Did you read anything I said? — Bartricks

Yes. Oddities sometimes attract my attention.

You wrote:

But the idea that faith is 'required' for religion is absurd.

Significantly, your claim is about faith in relation to religion. It’s as though you cannot separate the concepts of religion and God. I will attempt to help you with that.

Imagine that on some lazy afternoon you’re performing your most popular tricks at the local pub and **SHABANG** a giant Rastafarian woman materializes in the barstool next to you. All the other bar patrons are like, “Wow, good trick, Bartricks!” You’re dumbfounded, of course, not knowing what’s going on. You timidly say hello to the giant woman. She explains that she is God and just dropped in for a pint of Guinness. Everyone being skeptical of her claim, she proceeds to perform various acts that convince even the most skeptical of her claim.

You then ask her, “So all that stuff in the Bible is true?”

“No, that’s all bullcrap, man. I created the universe to grow ganja.”, she confided.

Religion?

What are you on about? I am not religious. I believe in God. I am not religious. So clearly I have no difficulty separating belief in God from being religious as I have never been religious yet I believe in God.
As for your thought experiment- I have no idea what it is supposed to illustrate.

As for your thought experiment- I have no idea what it is supposed to illustrate. — Bartricks

It may be a reference to that BLM leader who wants to replace men with women, whites with blacks, and capitalism with communism. In which case our God problem may need some reformulating to keep pace with the times ....

...I have no difficulty separating belief in God from being religious as I have never been religious yet I believe in God. — Bartricks

You believe in a God that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipresent... the creator of all things.

Correct?

:brow:

I believe in a mind who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. God then.
I am sceptical that they are the creator of all things. They could be if they so wished - they can do anything and thus can retrospectively make it the case that they created everything- but I don't think they actually created everything. Indeed they say as much.

Oh. Thanks. I don't watch the news so I don't know about these things.

From what or whom have you acquired such belief(s)? I'm curious to the source from which you learned about an omni-mind(God)?

By ratiocination. I have reasoned about the nature of an aspect of reality that exists more surely than all else - its rational aspect - and have concluded that it expresses a mind's attitudes. Further reflection reveals that the mind is God, as traditionally defined.
Nobody has yet refuted the argument or said anything to raise even the slightest doubt about any of its premises. And as I am the most committed follower of reason I have ever met, I draw the conclusion and believe in God.
So, no faith. One can know by faith, but I have none in God. I believe in God because i listened to her.

Could you set out this argument?

Yes, and I have done numerous times. But it is powerless to persuade those who don't already respect reason. So there is little point if you don't think listening to reason is the way to find out about things.

But here it is:

1. Imperatives of Reason exist
2. An existent imperative has an existent mind that is issuing it
3. Therefore the existent imperatives of Reason have an existent mind that is issuing them
4. The imperatives of Reason have a single source
5. Therefore there is an existent mind whose imperatives are imperatives of Reason

I'm asking to see the argument you refer to. Set it out for me. If not, there's no way to understand what it is that you're talking about. Of course, I do not believe in such a mind(God), and I too have employed reason(critical thinking) as a means to arrive at my denial. Bertrand Russel is one of many from whom I've learned to think about the topic(belief in the God of Abraham).

Earlier, more in line with the OP, you claimed that all moral principles are prescriptions of God, or words to that effect. I'd also like to see an argument where that is the logical conclusion, if you could be so kind to oblige.

I just set it out above. You will note that it is valid and thus that you need to deny a premise. I believe no reasonable doubt is possible about any one of them.

1. Imperatives of Reason exist
2. An existent imperative has an existent mind that is issuing it
3. Therefore the existent imperatives of Reason have an existent mind that is issuing them
4. The imperatives of Reason have a single source
5. Therefore there is a single existent mind whose imperatives are imperatives of Reason — Bartricks

4 assumes what is in contention. Do you agree?

No. The argument is not circular. The conclusion is not expressed in any premise.

Note that one could agree with 4 and yet not think the source is a mind. Plato called it 'the Good'; Kant just called it Reason and didn't go further.

So no, 4 clearly does not express what is at issue. It expresses an independently plausible self evident truth recognized throughout the history of reflection.

Note too that by the time we get to 4, all objectivist metanormative theories are out for the count. So we are not in Kansas anymore.

The claim that the imperatives of Reason have a single source is the matter of contention. You assume that that is true, which is what we do with premisses. I'm questioning that premiss. Do you have an argument where that premiss is a conclusion, rather than a premiss?

it is not the matter under contention. It's a non question begging premise. It does not say 'God exists'.

If you think 4 is false just say that and raise a doubt about it.

And yes, I have numerous arguments for it. Why do you think it is false?

Is God necessary for being good? That's the matter under contention.

If being good requires following imperatives of Reason, then claiming that all imperatives of Reason have a single source(God) as a premiss assumes exactly what needs argued for.

Do you have an argument in which 4 is not assumed, but rather is the logical conclusion?

Yes, I have lots of arguments for 4. But we need to be clear about something: 4 does NOT express the matter under contention.
You may think 4 is false. But it most certainly does not assert that God exists. As I have just said, it is widely affirmed by those who do not believe the source is God.

This is a circular argument:

1.p
2.q
3.therefore p

For the matter under contention is p.

This is not:.
1. P
2.q
3. Therefore p and q.

My argument has a conclusion that is extracted from the premises, but is not asserted in any one of them. We need to be clear about this.

And I take it you have no argument against 4, you just don't see any reason to think it is true, yes? Or do you think there is positive evidence of its falsity?

Please reread my last post and directly address it.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

read mine!!!

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

1. Imperatives of Reason exist
2. An existent imperative has an existent mind that is issuing it
3. Therefore the existent imperatives of Reason have an existent mind that is issuing them
4. The imperatives of Reason have a single source
5. Therefore there is a single existent mind whose imperatives are imperatives of Reason — Bartricks

...moral norms and values are the prescriptions and values of God... — Bartricks

There are two different claims you've made here that interest me. The matter of contention is exactly whether or not God is necessary for moral behaviour(being good). The second claim quoted in isolation above is what needs argued for. You made it in earlier in this thread. It is what garnered my attention.

The argument you've offered today, which is also quoted above, assumes exactly what's in question regarding the claim that moral norms and values are the prescriptions and values of God, where God is the single source assumed in 4.

4 assumes exactly what needs argued for. You need to provide an argument for 4, as a conclusion, rather than as a premiss.

No, the matter of contention is whether God exists. That's what you asked me to prove. So I have. Stop changing the goalposts.

I presented you with the argument. You then said that it begs the question because premise 4 asserts what is under contention. That is manifestly false as I have explained several times now.

I'm not changing the goalposts. I'm correcting your misunderstanding of what I'm asking for. It's clear now, after a bit of confusion. No blame to be placed.

To be clear...

You've claimed that you arrived at your beliefs via reasoned conclusions. I'm just asking you to show the argument which logically leads to the claim about all moral norms and values being prescriptions and values of God. 4 assumes it. I'm looking for that as a conclusion, as a means to confirm your earlier claims that you've arrived at your belief in this matter via reasoned conclusions. Show me.

You believe in a God that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipresent... the creator of all things. — creativesoul

1. There is no logical requirement to believe in a "God that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipresent... the creator of all things" in order to discuss God.

2. The OP is not about God but about the belief that "belief in God is necessary for being good".

Sure to both of those claims, however Bartricks has claimed that God is necessary for moral behaviour(for being good). His line of reasoning is what's under scrutiny here.

4 does NOT assume it. Christ!

The issue under contention is E.

Here's how I've reasoned

All As are Bs.
All As are Cs.
Therefore all As are Bs and Cs.
An A that is a B and a C is an E.
Therefore all As are Es

And what you are doing is saying 'all As are Cs just assumes As are Es' over and over again.

No, matey, it doesn't.

Now, answer this question or stop wasting my time: do you have a positive argument against 4? That is, do you have a valid argument that has the negation of 4 as a conclusion?
I have lots for 4. Lots. Do you have any against it?

Sure to both of those claims, [/quote]

Well, if you agree that there is no logical requirement to believe in a "God that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipresent... the creator of all things" in order to discuss God, indeed, you are doing that yourself, then why do you feel there is a need to ask that question?

That was an aside based upon Bartricks' participation here. I was curious to his belief in/of God.

The substantive matter is the claim he made about all moral norms and prescriptions being morals and prescriptions of God.