technically the laws will never end until the source of good is found and wanted
what i mean to say is that society will never produce a functionally moral state without God, who has to be wanted first before he is found.
truthfully, most do not want a God because they do not to be morally restricted.
Originally posted by kava_kava
technically the laws will never end until the source of good is found and wantedwhat i mean to say is that society will never produce a functionally moral state without God, who has to be wanted first before he is found.
truthfully, most do not want a God because they do not to be morally restricted.
Originally posted by King Kandy
That's clearly stated now, but it's still stupid. There are functional societies, and there are moral societies (I know this because you said some societies are immoral, meaning some aren't). If it is functional, then it must be moral, because people don't do things they don't feel are justified.
again, what is "good"? there are cases of functional immoral societies. Some justify what other societies call immoral. So then we cannot define morality. Each man has his own. I guess this is why you need God, for each man has his own morality.
Originally posted by kava_kava
again, what is "good"? there are cases of functional immoral societies. Some justify what other societies call immoral. So then we cannot define morality. Each man has his own. I guess this is why you need God, for each man has his own morality.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It's not really a paradox. It's a trick of words.
Originally posted by King Kandy
There is no contradiction. This thread discusses the Judeo-Christian conception of god in relation to morality. The problem isn't that you disagree, it's that you're arguing about something that isn't even in the same topic everyone else is trying to discuss.
The thread starter is trying to set up a paradox that does not exist. I pointed that out by simply changing some of the words around. It's just a word game.
All a Christians has to say is that god created good, and humans are not capable of knowing what good is without god. There is no paradox.
The intrinsic part, in this case, would simply be god. However, this is a false point because there is no such thing as intrinsically good.
In order for the paradox to be real, intrinsic good would have to be real.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The thread starter is trying to set up a paradox that does not exist. I pointed that out by simply changing some of the words around. It's just a word game.All a Christians has to say is that god created good, and humans are not capable of knowing what good is without god. There is no paradox.
The intrinsic part, in this case, would simply be god. However, this is a false point because there is no such thing as intrinsically good.
In order for the paradox to be real, intrinsic good would have to be real.
I agree with your point that it's not a terribly hard paradox to simply rationalize your way out of if you're a christian. However, in the context of the OP, we're supposed to be looking at it from a christian perspective. Changing the definitions in the OP is no different from when JIA replied to a "if you found out jesus was fake" with a "this lacks value, because he isn't fake". In a thread discussing a hypothetical, the conditions have to be accepted if any useful discussion about it will be generated.
Originally posted by King Kandy
You didn't "point out" anything more than me changing "god" to "turkey" in the OP would have made the post nonsensical.
What in the hell are you talking about? I never said anything about turkey.
Originally posted by King Kandy
I agree with your point that it's not a terribly hard paradox to simply rationalize your way out of if you're a christian. However, in the context of the OP, we're supposed to be looking at it from a christian perspective. Changing the definitions in the OP is no different from when JIA replied to a "if you found out jesus was fake" with a "this lacks value, because he isn't fake". In a thread discussing a hypothetical, the conditions have to be accepted if any useful discussion about it will be generated.
A disagreement is not a paradox. The Christian would think you are wrong, and not capable of being right, and you would think that the Christian was being illogical. That is not a paradox. It maybe a paradox in the mind of an atheist who has no idea how a theist thinks, but that is not a true paradox.
Also, the term theist is too wide range of beliefs to fit within the claim made by the original post.
Re: The Problem Of Good
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So imagine God makes a statement that something is good or should be done. Their are two possibilities: either the statement is inherently true or it is subjective.In either case it seems to cause a problem for theism.
If it an intrinsic good then we do not need God because the thing/idea being good in independent of God.
If is is not an intrinsic good then God's position in no more valid than mine or yours and thus we do not need God anymore than any other philosopher.Thoughts? Third options?
In other words, is the ethical value of an action determined by God, or is the ethical value of an action inherent, and simply recognized by God?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What in the hell are you talking about? I never said anything about turkey.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A disagreement is not a paradox. The Christian would think you are wrong, and not capable of being right, and you would think that the Christian was being illogical. That is not a paradox. It maybe a paradox in the mind of an atheist who has no idea how a theist thinks, but that is not a true paradox.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Also, the term theist is too wide range of beliefs to fit within the claim made by the original post.