I didn’t say sickness was evil either, grateful.

<<True, you said sickness is evil:>>

My examples in brackets were demonstrations of how we can (individually or collectively) apply the label ‘good’. That didn’t mean sickness was then evil. Nor was I describing my views on morality. That being said, however, one could say that sickness was “bad”.

Sorry for the confusion.

My views on morality are far more complex than the examples I gave, and they're certainly more complex than theistic morality, which strips the individual of moral agency and dupes them into thinking that something becomes ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ simply because of an edict attributed to another being.

<<[Are “general preferences”] what everyone agrees upon? Do you require 90% agreement? A simple majority? Have you come across Arrow's Impossibility Theorem?>>

Not necessarily.
Not necessarily.
Not necessarily.
Yes.

Again, though, this doesn’t describe (and certainly not adequately) my beliefs on morality or the need, or lack of need, for a moral authority.

<<Can you offer reliable evidence of a multiverse? If not, believng god created the universe is far more rationale than your position.>>

Wow. Okay. You’ve just committed three fallacies here. Let’s unpack them:

1. Shifting the Burden of Proof (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof)

Firstly, no, I don’t have evidence of a multiverse, and asking me to provide evidence of a multiverse, in order to discredit your claim that a god exists, is a fallacious shifting of the burden of proof.

2. False Dichotomy (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white)

Secondly, your false dichotomy here assumes that a multiverse or a god are the only two options, and that they are mutually exclusive options.

3. Argument from Ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)

Thirdly, ignoring your above fallacies for the moment, my inability to provide evidence for a multiverse does not make your position the more rational one. I have no burden of proof yet, as I am still at the default position.

As for the Big Bang, even if your understanding is right, that doesn’t make your god more likely. Unless you want to fallaciously appeal to ignorance again?

Continued…

…Continued

<<Because of our desires being thwarted we presume bad. But in reality there is no inherent evil.>>

I don’t see how this addresses the Euthyphro dilemma at all, sorry. Let me simplify it for you:

The appeal to the need for a divine moral authority has two possible assumptions. Either:

1. what is right is right in and of itself, and a god relays that to us, or;
2. what is right is right because a god says it’s right.

You believe that objective morality is necessary, and that your god is required for it.

However, if 1 is the case, then we can just do what is right and cut out the middleman; God is not needed. If 2 is the case, then this god could change the rules tomorrow, which would mean they’re just as arbitrary as most theists would insist they are without a god.

Long story short, grateful: if your god exists, then he is either a useless middleman, or morality is still as arbitrary as what you claim it is without him.

<<Who is more grateful? The person that has all that they desire or the person who has learned the true worth of things through deprivation?>>

Deep. I’m not sure of its relevance, though.

<<A number of saying from the Prophet bear this out:>>

And Captain Kirk said, “What does God need with a Starship?” So what? What a book says means nothing, by itself.

Over to you, grateful.

Thanks, AJ, that wraps it all up beautifully.

Best wishes,

Joe

AJ, I have not shifted the burden of proof. Science has. Correct me if you think I’m wrong but my understanding is that the notion of multiverse is being proposed by scientists in response to the (effective) zero odds of this universe arising randomly …not because they have any evidence.

This alone suggests my position is rational. If I walk into a room and find a coin standing on its edge surely it is far more rational to assume the coin has been placed on its edge deliberately than to assume, without any evidence, that its position is the result of a random experiment repeated a large number of times.

In regard to the Euthyphro dilemma what I had in mind was more to do with god being a source of evil (under option 2). But your point can be addressed in the following way.

Assume there is a god and the Quran is the word of god. According to the Qur’an, “Allah will not burden a soul more than it can bear.” (2:286) If god were to arbitrarily change the rules this would be more than any soul could bear. Therefore, god will not change the rules if the Qur’an is indeed the word of god. The burden of proof then falls back on the Qur'an being the word of god (which I'm happy to discuss with someone with an open mind).

In other words, to go from god CAN change the rules arbitrarily to god WILL change the rules arbitrarily requires assuming a god other than what is described in the Qur’an. You seem to have a different god in mind.

cont....

continue...

In relation to your point about agency, consider any of the above-quoted hadith. For example,

"How wonderful is the affair of the believer, for his affairs are all good, and this applies to noone but the believer. If something good happens to him, he is thankful for it and that is good for him. If something bad happens to him, he bears it with patience and that is good for him.”

We are told that no matter what we experience in this life there is a response that will yield a benefit. In the face of good fortune benefit comes from being grateful. In the face of bad fortune benefit comes from being patient. Therefore, there is nothing that can happen to us that we cannot derive benefit from. It depends on our choice. There is agency.

Finally, you say:
"My views on morality are far more complex than the examples I gave, and they're certainly more complex than theistic morality, which strips the individual of moral agency and dupes them into thinking that something becomes ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ simply because of an edict attributed to another being."

Your argument is with a straw man of your own creation, not with me. This is a sign of a closed mind.

Unfortunately, I've overcommitted and I'm short of time so will have to leave it here.
All the best to you and Joe.

Hi Grateful,

What you propose is interesting, but perhaps you could try this as well:

"Assume there are no gods and that therefore no book, not even the Quran, is the word of any god."

Let's note that all religion are attempts by people, in circumstances which science is too rudimentary to illuminate, to make sense of the world around them in the context of their society, its power structure and mores.

In those circumstances, yes, the world is there, but basically unknowable. (After all, nobody knew about germs or bacteria until the invention of the microscope).

So of course, given that all pre-civilized societies put great store in magic, sorcery, spells, etc., it would be 'natural' [sorry, Yuyutsu] for the best minds in those societies to leap to the conclusion that the entire world is magic, under the control of some Great Wizard, manipulable only by sucking up to him. And in patriarchal societies, as most pre-civilized societies were, that Great Wizard is thought of as being in the form of a man and, for want of a better word, a God.

Perhaps we can begin the discussion from there :)

But we need to get BTT: 'values': I don't know how there can possibly be an 'emptiness of values': we all have them, we wouldn't get out of bed without them, our goals depend on them, even if we're not fully aware of them. They guide all our lives, from those of the most contemptible drug-dealer to those of Mother Teresa.

There are personal values, and values that we share with other people, and those on a national scale, that we broadly share with other Australians. Nothing empty about those.

Cheers,

Joe