Atheism and nihilism

[stevevw]

Well going by that logic, they don’t have to be all-knowing, and have access to all possible alternative realities to confidently claim that there is no God! (a claim you made earlier). If they don’t have to cover all bases to make conclusions about each individual human, they don’t have to cover all bases to make conclusions about God

These are completely different situations. We can test humans because they live in our dimension. We can compare data from all around the world across a range of areas and get to know who humans are and what their limitations are.

But how can we even begin to do that with God if He exists? We cannot see or test Him directly to even know what bases there are to test in the first place. We are limited in access to much of the information needed to make confident assessments of God's ability and morality.

But there is physical evidence that 2+2=4. As I said before, give me a bunch of apples and I can provide the evidence.

And I can show you physical evidence of a debate between two people where (Adding honesty = a rational and coherent engagement and Minus honesty and everything break down into chaos).

Also despite there being physical evidence of the above Math equation how is that evidence determined to be an objective fact. Where is the independent measure? Either the equation is made by humans which is just a subjective idea or the Math equation has been discovered which means Maths is an independent law. If so then that would point to intelligence in nature and support the idea of intelligence behind what we see. That is a roundabout way that supports the idea of a transcendent creator and therefore a moral lawgiver.

The inability to protest someone lying does not prevent a debate from taking place.

It prevents a coherent and rational debate taking place. Otherwise, people can lie to each other and present false support and no one could question the truth of the claims made. Also, it allows immoral acts by allowing lying. A person could make false allegations that defame or discriminate against their opponent and nothing could be done about it.

The world is full of crazy people who will deny the obvious; my point is no reasonable person who recognizes morality as subjective will claim honest is not important

Actually your making an argument for objective morality when you say that no reasonable person will deny honesty exists. Because under objective moral position there will be moral truths like honesty that everyone intuitively knows and should acknowledge. If they deny this they are either unreasonable or unsound.

On the other hand, it is under subjective morality that people are allowed to be unreasonable and deny honesty. Because there is no reasonable and unreasonable views under subjective morality. What you may call being unreasonable another person will say is reasonable because they see things differently. There is no truth about what is a reasonable and unreasonable position.

None of this goes away by proclaiming morality to be objective.

Yes, it does as mentioned above under an objective moral system there are no versions or denial of honesty. There is only the value of honesty which is the same for everyone.

I will respond to the rest later

No worries Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

These are completely different situations. We can test humans because they live in our dimension. We can compare data from all around the world across a range of areas and get to know who humans are and what their limitations are.

In theory, they can; but they have not. They haven’t tested me, so they don’t know me.

But how can we even begin to do that with God if He exists? We cannot see or test Him directly to even know what bases there are to test in the first place. We are limited in access to much of the information needed to make confident assessments of God's ability and morality.

So how can you proclaim him to be morally perfect?

And I can show you physical evidence of a debate between two people where (Adding honesty = a rational and coherent engagement and Minus honesty and everything break down into chaos).

And I can show you examples of debates between two people where both parties occasionally exaggerate, and even lie in order to make their point and the debate does not break down into chaos. To suggest both parties in a debate must be 100% honest in order to have a rational and coherent engagement is absurd. Your argument failed.
My argument stands because with enough apples, I can prove 2+2=4, and this will be the case 100% of the time.

Also despite there being physical evidence of the above Math equation how is that evidence determined to be an objective fact. Where is the independent measure?

The numbers calculated using the rules of math, represent the independent measure.

Either the equation is made by humans which is just a subjective idea or the Math equation has been discovered which means Maths is an independent law.

The rules of math were invented by humans and because math is based on objective rules, it is objective.

Actually your making an argument for objective morality when you say that no reasonable person will deny honesty exists. Because under objective moral position there will be moral truths like honesty that everyone intuitively knows and should acknowledge. If they deny this they are either unreasonable or unsound.

On the other hand, it is under subjective morality that people are allowed to be unreasonable and deny honesty. Because there is no reasonable and unreasonable views under subjective morality. What you may call being unreasonable another person will say is reasonable because they see things differently. There is no truth about what is a reasonable and unreasonable position.

Regardless of whether morality is objective or subjective, people behave the same. Your argument fails

Yes, it does as mentioned above under an objective moral system there are no versions or denial of honesty. There is only the value of honesty which is the same for everyone.

So it is your claim that people become honest when they believe morality is objective? What proof do you have of this?

 

[stevevw]

In theory, they can; but they have not. They haven’t tested me, so they don’t know me.

They don't have to test you. They have tested the human species and they know its limitations. Humans are only capable of certain things. They know that the way they behave that they cannot be morally perfect. They have limitations for being morally perfect as a species.

Basically being carnal creatures humans have a weakness in being perfectly spiritually virtuous. Even the most virtuous people on earth like the Pope or Mother Terrasa will acknowledge they are not morally perfect. But nevertheless, if you insist you are perfect you would have to provide evidence for this.

So how can you proclaim him to be morally perfect?

First, we can base this on a logical argument. If objective morality exists then it has to be grounded in a transcendent being who is perfectly good. Second, we have a perfectly good example in Jesus who was both man and a transcendent being. He is God made flesh. So everything God is can be found in Jesus. God's nature is perfectly good. Once again a logical argument can be made for each of these claims. For example
The Moral Argument
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFgrrPNNReE

Are there good arguments for objective morality? What do philosophers think about moral realism?
This argument uses a similar approach to what I have said about how our intuition points to objective morality. That is we know that certain things are always morally wrong and this is a more sure position to take than to reject our intuition and say that these abhorrent acts we know are wrong may be OK to do in certain situations.

It doesn't use God as the basis for supporting objective morality but a logical argument of the most rational conclusion from a logical deduction that we live like morals are real and are objective.
Are there good arguments for objective morality? What do philosophers think about moral realism? : AskPhilosophyFAQ

Then you have the arguments for Gods existence apart from the moral ones
Arguments why God (very probably) exists
Arguments why God (very probably) exists
Arguments For the Existence of God (Overview)
Arguments For the Existence of God (Overview) | Introduction to Philosophy
Then there are arguments for the Christian God and why Jesus is real and the one true representation of God.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWY-6xBA0Pk

And I can show you examples of debates between two people where both parties occasionally exaggerate and even lie in order to make their point and the debate does not break down into chaos. To suggest both parties in a debate must be 100% honest in order to have a rational and coherent engagement is absurd. Your argument failed.

I am talking about a debate or human engagement that requires the 'truth' to be established like in a courtroom but less formal. But still having the assumption that each person is going to honesty put their case forward and not misrepresent things. How could these two people ever have a coherent debate within these parameters if they do not both assume that honesty will play a central part?

But here is the point about your example. If one party exaggerates or lies in order to make their point does the other party accept or question the legitimacy of the exaggeration or lie? If they don't value honesty they cannot question the exaggeration or lie. Therefore they will lose the debate based on an untruth. Though the debate can still be had there is no coherence to it. A lie can be presented as the truth and anyone can win based on rubbish being presented.

But as soon as the opponent objects to the exaggeration and lie they are appealing to honesty and making it an objective value all parties must adhere to. So yes people can have debates without using or making honesty an independent value but there will be no learning or value in the debate. It will only allow rubbish to be presented as facts and lies as truth.

My argument stands because with enough apples, I can prove 2+2=4, and this will be the case 100% of the time.

So will an argument that seeks to establish the truth be a pile of rubbish without honesty 100% of the time.

The numbers calculated using the rules of math, represent the independent measure.

Where do the numbers come from?

The rules of math were invented by humans and because math is based on objective rules, it is objective.

If they are invented by humans and the rules are invented by humans how can that be objective? Humans could have created a completely different idea other than Math. Just like Bitcoin can substitute for money. It is so because humans say so. But humans say so is subjective.

Regardless of whether morality is objective or subjective, people behave the same. Your argument fails

It is not that people act the same regardless of subjective or objective morality which then makes morality subjective. It is the other way around. It is because people act like morality is objective and always the same regardless of their claimed subjective morals that makes morality objective.

So it is your claim that people become honest when they believe morality is objective? What proof do you have of this?

It is the fact that you or anyone on this forum or anywhere in the world cannot do without honesty despite them trying to twist or reshape honesty to their liking or personal views. It is a double-edged sword in that it cuts to the truth and exposes people's lies and exaggerations. Without it, truth can become a lie and no one can do anything about it.

You have been appealing to honesty this entire debate whether you think it is not needed or not when you question if what I say is the truth. Because we cannot do without honesty despite anyone in any part of the world's view gives the value of honesty an independent and "truth" value beyond all humans. That is exactly what objective moral values are.

 

[Ken-1122]

They don't have to test you. They have tested the human species and they know its limitations. Humans are only capable of certain things. They know that the way they behave that they cannot be morally perfect.

If this is true, you should have no problem pointing to a scientific study that confirms this; otherwise your argument fails.

First, we can base this on a logical argument. If objective morality exists then it has to be grounded in a transcendent being who is perfectly good. Second, we have a perfectly good example in Jesus who was both man and a transcendent being. He is God made flesh.

What scientific proof do you have that Jesus was morally perfect?

I am talking about a debate or human engagement that requires the 'truth' to be established like in a courtroom but less formal. But still having the assumption that each person is going to honesty put their case forward and not misrepresent things. How could these two people ever have a coherent debate within these parameters if they do not both assume that honesty will play a central part?

Like nobody has ever lied in a court room before? You jokin’ right?

But here is the point about your example. If one party exaggerates or lies in order to make their point does the other party accept or question the legitimacy of the exaggeration or lie?

No. The other person will question everything he says regardless of whether he lies or not. That’s how debates work!

If they are invented by humans and the rules are invented by humans how can that be objective?

Humans create things that are objective all the time!

It is not that people act the same regardless of subjective or objective morality which then makes morality subjective. It is the other way around. It is because people act like morality is objective and always the same regardless of their claimed subjective morals that makes morality objective.

People act like their life and those they are emotionally connected to are more valuable than all others; that does not mean that it is. Just because people act like something is true, does not mean that it is.

It is the fact that you or anyone on this forum or anywhere in the world cannot do without honesty despite them trying to twist or reshape honesty to their liking or personal views. It is a double-edged sword in that it cuts to the truth and exposes people's lies and exaggerations. Without it, truth can become a lie and no one can do anything about it.

You have been appealing to honesty this entire debate whether you think it is not needed or not when you question if what I say is the truth. Because we cannot do without honesty despite anyone in any part of the world's view gives the value of honesty an independent and "truth" value beyond all humans. That is exactly what objective moral values are.

You didn’t answer my question; all you’ve done is point out the value of honesty; which nobody is questioning. I asked you to prove people behave honest when they believe morality is objective. Care to try again?

 

[zippy2006]

Mmm... This question deserves it's own post, maybe even it's own thread... (pssst! Don't tell Philo we're encroaching on epistemological territory!) I was going to write more yesterday since I had a vacation day from work, but they called me in because they just can't run that place without me!

Now I would say that if you believe something, you have some sort of feeling about how confident you are that it's true. That isn't contentious is it? So if X and Y are mutually exclusive, and you believe X is true, you would essentially feel more confident to bet on X than you would be to bet on Y. Because belief requires some sort of feeling, it could only be demonstrated to exist to either of us subjectively, really. So I can't really argue for the idea that belief isn't a choice, but I think we can do a little experiment.

Perhaps, but I don't think the notion of "feeling" adds much to the analysis. Beliefs will be subjective whether or not they are associated with feelings, and a willingness to bet on a more probable outcome will also be present in the absence of feelings. In this case feelings seem to only be reinforcing a rational belief.

If you've ever seen this question pop up in other threads and topics before, you might have seen folks in my position demand to folks in your position "Okay, then choose to believe God doesn't exist". Or even outside of theism something else that's an enormous claim like, "Okay, then choose to believe that I'm 500 feet tall!". I think there's an okay argument to be had about why big beliefs like that aren't a good test. I think we should try something completely boring and mundane. If belief is a choice, then you should be able to choose arbitrarily to believe something that is completely insignificant, right?

So I'm going to give you a list of things to believe. I'm not claiming any of them is true, because I wouldn't want whatever trust you have in my honesty to cause you to be convinced, it has to be your choice.

Choose to believe that my shirt is solid blue.
Choose to believe that my shirt is solid white.
Choose to believe that my shirt is solid black.
Choose to believe that I am not wearing a shirt.
Choose to believe that my shirt is striped horizontally.
Choose to believe that my shirt is striped vertically.
Choose to believe that my shirt is plaid.

So, for each belief, did you suddenly feel more confident that it was true when you "chose to believe" it? I'm not even asking you to "know" what my shirt is like, you don't need 100% confidence in the truth of any of them. Does your confidence level change at all? Personally, I can't do it. I don't know how it's done. If we were talking about your shirt, I could arbitrarily place a bet on any one of those, I could imagine that your shirt matched whatever criteria hypothetically, but I can't cause myself to feel confident about any one of them being true without some kind of evidence which would cause me to be convinced.

I think beliefs are grounded in reason, so it doesn't make sense to arbitrarily will yourself to believe something. That doesn't mean that there is no will or choice involved in the reasoning or believing process. Foundational premises are one example. For example, everyone is either a materialist, an idealist, or a dualist. Upon comprehending those three positions it seems possible to choose to believe either one, and this choice-belief will go on to influence all sorts of other beliefs that will be entailed.

Else, consider a simple example. You are tutoring a 3rd grader in math. You are trying to get her to see/believe that 7x3=21. At present she does not have the belief, she is distracted, and she is not putting in the work to reach understanding. You are trying to convince her to pay attention and focus. She has a choice to either focus or not-focus, and in that situation some children will choose to focus and some will not. The choice she makes will directly impact whether she believes that 7x3=21. The entire reasoning process that produces belief is filled with volitional acts like that one. This is an apparent or prima facie fact. The determinist can hand-wave it away and claim that predisposing events, such as nutrition and home life, determine the outcome, but I find that to be a stretch. Constructing some elaborate theory as to why we don't make real choices is significantly inferior to the evidential thesis that we do make real choices.

Once you hold a belief about what will make you happy, your actions are determined. If I fully believe that buying a specific car will make me the happier than selecting any of the other cars I have to choose from, I cannot choose to not buy that specific car. We know this because all of us will choose the thing that makes us happiest without exception.

One could make a similar argument that once you do something your actions are determined. If I ate spaghetti for lunch yesterday then yesterday is determined; I can't change it or do anything about it.

I think there is a similarity in what you are saying, for no one is denying that humans are able to make decisions and act definitively. The fact that I am able to decide to buy a certain car does not mean that I am not free. It could just be that I am able to make decisions. Once the child puts in the effort and sees the truth that 7x3=21, they have no choice but to believe that truth. That doesn't mean they are unfree. Heck, that's why they put in the effort in the first place: so that they might believe some truth they did not previously believe. If you ask such people why they came to the conclusion they could give you all sorts of reasons, and some of those reasons will be related to choices ("I chose to focus," "I prefer the color blue").

A perpetual state of non-acting and non-believing would not be some sort of optimal demonstration of freedom. As a human being I desire the intelligence that will remove my freedom to believe stupid things. I desire to be determined in the direction of truth. Others may desire to be determined in the direction of pleasure, or relaxation, or ecstasy. How we decide to move towards happiness is up to us.

Our actions are determined by our beliefs, and our beliefs are affected by the outcomes of our actions. Okay, I don't disagree, but I don't see how this contradicts anything I've said.

I take issue with three things: 1) Beliefs are pre-determining, 2) Beliefs are predetermined, and 3) Beliefs are first in time. The third is perhaps the easiest to refute. We began as infants without any beliefs, and yet acted on desires in a way that would condition the beliefs that eventually arose (e.g. pooping, crying, eating, laughing).

Oh no, these threads on morality and values, of which our conversation has only played a part, has pushed me further into the determinist camp. Silmarian actually gave me the first nudge a few years ago.

What about the threads pushed you in that direction?

I disagree. I don't think there are any goods that are not pleasurable. If you do a good deed, you don't feel good about it?

If you do something that you desired to do you will feel a sense of accomplishment, but I think that's different from pleasure. For example, that a martyr feels good about martyrdom does not mean that martyrdom is pleasurable.

 

[stevevw]

If this is true, you should have no problem pointing to a scientific study that confirms this; otherwise your argument fails.

First of all, we shouldn't have to be going to this extent as it is a well known and accepted fact. Do you honestly think there are humans who never make mistakes, never fall short of moral perfection? As I said even the most moral people like Gandhi, mother Terrassa, or the Dali lama admit to being morally imperfect.
Second I did already post evidence here #623

Moral humility: In life and at work
If behavioral ethics research from the past two decades has taught us nothing else, it has made it abundantly clear that humans are morally fallible. Indeed, there are everyday examples—in the workplace and beyond—of people who unwittingly violate their personal moral values, finding numerous ways to rationalize and justify otherwise morally objectionable behavior.
Moral humility: In life and at work
The Nature and the Impossibility of Moral Perfection.
Doing everything that is morally right and nothing that is morally wrong would be a tremendous accomplishment. Is anything more involved in an agent achieving complete moral perfection? Yes. In fact., so much more is required that it is impossible to be a morally perfect agent.
The Nature and the Impossibility of Moral Perfection on JSTOR

Third, how could you even know what moral perfection was when humans cannot even agree on what is moral or not. I say that you are morally perfect is to say you also know the truth to what morality is and that is a moral imperfection itself because claims something that is impossible for humans in the first place. What you claim as morality someone else will say is wrong. So you engage in a self-defeating exercise.

What scientific proof do you have that Jesus was morally perfect?

Why scientific proof. Why not historical support. That is what we use for all historical figures. That being the case there is absolutely no evidence that Christ was immoral. Even Pontius Pilot said he could find no fault in Jesus when he was on trial to be crucified. In other words, Christ was executed as an innocent man. Historians including non-Christian ones said that Jesus was a moral teacher and never said he was immoral.

Jesus said He was from God and in Him were all the attributes of God. The Bible tells us that Jesus was sinless and had to be the perfect sacrifice for sin. Millions of Christians and western society have believed this and made Christ the cornerstone of morality. When added together this makes strong evidence that Jesus was a good example of a perfectly moral life.

Like nobody has ever lied in a courtroom before? You jokin’ right?

That's not the point. A person can lie if they want and they may be able to get away with it. But what happens when they are caught lying. They are charged with purgery because it is against the law to lie in court. That is how much honesty is given value status.

No. The other person will question everything he says regardless of whether he lies or not. That’s how debates work!

But why is he questioning what the person says? I would say it is to determine whether they are being honest, factual, and truthful with their replies.

Humans create things that are objective all the time!

Yes, they may be an objective within a human-made system. But beyond that system, in an open system, it is not objective. It is only relevant within that system. This is especially true for morals. An organization can create an ethical code where it will be objectively wrong to breach it within that organization system. But when subjected to an open system being everyone, the entire world or universe the organisations idea of ethics is not objectively right.

The idea of maths may be OK in a system created by humans (that's if humans created maths). But outside that system, it doesn't work. There may be an alien race who doesn't use our understanding of maths.

People act like their life and those they are emotionally connected to are more valuable than all others; that does not mean that it is. Just because people act like something is true, does not mean that it is.

The problem is they act that way with everyone even strangers. You are acting that way with me and I with you in our debate and strangers will do this with each other in forums like this.

You didn’t answer my question; all you’ve done is point out the value of honesty; which nobody is questioning. I asked you to prove people behave honest when they believe morality is objective. Care to try again?

I don't understand what you mean. Can you elaborate?

 

[Moral Orel]

Perhaps, but I don't think the notion of "feeling" adds much to the analysis. Beliefs will be subjective whether or not they are associated with feelings, and a willingness to bet on a more probable outcome will also be present in the absence of feelings. In this case feelings seem to only be reinforcing a rational belief.

You're taking issue with me calling "confidence" a "feeling"? I don't think that's contentious. I'm not talking about people reasoning with their emotions.

I think beliefs are grounded in reason, so it doesn't make sense to arbitrarily will yourself to believe something. That doesn't mean that there is no will or choice involved in the reasoning or believing process. Foundational premises are one example. For example, everyone is either a materialist, an idealist, or a dualist. Upon comprehending those three positions it seems possible to choose to believe either one, and this choice-belief will go on to influence all sorts of other beliefs that will be entailed.

If you can't choose to believe something without a reason that convinces you, isn't the reason the cause of your conviction and not your choice?

Else, consider a simple example. You are tutoring a 3rd grader in math. You are trying to get her to see/believe that 7x3=21. At present she does not have the belief, she is distracted, and she is not putting in the work to reach understanding. You are trying to convince her to pay attention and focus. She has a choice to either focus or not-focus, and in that situation some children will choose to focus and some will not. The choice she makes will directly impact whether she believes that 7x3=21. The entire reasoning process that produces belief is filled with volitional acts like that one.

I already said that we can put ourselves in situations that will cause us to gain/change a belief, but that isn't the same as simply choosing to believe something.

One could make a similar argument that once you do something your actions are determined. If I ate spaghetti for lunch yesterday then yesterday is determined; I can't change it or do anything about it.

Nah, that's a bad analogy. Looking back in time requires a change in action, choosing a different car doesn't change something.

I think there is a similarity in what you are saying, for no one is denying that humans are able to make decisions and act definitively. The fact that I am able to decide to buy a certain car does not mean that I am not free. It could just be that I am able to make decisions.

I think you are only able to make one decision once you have a belief about how happy that car will make you. If you choose to buy a blue car because you believe that will make you the happiest, then that belief precludes you from buying the red car. You can't choose to buy the red car, so how is it that you made a decision at all?

Once the child puts in the effort and sees the truth that 7x3=21, they have no choice but to believe that truth. That doesn't mean they are unfree. Heck, that's why they put in the effort in the first place: so that they might believe some truth they did not previously believe. If you ask such people why they came to the conclusion they could give you all sorts of reasons, and some of those reasons will be related to choices ("I chose to focus," "I prefer the color blue").

Sure, people give all sorts of unexamined answers to questions. I don't deny that it feels like I'm making free choices, but am I really? Or am I a slave to my desires?

A perpetual state of non-acting and non-believing would not be some sort of optimal demonstration of freedom. As a human being I desire the intelligence that will remove my freedom to believe stupid things. I desire to be determined in the direction of truth. Others may desire to be determined in the direction of pleasure, or relaxation, or ecstasy. How we decide to move towards happiness is up to us.

Non-acting and non-believing wouldn't be the demonstration. Acting in contrast with what you believe and acting in contrast with what you desire would be. We can't do it though.

You could go burn your hand on the stove and say, "Aha! You see? That hurt like a son-of-a-gun! That much pain couldn't possibly make anyone happy!"

And I would say, "Well, the smug sense of satisfaction you get from proving me wrong would though, and that's why you did it, therefore I'm right."

I take issue with three things: 1) Beliefs are pre-determining, 2) Beliefs are predetermined, and 3) Beliefs are first in time. The third is perhaps the easiest to refute. We began as infants without any beliefs, and yet acted on desires in a way that would condition the beliefs that eventually arose (e.g. pooping, crying, eating, laughing).

So things start with involuntary, instinctual behaviors... That doesn't help your case, lol!

What about the threads pushed you in that direction?

Our discussion had a big hand in it, don't get me wrong. Pursuing the desire to be happy is a huge factor. One thing that stuck out though was that we don't choose our values. I don't choose to prefer chocolate over vanilla, I don't choose to prefer life over death.

If you do something that you desired to do you will feel a sense of accomplishment, but I think that's different from pleasure. For example, that a martyr feels good about martyrdom does not mean that martyrdom is pleasurable.

They wouldn't martyr themselves if that good feeling wasn't more desirable than the bad feelings are undesirable. If you like a good feeling more than you dislike a bad feeling, whatever the situation, I'd say that's arguably a pleasurable experience. The martyr dies happy, it was a good experience for him.

The word "pleasure" just carries a lot of baggage with it. People instantly think of hedonism. If I seek a life with a steady supply of pleasurable experiences for as long as possible, that isn't anything like a hedonist who seeks immediate gratification at every turn, even though pleasure is our ultimate goal.

 

[Leaf473]

What is a "worldview"? I don't know if I have one of those.

I think this page gives a good description

worldview - definition and meaning

My life has meaning. But the meaning I bring to my life is subjective, not objective.

sounds like that would fit well with what I posted earlier:

"...existential nihilism, in which life is believed to be without objective meaning..."

what is it you are disagreeing with?

 

[Ken-1122]

First of all, we shouldn't have to be going to this extent as it is a well known and accepted fact. Do you honestly think there are humans who never make mistakes, never fall short of moral perfection?

Why are you asking me? I’m the skeptic! I am the one who will question any human, God, or anyone else who claims to be perfect; you are the one willing to accept God as perfection without proof. Seems to me, if you are willing to accept your particular God as perfect without proof (via faith), you should be willing to apply the same standards to some of the countless humans you don’t know about.

Third, how could you even know what moral perfection was when humans cannot even agree on what is moral or not. I say that you are morally perfect is to say you also know the truth to what morality is and that is a moral imperfection itself because claims something that is impossible for humans in the first place. What you claim as morality someone else will say is wrong.

Wait a minute; YOU are the one claiming someone to be morally perfect; if you couldn’t know what morally perfection is (or if it is even possible) how could you claim God is morally perfect?

Why scientific proof. Why not historical support.

I’m only insisting you apply the same standards to God that you apply to mankind; that’s all. Pick one and stick to it.

That's not the point. A person can lie if they want and they may be able to get away with it. But what happens when they are caught lying. They are charged with purgery because it is against the law to lie in court. That is how much honesty is given value status.

My point is, lying does not lead to chaos and being honest does not prevent chaos from happening in a debate.

But why is he questioning what the person says? I would say it is to determine whether they are being honest, factual, and truthful with their replies.

He is questioning to prove him wrong.

Yes, they may be an objective within a human-made system. But beyond that system, in an open system, it is not objective. It is only relevant within that system. This is especially true for morals. An organization can create an ethical code where it will be objectively wrong to breach it within that organization system. But when subjected to an open system being everyone, the entire world or universe the organisations idea of ethics is not objectively right.

The same with your God. Your God’s morals might be objective within the Christianity system, but beyond that system; once subjected to an open system being everyone, the entire world or universe your God's idea of ethics is not objectively right.

The problem is they act that way with everyone even strangers. You are acting that way with me and I with you in our debate and strangers will do this with each other in forums like this.

Acting like, or even behaving like something is true does not make it true.

I don't understand what you mean. Can you elaborate?

Post #641 you claimed the dishonesty that happens under subjective morality does not happen under objective morality. I’m asking you to prove it.

 

[Ken-1122]

.

 

[Ken-1122]

I think this page gives a good description

worldview - definition and meaning

Worldview:
The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.

Okay; going by that definition, if I have a world view, it would be what makes sense to me at any given moment. The reason I describe it that way is because my overall perspective of which I interpret the world is in a constant state of change. As I gather more information (grow) my views change in light of this new information thus my world view is something constantly changing.

To answer your question; I would say the positive terms I would use to describe my worldview is the ability to change. I admit to the possibility I could be wrong and when I am proven wrong my worldview allows for change in light of new information. This is how I grow.

What about you?

 

[Leaf473]

Worldview:
The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.

Okay; going by that definition, if I have a world view, it would be what makes sense to me at any given moment. The reason I describe it that way is because my overall perspective of which I interpret the world is in a constant state of change. As I gather more information (grow) my views change in light of this new information thus my world view is something constantly changing.

To answer your question; I would say the positive terms I would use to describe my worldview is the ability to change. I admit to the possibility I could be wrong and when I am proven wrong my worldview allows for change in light of new information. This is how I grow.

What about you?

Well, as I mentioned before, "atheist" is basically a negation.
is there a corresponding term for yourself that describes what you are in favor of, e.g. "humanist" or "skeptic"?

I would describe myself as a "liberal Christian".

 

[Ken-1122]

is there a corresponding term for yourself that describes what you are in favor of, e.g. "humanist" or "skeptic"?

I am more of a skeptic; but I don’t know if that could be considered a “corresponding term” I know Christians who consider themselves skeptic as well.

I would describe myself as a "liberal Christian".

I suspect we are polar opposites; I consider myself to be more of a conservative atheist.
What about your worldview? Does it change over time? What positive term would you use to describe our world view?

 

[stevevw]

Why are you asking me? I’m the skeptic! I am the one who will question any human, God, or anyone else who claims to be perfect; you are the one willing to accept God as perfection without proof. Seems to me, if you are willing to accept your particular God as perfect without proof (via faith), you should be willing to apply the same standards to some of the countless humans you don’t know about.

I was asking a hypothetical question about human status in general. IE do you honestly think (not believe) that there is a morally perfect human. For humans, it's not a case of believe as we have evidence which I have presented that humans are not perfect. But I was asking the question as I should not have to present evidence as it is just common sense and well-known fact.

Including God in that equation is a fallacy as it's like comparing oranges with apples. God is by nature known as perfect IE omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. And yes people believe God is perfect but we cannot use that for humans as we know for a fact that they are not perfect. So there is no belief involved. But we have no choice for God as that is how God works, God is God because he is all good. Otherwise, he is not God.

Wait a minute; YOU are the one claiming someone to be morally perfect; if you couldn’t know what morally perfection is (or if it is even possible) how could you claim God is morally perfect?

As subjective humans, we cannot know what is ultimately right or wrong morally. That is why we look to God for knowing what is objectively right and wrong. Objective morality is morality beyond humans. The argument for objective morality places morality in a transcendent being like God.

I’m only insisting you apply the same standards to God that you apply to mankind; that’s all. Pick one and stick to it.

According to Biblical and non-Biblical historical writings Jesus existed. It describes Him as the son of God and without sin and the only way to God. There is no evidence that He was anything but a sinless moral teacher good enough to be the greatest representative of morality the world has ever known and to have affected many and change the world. No other moral person can claim the same.

My point is, lying does not lead to chaos, and being honest does not prevent chaos from happening in a debate.

You keep missing the fact that if the debate is about honesty it logically follows that it does. It is self-supporting.

He is questioning to prove him wrong.

Yes but if there is no agreed or assumed honesty being used how does he know he is wrong. What if the person keeps insisting what he says is right. How do you expose that he is not just making things up to win the debate? If there is no honesty then it doesn't matter if he is wrong. Take away honesty and there are no facts about anything.

The same with your God. Your God’s morals might be objective within the Christianity system, but beyond that system; once subjected to an open system being everyone, the entire world or universe your God's idea of ethics is not objectively right.

Yes, that is why I included the argument for the Christian God being the only one true God. The nature of 'truth' is that there cannot be many gods or many versions of morality. There can only be one. So then we have to argue which one.

Acting like, or even behaving like something is true does not make it true.

You can make an argument that it does make it true when we examine how that moral value is used in real life situations. It becomes real and true by the way it is given real and truth status to the point that without it humans could not function. That it is real enough to justify it as true in the light of there being no better explanation.

So we are justified to accept this and not go with something else which is less real or true. That is how the argument works not just for moral values but for most things. IE we are justified to think that you are really sitting at your computer writing this post and no in some virtual reality.

Post #641 you claimed the dishonesty that happens under subjective morality does not happen under objective morality. I’m asking you to prove it.

I have already. If under subjective morality people can have different views about honesty including that there is no such thing as honesty then they can present whatever they like. I gave an example pf a guy who questioned and disputed everything and no one could convince him there was any truth to what people were telling him. He kept saying that is only your opinion or its a conspiracy and not true. So it didn't matter if someone was telling him the honest truth.

If you have noticed in recent times there is a movement going on where people are criticizing everything. Saying that history is a lie and everything we have been told and taught is a lie. They are tearing down all the statues and destroying history based on their own views and version of what happened. They are questioning the science of many things, the government's right to rule, etc. They will not even recognize what is the honest truth or not and only recognize how they see things.

These are examples of how people are subjectively seeing things and values like truth and honesty are lost. But under an objective moral system values like honesty are acknowledged and real. So when humans engage they will stop and put aside their personal views and dogma's and apply that honesty. They will be open to search for what is truth. That means when someone questions what they say and ask is that the honest truth they will respect that request and give an honest answer.

So what makes honesty objective is when people give it the status it deserves and makes it a fact and real in their engagements. Or when people are exposed to their misrepresentations, claims or arguments they make by subjecting them to the value of honesty like in a court or debate where honesty is agreed. That is the only way we can determine the objectivity of morals.

 

[Leaf473]

I am more of a skeptic; but I don’t know if that could be considered a “corresponding term” I know Christians who consider themselves skeptic as well.

hi!
I'm not sure if we're communicating about the idea of "positive term".

I'll try using different words.

the word "atheist" says what a person is not.
it doesn't tell us what a person believes in, only what they don't believe in.

what do you believe in?

I suspect we are polar opposites; I consider myself to be more of a conservative atheist.
What about your worldview? Does it change over time? What positive term would you use to describe our world view?

"liberal Christian" is the term I would use to describe my worldview.
it describes it "positively" in the sense that it says what I am in favor of:
"liberal" meaning I'm generally in favor of non-traditional ideas, progressive ideas, possibly unorthodox ideas.
"Christian" meaning I generally follow the teachings and approach to life of Jesus of Nazareth.

I am skeptical of a lot of things, very true!
I'm skeptical of "faith healers", for example.

I consider information well established by the scientific method to be reliable.
I also consider intuition or "inner sensations" to be possibly reliable.

what sources of information do you consider reliable?

 

[zippy2006]

You're taking issue with me calling "confidence" a "feeling"? I don't think that's contentious. I'm not talking about people reasoning with their emotions.

Okay, I think we're on the same page here.

If you can't choose to believe something without a reason that convinces you, isn't the reason the cause of your conviction and not your choice?

Keeping to the example I already gave, some positions are not demonstrable. No one really knows whether idealism, materialism, or dualism is true. No one really knows whether we are determined or free. Certain fundamental orientations are more choice-driven due to the fact that sufficient reasons simply don't exist.

Additionally, I don't see the reasoning process as unfree. When reading an erudite philosopher or a renowned scientist, listening to a virtuoso musician or a skilled debater, or watching an world-class athlete, I don't get the impression that their medium constrains their freedom. I think that is a good analogy for freedom: comparing the 1st-year piano player who can only handle Chopsticks to Rachmanionff. The latter has an enormous freedom with the instrument that the former can't even imagine. Reasoning isn't altogether different. The powerful politician marshals language, arguments, and rhetoric in a way that moves the minds and spirits of his listeners towards the goal he has in mind. In that case reason is his slave, not his master.

I think the reason I disagree with you is because our very conception of what will make us happy can change, and we can have a hand in changing it. Like the child who can decide whether to focus, we can decide when to abandon our notion that, say, material possessions will make us happy.

I also think that freedom is a spectrum. "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." Just as when you draw nearer the sun you become darker in complexion, as you draw nearer God you become more free. Hell probably is filled with near-deterministic automata. However that mystery of freedom works, some people seem to have more of it than others, not unlike the two piano players.

(I'm just throwing the kitchen sink at your hard question and hoping something sticks. )

I already said that we can put ourselves in situations that will cause us to gain/change a belief, but that isn't the same as simply choosing to believe something.

But was the child able to freely choose whether to focus? If freedom influences beliefs then beliefs aren't fully determined.

Nah, that's a bad analogy. Looking back in time requires a change in action, choosing a different car doesn't change something.

I don't follow. In both cases an irrevocable event occurs that we are not able to change, and in neither case do I believe the irrevocability implies determinism.

I think you are only able to make one decision once you have a belief about how happy that car will make you. If you choose to buy a blue car because you believe that will make you the happiest, then that belief precludes you from buying the red car. You can't choose to buy the red car, so how is it that you made a decision at all?

The only reason you can't choose the red car is because you chose the blue car. Where did the reasoning process about happiness come from? It came from you.

Sure, people give all sorts of unexamined answers to questions. I don't deny that it feels like I'm making free choices, but am I really? Or am I a slave to my desires?

Non-acting and non-believing wouldn't be the demonstration. Acting in contrast with what you believe and acting in contrast with what you desire would be. We can't do it though.

You could go burn your hand on the stove and say, "Aha! You see? That hurt like a son-of-a-gun! That much pain couldn't possibly make anyone happy!"

And I would say, "Well, the smug sense of satisfaction you get from proving me wrong would though, and that's why you did it, therefore I'm right."

So things start with involuntary, instinctual behaviors... That doesn't help your case, lol!

So now we're in the muck of a free will vs. determinism debate, eh? Like I said earlier, I'm not sure how much progress we will make here since I don't know how to prove or disprove either side. Any ideas? I mean, I do have a knock-down argument against determinism in my back pocket, but if I used it you would have no choice but to believe in freedom.

So we agree that non-acting doesn't provide a case for freedom. What would? To act (rationally) without a reason? But that's a contradiction in terms. If freedom is defined as acting without a reason then I agree freedom doesn't exist.

Our discussion had a big hand in it, don't get me wrong. Pursuing the desire to be happy is a huge factor. One thing that stuck out though was that we don't choose our values. I don't choose to prefer chocolate over vanilla, I don't choose to prefer life over death.

Okay, that makes sense. Is there anything you think people do choose? Are there any personal qualities you would commend?

They wouldn't martyr themselves if that good feeling wasn't more desirable than the bad feelings are undesirable. If you like a good feeling more than you dislike a bad feeling, whatever the situation, I'd say that's arguably a pleasurable experience. The martyr dies happy, it was a good experience for him.

And I would say that to choose what is pleasurable and to choose what is desirable are two different things.

The word "pleasure" just carries a lot of baggage with it. People instantly think of hedonism. If I seek a life with a steady supply of pleasurable experiences for as long as possible, that isn't anything like a hedonist who seeks immediate gratification at every turn, even though pleasure is our ultimate goal.

I do think pleasure is different from happiness. Pleasure and pain are sensual experiences. To say that the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] finds pleasure in pain is technically an equivocation on pleasure. One can desire pain and suffering, but that doesn't mean that for such a person pain is pleasure. Another example: some people are extremely dutiful and conscientious. They desire to fulfill obligation duties, and this brings them happiness. That doesn't mean driving the speed limit is a pleasurable experience. Ice cream, a warm shower, and sex are pleasurable experiences. I think you're stretching the definition of pleasure.

 

[Ken-1122]

hi!
I'm not sure if we're communicating about the idea of "positive term".

I'll try using different words.

the word "atheist" says what a person is not.
it doesn't tell us what a person believes in, only what they don't believe in.

what do you believe in?

What do you mean by “to believe in”? If I believe in “X” does that mean I believe the claims people make of “X”? Or does it mean something different. Please explain.

"liberal Christian" is the term I would use to describe my worldview.
it describes it "positively" in the sense that it says what I am in favor of:
"liberal" meaning I'm generally in favor of non-traditional ideas, progressive ideas, possibly unorthodox ideas.
"Christian" meaning I generally follow the teachings and approach to life of Jesus of Nazareth.

I am skeptical of a lot of things, very true!
I'm skeptical of "faith healers", for example.

I consider information well established by the scientific method to be reliable.
I also consider intuition or "inner sensations" to be possibly reliable.

what sources of information do you consider reliable?

Nothing gets a pass from me; unless it sounds reasonable.

 

[Ken-1122]

I was asking a hypothetical question about human status in general. IE do you honestly think (not believe) that there is a morally perfect human.

I believe what I find to be perfect, you will find to be flawed; what you find to be perfect, someone else will see as flawed. Because we are subjective humans with subjective morality, and standards, there is no such a thing as perfect that all humans will agree on. IOW I believe this perfection you speak of is impossible.

Including God in that equation is a fallacy as it's like comparing oranges with apples.

No, to include God in that equation is the same. If everybody knew God, we would subjectively find flaws in him just as we do everything else. Because you don’t know him, it is easy to claim the impossible of him.

As subjective humans, we cannot know what is ultimately right or wrong morally. That is why we look to God for knowing what is objectively right and wrong. Objective morality is morality beyond humans. The argument for objective morality places morality in a transcendent being like God.

So if God said killing babies for fun is morally good, you would believe him?

According to Biblical and non-Biblical historical writings Jesus existed. It describes Him as the son of God and without sin and the only way to God. There is no evidence that He was anything but a sinless moral teacher good enough to be the greatest representative of morality the world has ever known and to have affected many and change the world. No other moral person can claim the same.

Oh! So in God’s book he proclaim himself to be perfect and you believe him? Suppose I wrote a book and said I was perfect; would you believe me? If you are going to use science to reason I am not perfect, you need to apply those same scientific standards to God as well.

Yes but if there is no agreed or assumed honesty being used how does he know he is wrong. What if the person keeps insisting what he says is right. How do you expose that he is not just making things up to win the debate? If there is no honesty then it doesn't matter if he is wrong. Take away honesty and there are no facts about anything.

Do you really believe most people are 100% honest in debates?

Yes, that is why I included the argument for the Christian God being the only one true God. The nature of 'truth' is that there cannot be many gods or many versions of morality. There can only be one. .

But the nature of reality is that there are many God claims and many versions of morality; that’s why I say it is subjective not objective.

I will respond to the rest later

 

[stevevw]

I believe what I find to be perfect, you will find to be flawed; what you find to be perfect, someone else will see as flawed.

So is your ideal of moral perfection achievable for you. Or are you always trying to do better to reach that perfect idea or a moral person

Because we are subjective humans with subjective morality, and standards, there is no such a thing as perfect that all humans will agree on. IOW I believe this perfection you speak of is impossible.

OK so let me ask do you think there are grades of moral behavior that are more moral than others. Like a scale with degrees of rightness and wrongness. IE physically or sexually abusing a child is a more serious and degrading act than say denying them time on the computer for misbehaving.

No, to include God in that equation is the same. If everybody knew God, we would subjectively find flaws in him just as we do everything else. Because you don’t know him, it is easy to claim the impossible of him.

Well, we do sort of know God or a god. Any god that has been presented has always been one that is transcendent. So when I say it is a fallacy to compare a human to a god when determining moral behavior I mean we are comparing two different abilities and realities which will have an influence on what they can and cannot do.

Most gods are beyond our material reality. We know that we can only act a certain way within our reality. The Christian God for example is all-knowing, all-powerful, and the creator of our material world/reality. So this puts God in a different league. Being all-knowing means He can know all the circumstances and outcomes of all actions which allow Him to know what is the best way to act for the best outcome. As humans, we cannot do this. So God is in a better position to be morally perfect.

So if God said killing babies for fun is morally good, you would believe him?

That would be a paradoxical position to take for the Christian God as we know Him through Christ. Belief in God is not through blind faith. It is also using our rational thought. The moral argument for God is based on a perfectly good and rational transcendent being. As we are created in God's image life is sacred. So killing a baby for fun would be against this.

Oh! So in God’s book, he proclaim himself to be perfect and you believe him? Suppose I wrote a book and said I was perfect; would you believe me? If you are going to use science to reason I am not perfect, you need to apply those same scientific standards to God as well.

It is not that Christ wrote the Bible but that witnesses did and we also have non-Biblical support. If you wrote a book and claimed to be perfect and the son of God then I guess you would also have changed the world. But you didn't.

We know that Jesus was a real person who claimed to be the son of God and was crucified for this. We know he was a good person to the point that he gathers many followers and from the time of his death Christianity grew to take over the Roman Empire and the world. So something great happened and it could not have all been lies and delusions.

Yes, it does come down to faith but we can make some arguments about belief and God. As mentioned in the link I posted for the arguments for God. There are some good and reasoned points for why there is a God. We have to consider those and not just dismiss them.

But for me, the greatest argument is the moral one which takes things back to the OP and which I have already mentioned is if there is no God then there are no moral objectives. If there are no moral objectives then there is moral chaos. But we act and live like there are objective morals so therefore there is a God.

Do you really believe most people are 100% honest in debates?

No but that is not the point. The fact that you can even ask the question about people being 100% honest or not shows that honesty is a value that we give status to the point where it decides who is telling the truth or lying. It makes honesty real and an independent value regardless of whether people think it is a moral value or worthless in their subjective opinion.

But the nature of reality is that there are many God claims and many versions of morality; that’s why I say it is subjective, not objective.

But that is a logical fallacy that because morals and gods vary that must mean there is no objective or truth to there being one God and moral truths. I

I will respond to the rest later

No worries, thanks.

 

[Leaf473]

What do you mean by “to believe in”? Ito believe in”f I believe in “X” does that mean I believe the claims people make of “X”? Or does it mean something different. Please explain.

well, I'm not sure if I used the phrase "to believe in",
but would you agree that the term "atheist" says that you don't believe in God?
if so, what do you believe in?

but there might be an even simpler way to phrase it.
"atheist" says what you are not.
then, what are you?

Nothing gets a pass from me; unless it sounds reasonable.

what are some things that sound reasonable to you?