Is it possible for us to create a purpose?

[outhouse]

The rest is just a poorly worded

I think this mirrors you more then him

We see many first year philosophy students come on here and try to argue what they know so little about.

Philosophy out of context only means you can argue inanely forever about any given topic with no credibility at all.


Its a shame the professors don't teach this first.

 

[Reflex]

We evolved a survival instinct. The purpose of a surgeon is to help people survive. One purpose all have is to work for increased chances of survival and successful reproduction.From whence does theism derive its values? You aren't telling us that without "theism" you would have no values?

A cockroach has a survival instinct. Are you saying your life and the life of a cockroach are equivalent? (PETA might say "yes.")

People generally don't wanna get hurt so don't hurt people.

The case of the mysteriously vanishing instinct? Sounds like an Agatha Christi novel.

 

[ArtieE]

This is an attempt to rehash the Euthyphro dilemma. It doesn't apply to classical theism.

LOL if a person says he's a theist it tells you nothing about that person except that he believes in the existence of one or more gods. He could be a "saint" or a serial killer or a member of the KKK or IS or al-Quaida. You have no idea.

 

[Reflex]

Tell us what classical theism consists of and what constitutes the Euthyphro dilemma, Artie. Let's see if what you say bears any relation to reality.

 

[outhouse]

Tell us what classical theism consists of and what constitutes the Euthyphro dilemma

Arguments over mythology

 

[outhouse]

Let's see if what you say bears any relation to reality.

None you could ever substantiate

 

[ArtieE]

Tell us what classical theism consists of

Why? Let's try again. If a person says he's a theist what does that tell you about his values?

 

[Reflex]

Why? Let's try again. If a person says he's a theist what does that tell you about his values?

Last chance. Without reference to an ultimate reality, what makes purpose/values anything but arbitrary?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Only if, like your link, you presuppose that any kind of morality is necessarily contingent on the existence of an objective, God-given morality, without making any argument that this is in fact the case. In order to talk meaningfully about morality (or purpose) you first have to establish what "morality" actually is, and the frame in which we determine moral good from moral evil. If your personal moral framework is solely contingent on the dictates of a higher authority - and nothing else - you essentially shirk your responsibility as a moral agent. What's more, to claim that morality cannot be determined separate of an all-knowing God presupposes that God is necessarily moral; a judgement which, ironically, an individual cannot make without making a moral judgement of their own. In other words, in order to claim that God is moral, you need to first establish that you yourself are capable of determining that which is moral from that which is immoral without the direct influence of a God or Gods. You have to demonstrate that people can determine right from wrong in order to determine that God is right or wrong, which completely defeats the claim that morality can only be determined by God.

No matter what way you slice it, the moral argument for God's existence is an argument from consequence at best and an argument from incredulity at worst, that takes a base and very simplistic view of moral good and arbitrarily assumes it to be the only "true" or "meaningful" moral system that can be said to exist. It's a poorly constructed, self-refuting argument that hasn't got a leg to stand on.

In short: Your argument fails and copying and pasting some website is seriously intellectually lazy. You get an F.

This is a really good point.

 

[outhouse]

Last chance. Without reference to an ultimate reality, what makes purpose/values anything but arbitrary?

Your last chance?

You cannot substantiate anything here

 

[Reflex]

This is a really good point.

Many people think the Euthyphro dilemma is a good point. The problem is that it's contingent on God being a being alongside other beings; i.e., "If your personal moral framework is solely contingent on the dictates of a higher authority." But if "God is the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere," there is oneness, the goodness of God's everywhere-presence, and given that we live in a space-time universe, the freedom to be apart from it.

 

[outhouse]

Many people think the Euthyphro dilemma is a good point. The problem is that it's contingent on God being a being alongside other beings; i.e., "If your personal moral framework is solely contingent on the dictates of a higher authority." But if "God is the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere," there is oneness and the goodness of God everywhere-present and, given that we live in a space-time universe, the freedom to be apart from it.

Your turning ancient mythology into modern mythology.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Many people think the Euthyphro dilemma is a good point. The problem is that it's contingent on God being a being alongside other beings; i.e., "If your personal moral framework is solely contingent on the dictates of a higher authority." But if "God is the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere," there is oneness, the goodness of God's everywhere-presence, and given that we live in a space-time universe, the freedom to be apart from it.

His point was not about the Euthyphro dilemma.

(Though I don't think what you've said here really solves the problem of the dilemma.)

 

[Reflex]

His point was not about the Euthyphro dilemma.

That's a pretty big "if" in the quote I used.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's a pretty big "if" in the quote I used.

Pardon?

 

[outhouse]

Pardon?

he is constantly moving goal post

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Many people think the Euthyphro dilemma is a good point.

I didn't use the Euthyphro dilemma.

The problem is that it's contingent on God being a being alongside other beings; i.e., "If your personal moral framework is solely contingent on the dictates of a higher authority." But if "God is the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere," there is oneness, the goodness of God's everywhere-presence, and given that we live in a space-time universe, the freedom to be apart from it.

Wow. None of that makes any sense whatsoever on any level. Maybe don't make your arguments through a random word generator in future?