Apologists wasting their talent

[_Coggins7]

Ever instance of meaning has a context and is not absolute. The human context provides enough for morality etc.

And that human context is perfectly arbitrary and relative to all other possible moral systems, and hence, has no underlying meaning apart from that relative context.

Also, what property does God have that allows him to create meaning when other less intelligent beings can allegedly create no meaning at all?

Where does LDS theology claim that God "creates" the meaning that inheres in the universe?

[_Coggins7]

I have read this thread without being able to discover anything behind this than circular reasoning and repeated assertion.

That's because you have no intention of reading it in any other way.

[_Coggins7]

Beckwith's reasoning is right or wrong independent of Dawkins acceptance of it. Beckwith is just saying that moral purposes can only be understand as right in a way that necessarily requires divine teleology. So Dawkins can't rationally make claims about how a person ought to use their faculties unless he accepts divine teleology, which he does not. Dawkins can't rebut this reasoning merely by choosing to believe in whatever moral system he feels like. That system actually has to be right and/or he actually has to have good reason that Beckwith is wrong in his understanding of moral purpose. So, no.

You're being very, very patient with this poseur Light. Kudos.

[_Tarski]

I have yet to see a logical inconsistancy.

Then clearly, you have difficulties with logical thought.

I meant that I haven't seen a logical inconsistancy of Dawkins exposed.


by the way, lets hope that I don't have too much trouble with logic. I have been a Ph.D. professional mathematician and professor for 20 years. I have also taught a university logic course. Of course, I am subject to occasional logical error like anyone but I doubt that my abilities are sub-average.

How do you repsond to Dennett's analysis in DDI?

[_Tarski]

Ever instance of meaning has a context and is not absolute. The human context provides enough for morality etc.

And that human context is perfectly arbitrary and relative to all other possible moral systems, and hence, has no underlying meaning apart from that relative context.

Also, what property does God have that allows him to create meaning when other less intelligent beings can allegedly create no meaning at all?

Where does LDS theology claim that God "creates" the meaning that inheres in the universe?

1. The human context is not arbitrary. For example, it is unlikely that there could be a human moral system where torturing babies for fun was acceptable.

2. If the social context provided by an infinity of gods and other beings is enough to provide meaning then why cannot the context of man? In either case we just have a community of intentional beings (beings exhibiting intentionality).

[_Chap]

I have read this thread without being able to discover anything behind this than circular reasoning and repeated assertion.

That's because you have no intention of reading it in any other way.

It is very clear that you have no intention of reading the discussion any way other than that you have won out.

I am happy to leave it to our readers to judge between our degrees of rationality and cogency of argument. Somehow I don't think they are very persuaded, despite all your repetitive assertions and "See, I won!" posts.

And I think the impression you are making even on loyal TBM lurkers will be such that few of them will want to come out of hiding and say "this guy is one of us, and we think he is really smart". Anyone there want to back Coggins?

[_Tarski]

I meant that I haven't seen a logical inconsistancy of Dawkins exposed.

by the way, lets hope that I don't have too much trouble with logic. I have been a Ph.D. professional mathematician and professor for 20 years. I have also taught a university logic course. Of course, I am subject to occasional logical error like anyone but I doubt that my abilities are sub-average.

How do you repsond to Dennett's analysis in DDI?

Don't ignore the above post cogg

[_Coggins7]

I meant that I haven't seen a logical inconsistancy of Dawkins exposed.

by the way, lets hope that I don't have too much trouble with logic. I have been a Ph.D. professional mathematician and professor for 20 years. I have also taught a university logic course. Of course, I am subject to occasional logical error like anyone but I doubt that my abilities are sub-average.

How do you repsond to Dennett's analysis in DDI?

Don't ignore the above post cogg

Why not, you've been ignoring the crux of Beckwith's argument for three days?

[_Coggins7]

I've never read Dennett, so I can't contribute anything to demolishing his rationalizations, but I'd like to.

[_Coggins7]

1. The human context is not arbitrary. For example, it is unlikely that there could be a human moral system where torturing babies for fun was acceptable.

Acceptable to whom and upon what criteria? Self preservation. Fear. Psychological fear, horror, and cultural conditioning. If I'm a serial killer and I like torturing babies, you have no intrinsic moral template, valid not only for you but for the universe as a whole, by which to judge my antinomian morality. This is the categorical imperative. As long as torturing babies is fulfilling for me, in Dawkin's world, this is as far as we can go epistemologically. You may quite rightly incarcerate or kill me for so doing, but you cannot judge me, at least not morally.

2. If the social context provided by an infinity of gods and other beings is enough to provide meaning then why cannot the context of man? In either case we just have a community of intentional beings (beings exhibiting intentionality).

Meaning isn't provided just by the social context. The Celestial Kingdom is not a glorified country club. Meaning is provided by the bare actuality that an intelligent being can acquire, immerse himself in, enjoy, and apply truth, knowledge, wisdom, and power without any fear that there will ever be a time when he will cease enjoying and immersing himself in, and applying the attributes he has acquired.

"Man is that he might have joy", and this joy is precisely an infinite characteristic; it is not time bound, and hence, has inherent, cosmic meaning beyond our own subjective psychological constructions.