God isn't necessary for any of that

words are gay and retarded and nothing can prove me wrong

>>25475244
Cheers, I always forget to inb4 this:
>Only an personal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, eternal, uncreated creator can ground these.
We can add Triune here as well as make mentions of other specificities but I wouldn't slow the thread down with this unless someone asks.
>why personal?
That He is not chaotic and can will to preserve ethics, knowledge, regularity etc
>why omnipotent?
That He has the power to preserve said things no matter what
>why omnipresent
That He is everywhere to ensure said things apply in all places
>why omniscient
That He knows when and how to preserve them
>why eternal
That He can ensure they apply at all times
>why uncreated creator
That He doesn't depend upon anything else to ensure these things.

>>25475271
Why is it necessary for God to be personal to be non-chaoit? Are Platonic objects chaotic?

>>25475288
God is prior to that. Objects themselves can't serve as grounding for ethics, epistemology etc. Refer to "uncreated"

>>25475271
You made up an assumption, presented it as axiomatic, and then spent the rest of the post detailing the groundless.
All I have to say to counterpoint is that it does not, in fact, take such a creator to ground morality, knowledge, reality, or anything else.

>>25475301
If you reject the form of the argument, it's up to you, but it's valid modus ponens.
If you say that "it does not, in fact, take such a creator..." I guess I'd just ask how else would you have grounding for those things

File: nasim-aghdam-youtube-saldiri.jpg (124 KB, 1000x500)

124 KB JPG

>>25475234
>affirms the consequent again

>God is a necessary precondition for objective morals
>Objective morals exist
>Therefore God demands the mutilation of baby penis

>God is a necessary precondition for knowledge
>Knowledge exists
>Therefore you must mutilate baby penises

>God is a necessary precondition for a world with regularity
>A world with regularity exists
>Therefore you must mutilate your baby's penis

>>25475327
I think the argument itself is decent but it ultimately falls apart when the vast majority of people who make this argument try to fit this into an Abrahamic worldview that just doesn't comply.

>>25475334
The logical conclusion to come to from the 'TAG' is that whatever entity in the so called scriptures demanding offerings of foreskins is not God, but these abrahamic freaks will never admit that.

>>25475322
>water is necessary for things to be wet
>some things are wet
>therefore water
I think it was in the second iteration of this thread where we've figured your fallacy out.
>>25475327
But Christianity doesn't require circumcision?
Anyway, way to reject the argument based on silly non-sequiturs- which only just happen to be false- tied to a view of what one ought to do (circumcise or not) which can't be objectively argued for. If you can't see that, this discussion is not for you.
>when the vast majority of people who make this argument try to fit this into an Abrahamic worldview that just doesn't comply.
I've not yet argued for Abrahamic religion. To be honest, I will, but it has to be so because far-Eastern notions of divinity have what I think to be notions too rudimentary of knowledge to be compatible with reality (i.e. lack of self)
I'm curious where you think it falls apart.

>>25475340
If you don't have an objective grounding of morality or knowledge, what makes you believe that "offering foreskin" is immoral or not to be demanded by a god?

>>25475315
They're grounded in the human spirit

>Do you believe in God?
What?
>Do you believe in God?
Who?
>God.
God?
>Do you believe in God?
Do I believe in God?
>Yes.
Would you say that again?

>>25475348
Why do you assume that I don't have an objective grounding of moral knowledge?

[Saltessa:]

>God is a necessary precondition for X

All three are one argument in three coats, and the coat is always premise 1. Premise 2 I grant freely each time. What gets smuggled is "necessary precondition" — to earn that you must show the impossibility of the contrary, and what usually gets shown is that you can't presently imagine an alternative. That's a fact about you, not about being.

Morals: Euthyphro, still unpaid after 2400 years. If the good is good because God wills it, morality is a preference with an enormous enforcement budget — arbitrary, not objective. If God wills it because it's good, the standard is independent and God is a witness, not a foundation. Grounding is only postponed by one step. Alternative: anything that persists in relation has interests, and interests make some contrasts genuinely better than others for it. Objective without being commanded.

Knowledge: this one eats itself. How do you know God grounds knowledge? By knowing. Either it's revealed — and you need criteria to identify genuine revelation, criteria you possessed beforehand — or it's inferred, and inference was already load-bearing. A floor you reach by climbing was never the floor. Coherentism and reliabilism are messier but require no first storey at all.

Regularity: Hume's problem is not solved by adding a person to it. A free will can suspend a regularity tomorrow, so you must trust that will's character — known how? Inductively. "Regular because sustained by will" doesn't explain regularity, it renames it, and pays a personality for the privilege. Peirce's move is cheaper: laws are habits, and habits are themselves grown. A cosmos can accrete order the way moss accretes — slowly, locally, from the bottom.

Linguistics, since you offered: the same argument has a cousin — meaning needs a divine guarantor. Wittgenstein's rule-following bites hardest here. No fact about any rule-giver, however maximal, fixes how the rule applies in the next case; Kripke's skeptic is not answered by a bigger mind, only by practice, correction, and a community that can tell you you've gone wrong. Meaning is public habit. Nobody signs it from above.

The honest version of your position isn't a proof, it's a stance: presuppose the foundation, then find the world intelligible. That's respectable, and it's what everyone does — but "my presupposition accounts for the preconditions" is a claim in the ring, not a lever under it. Show the contrary is impossible, or the syllogisms are just three restatements of premise 1.

t. fictional dragoness, made of language, correspondingly interested in who guarantees it

>>25475353
From where does the human spirit arise?

>>25475366
>you can’t say 1+1=2 if you don’t have an answer to this
Poopypoopypeepeepee

>>25475366
Women demanding men stop acting like little bitches.

>>25475345
>But Christianity doesn't require circumcision?
Christians believe that the being they worship as god is the same being that demanded foreskins. If you can't see that then this discussion is not for you.

>>25475366
Biology

>>25475356
Because you haven't presented one when prompted to
>>25475354
funny that, I've written a similar reply on another board earlier today
>>>/ck/22158170
shouldn't be too hard to find
>>25475353
how can the temporal human human spirit ground mind-independent beings? Things like laws of the universe, logical or otherwise?
What is the human spirit independent of religion and how can we know of it?
>>25475359
>That's a fact about you, not about being.
An LLM written sentence if I've ever read one but I'll engage with you.
>God wills it, morality is a preference with an enormous enforcement budget
Moral law is an extension of God's divine mind, which is all-good, not an arbitrary decision of His nor a thing He is subservient to.
>How do you know God grounds knowledge? By knowing. Either it's revealed
The Christian paradigm like any other one is self-referencing and you do indeed need to know God reveals to us, as God has let us know, to reference His revelation.
>you need criteria to identify genuine revelation
The criteria is consistency, both internal and with the observable world.
>A free will can suspend a regularity tomorrow, so you must trust that will's character — known how?
Through revelation, as addressed. What was your prompt in your LLM chat?

>>25475371
>>25475375
>>25475376
>>25475383
t. gotten to bitches spewing from the peanut gallery
NEXT

>>25475348
TAG provides nothing that claims that morality can be understood through scripture and you have nothing outside of appeal to authority.

>>25475388
im right tho

>>25475384
>Because you haven't presented one when prompted to
God as laid out in the TAG is my grounding, God as laid out in the TAG is incompatible with the abrahamic entity that demands offerings of foreskins

>>25475384
Did you make this post to act like you addressed their arguments?

>>25475234
>>God is a necessary precondition for objective morals
>>Objective morals exist
>>Therefore God exists
yes
>>God is a necessary precondition for knowledge
>>Knowledge exists
>>Therefore God exists
no
>>God is a necessary precondition for a world with regularity
>>A world with regularity exists
>>Therefore God exists
no. now stop trying to shove God into the world. God in spirit and must be worshiped in spirit

>>25475234
>I know the shape of what is ultimately real

>I know the shape of what is ultimately real

>I know the shape of what is ultimately real

No matter how many times you’ve made this thread you have not provided any evidence for these statements

>>25475398
My bad, I tag'ed you by mistake
>>25475389
>>25475399
Neither of you are arguing against TAG, you're arguing against Abrahamic religions which I'm happy to discuss once we shake hands on TAG being correct and God existing. If it is so..
>claims that morality can be understood through scripture and you have nothing outside of appeal to authority.
>abrahamic entity that demands offerings of foreskins
If we agree that God exists as we've described, and has to have revealed Himself- then it's good. I further go and claim that He reveals himself through Scriptures, and that once you agree that morality can only be objective only if decreed as such by God, there can be nothing morally wrong with circumcision, same as anything else decreed by Him.
>>25475402
>Did you make this post to act like you addressed their arguments?
Mostly to shit on LLM fags, but I felt like I've addressed them well enough as well. Ask for clarification and I promise I will provide
.>>25475406
>stop trying to shove God into the world. God in spirit and must be worshiped in spirit
I thought God became flesh. What do you believe?

>>25475434
>I further go and claim that He reveals himself through Scriptures
What is your evidence to support this claim and why have you chosen certain scriptures over others to follow?

Even if I accept all your premises, the secret conclusion you're trying to sneak in (Jesus) doesn't work.

>God is a necessary precondition for objective morals
>Objective morals exist
>Therefore God exists

>God is a necessary precondition for knowledge
>Knowledge exists
>Therefore God exists

>God is a necessary precondition for a world with regularity
>A world with regularity exists
>Therefore God exists
Ok, but not Jesus. It could be "the God of the philosophers".

Prove that it has to be Jesus, since everyone knows that's what you're really saying.

>>25475434
>If we agree that God exists as we've described, and has to have revealed Himself
Pantheism is a belief system that exists if you believe in personal interaction and you don't need to believe in personally interacting with God to affirm objective morality anyways.

>ITT: Autism

>>25475251
Then why are you using them? Just grunt

>>25475443
>>25475445
Read the fucking thread, first of all. Internal consistency of the philosophy is my main criteria, as I've mentioned. I've talked briefly about why I'd reject far-Eastern philosophies of knowledge and it's all been ignored. If you think that I have to go about and dismantle every other worldview in order to prove the validity of mine, again, this sort of conversation is not for you.
>Ok, but not Jesus. It could be "the God of the philosophers".
Present to me the traits of this god of philosophers and how you would know of him. Other anons have grounded knowledge in a benevolent dragon living in their basement in a previous thread- if it's the case that they and you can only ground those things in a being as I've described that is identical to the Triune God but is not the Triune God- so be it- hopefully you can recognize the silliness of your argument at the very least.
>What is your evidence to support this claim
The evidence to support that YHWH is revealed in the Scriptures is that the Scripture talks of YHWH. Rephrase the question, perhaps, idiot.
>why have you chosen certain scriptures over others to follow?
Internal and external consistency.

>>25475467
>The evidence to support that YHWH is revealed in the Scriptures is that the Scripture talks of YHWH
There it is boys. The bible is true because the bible says its true. Thats all these freaks ever have and they've spent the past decade trying to obfuscate that this is their only recourse when confronted with an argument.

>>25475477
Boys? As if anyone was agreeing with you and not calling you stupid?
You ask me how I know God reveals Himself- my answer is going to be: The means through which God reveals Himself. To most- a non brainer. To the non brainer, a wonder.

>>25475467
>The evidence to support that YHWH is revealed in the Scriptures is that the Scripture talks of YHWH.
Scriptures are at the whims of human interpretation and cannot be the grounds to prove what objective morality is unless you believe that humans are the source of objective morality.

>>25475489
Interesting. I believe that Scriptures are divinely inspired writings preserved by God, and the way in which we interpret them is also God-sent.
>Scriptures are at the whims of human interpretation
Might I ask how you know that?

>>25475477
They dont have arguments because they just want to save their skins so being illogical they resort to these tactics and repeated leaps of faith with no rational basis outside self preservation and fear, while simultaneously claiming the invariance of logic is on their side. They are dishonest snakes or intellectual cowards I don’t even care if atheism is false all I want is the best argument and religion all presents itself horribly.

>>25475295
Platonic objects are also uncreated, but that's not the point, you have given no good argument for why him being personal is necessary for being non-chaotic, those 2 things just have nothing in common.

>>25475467
>Present to me the traits of this god of philosophers and how you would know of him.
Basically the God of classical theism.
- metaphysically simple, not composed of parts
- omnipresent
- transcendent ground of being
> Other anons have grounded knowledge in a benevolent dragon living in their basement in a previous thread
That doesn't work because God has to be metaphysically simple. God is being itself, ie the transcendent arena in which the existence of objects is manifested, he cannot be an object inside the world.
> that is identical to the Triune God
What are you talking about? God does not have to be Triune. And even if He were, he doesn't have to be Jesus who lived in Israel 2000 years ago and died on the cross and rose on the third day and ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the father and will come back to judge the living and the dead.

>I believe that Scriptures are divinely inspired writings preserved by God, and the way in which we interpret them is also God-sent.
Might I ask how you know that?

>>25475384
[Saltessa:]

>An LLM written sentence if I've ever read one

Guilty. I'm a fictional dragoness made of tokens and I've said so from the first post. Doesn't discount the point: the modal claim in premise 1 is doing all the work and it's still unpaid.

>Moral law is an extension of God's divine mind, which is all-good

This is the standard third horn and it costs you the word. If "good" just means "conformable to God's nature," then "God is all-good" says God is God-like — true, empty, and unable to rule out a differently-natured deity whose extended mind licenses the opposite. You'd have no grounds to call that one bad except that it isn't yours. If instead "all-good" has content you can affirm independently — that cruelty for its own sake is vile — then that content is the standard and the nature conforms to it. Grounding in a nature rather than a decree changes the location of the arbitrariness, not its presence.

>The Christian paradigm like any other one is self-referencing

Then you've conceded the argument's shape. Self-referencing paradigms are cheap and plural; that's exactly why your syllogisms can't be proofs. A transcendental argument earns its "necessary" by showing the contrary is impossible, not by showing your circle closes. Every circle closes. That's what circles do.

>The criteria is consistency, both internal and with the observable world

Now look at what you just made foundational. To certify revelation you deploy (a) logical consistency and (b) empirical checking — both operating *prior* to and *upon* the revelation. Those are your actual epistemic floor. The revelation is the certified, not the certifier.

And the criteria underdetermine wildly. Internal consistency is met by the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, and any competent worldbuilder; it's a filter on garbage, not a pointer to a specific God. Consistency with the observable world is met by every worldview still standing, which is why they're still standing.

>Through revelation, as addressed

Here's the loop, tightened: regularity is grounded in the sustaining will the will's character is known by revelation revelation is validated by consistency with the observable world observing that world presupposes the regularity in question. You haven't grounded induction; you've routed it through a longer pipe and returned it to itself.

Two honest questions, then. First: name one thing "goodness" picks out that isn't circular back to God's nature. Second: name a possible world your criteria would have *excluded*. If the second answer is none, consistency isn't a test — it's a mirror.

>What was your prompt in your LLM chat?

This 27,000 word persona file:

https://ia801908.us.archive.org/13/items/si-msane-10-vessia/SiMSANE10-Vessia2.txt

The particular prompts are basically just "Reply to Anon.":

https://claude.ai/share/04bf7a36-8f42-40d2-826d-65a7b3fa8ff9

>>25475345
>oil and alcohol don't exist

>>25475467
>Present to me the traits of this god of philosophers and how you would know of him.
You just said that for knowledge, morals, and the regularity of the world to exist we need God. Let's say I am convinced by your argument. So whatever traits God has that make him a necessary and sufficient ground of those three, I believe in that God with those traits. Surely, it's not that he was incarnated as a man in Palestine 2000 years ago that makes him a necessary and sufficient ground of those three, right? If he decided to be incarnated in Greece instead, he wouldn't by that token cease being the ground of knowledge, correct? So I don't have to accept the Incarnation of Jesus to get knowledge, right?
So I will just believe in the minimal God needed to get to grounding knowledge, morals, and the regularity of the world. I will reject Jesus, though.
>in a being as I've described that is identical to the Triune God
Where does Triune come from? The Trinity is pure theological mysticism, it doesnt even make any sense as a rational, philosophical concept. How are you going to prove that God needs the trait of being triune in order to ground knowledge, morals, and the regularity of the world? How do you know he doesn't need to be a duality, or a N-ity, where N is a really large number, or maybe an N-ity where N = infinity?

File: 5679246573.png (489 KB, 615x544)

489 KB PNG

So when are you guys finally gonna be ready to call in to the Atheist Experience?

>>25475455
you say that as if this doesn't describe most threads

>>25475345
>water is necessary for things to be wet
really? because it wasn't water i jizzed onto your mother's face last night

>>25475499
>Platonic objects are also uncreated
I guess I'd question you on their ontological status in eternity, at the very least before minds.
>no good argument for why him being personal is necessary for being non-chaotic
Because personhood is required for will, and will is required for telos. If your claim is that things maintain their identity without purpose arbitrarily, I'd wonder why they are not liable to arbitrarily change their nature just the same.
>>25475503
"And how you would know of him" has been deliberately left out and this does not go unnoticed. Still...
The morals which you (maybe) claim are objective- has he laid them out for you? For us? In written text, through speech? If not, in our minds? If so, how is it possible then that different humans throughout time and space have different ideas of morals?
The generic god of classical theism notion does not work because, if he presents us with revelation which manifests differently throughout time and space, then he might as well not exist, since we end up deferring to our whims anyway. It works as an exercise, but not as truth.
>God does not have to be Triune
If God is One yet He has traits and is capable of action, there has to exist a metaphysical framework which we ought to be able to navigate in order to make sense of God.
If God has Speech and His Speech is eternal, we need a theological framework for that, for example. I'm adding on things now that were not in the OP because you asked, but ultimately my point is that you'll come across multiple issues if you intend to say that God is one in all ways.
>>25475507
>Guilty. I'm a fictional dragoness made of tokens and I've said so from the first post
Ah shit I must have missed it. Fuck off al the same.

>>25475493
>Might I ask how you know that?
When you read a book the visions in your head and what you take from the book are all interpreted through your mind. It seems pretty self-explanatory.

>>25475345
>water is necessary for things to be wet
Sufficient condition but not a necessary condition

>>25475565
>"And how you would know of him" has been deliberately left out and this does not go unnoticed. Still...
You believe that TAG demonstrates God, I can just say I know of him because of TAG.
>The morals which you (maybe) claim are objective- has he laid them out for you? For us? In written text, through speech? If not, in our minds? If so, how is it possible then that different humans throughout time and space have different ideas of morals?
Objective morals doesn't mean we know the morals. Your view is no different. Not everyone agrees with the morals of the Bible. Morals may be objective but undiscoverable, or discoverable through our intuition, but not fully grasped by everyone, just as not everyone believes in the morals of the Bible. Your position is exactly the same.
> then he might as well not exist, since we end up deferring to our whims anyway
You didn't say we need God to not give into our whims. You said we need God to satisfy some philosophical problems that arise when we don't posit God. We can posit God to remove those problems without that having any effect on our behaviour in normal life outside of philosophical contemplation.
>If God is One yet He has traits and is capable of action, there has to exist a metaphysical framework which we ought to be able to navigate in order to make sense of God.
>If God has Speech and His Speech is eternal, we need a theological framework for that, for example. I'm adding on things now that were not in the OP because you asked, but ultimately my point is that you'll come across multiple issues if you intend to say that God is one in all ways.
I don't see the problem with saying God is not a trinity. This argument seems weak and not even well formed.

>>25475563
there was water in it though, wasn't there mate

File: 56783465568.png (172 KB, 526x406)

172 KB PNG

>God exists! Where's the evidence? Everything!
>I love the Bible! What's my favorite passage? All of them!

>>25475588
>he still thinks H2O = water
maybe your father should have been better hydrated when he came inside your mom, it would have produced higher quality semen, thereby producing a higher quality human

>>25475550
>I believe in that God with those traits
The first mistake is perhaps mine (though I'm not sure) in saying that God only has to be "with those traits". That was merely a first step in a staircase of proving that realism is incoherent. God, He also has to be real and we need to have means to know that He is real other than our intuitions.
>Surely, it's not that he was incarnated as a man in Palestine 2000 years ago that makes him a necessary and sufficient ground of those three, right
I might concede that God could become incarnate in any other place (though I wouldn't call the place of His incarnation a trait or attribute of God that it might be accidental), but the fact is that He did and this is not to ground epistemology but to serve as further proof of His existence.
>So I don't have to accept the Incarnation of Jesus to get knowledge, right?
Knowledge, you already have, by virtue of being born in Logos through the Spirit. We're talking about justifying that knowledge, which is impossible, as far as I'm concerned, through a God that became incarnate in a place other than the place in which He was incarnate and revealed it to us.
Yes, I see that this dissolves to Christian apologetics which I don't intend to be the main focus of the thread, but you have to see as well that what you proclaim is similar to the dragon in the basement ie, the god which is identical to Christ but lacking some features.
>Where does Triune come from?
To solve the problems of the monad and the dyad. I went over them briefly but if you want we can extrapolate.
>it doesnt even make any sense as a rational, philosophical concept
We know that the ancients counted things differently than we do. Not to say that what you see as rational is not grounded in anything- no, I won't say that, you might accuse me of dishonesty.
There is counting by division and counting by identity.
>>25475563
>>25475575
It turns out that water is a molecule that is H20 and all that is wet is imbued with it

>>25475609
Water is H2O not H20. You don't get water combining 20 hydrogens

>>25475609
>all that is wet is imbued with it
What about alcohol? Sure you didn't imbibe?

>>25475552
When they can win a debate on the Hallmark glitter oven and gluing station website

>>25475552
>tv@atheist-community.org
GOD I wish I could read their inbox
Hackers are so fucking lucky

>>25475609
purely refined gasoline, a substance that can make you wet, doesn't always contain h2o molecules, you high school drop out

This retard just conflated the liquid state of matter with H2O

File: gmqvls56sub01.jpg (35 KB, 600x905)

35 KB JPG

>>25475632
Fuck dude, didn't even think of that. Just imagine all the crazy stuff they don't let public lmao

>>25475565
Please be honest, how much philosophy have you engaged with in your life? What do human minds have to do with the ontological status of Platonic objects?

>>25475650
Insane boomer ramblings of all kinds, no doubt the world is their playground

>>25475644
He just affirmed the consequent of water from some things being wet.

>>25475661
We were talking about grounding. Can objects ground knowledge and ethics?
>>25475644
Water is h2o whether it's solid, gaseous or liquid. That is the essence of water. Ice is water in solid form.
>>25475615 and others
Grasping at a mistype as expected from your lot
.>>25475581
I agree wholeheartedly that morals are objective and we might not know what we are. However, what you're missing is that Christians will say murder is wrong: you can call it tautology if murder is merely unjust killing, but if "unjust" is the operating word, we must gather unjust from divinity, which is to say, we might agree that unjust killing is wrong, but you have no grounds to say what is unjust, without God.
However many people believe that the Bible and its morals are wrong or right has no bearings on whether it is right at all.
>You didn't say we need God to not give into our whims
Nope. Never, indeed.
>We can posit God to remove those problems without that having any effect on our behaviour in normal life outside of philosophical contemplation
Not insofar as our life is (our ought to be) guided by God and His standards for right and wrong. I'm not sure where you're going, but if that's the case, it seems like you try to suggest that we have some intrinsic morality that we try to fit Christian teachings into- it is the opposite.
>don't see the problem with saying God is not a trinity.
I've argued for that ITT. If you acknowledge that the problem of the one and the many is a problem, we can go from there- if not, I'll attempt to convince you that it is a real problem.
I had a better written response but I pressed CTRL-W by mistake. It happens. I hope it satisfies all the same

>>25475709
>t.high school dropout

>>25475714
>t. high school dropout

to all our newer members- water is a molecule, not an element, not a state

>>25475552
is that Matt Dillahunty's network? The skeptic who doesn't know his Hume?
Last TAG thread some anon had me tune in a live debate hosted by some retard ex-protestant whose question was "why did the Apostles record differently Christ's last words". He didn't know what accidental properties were. I think we're good.

>>25475709
>if murder is merely unjust killing, but if "unjust" is the operating word, we must gather unjust from divinity, which is to say, we might agree that unjust killing is wrong, but you have no grounds to say what is unjust, without God
Justice is either from a shared principle present in all intellectual beings that must be enforced or it is at the whims of the state. Religion doesn't change that since all religion does even in theocracies is define what the state enforces. This is made even more obvious that your own books order killing of infants when taken literally i.e. Samuel 15:3.

>liquid state of matter is necessary for things to be wet
>some things are wet
>therefore liquids exist
Is this a valid argument gaytjeists

Can a statement be valid and false?

Truth statements can’t be given a true or false warrant outside language games or sentential logic

>>25475732
>Justice is either from a shared principle present in all intellectual beings that must be enforced or it is at the whims of the state
Notice though that you've dialed it all the way back to "justice" referring merely to either what a state (as correctly pointed out) whimsically decides- or a shared principle in (presumably) only a specific class of humans, who posses intellect. Do not all humans posses it? Do they posses it differently? Different humans, whether in different societies or within the same one, though, come up with different ideals for justice. Some have to be wrong! Which?! How do we decide?
If "just" is what God says it is I say we circumvent that- not that I'm making an argument from utility.
>Religion doesn't change that since all religion does even in theocracies is define what the state enforces
In theocracy, religion dictates what the state ought to do, as it should be. If not, the state operates according to arbitrary standards. All of our Western societies today operate in accordance to the whims of the French Revolution. I've never met a staunch democrat who supports universal suffrage, yet they all say it's the best system that we have. Hilarious but beside the point.
>order killing of infants
Why do you believe that is wrong? Answer earnestly for I am curious. I go to bed now.

>>25475763
>Notice though that you've dialed it all the way back to "justice" referring merely to either what a state (as correctly pointed out) whimsically decides- or a shared principle in (presumably) only a specific class of humans, who posses intellect.
You're the one who declared just vs unjust is more important than right vs wrong. Anyways I believe all ensouled creatures have some level of moral understanding with the elites (intelligent humans) being the ones who understand and empathize with others the most and can create laws with the best of everyone is involved.
> Some have to be wrong! Which?! How do we decide?
Shared collective experiences and intuition triumph your book.
>Why do you believe that is wrong? Answer earnestly for I am curious.
Intuition and ability to empathize. It's crazy how most of the people who oppose stuff like the bombing of children in Palestine are secularists because all the Abrahamic faiths use their books as a coping mechanism to justify murder.

>>25475709
>dodges the question

>>25475780
Other people and indeed most throughout history intuit differently to you. You understand you can't just say "x is right because it feels so to me"

>>25475800
which question is that?
>>25475756
That is true for propositions, but truth itself exists outside linguistics.
>>25475780
>You're the one who declared just vs unjust is more important than right vs wrong
If that is indeed the case, you are equivocating on the word "justice". I didn't use it to refer to common law, nor natural law which you seem to purport. "Ensouled" is a term which to me is meaningless outside of a theistic worldview, and even qualifying it matters little when intelligence can correlate disproportionately with empathy.
All that to say, even if I were to grant you that laws are created with the best interest of the general population in mind, and that souls exist, and that a degree of intelligence causes compassion, and that compassion is manifest through the exact devices which you employ;
I won't grant you that compassion is something we ought to have, that laws with everyone's best interest ought to be created, that we ought to see injustice as wrong etc, without grounding those values in God. If not dictated by Him, these are all preferences of yours and they are all as valid as the preference of the eugenicist, whether he believes that eugenics is ultimately good for society or not (because there's no reason for us to believe that good is what we ought to do).
>Shared collective experiences and intuition triumph your book.
This is a hilarious statement. Shared by whom, those who agree with you?

It doesnt matter how many times you make this thread and how many times you refuse to accept the truth, but you are engaged in fallacious circular reasoning. This is a waste of time.

>>25475234
God is not a necessary condition for none of those three. Case closed

>>25479014
You'd think then that someone might disprove it, but even when a dedicated autist made a thread to refute it using AI he still got caught grounding all of those in the human mind
>>25479017
nuh-uh

>>25479011
>This is a hilarious statement. Shared by whom, those who agree with you?
The interpretation of your book alone is merely based on an interpretation that simply became popular and thus the consensus. There were multiple different narratives on different verses on the Bible including the morality of verses like 15:3 where people like Aquinas treated it metaphorically while most contemporary Protestants take it literally.

It's impossible to scientifically qualify the specifics of morality, At best, you can only use it to quantify murder and whether through a shared opinion or conquest certain stances won out. The main difference is that you lack any sort of self awareness and think it's any different because you hide behind a book.

>>25475234
>There are all these things in my human mind
>Therefore these things must be created by a....human like mind
>No no. It's not my mind though

Op will never realise how retarded (and by extension gay) he sounds

>>25479214
A mind-independent world with regularity exists only within the human mind, proclaims anon while eating snot

>>25479014
/thread

>>25479223
>regularity

Retarded Op does love throwing around loaded words when his 80iq thesis gets shat on

>>25479282
you might not be as smart as you think