Political Crossfire Forums

The Central Scrutinizer · Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 5:53 pm Post subject:

John wrote: You say that goodness exists...but you refuse to admit that there has to be an absolute truth that defines goodness in order for any goodness to exist at all.

And how would you define goodness?

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22957

The Central Scrutinizer wrote: John wrote: You say that goodness exists...but you refuse to admit that there has to be an absolute truth that defines goodness in order for any goodness to exist at all.

And how would you define goodness?

I'm not in the mood for definition games. You know good and well what goodness means.

The Central Scrutinizer · Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:20 pm Post subject:

John wrote: The Central Scrutinizer wrote: John wrote: You say that goodness exists...but you refuse to admit that there has to be an absolute truth that defines goodness in order for any goodness to exist at all.

And how would you define goodness?

I'm not in the mood for definition games. You know good and well what goodness means.

It's not a game, it's a question. And here I thought you were a fan of Socrates.

If there is a single, set definition for goodness, why can't you seem to produce one?

The Central Scrutinizer · Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:36 pm Post subject:

Look, I could continue to be rude and berate you. I could put forth my opinion on the matter, which you would disagree with out of hand, considering me absolutely wrong and terribly misguided. Or, we could have a conversation. It's your call.

Carlin · Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:38 pm Post subject:

I kind of tried that. Although given John's history, it wasn't particularly surprising.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22957

The Central Scrutinizer wrote: Look, I could continue to be rude and berate you. I could put forth my opinion on the matter, which you would disagree with out of hand, considering me absolutely wrong and terribly misguided. Or, we could have a conversation. It's your call.

You could.

And I could continue the schooling.

The Central Scrutinizer · Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:55 pm Post subject:

John wrote: The Central Scrutinizer wrote: Look, I could continue to be rude and berate you. I could put forth my opinion on the matter, which you would disagree with out of hand, considering me absolutely wrong and terribly misguided. Or, we could have a conversation. It's your call.

You could.

And I could continue the schooling.

If I want to argue with JLB, I'll argue with him. :lol:

Until then, I'll explain to you the difference between facts and opinions. It is a fact that at normal atmospheric pressure, water boils at 100 degrees Celsius. This can be reproduced over and over again by independent individuals. The boiling point of water will not change based upon the perspective of the individual. What is "good" and "right" does. You can say that there is an absolute Form of Good all you want, but that does not change the fact that what is "good" is based on the opinion of the individual, and I can prove it... if you would just answer my questions. I'm fairly certain that's why you refuse to answer them. Therefore, the bottom line is this: if there were an absolute form of good, if we all were aware on some level what it was, then why the hell would we be debating it now? Shouldn't I just "know" what is right and wrong?

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22957

It is a fact that you can't help yourself from doing what you know is wrong.

Carlin · Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 9:21 am Post subject:

I guess I can follow the path of Al Gore and begin a slide show to further illustrate my point:

The Stanley Cup is a trophy awarded to the winner of the National Hockey League chamionship. The cup was purchased by Lord Stanley in 1892, measuring 7 ½ inches high by 11 ½ inches across for the sum of $50. Since then, the cup has been passed around from team to team, with each player getting their names inscribed on the trophy. However, this trophy is only a piece of metal. All the glory bestowed to it, the adoration hockey lovers feel for it, and the desire to hold it high is all a concoction of the human mind. The trophy is imortant because people have accepted the belief it is imortant, as with every trophy.

Money is a social construct. When we go the grocery store to buy food, the store, the customers, the cashier, and you, have accepted as true that if you give them green paper or a plastic card to swipe, that that's a viable exchange. We do not question why such a thing is true, because it's what we were taught to believe in order for us to function within society.

The examples of the functiones and materials people in a society place importance on that otherwise would not be imortant are innumerable. I just hope this can put it in some context for you.

The Central Scrutinizer · Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:10 am Post subject:

John wrote: It is a fact that you can't help yourself from doing what you know is wrong.

So what is wrong? Refusing to give me a clear answer does nothing to help your argument. Saying that "I know" is pointless, because you have no clue what I know.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8780

John wrote: It is a fact that you can't help yourself from doing what you know is wrong. And it is a fact that you are attempting to masquerade opinion as fact, which is an argumentative fallacy.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22957

The Central Scrutinizer wrote: John wrote: It is a fact that you can't help yourself from doing what you know is wrong.

So what is wrong? Refusing to give me a clear answer does nothing to help your argument. Saying that "I know" is pointless, because you have no clue what I know.

C.S. Lewis does a great job explaining it....although it took a whole book to really make his point.

I'm going to hold my ground that you have a concept what right and wrong is. If you don't...then explaining it to you isn't going to make a bit of difference. And my argument isn't that I can tell you exactly what is absolutely good...just that an absolute standard for goodness does exist. That point must be agreed to before my beliefs about what good is will make any sense.

We both have different opinion about what goodness is....that in itself proves that we both agree that there has to be a standard to compare to....otherwise the mere existence of goodness is nonsensical.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22957

Enoch wrote: John wrote: It is a fact that you can't help yourself from doing what you know is wrong. And it is a fact that you are attempting to masquerade opinion as fact, which is an argumentative fallacy.

Are you the only person on the planet who doesn't feel guilt and shame?

The Central Scrutinizer · Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 1:32 pm Post subject:

John wrote: The Central Scrutinizer wrote: John wrote: It is a fact that you can't help yourself from doing what you know is wrong.

So what is wrong? Refusing to give me a clear answer does nothing to help your argument. Saying that "I know" is pointless, because you have no clue what I know.

C.S. Lewis does a great job explaining it....although it took a whole book to really make his point.

I'm going to hold my ground that you have a concept what right and wrong is. If you don't...then explaining it to you isn't going to make a bit of difference. And my argument isn't that I can tell you exactly what is absolutely good...just that an absolute standard for goodness does exist. That point must be agreed to before my beliefs about what good is will make any sense.

We both have different opinion about what goodness is....that in itself proves that we both agree that there has to be a standard to compare to....otherwise the mere existence of goodness is nonsensical.

If we both have different opinions of what goodness is, what logically necessitates an absolute standard of goodness? I don't comprehend how you get from point "a" to point "b". We both might have different opinions of what "beautiful" is, but does that mean there exists an "absolutely beautiful" standard?

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22957

The Central Scrutinizer wrote: John wrote: The Central Scrutinizer wrote: John wrote: It is a fact that you can't help yourself from doing what you know is wrong.

So what is wrong? Refusing to give me a clear answer does nothing to help your argument. Saying that "I know" is pointless, because you have no clue what I know.

C.S. Lewis does a great job explaining it....although it took a whole book to really make his point.

I'm going to hold my ground that you have a concept what right and wrong is. If you don't...then explaining it to you isn't going to make a bit of difference. And my argument isn't that I can tell you exactly what is absolutely good...just that an absolute standard for goodness does exist. That point must be agreed to before my beliefs about what good is will make any sense.

We both have different opinion about what goodness is....that in itself proves that we both agree that there has to be a standard to compare to....otherwise the mere existence of goodness is nonsensical.

If we both have different opinions of what goodness is, what logically necessitates an absolute standard of goodness? I don't comprehend how you get from point "a" to point "b". We both might have different opinions of what "beautiful" is, but does that mean there exists an "absolutely beautiful" standard?

Think about what you're saying. Without a standard there can be no such thing what so ever as goodness or beauty. It would just be insanity.

The fact that we both agree that goodness and beauty exist, proves that there must be an absolute standard. Now one of us may be more correct in our opinion to something being closer of futher away from the standard....but the fact that we are making a comparison at all prove an absolute exists.

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

[quote="Carlin"] John wrote: Carlin wrote:
I'm not sure who is right about the Iraq war...but there is an absolute answer with isn't dependant on opinion. I personally believe that God stands for what is right and wrong...but that isn't my point. That would be for you to decide. My point is that there is an un-written Moral Code that exists outside of human opinion. Now where that un-written Moral Code comes from is for you to think about...but to deny that it exists is to deny simple logic.

I don't believe there is an opinion outside of human thought. That is where we part. I advocate the minimalizing of human suffering from human controlled entities. It shouldn't matter who believes in what God or no God. And arguing that it should be about God will get nothing done (in fact, the opposite will be done).

Belief in God seems to have done fairly well turning the human race from cannabalistic savages to where we are today. Christians were leaders in in the abolitionist movement etc. Do you think is is coincidence that the most advanced nations are ones that are part of the Judeo-Christian civilization?

If anything it can be said that the new problems of Western society are being caused by NOT following the traditions of our civilization.

Carlin · Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:45 pm Post subject:

[quote="cap'n queasy"] Carlin wrote: John wrote: Carlin wrote:
I'm not sure who is right about the Iraq war...but there is an absolute answer with isn't dependant on opinion. I personally believe that God stands for what is right and wrong...but that isn't my point. That would be for you to decide. My point is that there is an un-written Moral Code that exists outside of human opinion. Now where that un-written Moral Code comes from is for you to think about...but to deny that it exists is to deny simple logic.

I don't believe there is an opinion outside of human thought. That is where we part. I advocate the minimalizing of human suffering from human controlled entities. It shouldn't matter who believes in what God or no God. And arguing that it should be about God will get nothing done (in fact, the opposite will be done).

Belief in God seems to have done fairly well turning the human race from cannabalistic savages to where we are today. Christians were leaders in in the abolitionist movement etc. Do you think is is coincidence that the most advanced nations are ones that are part of the Judeo-Christian civilization?

If anything it can be said that the new problems of Western society are being caused by NOT following the traditions of our civilization.

A belief in God has nothing to do with there actually being a God. I've said on a number of occasions here that I do think the advent of religion has benefited us in a lot of ways and have not in others. Although at this point in our developments, I don't see why it should matter who believes in what God to create and run a better, more efficient, and more egalitarian society.

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

Quote: A belief in God has nothing to do with there actually being a God.

I can't say that I agree with that. :-D

Random Evil Guy · Joined: 20 Dec 2005 Posts: 1774

John wrote:
I'm going to hold my ground that you have a concept what right and wrong is.

point is, that this concept of what good and wrong is varies from person to person.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22957

Random Evil Guy wrote: John wrote:
I'm going to hold my ground that you have a concept what right and wrong is.

point is, that this concept of what good and wrong is varies from person to person.

Can I punch you in the face?

And if you actually enjoyed being punched in the face....would it be wrong to assume that there is something malfunctioning in your thought process?