Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:In Christianity, the Euthyphro Dilemma simply doesn't matter; it is a false dilemma because goodness is grounded in God, and expressed by God - ubi caritas, ibi Deus. If goodness is God and expressed by God then explain the rise of Lucifer
laminustacitus:In Christianity, the Euthyphro Dilemma simply doesn't matter; it is a false dilemma because goodness is grounded in God, and expressed by God - ubi caritas, ibi Deus.
If goodness is God and expressed by God then explain the rise of Lucifer
Free-will: the ability to say "No" to God.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
laminustacitus:Ubi caritas, ibi Deus: bye, bye Euthyphro Dilemma.
Knight_of_BAAWA: laminustacitus:Ubi caritas, ibi Deus: bye, bye Euthyphro Dilemma.Nope. Try again. This time: don't make a blatant assertion and evade. Hint: you can't get around it. So don't try. I know you'll whine and cry. Fine. Be all offended. Don't care.
I've already explained it clearly: everything that is good, is rooted in God. There is no need to wonder if something is good because God proclaims its good, or if God proclaimed the things he proclaimed because they were good, because everything that is good is rooted in God.
laminustacitus:Free-will: the ability to say "No" to God.
Angels don't have free-will
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
laminustacitus:By undiscovered phenomena.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
I've already explained it clearly: everything that is good, is rooted in God.
laminustacitus:By the way, I'm still more than keen on hearing a deduction of natural law ethics from an objective, empirical reality.
To you, there is no reality. Existence isn't even provable. I don't go that far. There can be no point debating with you, because for all we know, we're not even here debating. It might all prove to be a hallucination, and we are all figments of a nonexistent nothing's nonexistent pre-imagination.
Since there is no point in discussing anything with you, I will stop. If I quote you, I don't need a response, rather I will be using your words to prove things to people who actually believe reality exists and things can be absolutely proved or absolutely disproved.
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:Free-will: the ability to say "No" to God. Angels don't have free-will
Catechism of the Catholic Church: 330 As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will (emphasis mine): they are personal and immortal creatures...
330 As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will (emphasis mine): they are personal and immortal creatures...
In other words: angels have free-will.
Juan: laminustacitus:By undiscovered phenomena. Such as ? Of course, you can't tell because they are 'undiscovered'.See, I can come up with any absurd thought - for instance, the world is made of chocolate cookies - although it doesn't look like chocolate cookies , but that's because an undiscovered phenomenon prevent us from knowing the true nature of the world. Now, although physics is limited that doesn't mean that any absurd claim such as - gravity will stop working - is valid. A principle like mass-energy conservation is not going to stop working ... unless you believe in magic ...
To use N.N. Taleb's terminology, black swans do exist, and we, as mere men, cannot dictate to the universe what it can, and cannot do. At best, we can understand its phenomena through theses, but they are the falliable creation of man, a judgment that seeks to approximate truth, but cannot ever attain it.
To declare that gravity will always function as it does now is an absurd concept for the universe's forces might change with the state of the universe itself, and gravity, as we know it, may be a mere temporary phenomena that will eventually change along with the universe's conditions. Its really not that strange of an idea as long as man remains skeptical with respect to the quality of his knowledge.
Indeed, but keep in mind that, in Christianity, caritas is the highest of all goods, and "ubi caritas ibi Deus" is, in my opinion, far more to the point than "ubi bonum ibi Deus" - anyone who can translate the latin, can also connect the theological dots.
hashem: laminustacitus:By the way, I'm still more than keen on hearing a deduction of natural law ethics from an objective, empirical reality. To you, there is no reality. Existence isn't even provable. I don't go that far. There can be no point debating with you, because for all we know, we're not even here debating. It might all prove to be a hallucination, and we are all figments of a nonexistent nothing's nonexistent pre-imagination. Since there is no point in discussing anything with you, I will stop. If I quote you, I don't need a response, rather I will be using your words to prove things to people who actually believe reality exists and things can be absolutely proved or absolutely disproved.
I graciously, and humbly, might I add, accept your capitulation; if you do not capitulate, then please give me a deduction of natural law ethics from an objective, empirical reality - I don't think that would be hard for anyone who truly believes in natural law. By the way, I've been accused of many things, but it must be the first for not believing in an objective reality, esspecially seeing that I have a strong Popperian bent, maybe its just Rand reacting to the Kantian in me.
You said the laws of gravity are not laws and that gravity is not provable. To you, therefore, nothing is provable, least of all an objective, empirical reality.
To declare that gravity will always function as it does now is an absurd concept for the universe's forces might change with the state of the universe itself, and gravity, as we know it, may be a mere temporary phenomena that will eventually change along with the universe's conditions.
laminustacitus:I've already explained it clearly: everything that is good, is rooted in God.
Just trying to move this somewhat back on topic, you see.
Nature has evolved men who take more life-threatening risks and who have earlier senescence than women. Nature has evolved men who kill their male competitors, in order to capture their women. Nature has evolved rapists who restrain their wives from freely choosing which men they can have sex with.
Some reject murder and rape as "unnatural" when nature has evolved criminals who murder and rape. Those people define the terms "nature" and "natural" with their biased and corrupted rationalizations about morality.
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
hashem:It changes everything. The task is not to assign man-made positive rules. The task is to learn and explain natural laws which were already assigned -- pre-existing.
That is not political philosophy. That is physics. And chemistry. And biology.
laminustacitus: Catechism of the Catholic Church: 330 As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will (emphasis mine): they are personal and immortal creatures... In other words: angels have free-will.
That merely states that angels have will, that doesn't mean they are free to wield it. Also God is supposedly all-knowing, so even before he/she/it created Lucifer, he/she/it already knew that Lucifer was going to rebel against he/she/it. Yet he/she/it still created Lucifer. God brought forth evil into this world for why was there a snake in the garden of Eden? Was it not God's paradise? You have to either concede that the devil is as powerful as God [ and thus break orothdox Christianity ] or you have to concede that God created evil and allowed it to fester in his/her/its most holy of domains.
scineram: hashem:It changes everything. The task is not to assign man-made positive rules. The task is to learn and explain natural laws which were already assigned -- pre-existing. That is not political philosophy. That is physics. And chemistry. And biology.
again more with your non-sense...lol
A law is as good as it is enforced.
There, your laws are irrelevant.
hashem: Stephen Forde:Human beings are mortal. Angurse's point was that if we categorize things (murder) as bad because they prevent human beings from existing, shouldn't everything that prevents humans from existing be considered bad? To die is in the nature of man. Death is in the nature of every living organism. To be murdered is not in our nature. If it were, then we wouldn't exist. Get it yet?
Stephen Forde:Human beings are mortal. Angurse's point was that if we categorize things (murder) as bad because they prevent human beings from existing, shouldn't everything that prevents humans from existing be considered bad?
To die is in the nature of man. Death is in the nature of every living organism. To be murdered is not in our nature. If it were, then we wouldn't exist. Get it yet?
What I 'get', is that you have no real methodology. You have no objective standard to judge whether something is in human nature or not. And you have shifting boundaries of what is 'good' and 'evil.'
hashem:You said the laws of gravity are not laws and that gravity is not provable. To you, therefore, nothing is provable, least of all an objective, empirical reality.
Man cannot attain the "laws" of gravity, he is limited to theories that attempt to approximate the truth, but which are still falliable. Our understanding of phenomena is purely conjectural, that knowledge simply cannot be raised to the certainty of knowing the universe's laws.
Juan:To declare that gravity will always function as it does now is an absurd concept for the universe's forces might change with the state of the universe itself, and gravity, as we know it, may be a mere temporary phenomena that will eventually change along with the universe's conditions. How ?
I don't know, my knowledge is simply not comprehensive enough to know.
Juan:You deny natural philosophy
What is "natural philosophy" - do you mean a enlightenment era relic that has been replaced by contemporary science?
Juan: you deny moral philosophy and you keep on talking as if your revealed religion is the only piece of true knowledge available.
Give me a quote where I have taken such a position. I have denied that there can be a non-theistic natual law philosophy, in the past, but I have not denied that there could be a non-theistic moral philosophy. In addition, I'm asserting the conjectural nature of our knowledge about the physical world, that man cannot claim to know the "natural laws" upon which the world works, but if you believe that conjectural knowledge is not true knowledge, which I for one don't believe, you're free to do so.
Juan:Frankly your position is completely untenable.
I disagree, only once I'm strawmanned is my position "untenable".
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus: Catechism of the Catholic Church: 330 As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will (emphasis mine): they are personal and immortal creatures... In other words: angels have free-will. That merely states that angels have will, that doesn't mean they are free to wield it.
That merely states that angels have will, that doesn't mean they are free to wield it.
Angels have will, they can say "No" to God. That's very basic Christian theology - I don't care if you reject Christian theology, but if you're to argue in its context, then you have to obey its doctrines to make sense.
Anarchist Cain: Also God is supposedly all-knowing, so even before he/she/it created Lucifer, he/she/it already knew that Lucifer was going to rebel against he/she/it. Yet he/she/it still created Lucifer. God brought forth evil into this world for why was there a snake in the garden of Eden?
God gave Lucifer the free choice of obeying Him for God does not take prisoners, God does not shackle an angel, or man into following His laws; rather, both are free moral agents who have the choice of choosing evil. Giving the choice to choose evil is not creating evil, rather it is creating a moral responsibility on the part of the free moral agent to choose good over evil, and that is what God expects from his creation.
Anarchist Cain:You have to either concede that the devil is as powerful as God [ and thus break orothdox Christianity ] or you have to concede that God created evil and allowed it to fester in his/her/its most holy of domains.
Both Lucifer, and man are free moral agents, both are free to choose good over evil, or evil over good. Eve did disobey God because of Lucifer's temptations, rather she disobeyed God out of her own moral choice. Again, its basic Christian theology.
scineram: A law is as good as it is enforced. There, your laws are irrelevant.
No they are not. What is irrelevant is your lack of understanding free-will which a principle of human nature. When you speak about laws not being enforceable this is easily the point in which I can surmise your own inability to not commit horrendous crimes and your own inability of self-restraint namely behaviors of incontinence.
Stephen Forde: hashem: Stephen Forde:Human beings are mortal. Angurse's point was that if we categorize things (murder) as bad because they prevent human beings from existing, shouldn't everything that prevents humans from existing be considered bad? To die is in the nature of man. Death is in the nature of every living organism. To be murdered is not in our nature. If it were, then we wouldn't exist. Get it yet? What I 'get', is that you have no real methodology. You have no objective standard to judge whether something is in human nature or not. And you have shifting boundaries of what is 'good' and 'evil.'
It's science and the social studies Stephen. That's as real as a methodology can get. A combination that rises above separate departments in which the sciences join the social studies, including philosophy, etc... It is considering culture by any person that wants to study and apply such a subject as well as the biologist using forensics, etc..., etc...
Your lack of knowledge on the subject is obvious now and you tried to step into the conversation earlier as if you knew something but I knew that was a front.
- laminustacitus
criticizing others cause you have no conclusions, what else is new...
wilderness: - laminustacitus criticizing others cause you have no conclusions, what else is new...
I do have conclusions, but I need not reveal them for they have absolutely no relevance to the conversation. In fact, all of my criticisms come from my own conclusions. Once again, its Wilderness with his fetish for set-in-stone conclusions.
...If you believe that not all 4 are derived from the natural law. I hold that all knowledge is derived from the natural law, therefore man's task in any intellectual work is to learn and explain that which is true, not to make it up from lack of a better answer.
laminustacitus:Angels have will, they can say "No" to God. That's very basic Christian theology - I don't care if you reject Christian theology, but if you're to argue in its context, then you have to obey its doctrines to make sense.
Angels are messangers and servants of God. [ Which begs the question, if God is all powerful then why does he/she/it need angels? ] However, your quotation states that angels have will. No doubt anything that commits action has will. The debate is on whither or not the will of the angels is their own will or the will of their creator.
laminustacitus:God gave Lucifer the free choice of obeying Him for God does not take prisoners
God is truly love. Italics added for sarcastic effect.
laminustacitus:God does not shackle an angel, or man into following His laws;
God shackles angels but not man.
laminustacitus:rather, both are free moral agents who have the choice of choosing evil.
What is the point then in creating angels who will choose evil? God knows they will choose to not serve him..yet he creates them and then casts them away. Is this the morality of a supreme being that 'takes no prisoners.' He/she/it creates that which it does not want while knowing what that creation will become. Think of how many souls have been possessed by the fallen, the God you speak of knows all the possessions past, present and future. He/she/it can create more by knowningly creating more angels who will reject him/her/it.
laminustacitus:Giving the choice to choose evil is not creating evil, rather it is creating a moral responsibility on the part of the free moral agent to choose good over evil, and that is what God expects from his creation.
According to Christian doctrine God created everything in the world. Are you stating he/she/it did not create evil? Is God truly all powerful if he/she/it cannot create evil? If evil sprung from itself, out of nothingness, then you have to concede that it is just as powerful as the God you spoke of and we would therefore have two Gods.
laminustacitus:Eve did disobey God because of Lucifer's temptations, rather she disobeyed God out of her own moral choice.
How was she tempted in God's paradise in the first place. You must either concede God put the snake there or the snake put itself there and the premise that a snake can inflitrate the domain of God shows that evil is just as powerful as good in which again, you have to concede there are two gods. One evil and one good.
scineram:A law is as good as it is enforced.
A law is necessarily enforced. That is the nature of a law. It cannot be broken.
Stephen Forde: hashem:To die is in the nature of man. Death is in the nature of every living organism. To be murdered is not in our nature. If it were, then we wouldn't exist. Get it yet?[No, you're wrong.]
hashem:To die is in the nature of man. Death is in the nature of every living organism. To be murdered is not in our nature. If it were, then we wouldn't exist. Get it yet?
To be in the nature of man, it has to be universal. If murder was universal (and therefore in the nature of man), we would not exist. Simple.
laminustacitus: wilderness: - laminustacitus criticizing others cause you have no conclusions, what else is new... I do have conclusions, but I need not reveal them for they have absolutely no relevance to the conversation. In fact, all of my criticisms come from my own conclusions. Once again, its Wilderness with his fetish for set-in-stone conclusions.
lol
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:Angels have will, they can say "No" to God. That's very basic Christian theology - I don't care if you reject Christian theology, but if you're to argue in its context, then you have to obey its doctrines to make sense. Angels are messangers and servants of God. [ Which begs the question, if God is all powerful then why does he/she/it need angels? ] However, your quotation states that angels have will. No doubt anything that commits action has will. The debate is on whither or not the will of the angels is their own will or the will of their creator.
Thomas Aquinas, if we're going to pull out Catholic passages, agrees with you Anarchist Cain. AC you are seeing the finer definition of "will" and being superb about it.
wilderness:AC you are seeing the finer definition of "will" and being superb about it.
I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
'If statism were the root cause of all social evil, what on earth could be the cause of statism?' -Edwin Walker
Since this topic is about Rights, Property, and State, this is worth considering. Statism isn't the root of all evil (though it is the source of much evil), but rather a very powerful expression of evil.
hashem:Since this topic is about Rights, Property, and State, this is worth considering. Statism isn't the root of all evil (though it is the source of much evil), but rather a very powerful expression of evil.
Walker isn't saying ALL evil but all social evil
i missed that....uh......moving on
hashem:i missed that....uh......moving on
How about those Dodgers?!
Anarchist Cain: wilderness:AC you are seeing the finer definition of "will" and being superb about it. I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
wilderness: Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:Angels have will, they can say "No" to God. That's very basic Christian theology - I don't care if you reject Christian theology, but if you're to argue in its context, then you have to obey its doctrines to make sense. Angels are messangers and servants of God. [ Which begs the question, if God is all powerful then why does he/she/it need angels? ] However, your quotation states that angels have will. No doubt anything that commits action has will. The debate is on whither or not the will of the angels is their own will or the will of their creator. Thomas Aquinas, if we're going to pull out Catholic passages, agrees with you Anarchist Cain. AC you are seeing the finer definition of "will" and being superb about it.
Thomas Aquinas: 59. The Will of Angels 1. Where there is understanding of good, there is an understanding of the tendency to attain it. In other words, where there is intellect, there is will. There is intellect in angels; therefore, there is will also. 2. In a creature, the intellect and the will are not indentified. The angel's intellect is not the same faculty as the angel's will. They are two faculties not one. 3. And will means free will. Will is an intellectual appetency; it is the faculty of tending to, or choosing, what is proposed as the intellect as good. Man, who is less perfect in the realm of intellegent creatures than angels, has free will; certainly, an angel possesses it. An angel exercises free will more perfectly than man does.
59. The Will of Angels
1. Where there is understanding of good, there is an understanding of the tendency to attain it. In other words, where there is intellect, there is will. There is intellect in angels; therefore, there is will also.
2. In a creature, the intellect and the will are not indentified. The angel's intellect is not the same faculty as the angel's will. They are two faculties not one.
3. And will means free will. Will is an intellectual appetency; it is the faculty of tending to, or choosing, what is proposed as the intellect as good. Man, who is less perfect in the realm of intellegent creatures than angels, has free will; certainly, an angel possesses it. An angel exercises free will more perfectly than man does.
I suggest that one knows a subject before one pontificates upon it, wilderness. Thomas Aquinas bluntly stated that angels have free will in his Summa Theologica, a will that is similar, yet more perfect, than man's.
laminustacitus:I disagree, only once I'm strawmanned is my position "untenable".
hashem:'If statism were the root cause of all social evil, what on earth could be the cause of statism?' -Edwin Walker Since this topic is about Rights, Property, and State, this is worth considering. Statism isn't the root of all evil (though it is the source of much evil), but rather a very powerful expression of evil.
Statism is simply human action which we libertarians qualify -- i.e., assume -- to be evil.
Juan:Now, although physics is limited that doesn't mean that any absurd claim such as - gravity will stop working - is valid. A principle like mass-energy conservation is not going to stop working ... unless you believe in magic ...
I mean, you are alive, are you not?
Knight_of_BAAWA: laminustacitus:I've already explained it clearly: everything that is good, is rooted in God.Yes, I've heard that cop-out before. Now: since rights can be described without any need to invoke any deity, it's quite clear that said deity is extraneous. And since rights and morality are inexorably intertwined, attempting to invoke some deity requires actual justification. Just trying to move this somewhat back on topic, you see.
You failed to offer an objective reason why rights SHOULD be respected. No surprse there, though, because there is no objective reason.
You throw out that irrelevent Euthyphro Dilemma like as if it proves anything. Yet you have no reason why a cannibal SHOULD not eat you.
You fail. You have no objective defense of your morality. Have no fear though, because nobody else does. Meditate upon that.
wilderness:No it's not if you are arguing that a dead, non-existent human is somehow existent and alive. That's a contradiction.
wilderness:that's what I thought when you brought it up, but maybe I was mistaken. Maybe you are talking about human nature and not some kind of creature that is no longer a human.
wilderness:life has ceased aka "point of death". Do you see what I mean now?If you meant the point where someone dies, yes, otherwise no.To discuss right of life (person) the discussion is about human nature. Not what a boulder did to a person. Not about the mystery called natural death. These are involuntary actions. To discuss right of life is to understand human nature and all that pertains. It is against the law for a person to kill another due to that is a voluntary act of choice called nolition. Humans, having free-will, can violate their own nature by choice, and to voluntarily murder another person is wrong. That's the premised argument.
wilderness:Why are we talking about Tom's puberty?
Because hes not "the same Tom as before"
wilderness:sigh... Please don't. That's simply a ridiculous assertion and my time is more valuable than that to spend it listening to you go on about how medicine is unnatural, etc... You are at liberty to do so, but I am at liberty to not entertain this.
Its completely in line if we are going to say that murder is unnatural and continue using the term "natural" wherever we feel it fits, and rejecting it when we don't.
wilderness:No. I am completely inside of the discussion. Principle of free choose is of human nature. learn human nature and you'll understand, well, human nature...
No, you've gone far outside the argument I commented on.
wilderness:No, perhaps you do not understanding that I'm talking about human nature and it is a natural law: all humans choose. It is universal that humans choose.
And once again, you are completely ignoring the original argument I questioned, the "murder is bad" because... and are now inserting this new law, "all humans choose," Which is fine, but it is nothing more than you defending a different idea that I didn't question in the first place.
wilderness:Liberty and freedom are different than power.
And? That means that some this laws - "murder is bad" - isn't really a law in the sense of any actual natural law, if so then I agree.
wilderness:*sigh* To have to talk about the simple things about who we are as humans to another human is... sigh. I suggest you think for yourself, do some introspection on your own life as a human, and intellectually apprehend your own nature. When it comes to justice it is stepping in to counter a person that is violating rights. What would be up on trial is the person and the extension of their will (they used a gun, etc...), but what is undoubtedly clearly on trial is their judgment. If you can scientifically point out where the judgment of natural death sits or the judgement of a boulder, then let me know. But you can't. This is why I have to repeat myself, because yet again you bring up the "laws of gravity" which is not of human. We are talking about human nature. Examine your own understanding when making such comments. Good night.
sigh... this unrelated talk of boulders and whatnot is getting quite boring and why you keep bringing them up I haven't a clue, I think you are still mixing up arguments. No matter you've gotten far off of the original question I had in the first place.
Charles Anthony:Why not believe in magic?
laminustacitus: I suggest that one knows a subject before one pontificates upon it, wilderness. Thomas Aquinas bluntly stated that angels have free will in his Summa Theologica, a will that is similar, yet more perfect, than man's.
Your right. After I posted that comment, I meant to emphasize that's the "debate" that AC wrote. For as I've stated to Angurse in this thread once we move beyond humans that's a different category and nature and once we begin to discuss what a human is after a human dies is when the discussion turns to religion and not within the scope of the science of human nature. So, I was vague, and I even looked up Angel's will in Thomas' book and couldn't find it. Thanks for the correction. I'm all for what's right!
But of course, you're not for anything, and somehow make these arguments due to a position you hold. I think back to that link I posted at the top of this page.