The Atheists Paradox

descarte · Mar 17, 2015

Ishmael said:
You did not refute but denied my argument without annexing the reasons for your denials.
There is no actual purpose or meaning to life if God doesn't exist.
There is no moral truth or duties unless God exists. Nothing is actually right or wrong if God doesn't exist.
Objective moral values and duties ( Is child rape actually wrong - or good for the child rapist?)

I do not understand you,let me show how logic works
if A=B
C=B
The conclusion is necessary A=C.
However if the first premise is wrong then The conclusion is also wrong. that is refutation of your claim because the first proposition is wrong therefore the whole argument falls apart. If you do not share the laws of logic then there is no logical argument one can given and you understand. The same thing if a personal does not share the principles of science then whatever argument one bring the personal will not believe. Therefore if you do not share these laws of logic then no argument will be given for you to agree unless you agree with the laws of logic.
You are claiming that there is no meaning of life if God does not exist. My question is, do you presuppose that life has Telos or purpose which people should fulfil.
Also you are saying that if god does not exist,there is no right and wrong. Do you mean that we cannot know them by reason.

descarte · Mar 17, 2015

Ishmael said:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason and mind....

Philosophy brings theories , Experimentation either confirms or or rejects these theories..That is why I said you cannot build upon anything that has no foundation in reason. That is why part of it is finding questions to an answer, you wont get it.

I think you are just out of the point because ma concern is not the subject matter of philosophy but rather you do not answer Question by asking question,it is just ridiculous.

Ishmael · Mar 17, 2015

descarte said:
I think you are just out of the point because ma concern is not the subject matter of philosophy but rather you do not answer Question by asking question,it is just ridiculous.

Let me ask you this: Is raping a child (a) good (b) evil (c) bad

Ishmael · Mar 17, 2015

descarte said:
I do not understand you,let me show how logic works
if A=B
C=B
The conclusion is necessary A=C.
However if the first premise is wrong then The conclusion is also wrong. that is refutation of your claim because the first proposition is wrong therefore the whole argument falls apart. If you do not share the laws of logic then there is no logical argument one can given and you understand. The same thing if a personal does not share the principles of science then whatever argument one bring the personal will not believe. Therefore if you do not share these laws of logic then no argument will be given for you to agree unless you agree with the laws of logic.
You are claiming that there is no meaning of life if God does not exist. My question is, do you presuppose that life has Telos or purpose which people should fulfil.
Also you are saying that if god does not exist,there is no right and wrong. Do you mean that we cannot know them by reason.

Let me go back and address the moral argument, although you never answer those questions:

1. Do you really believe that a person who chokes you to steal your wallet or rapes your family has no choice - but is just doing what chemicals caused to happen?

2. Is child rape actually wrong - or good for the child rapist

Answer my question.

FYI:
God is necessary for morality to be objectively real. Not 'belief in God'.
You apprehend moral truth because it exists - despite your non theism. OR, if God doesn't exist, your 'morals' are nothing more than chemically induced illusions having no reality.

Logic Matters young man.

descarte · Mar 17, 2015

Ishmael said:
Let me ask you this: Is raping a child (a) good (b) evil (c) bad

it is immoral because it is not dignifies human being.

Ishmael · Mar 17, 2015

descarte said:
If you do not share the laws of logic then there is no logical argument one can given and you understand. The same thing if a personal does not share the principles of science then whatever argument one bring the personal will not believe.

It would be something like:

1) Objective moral values and duties cannot exist unless God exists.
2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.

Therefore, God exists.

You would need to defeat premise 1 or 2 or the conclusion is inescapable.

Ishmael · Mar 17, 2015

descarte said:
it is immoral because it is not dignifies human being.

Immoral according to what?
The premises must be more plausibly true than their negation.

Unless you can either:
(a) provide a plausible objective basis for moral truth that is not God
or
(b) Deny that raping children for pleasure is actually wrong.

descarte · Mar 17, 2015

Ishmael said:
Let me go back and address the moral argument, although you never answer those questions:

1. Do you really believe that a person who chokes you to steal your wallet or rapes your family has no choice - but is just doing what chemicals caused to happen?

2. Is child rape actually wrong - or good for the child rapist

Answer my question.

FYI:
God is necessary for morality to be objectively real. Not 'belief in God'.
You apprehend moral truth because it exists - despite your non theism. OR, if God doesn't exist, your 'morals' are nothing more than chemically induced illusions having no reality.

Logic Matters young man.

Okay i do not have enough time to go through all ur question but i would to pick something important from another claim of yours. "you says that I apprehend moral truth because it exists - despite your non theism. OR, if God doesn't exist, your 'morals' are nothing more than chemically induced illusions having no reality"
First,there is begging the question when you says "I apprehend moral truth because it exists" where are they existing these moral truths? how do we know them?
Second you says that "if God doesn't exist, your 'morals' are nothing more than chemically induced illusions having no reality" these claim is just fallacious, because it presume only two alternatives of morality (It is called the fallacy of Black and White,If not this then this) Anyway the understanding of moral objectivity is based on Deontology account of morality read Immanuel Kant's critique of practical reason.

Ishmael · Mar 17, 2015

descarte said:
Okay i do not have enough time to go through all ur question but i would to pick something important from another claim of yours. "you says that I apprehend moral truth because it exists - despite your non theism. OR, if God doesn't exist, your 'morals' are nothing more than chemically induced illusions having no reality"
First,there is begging the question when you says "I apprehend moral truth because it exists" where are they existing these moral truths? how do we know them?
Second you says that "if God doesn't exist, your 'morals' are nothing more than chemically induced illusions having no reality" these claim is just fallacious, because it presume only two alternatives of morality (It is called the fallacy of Black and White,If not this then this) Anyway the understanding of moral objectivity is based on Deontology account of morality read Immanuel Kant's critique of practical reason.

When you have time, please do respond.

Thanks

descarte · Mar 17, 2015

Ishmael said:
Immoral according to what?
The premises must be more plausibly true than their negation.

Unless you can either:
(a) provide a plausible objective basis for moral truth that is not God
or
(b) Deny that raping children for pleasure is actually wrong.

You man human being has rationality we can comprehend morality without God

descarte · Mar 17, 2015

Ishmael said:
It would be something like:

1) Objective moral values and duties cannot exist unless God exists.
2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.

Therefore, God exists.

You would need to defeat premise 1 or 2 or the conclusion is inescapable.

I think i already explained this. it is just boring to repeat the same thing over and over again. go back into my posts i have explained very well.

descarte · Mar 17, 2015

Ishmael said:
When you have time, please do respond.

Thanks

I mean it just out of the discourse of the objectivity of morality. i cannot respond to those questions cuz i got no time and i will not have that time cux they are not important in what we are discusing

Ishmael · Mar 17, 2015

descarte said:
I mean it just out of the discourse of the objectivity of morality. i cannot respond to those questions cuz i got no time and i will not have that time cux they are not important in what we are discusing

Really!!!

Let me ask you this: What is moral truth that is not God?

Ishmael · Mar 17, 2015

descarte said:
I think i already explained this. it is just boring to repeat the same thing over and over again. go back into my posts i have explained very well.

You did not.

descarte · Mar 17, 2015

Ishmael said:
You did not.

you better go back again you do not need to refuse for something you can prove young man.

Ishmael · Mar 17, 2015

descarte said:
you better go back again you do not need to refuse for something you can prove young man.

Denials are not refutations.

descarte · Mar 17, 2015

Ishmael said:
Really!!!

Let me ask you this: What is moral truth that is not God?

are you asking or answering yourself. I told you that moral truths exists no where in this world but objectivity of morality do. I do not understand when you are saying moral truth what do you mean by saying TRUTH?

descarte · Mar 17, 2015

Ishmael said:
Denials are not refutations.[/QUOTE
what is denial and what is refutation? what differentiate the two terms. I think it is matter of language which we can clarify

Ishmael · Mar 17, 2015

descarte said:
are you asking or answering yourself. I told you that moral truths exists no where in this world but objectivity of morality do. I do not understand when you are saying moral truth what do you mean by saying TRUTH?

When will you start answering my question?

Another paradox has to do with deliberate, sustained moral reflection on injustice and evil in the world. All of us recognize that the world is suffused with human misery. But many of us give relatively little thought to suffering until it absolutely forces itself into our consciousness. Why is this? Self-protection. We rightly recognize that if our hearts were truly moved by every hurt, every loss, and every tragedy that we witnessed, they would break. Although we all recognize that empathy is one of the greatest moral virtues, we recoil at any level of empathy that threatens our own happiness and emotional stability. That is why we vacation in luxury resorts well away from the slums, prefer romantic comedies to documentaries, or inure ourselves to violence until we can shrug off images of the maimed and weeping on television.

Source: Shenvi

Ishmael · Mar 17, 2015

descarte said:
Ishmael said:

Denials are not refutations.[/QUOTE
what is denial and what is refutation? what differentiate the two terms. I think it is matter of language which we can clarify

Click to expand...

:help:
Dictionary and Thesaurus | Merriam-Webster

The Atheists Paradox

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

Similar Discussions