You don't know what you do not know

[Davian]

I agree morality is natural,

Good.

the question is: what is the nature of morality? Our discussion has led us to the conclusion

No, that is the conclusion that you started with.

that even if you take human and animal life away, morality must still exist. IOW, morality must be intrinsic to nature, regardless of the life that emerges from nature.

No, all that is apparent is that social animals evolve social behaviour. This is axiomatic.

This conclusion has deep implications

Or not, considering its faults.

in favor of the existence of an eternal moral God.

Is this the same "moral" god that, if it existed, would torture people forever for things beyond their control?

 

[durangodawood]

I agree morality is natural, the question is: what is the nature of morality? Our discussion has led us to the conclusion that even if you take human and animal life away, morality must still exist. IOW, morality must be intrinsic to nature, regardless of the life that emerges from nature. This conclusion has deep implications in favor of the existence of an eternal moral God.

No it hasnt. Morality is a consequence of the conditions of life for living beings.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Science is the only source of knowledge, remember.

Who is claiming that?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

No it hasnt. Morality is a consequence of the conditions of life for living beings.

So living beings on earth are responsible for the emergence of morality? So tomorrow I could decide it's morally good to balance reward and punishment in a way that promotes bad behavior because I'm a living being who is capable of changing what good morality means and no one can tell me I'm wrong. Because living beings on earth are responsible for defining morality.

This also implies that it's false that it's always good to balance reward and punishment in a way that promotes good behavior. It also implies that it's false that it's always bad to balance reward and punishment in a way that promotes bad behavior.

My point is that the above is obviously incorrect. What is correct is that it's true that it's always good to balance reward and punishment in a way that promotes good behavior. This is an unchanging truth about good morality, which means good morality itself is unchanging.

Living beings on earth cannot be responsible for the emergence of an unchanging truth because an unchanging truth does not emerge from anything, it simply is true regardless if there's humans around to comprehend it or not. Again, this points to an eternal morally good God, with no beginning and no end who is responsible for what we perceive to be morality.

 

[Davian]

So living beings on earth are responsible for the emergence of morality? So tomorrow I could decide it's morally good to balance reward and punishment in a way that promotes bad behavior because I'm a living being who is capable of changing what good morality means and no one can tell me I'm wrong. Because living beings on earth are responsible for defining morality.

"Beings", plural; as in, populations of beings. You only get to decide for you.

This also implies that it's false that it's always good to balance reward and punishment in a way that promotes good behavior. It also implies that it's false that it's always bad to balance reward and punishment in a way that promotes bad behavior.

You failed to define what you mean by "good" or "bad " in this context.

My point is that the above is obviously incorrect. What is correct is that it's true that it's always good to balance reward and punishment in a way that promotes good behavior. This is an unchanging truth about good morality, which means good morality itself is unchanging.

We observe morality change over the years, as evidence of the absence of an objective reference.

Living beings on earth cannot be responsible for the emergence of an unchanging truth because an unchanging truth does not emerge from anything, it simply is true regardless if there's humans around to comprehend it or not.

Word salad. Morality is the rules by which a population interacts; no populace, no morality.

Again, this points to an eternal morally good God, with no beginning and no end who is responsible for what we perceive to be morality.

Or, it doesn't. No gods required.

 

[durangodawood]

So living beings on earth are responsible for the emergence of morality? So tomorrow I could decide it's morally good to balance reward and punishment in a way that promotes bad behavior because I'm a living being who is capable of changing what good morality means and no one can tell me I'm wrong. Because living beings on earth are responsible for defining morality....

Oh brother...
You cant just arbitrarily choose morals. Morals have to survive the test of time to be valid. Thats what morals are: rules for behavior that have proven fruitful for human society over time. No one has to decree them from "on high" for this to work.

(Nor do morals have to be unchanging. in fact they DO change, some of them anyway)

 

[Chriliman]

Oh brother...
You cant just arbitrarily choose morals. Morals have to survive the test of time to be valid. Thats what morals are: rules for behavior that have proven fruitful for human society over time. No one has to decree them from "on high" for this to work.

(Nor do morals have to be unchanging. in fact they DO change, some of them anyway)

If you ignore well evidenced reality then I'd agree that we can't change moral values that are intrinsic to us, but the reality is that Islamic extremists do think it is good to promote reward and punishment in a way that promotes bad behavior like suicide bombing.

Your current view that living beings are the cause of good moral values implies that you yourself have no authority to tell these extremists that their "good moral values" are actually wrong. Their values developed just like yours did so neither are better than the other, UNLESS moral values did not actually develope from living creatures on earth.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I feel it would be a good idea to try to find common ground between atheists, agnostics and theists. We are not made to know and when we develop an opinion about the divinity of Jesus Christ, we cannot prove we have the truth. It was 2000 years ago, and we cannot verify what the bible says about what Jesus did when he walked the Earth. However, we do have faith and whether you are convinced it didn't happen, or convinced it did happen or you reserve judgment, this is a matter of one's faith.

Even if evolution did happen, this could be how God made all of life. You still can't rule him out. So I definitely hope for heaven and fear for hell, but trust God on this issue.

So what are your thoughts on this post?

Sincerely,

Sam

I think your continued emphasis on "not being able to rule god out" and your use of exactly that as some kind of "defense" or "argument" to believe in god, speaks volumes.

Pointing out that "one can't rule X out" as an argument in support of X, is pretty much shifting the burden of proof.

When you make the claim "Y exists", then you need to support that claim. You have a burden of proof.
To then say to disbelievers of Y that "they can't rule Y out"... that's just attempting to shift the burden of proof.

In reality, the disbelievers don't have to do anything. You made a claim about Y, you have the burden of proof. Not believing your claim after you fail to meet your burden of proof is simply rational.

In the end if "not being able to rule it out" is evidence of the thing that can't be ruled out...........
Then it works for everything, not just YOUR god.

Then that works for EVERY religion and any and all other fantastical unfalsifiable claims.
Bigfoot, loch ness, the krakken, alien abductions, atlantis, reptilians, leprechauns and hidden pots of gold, unicorns, centaurs, the river styx, etc etc etc etc.

Not a very usefull type of "evidence", it seems..........

 

[Chriliman]

"Beings", plural; as in, populations of beings. You only get to decide for you.

According to your view, this is true. So who's moral values should we all follow? Which individual being as the best moral values that we should all use as an objective reference for ourselves?

You failed to define what you mean by "good" or "bad " in this context.

Good behavior is helping others in need. Bad behavior is hurting others in need.

We observe morality change over the years, as evidence of the absence of an objective reference.

If morality is absolutely objective (unchanging) then it has always existed and will continue to exist and all humans should use it as a reference for their own moral actions.

Word salad. Morality is the rules by which a population interacts; no populace, no morality.

Demonstrably false. If we take all human populace off the planet, animals will still have a sense of morality. If we exterminate all life from the universe, we can't prove that morality ceases to exist.

Or, it doesn't. No gods required.

It's not a question of whether God is required or not, its a question of whether God is the source of all good moral actions because I have shown that neither animals or humans could have possibly developed an unchanging sense of morality. Yet we clearly observe an unchanging sense of what good morality should be, which is that it's good to help those in need and it's bad to hurt those in need. Your view has no explanation for this objective truth.

 

[durangodawood]

If you ignore well evidenced reality then I'd agree that we can't change moral values that are intrinsic to us, but the reality is that Islamic extremists do think it is good to promote reward and punishment in a way that promotes bad behavior like suicide bombing.

Your current view that living beings are the cause of good moral values implies that you yourself have no authority to tell these extremists that their "good moral values" are actually wrong. Their values developed just like yours did so neither are better than the other, UNLESS moral values did not actually develope from living creatures on earth.

Youre looking for something 'ultimate' to backstop your moral statements.
But in the reality of human history, it doesnt appear to work that way.
We dont need authority to tell others they are wrong.
We just need conviction.
And nothing develops conviction like success, that our morals actually work for us, to enable a society we like.

 

[Chriliman]

Youre looking for something 'ultimate' to backstop your moral statements.
But in the reality of human history, it doesnt appear to work that way.
We dont need authority to tell others they are wrong.
We just need conviction.
And nothing develops conviction like success, that our morals actually work for us, to enable a society we like.

Right, I'm looking for something with higher authority than myself in which to reference in order to justify my moral convictions. My understanding of human morality is that it can't be relied on to justify itself because humans have a wide range of different moral views, so in my view there must be a higher authority than human authority in which to reference to justify my moral convictions.

 

[durangodawood]

Right, I'm looking for something with higher authority than myself in which to reference in order to justify my moral convictions. My understanding of human morality is that it can't be relied on to justify itself because humans have a wide range of different moral views, so in my view there must be a higher authority than human authority in which to reference to justify my moral convictions.

Maybe for your own sense of certainty.
But in the world of human affairs, it doesnt seem necessary.

Also, youd have to explain who/what/where is the higher authority that your enemy uses to justify their different moral views and convictions. You are basically granting that ALL the various gods of the various peoples are real. Because they have conviction too, and youve told us where conviction comes from.

 

[Chriliman]

Maybe for your own sense of certainty.
But in the world of human affairs, it doesnt seem necessary.

Also, youd have to explain who/what/where is the higher authority that your enemy uses to justify their different moral views and convictions. You are basically granting that ALL the various gods of the various peoples are real. Because they have conviction too, and youve told us where conviction comes from.

Yes, I'm suggesting that there are many "gods" that have real influence on people, but I'm also suggesting that there is only one true God, that when a human acknowledges this one true God, all other "gods" are exposed as false gods. This one true God continues to cut through the deception and expose Himself as the one true God, but the deception is thick and many people don't like listening to authority in this day and age. They want what they want, when they want it.

 

[Davian]

According to your view, this is true. So who's moral values should we all follow? Which individual being as the best moral values that we should all use as an objective reference for ourselves?

There are no objective references that I am aware of.

Good behavior is helping others in need. Bad behavior is hurting others in need.

Is it good to cut people with knives? or to give them poison?

If morality is absolutely objective (unchanging) then it has always existed and will continue to exist and all humans should use it as a reference for their own moral actions.

Morality is not absolutely objective, in any manner that you have provided.

Demonstrably false. If we take all human populace off the planet, animals will still have a sense of morality. If we exterminate all life from the universe, we can't prove that morality ceases to exist.

Hilarious. "We diverted the river, taking all the water away from the waterfalls, but we can't prove that the waterfalls have ceased to exist".

It's not a question of whether God is required or not, its a question of whether God is the source of all good moral actions because I have shown that neither animals or humans could have possibly developed an unchanging sense of morality.

There is a parasite that specializes in eating the gonads of snails, and infesting the brains of fish. Would you consider this organism "good" for the ecosystem?

Yet we clearly observe an unchanging sense of what good morality should be, which is that it's good to help those in need and it's bad to hurt those in need.

Is it good to cut people with knives? or to give them poison?

Your view has no explanation for this objective truth.

What objective truth?

 

[Davian]

Right, I'm looking for something with higher authority than myself in which to reference in order to justify my moral convictions. My understanding of human morality is that it can't be relied on to justify itself because humans have a wide range of different moral views, so in my view there must be a higher authority than human authority in which to reference to justify my moral convictions.

I don't see how inventing a "god" adds any explanatory power to human behaviour.

 

[Chriliman]

There are no objective references that I am aware of.

If you're unaware of something, do you consider it nonexistent? Or is it more likely that it's existence has yet to be made known to you?

Is it good to cut people with knives? or to give them poison??

Is it good to try and deceive someone into saying something that you can then make a point about? Had you not tried to deceive me here, I wouldn't have this problem lacking trust in your moral judgment, but now I don't trust your moral judgment because you're trying to deceive me in order to make a point. I consider that intellectually dishonest for obvious reasons.

Its good to cut someone in an attempt to help them live. It's also good to poison someone in an attempt to save their life. It's all about the honest intent. It's bad to try and trick someone into saying something so you can make a point about what they said. Dishonest motive which reveals a lot about you. Maybe you should try to find an objective morality to reference for yourself to help you have more honest motives and stop relying on your own "morality" which includes being dishonest.

 

[Davian]

If you're unaware of something, do you consider it nonexistent?

Your question is faulty. One does not consider things that one is not aware of.

Or is it more likely that it's existence has yet to be made known to you?

and your third option, is it non-existent? I would not want you to continue with your fallacious reasoning there, with a false dichotomy.

Is it good to try and deceive someone into saying something that you can then make a point about? Had you not tried to deceive me here,

Please point out where an attempt to deceive was made, or retract.

I wouldn't have this problem lacking trust in your moral judgment, but now I don't trust your moral judgment because you're trying to deceive me in order to make a point. I consider that intellectually dishonest for obvious reasons.

Or, we could pretend that we are in a philosophy forum, and, speaking to intellectual honesty, pretend that you are not here simply for the purposes of proselytizing.

Its good to cut someone in an attempt to help them live. It's also good to poison someone in an attempt to save their life.

Actually, the examples I had in mind involved killing the subject.

It's all about the honest intent.

Agreed.

It's bad to try and trick someone into saying something so you can make a point about what they said.

How is that bad, if the honest intent was to demonstrate the fallacious nature of your reasoning? What you have mistaken as deception, in the pejorative, is actually a thought experiment intended to help you.

Again, pretend that we are in a philosophy forum.

Dishonest motive which reveals a lot about you.

Your attempts at mind reading fail again.

Mind-Reading Hat

• Davian
• Jul 30, 2015

Have you tried turning it off and on?

Maybe you should try to find an objective morality to reference for yourself to help you have more honest motives and stop relying on your own "morality" which includes being dishonest.

And thus you demonstrate how "objective morals" fail by showing us right here how they don't work for you.

 

[Chriliman]

Your question is faulty. One does not consider things that one is not aware of.

and your third option, is it non-existent? I would not want you to continue with your fallacious reasoning there, with a false dichotomy.

Please point out where an attempt to deceive was made, or retract.

Or, we could pretend that we are in a philosophy forum, and, speaking to intellectual honesty, pretend that you are not here simply for the purposes of proselytizing.

Actually, the examples I had in mind involved killing the subject.

Agreed.

How is that bad, if the honest intent was to demonstrate the fallacious nature of your reasoning? What you have mistaken as deception, in the pejorative, is actually a thought experiment intended to help you.

Again, pretend that we are in a philosophy forum.

Your attempts at mind reading fail again.

Mind-Reading Hat

• Davian
• Jul 30, 2015

Have you tried turning it off and on?
And thus you demonstrate how "objective morals" fail by showing us right here how they don't work for you.

I apologize if your intent was not to get me to say that it's always bad to cut someone and it's always bad to poison someone, so you could then point out that surgeons cut people all the time and that cancer patients get injected with poison all the time.

I never like to assume I know people's motives, but in this case I did and if I was wrong, I am sorry.

 

[Davian]

I apologize if your intent was not to get me to say that it's always bad to cut someone and it's always bad to poison someone, so you could then point out that surgeons cut people all the time and that cancer patients get injected with poison all the time.

I never like to assume I know people's motives, but in this case I did and if I was wrong, I am sorry.

Apology accepted.

If you ever decide to take a break from proselytizing, we can pick this up from where we left off.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I am fallible so theres a porssible world, perfectly congruent with this one in terms of evidence, where I am wrong in my faith based beliefs.