Can morality exist without God cont..

[Dave Ellis]

So you think in overall general terms they are wrong?

Yes, your analogy does not make sense.

No, I am not deifying them but most political scholars do think that they are some of the greatest political thinkers in history, so it is not just me.

That's not what you said, you said greatest thinkers, not greatest political thinkers. By saying greatest thinkers, you open them up to comparison with everyone, including the great philosophers of history, many of whom the founding fathers got their ideas from.

Thomas Jefferson didn't invent the concept of freedom of religion, he read about the concept from others, saw its value and worked to entrench it in the constitution when he had the power to. Some colonies had freedom of religion prior to the revolution. Some ancient empires, notably the Achaemenid Empire under Cyrus the Great had freedom of religion back in 550BC

There are very few completely unique and new ideas that the founding fathers came up with by themselves. The House of Representatives was based upon the British House of Commons. The Senate was based upon the Roman Senate (from which it draws its name) and the "upper house of government" element comes from the British House of Lords.

Even the democratic republican system of government can be tied to ancient Greece and the Roman Republic.

The founding fathers were well educated and wise on a number of issues, and constructed a very enlightened system of government for their time. This is why their model has been emulated in numerous other countries around the world.

I'll even grant you that they were great political thinkers for cobbling all of those concepts together in a written legal document (the constitution). However the credit for the heavy thinking comes from the people who invented those concepts in the first place, and those people far predated the founding fathers.

Actually the 3/5 compromise is often misunderstood, it actually was a procedure to LIMIT slavery.

No, not really. The effect was a compromise between the northern states who didn't want slaves counted at all, and the southern states who wanted slaves counted fully in the population when it comes to government representation. It also affected the tax burden that states should have to pay.

The effect was to reduce the tax burden on the slave states, and give white slaveholders increased representation in the house of representatives compared to people in the northern states

Again, that is a straw man, I never said they were perfect.

I never said you claimed they are perfect. I was merely highlighting that they made some major mistakes.

Exactly, since most were Christians they knew they all had sinful natures so they had checks and balances to limit their power. This had never really been done before.

Nonsense. Magna Carta (which was another influence upon the founding fathers) put checks and balances on the King of England back in 1215.

It has nothing to do with Christianity or a sinful nature, it's a simple recognition that unchecked power is a danger to everyone, so that power must be kept in check. This wasn't a new concept by any means.

That was not an ad hominem.

You're attacking me personally, calling my a hyperskeptical atheist. That's off topic and incorrect. I am skeptical, however reasonably so. Disagreeing with you when you have not justified your arguments does not make me "hyperskeptical".

In short, you're trying to justify your argument by denigrating me, that is an ad hominem.

Just because Texas has executed a large number of murderers does not mean that that is not enlightened thinking. It is called justice. First degree murder should be a capital offense.

Perhaps if you live in the bronze age.

The civilized world on the other hand has moved beyond that way of thinking.

Texas lawmakers are not exactly known as shining beacons of enlightenment.

No, I explained earlier in this thread how indentured servitude saves expenses.

And it didn't make sense from what I could tell. Could you restate your point in case I missed something?

I said it may only be necessary in extreme circumstances.

No, there isn't. Even in an extreme circumstance there is no justification for enslaving someone else, ever.

You can offer shelter to people, you can offer food to people, and you can ask them to repay you by doing work around the house or at your business.... however at no point can you justify enslaving them. There is no way to justify taking that extra step.

No, if something exists outside the human mind then it objectively exists.

Sure, if anything exists outside of any mind, then it objectively exists. We agree on that, however that doesn't really address my point though.

You are being rational but your foundation of reasoning is subjective if it is based on valuing humans over other animals. It is rational to favor your own species but its foundation is not objective it is subjective, ie based on your feelings for your own species. Since humans are not objectively more valuable than other species.

Sure, I agree on that. However, again it doesn't really address my point.

Whether you are, or are not being rational is an objective fact about your line of argument. That's because the rules of logic are just that, rules. Those rules don't depend on our minds to be true, they are true regardless of what we think about them. If you abide by those rules, then you are said to be acting rationally.

It is not subjective opinion that someone is, or is not being rational.

For example, if I use an argument that contains a number of clear logical fallacies and other bizarre unfounded claims, it is an objective fact that the argument as it has been presented is irrational. If I subjectively believe my argument is rational, it doesn't matter. I am wrong.

Likewise, if I use an argument that contains no logical flaws and is well supported by the evidence, it is a fact that I have constructed a rational argument. Likewise, in that case it doesn't matter if someone believes it is irrational, that person is also wrong.

Another way of thinking about it is breaking it down a little further. The law of non contradiction isn't subjective opinion, it's an objective fact that two contradictory things can not be true at the same time. If you employ an argument that breaks that law of logic, you have an objectively irrational argument.

No, see above about the foundation of your reasoning and argument. Your foundation is based on feelings for other humans, not on anything objective.

No, I said there is no such thing as being subjectively rational in my previous post, and explained in the section directly above this why the rationality of something is always objective.

It is rational for me to care about other people because of self interest. It makes us all stronger to work together. That's not just subjective opinion, that is an objective fact.

No, see above. If something exists outside the human mind then it exists objectively. Our value to God exists outside our minds, ie it objectively exists.

The problem is you're tying the word "human" into that phrase. Whether it's a human mind, a dog's mind, a cat's mind or a god's mind, it doesn't matter. If something is the product of a mind, it is subjective.

Value is always the product of a mind, therefore any value on any item is always subjective. If god values humans, that is god's subjective opinion of us.

 

[Ed1wolf]

If you use the laws of logic, you can not reach a justified conclusion that a god exists.

Yes you can. Causality and the BB theory is the main framework of the argument.

 

[Ed1wolf]

What method does your god use to determine what is ethical/moral, and what is not?

He doesn't need any method to determine it, He knows.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Yes you can. Causality and the BB theory is the main framework of the argument.

You can't make a logical case for god using causality.

Likewise, god is not a part of the Big Bang theory. So, I don't see how you can use that to prove his existence.

 

[Dave Ellis]

He doesn't need any method to determine it, He knows.

If there is no method, how does he know? What distinguishes good from bad?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
That is true, because we were created by an ethical Creator. If we had come from an impersonal amoral process then your statement would be false.

eud: The origin doesn't matter. There is no reason why intelligence must arise from a moral process.

How can intelligence arise from non-intelligence? And how can morality arise from a non-intelligent amoral process?

ed: Not Christianity but some aspects of Western culture, ie the non-Christian aspects. But certainly not modern science.

eud: It's not so certain. The classical world was advanced with technology, even if they didn't have scientific method. One can credit post-classical society with creating scientific method as we understand it today, but it is by no means certain that pagans wouldn't have done so if given enough time. It sure took Christians long enough.

No, see below how their worldview actually stifled science. It took Christians a long time because for the first 300 years they were just trying to survive. Then for about 1000 years their leadership was corrupt and withheld God's word from the ordinary people. After it was restored to the people Gods word inspired science.

ed: The Greeks and Romans did not believe in a orderly and intelligible world.

eud: Which is why Aristotle wrote so much about an orderly and intelligible world? Intellectual Greeks and Romans did not believe in a disorderly or unintelligible world.

Just a few unique individuals is not going to allow the development of modern science. It needs to be culture wide. Most Greeks and Romans believed that gods could take the form of both animals and inanimate objects at will thereby destroying any possibility of any long term major scientific endeavors.

ed: Also, the Greek academics believed that only slaves should get their hands dirty, that is why they did not develop experimental science. Conducting experiments was beneath the elite.

eud: Which is why Aristotle spent so much time in nature studying plants and animals? Or why Hero of Alexandria made such marvelous machines?

OBSERVING plants and animals and making practical machines, ie engineering, while important in science, are not modern experimental science, which is an ongoing systematic and experimental study of how nature works.

eud: There was no rule that said that the "elite" should not "get their hands dirty". There were those that did.

It was not a "rule", it was their culture. Platonic and Aristotelian thought considered the material world evil and disordered.

ed: I doubt that they would have developed modern science as shown above.

eud: You may doubt all you like, but you haven't shown it to be true.

I think the things I mentioned above make it unlikely and many historians agree with my assessment. Read "Darwin's Century" by Loren Eiseley

ed: Also, their human rights record was pretty bad. They never ended slavery like Christian societies did.

eud: And how long did it take Christians to do that?

The reasons it took so long to end slavery were similar to the reasons why it took so long to invent modern science as I stated above.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Platonic and Aristotelian thought considered the material world evil and disordered.

Prove it! Show me that Aristotle considered the material world evil and disordered.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

You can't make a logical case for god using causality.

Likewise, god is not a part of the Big Bang theory. So, I don't see how you can use that to prove his existence.

Yes, you can make an irrefutable argument. I have presented it multiple times over the years on atheist websites and no one has refuted it yet. But I am not claiming that I can PROVE His existence with absolute certainty, nothing except your own existence can be proven with certainty and that only to yourself. Of course, God is not going to officially be part of the BB theory, that would be "unscientific" though in fact it is not. Only since about 100 years ago has science been officially based on the self refuting philosophy of Naturalism. Throughout most of the history of science, science has acknowledged a Creator. So this is only a relatively recent irrational development.

 

[Ed1wolf]

If there is no method, how does he know? What distinguishes good from bad?

His acts according to His moral character.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Yes, you can make an irrefutable argument. I have presented it multiple times over the years on atheist websites and no one has refuted it yet.

I find that hard to believe. However, by all means, let me know what it is. I'd be happy to take a crack at it.

But I am not claiming that I can PROVE His existence with absolute certainty, nothing except your own existence can be proven with certainty and that only to yourself.

That's fair, and I'm not looking for absolute certainty. Science doesn't work with absolute certainties either. Science works with tentative conclusions based on the observable evidence. Scientific models best describe the world as we know it, based on what we have discovered about it.

As long as you can present enough evidence to demonstrate that it is likely that a god exists, and your arguments hold against all reasonable scrutiny, then I will accept your case. However, if there are logical fallacies, holes, or other flaws in your argument that can't be addressed, then I have no reason to accept it as true.

So with that in mind, lets see what you have.

Of course, God is not going to officially be part of the BB theory, that would be "unscientific" though in fact it is not.

Yes it is, actually. We have no evidence to show that it was a god, or that a god would be required to spark the big bang. Unless we have evidence to show those things, or something similar, it would be unscientific to include god in the theory.

Only since about 100 years ago has science been officially based on the self refuting philosophy of Naturalism. Throughout most of the history of science, science has acknowledged a Creator. So this is only a relatively recent irrational development.

Well, no, that's not actually the case. Science has always depended on evidence, testing and observation. The fact that at one point many scientists were religious and credited god for creating the things that they may have discovered doesn't mean that god or religion served as the basis for science.

 

[Dave Ellis]

His acts according to His moral character.

And how do you know his moral character is good?

 

[devolved]

How can intelligence arise from non-intelligence? And how can morality arise from a non-intelligent amoral process?

Here's where the confusion on this subject lies IMO.

First of all, intelligence and morality are similar inasmuch both of these are abstract concepts that are merely derivative of how we describe certain patterns in reality.

Let's take on intelligence first. When we talk about intelligence, the way you seem to define or refer to it is to create some "non-material" demarcation, detaching it from what intelligence is made up of as a process - matter reacting to other matter.

Matter has properties. These properties define its behavior and reaction with the other matter that have similar or different properties. We have a long list describing how matter reacts with matter, and we abstract these complex and simple reactions into processes, and further into concepts.

Intelligence and morality are such concepts. Intelligence describes a complex process generally found in a function of a brain. Morality is a pattern of behavior that we judge as proper. Intelligence is a process by otherwise "non-intelligent" matter, and that's the problem wish such demarcation - the continuum problem.

When it comes to morality, morality is our situational assessment. To say "how can morality can come from non-morality" is a malformed question. Morality is not something that "emerges" from somewhere on its own. It's a label we give to a stereotypical judgement. That's what morality is.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Prove it! Show me that Aristotle considered the material world evil and disordered.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Actually, he didn't consider it real. That also prevents science. Plato considered it evil and disordered. http://www.iep.utm.edu/greekphi/

 

[Eudaimonist]

Actually, he didn't consider it real. That also prevents science. Plato considered it evil and disordered. http://www.iep.utm.edu/greekphi/

Nowhere in the section on Aristotle is it claimed that he doesn't view the world as real. The closest I see is this:

Like Plato, he recognizes the true being of things in their concepts, but denies any separate existence of the concept apart from the particular objects of sense. They are inseparable as matter and form. In matter and form, Aristotle sees the fundamental principles of being. Matter is the basis of all that exists; it comprises the potentiality of everything, but of itself is not actually anything. A determinate thing only comes into being when the potentiality in matter is converted into actuality. This is effected by form, inherent in the unified object and the completion of the potentiality latent in the matter.

Aristotle always sees matter and form as united in the natural universe. Matter without form would not actually be anything, but that is not what the natural universe is like. Matter has potentials that are progressively actualized, and what we experience in nature is what is actualized. All that is actualized can be studied with the help of the senses.

I have serious doubts about your comprehension of Aristotle's philosophy. His views, while still tinged a bit with Plato's ideas, are very much pro-science. By uniting form and matter in the natural universe (instead of placing form in some super-natural reality as Plato did) he paved the way for science.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, you can make an irrefutable argument. I have presented it multiple times over the years on atheist websites and no one has refuted it yet.

de: I find that hard to believe. However, by all means, let me know what it is. I'd be happy to take a crack at it.

It is really quite simple, it is the law of causality combined with the BB theory. Also, His Word taught things such as the BB 3500 years before science confirmed it.

↑

ed: But I am not claiming that I can PROVE His existence with absolute certainty, nothing except your own existence can be proven with certainty and that only to yourself.

de: That's fair, and I'm not looking for absolute certainty. Science doesn't work with absolute certainties either. Science works with tentative conclusions based on the observable evidence. Scientific models best describe the world as we know it, based on what we have discovered about it.

As long as you can present enough evidence to demonstrate that it is likely that a god exists, and your arguments hold against all reasonable scrutiny, then I will accept your case. However, if there are logical fallacies, holes, or other flaws in your argument that can't be addressed, then I have no reason to accept it as true.

So with that in mind, lets see what you have.

↑
ed: Of course, God is not going to officially be part of the BB theory, that would be "unscientific" though in fact it is not.

de: Yes it is, actually. We have no evidence to show that it was a god, or that a god would be required to spark the big bang. Unless we have evidence to show those things, or something similar, it would be unscientific to include god in the theory.

But we do. Almost all the evidence points to the universe being an effect, ie it has a beginning and it changes. Therefore it requires a cause. According to the law of causality, the cause cannot be part of the effect, it has to be "outside" or transcendent to it. So it is with God, He is transcendent to it, He is not part of nature, He is "above" it or supernatural. And we know He is probably personal because purposes exist in the universe such as eyes to see, ears to hear, etc. We know that only personal beings can create purposes for things.

↑

ed: Only since about 100 years ago has science been officially based on the self refuting philosophy of Naturalism. Throughout most of the history of science, science has acknowledged a Creator. So this is only a relatively recent irrational development.

de: Well, no, that's not actually the case. Science has always depended on evidence, testing and observation. The fact that at one point many scientists were religious and credited god for creating the things that they may have discovered doesn't mean that god or religion served as the basis for science.

No, the founders of modern science knew that the universe operated according to orderly laws and those laws require a law giver. They knew that if there was no orderly and Law giving God then science would be impossible. They also knew about the subject-object problem. Without a correlation between subject and object then we could not know whether there was an objective reality and without an objective reality science would also be impossible. So without God, you just have to hope that random chance produced that correlation but that is for all practical matters impossible. Because at the origin of the universe there were only objects if there was no God. But since there was a God (a subject) then at the act of creation of objects that correlation was established.

 

[Ed1wolf]

And how do you know his moral character is good?

From experience.

 

[bhsmte]

From experience.

Is your personal experience falliable?

 

[Dave Ellis]

It is really quite simple, it is the law of causality combined with the BB theory. Also, His Word taught things such as the BB 3500 years before science confirmed it.

A) Causality plus the Big Bang theory does not lead to a justified belief in god. You require some pretty large unsubstantiated leaps to get there.

B) The Big Bang Theory does not appear in the bible. I've read it, and I'm pretty sure I would have remembered if it were there.

But we do. Almost all the evidence points to the universe being an effect, ie it has a beginning and it changes. Therefore it requires a cause. According to the law of causality, the cause cannot be part of the effect, it has to be "outside" or transcendent to it.

Except causality is not a scientific law, and the idea of cause and effect only apply to classical physics. In the quantum realm, cause and effect is essentially meaningless.

The Big Bang certainly deals with the quantum realm. The matter and energy of the universe would have been so incredibly compact that classical physics wouldn't work at all. The best evidence we have actually points to the big bang itself being a quantum fluctuation

So it is with God, He is transcendent to it, He is not part of nature, He is "above" it or supernatural.

So is Clyde the invisible universe creating dragon. Likewise with the supernatural universe creating pixies.

You can make up whatever transcendent being you want to, however unless you show that there's evidence to support the existence of that being, then the argument becomes meaningless.

There's just as much evidence for Clyde the invisible universe creating dragon as there is for your god. Every possible thing you could claim about your god in regards to creating the universe, I can also attribute to Clyde.

So, demonstrate your claim. You've made an assertion, now prove it.

And we know He is probably personal because purposes exist in the universe such as eyes to see, ears to hear, etc. We know that only personal beings can create purposes for things.

Actually, we know that no such thing is required. Evolutionary processes create those things by natural means all by themselves. A personal being is in no way required to give things eyes and ears.

No, the founders of modern science knew that the universe operated according to orderly laws and those laws require a law giver.

The founders of modern science knew that the universe operated by laws, however a law giver is irrelevant.

Actually, to be more technical, the people that wrote the laws were the scientists themselves. Newton's laws of motion were written by Newton. Scientific Laws are things we create to describe how the universe operates.

They knew that if there was no orderly and Law giving God then science would be impossible.

Why would it be impossible? That's ridiculous. Any universe will operate using some kind of physics, a god is not required to make sure light doesn't travel any faster than the speed of light. Nor is a god required to determine what the speed of light is.

They also knew about the subject-object problem. Without a correlation between subject and object then we could not know whether there was an objective reality and without an objective reality science would also be impossible.

That's also absurd. Look around you, and you'll see objective reality.

Unless of course you're going down the path that we might be living in the Matrix, or you might be a brain in a vat imagining everything, but even in that regard there must be some form of objective reality somewhere. A god is totally irrelevant to that being the case.

So without God, you just have to hope that random chance produced that correlation but that is for all practical matters impossible. Because at the origin of the universe there were only objects if there was no God. But since there was a God (a subject) then at the act of creation of objects that correlation was established.

See above

 

[bhsmte]

A) The law of causality plus the Big Bang theory does not lead to a justified belief in god. You require some pretty large unsubstantiated leaps to get there.

B) The Big Bang Theory does not appear in the bible. I've read it, and I'm pretty sure I would have remembered if it were there.



Except causality is not a scientific law, and the idea of cause and effect only apply to classical physics. In the quantum realm, cause and effect is essentially meaningless.

The Big Bang certainly deals with the quantum realm. The matter and energy of the universe would have been so incredibly compact that classical physics wouldn't work at all. The best evidence we have actually points to the big bang itself being a quantum fluctuation



So is Clyde the invisible universe creating dragon. Likewise with the supernatural universe creating pixies.

You can make up whatever transcendent being you want to, however unless you show that there's evidence to support the existence of that being, then the argument becomes meaningless.

There's just as much evidence for Clyde the invisible universe creating dragon as there is for your god. Every possible thing you could claim about your god in regards to creating the universe, I can also attribute to Clyde.

So, demonstrate your claim. You've made an assertion, now prove it.



Actually, we know that no such thing is required. Evolutionary processes create those things by natural means all by themself. A personal being is in no way required to give things eyes and ears.



The founders of modern science knew that the universe operated by laws, however a law giver is irrelevant.

Actually, to be more technical, the people that wrote the laws were the scientists themselves. Newton's laws of motion were written by Newton. Scientific Laws are things we create to describe how the universe operates.



Why would it be impossible? That's ridiculous. Any universe will operate using some kind of physics, a god is not required to make sure light doesn't travel any faster than the speed of light. Nor is a god required to determine what the speed of light is.



That's also absurd. Look around you, and you'll see objective reality.

Unless of course you're going down the path that we might be living in the Matrix, or you might be a brain in a vat imagining everything, but even in that regard there must be some form of objective reality somewhere. A god is totally irrelevant to that being the case.



See above

He likes making leaps.

In fact, his personal faith belief, requires it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

From experience.

You misunderstood my question...

I meant how do you know that his moral character is good as in what defines good from bad?

If you're just defining "good" as something god would do, then your definition of good is a tautology. If god decided to plan and carry out another holocaust, by definition that holocaust would be good.

However, I think we can agree that the holocaust, or holocaust 2.0 are morally reprehensible things, no matter who does it.

So, what attributes do you use to judge something (i.e. god) as good, vs something is that bad? You must have some method of determining good from bad.