Hieronymus Bosch's great paiting "the ship of fools."
Some times there comes a message board event so stupid you just have to stop and say "this is the limit!"
Originally Posted by HillyBilly
Yes our most horrible fears are realized, this idiot thinks that statements like "god is love" and "God is being itself" make God into a linguistic verb and nothing else. He insists its a direct quote from me but of cousre what's he's ignoring is the fac that I don't think loved reduces to a verb. Love is more than just the act of loving. Being itself is not a verb at all.It's a noun perhaps an adjectival noun.
Originally Posted by NotAnAtheist
first hand experience is what epistemology is. modern scientific induction has changed the meaning of the term to a ideological construct.
In exchange with silly Billy:
Meta
I never said verbs have minds or that they think. I did not say God is a verb.
you have misinterpreted me.(I'm mocking Royce because that's what he keeps saying)
Hilly Billy
Nope, it's a direct quote unchanged. If you click on the blue box with the double arrows, you'll be directed to the post where you said that.
The problem is we his understanding of what direct quotes are. he claims he's making direct quote when he's intprriting what hey think I mean. I see this is the case because he tried to claim that it's the consquence of the logic of my satment. so in other word he doesn't know what a direct quote is.
Originally Posted by HillyBilly
Nope I didn't say God is verb. that just shows you don't understand ideas. you can' pull that broken transitive BS that means nothing. all that means you can't argue fairly.
Originally Posted by Metacrock
Logic is unfair now?
Yea I really said logic is unfair. I also logic is an idiot. at least one of them is.
Originally Posted by Metacrock
Hilly Billy
I did no such thing.
I never said God is verb.
he says:
Hilly Billy
It is a fact of logic that identity is transitive.
that doesn't mean that I said God is a verb, dumb ass.
Now, believe it or not we come to the really stupid one. Hilly Billy makes an argument of supreme stupidity makes an obvious mistake on the middle of it and the can't see that he made it.
Hilly Billy
Here is an argument. This argument is nothing but premises from Metacrock and certain moves in logic. This is playing off of an argument that we had a few days ago where he kept trying to trape me into admitting that God could zaup us into perfection so there need be no suffering.I was trying to show that we wouldn't learn anything so it wouldn't be as good. So he's goign to prove logically that God could do it. He also thinks that God is just amplified humanity, so if God is perfect then we can be perfect too.
1) If something is morally perfect, then it has free will. [from Metacrock]
2) God is morally perfect. [from Metacrock]
3) There exists at least one thing which is morally perfect. [existential instantiation]
4) Said thing has free will. [modus ponens 1, 3]
5) There exists at least one thing which is morally perfect and has free will. [conjunction 3, 4]
6) If something is the case, then it is possible that it is the case. [theorem of modal logic]
7) Beings with moral perfection and free will are possible. [modus ponens 5, 6]
8) If something is possible, God can create it. [from Metacrock]
9) Therefore, God can create morally perfect beings with free will. [modus ponens 7,8]
The only premises here are (1), (2), and (8). Those all come from Metacrock. The rest of the lines are just allowable moves in logic. Is this argument sound?
He dances around this for while maintaining that I'm so stupid I don't see but this absolute totally logical can't deny it. He's confused sound with vaid this is not what sound is.
Originally Posted by Metacrock
Hilly Billy
So, now you claim God didn't start out loving?
Hu?
Originally Posted by Metacrock
You said being loving requires time. You can't just start that way. Hence, God couldn't have started that way. Unless, of course, you think God could have started that way, in which case, per a similar argument to the OP, God could have created humans so that they started out loving him.
He thinks like God like man. So he totally ignores the fact that we are not divine and we can't be perfect as God is perfect. that was part of the previous discussion he ignores it completely.
Hilly Billy
It's a conclusion, and it's not that humans must be that way, but that they could be that way. It follows from your premises exactly how I said it does.
The problem is it does not follow from my premises because he's re arranged them and taken them out of context so they don't mean the same thing.
Hilly Billy:
Actually, it's you who doesn't understand even the basics of Metaphysics. And even said "I do not understand a single position I took on any of those issues. but you have spent some time reading up on it I just barely remember what they were about".Meta
Here is my exposition of his argument I'll show the basic mistake.
1) If something is morally perfect, then it has free will. [from Metacrock]
one thing
2) God is morally perfect. [from Metacrock]
one thing
3) There exists at least one thing which is morally perfect. [existential instantiation]
one thing!
4) Said thing has free will. [modus ponens 1, 3]
thing = 1. one thing.
5) There exists at least one thing which is morally perfect and has free will. [conjunction 3, 4]
one ever loving thing!
6) If something is the case, then it is possible that it is the case. [theorem of modal logic]
possible for ONE THING not all things.
7) Beings with moral perfection and free will are possible. [modus ponens 5, 6]
BzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZzzzz!
that's S = plural. more than one thing.
you only proved one thing. You can't assert that just because one thing is perfect and has free will that more than one thing would.
8) If something is possible, God can create it. [from Metacrock]
you did not prove the plurality is possible.
9) Therefore, God can create morally perfect beings with free will. [modus ponens 7,8]
NOPE doesn't follow
see the problem? He only proves that God can have free will and make moral decisions and be perfect not that we can. He's making an unfounded assumption that we can be like God. He never states that explicitly so it's a hidden premise.
HillyBilly;5037949]Here is an argument. This argument is nothing but premises from Metacrock and certain moves in logic.
1) If something is morally perfect, then it has free will. [from Metacrock]
2) God is morally perfect. [from Metacrock]
3) There exists at least one thing which is morally perfect. [existential instantiation]
4) Said thing has free will. [modus ponens 1, 3]
5) There exists at least one thing which is morally perfect and has free will. [conjunction 3, 4]
6) If something is the case, then it is possible that it is the case. [theorem of modal logic]
7) Beings with moral perfection and free will are possible. [modus ponens 5, 6]
8) If something is possible, God can create it. [from Metacrock]
9) Therefore, God can create morally perfect beings with free will. [modus ponens 7,8]
this is a silly argument, you don't half the steps you made. the concision doesn't follow from the preises and it's totally ignoring the issues that did make before.
The only premises here are (1), (2), and (8). Those all come from
Metacrock. The rest of the lines are just allowable moves in logic. Is
this argument sound?
the way you reason about it is illogical and your conclusions are totally illogical.
(1) you draw the conclusion that moral perfection is possible in a plurality when the premises you draw from only speak of "one thing."
(2) You have NOT proved that moral perfection is possible in humans. then you draw the conclusion that it is. then argue that God should be able to create it. you did nothing to prove that.
(3) your logic says "God can be morally perfect. therefore it's possible for something to so, that means humans can be so."
stop the machine it doesn't' mean that.
your arguments are really dishonest and unfair. you make things that I didn't say. you indulge in all sort of fallacious reasoning like affirming the consequent. The conclusions you arrive at dont' even follow logically.
I also think you confuse sound with valid. You seem to think what makes it sound is the way it's derived from previous assumptions. that is not the case. Actually the soundless of arguments is a lot harder to pin down.
here is how I dealt with it on my blog. This is taken form the discussion I had with him before. He ignores every bit of it including the part about we can't be perfect.
A poster on CARM "HillyBilly" (aka SillyBilly) is trying to bring in standard atheist contradiction argument against moral perfection. His argument:
My reasoning is direct and simple enough that even a child could understand it.
1) If something is morally perfect, then it has free will. [from YOU]
2) God is morally perfect. [from YOU]
3) There exists at least one thing which is morally perfect. [existential instantiation]
4) Said thing has free will. [modus ponens 1, 3)
5) There exists at least one thing which is morally perfect and has free will. [conjunction 3, 4]
6) If something is the case, then it is possible that it is the case. [theorem of modal logic]
7) Beings with moral perfection and free will are possible. [modus ponens 5, 6]
8) If something is possible, God can create it. [from YOU]
9) Therefore, God can create morally perfect beings with free will. [modus ponens 7,8]
See? It's a deductive consequence of nothing but premises from you and from the rules of logic. If you deny it, you are contradicting yourself.
In other words the point of it all is that since moral perfection and free will don't contradict then we could side step sin and just have moral perfection and free will but without sin and all the bad implications of it. My answer to this is that free is necessary in order to have a moral universe. Moral universe is based upon love, therefore, since love requires growth through experience then moral perfection takes time. Being a mature state of agape (love) moral perfection the development of moral perfection requires experience and pain. It's not something we can be "zapped" into. Yes, I believe that God is limited to logical necessity, he can't make square circles because square circles are a contradiction in terms. So is the idea of moral perfection without love and experience is a contradiction in terms. Thus being morally perfect, if we are granted it at all, takes time and experience in life.
I don't believe that we are meant to match God's moral perfection. Jesus says "be ye perfect as your father in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48). The problem is that "perfect" is a bad translation. The word in that passage is telos from tello meaning ""to set out for a definite point or goal." The word telos itself is defined as defined by Strong's:
So the end goal or purpose to which something is meant to move is the concept. Thus he's not saying "I command you to have the very save level of moral excellence that God has," but rather "be all that you are meant to be." Being all we are meant to be, in terms of moral perfection, would mean love. Love requires sacrifice, giving, compassion, forgiving, bearing with the pain of others. You can't do that in a vacuum without living among other people. Just to have the experience of that put into our heads without actually going through it and learning from it would defeat the process of learning and it would not be real love. Love requries that we actually love. To love because you are programed to love is not love.5056 télos (a neuter noun) – properly, consummation (the end-goal, purpose), such as closure with all its results.[This root (tel-) means "reaching the end (aim)." It is well-illustrated with the old pirate's telescope, unfolding (extending out) one stage at a time to function at full-strength (capacity effectiveness).][1]
It's much like the philosophical zombie argument. Without actually growing through the process of dealing with others in real life one would be a philosophical zombie; one would seem outwardly exactly like the end product and one might even have false memories of it but it wouldn't be real love. It wouldn't be real free will because then the agent would not have chosen to love but would just be carrying out the commands of a program. So the idea that God will just zap us into perfection is a pipe dream and would not work. That means to have a moral universe we just live in the real world and be put in situations to make real choices.
Thus it is necessary for a moral universe, that is a universe in which free will agents make moral decisions and willingly choose the good, one must risk the possibility of choosing wrongly. Free will is essential to love and moral perfection.
Then in the issue of perfection we are not required to be god-like. We are not going to be put on a level with God. We have our own telos that is the human telos; the goal or end point that we are meant to grow into, the level of love that is humanly possible.
The Christian free will defense says that God has to risk all the bad by giving us free will because love and moral decision making require free will. the atheist says we can side step the unpleasant choice of actually choosing wrongly just by God zapping us into perfection and we can still have free will. I say that is making philosophical zobmies who have not actually learned to love but merely carrying out programing.
There's a lot we can learn from this thinking even without the free will/Theodicy busienss. We can learn the difficulty of love and how hard it is to actually go through the process of learning to be what God meant us to be. In so dong we must learn that it's impossible without God's grace. That's part of the lesson, learning to rely on God.
I swear they are getting stupider. They so desperate to win they don't read anything, they don't even read the answers in a given thread. They say any BS they think of and they assume their answers are so perfect and so brilliant they don't even need to extend.
No comments:
Post a Comment