Comments on: Justin Brierley on Moral Knowledge & the Problem of Evil https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/19737 Announcing appearances, publications, and analysis of questions historical, philosophical, and political by author, philosopher, and historian Richard Carrier. Tue, 10 Sep 2024 20:20:03 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.1 By: Richard Carrier https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/19737#comment-38930 Tue, 10 Sep 2024 20:20:03 +0000 https://www.richardcarrier.info/?p=19737#comment-38930 In reply to Anti-richi.

Emotional schoolyard bullying is a failure mode. If this is how you react to a detailed empirical argument with multiple links to even more detailed empirical arguments, you will be lost to sense and reason forever. I cannot fix you. Only you can decide to come into the light of reason and learn how to use logic and evidence instead of childish insults and rank emotionalism.

I can only pray to the Gods of Kobol that someday you make this journey out of your darkness into our light.

]]>
By: Anti-richi https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/19737#comment-38918 Sat, 07 Sep 2024 05:56:59 +0000 https://www.richardcarrier.info/?p=19737#comment-38918 I used to think you were a smart person. but your reasoning is childish. Richard, you really are a very stupid and very opinionated guy. In your world, everything should be moral. but in my world everything should be for me, and I didn’t find any argument from you why I should behave in the way that you think would be moral. you’re just a clown

]]>
By: Richard Carrier https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/19737#comment-34516 Thu, 05 May 2022 20:02:55 +0000 https://www.richardcarrier.info/?p=19737#comment-34516 In reply to Alif.

Flesh is not a person. Persons only exist when the cognitive machinery exists to produce them (and store the resulting information of which they are composed). That does not happen until sometime in the third trimester of pregnancy. This is a thoroughly empirically established fact.

]]>
By: Jonathan MS Pearce https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/19737#comment-34515 Thu, 05 May 2022 16:35:35 +0000 https://www.richardcarrier.info/?p=19737#comment-34515 The Moral Argument, as manifested in DCT (with its legion problems), is only as good as the epistemic foundation upon which it is set. In other words, In some manner, it is perhaps really an epistemological argument.

Really enjoying this piece. Good stuff.

]]>
By: Alif https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/19737#comment-34513 Wed, 04 May 2022 23:41:30 +0000 https://www.richardcarrier.info/?p=19737#comment-34513 how on urth is a fetus a non ixistunt pursun?

a fetus is a child in the woom. Being in a certain place dusn’t mean he or she isn’t a pursun.

you might as well say an 1 year old isn’t a pursun.

whu on urth ar u to depursunalis human beings.

or that if a fetus is de-woom’d fr eg surjry it’s a pursun but when she’s put back it’s not a pursun.

This appalling philosphy is just mad. stark raving lunacy.

]]>
By: Fred B-C https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/19737#comment-34486 Sat, 30 Apr 2022 19:01:38 +0000 https://www.richardcarrier.info/?p=19737#comment-34486 In reply to stevenjohnson.

To be fair, for many of them they don’t really have that premise. They are more saying that the fact that you don’t act like their caricature means you have to implicitly agree with them.

]]>
By: stevenjohnson https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/19737#comment-34484 Sat, 30 Apr 2022 13:03:09 +0000 https://www.richardcarrier.info/?p=19737#comment-34484 I’ve concluded from experience that all religious thinkers rest all their arguments on the premise that they are holier than I am. I have not yet found a convincing argument against that. Yet, perversely, I have not found their arguments convincing, not least because the holy ones (holier than me anyhow) don’t agree on what their holiness has revealed. I think this is why so many religious thinkers in practice prefer to use government to enforce their morals, rather than rely on God. It’s like those cop cars saying “In God we trust,” but the cops really rely on guns.

]]>
By: Fred B-C https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/19737#comment-34483 Fri, 29 Apr 2022 22:21:13 +0000 https://www.richardcarrier.info/?p=19737#comment-34483 The way I always think about it is to go to those who try to avoid the Euthyphro Dilemma by defining God’s nature as good. Okay, WLC, God is definitionally good. God is a good essence. Now, is God good because It is powerful? Surely not, right? Lots of things with large amounts of finite power are bad, and there’s no reasons to think that more power fixes that problem. The same applies even to knowledge on its own, and really even wisdom. So almost any God on offer has properties that are ancillary to the goodness part of the equation.

So, Will, either you are saying you’re just a bootlicker to your absolute core, or you’re saying that something about God is metaphysically or ontologically good beyond you just liking It.

Then… tell me what that thing is. And if you can’t, shit or get off the pot. Because that’s the question we’re all asking.

This is part of why theists like to discuss God as this indivisible gas or fluid, in effect. They don’t want us to think of God’s attributes as separable. But even if they’re not so in practice, they are so philosophically.

]]>