The Atheist Experience

The Atheist Experience Aug 13, 2018 13:17:41 GMT

Quote

Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 13, 2018 13:17:41 GMT

Aug 13, 2018 12:24:49 GMT Arlon10 said:

You do not seem to be aware of the fact that you have no definition of "good" at all.

Whether or not this is true - and it is not, as I give a broad one below - that does not invalidate the standing observation that nature cannot, logically speaking, be used to provide an example of 'good', and to presume so - as you do in your article ("the complex ... forces in nature ...required to develop a system of ethics" etc - is a fallacy.

This should not be surprising since we know science is incapable of dealing with most issues in society. The issues arise because people disagree what the problem is. Science has nothing to deal with that, partly because you have no definition of what is good, where such issues are exactly the sort of thing your Christ went on about.

Since I have not been discussing science, and science would not be expected to deal with such matters in any case, I am not sure of the relevance of this. It is interesting, though, to see a purported Christian (and one of your ilk, too) being unable to define good, lol

I have shown you why people searching for a necessary, mutually agreed definition of good often (not always) find some (not all) lessons in nature what is best practice.

And I have shown you what constitutes the Naturalistic Fallacy, to which the observations obtain.

All you have to offer is that there is no "automatic" or inherent definition of good as anything natural, which no professional disputes.

QED then.

You have no definition yourself.

But you have not asked me. As it happens I can think of quite a few working definitions, a more general example of which I give below.

It is really not necessary to interrupt the debate to announce your complete incompetence participate [sic]. You could save time and embarrassment by simply staying home.

Remember what I said about ad hominem fallacies? I do.

If nature may not inform definitions of good, what informs your definition? Why should anyone use your definitions? I suggest that anything you can find will be less sensible for defining good.

The concept of good denotes that conduct which is to be, or should be, preferred or approved of when posed with a choice between a set of possible actions, and is the opposite of evil. Most good will refer to the greatest benefit, especially to all. Dictionaries and philosophical encylopedias are, typically, replete with definitions of the word (most usually without the phrase "as found in nature") so your idea that such a thing is 'not possible' is, strictly speaking, false, although feel free to argue with them and win. Of course it is understood that what is good for one may be bad for another. But that is not an issue of a necessary definition, just a confusion of context. I hope that helps.

If not, then you can just look it up in your Bible - which is conspicuously not so chary of definitions as you apparently are...