What fucking things? I don’t even know what you’re talking about. And the fact that you outright refuse to either explain “what things” and identify the post suggests very strongly to me that you’re lying. That’s why I make a “big deal” about it. You accuse me of doing something dishonest/surreptitious, refuse to tell me what exactly it is you are talking about and now call me a liar.
As I said, explain yourself, produce the post or fuck off.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]nephorm wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
You’re on to something there. ‘Did God create morality or did morality create God’?
[/quote]
That’s an easier question to answer, because the original conversation in the Euthyphro was about the good, not the moral. The question of the moral pertains to human things (pigs don’t have moral or immoral behavior), and what is moral for human beings finds its kernel in human nature, which for a theist is created by God. In that sense, God would create the moral as an aspect of the human. Morality is therefore not by continuous fiat, nor does it exist outside of God’s creation. [/quote]
Surely morality is goodness.
[/quote]
Talking about the good is probably different from what you mean by goodness, but I’m not sure.
At any rate, I can make my point concisely enough: is the good of a man the same as the good of a fish? Or is it relative to what they are? We don’t usually speak of fish being moral, but we speak of men being moral. So that implies that morality is, again, relative to what we are. If that is so, then is there reason to believe that human goodness and/or morality are comprehensive, i.e., that they apply to beings higher than ourselves?
So even if morality is a good, is it reasonable to think that it is identical with the good in the highest sense? Perhaps it is a species of the good, but not the thing itself.[/quote]
^^^^^^
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What fucking things? I don’t even know what you’re talking about. And the fact that you outright refuse to either explain “what things” and identify the post suggests very strongly to me that you’re lying. That’s why I make a “big deal” about it. You accuse me of doing something dishonest/surreptitious, refuse to tell me what exactly it is you are talking about and now call me a liar.
As I said, explain yourself, produce the post or fuck off.[/quote]
I’m lying? This isn’t something about evidence, you are the one that altered the post, apparently I’m the only one who noticed, so this is between only you… And frankly I don’t care that you lied, I think it’s funny as fuck you are having a problem admitting it, recollecting it, you are full of shit.
SM: Changed my post? What post? What did I change it from and to?
S: I’m not telling. You’re a liar.
SM: You won’t tell me what you’re accusing me of? You’re going to accuse me of being dishonest and lying but you won’t say what it is I am lying about or what it is I supposedly did?
S: That’s right. I’m not going to tell you. I’m just going to call you a dishonest liar.
SM: Really? That sounds like a pretty low thing to do. Why would you do that?
S: You’re a liar. You know what I’m talking about.
SM: Oh, okay. Fuck off then.