Ready to wrap this up? (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, June 15, 2008, 12:20 (6003 days ago) @ Cary Cook

Cary claims to "know that some [moral] codes are 'definitely and objectively wrong' on the level of inconceivability of the contrary." - You have referred us to your website for an explanation of this: - "Just because my mind can't conceive of something doesn't mean it's impossible, but it may be so improbable as to be unworthy of consideration." - I find it absolutely inconceivable that a just God (by my subjective understanding of "just") would send down a Flood to drown every man, woman, child and baby except for the family of one drunkard whom he happened to like (substitute any "Act of God" you care to think of). I find it inconceivable that a just God would approve of the Crusades, the Inquisition, Islamic suicide bombers, or my sacrificing six billion people in order not to have to torture and kill one child (see Mark, How do agnostics live? 12 June 17.06). But I certainly would not dare to say that those who believe in this kind of justice are "totally insane", or that their code is "definitely and objectively wrong". I don't know God's code, and God holds all the aces. - Here's a titbit for you: "The postulation of a 'designer' to guide these processes [= the origin of life] is just so over-the-top in improbabilities as not to be worth considering" (George Jelliss, Teapot Agnosticism, 3 February 16.52). According to your essay on knowledge, then, George knows 'definitely and objectively' that there is no God.