The bad thing about Christians

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why do I have to give an example of a philosopher who argues for Natural Law but does not presuppose God? How about no1Marauder? Will you at least address the point why if the Natural Law can be ascertained by reason as stated by ...[text shortened]... ellectual crap you always pull out when you don't have an answer.

I am addressing your points - whether you realise/admit it or not.

I don't know if Aristotle actually posited the existence of Natural Law, but Aquinas says that Natural Law can be ascertained by reason because Natural Law is a reflection of Eternal Law and [human] reason is a reflection of Eternal Reason. Eternal Law is a necessary condition of the existence of Natural Law in Thomistic philosophy. Without a higher authority, there would be no "preexisting moral principles ... inherent to [human] nature" in the first place! Hence, in Thomistic philosophy, Natural Law is indeed reliant on a higher Eternal Law "logically".

Now, let's suppose no1 the philosopher posits the existence of Natural Law in the absence of an Eternal Law. Then, this Natural Law follows from the [rational] nature of humans themselves. Further, no1 posits that there is only one Natural Law and not multiple natural laws.

So the obvious question arises - since humans (even rational atheists) differ quite widely on matters of morality (especially across historical eras) - which view actually reflects Natural Law (which no1 claims is unique)? How does one judge which view is closer to Natural Law? Does it boil down to a popular vote? The judgment of a king or judge or elected government?

EDIT: Please start addressing my points rather than trying this usual litany of name-calling you always pull out when you don't understand points of logic.

Originally posted by no1marauder
A) The Natural Law; B) By using reason and rational thought that human beings possess.

Your argument proves too much; saying different people can reach incorrect conclusions on the Natural Law can be applied to your Divine Command theory as well. The Natural Law exists apart from individual moral judgments; it is a part of the natural ...[text shortened]... an incorrect understanding) does not mean there is no Law of Gravity. Your argument is nonsense.

Define "Natural Law".

Originally posted by Coletti
You are begging the question. How do you know there is NEVER a reason to kill anyone that does not deserve it?

this whole debate is silly. it's bleedingly obvious that when it comes to morality, your god is dispensable. indeed, he himself can't seem to abide by the simple truths that nobody utters because they are so tantalizingly obvious. it's just one more thing for chrisitans to sweep under the rug.

when it comes to morality, your god is neither necessary nor sufficient.

i see that you neglected to answer bbarr's question 'how do you know you have hands?'

Originally posted by LemonJello
this whole debate is silly. it's bleedingly obvious that when it comes to morality, your god is dispensable. indeed, he himself can't seem to abide by the simple truths that nobody utters because they are so tantalizingly obvious. it's just one more thing for chrisitans to sweep under the rug.

when it comes to morality, your god is neither nece ...[text shortened]...

i see that you neglected to answer bbarr's question 'how do you know you have hands?'

So you give up also. I'm disappointed. How about something less obvious then. Is it wrong to steal? How do you know? How do you know it's wrong to cheat on your wife? What about cheating at chess? Can you tell us how you know anyting is morally wrong?

Originally posted by Coletti
You are begging the question. How do you know there is NEVER a reason to kill anyone that does not deserve it?

Stop being difficult. Answer the question I posed earlier. If your WHOLE FAMILY were victims of genocide, would you think it was wrong? I can answer that for you.

Originally posted by Coletti
So you give up also. I'm disappointed. How about something less obvious then. Is it wrong to steal? How do you know? How do you know it's wrong to cheat on your wife? What about cheating at chess? Can you tell us how you know anyting is morally wrong?

Stealing=against the law. Wrong.
Cheating on your wife? Not against the law, but you took vows pledging yourself to one person, til death do you part. Wrong.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Define "Natural Law".

Since you concede its existence, I'm not sure why I should; Aquinas' definition is fine, just not his ultimate argument that a divinity is necessary for there to be Natural Law (as no divinity is necessary for the Law of Gravity). I will give a definition, but if all you're going to do is degrade the argument into a semantic one, I'll bail as I find those uninteresting. The point is we both agree that their are moral precepts that exist independently of the individual viewpoints of the moral actors; you say they come from a God, I say they come from our very nature (which doesn't say that there isn't a God, just that his existence is not required for their to be moral precepts). Please respond to the point of our disagreement; and has I pointed out in my respond to Coletti disagreement by individuals about what the moral precepts are is an argument that proves too much as it invalidates Divine Command as well (and the Law of Gravity).

Natural law, or right reason, rests on the self-evident truths of fundamental goods and supposes that human action can be directed toward what is morally right by practical reason.

http://www.acton.org/research/reading/natural_law.html

Originally posted by Coletti
So you give up also. I'm disappointed. How about something less obvious then. Is it wrong to steal? How do you know? How do you know it's wrong to cheat on your wife? What about cheating at chess? Can you tell us how you know anyting is morally wrong?

how are those examples any less obvious? i think i see where you are coming from, and all i'm saying is i think that you are wrong. we don't need the bible to delineate right from wrong. just as i don't need the bible to know i have hands.

Originally posted by Alpha10
Stop being difficult. Answer the question I posed earlier. If your WHOLE FAMILY were victims of genocide, would you think it was wrong? I can answer that for you.

I'm not being difficult, you are having difficulty justifying why you think anything is right or wrong, good or evil.

Yes it would be wrong. But not because you said it was my family, and not just because I said so.

Originally posted by Coletti
Natural law is unreliable - where is it written down? How does one know natural law? Are you saying "you just know" like magic?

And how do you know what God's law is? Show me why that moral precepts supposedly created by a God, which humans looking at the same words disagree on, is as good an indicator of what the Law is as the reasoned reflections of rational men? Your argument proves too much: its logical conclusion is that there is no moral law at all because every single person doesn't agree on what it is. This is nonsense.

And theists who believe in miracles and 900 year old men, shouldn't be throwing the word "magic" around in a derogatory fashion. In any event, Natural Law is discernible by the reason of rational men, just like the Law of Gravity; there is no "magic' involved, just the use of the facilities Nature (God?) gave us.

Originally posted by LemonJello
how are those examples any less obvious? i think i see where you are coming from, and all i'm saying is i think that you are wrong. we don't need the bible to delineate right from wrong. just as i don't need the bible to know i have hands.

Well then by all means, show me how. How do you delineate right from wrong? How do you know what is morally right and wrong?

With your hand, you have physically senses - sight and touch. We can go into the metaphysical, but that does not justify ethics. There are no "physically senses of morality.

Originally posted by no1marauder
And how do you know what God's law is?

God tells me. Primarily by putting it in writing. In effect, I have a perfect source for knowing good and evil - God.

Now you need to answer how do you know what the "natural laws" are? And just as important, where did they come from?

Originally posted by Coletti
Well then by all means, show me how. How do you delineate right from wrong? How do you know what is morally right and wrong?

With your hand, you have physically senses - sight and touch. We can go into the metaphysical, but that does ...[text shortened]... justify ethics. There are no "physically senses of morality.

More nonsense. Morality is a concept that can be understood by the use of our physical senses and the way we process that data in our brain. Just like gravity it has an existence seperate from our senses. You're dropping to a "tree doesn't fall in the woods if no one hears it" type of claptrap, and that argument "proves" that there is no moral law at all. Surely you're not arguing God's moral law exists because someone wrote it down!

EDIT: Apparently my last sentence was wrong; YOU ARE!