Bill Nye versus Ken Ham

#301
#301
Roustabout said:
Will have more time later.

What I'm saying is that Eurypthro is a FALSE dilemma.
Click to expand...

1. Provide the argument that the Eurythphro dilemma is a false dilemma.

2. It is "Euthyphro" not "Eurypthro". Being that you have consistently referred to it as the latter, I'm most definitely not going to defer to your 'authority' on the matter. I want to see your argument.

3. Provide an argument that shows how we can externally evaluate our own evaluative terms. This is a large problem in the fields of morality and science. I suggest reading Popper, B.F. Skinner, Heidegger, Frankfurt, Sidgwick, etc., for both critiques of and attempts at doing so.

For the sake of argument, I assume that you believe 1+1=2 is a necessary truth. When taking one object and pairing with another commensurable object, it is necessary that two objects will then present.

Let's construct the following:
A lion is an object.
A lamb is an object.

Lion + Lamb = object + object

Thus, Lion + Lamb = 2 objects.

That is a necessary truth, and we are forced to conclude, from a literal interpretation of this problem, that pairing a lion and a lamb necessarily results in two objects. Now, we can introduce all types of external assumptions to this problem, and, based on a non-literal interpretation of the problem, conclude that only the lion, and thus only one object, would result from this pairing (the lion would eat the lamb). We can even reconstruct this scenario using set theory and extensions of concepts, and reach the same two conclusions (i.e., 1 and 2 objects), if we do not interpret the problem in a strictly literal sense.

The latter sense, that the lion would eat the lamb, could be used as a hermaneutic for all sorts of ends (don't place innocent individuals in the paths of violent brutes, for one). But, the hermaneutic, here, relies on a non-literal interpretation of the problem. Some hermaneutics are literal, some are not.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#302
#302
He'll link a site that puts forth the essence of God argument to Euthyphro dilemma. Just take a stroll over to the evolution and sin threads from a couple weeks back (to see where he is going; he has absolute, transcendent, objective truth on his side and you don't). It will save you countless key strokes and head banging against the wall.

As for your example, if you get technical, the lamb (mass, not form) is still in the lion. The object in the form of substance is there but the object in the Platonic form is loss.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#303
#303
PKT_VOL said:
He'll link a site that puts forth the essence of God argument to Euthyphro dilemma. Just take a stroll over to the evolution and sin threads from a couple weeks back (to see where he is going; he has absolute, transcendent, objective truth on his side and you don't). It will save you countless key strokes and head banging against the wall.

As for your example, if you get technical, the lamb (mass, not form) is still in the lion. The object in the form of substance is there but the object in the Platonic form is loss.
Click to expand...

Right, he'll just say that God is Good, which ultimately reduces to God is God, which also makes our ascription of omnibenevolence to God meaningless.

As for my example, you are correct. However, you get that from a non-literal interpretation of the problem as strictly presented.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#304
#304
PKT,

Your attempts to smear me are shameful. They do reveal a lot about your character. Nicely done.

TherealUT,
My sincerest apologies for the "Euthyphro" error. But, it is nothing less than an underhanded debate tactic to try an undermine my credibility. As if I am the first person to decry this as a false dichotomy. You can't honestly presume not to know the challenges presented to Plato's theory, as they are certainly not new. The attempt, as you know, (and as you also know I recognized), is to find a flaw in the Christian notion of God and goodness. It presents two options. Do the gods love good action because it is good, or is good action good because it is loved by the gods?

This of course, presumes that only these two options exist.

I'm basically a Thomist, and since I seem to recall you mentioning Aquinas as one of those who has tackled these issues, then I suspect you are somewhat familiar with his 5 ways, and natural theology. And, you would also know he rejects Platonism. I would defer to Ed Feser, as he is the best expert I've found on the subject today. He has found that most postmodern philosophers do not have an accurate grip on Aquinas, and his book 'Aquinas, a beginners guide,' makes a solid case.
Here he addresses the dilemma as being a false one. Edward Feser: God, obligation, and the Euthyphro dilemma
Interesting that he would have an article that addresses this exact topic. Thank you Ed.

Not a clever tactic to avoid dealing with anything. Unless you can offer me sufficient reasons supporting how a finite being can come to have knowledge of an infinite being (and, remember, analogies between finites and infinites do not hold), then you cannot claim to know (that is to have justified, true, beliefs...and, yes, **** Gettier) the truths of God. You can believe certain things, and you can believe certain things consistently. You cannot know them.
Click to expand...

In essence you are doing that exact thing. You are claiming a finite being cannot know truths about an infinite being, which of course is a claim to know something objectively true about infinite beings. (in this case, that you cannot know.) You either can KNOW this or you cannot. And I simply go back to what I stated earlier about the internal contradiction. Postmodern skepticism at its finest.

Regarding hermeneutics. I'm sure you realize that suggesting someone avoid hermeneutics is actually employing a hermeneutic.
 
Last edited:
#305
#305
Roustabout said:
PKT,

Your attempts to smear me are shameful. They do reveal a lot about your character. Nicely done.

TherealUT,
My sincerest apologies for the "Euthyphro" error. But, it is nothing less than an underhanded debate tactic to try an undermine my credibility. As if I am the first person to decry this as a false dichotomy. You can't honestly presume not to know the challenges presented to Plato's theory, as they are certainly not new. The attempt, as you know, (and as you also know I recognized), is to find a flaw in the Christian notion of God and goodness. It presents two options. Do the gods love good action because it is good, or is good action good because it is loved by the gods?
Click to expand...

I want your argument. That is what I have asked for. I care little whether others have made arguments, I want your argument.

I also want your argument regarding evaluating evaluatives.


Roustabout said:
This of course, presumes that only these two options exist.
Click to expand...

It presumes more than that. It presumes that God is good. If we say God is good, then it is either because God conforms with the property predicative of "goodness", or because good conforms with the property predicative of "Godness". And, there are Christians who have rejected the first presumption: Kierkegaard does in Fear and Trembling.

Roustabout said:
I'm basically a Thomist, and since I seem to recall you mentioning Aquinas as one of those who has tackled these issues, then I suspect you are somewhat familiar with his 5 ways, and natural theology. And, you would also know he rejects Platonism.
Click to expand...

Aquinas rejects certain tenets of Platonism, specifically the notion of the existence of forms. He does not reject the entire Platonic canon. For, Aquinas adopts plenty of Augustine's positions and Augustine is a Platonist.

Roustabout said:
I would defer to Ed Feser, as he is the best expert I've found on the subject today. He has found that most postmodern philosophers do not have an accurate grip on Aquinas, and his book 'Aquinas, a beginners guide,' makes a solid case.
Click to expand...

In philosophy, "modern" refers to the Cartesian shift away from Aristotle; "postmodern" refers to the re-embracement of Aristotle. Being that Aquinas was an Aristotelian, why do you think neo-Aristotelians would not have an accurate grip on Aquinas?

Roustabout said:
Here he addresses the dilemma as being a false one. Edward Feser: God, obligation, and the Euthyphro dilemma
Interesting that he would have an article that addresses this exact topic. Thank you Ed.
Click to expand...

Makes it easy for you. Can you place his argument into a simple, valid structural form?

First, I disagree with Feser's set up: the dilemma is not about God's commands; it is about God's goodness.

Second, I take huge exception to the following premise:
The actual situation, then, is this. What is good or bad for us is determined by the ends set for us by our nature, and given the essentialist metaphysics Aquinas is committed to, that means that there are certain things that are good or bad for us absolutely, which even God could not change
Click to expand...

1. It is not certain that what is good or bad for us is determined by the ends set for us by our nature.

2. Let's suppose it is certain (that Aristotelian teleology is true):
a) Does God create us?
b) Is God responsible for our nature?
c) Does God have a free hand to create us in any way possible?
d) Does God have choice over our nature?
e) If God has a choice over our nature, and absolute good and bad is tied to our nature, then why would this be a case of something God cannot change?

Here's a tip: learn to argue for your own beliefs, instead of relying on someone with an argument so glaringly flawed it is almost humerous (as well, it is a quite shameful representation of Aquinas, who is a philosopher I actually have a great deal of respect for).

Oh, and a suggestion, pick up one of Aquinas's Summas (or, if those are two large for your consumption, maybe a Penguin Books edition of the essential writings of Aquinas), and read him yourself. Also, don't confuse what Aquinas says in either the thesis or counterthesis parts of his discussions of any views as necessitating that he holds those views. He argues each question as thoroughly as possible from each side, then he makes some remarks, then he provides his conclusions. Many persons who read Aquinas take a lot of what he does not endorse as **** he endorses.

One thing Aquinas does not endorse: obviously invalid arguments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#306
#306
Roustabout said:
In essence you are doing that exact thing. You are claiming a finite being cannot know truths about an infinite being, which of course is a claim to know something objectively true about infinite beings. (in this case, that you cannot know.) You either can KNOW this or you cannot. And I simply go back to what I stated earlier about the internal contradiction. Postmodern skepticism at its finest.
Click to expand...

1. This is absurd. Claiming a finite being cannot know truths about the infinite is making a claim about finite beings, not about infinite beings. It's a definitional truth. So, no internal contradiction. Basically, by definition, something finite is bound; and, likewise, something not finite (infinite) is not bound (unbounded). The finite being can know a lot about things that are within its bounds; it can know nothing about things outside its bounds. Unless you want to argue that we are not finite beings, in our cognitive capacities are unbounded, then we cannot conceive the unbounded. If we cannot conceive the unbounded, we cannot know the unbounded. If you want to argue that our cognitive capacities are bound, then you are arguing that our cognitive capacities and representations are not bound; that is, they are not even bound by the conditions of space and time. It's a view. Can you argue for it?

2. You ought to understand that by "postmodern" you are referring to Neo-Aristotelians.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#308
#308
Attacking Feser like you do is laughable. You are coming across as a bully, to be frank. I provided a link that provides a thorough answer, and you simply resort to attacking me, which indicates you aren't open to anything that disputes Euthyphro. Your objection to his 'set up', notwithstanding, it is thorough answer, with links to even more detail, and deals with the isssue of goodness as well.


Goodness of course is something we'll have to unpack. Although I suspect you already know a lot of these answers, and are simply wagering that I don't. Regarding your list in #2, I see several things I take acception with, and when I get some time I'll do my best to address. In the mean time, any one in the audience is welcome to further explore the article linked by Feser, despite your attempts to shovel **** on it.

And I specifically said, postmodern skepticism, which does argue that reality cannot be known or described objectively.
 
#309
#309
Roustabout said:
Attacking Feser like you do is laughable.
Click to expand...

So, I cannot attack his arguments? Okay. I guess he is right, and God has no power over what God decides to create. Thus, you have avoided the omnibenevolence problem...but, now you have a problem with omnipotence.

Roustabout said:
You are coming across as a bully, to be frank. I provided a link that provides a thorough answer, and you simply resort to attacking me, which indicates you aren't open to anything that disputes Euthyphro.
Click to expand...

Well, Frank, I don't care whether I come off as a bully. The only way this hack-job of an argument goes through is with the assumption that God is not omnipotent. I doubt that either you or Freser commit to such a premise.

I personally care little about the Euthyphro and I am not a Platonist. I'm a Kantian, and Kant is incredibly Aristotelian. As I stated from the beginning, I'm interested in your position regarding the evaluation of evaluatives. But, I know you will provide no position and no argument, because arguments of those sorts are much harder to come by on the internet. That is, it's tougher for you to just post them without actually engaging the argument, breaking down the premises, and assessing validity and soundness.

Roustabout said:
Your objection to his 'set up', notwithstanding, it is thorough answer, with links to even more detail, and deals with the isssue of goodness as well.
Click to expand...

It is not a coherent answer insofar as we are presuming that you and Ed are committed to the unstated proposition, "God is omnipotent."

Roustabout said:
Goodness of course is something we'll have to unpack. Although I suspect you already know a lot of these answers, and are simply wagering that I don't. Regarding your list in #2, I see several things I take acception with, and when I get some time I'll do my best to address. In the mean time, any one in the audience is welcome to further explore the article linked by Feser, despite your attempts to shovel **** on it
Click to expand...

It deserves to have **** shoveled on it. Further, I do not have an answer to what "goodness" is. I do understand the structure of language, the concept of properties, and the role of predication, though. That is all I need.

Roustabout said:
And I specifically said, postmodern skepticism, which does argue that reality cannot be known or described objectively.
Click to expand...

The modifiers you are searching for are epistemic and ontological, respectively. Postmodern refers to the philosophical response to the moderns (Cartesian inspired philosophy), and a return to a more Aristotelian perspective. It is a term of art that has been egregiously bastardized and expanded by individuals who don't know what the **** they are talking about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#310
#310
Well, if you care not of being a bully, then why should I care to respond to your bullying tactics? What a fool I would be. You've thoroughly poisened the well.

Attacking arguments is one thing. But based on your assumptions on omnipotence you are flattly misstating Feser's position. As I said, your 'A" through "E" questions indicate those flaws. And as I said, I'll do my best to get to that, when I have more than just a handful of minutes to reply. But resorting to ad-hominems and other attacks (you can't, you won't) doesn't indicate to me that you are at all sincere.
 
#311
#311
Roustabout said:
Well, if you care not of being a bully, then why should I care to respond to your bullying tactics? What a fool I would be. You've thoroughly poisened the well.

Attacking arguments is one thing. But based on your assumptions on omnipotence you are flattly misstating Feser's position. As I said, your 'A" through "E" questions indicate those flaws. And as I said, I'll do my best to get to that, when I have more than just a handful of minutes to reply. But resorting to ad-hominems and other attacks (you can't, you won't) doesn't indicate to me that you are at all sincere.
Click to expand...

I pulled (a)-(e) right out of Feser's argument. He avoids his own interpretation of the Euthyphro argument (concern not with the question of whether God is good but whether we are obligated to obey his commands), by saying that God's hands are tied by nature.

It's foolish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#312
#312
No offense to anybody but this has gotten beyond laughable. We as human beings can barely understand our own bodies. In the scope of the earth and especially the universe, we know very little. Yet people want to try and understand Gods abilities and intelligence? Sheesh.
 
#313
#313
BigOrangeTrain said:
No offense to anybody but this has gotten beyond laughable. We as human beings can barely understand our own bodies. In the scope of the earth and especially the universe, we know very little. Yet people want to try and understand Gods abilities and intelligence? Sheesh.
Click to expand...

There's only one side trying to understand anything about God. The other discounts the notion of God from start.
 
#314
#314
BigOrangeTrain said:
No offense to anybody but this has gotten beyond laughable. We as human beings can barely understand our own bodies. In the scope of the earth and especially the universe, we know very little. Yet people want to try and understand Gods abilities and intelligence? Sheesh.
Click to expand...

This post says a lot about an all too common and disappointing mindset among the religious- the unwillingness to further their understanding of not only the world around them, but their own faith as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#315
#315
rjd970 said:
There's only one side trying to understand anything about God. The other discounts the notion of God from start.
Click to expand...

It's sad to be on your side of the fence to be so closed minded & stubborn about a creator God & the afterlife. You have nothing to look forward to after death so have fun in your eternity while we have it all in ours.
 
#318
#318
MercyPercy said:
This post says a lot about an all too common and disappointing mindset among the religious- the unwillingness to further their understanding of not only the world around them, but their own faith as well.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm where did I say to not further knowledge? I am all for asking questions and gaining knowledge. I am learning new things everyday. This is just another sad attempt to label religious people as ones who do not want to learn.

Nice straw man there Chet.
 
#320
#320
BigOrangeTrain said:
Hmmmm where did I say to not further knowledge? I am all for asking questions and gaining knowledge. I am learning new things everyday. This is just another sad attempt to label religious people as ones who do not want to learn.

Nice straw man there Chet.
Click to expand...

Your post in summary was "why even attempt to understand the notion of god, the intentions of god, and the limits of god, because we're too stupid. Just accept your ignorance and let it be."

Great position there, Lance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#321
#321
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
It's sad to be on your side of the fence to be so closed minded & stubborn about a creator God & the afterlife. You have nothing to look forward to after death so have fun in your eternity while we have it all in ours.
Click to expand...

Apparently us religious people are the closed minded ones. Considering 84% of the world are religious! seems there are quite a few of us closed minded folks :)
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top