problem of the problem of evil

[12 Monkeys]

The deaths of my relatives at the hands of God-lovers is a fact I am stating.....it is not whining and its not complaining about wrongs....its FACT...the question posed at the end were are these people true believers?

[12 Monkeys]

Do you have a nature?

Whether or not it is fixed is irrelevant to what I said.  I never mentioned a time-span.  Your nature is evil.

Now, what can you offer as a counter-argument to that?

EDIT:  Come to think of it, the whole "nature" thing is a red herring.

Gill, Satan is good, by definition.  What would the proper line of argumentation be against that?

I don't think it's valid to say I have an evil or even good nature.   I'm free to do good or evil acts.  So then evil/good would be descriptive of acts not nature.  The descriptions of such acts are being measured against what standard?  If we say Satan is all-good;  then a good act of mine would yes, be a 'Satan-like' act.   It's just providing some fixed reference point for good/evil acts.  All I'm sayin....
 

God has done more Satan like acts,than say Bob or maybe....ummm Satan. Other than following God's orders in the book of Job can you prove with concrete evidence an act of evil by Satan......as you say you do not use the Bible so good luck.

notice you ignored this post....outside the Bible (which you dont use as fact) show me one thing with verifiable proof Satan has wronged anybody or has had a negative effect on anything.

[Azdgari]

It is self-refuting since it says one's moral beliefs are based on the culture they were raised in.   Well then; one could argue that someone who believes that morals are relative is based on their cultural upbringing.

"Moral beliefs" and "beliefs about the nature of morality" are not the same thing.

To even say 'morals aren't objective' is an objective claim of truth, right?  Well then based on what?

Belief that moral claims are subjective is not the belief that all claims are subjective.  How could you possibly honestly not realize that?

[Gill]

The deaths of my relatives at the hands of God-lovers is a fact I am stating.....it is not whining and its not complaining about wrongs....its FACT...the question posed at the end were are these people true believers?

Since God is good; and goodness is always associated with love; then to murder people would be very un-Godlike; which means they were distorted in their thinking;  and i'm sure they suffered for those acts...

[Gill]

It is self-refuting since it says one's moral beliefs are based on the culture they were raised in.   Well then; one could argue that someone who believes that morals are relative is based on their cultural upbringing.

"Moral beliefs" and "beliefs about the nature of morality" are not the same thing.

To even say 'morals aren't objective' is an objective claim of truth, right?  Well then based on what?

Belief that moral claims are subjective is not the belief that all claims are subjective.  How could you possibly honestly not realize that?

Well, should of been more specific.   Course, if we're talking about morals in a descriptive sense; as I've said, can be said to be subjective.  As in, yes, people obviously hold different beliefs.   But, in a metaphysical sense; to say they are relative, is self-refuting; since it's talking about the nature of reality.  If that nature is 'whatever people make it', then we could say meta-ethical moral relativism is subjective.

[Azdgari]

Again you conflate epistemological relativism with moral relativism.  After you were corrected on that point.  They are not the same thing.

You are, at this point, being disingenuous.

[Gill]

Again you conflate epistemological relativism with moral relativism.  After you were corrected on that point.  They are not the same thing.

You are, at this point, being disingenuous.

No, because back on post #44 I said:  "I don't disagree that how each person interprets morals will be subjective".   

I think of it as almost a given that people believe morals are subjective in a descriptive sense;  no point in even arguing that.   

[Azdgari]

That does not address your error in any way.

You have claimed that believing the truth values of moral statements to be subjective, requires that one believe that the truth value of that belief to also be subjective.

The subjectivity of morality is a result of the incoherence of the idea of objective morality.  Nothing more, nothing less.  That's an objective fact.  It is objectively verifiable, by examining the concept as explained by those who hold to the idea of objective morality.  None of this requires that morals themselves have an objective truth-value.[1]

You have claimed otherwise, that the morals have to have an objective truth-value in order for one to be able to claim that they are subjective.  This is either a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic you're attempting to discuss, or an attempt at trolling.

1.	Which is a nonsensical idea, when unpacked.

[Gill]

You have claimed that believing the truth values of moral statements to be subjective, requires that one believe that the truth value of that belief to also be subjective

It is self-refuting since it says one's moral beliefs are based on the culture they were raised in.   Well then; one could argue that someone who believes that morals are relative is based on their cultural upbringing.   

To even say 'morals aren't objective' is an objective claim of truth, right?  Well then based on what?

Never said anything about requirement.  I said 'one could argue' that belief in relativism (as in, there are no actual moral truths (not, people hold different views; which is obvious)) itself could be based on cultural upbringing.

[One Above All]

I said 'one could argue' that belief in relativism (as in, there are no actual moral truths (not, people hold different views; which is obvious)) itself could be based on cultural upbringing.

Unless you want to posit that that somehow invalidates it, I don't see the point in your statement.

[Azdgari]

This:

Because moral relativism is self-refuting.

...is not a "one could argue" claim.  It's an outright, definite claim.

You are lying about what you said.

[Gill]

This:

Because moral relativism is self-refuting.

...is not a "one could argue" claim.  It's an outright, definite claim.

You are lying about what you said.

Nope.  There's descriptive moral relativism; which almost no-one ever argues against; and then there's meta-ethical moral relativism, which is what is usually meant by relativism; that no actual moral truths exist.

I just didn't state the obvious; that I was not referring to the descriptive form; since why would I argue that?  Of course people hold different views...

[Graybeard]

Since God is good;

How do you know?

[Azdgari]

And meta-ethical relativism does not contradict itself, so stop bringing up "descriptive relativism" red-herrings.  The belief that moral values are subjective is not in itself a moral belief, so there's no contradiction.

Jesus Christ on a stick, but you're being dense.

[Gill]

Since God is good;

How do you know?

By definition.

[One Above All]

By definition.

So Allah is non-sentient? Morality isn't sentient, as far as I know.

[Gill]

Also:

Because moral relativism is self-refuting.

Some variations are....

I think you agreed with me; but since I wasn't specific, lead to confusion.

[Graybeard]

Since God is good;

How do you know?

By definition.

Who gave the definition?

[Gill]

Since God is good;

How do you know?

By definition.

Who gave the definition?

Most philosophers of theology agree to that definition; as far as I know.    And I agree with them.

[Azdgari]

I think you agreed with me; but since I wasn't specific, lead to confusion.

Some variations of Christianity require animal sacrifice.  That doesn't make it reasonable or honest to say "Christianity requires animal sacrifice".

And it was not one of those variations that you were referring to, though I thought you were when I made the post you just quoted.  You were suggesting that belief that something is subjective is inherently contradictory, since the belief itself is suposed to be an objective one.

Which is just plain stupid.

[Azdgari]

Most philosophers of theology agree to that definition; as far as I know.    And I agree with them.

So the definition is a matter of popular opinion among philosophers of theology?  If not, then what was their reasoning?

And if by chance you know what their reasoning was, then on what grounds do you agree with it?

[Gill]

 Why should we agree that a meter = x?   At some point a standard must be defined.

[Graybeard]

Why should we agree that a meter = x?

Distance is important to daily life

At some point a standard must be defined.

Yes and the metre is very finely and clearly defined.

Where is God's goodness clearly defined?

[How do you know God is good?] Most philosophers of theology agree to that definition; as far as I know.    And I agree with them.

So, that is their subjective opinion? Based upon what?

[Azdgari]

Why should we agree that a meter = x?   At some point a standard must be defined.

Agreed.  But that's a subjective standard.  Which is why we had to agree on it in order for it to be true to us.  A meter is not the "objectively true" measure of distance.  The metric system (as with all other systems of measurement) is a tool used by humans, created by humans, and subjectively agreed on by humans.

An excellent example of subjectivity, Gill.  Thank you.

[screwtape]

It is self-refuting since it says one's moral beliefs are based on the culture they were raised in.   Well then; one could argue that someone who believes that morals are relative is based on their cultural upbringing. 

Since relative table manners are self refuting, there must be objective table manners.   

I have a hard time with the idea of objective morals mainly because it necessitates a black and white approach.  Every action is Good, Evil (capital letters) or not morally relevant.  For example, blowing your nose cannot really be considered a moral or immoral action. So it is not morally relevant.   

There are moral dilemmas we have all heard that we struggle with understanding whether the actions in the given context are Good or Evil (capital letters).  If objective morals exist, then there is a correct answer for every one of those situations.  We may think Good or Evil or whatever.  We may debate it.  But how do we know who is right?  Where is the answer key?  I've yet to find it.  In the end, we are left with our own judgment, which as far as I can tell, is based entirely on culture and personal experiences.

So, tell me, Gill, where can I find the answers? 

[Hatter23]

Since God is good;

How do you know?

Yes Gill, this point has been raised multiple times and you keep avoiding it. You keep putting forth this assertion. Since so much of your argument hinges on this, support this assertion.