Your problem is that you think that atheists make claims about the nature of god. That is a contradiction. — Harry Hindu

The argument from evil is an atheist argument that is based on the nature of god.

The argument that started this thread is an atheist argument that is based on saying something about the nature of god

My point is, that neither theist or atheist have any basis to say anything at all about the nature of god and any argument either makes that uses the nature of god as a proposition is outside reason and is faith based

All - the real discussion we are having is, is morality absolute or relative. Most would like to have morality subject to their own personal judgment. Others say there are many things that are objectively immoral

I am more the latter than the former. Primarily because I am not sure there is any evil that a motivated human can’t justify

As an example I can not believe there is such a thing as a moral war. There is such a thing as a just war, but not a moral one.

Atheists don't make claims about God. If they did, they wouldn't be atheists! — Harry Hindu

Saying if god is x then god y. Is making a claim about the nature of god. Logical or not, it is a claim about the nature of god

My very simple question is what is your rationale argument that you or me or anyone for supporting that we can say anything at all about what god is or is not

I think a great deal of difference. I do not think a pragmatic response to an imperfect world can elevate an act from immoral to moral.

Think of the trolly thought experiment. If I throw the switch and kill one innocent man is that more moral than not throwing it and killing 10 innocent men. It is an immoral situation that forces me to make a pragmatic choice of evils.

Your point only makes sense to me if you are viewing a range of morality on some kind on continuum, where moving from one point to another can be viewed as more or less moral or immoral depending on which direction you are moving.

yes

Yes the lie was and immoral act. The fact that some amount of money is the reason the child can not be cured is an immoral act. Faced with these two evils - the father chose the lesser of immoral acts.

It is a hard one to get and I suppose you don't have to accept it either. Kant is saying (in my opinion) that making a lying promise (one you know that you won't keep) can never be moral for any reason. He doesn't say that it is immoral, only that it cannot be moral. I am not sure that Kant implies that not acting morally equates to acting immorally, but I might be wrong.

If I borrowed a sum of money from you to buy life saving medicine for my child, knowing that I couldn't repay you, would you consider the act to have been immoral? The act was definitely wrong but I am not sure that Kant would have seen it as immoral. — Jamesk

thanks - My view is that there is not a space between moral and immoral - if one is making a moral judgment of an act - than the judgment is dichotomous. But I may well have not given it enough thought to find the line Kant was drawing.

In the case of the money, I am back to my point. Giving the benefit of the doubt to situation that no other alternative existed, than the father is facing a moral dilemma and is forced to chose the lesser of evils. Not sure that is any more or less semantic than ends justifying means. But to me, at least it is an important distinction.

I think it's recommendable to lie- -it would be morally worse to tell the truth--is when your wife asks you, "Do I look fat in this?" and you think she does--and basically you'd think she looks fat in anything, but you know that if you say she looks fat in it, it will affect her negatively--so you answer "No." — Terrapin Station

What you are saying, in every example you give, has nothing at all to do the morality or immorality of the lie - what you are saying in each example is the end justifies the means.

And my argument back would be that in many of these cases the real objective of the lie is for the benefit of the liar and not the one lied to. Is it really to make the wife feel better about wearing out something she may look bad in, or just easier for the liar to avoid a truthful discussion on the way she looks. When her truthful girlfriend who she trusts tells her that dress is not flattering on her - she may love him more for trying to make her feel better or trust him less to give her honest answers on her outfits.

But what we are really talking about here is you would like morality to be relative. To be contingent on the circumstances, or the reasons. I prefer to thing morality to be more absolute.

This is not what Kant is saying. He is saying that lying can never be moral for any reason, not that it is always immoral to lie. He does not directly prescribe lying as immoral. — Jamesk

At least in my amateur mind - i am not sure I understand the distinction

Can I change it around some -

A lot of people, like you, think not all lies are immoral - Why do you think some lies are moral ?? Can you give me an example of a moral lie ?

again to define a lie:

A lie communicates some information
The liar intends to deceive or mislead
The liar believes that what they are 'saying' is not true

Something wouldn't have to add to trust in order for it to not diminish trust. It can simply be neutral. — Terrapin Station

Using the definition of lie above - i disagree with this proposition - If your intent is to deceive or mislead it is not neutral and it is not positive - not once again not all to an equal degree.

Even if we go with all of that, how would a lie like "Pleased to meet you" (when the person doesn't actually feel like being social at all at the moment) diminish trust or make it harder to make an informed decision? — Terrapin Station

how does is add to trust of make informed decisions easier ? These types of games are easy.

To your point -
is your intent above to deceive or mislead the person you are speaking to ??? Why do you feel a need to deceive them ?? Who's purpose are you serving ?? If you feel you can deceive them with impunity on this - will it be easier to deceive them on greater things.

My point that all lies are immoral - does not state that all lies are equally immoral. -

Next time just say hello.

To define it first:
A lie communicates some information
The liar intends to deceive or mislead
The liar believes that what they are 'saying' is not true

Lying is bad – immoral because –

If diminishes truth in the world – and therefor diminishes trust
If one believes truth and trust are good – things that diminish them are bad

The liar is treating those lied to as a means to an end

Lying makes it harder for those lied to to make an informed decision

Lying corrupts the liar - (a gateway moral wrong to other moral wrongs)

Lying is always an immoral act
Not doing what is in your power to do to prevent harm to others is immoral

my point being we are not always presented with an option of moral vs immoral, right vs wrong

we are often asked to chose the lesser of evils, or the greater of goods.

think we are talking past each other - you are either missing my point, or answering the question you want to answer and not the one asked - let me try to be clearer with a classic example.

The Atheist claims - If God is the 3 O's - then God should not permit evil - therefor there is no God

My point is that neither the Atheist making the argument, or the theist attacking the argument - have any basis at all to make any proposition at all about the nature of God - All such propositions from both the theist and the atheist have no basis in reason - and are all propositions based on faith.

Always loved " Sirens of Titan" that the totality of our entire existence was just to provide a space/time traveler a replacement part for his space ship the size of a old time can opener.

In some seriousness - and admittedly, I am very unread on the concept at hand, but I can't stop thinking that this issue of determinism is just a regression of acts of free will.

I am A, because of a series of experiences/act of others B1 ......Bx, which in turn are because of a series of experiences/act of other C1 ...... Cx and so on an so on back to some point of man's becoming aware of himself and becoming aware of a shared conscientiousness with others.

So if you buy into this line of, I hope, logic. It leads, like all regressions, to what was first. Was there a first act, ever. Was it an act of free will ? Or was it predetermined - and if yes - by what ?

Well I was going to argue your point, then I thought I am not sure I understand it well enough to, so, I said to myself let it go, then I typed this. All along wondering if I was actually deciding anything or actually thinking anything at all. Was just about to delete this - but think I will hit " post comment" anyway - I feel like I have no choice.

The judge has no choice, he also is without free will and determined to send you away to life time of jail , full of other people who thru no willful act of their own are there as well. Sadly for you many of these are also predetermined to commit heinous ( if something that is determined can actually be called heinous) acts on there fellow free will-less inmates.

If there is any comfort to be taken in this future existence or yours, it is that it was always to be as such and there was nothing you could have done to prevent it.

Harry the discussion starts with an If - then statement - concerning the nature of God. These are quite normal - If God is X then God cant be Y - therefore there is no God. It is a very fair question to all of these arguments for someone to ask those making the claim to support the basis for their proposition they can say anything at all about the nature of God.

I'm saying the original prime mover argument is basically logical until it reaches the point of the 'unmoved mover' which is not a logical concept. — Devans99

I see no difference at all between this and my point

Basically you are still saying - Augustine's argument is logical, I just don't like his answer, so in that case it is not logical. — Rank Amateur

Am I missing something?

Science points to a start of time (the Big Bang) and explains little else to my satisfaction. My argument needs a first cause (the Big Bang) so it is just as consistent with Science as other interpretations. But my argument also has the logical advantage of explaining the infinite regress / chicken and egg problem. — Devans99

again - all you are doing is saying " i disagree with science" and I disagree with Aquinas - here is another possibility - yet again - which is fine - but it carries no more logic or reason or basis that Aquinas - actually less - since it also requires you to disregard today's best science.

- I do not believe the concept of an unmoved mover is logically sound.
- An infinite regress of movers in time is not logically sound.
- Something from nothing is impossible — Devans99

all of these opinions, you are assuming to be facts, are not facts - if there is such a thing as "God"

Basically you are still saying - Augustine's argument is logical, I just don't like his answer, so in that case it is not logical.

And you still have not acknowledged or answered my point that Augustine's argument is consistent with today's best science and yours is not - can you bridge that point for me ?

I'm proposing circular time as a way out of the infinite regress problem at the start of the universe. I proposing it on the basis of logic rather than faith. It seems to be the only possible solution. — Devans99

which there is no current scientific support for at all. You are just missing stating the first proposition in your logic chain - your first proposition is " it is not God, because I don't believe there is a God" so it has to be something else -

All of which is fair - I just want to point out to you that your answer to the un-moved mover has no philosophic difference than mine ( and Aquinas's') answer - Other than, my answer is consistent with the best consensus scientific explanation of the universe - while yours requires you to leave science all together and is baded solely on faith.

this seems just a round about way of saying it can't be God, because there is no God, so it is something else - we just don't know what yet. Which is just one more faith based position. It is just faith in science ( or better said faith in the human ability to know everything ) than belief in an un-created creator.

How exactly can such a thing be? — Devans99

If it is such a thing as we imagine and call God

Something must have changed to cause the first cause. — Devans99

than it is not a first cause, than at best it is a second cause

Time is circular. The first cause was the Big Bang and that was caused by the last effect; the Big Crunch. — Devans99

Which is fine, except one would have to leave the realm of the best consensus scientific theory of the the universe, that it is finite. Which is also fine - but just to be clear this is just as faith based a answer as "God".

Ha - like that

How about instead of lying - I just open the door and shoot him dead. Is that any more or less moral ?

Please prove that human logic has anything to do with phenomena the scale of gods. Thank you — Jake

I am not even asking for proof ( whatever that is for such a concept ) just asking if someone can make a reasonable argument that we humans have a basis for saying anything at all about the nature of such a thing as God.

There are just so many If --- Then God arguments that propose as true the "if" and then propose as false the "then" with some kind of truth assumption on our ability of know as even close to true any of it.

This includes the argument from evil, and every God paradox you have ever heard.

Sorry - made an assumption it was evident that was the cosmological argument. I was not making an argument. I was making a factual statement there is a reasonable argument.

have less than zero interest in a discussion of cause vs being - that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the point I was making.

because the argument I was alluding to that started this argues it is a being and not a cause -

doesn't matter - to me just semantics - have to call "it" something - being is the most used label for this idea - but it is just a label - not material to my point at all

think we have definition issues.

Let me define necessary being - A necessary being is a being ( some identifiable entity) who's existence is not contingent on anything. And who's existence is necessary for the existence of all contingent beings.

I think necessary being is fine, and there is a reasonable case for it. Both for factual necessity and causal necessity.

there is a reasonable case that at least at one time there was an un-created creator - or put another way, a necessary being. All other God claims are IMO completely faith based.

Once again - for those making assumptions or claims about the nature of God, what such a being could or could not do, be or not be, etc.

Do you have a reasoned argument that we have the ability to make such claims, or assumptions. Not trying to be difficult, but it seems an important concept that we should all understand. That if we make any proposition at all about the nature of God, we have no real basis to justify that claims.

God is understood to be changeless, and therefore timeless, but God is also understood to be the creator of time. — Walter Pound

God exists as an independent dimension above all others — Wallows

I think God is needed to explain the state of the universe but I have difficulties fitting him into any viable model of the universe. Would you have God sharing our time dimension or does he have his own time dimension? Or if you have God as timeless, how does he manage to change things (like creating universes)? — Devans99

There's an idea that eternal and infinite means existing outside of the frames of space and time as opposed to existing comprehensively within the full spectrum of space and time. The latter would still imply God is limited by space and time thus making Him relative. So, if by God is meant absoluteness, then God becomes such as is untouched by the influence of space and time. — BrianW

and a few others.


I am skeptical that we as human beings can say anything at all of value about the nature of "God" . I know of no reasonable basis to believe that we poses the tools or capabilities to understand such a thing as what "God" can or can't do, be or not be, think or not think. It could well be no more accurate than a puppy's explanation of relativity.

Apologies, I don't understand the question, can you clarify? That is, I don't know what Absurdism is, not being an actual philosophy but only a honking blowhard. — Jake

Absudism is a philosophy most notably made popular by Camus - What is says in a sentence or two is, men seem to have a need to seek meaning for their existence. But there is no meaning to be found. This paradox of a need to find meaning where there is none is absurd.

https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/camus-and-absurdity

It's an act of reason to recognize the reality of our ignorance, proven by at least 500 years of totally inconclusive God debate. — Jake

Jake - do see this as a kind of restatement of Absurdism ?

One can believe something to be true, and act accordingly based on either fact, reason or faith.

It is not a fact that God is
It is reasonable to believe in an "un-created creator" or a "necessary being" and if one wishes one
can call that being God

However the Christian God of the bible, or pick your other "god" is a belief of faith

I would be happy to. He is an interesting, flawed, and complicated man. Very much the type of person one should look to to understand Catholicism. To me, along with Fr. Merton, mother Theresa who often struggled with her faith, Dorothy day, and one fictional character- the whiskey priest in Graeme green's the power and the glory are great insights into real world Catholicism

On subjects of such enormous scale, reason leads to a clear minded recognition of our ignorance. — Jake

You asked for my Catholic cut - here it is on this - said much better than I could.

“Reason is in fact the path to faith, and faith takes over when reason can say no more.”

― Thomas Merton