what is real?

Originally posted by knightmeister
is the fact that killing people for fun is not in accordance with god's nature enough?
========shark--------------------

Yes.

Ok, so my next question is, what is it exactly that makes this a moral fact?

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Ok, so my next question is, what is it exactly that makes this a [b]moral fact?[/b]

I assume if I go with this I will get the chance to put you on the spot later?

The reason why "killing people for fun is wrong" (KPFFIW) becomes a moral fact is because it contravenes or runs against Gods very nature (righteous holiness). Gods very nature is not just any old nature - it is THE nature of all ultimate reality. It is THE nature or brute fact on which all other facts are built. Infact , Christianity claims that God's nature will remain forever when all matter , energy , ie the universe itself has dissappeared.

That's a moral fact if ever there was one. So where are you going with this one?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I assume if I go with this I will get the chance to put you on the spot later?

The reason why "killing people for fun is wrong" (KPFFIW) becomes a moral fact is because it contravenes or runs against Gods very nature (righteous holiness). Gods very nature is not just any old nature - it is THE nature of all ultimate reality. It is THE nature or bru ...[text shortened]... peared.

That's a moral fact if ever there was one. So where are you going with this one?

I assume if I go with this I will get the chance to put you on the spot later?
If you want to, yes.

The reason why "killing people for fun is wrong" (KPFFIW) becomes a moral fact is because it contravenes or runs against Gods very nature (righteous holiness). Gods very nature is not just any old nature - it is THE nature of all ultimate reality. It is THE nature or brute fact on which all other facts are built. Infact , Christianity claims that God's nature will remain forever when all matter , energy , ie the universe itself has dissappeared.

That's a moral fact if ever there was one. So where are you going with this one?
This does get a bit Euthyphro, but really your candidate OMF rests on the assumption that god exists and that god is the standard by which we measure 'good'. Thus 'X is good' by definition means that X is in accordance with god's nature.

There are two main problems with this. The first is the Euthyphro Dilemma. We can imagine a set of possible worlds in which god's nature is different in each world. Within the world in which god's nature is such that KPFF is good, then it is good. This seems to rob god of its explanatory power as an OMF. In attempting to explain everything, it ends up explaining nothing.

The second problem is epistemic. We have no way of knowing that we know we have access to god's nature. Just take a moment, despite the fact that you think you know this is false, to imagine what we would see in the world if it were true.

Yup:
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/creating_god_in_ones_own_image.php

Your turn. 🙂

Originally posted by Lord Shark
]I assume if I go with this I will get the chance to put you on the spot later?
If you want to, yes.

The reason why "killing people for fun is wrong" (KPFFIW) becomes a moral fact is because it contravenes or runs against Gods very nature (righteous holiness). Gods very nature is not just any old nature - it is THE nature of all ultimate real ogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/creating_god_in_ones_own_image.php

Your turn. 🙂

This might help you Sharkboy, that is, to determine Gods nature.

(Romans 1:20) . . .For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made. . .

(Hebrews 11:1) . . .Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This might help you Sharkboy, that is, to determine Gods nature.

(Romans 1:20) . . .For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made. . .

(Hebrews 11:1) . . .Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.

Give over 🙂

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Give over 🙂

its true Sharky, one may ascertain Gods nature from an examination of the physical world, for just as an artist expresses himself through the creative process, it takes no great step of the imagination to state that God has done the same. Imagine for a moment, how life would be without colour, its certainly superfluous to existence, yet we have a variety of landscapes, seascapes, flora and fauna to enjoy. Imagine you were to eat the same meal day after day after day, what monotony, thus, we percieve in the variety of foods a love and care to make life enjoyable, is it not so? Imagine no sound, music is certainly superfluous to existence, yet you are a guitar player and gain much enjoyment from it, is it not so? We could go on about the inherent design within living organisms, the structure and order, the justice and balance in the animal kingdom, the ingenuity and cooperation of differing species. 🙂

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What is 'moral' in one era is 'immoral' in the next.

I think this is more accurately put as

[b]What is 'moral' to one person is 'immoral' in the next.

With the understanding that social pressures on moral development are different in different times and places.[/b]

Different cultures have different practices as to how one should greet another. In some cultures a hand shake is proper. In others it is a kiss. In others it is a bow.

Do you believe these differences are in morality ?

Ie. "You should not kiss the man. You should shake his hand. That is the moral thing to do."

Ie. "You should not shake the man's hand. You should bow to him. That is the moral thing to do."

Are these disputes over what is the absolute morality ?
Or are these disagreements over how to practice morality ?

I believe that they are disagreements over how morality should be practiced. Such disagreements do not prove the non-existence of an absolute moral standard.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its true Sharky, one may ascertain Gods nature from an examination of the physical world, for just as an artist expresses himself through the creative process, it takes no great step of the imagination to state that God has done the same. Imagine for a moment, how life would be without colour, its certainly superfluous to existence, yet we have a va ...[text shortened]... ustice and balance in the animal kingdom, the ingenuity and cooperation of differing species. 🙂

Let's focus on Ichneumonidae for a while shall we?

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Let's focus on Ichneumonidae for a while shall we?

yes what quality of God strikes you after you observe it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes what quality of God strikes you after you observe it?

I don't believe in your god. I gave a small example which, amongst many, leads to the conclusion that the existence of such a being has prima facie implausibility.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I don't believe in your god. I gave a small example which, amongst many, leads to the conclusion that the existence of such a being has prima facie implausibility.

Implausibility??, my dear fellow there is nothing remotely implausible about observing the physical universe and drawing inferences from it. Does the wasp display any type of characteristic at all which appeals to your imagination? does it in fact make its own paper from saliva and minute pieces of wood which it chews up to form a building material with which it makes its nest?? Is it inherently wise in doing so? Where did it learn this process? If it did not reason and learn it , who instilled in it this innate ability?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Implausibility??, my dear fellow there is nothing remotely implausible about observing the physical universe and drawing inferences from it. Does the wasp display any type of characteristic at all which appeals to your imagination? does it in fact make its own paper from saliva and minute pieces of wood which it chews up to form a building material ...[text shortened]... earn this process? If it did not reason and learn it , who instilled in it this innate ability?

I have no problem with drawing inferences. What is implausible is inferring the existence of your god from a creature like ichneumonidae.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I have no problem with drawing inferences. What is implausible is inferring the existence of your god from a creature like ichneumonidae.

we are not yet talking in terms of 'existence', as yet, we are merely looking for qualities. Where did the wasp get these innate qualities? What can we learn from observing them? What qualities are being displayed, you know the routine.

I watched Jaws 2 yesterday, my wee boy is into sharks, he keeps asking for pictures of a megadon. He is in primary four and his teacher did not believe him that megadons existed, in fact, she had never heard of them. I just thought you may be remotely interested seeing you are Lord of all the sharks 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
we are not yet talking in terms of 'existence', as yet, we are merely looking for qualities. Where did the wasp get these innate qualities? What can we learn from observing them? What qualities are being displayed, you know the routine.

I watched Jaws 2 yesterday, my wee boy is into sharks, he keeps asking for pictures of a megadon. He is in pri ...[text shortened]... them. I just thought you may be remotely interested seeing you are Lord of all the sharks 🙂

Yes, I know the routine. I've never seen a plausible inference of god yet.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Yes, I know the routine. I've never seen a plausible inference of god yet.

Nor I a plausible argument to the contrary.