Can morality exist without God cont..

[Archaeopteryx]

I will not be able to answer these questions to your satisfaction. I refer you to those who are professionals who may be able to. You can find their work which is available free of charge by using Google or some similar search engine.

"Google it?" Is that your response?

 

[anonymous person]

"Google it?" Is that your response?

Yes.

Of course if you have something against Google, there are other means available to you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes.

Of course if you have something against Google, there are other means available to you.

I have nothing against Google. But this is a discussion forum, specifically for Christian apologetics, and you are an apologist; one who has claimed that he is "ready" to answer questions on more than one occasion.

 

[anonymous person]

I have nothing against Google. But this is a discussion forum, specifically for Christian apologetics, and you are an apologist; one who has claimed that he is "ready" to answer questions on more than one occasion.

All of this is true.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

All of this is true.

So you aren't ready, contrary to what you said?

 

[anonymous person]

So you aren't ready, contrary to what you said?

I don't see how that follows. Nor do I particularly care for you to attempt to explain why you think it follows.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't see how that follows. Nor do I particularly care for you to attempt to explain why you think it follows.

Well, you claimed to "be ready." But you clearly aren't.

 

[anonymous person]

Well, you claimed to "be ready." But you clearly aren't.

I shall let you be the judge of that.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I shall let you be the judge of that.

Maybe you need to "google it"?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.

de: 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.

Not in scientific detail but Genesis 1:1 states the universe had a definite beginning from no prior material. Which is what the BB plainly implies .

↑

ed: 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.

de: 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.

It is a law of logic without which science would be impossible. Not all scientists agree that QM is causeless. Some think there is a physical cause that we have not discovered yet. Others say it is observer caused. But even if is causeless, the origin of a universe is plainly a macroevent for which QM does not apply. QM only applies at the subatomic or micro level.

de: 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

But at t=0 there was no matter and energy so QM would not apply either. Most cosmologists agree that matter energy only came into existence at t>0. Also, quantum fluctuations require an interval of time to occur so at t=0 there was no time for a quantum fluctuation to occur.

↑

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

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

First, there is no evidence that those things exist. Second, nobody claims to have had a relationship with those things, millions claim to have had one with God.

de: 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.

No, there is no evidence for those beings and your attributes of those beings are made in hindsight and retrofitting. Gods attributes were discovered long prior to our discoveries about the characteristics of the universe. So such retrofitting with the universe is impossible.
↑

ed: 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.

de: 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.

You are assuming what we are trying to prove. Please explain how purpose can ultimately come from purposelessness. Not the evolutionary processes because they may be guided by a purposeful God. Give a non-biological example of such a process.

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

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

No, the Christian scientists were inspired by their faith to believe in a rational and orderly universe because they believed in a rational and orderly Creator. Read the writings Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and many others. They knew that if the creator was either non existent or chaotic then so would the universe be chaotic. Just as the ancient greek gods were or the spirits the animists believed in. Read Loren Eisleys "Darwin's Century".

de: 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.

No, they wrote the description of the law they did not write the law themselves. If there was no law then there would be nothing to describe. I am not referring to scientific laws, I am referring to the laws of physics or nature. They exist independently of what scientists say or do. Scientists discover them and then try to describe them. Not always correctly of course.

↑

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

de: Why would it be impossible? That's ridiculous.

Because without an orderly and lawful universe then it would unintelligible thus making science impossible.

de: 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.

Fraid so, see above.

↑

ed: 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.

de: 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.

It could be just a realistic dream. No, He is very relevant. Without Him you have no rational basis for believing that what you are observing is objectively real.

↑

ed: 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.

de: See above

No, you need a correlation between what you are observing and what is actually there for real science to occur. And without a creator God you have to make an irrational leap of faith to believe that what you are seeing is real.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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.

Since you have no objective moral standard you cannot objectively make such a judgement. All you can say is that the holocaust makes you feel bad and you prefer that it not happen again. But you cannot make a rationally objective judgement against it. Because Hitler was just acting on his feelings too, you have no objective way to determine whose feelings are better. They are just feelings.

de: 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.

We determine it by using our moral conscience and our relationship with God. Just like you determine whether to trust your spouse, you cannot prove that your spouse is trustworthy, so I cannot prove that God is good, but my relationship and experience confirms it to my conscience.

 

[anonymous person]

Every human being with a properly functioning conscience has the capacity to discern in at least some basic measure what is good and what is bad. Qualities such as being loving, just, and gracious for example are all qualities we have the capacity to recognize as being good whereas such qualities as being hateful, unjust, and ungracious we intuitively recognize as being bad.

God is essentially good. In other words, He is essentially loving, essentially just, essentially gracious. These things God is essentially by definition the same way a triangle by definition, has the quality of being three sided.

Why do we not accuse them which claim a triangle is a three-sided shape of a tautology! Why? Because when we know what a triangle is, we know it is by definition, a three-sided shape.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Except that's not what he said.

He never said intelligence and morality don't exist, in fact his argument depends on both of those things existing. He argued that your take on them are nonsensical, stop strawmanning his argument.

Not explicitly but the words he used plainly imply it. Here is his exact quote:

"dev: 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."

Here he says that they are just descriptions of certain patterns in reality. You can say the same thing about poetry.

dev: 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.

Here he calls intelligence as matter reacting to other matter. This no different than two rocks hitting each other. So plainly if thinking and intelligence is the equivalent to two rocks hitting each other or two atoms etc, then actual intelligence and thinking is not occurring.

dev: 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.

And if morality is just the crashing of atoms then you have no rational basis for condemning Stalin, just because his atoms crashing produced a different result, IOW there is no morals or moral judgement.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Every human being with a properly functioning conscience has the capacity to discern in at least some basic measure what is good and what is bad. Qualities such as being loving, just, and gracious for example are all qualities we have the capacity to recognize as being good whereas such qualities as being hateful, unjust, and ungracious we intuitively recognize as being bad.

God is essentially good. In other words, He is essentially loving, essentially just, essentially gracious. These things God is essentially by definition the same way a triangle by definition, has the quality of being three sided.

Why do we not accuse them which claim a triangle is a three-sided shape of a tautology! Why? Because when we know what a triangle is, we know it is by definition, a three-sided shape.

See my previous post on this. So is being loving, just, gracious, and so on good because it is part of God's nature, or is being loving, just, gracious, and so on part of God's nature because it is good? When you say that God is loving, just, gracious, and so on, you seem to imply that you are judging his character according to some other standard or criteria. Yet going by what you have said previously, whatever he is automatically becomes loving, just, gracious, and so on. In which case such a statement would be equivalent to saying that he is what he is and does what he does.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Not in scientific detail but Genesis 1:1 states the universe had a definite beginning from no prior material. Which is what the BB plainly implies.

The big bang does say the universe as we know it had a beginning, however there's nothing in it that says there was no prior material.

Saying the universe had a beginning is a single point of consistency with the genesis narrative, and virtually every other creation myth in history. Just because we can all agree the universe had a beginning doesn't mean your god had anything to do with it, much less him actually being a part of the big bang theory.

It is a law of logic without which science would be impossible. Not all scientists agree that QM is causeless. Some think there is a physical cause that we have not discovered yet. Others say it is observer caused. But even if is causeless, the origin of a universe is plainly a macroevent for which QM does not apply. QM only applies at the subatomic or micro level.

If you read up on the big bang theory, virtually all scientists in the field agree the entire contents of the universe were compressed into an infinitely dense, incredibly small point. Physics as we know it break down at that point.

This is not a matter of classical physics, this is most certainly a quantum mechanics issue.

But at t=0 there was no matter and energy so QM would not apply either. Most cosmologists agree that matter energy only came into existence at t>0. Also, quantum fluctuations require an interval of time to occur so at t=0 there was no time for a quantum fluctuation to occur.

This is a misunderstanding on your part, if the theory states the entire content of the universe was compressed into a single point, then it's necessary that matter and energy existed in that small point, otherwise there'd be no such thing as density, nor would there be anything to compress.

First, there is no evidence that those things exist. Second, nobody claims to have had a relationship with those things, millions claim to have had one with God.

There's also no evidence that your god exists.

As for your second statement, that's an appeal to popularity fallacy. Just because millions claim to have a relationship with god doesn't mean that god is real. Millions of Hindus believe they have a relationship with Lord Brahma, do you believe them Because there's just as much evidence for Lord Brahma as there is for your god too.

No, there is no evidence for those beings and your attributes of those beings are made in hindsight and retrofitting. Gods attributes were discovered long prior to our discoveries about the characteristics of the universe. So such retrofitting with the universe is impossible.

Sure there's evidence, the universe exists, and therefore that serves as evidence for Clyde the invisible universe creating dragon. At least, it serves as evidence for Clyde as much as it does for your god.

On a more serious note, if you want to play the historical card in the second section of your paragraph, Hinduism is a far older religion than Christianity, and Judaism. Hinduism is the oldest continually practiced religion in history.

So, if you want to play that card, then the Hindus have a better claim than you do as to god's "true nature" and attributes. People were worshipping Lord Brahma long before Yahweh was even invented.

You are assuming what we are trying to prove. Please explain how purpose can ultimately come from purposelessness. Not the evolutionary processes because they may be guided by a purposeful God. Give a non-biological example of such a process.

Purpose is only given by things with consciousness. When I was a newborn, the concepts of purpose and whatnot had never occurred to me, I was too young to comprehend those things. However, as I got older and found things I enjoyed and wanted to do, I gave my own life purpose.

Quite frankly, an externally imposed purpose is meaningless at best, and totalitarian at worst. If that's what you wish for, I don't envy your worldview.

No, the Christian scientists were inspired by their faith to believe in a rational and orderly universe because they believed in a rational and orderly Creator. Read the writings Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and many others. They knew that if the creator was either non existent or chaotic then so would the universe be chaotic. Just as the ancient greek gods were or the spirits the animists believed in. Read Loren Eisleys "Darwin's Century".

Yes, but the important thing about science and those discoveries is that what they discovered is true regardless of a god existing or not. They can credit god all they want, it doesn't matter.

No, they wrote the description of the law they did not write the law themselves. If there was no law then there would be nothing to describe. I am not referring to scientific laws, I am referring to the laws of physics or nature. They exist independently of what scientists say or do. Scientists discover them and then try to describe them. Not always correctly of course.

No, the law describes an aspect of the universe, not the other way around.

A scientist may discover some phenomenon or aspect of the universe as we know it, and write a law or theory to describe what they have discovered (It would likely start as a hypothesis and progress from there, but I'm simplifying the post for brevity).

Because without an orderly and lawful universe then it would unintelligible thus making science impossible.

Which has nothing to do with a god existing. What makes you think a naturally occurring universe would be an utterly chaotic mess? You're making an unjustified assumption. Why wouldn't a naturally occurring universe operate in ways consistent with nature?

Fraid so, see above.

No, not really. You haven't made anything remotely approaching a solid case for this assertion.

It could be just a realistic dream. No, He is very relevant. Without Him you have no rational basis for believing that what you are observing is objectively real.

Well, if you think it's plausible that this is all just a realistic dream, then what makes you think a god is required in the "real waking world"? If this is just a dream state, then perhaps god is just an aspect of your own dreams.

In reality you have no demonstrable objective basis when you appeal to god. You have a claim that you can't demonstrate, whether this is all a dream or not.

No, you need a correlation between what you are observing and what is actually there for real science to occur. And without a creator God you have to make an irrational leap of faith to believe that what you are seeing is real.

Your argument is a complete non sequitur. The universe is as it is, whether a god created it or not.

Your assertion that a god is required for me to believe what I'm seeing is real is utter nonsense. Why is that god required for me to justifiably believe I'm currently typing this message on my keyboard? All the available evidence pretty conclusively shows that I'm typing this message on my keyboard.

Whether there is or is not a god, I'm still typing this same message on the same keyboard. All the evidence I have available to me is exactly the same. So why would a lack of a god's existence give me credible reason to believe I'm not experiencing reality?

It makes no sense at all, your logic does not follow.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Since you have no objective moral standard you cannot objectively make such a judgement. All you can say is that the holocaust makes you feel bad and you prefer that it not happen again. But you cannot make a rationally objective judgement against it. Because Hitler was just acting on his feelings too, you have no objective way to determine whose feelings are better. They are just feelings.

Yes, I do have an objective moral standard. The consequences to actions are objective, consequential ethics builds upon those objective consequences and produces a moral code. It's also one grounded in reality, which I view as pretty important!

On the other hand, you don't have an objective standard (well, not counting when you use consequential ethics which you invariably do throughout your day to day life). God is not an objective standard, god is purported to be a conscious being, and therefore that makes his will and commandments subjective. They are god's subjective will, that's what he wants, those are his feelings.

You may view them as important, however important does not equate to objective. Objective is something that is true independently of a conscious mind.

We determine it by using our moral conscience and our relationship with God. Just like you determine whether to trust your spouse, you cannot prove that your spouse is trustworthy, so I cannot prove that God is good, but my relationship and experience confirms it to my conscience.

So you use your own moral conscience to judge god as a good being, is that correct? Presumably you have come to this conclusion by using some kind of criteria? For example, what is it about god that causes you to judge him as good?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Not explicitly but the words he used plainly imply it. Here is his exact quote:

Here he says that they are just descriptions of certain patterns in reality. You can say the same thing about poetry.

Here he calls intelligence as matter reacting to other matter. This no different than two rocks hitting each other. So plainly if thinking and intelligence is the equivalent to two rocks hitting each other or two atoms etc, then actual intelligence and thinking is not occurring.

If you had read what he typed rather than tried to impose your own meaning onto his words, you would see that he pretty clearly did not say what you are accusing him of saying.

And if morality is just the crashing of atoms then you have no rational basis for condemning Stalin, just because his atoms crashing produced a different result, IOW there is no morals or moral judgement.

/sigh

This is probably the dumbest apologetic going. I've already addressed it with my previous post so we can pick up the discussion on this topic there rather than argue the same point in two different posts at the same time.

 

[anonymous person]

...is being loving, just, gracious, and so on good because it is part of God's nature,...

This.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This.

There's more to that post you quoted, in which I address that.

 

[devolved]

I think some things are wrong and the wrongness of such things is not dependent upon the shifting sands of human preference, but are wrong objectively.

I think the grounds for these things being wrong are God's commands and not the shifting sands of human opinion.

But "I think" that you've used twice in the above segment, IS a form of human opinion. So, since morality is nowhere to be found except in human mind, or products of human mind, like books and laws, you have yourself a demarcation problem as to how you are able to tell as to what's a "mere human opinion" and what's not.

Likewise, opinion is not a form of preference. I may prefer that there would be zero violence in the world, but it's my opinion that certain paradigm of human ignorance and mindset wouldn't allow for that. My preferences and my opinions are two different things.

So yes, I am of the opinion that there is good evidence that some things are objectively wrong and that God's commands furnish an objective grounds for such moral obligations.

I think it would be all fine and dandy if such is your personal standards, but your claim and expectation is that such standards are the standards for every human on the plant.

In such, you are not going about it by validating these standards through some form of consequential demonstration. You are merely making an authoritarian statement and you leave it at that.

But that's not what morality is historically. Morality is always about human behavior based on factual demonstration of consequences (if it's reasonable form of morality). Not some in the future a 1000 years from now (perhaps) promise of consequences. These consequences are generally demonstrable now in some shape or form.

For example, unless your morality doesn't overlap with cultural morality of present day you are not able to demonstrate any adverse effects of unbelief.

The evidence must be interpreted like anything else and people draw different conclusions and I do not think anyone is completely objective (for clarification, here I am using the term to mean unbiased) when it comes to interpreting the evidence. I believe everyone has a bias either for or against the implications and this bias has more of an affect on our conclusion than we would like to admit sometimes. I do however believe that there is a right answer to the questions, "Do objective moral values and duties exist?" and "Are they grounded in God's commands?"

But that's begging the question. You first have to demonstrate that the source of these moral duties exists prior to circularly invoking such source as a necessity for morality.

I am of the opinion that the answer to those questions is either yes or no. If someone says no, then I would ask them to provide reasons for thinking not.

I think this is reasonable don't you?

Q: "Do objective moral values and duties exist?"

The way you describe "objective" simply wouldn't work in the scope of how our minds work when making any judgement of a sort. In order for you to answer that question with certainty, you'd have to be God... hence it's not a simple "yes or no" question. The third option would be, none of the above... until we get a proper method to answer that question.

Q: "Are they grounded in God's commands?"

Again, in this case if you are saying that the above is a simple yes or no question, then perhaps you can answer with a simple yes or no "Do you feel guilty when you are raping minors?" type of question? To answer with yes or no would mean that the question is properly formed and doesn't smuggle in any assumptions and demanding that we agree with these assumptions... which I don't.

Hence you have a problem of circularity of attempting to inject God as a necessity to validate the objective morality prior to first demonstrating that such concepts exist outside of your own preconceptions and opinions.