but 'many Gods' is definitely heresy from a Christian P.O.V — Wayfarer
(1) If we don't know this, then it is more reasonable to infer a single being rather than many, due to the Law of Parsimony or Occam's Razor, stating that the simplest hypothesis that explains all the data is the most reasonable one. — Samuel Lacrampe
(2) If the ideal is essentially made of that one property only, (e.g. the ideal red), then there can only be one ideal being with that property, as per the principle of Identity of Indiscernibles. Other beings with that property may also reach the maximum degree, but they have it only 'in participation', where as the ideal being would have it 'essentially', and would be the source of that property in others. (This is admittedly getting quite technical). — Samuel Lacrampe
I see your point; but we need here to introduce another notion to show that the reasoning is not circular: Conscience or Moral Compass. When we observe a person as being morally good or bad, this is information that comes to us, not from us. This makes sense because if the moral judgement of men came strictly from men, then the whole exercise would be circular and pointless, like a prisoner being its own judge.This is just a vicious circle, using goodness in human beings to determine the human purpose, in order to use the human purpose to identify goodness. To say that so and so is a good person would require already that one has an idea of the human purpose, if goodness is determined relative to the human purpose. So we can't look for good human beings to determine what the human purpose is because we wouldn't know how to identify a good human being without already knowing what the human purpose is. — Metaphysician Undercover
Can you give examples of what you call real units vs arbitrary units? As I understand it, it doesn't make sense: Say I am counting spoons. A spoon is a real unit. Yet there is no possible maximum number of spoons.If the units are arbitrary, then there is no real quantity. The quantity is relative to the arbitrary scale, there is a possible infinity, and no maximum. If the units are real, then there are real limits, no infinity, and a maximum, there is a quantity in an absolute sense. — Metaphysician Undercover
Rubbish.
Numbers are names of quantities. Numbers are existentially dependent upon language. Quantities are not. Quantities exist prior to numbers. Thus, there were quantities prior to numbers.
A quantity is not always a number of units. — creativesoul
I see your point; but we need here to introduce another notion to show that the reasoning is not circular: Conscience or Moral Compass. When we observe a person as being morally good or bad, this is information that comes to us, not from us. This makes sense because if the moral judgement of men came strictly from men, then the whole exercise would be circular and pointless, like a prisoner being its own judge.
The reasoning thus goes like this: Through conscience, we acquire information that some persons are better than others; and from this, we induce the human purpose; which coincides with the moral ideal. — Samuel Lacrampe
The reasoning thus goes like this: Through conscience, we acquire information that some persons are better than others; and from this, we induce the human purpose; which coincides with the moral ideal. — Samuel Lacrampe
It is odd to define 'ideal' as the scale rather than as the maximum degree of a property. In common language, the ideal grade for a homework is clearly 100%, not the percentage scale. — Samuel Lacrampe
You define 'quantity' as "that which can be measured", and thus cannot be infinite; but a length can be measured, and the length property can go to infinity. — Samuel Lacrampe
In common language, 'quantity' simply means that we can put numbers to it, and numbers go to infinity. — Samuel Lacrampe
You define 'quality' as "that which cannot be measured as a definite quantity", and therefore can go to infinity; but 'red' is a quality, not a quantity, and we know that there is a pure red, and red to the maximum degree. — Samuel Lacrampe
Can you give examples of what you call real units vs arbitrary units? As I understand it, it doesn't make sense: Say I am counting spoons. A spoon is a real unit. Yet there is no possible maximum number of spoons. — Samuel Lacrampe
You seem to have confused "number" with "numeral". There's a difference between these two, — Metaphysician Undercover
We need first to establish what good is in general. My definition of good refers to any type of good that is objective, not merely moral good. Thus it applies to circles, hammers, homework, health, morality, or really anything that has a nature, an identity. People may not all agree about the moral system, but all can agree that this circle is a better circle than this circle. Thus I believe that the definition of good is fitting. Once established, then we can move on to the next objections.But how to arrive at any kind of consensus about what is good, absent something like a Platonic view or its equivalent? — Wayfarer
Yep, I now agree with you. The Law of Parsimony made me lean towards the hypothesis of a single being, until a better reason is provided, and you provided a good one. Furthermore, I forgot about the principle that "ought implies can", and as such, if we ought to be morally perfect, then it implies that the moral good to the maximum degree can be reached.If there exists a maximum value for a quality or attribute and if the beings in the universe are moving in the direction of that maximum, i.e. actively trying to attain that maximum position (in Christian terms, to be more like Jesus/God) then it stands to reason that eventually over time, that maximum position will become flooded. — Pilgrim
Why be morally good? As morality is about "what we ought to do", the question is self-explanatory. Because we ought to do what we ought to do. To return the question, why not be satisfied in becoming like God as opposed to becoming God? If it not part of our nature to have the ability to become God, then this desire is literally unnatural.If this were the case then what motive or value is there in other beings striving to reach the "maximum quality" if in truth it is impossible to achieve on the basis that they don't have the quality inherently or "essentially"? — Pilgrim
I forgot about the principle that "ought implies can", and as such, if we ought to be morally perfect, then it implies that the moral good to the maximum degree can be reached. — Samuel Lacrampe
the being with moral perfection cannot remove its moral goodness without ceasing to be. — Samuel Lacrampe
Both are existentially dependent upon language. So the difference doesn't make a difference here. — creativesoul
We need first to establish what good is in general. My definition of good refers to any type of good that is objective, not merely moral good. Thus it applies to circles, hammers, homework, health, morality, or really anything that has a nature, an identity. People may not all agree about the moral system, but all can agree that this circle is a better circle than this circle. Thus I believe that the definition of good is fitting. Once established, then we can move on to the next objections. — Samuel Lacrampe
I accept the clarification.It comes from "outside" of the person, but that "outside" is really through the "inside". — Metaphysician Undercover
While your argument is valid, its conclusion unreasonable, as it fails the Law of Parsimony. It is like saying that although we all perceive the same boat at the horizon, we should not conclude that it is real because there is always the possibility of collective hallucination. Yes, it is possible, but the former hypothesis is simpler than the latter.[...] So as much as "conscience" may lead us in specific directions, we cannot validate that it is leading us in the right direction [...] — Metaphysician Undercover
'Ought' is different than 'should'. 'Ought' means 'should' specifically in the moral sense, in the sense of duty, obligation; in the sense that we are labelled as good if we do, and bad if we don't. Your superman example is an example of should, but not an example of ought, because as you said, it is not currently possible to ignore the effects of gravity, despite the benefits it could bring.The "ought to" part simply implies that the benchmark maximum exists albeit notionally (as the 'ought to' could just be an ideal or concept). It doesn't for me imply that the benchmark can be reached. [...] — Pilgrim
Another clarification on definitions. In Aristotelian language, a 'being' is not necessarily a living organism (which would be a living being) or person, but simply a thing in the sense that that which is not a being is nothing. So the being with the maximum property as its essence can be just that, the maximum property.I pause here to ask whether the actual source property itself, love, goodness, life-energy, whatever, must in any sense be an actual being rather than just being that simple thing/property itself. [...] — Pilgrim
Yes, that follows.If God is deemed the actual personification and true source of love or goodness then by definition God can not be evil or produce evil. If the source is true and pure there can be no evil within it. — Pilgrim
The conventional interpretation of the Bible in Christianity is that the New Testament should be interpreted literally, and the Old Testament should be interpreted figuratively, in the sense that agrees with the NT. Thus the OT is like the section with riddles, and the NT is like the section with the answers. It sounds like a cop out, but Jesus says himself in the NT: "Don't suppose I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them, but to give them their full meaning." Pascal gives a good explanation for this in his book The Pensées.That being the case the entire set of books in the OT would seem to be in gross error for they describe a God who is, at least to our minds and set of values, inherently evil. — Pilgrim
While your argument is valid, its conclusion unreasonable, as it fails the Law of Parsimony. — Samuel Lacrampe
More importantly however, let's recall why conscience was brought up. The argument from degree is based on the hypothesis definition that good is the measure of how close a being gets to its perfect nature or function. You attempted to falsify it by pointing out that we perceive persons as being more or less good despite not knowing the human purpose. Thus conscience was brought up to explain how we are able to perceive goodness in persons without the need to know human purpose. Whether or not conscience is a reliable source of data, its existence is sufficient to counter the objection. — Samuel Lacrampe
Regarding the terms ideal, quantity, quality: I don't mind trying to adjust the terms to apply to your meanings. As for me, I can find other terms to fit my meanings as intended in the OP. Thus what I meant by 'ideal' or 'maximum degree' can become 'perfection' or 'best'. — Samuel Lacrampe
P1: If there exist beings with varying degrees of a property, then there must exist a being with that property to the maximum degree. — Samuel Lacrampe
Now what is goodness? Rather than seeing good and bad as two separate and opposite beings, it is more correct to see good/bad as how close/far a being gets to its perfect nature or function. — Samuel Lacrampe
The conventional interpretation of the Bible in Christianity is that the New Testament should be interpreted literally, and the Old Testament should be interpreted figuratively, in the sense that agrees with the NT. Thus the OT is like the section with riddles, and the NT is like the section with the answers. — Samuel Lacrampe
So the being with the maximum property as its essence can be just that, the maximum property. — Samuel Lacrampe
We are still not quite on the same page. First, I think we can both agree that this conscience, this moral compass, is real (not necessarily truthful but we do perceive something). Next, the assumption is that it is also truthful; its info is correct. As such, its purpose is clear: to inform us on which behaviour is morally good and morally bad. Next, based on particular data from conscience, we induce general moral laws like the Golden Rule or Kant's Categorical Imperative. Finally, based on the common language that what we call a "good person" is a morally good person, we deduce that the human purpose is to abide to the general moral rules.[...] See, judging goodness requires knowing the purpose of something, and I have admitted that conscience serves "a purpose", so now we need to know "the purpose" of conscience in order to know that what conscience determines as good, is really good. — Metaphysician Undercover
If a being is able to choose its own purpose, then that purpose is merely subjective, which means it has no objective purpose; and by extension, the degree of goodness, relative to that subjective purpose, would also be subjective. Furthermore, if conscience judges our behaviour, then we do not get to choose our purpose over what our conscience tells us.As the definition dictates, the degree of goodness is judged according to the designated purpose. This requires knowing the purpose. Conscience tells us that there is "a purpose", and free will allows us to choose "the purpose", so we have a number of possible purposes to choose from. The degree of goodness is therefore dependent on the choice of purpose. — Metaphysician Undercover
Did somebody read Dan Brown :wink: ? Jokes aside, do you have an example of passage in the OT that is not clarified in the NT? I myself am not all that familiar with the OT so I could learn something too.Having learned some astonishing secrets hidden cryptically, allegorically and in code in the OT, that part of your statement holds true, however I have never seen the NT confirm or explain the secrets hidden in the OT. Thus for me, we still have the situation where the masses (Sheeple) are being hoodwinked about what the Bible is saying and they are not being given the truth. It's a sorry state. — Pilgrim
You are correct that the argument only proves merely a slice of the christian God. In fact, christians believe that a complete picture of the true God is only possible through Jesus, not through reason alone. That said, we can associate this source of moral goodness with the christian God based on the Bible:[...] I don't believe he has proven or deduced that the maximum property is this being, he has only proved that the maximum property exists. — Pilgrim
do you have an example of passage in the OT that is not clarified in the NT? — Samuel Lacrampe
do you have an example of passage in the OT that is not clarified in the NT? — Samuel Lacrampe
Next, the assumption is that it is also truthful; its info is correct. — Samuel Lacrampe
As such, its purpose is clear: to inform us on which behaviour is morally good and morally bad. Next, based on particular data from conscience, we induce general moral laws like the Golden Rule or Kant's Categorical Imperative. Finally, based on the common language that what we call a "good person" is a morally good person, we deduce that the human purpose is to abide to the general moral rules. — Samuel Lacrampe
When we talk about the good, I mean specifically the objective good. I agree with you when it comes to subjective goods like best song or best flavour of ice cream. But when it comes to objective goods, like best circle, hammer, math homework or health, that best is objective, and hence not a matter of opinion. Surely you must agree that the best circle is something like this, and not this.Doesn't it seem more logical that it is actually impossible that there is a being with the best of that property, because this would mean that the being would have to have a number of different degrees of that property at the very same time, to satisfy what every different person considers as "the best" of that property? — Metaphysician Undercover
This type of belief forces you to forfeit terms like change, good, and potentiality; which is absurd.What is a being's perfect nature? Any being is the being which it is. If it were something other than the being which it is, it would not be the being which it is. [...] — Metaphysician Undercover
I agree with everything you have said up to that point. The distinction is between metaphysics and epistemology. As per the definition of good, if there is a real degree of good, then there is a real purpose, regardless if we know it or not. Indeed, if we don't know the purpose, then we cannot know or judge what is good; unless the judgement comes to us by another which knows the purpose.So we must dismiss the premise of good according to purpose. — Metaphysician Undercover
When we talk about the good, I mean specifically the objective good. I agree with you when it comes to subjective goods like best song or best flavour of ice cream. But when it comes to objective goods, like best circle, hammer, math homework or health, that best is objective, and hence not a matter of opinion. Surely you must agree that the best circle is something like this, and not this. — Samuel Lacrampe
This type of belief forces you to forfeit terms like change, good, and potentiality; which is absurd. — Samuel Lacrampe
Good: You would need to forfeit terms like good, bad, better, worse, etc; because for you, all beings are perfect beings as you said. This means there is no such thing as a bad health state, but only "the health state which currently is". — Samuel Lacrampe
I agree with everything you have said up to that point. The distinction is between metaphysics and epistemology. As per the definition of good, if there is a real degree of good, then there is a real purpose, regardless if we know it or not. Indeed, if we don't know the purpose, then we cannot know or judge what is good; unless the judgement comes to us by another which knows the purpose. — Samuel Lacrampe
So, at first we don't know our purpose so we cannot judge of what is good. But we are told what is good by another which we call conscience. Assuming that our conscience speaks the truth, then what is judged to be good is a real good. This therefore implies a real purpose, which the conscience must know. — Samuel Lacrampe
Better to have quality than quantity — Samuel Lacrampe
That sounds ad hoc. Why is purpose subjective? The purpose of the eye is to see, and that of the nose is to smell. It would be objectively wrong to believe that the purpose of the eye is to smell, and that of the nose is to see.If good is associated with purpose, how can there be an objective good? Good would be determined relative to one's intention, and intentions vary. — Metaphysician Undercover
How do you reconcile this idea with the idea that there is a worse, better, and best circle?All I am saying is that a thing's perfect nature cannot be other than what the thing is, or else that is not that thing's perfect nature it is something else's perfect nature. — Metaphysician Undercover
This definition of 'good' effectively makes the term superfluous: any thing is by definition a good thing, and a bad thing would be a contradiction.That's an objective good, good is in the object, by virtue of being the object which it is, it is good. — Metaphysician Undercover
This almost sounds like what I am saying in the OP, with the exception that you make all purposes subjective, and I make them objective. We should therefore clarify this.Now we might relate one object to another, and say that one is better according to some principle like a "purpose", and come up with a relative, or subjective good. — Metaphysician Undercover
No sir. If the "other" can judge a person as being good or bad, it follows that the purpose known is the human purpose; not the other's purpose. Here is an analogy: The purpose of a tugboat is to tow larger boats. Say the tugboat does not know its purpose, but we do. We can judge the tugboat by its action, relative to its purpose. Note that it is its purpose and not ours, even though we know it and it does not. The same goes for the conscience and the "other" when judging humans.Conscience apprehends "good" which comes to us from the source of "other". It doesn't apprehend the purpose because the purpose inheres within the other. — Metaphysician Undercover
That sounds ad hoc. Why is purpose subjective? The purpose of the eye is to see, and that of the nose is to smell. It would be objectively wrong to believe that the purpose of the eye is to smell, and that of the nose is to see. — Samuel Lacrampe
How do you reconcile this idea with the idea that there is a worse, better, and best circle? — Samuel Lacrampe
This definition of 'good' effectively makes the term superfluous: any thing is by definition a good thing, and a bad thing would be a contradiction. — Samuel Lacrampe
This almost sounds like what I am saying in the OP, with the exception that you make all purposes subjective, and I make them objective. We should therefore clarify this. — Samuel Lacrampe
No sir. If the "other" can judge a person as being good or bad, it follows that the purpose known is the human purpose; not the other's purpose. Here is an analogy: The purpose of a tugboat is to tow larger boats. Say the tugboat does not know its purpose, but we do. We can judge the tugboat by its action, relative to its purpose. Note that it is its purpose and not ours, even though we know it and it does not. The same goes for the conscience and the "other" when judging humans. — Samuel Lacrampe
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.