we can also concurrently judge the world by that criteria too. Given that humans are also supposed to understand morality, and justice - on what basis can we not apply common accepted principles of morality and justice too.


Is this point your not seeming to grasp. This is an assessment of the religious framework to asses the universe, rather than mine. There are many ways (as I’ve outlined) where we can indeed make a value judgement based upon them.

By all means feel free to explain how I am misinterpreting the religious framework - or explain to me the reason some humans being sexually attracted to children, leading them to rape and murder toddlers could be considered “more perfect” than a system where no human has that problem