CreateDebate


Lolzors93's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Lolzors93's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

Redefining is not equivalent to saying that God is the basis of something. If I say that the physical is the basis of the psychological, it would not mean that the psychological is the physical. The definitions remain the same; the bases are not the same as definitions.

0 points

Killing babies would not be immoral, if God were not real.

1 point

How did I redefine it? I simply use God as the basis for morality. It's simply false to say that I redefine it.

Also, defining things with dictionaries in philosophical inquiry is never smart. Dictionaries give general notions, not technical.

So, I don't see your point at all.

1 point

I don't want to die so I assume babies wouldn't want to die either. One of the nice things I experience in life is growing up and enjoying a variety of things, I want babies to do the same. The act of a baby dying makes the parents of the child suffer. It all comes down to minimising suffering and maximising enjoyment.

Who cares about your wants? I might not want to die as a criminal, but that has no basis for saying that I should not die by the hand of my executioner. You're applying the Golden Rule way to way too extreme of situations. And, you completely forget what I said after: how you moral intuitions would be shaped if humanity were to be commanded differently, in that, babies would be killed morally. So, you're begging the question.

0 points

I literally laughed out loud. What reason or logic have you used?

1 point

Either genocide is not objectively wrong and we don't know it, or genocide is not conducive to survival. I would suggest the later. How many great minds, that Hitler might have otherwise commanded, simply went up in smoke?

You can easily consider genocide that does not kill intellectual people. Genocide of all mentally retarded, children, elderly, disabled, etc. would still be considered wrong. Genocide is very much so conducive to survival, if based in some aspect of eugenics. Thus, genocide is conducive to survival, and the genocide is not wrong. If this is the case, then it raises the question: how did we get a belief that genocide is wrong?

And if genocide is not wrong, then we can list off numerous other things that we know to be morally wrong that have survival conducive elements: rape, theft, etc. You have the burden of proof to find something that is morally wrong, if you are going to challenge the objective moral notion of genocide, rape, and theft, as those, if anything, are the obvious cases of objective morality.

All evidence is gathered in hindsight.

That is begging the question. When doing inductive reasoning, maybe through history or science, you cannot look at things in hindsight to prove what is plausible. Hindsight only proves what is factually correct. Thus, your argument begs the question. You must look at things from a set forth notion, at the beginning of evolution: how implausible gathering objective moral understanding or moral intuitions would be, if undirected.

If evolution brings a sense of morality, then morality must be conducive to survival. If we have a moral sense that is not conducive to survival, then we will evolve past it or die out. This is plausible. We are now better at survival than we once were.

This begs the question. We know that there are things that are conducive to survival: rape, for one.

All in all, your argument begs the question by looking at things in hindsight and ignoring the implausibility notion.

lolzors93(3225) Clarified
1 point

I've got to go. Peace.

lolzors93(3225) Clarified
1 point

it is wrong to do to others what you wouldn't have done to yourself etc. I believe realistically this is what it is for you deep down too...

I agree with that. Thats the Golden Rule in the Bible (Matthew 7). That does not mean, though, that it applied in all situations, as a criminal might not want done to him what justice requires of him.

If you saw someone being stoned in the street, screaming in agony for hours for kissing another man and then finally dying in a pool of blood.... I can't believe you'd watch that and then turn to your friend and say "they did right".

I would.

1 point

The problem still runs, but is made deeper. You're, what appears to me, looking at things in hindsight: we have moral intuitions, and we have understanding, so we just got understanding and moral intuitions from evolution, though it just so happened to happen. The problem with this is obvious: from a starting point, evolution does not have an end. Its only end is survival. It is, thusly implausible to say that we would get understanding, let alone understand or have moral intuitions about morality. I never said that this is a necessary argument; it can easily be imagined that God is not required here, in a possible world. The issue is plausibility: a blind evolutionary process that makes us believe genocide is wrong, when genocide is conducive to survival? In what way is this reason giving?

lolzors93(3225) Clarified
1 point

No, there are some laws in the Old Testament that do apply, and can be applied today. One of the groupings is sexual immorality, as the New Testament makes clear that is immoral. Dress is said in the New Testament to be fine. So, no, stoning others for homosexual actions, if the government were to regulate it, would be moral, as the law is still under moral law.

1 point

If we grasp any, then the argument still runs. How did we get any sense of morality under a blind, undirected process? Its simply implausible.

1 point

I said this to you in another post:

"That's true. But, what justification does one have for saying that objective morals exist, when we have no understanding of what is objectively moral? If we have hooked onto some aspect of objective morality, then it is highly implausible that we were able to hook onto the moral realm without guidance from God, as evolution is a blind process."

I was wondering if someone was going to be smart enough to respond with this rebuttal. You did well.

But, that still raises the question: if we have some inkling of morality, then we it is still highly implausible that we got it, by evolution, a blind process, while, if we do not have objective morality, in what sense are we justified in believing that there is, as we have no understanding of it?

1 point

What does 'should' mean in this context?

There is reason to do such.

Why do you take the position that it should only be applied to the Israel of the time? Is it because you consider it immoral to torture someone for wearing the wrong clothes...? ;)

As said, Jesus is the new high priest. We do not abide by the Law. The only aspects of it that we abide by are the moral laws, which are absolute and undefiled.

1 point

That's true. But, what justification does one have for saying that objective morals exist, when we have no understanding of what is objectively moral? If we have hooked onto some aspect of objective morality, then it is highly implausible that we were able to hook onto the moral realm without guidance from God, as evolution is a blind process.

lolzors93(3225) Clarified
1 point

Now what you say is that if a vast majority of a group believe in a specific moral frame work that it is that moral frame work, that is objective.

I never said that. I'm simply saying that the vast majority of people believe in objective morality. This does not mean that people cannot be mistaken.

1 point

Yep. And a Christian should do it. Now, of course, the argument against that, which I am very sympathetic to as well, is that, as said before, there are laws that are only for the nation of Israel. So, this means that the laws that are only for the nation of Israel should not be enforced, because they only apply to the nation of Israel

And, actually, I think I'm probably going to take that position.

1 point

Did I say evolution is false? The argument is not that evolution would be false. The argument is that evolution would lead us to the conclusion that there is a God, if objective moral values are existent.

lolzors93(3225) Clarified
1 point

As philosophers have noted, we all have a sense of torturing a child to be wrong. Other philosophers even say that morality breaks down, and is no longer a concept, if they are not objective. So, if there is any sense of morality, which the vast majority of people believe, then objective moral values exist. We all intuitively understand morality; it takes a stubborn heart to not believe that.

1 point

If torture is just then it is just?

If torture is just, then it is just. Thats a tautology.

I am questioning whether it is just to make law that tortures people to death for a homosexual act.

That depends on what the definition of torture is and at what angle it is taken. From an absolutist standpoint, God's wrath could be seen as torture, but this is in God's absolute destruction of all sin. In a worldly sense, death would be appropriate, as the Bible has descaled. Torture, on the other hand, I'm not sure, as the Bible has not really elaborated on that. Now, if you take stoning to be torture, then, insofar as we are doing so, then, yes, homosexual actions, like many other actions, deserve torture.

Why only in Israel? Why only during that time? Why isn't it okay for the UK to change their law to stone homosexuals and cloth-mixers to death?

Hebrews 7:12 says that there has been a change in the law, as a new high priest has entered. So, the Old Testament laws are no longer applicable. Moreover, the Old Testament laws are applicable for those who are not under the new high priest, Jesus, and under the Law. Finally, the Old Testament laws were put in place for three reasons: to look forward to Jesus (and, so, once He came, these are no longer applicable), to govern the nation of Israel (and, so, for those not in it, not applicable), and to declare God's moral laws (e.g. don't murder). So, stoning is not a command for Christians, necessarily. Though, if a government were to have it, a Christian can abide by it.

1 point

what part of that don't you get?

Oh no, I get it. Its just radically wrong.

1 point

Ok. So to you it is okay to kill by means of torture anyone that doesn't something God deems to be immoral?

If torture is the just punishment, then yes.

We have to bear in mind that to God all sins are equal.

Who says that? I completely disagree here.

So therefore wearing clothes with a mix of materials is immoral (Deuteronomy 22:11)...?

I would say that the people of the nation of Israel, if they were to wear mixed clothing during that time, would be doing what is immoral.

1 point

So, if it is your opinion, then you should see that your statement that you think I'm a troll has no backing, except in blind opinion.

1 point

Like what semantics? Many philosophical arguments could be considered semantical, because they are analytic, but, then, who cares if they are semantics?

Moreover, what about God commanding all babies to be killed? Do you have a problem with that? Do you find that immoral? Why do you find that morally reprehensible? And are you not begging the question, if you are implying this, in neglecting how your moral intuitions would change, if God's commands were to change?

How does Calvinism make God out to be immoral? Does that not presuppose God, by presupposing morality? And does the Bible not already say that God makes Himself appear tortuous to the crooked (Psalm 18:26)?

1 point

So is it okay to kill anyone if the law in that country says its okay. Do you seriously believe this or are you trolling?

Not at all. I never stated that, nor implied that.

On the other hand, I most certainly am saying that, because God has condemned homosexual relations, if a nation makes homosexual relations illegal (or any other thing that God has declared immoral), then, if justly condemned for doing such immoral action, then it would be just to kill the person (and not only just, but morally obligatory for the executioner to kill the person, under just condemnation).


1 of 178 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]