Is morality objective, even without God?

[Ana the Ist]

Being/Not Being is a perfect description. Some mystics use the term "God/Not God". Both terms mean the same thing and are interchanged by some mystics.

I hope you don't mind me contending with 1 concept of god at a time.

 

[QvQ]

Again, it's a thought experiment. If you don't want to engage with it honestly, then just don't. Repeated attempts to mold it into a different thought experiment is dishonest I think.

The thought experiment is a person in isolation who is provided with food water and comfortable temperatures but does not have social interaction with other life forms. Could that person commit an immoral act?

That is how I understood your conditions
Yet you state a person who is lost in the wilderness should search for water (which is provided in the thought experiment)
Or the person is not confined which means that person could wander out and about, chat up various people and return to the isolation at will.
You have repeatedly changed the terms or conditions to evade my explanation of how a person could be immoral entirely, all by himself.

I will point to the Book Of Job
Although he could interact with society, Job's story is basically man alone in providence.
That is also the basis of the story "To Build a Fire."
Job most certainly could commit an immoral act or a moral act.
Job did not need any person, place or thing to commit an immoral act.
He could simply curse God, which is despair.

The point of those two stories is that man is alone in whatever natural circumstance provided.
As I said, no matter where you are, there you are and the only person making you is you
In "To Build a Fire" the man was arrogant.
In the Book of Job, Job was innocent

 

[Fervent]

God has judged us evil....hasn't he?

Yes...and His sentence is to hand us over to our own corruptions.

But there is freedom from that judgment, an opportunity to be restored rather than debased.

 

[Bradskii]

The thought experiment is a person in isolation who is provided with food water and comfortable temperatures but does not have social interaction with other life forms. Could that person commit an immoral act?

An immoral act is one that causes harm to another. If he's on his own, that's simply not possible.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

An immoral act is one that causes harm to another. If he's on his own, that's simply not possible.

No human being is on his or her own. There is always another person: the Holy Spirit of God.

 

[QvQ]

An immoral act is one that causes harm to another. If he's on his own, that's simply not possible.

To wilfully cause harm to oneself is immoral
Suicide is an immoral act

 

[Ana the Ist]

The thought experiment is a person in isolation who is provided with food water

When you say provided, it sounds as if he's not in isolation. We can simply say sources of food and water are present.

and comfortable temperatures but does not have social interaction with other life forms. Could that person commit an immoral act?

Or moral....but yes.

That is how I understood your conditions

Fair enough. I hope I've explained why they seemed different to me.

Yet you state a person who is lost in the wilderness should search for water (which is provided in the thought experiment)

Did I? I might have suggested that as general advice but I don't recall it being in the thought experiment.

Or the person is not confined which means that person could wander out and about, chat up various people and return to the isolation at will.

There are no other people. I don't know how to get more specific than "alone on a planet" with no means to leave or communicate with anyone.

You have repeatedly changed the terms or conditions

When?

I will point to the Book Of Job
Although he could interact with society, Job's story is basically man alone in providence.

He's not alone.

Job most certainly could commit an immoral act or a moral act.

He could simply curse God, which is despair.

Right...I think I mentioned offending god. Those rules are few though...keeping the sabbath, keeping his name holy, etc.

Is that it?

The point of those two stories is that man is alone in whatever natural circumstance provided.

Job isn't alone.

As I said, no matter where you are, there you are and the only person making you is you
In "To Build a Fire" the man was arrogant.
In the Book of Job, Job was innocent

And god, once again, is hanging out with the devil. Odd stuff.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes...and His sentence is to hand us over to our own corruptions.

Our own corruption...in his image.

But there is freedom from that judgment, an opportunity to be restored rather than debased.

Seems we've already been judged. Hard to imagine why I would worship one who judges me so harshly.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No human being is on his or her own. There is always another person: the Holy Spirit of God.

I'd suggest that's probably why people created him.

 

[David Lamb]

I'd suggest that's probably why people created him.

People created the Holy Spirit? How ever did they manage to do that?

 

[o_mlly]

Sure...but there are goalposts in your claims.

Claim 1# God is outside time and space.

Claim 2# God is everywhere (All possible places).

If you're going to claim that everywhere = outside time and space....I'd ask what sort of location has time and space and why god isn't there or why we wouldn't include it in "everywhere".

As God is outside time and space, we cannot locate Him in either time or space. He's beyond those "goalposts".
As God is everywhere in time and space, He is nowhere in time or space. He's unbounded in those dimensions.

I'll just point out the obvious, it's not a venn diagram....there's no second set.

Also, you forgot to tell me where to place God.

Erasing the circumference of the set initially labelled as eternity (aka, goalposts), graphically displays that all time and space is bounded by an unbounded superset, ie., eternity.

Place God in eternity.

BOP system?

The federal Bureau of Prisons.

The government enforces laws, not social contracts.

Social Contract as in the theory of a political system in which individuals consent to surrender some freedoms in exchange for protection or social order.

 

[o_mlly]

I honestly skipped this because I first read it as proving my point

Is your point that there is no causal being that exists outside time or space?

How about I simplify it...

In the context of time, clearly you think matter, space aka the universe exists.

In the context of "outside of time" do these things still exist in any sense? If they do...is god within them as you so claim?

I think that all three -- matter, space and time -- are interdependent, ie., none can exist w/o the other two. So, outside of time, the others -- matter and space -- do not exist.

Our biological senses can only perceive matter. So, we cannot taste, feel, smell, see or hear God physically. However, based on our experience, our rational sense tells us that all effects have causes. Therefore God, or a First Cause, rationally must exist. One may deny that that First Cause is the personal God of monotheism but, as La Place hinted, that First Cause must be "vastly intelligent".

The exchange is now drifting pretty far from the OP's question.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Our own corruption...in his image.

Not quite.

Seems we've already been judged. Hard to imagine why I would worship one who judges me so harshly.

For some reason, I don't have a problem with being judged by an eternal, perfect, holy God.

It often surprises me that other people do have a problem with it.

 

[Fervent]

Our own corruption...in his image.

Nope, we bave marred the image.

Seems we've already been judged. Hard to imagine why I would worship one who judges me so harshly.

As I suspected, atheism is a moral issue. You want to be your own god.

 

[QvQ]

As I suspected, atheism is a moral issue. You want to be your own god.

And therefore
Me God!
Abortion is moral
Theft is moral
Suicide is moral
Because it suits "me god" purpose at the time
Whatever the "me god" wants to do at any given time is moral and self justified.

 

[Bradskii]

To wilfully cause harm to oneself is immoral
Suicide is an immoral act

Well, that's where we differ.

 

[Mark Quayle]

This is a logical argument claiming God is not bound by logic.

Correct. Logic, as we think of it and use it and are bound by it, is God's "invention". He does not operate bound by a larger reality. But if it is any comfort to the mind, 'logic' is one of his attributes —like "love" and "existence" and so many other things, God is 'made of' logic. Logic is what it is, because God is logical.

Of course, that whole statement is only a human way to look at it or to try to describe what we see. It is not very good for defining God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't see why anyone would be unable to draw a moral conclusion from a factual premise. What I do think is that no one can prove their moral conclusion factually correct by any means.

Fair enough, though that would then imply that morality is subjective, which is a subjective premise. But if God exists, morality is objective, since it is defined by God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Fall for the notion? It's a thought experiment to explain the problems of quantum mechanics. The notion that both outcomes are true until the box is opened is essentially a metaphor for the problems of describing physics at the quantum level.

It's not a thing to fall for....the problem is a lack of logical language to describe reality at a very small degree of observation.

Ok. So, do the physicists find it necessary to consider both outcomes true, in order to continue with their descriptions of physics? Part of my problem with this is that reading what is written about this, (which, granted, is a condensed version, and not necessarily accurate, but rather, written to garner attention in this noisy environment of public knowledge), what I begin to see is a blurring of the line between them treating both as true for the purpose of continuing their thinking, but remaining cognizant that they only don't know, and them thinking that both are true.

Same sort of thinking shows up in the language of probability, with their use of "chance", "random" and "spontaneous"; they should know better than to believe that anything can happen uncaused to happen, but they certainly do talk like they believe it!

 

[Bradskii]

Fair enough, though that would then imply that morality is subjective, which is a subjective premise. But if God exists, morality is objective, since it is defined by God.

But you have to agree with His definition. Or not, as the case may be.