Morality and Belief in God

[Angel]

But then we're back to where we started - that certain behaviors may lead to the continuation of a species is purely an empirical matter. Which offspring get eaten or die and which offspring survive to reproduce is a consequence of biology and physics. Pointing this out doesn't commit anyone to supposing that this is good, that this is what ought to happen.

And I'm not just being pedantic here btw. We can imagine all kinds of instances where an organism engages in behavior which may serve to propagate its genes but which is actually immoral (rape for instance).

I don't see you as being pedantic; I see you as engaging sincerely in a philosophical discussion.

Nevertheless, your reluctance to admit even a morally neutral use of the term "good" into the discussion makes a mockery of the scientific notion that X "confers and advantage" in evolutionary terms. Conferring an advantage and conferring a disadvantage, on your view, become indistinguishable, synonymous, meaningless. The word "advantage," it seems to me, clearly posits a value in the goings-on of nature.

 

[Quag]

You're stuck in an idee fixe here, Quag. I've pointed out the absurdity of your claim.

No you havent you have just repeated over an over again your subjective opinion that a working watch is good. You have given no actual reason why it is good.

If in your world there is no objective difference between a good watch and a bad watch, then in your world a watch that works is indistinguishable from a watch that doesn't work.

There you go again confusing good with working and bad with not working

This is the consequence of your claim that good watch/bad watch distinction is purely a subjective distinction. This is not a straw man. This is what follows from your obsessive claim.

Sorry angel you are confused, you have equated good with working and bad with not working then gone off on a tangent
You continue to make the same error over and over again then apply a ridiculous strawman

Good:

1.morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious:

2.satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree:

3.of high quality; excellent.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/good?s=t

Working:

1.the act of a person or thing that works.
2.operation; action:
the involuted workings of his mind.
3.the process of shaping a material:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/working?s=t

These two terms do mot mean the same thing

 

[AGENT J]

1.)You're stuck in an idee fixe here, Quag. I've pointed out the absurdity of your claim.
2.) If in your world there is no objective difference between a good watch and a bad watch, then in your world a watch that works is indistinguishable from a watch that doesn't work.
3.) This is the consequence of your claim that good watch/bad watch distinction is purely a subjective distinction.
4.) This is not a straw man. This is what follows from your obsessive claim.

1.) no you didnt you lies about what was actually said and then based on your subjective feelings of the lie you made up you tried to claim its objective but completely failed
2.) and now you are repeating your made up lie that nobody honest educated and objective will buy those are NOT the same thing because you are trying to claim good and bad are factually equal to working and not working. that lie as already been proven false.
3.) the only consequence is your lie failing and being exposed
4.) it is factually a strawman by definition because nobody ever said the lie you made up and are now arguing against LMAO

 

[AGENT J]

I don't see you as being pedantic; I see you as engaging sincerely in a philosophical discussion.

Nevertheless, your reluctance to admit even a morally neutral use of the term "good" into the discussion makes a mockery of the scientific notion that X "confers and advantage" in evolutionary terms. Conferring an advantage and conferring a disadvantage, on your view, become indistinguishable, synonymous, meaningless. The word "advantage," it seems to me, clearly posits a value in the goings-on of nature.

more factless opinions and feelings desperately trying to be sold as factual and completely failing, do you really think that will work? LMAO

 

[Angel]

No you havent you have just repeated over an over again your subjective opinion that a working watch is good. You have given no actual reason why it is good.



There you go again confusing good with working and bad with not working



Sorry angel you are confused, you have equated good with working and bad with not working then gone off on a tangent
You continue to make the same error over and over again then apply a ridiculous strawman

Good:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/good?s=t

Working:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/working?s=t

These two terms do mot mean the same thing

I'm not doing this dance with you again. A good watch is a watch that functions; a bad watch is a watch that malfunctions. These are objective propositions, picking out something in the real world.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) I'm not doing this dance with you again. A good watch is a watch that functions; a bad watch is a watch that malfunctions.
2.) These are objective propositions, picking out something in the real world.

1.) based on your subjective feelings and opinions and NOTHING more lol
2.) no they factually are not

once again your subjective claims pushed as objective and factual arent selling, facts and definitions prove the wrong.

 

[Quag]

I'm not doing this dance with you again. A good watch is a watch that functions; a bad watch is a watch that malfunctions. These are objective propositions, picking out something in the real world.

That's is your subjective opinion
I find the dance repetitive as well but you seem determined to confuse the meaning of terms and use ridiculous strawmen
Ill try again however
Why is a working watch objectively "good" and a now working watch objectively "bad"?

 

[gfm7175]

Why is a working watch objectively "good" and a now working watch objectively "bad"?

Because it performs the function that it was intended to perform.

A non-working watch completely defeats the purpose of even having a watch in the first place; it doesn't perform the desired function.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Because it performs the function that it was intended to perform.
2.)A non-working watch completely defeats the purpose of even having a watch in the first place; it doesn't perform the desired function.

1.) so LMAO why does that factually matter? what makes that subjective feeling factually good or bad?
2.) again, so? according to what facts? thats just your FEELINGS

fact remains all you are saying is subjective and NOT factual.

what if a person wears it just for fashion?
or if its a smart watch and the time isnt working but the rest does.
what if the history of the watch is so called good, like watch model 56aj65 is the best watch on the planet, its a "good" watch.... if i have one, say after 20 years it finally broke and im asked "is that i good watch?" do i have to say no cause MINE is broken? LMAO

sorry your claims are factually wrong if you are suggesting that there is objective good bad in this case, theres not

 

[Angel]

That's is your subjective opinion
I find the dance repetitive as well but you seem determined to confuse the meaning of terms and use ridiculous strawmen
Ill try again however
Why is a working watch objectively "good" and a now working watch objectively "bad"?

For the same reason a "working watch" is objective, and a "non-working" watch is objective. Or are the terms "working" and "non-working" also subjective?
If not, why not? The answer you give to this question is the answer to your question.

 

[AGENT J]

For the same reason a "working watch" is objective, and a "non-working" watch is objective. Or are the terms "working" and "non-working" also subjective?
If not, why not? The answer you give to this question is the answer to your question.

working how?
do you wear it for time?
do you wear it for its apps?
are you shallow and wear it to attract other shallow people?

all those things matter and are subjective and no matter which one you pick its still only subjective to good and bad and not objective...

your desperation to sell your false claims fails again. Fact remiains your claims of good vs bad are subjecitve

 

[Quag]

Because it performs the function that it was intended to perform.

That means it works it doesn't mean it is good

A non-working watch completely defeats the purpose of even having a watch in the first place; it doesn't perform the desired function.

Desired is also a subjective term.
It doesn't perform the function for which it was built (assuming of course it was built to actually work)
You still have provided no reason why you equate working to be objectively "good" other than your subjective belief that it is so.
Guess what your personal subjective opinion on "good" shows that "good" is subjective

 

[gfm7175]

That means it works it doesn't mean it is good

Desired is also a subjective term.
It doesn't perform the function for which it was built (assuming of course it was built to actually work)
You still have provided no reason why you equate working to be objectively "good" other than your subjective belief that it is so.
Guess what your personal subjective opinion on "good" shows that "good" is subjective

Let's try this from the angle of logic itself...

What is the source (grounding) for the laws of logic?

 

[Angel]

Let's try this from the angle of logic itself...

What is the source (grounding) for the laws of logic?

Heaven help us!

 

[Quag]

Let's try this from the angle of logic itself...

What is the source (grounding) for the laws of logic?

Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, translit. logikḗ[1]), originally meaning "the word" or "what is spoken", but coming to mean "thought" or "reason", is a subject concerned with the most general laws of truth,[2] and is now generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of valid inference. A valid inference is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the inference and its conclusion. (In ordinary discourse, inferences may be signified by words like therefore, hence, ergo, and so on.)

There is no universal agreement as to the exact scope and subject matter of logic (see § Rival conceptions, below), but it has traditionally included the classification of arguments, the systematic exposition of the 'logical form' common to all valid arguments, the study of inference, including fallacies, and the study of semantics, including paradoxes. Historically, logic has been studied in philosophy (since ancient times) and mathematics (since the mid-19th century), and recently logic has been studied in computer science, linguistics, psychology, and other fields.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

 

[Quag]

Heaven help us!

You still havent shown that a working watch is objectively "good"
The reason you cannot do so is because good/bad are subjective terms.

Example 1
Terrorist makes bomb uses watch as timer. Watch breaks bomb doesn't go off.
For the terrorist the broken watch is bad for the intended victims it is good.

Example 2
Person is late for work because they are playing with friends. Person puts on a broken watch and tells boss they are sorry they are late their watch broke. Boss accepts excuse and doesn't dock worker any pay.
For the person slacking off the broken watch is good. From the boss's point of view the broken watch is bad

Good/bad is are subjective terms because different people can/do have different opinions on when something is good or bad

 

[gfm7175]

Let's try this from the angle of logic itself...

What is the source (grounding) for the laws of logic?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

That's not what I asked... What is the source (grounding) for the laws of logic? Just a simple answer would do... such as "God", "the human mind", "the universe itself", etc. etc.

 

[Quag]

That's not what I asked... What is the source (grounding) for the laws of logic? Just a simple answer would do... such as "God", "the human mind", "the universe itself", etc. etc.

Not exactly sure what you are after but Logic is based upon reason
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_logic

 

[Angel]

You still havent shown that a working watch is objectively "good"
The reason you cannot do so is because good/bad are subjective terms.

Example 1
Terrorist makes bomb uses watch as timer. Watch breaks bomb doesn't go off.
For the terrorist the broken watch is bad for the intended victims it is good.

Example 2
Person is late for work because they are playing with friends. Person puts on a broken watch and tells boss they are sorry they are late their watch broke. Boss accepts excuse and doesn't dock worker any pay.
For the person slacking off the broken watch is good. From the boss's point of view the broken watch is bad

Good/bad is are subjective terms because different people can/do have different opinions on when something is good or bad

And you have ignored my question. Are "working watch" and non-working watch" subjective? If not, why not?

 

[gfm7175]

Not exactly sure what you are after but Logic is based upon reason
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_logic

I'm not asking what the definition of logic is; I'm asking what the source of it is... Where does it come from (originate)? How did it "come into existence", in other words... More specifically, the "laws of logic" ... all laws have as lawgiver, so who/what is the "lawgiver" for the laws of logic?

 

[AGENT J]

And you have ignored my question. Are "working watch" and non-working watch" subjective? If not, why not?

Why do you continue to post lies like this, Yes he did, he pointed out that WORKING is subjective. The question is working how see his post and my post 386 that totally destroy your false claims.

 

[AGENT J]

I'm not asking what the definition of logic is; I'm asking what the source of it is... Where does it come from (originate)? How did it "come into existence", in other words... More specifically, the "laws of logic" ... all laws have as lawgiver, so who/what is the "lawgiver" for the laws of logic?

this is going to be awesome
logic varies so youll have to do better

What "laws of logic"?
whos "laws of logic"?

 

[gfm7175]

this is going to be awesome
logic varies so youll have to do better

What "laws of logic"?
whos "laws of logic"?

The laws of logic... idk, like "rules of inference" and "deductive reasoning" "logical fallacies" etc. etc...

What/Who is the source of those things (laws of logic)?

 

[blarg]

The laws of logic... idk, like "rules of inference" and "deductive reasoning" "logical fallacies" etc. etc...

What/Who is the source of those things (laws of logic)?

that's just its nature no one wrote laws for it people have figured out and described how it works is all

 

[gfm7175]

that's just its nature no one wrote laws for it people have figured out and described how it works is all

So what's the source of logic? It seems like you're saying that people have "discovered" it, but not quite saying that the laws of logic are a human convention...