by jimwalton » Wed Jun 04, 2014 3:38 pm
> Kalam's argument
Yep. But that wasn't the only argument I was making. It was one of seven, so I was talking about the weight of evidence from many angles.
> what version of the [ontological] argument are you actually making?
The one I wrote. It would help if you read what I wrote before you responded to it. Here's the ontological argument I posted:
1. If God does not exist, His existence is logically impossible.
2. If God does exist, His existence is logically necessary.
3. Hence either God’s existence is logically impossible or it is logically necessary.
4. If God’s existence is logically impossible, the concept of God is contradictory.
5. The concept of God is not contradictory.
6. Therefore God’s existence is logically necessary.
> Now look, real world evil would need to be scientifically demonstrated. There would have to be observed phenomena that show that certain acts violate a tangible aspect of nature.
This seems, to me, to border on the absurd. If someone snuck (sneaked?) into your house and killed your whole family and group of friends, as long as they isn't get caught, it's not evil? That astounds, me, frankly. So what you are telling me is that there is no evil and there is no good, there is only neutral cause and effect? If the Boston Marathon bomber didn't get caught, it would have been OK? If the Newtown School shooter didn't get caught, no harm no foul? To me that's unreasonable and unrealistic.
> And in the past, those morals were fluid
Some morals are fluid, because there are different levels of morality.
> The universe, so far as we can tell, goes on neutrally no matter if you rescue a burning baby or put it in a death camp.
This is shocking for me to hear. It's hard for me to believe you actually believe this. And what I truly can't believe is that you can live this way. So if you kidnap a baby, torture it and kill it, that's not wrong if it doesn't violate a tangible aspect of nature??? I would guess, then, that you don't believe in justice either, because one can't rightly be held accountable for that which doesn't violate a fundamental law of physics. I'm not trying to be cheeky, I'm just trying to find out what you believe. And if someone wished to destroy you, or torture you? Do you feel that you have no worth or significance that would make that a violation of your being? What about the atrocious genocide in Rwanda? If you believe that no objective real quality of the universe was impacted, it was OK?
To me what you have done is logically denied personality and humanity.
> Kalam's argument
Yep. But that wasn't the only argument I was making. It was one of seven, so I was talking about the weight of evidence from many angles.
> what version of the [ontological] argument are you actually making?
The one I wrote. It would help if you read what I wrote before you responded to it. Here's the ontological argument I posted:
1. If God does not exist, His existence is logically impossible.
2. If God does exist, His existence is logically necessary.
3. Hence either God’s existence is logically impossible or it is logically necessary.
4. If God’s existence is logically impossible, the concept of God is contradictory.
5. The concept of God is not contradictory.
6. Therefore God’s existence is logically necessary.
> Now look, real world evil would need to be scientifically demonstrated. There would have to be observed phenomena that show that certain acts violate a tangible aspect of nature.
This seems, to me, to border on the absurd. If someone snuck (sneaked?) into your house and killed your whole family and group of friends, as long as they isn't get caught, it's not evil? That astounds, me, frankly. So what you are telling me is that there is no evil and there is no good, there is only neutral cause and effect? If the Boston Marathon bomber didn't get caught, it would have been OK? If the Newtown School shooter didn't get caught, no harm no foul? To me that's unreasonable and unrealistic.
> And in the past, those morals were fluid
Some morals are fluid, because there are different levels of morality.
> The universe, so far as we can tell, goes on neutrally no matter if you rescue a burning baby or put it in a death camp.
This is shocking for me to hear. It's hard for me to believe you actually believe this. And what I truly can't believe is that you can live this way. So if you kidnap a baby, torture it and kill it, that's not wrong if it doesn't violate a tangible aspect of nature??? I would guess, then, that you don't believe in justice either, because one can't rightly be held accountable for that which doesn't violate a fundamental law of physics. I'm not trying to be cheeky, I'm just trying to find out what you believe. And if someone wished to destroy you, or torture you? Do you feel that you have no worth or significance that would make that a violation of your being? What about the atrocious genocide in Rwanda? If you believe that no objective real quality of the universe was impacted, it was OK?
To me what you have done is logically denied personality and humanity.