Simple question?

Quote: rxwine

Look up the question, "What do philosophers agree on?" They are in a much worse condition than physicists.

"It would be a safe guess that at least 80% of philosophers agree that there are no good arguments for the existence of God. That’s not the sort of overwhelming consensus you find on some scientific issues (evolution, global warming), but it’s very high by philosophical standards." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sin

But 73% of philosophers are atheists, what
would you expect.

Quote: FrGamble

This is such a biased view that I wonder if it is worth responding to. It is the excuse of everyone when they are proved wrong or that the other is correct. You just started from the conclusion and work backwards to justify it. Give me a break. You can begin without any inkling of God and come to a deep conviction of the sexual morality that is reflected in the Christian morality.

I think you asked about if something moral because God commands it or does God command it because it is moral? The answer again is both and. You can find out what God will command without reference to the Catechism just by looking at something reasonably and naturally. In the ancient world a good smart doctor would have told you not to eat pork because it is deadly if it is undercooked, a real possibility back then. Is it a surprise then that God would forbid the eating of Pork?

It makes sense for a society of people who don't know any better to make up rules like don't eat pork.

For an all-knowing god, a rule that makes more sense is that you should always cook pork thoroughly.

This sort of directive also should be labeled as advice for healthy living, rather than a law that if broken is a sin and leads to eternal damnation.

Quote: FrGamble

This is lunacy. Logic and reason are the proof for anything. It is logic and reason that tells us the scientific method works to discover truth. Everything we believe as true must be grounded in logic and reason. It is because something is logical and reasonable that we can test it and observe the verification we need. However, when we set a trajectory to go to the moon we know that it will work before we observe it work.



Sure we can. We can reasonable know that the universe if it does not hold the reason for its existence in itself then it must have a cause. This means the possibility of an eternal uncreated matter is not reasonable. We also can rule out a being or force that is not all-powerful or not eternal or not spiritual, etc...



Again I don't think you are thinking clearly about this or we are really not understanding each other. When in your life have you ever waited until all the possibilities are prove to be true or all but one are proven to be false before believing in something and acting on it? Have you ever in your life settled on anything, because if you have I can guarantee you that you have not exhausted proving all the other possibilities false.

Key words: test it.

If you cannot test it, you can not prove it with any degree of certainty.

I again point out geocentrism and string theory as two examples.

Please read more ratonalwiki to understand the logical fallacies you keep using.

Quote: FrGamble

It is the excuse of everyone when they are proved wrong or that the other is correct.

No, it isn't. I might be wrong. That's always a possibility. But I know you're not correct.

Quote:

I think you asked about if something moral because God commands it or does God command it because it is moral?

I didn't. Euthyphro did.

But let's consider the question like this: Is Batman good because he acts morally, or is something moral because Batman does it?

It's almost a convention in serial literature that one of the heroes will do something terrible and appalling that they think is necessary. This happens in real life, too. But unlike regular fiction or reality, Biblical mythology grants its protagonist a pass. So we can argue whether Batman was right to fear Superman, or whether Churchill should have evacuated Coventry, or whether Truman should have dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But we can't question whether Jehovah was right to engage in mass murder so often. We're supposed to assume Jehovah can do no wrong.

Euthyphro's dilemma, BTW, is not an ethical question so much as an ontological one, at least as adapted to Christianity: does an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity have free will? Can it even have free will?

And it's as relevant as the question of whether Superman can outrun The Flash, or whether Batman can defeat Darth Vader (which of course he can; he's Batman). Fiction can illustrate reality, but it cannot define it. So when dealing with mythical and fictional constructs like your god, Batman, Howard Roark, Andy Dufrense, Gil Grissom, etc. etc. the question is "what do these types of characters' actions, convictions, motives, etc. say about real people in the real world? Are they inspirations or cautionary tales?"

Quote:

In the ancient world a good smart doctor would have told you not to eat pork because it is deadly if it is undercooked, a real possibility back then. Is it a surprise then that God would forbid the eating of Pork?

Do you rally believe that old canard?

Sure, undercooked pork is dangerous. So is undercooked chicken and undercooked beef and undercooked fish and undercooked pheasant and plenty of other things.

A more likely explanation is the "civet coffee factor." Pigs, as raised in ancient times, are disgusting, filthy creatures. In particular they will wallow all day in a mix of mud and their own shit. You're seriously going to eat one?

Hell, I'd challenge you to visit a chicken processing plant and then drive to KFC for a meal. I'd bet a dollar you wouldn't feel like eating. Chickens tend to get processed at the slaughterhouse, and the ratio of excrement/waste/guts and meat per bird is quite high as compared to cattle or even pigs (which are now raised far from mud). The smell ought to be enough to turn you vegetarian. About the only thing worse is a fish plant.

Now, would you care to explain the benefits of sexual mutilation on a nine-day old boy?

Quote: Dalex64

It makes sense for a society of people who don't know any better to make up rules like don't eat pork.

For an all-knowing god, a rule that makes more sense is that you should always cook pork thoroughly.

This sort of directive also should be labeled as advice for healthy living, rather than a law that if broken is a sin and leads to eternal damnation.

Great points and along with Nareed's comments on the pork issue I am defeated. The only thing I would correct is God would not send someone to eternal damnation for eating pork.

In regards to Nareed's challenge to explain circumcision, I think today it is a pretty normal and healthy practice that often happens if the parents chose soon after birth. It is recommended by many doctors and cuts down on infection and other problems.

Quote: Dalex64

Key words: test it.

If you cannot test it, you can not prove it with any degree of certainty.

I again point out geocentrism and string theory as two examples.

I know you are more intelligent than this. In your example of geocentrism it was not the logical argument that led to that theory that was proved wrong it was precisely the observations and tests that turned out to be wrong.

Everybody has been commenting about how much various opinions you find in philosophy, that is true. However, you don't find anyone, at least who is sane, who doubts the formula for a logical argument or that A cannot equal non-A, etc. Logic:philosophy::math:science.

Quote: FrGamble

I know you are more intelligent than this. In your example of geocentrism it was not the logical argument that led to that theory that was proved wrong it was precisely the observations and tests that turned out to be wrong.

Everybody has been commenting about how much various opinions you find in philosophy, that is true. However, you don't find anyone, at least who is sane, who doubts the formula for a logical argument or that A cannot equal non-A, etc. Logic:philosophy::math:science.

Now show me the tests and observations that prove god created the universe.

As far as I know, the only observation is that the universe is here now, and we have a theory that traces it back to a certain point.

And we already know there is no test.

My argument about geocentrism is that it was based on logic and arguments, and at the time it could not be proved to be true. In fact we know it was proved to be false. Your arguments about god are the same thing - we can not prove them to be true. They are just ideas.

You also have to break the laws of the universe as we know them in order for them to be true. If you are going to do that, why not just cut out the middleman and have the universe spring into existence on its own?

Quote: FrGamble

In regards to Nareed's challenge to explain circumcision, I think today it is a pretty normal and healthy practice that often happens if the parents chose soon after birth. It is recommended by many doctors and cuts down on infection and other problems.

A really large number of studies find that it may have a very small benefit, that does not outweigh the slightly larger risks involved. In this day and age, it should be outlawed before the age of consent.

Quote: Nareed

A really large number of studies find that it may have a very small benefit, that does not outweigh the slightly larger risks involved. In this day and age, it should be outlawed before the age of consent.

What risks are involved?

Quote: Dalex64

As far as I know, the only observation is that the universe is here now, and we have a theory that traces it back to a certain point.

And from this point we can use logic to show that the universe has a cause.

Quote:

And we already know there is no test.

Why do you think that logic needs to be tested to be true? Why do you trust the philosophical idea that testing and observation is the only way to discover truth, when that itself is untestable? Is a mathematical equation any less true before you test it or observe how it works out?

Quote:

My argument about geocentrism is that it was based on logic and arguments, and at the time it could not be proved to be true.

In fact we know it was proved to be true if you went just by the observations. The logic behind geocentrism was just the scaffolding that held the argument together based on ancient observations and tests. Once those observations and tests were discovered to be wrong they were taken down and the same scaffold was used to build the theory of heliocentrism.

Quote:

They are just ideas.

What do you have against ideas? They are the most powerful force in the universe.

Quote:

You also have to break the laws of the universe as we know them in order for them to be true. If you are going to do that, why not just cut out the middleman and have the universe spring into existence on its own?

You can break the physical laws of the universe but we cannot break the laws of logic and reason.