Does God exist?

[Received]

This seems to me, to be nothing more then semantics and a bunch of labeling.

Seems, madam, nay 'tis not.

Sic me, quatona!

 

[Received]

You're leaving out the important step here. What triggers them feeling wrong about it?

I'll give you a hint: it has something to do with knowledge.

Now I'm really trapped, because I want to define knowledge as most philosophers define it, as true, justified, belief, but doing so would be me fudging things semantically.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume knowledge is this. In this case, knowledge isn't needed at all. All that's needed is a vague impulse that might not even have *any* cognitive content behind it (thoughts, beliefs). You believe in evolution, I assume? Reciprocity is something that animals show to one another, and they're nowhere near the consciousness complexity and semiotics-using that humans are. What does that tell you?

 

[MoneyGuy]

I'd pay to sit in an audience to listen to you guys argue this stuff.

 

[Received]

DogmaHunter accepts payment in the form of bad weed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Dang, what kind of swag are you smoking?

Well, if you must know, it's good ol' purple haze (all in my brain... jimi rocks)

(Lol, for the first time I used this question in a serious way.)

Whoa. Psychopaths have no authority. That's what makes them psychopaths. Their own "authority" is the immediacy of their blunted senses and reward pathways.

No. Psychopathy is a personality disorder, charecterised by little to no empathy, remorse, etc.

Here's an illustration...This is not a thought exercise btw.
If you have a class full of children and ask them if it is okay to drink in class (assuming they normally aren't allowed to do so) if the teacher gives permission, then most children will say "yes". It's fine if the teacher says so.

Now ask them if it's okay to punch a fellow class member in the face if the teacher says so. Children will immediatly recognise that that is not okay - even if the teachers says so. Except those with tendencies of psychopathy. They will say it's fine, since the teacher says so.

The teacher here is the authority. Normal people don't rely on a perceived authority to tell them what's right and wrong. Psychopaths do that. Because they are unable to figure it out by themselves. Because they lack the traits to do so (like empathy etc).

So "divine command theory" IS the morality of psychopaths: X is okay because god says so.

An authority is just something that has power over you.

A moral authority is an authority that dictates what is right and wrong. If you rely on that for your moral compass, then you have no moral compass. Then you just have obedience. A moral compass is reasoned, based on the knowledge that you have.

Under divine command theory, mass murdering babies is not only a moral act, but a moral duty, if the authority commands you to.
It would in fact be immoral to not mass murder babies.

Truth definitely has power over you, or else you would be able to determine what should be followed over truth.

No idea what that means.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Now I'm really trapped, because I want to define knowledge as most philosophers define it, as true, justified, belief, but doing so would be me fudging things semantically.

No. All you need to say is that what triggers the remorse or feelings of wrongness is the realisation of the consequences of his actions.

And to realise the consequences of your actions, you need.... what?
Knowledge, perhaps?

But for the sake of argument, let's assume knowledge is this. In this case, knowledge isn't needed at all. All that's needed is a vague impulse that might not even have *any* cognitive content behind it (thoughts, beliefs).

You're already a step to far. What triggers the impulse? Realisation that you hurt the dude.

You believe in evolution, I assume? Reciprocity is something that animals show to one another, and they're nowhere near the consciousness complexity and semiotics-using that humans are. What does that tell you?

That animals have a primitive sense of morality as well.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'd pay to sit in an audience to listen to you guys argue this stuff.

DogmaHunter accepts payment in the form of bad weed.

Wait... I just had a GREAT idea!!

 

[Received]

Well, if you must know, it's good ol' purple haze (all in my brain... jimi rocks)

Ever hear of blue dream? (I guess we should stop talking on this subject.)

No. Psychopathy is a personality disorder, charecterised by little to no empathy, remorse, etc.

Right. I've worked with one, actually my first (and hopefully last) client.

Here's an illustration...This is not a thought exercise btw.
If you have a class full of children and ask them if it is okay to drink in class (assuming they normally aren't allowed to do so) if the teacher gives permission, then most children will say "yes". It's fine if the teacher says so.

Now ask them if it's okay to punch a fellow class member in the face if the teacher says so. Children will immediatly recognise that that is not okay - even if the teachers says so. Except those with tendencies of psychopathy. They will say it's fine, since the teacher says so.

I wouldn't say it's the teacher saying so that dictates their morality, but that makes it worth risking doing things they would otherwise do without the threat of physical force (punishment) had the teacher not said it was okay to hit. The teacher isn't the authority and never really was. The fear of physical force was their authority. Another part about psychopaths is their risk taking nature; they'll do anything they think they can get away with without endangering their lives.

The teacher her is the authority. Normal people don't rely on a perceived authority to tell them what's right and wrong. Psychopaths do that. Because they are unable to figure it out by themselves. Because they like the traits to do so (like empathy etc).

So "divine command theory" IS the morality of psychopaths: X is okay because god says so.

I disagree with your premises. The divine command theory is usually the morality of people who are quite the opposite of the emotionally cool and calculating psyches of the psychopath: fearful, overvigilant people who band together as a tribe (tribalism is also antithetical to psychopathy, which is the most individualistic thing out there, to the point that Ayn Rand respected one) as a result of their fearfulness and overvigilance.

A moral authority is an authority that dictates what is right and wrong. If you rely on that for your moral compass, then you have no moral compass. Then you just have obedience. A moral compass is reasoned, based on the knowledge that you have.

There's moral authority in the sense that the leader type enforces the legislation of an already present morality system, and there's the moral authority of a person who just enforces whatever he wants. Two different things. You're conflating the latter with morality as an authority in general.

 

[Received]

Wait... I just had a GREAT idea!!

Then you lost it when the Hendrix cd changed tracks.

 

[Received]

No. All you need to say is that what triggers the remorse or feelings of wrongness is the realisation of the consequences of his actions.

And to realise the consequences of your actions, you need.... what?
Knowledge, perhaps?

Not knowledge, just an idea that might not even be a belief. But anyways, I never said (to my knowledge) that morality isn't about some type of idea or possible belief; I said that this is also necessarily attached to some type of non-rational, non-cognitive, unconscious or preconscious sense of universality that underlies, by definition, our cognition.

You're already a step to far. What triggers the impulse? Realisation that you hurt the dude.

Right, and realization isn't knowledge. It's arguably not even a belief, but a perception or interpretation.

That animals have a primitive sense of morality as well.

Not like our morality, involving ideas mediated by consciousness and the use of signs (semiotics).

 

[DogmaHunter]

I wouldn't say it's the teacher saying so that dictates their morality, but that makes it worth risking doing things they would otherwise do without the threat of physical force (punishment) had the teacher not said it was okay to hit. The teacher isn't the authority and never really was. The fear of physical force was their authority. Another part about psychopaths is their risk taking nature; they'll do anything they think they can get away with without endangering their lives.

Do you realise that this is completely at odds with the psychology behind this condition?

Because they have no empathy or remorse, they rely on other people to tell them what is socially acceptable and what isn't. They will listen to those who they consider to be authorities.

This is perfectly analogous with divine command theory. Might makes right as well.

I disagree with your premises. The divine command theory is usually the morality of people who are quite the opposite of the emotionally cool and calculating psyches of the psychopath: fearful, overvigilant people who band together as a tribe (tribalism is also antithetical to psychopathy, which is the most individualistic thing out there, to the point that Ayn Rand respected one) as a result of their fearfulness and overvigilance.

I never said that people who subscribed to divine command theory are psychopaths. I said that such a "morality" is what psychopaths rely on to differentiate right from wrong.

Divine command theory is LITERALLY "x is moral/immoral because the authority says so".

There's moral authority in the sense that the leader type enforces the legislation of an already present morality system, and there's the moral authority of a person who just enforces whatever he wants. Two different things. You're conflating the latter with morality as an authority in general.

I'm talking about divine command theory. The idea that what is right and wrong is dictated by a certain god from a certain ancient book.

It's not a moral compass. It's obedience to a perceived authority.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not like our morality, involving ideas mediated by consciousness and the use of signs (semiotics).

The only difference is our more advanced intelligence, which allows us to think more steps ahead, model potential outcomes in our heads, think more abstractly about organizational things and use knowledge to expand our minds and draw more accurate conclusions.

We see more options, more outcomes and more compromises.
This is why we "agree to disagree" with our neighbour, while two wolves will rather fight one another into submission or worse.

Not to mention that (as a result again from the above) we live in far more complex societies, which necessitates more complex rules of conduct.

But the underlying foundational principles are very similar in all social species.

 

[Received]

Do you realise that this is completely at odds with the psychology behind this condition?

Because they have no empathy or remorse, they rely on other people to tell them what is socially acceptable and what isn't. They will listen to those who they consider to be authorities.

This is perfectly analogous with divine command theory. Might makes right as well.

That's not how they work. Precisely because they have no empathy or remorse (or sense of compassion or care for others) they end up not caring about rules. Remember, psychopathy is the next step further than antisocial disorder, which is all about disregarding rules, the difference here being that few (not many) psychopaths end up getting in trouble with the law (and actually flourish quite well in corporations, hence Robert Hare's book "Snakes in Suits"). Psychopaths disregard rules and authority precisely because they're so individualistic and dedicated to their own impulses.

I never said that people who subscribed to divine command theory are psychopaths. I said that such a "morality" is what psychopaths rely on to differentiate right from wrong.

Divine command theory is LITERALLY "x is moral/immoral because the authority says so".

Right, and this premise depends on your earlier premise about how psychopaths operate, under discussion.

 

[Received]

The only difference is our more advanced intelligence, which allows us to think more steps ahead, model potential outcomes in our heads, think more abstractly about organizational things and use knowledge to expand our minds and draw more accurate conclusions.

We see more options, more outcomes and more compromises.
This is why we "agree to disagree" with our neighbour, while two wolves will rather fight one another into submission or worse.

Not to mention that (as a result again from the above) we live in far more complex societies, which necessitates more complex rules of conduct.

But the underlying foundational principles are very similar in all social species.

We also possess semiotics. This is another discussion entirely, but I agree with what you've said.

 

[HitchSlap]

What is your position regarding the following:

(V) God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.

Philosophers are puzzled by states of intentionality. Intentionality is the property of being about something or of something. It signifies the object-directedness of our thoughts. For example, I can think about my summer vacation, or I can think of my wife. No physical object has intentionality in this sense. A chair or a stone or a glob of tissue like the brain is not about or of something else. Only mental states or states of consciousness are about other things. In The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions (2011), the materialist Alex Rosenberg recognizes this fact, and concludes that for atheists, there really are no intentional states. Rosenberg boldly claims that we never really think about anything. But this seems incredible. Obviously, I am thinking about Rosenberg’s argument – and so are you! This seems to me to be a reductio ad absurdum of his atheism. By contrast, for theists, because God is a mind, it’s hardly surprising that there should be other, finite minds, with intentional states. Thus intentional states fit comfortably into a theistic worldview.

So we may argue:

1. If God did not exist, intentional states of consciousness would not exist.

2. But intentional states of consciousness do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Does God Exist? | Issue 99 | Philosophy Now





Why?





Why do you think the evidence must be "conclusive"?

What is your position regarding the following:

God is love. Love is blind. Ray Charles is blind. Therefore, Ray Charles is god.

 

[Received]

And God is dead.

 

[quatona]

You wouldn't say that morality, or doing right stuff in general, is its own authority?

No, I wouldn´t say that, at least not when trying to be consistent in the use of the word "authority" as I used it.
But if (being the fan of equivocations that you happen to be) you mean by "morality, or doing the right thing is an authority": If your morality (or what you do) is intelligible, if it is making sense, if it is convincing, if it is empathic, if it is touching, if it is driven by a positive intention towards your fellow beings - then you don´t need to appeal to an allegedly Higher or More Powerful Being (an alleged "authority", in the way is used the word) dictating your morality in order to justify these moral views and actions (because they are immediately convincing all by themselves)...then, yes: that was indeed my very point.

 

[Received]

I'd say that morality expresses its power through being "convincing" as you say.

We both win.

Shut up and just accept it. Please.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What is your position regarding the following:

God is love. Love is blind. Ray Charles is blind. Therefore, Ray Charles is god.

Reminds me of the argument Lawrence Krauss presented at his talk with William Lame Craig in Australia:

1. All mammals exhibit homosexual behaviour

2. William Lane Craig is a mammal

3. ...

 

[Received]

Yeah, but only humans are busy killing each other over their homosexual behaviors. My dog, for example, is too busy getting it on with anyone or anything to really have time for that.