Did God really write a book?

[Spirit of Light]

One of the things that I often think about when contemplating the worlds major religions is the idea that the message god wants to deliver to the entire world is often given to a single person, alone (Moses, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, etc.). It is up to that single person to deliver gods message to the world. We aren't even arguing about the content of the books, many of us are trying to understand if a god exists at all. Once that is settled, then perhaps we will be in a better position to examine which book is actually the book god wants us to follow. It should be easy, if only one of the religious text is actually from god.

I'm convinced that god didn't tell these people to write anything. I believe human authors of all religious books wrote it themselves and no gods had anything to do with it. This is true for every religious text. If you believe your religion has a doctrine or book that was actually written by or "breathed" by a God, I have a question for you:

Is there a single verse in that book that proves it had to be written by a God, because it could only have come from a God? If so, the evidence will force me to at least accept that a God does exist.

I'll give you an example of the kind of thing that the entire world would probably find convincing: A verse in the bible that includes anything factual about the natural world, that could not be known by a human at that time, and is too detailed to be a guess. It could have only come from an actual creator of the entire universe.

Could be something like "I have created vast pools of crude oil under the ground. One day, you humans will figure out how to extract it and refine that oil into fuel in order to operate machines you will build to travel. Those machines will allow you to move from one country to the next, across oceans, and even to travel through the air at hundreds of miles per hour." Or maybe it's something less obvious, but still completely convincing?

Does this exist in any text that is supposedly gods word?

If everything in spiritual teaching was 100% clear, how would a spiritual person advance in wisdom? What would there be to realize?
The teachings in spiritual practice is there for the follower to guide them through life so that they can find the truth.

If God was proven 100% how could we go to heaven and believe we could stay there without falling because we would do wrong according to the morality we carried would be lesser than what is required in heaven?

Spiritual practice is to undo our past wrongdoings so that we become pure in our heart.

A filthy heart can not realize the truth.

 

[Rise]

Are you asking me if I feel it is always wrong to torture a child regardless of what I feel about it? That's what your question means in my view since "wrongness" is just a feeling similar to hatred. It is like asking "Can you say you feel hatred towards X regardless of what you feel about X?" Your question doesn't make sense.

I can still tell them it is "wrong" the same way I can tell them it is "sad". The words simply reflect my feelings about it, no matter how strong.

The death of my relative is always sad (to me) and this is independent of what other people think about it. Similarly, child torture is always wrong (to me) and this is independent of what people think about it.

If I want to claim that I have the feeling of wrongness when I think about child torture regardless of what other people feel or think, then I don't have to believe in objective morality, by definition.

You don't appear to have understood what I said.

I will ask another question that will bring clarity:

You think it is wrong to torture children, yes?
Why?
Because you feel it is wrong, yes?

So the question is then: What if someone else doesn't feel it's wrong to torture children?
Can you say what they want to do is objectively wrong and not just that you subjectively feel it's wrong?

Or, more to the point: How can you tell that person they aren’t allowed to do what they feel is ok? If all you have is your own feelings to go off of then who is to say your feeling is right and theirs is wrong?

You may not understand what the definition of "objective" is, so let me clarify that too:
Objective means something continues to be true regardless of what any person thinks about it.
Ie. It's objectively true that the earth will continue to revolve around the sun regardless of whether or not people believe that fact to be true. People's subjective opinions don't change what is objectively true.

So how does that word apply to morality?
To say something is objectively immoral is to say it's immoral status doesn't ever change based on what people's opinions about it are.

Someone who says torturing children is objectively wrong will say it continues to be wrong no matter how many people might think it is right. That even if everyone in society said it was right it would still be objectively wrong.

So is torturing children something you can say is objectively wrong, or can you only say it's only wrong to you based on what you subjectively feel?

And if it’s only subjectively wrong to you then how do you think you can presume to tell someone else they are wrong for wanting to do it?

I can say the same thing about sadness. Nobody had to teach me to feel sadness. So, your argument is not only compatible with my view, but it actually supports it. You made my job easier. Thank you.

Your statement doesn't refute anything I have argued.
No one ever disputed that emotions are a self evident experience.
I don't know what you think that proves.

That's even better! That means I can explain the non-taught feelings of wrongness and rightness without having to accept your non-material objective morality!

You missed the point, or perhaps you didn't want to see it.

Objective morality still doesn't exist under materialism as a concept, even if you try to explain away the belief we have of objective morality as an evolutionary survival trait.

Under Harris's belief system, nothing is objectively wrong in the moral sense. It's only the illusion of objective morality.

The problem with that is that you can't ever tell someone that torturing children is objectively wrong.
If they disagree with you then you have no objective standard to appeal to.

Harris doesn’t solve the problem of the fact that materialism cannot give you an objective moral standard. All he does is try to provide an excuse for why we “think” objective morality is a real think. He is effectively denying that it exists while trying to pretend we don't need it. But if you deny it exists then none of the problems of denying it exists truly goes away.

Which is why most materialists aren't comfortable with the implications of believing no objective morality exists. But no matter what alternative theories they try to invent, they still end up with a system that is not truly objective or morality.

I wrote: "I DO have reasons to think the perception is different from an feeling, even though I can't explain it through words."

You replied: "What gives you reason to say there is no self evident difference between looking at a tree and feeling hatred?"

It seems you misunderstood my response. I do think I have subjective reasons to think there is a difference.

Sounds like you are describing a self evident or proper basic belief then.

You take for granted that what you believe about your perception being different from your feelings is true. Even though you can't prove it is.

And ironically that's how I know the difference between a perception of a tree and the feeling of wrongness, which undermines Craig's axiological argument.

You are committing the logical fallacy of argument by assertion.
Merely asserting that Craig's argument is undermined doesn't make it so just because you assert it is so.
You would need to give actual logical reasons or evidence to demonstrate why your assertion should be regarded as true.

Oh, so now you know my subjective experiences better than myself?! No, it is evident to me that there is a difference between an objective perception and a feeling.

You misunderstood what I was saying.

I was saying you have a self evident basis for believing your senses are true until proven otherwise.

When you call them merely subjective you're implying that there is nothing objectively true about your senses.

It s subjective in the sense that it's something you are personally experiencing, but it's not subjective in the sense that senses are feeding you inaccurate information that cannot be said to be objectively true.

That's true. I could be lying. Or maybe I'm so dumb that I also don't know the difference between a thought of a tree and the perception of a tree. No. That's obviously implausible. I know the difference.

You're re-affirming your self evident basis for believing your perceptions are true again. Which is the point I was making - You don't treat your perceptions as though they are subjective in the sense of being something you can't trust to give you objectively true information.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to the point.

I can clarify what the point was for you:
When someone has a proper basic belief, or experiences a self evident truth, they have no reason to start doubting the veracity of what they know is true until something comes along to give them good reason to doubt it.

Thus, I was establishing the fact that you trust in the fact that your senses are giving you information that is objectively true - and you have no reason to start doubting the reliability of your senses until you start getting evidence that there is something faulty with your senses.

It is self evident to you, and a proper basic belief, that your senses are giving you reliable information. And you have no reason to start doubting that until something gives you good reason to do so.

You take this for granted. If you didn't take it for granted you couldn't use your senses to gather information to form conclusions about anything else in reality.

How does that apply to the overall larger point?
What if materialism demanded that you give up believing your senses could tell you anything reliable about reality so all your efforts to draw conclusions about reality were fruitless?

It raises the question of: Why would you give up one of your most foundational proper basic beliefs that you know are self evidentially true, in order to believe in a philosophy of materialism that you don't even have evidence is true and can't prove is true?

That analogy illustrates the problem you face with being willig to give up other self evident beliefs you have in the service of belief in materialism as a philosophy.
Such as: Consciousness, reason, objective morality, free will.

 

[Magical Wand]

You think it is wrong to torture children, yes?
Why?
Because you feel it is wrong, yes?

Again, your question doesn't make sense. In my view you're asking "You feel wrongness when thinking about child torture, yes? Why? Because you feel wrongness, yes?"

So the question is then: What if someone else doesn't feel it's wrong to torture children?
Can you say what they want to do is objectively wrong and not just that you subjectively feel it's wrong?

All I can say to them is that it is not self-evident to me that it is objectively wrong in the sense that moral values and duties exist outside of human minds and would still obtain even if no human being existed, including me. This is obvious because I don't perceive moral values like I would perceive the moon. I just feel them like I feel sadness (when seeing bad apologetical arguments like this, for example).

Or, more to the point: How can you tell that person they aren’t allowed to do what they feel is ok? If all you have is your own feelings to go off of then who is to say your feeling is right and theirs is wrong?

How I should persuade others to behave in accordance with my feelings is not pertinent to whether moral values are only feelings in my mind or actually exist independently of what I think or feel.

So is torturing children something you can say is objectively wrong, or can you only say it's only wrong to you based on what you subjectively feel?

Exactly. It is wrong to me based on what I subjectively feel. I don't perceive objective values. I feel them like I feel happiness or sadness. It would be incredibly inane to claim something would be sad even if everyone on the planet didn't think so. The same applies to morality (in my view, at least).

And if it’s only subjectively wrong to you then how do you think you can presume to tell someone else they are wrong for wanting to do it?

How I'll convince/persuade others that they should behave according to my feelings is another question.

Objective morality still doesn't exist under materialism as a concept, even if you try to explain away the belief we have of objective morality as an evolutionary survival trait.

Sure. That's not a problem since I'm not trying to explain objective morality (in the sense of it existing outside of and independently of human minds), but instead the feelings of wrongness and rightness which are similar to other feelings that can be explained by evolution (according to Harris, at least).

Under Harris's belief system, nothing is objectively wrong in the moral sense. It's only the illusion of objective morality.

I can grant that with no problem. I'm not interested in attacking the first premise of Craig's axiological argument or presenting a meta-ethical theory. Here I'm only interested in attacking the second premise which says Objective Morality obtains.

Sounds like you are describing a self evident or proper basic belief then.

You take for granted that what you believe about your perception being different from your feelings is true. Even though you can't prove it is.

Sure. I'm happy to grant that.

You are committing the logical fallacy of argument by assertion.
Merely asserting that Craig's argument is undermined doesn't make it so just because you assert it is so.
You would need to give actual logical reasons or evidence to demonstrate why your assertion should be regarded as true.

Sheesh, I thought this was obvious! Anyway, I'll explain why. The 2nd premise of Craig's axiological argument is that Objective Morality exists. In support of this premise, Craig asserts that we all know "deep down" that X and Y are objectively wrong. By rejecting the justification of this premise, however, I have an undercutting defeater of his argument. Even though it is not a rebutting defeater, it is still sufficient to reject the argument.

So, your only option here, as a good disciple of Billy Craig, is to show my rejection is unjustified or present another argument for non-naturalistic moral realism.

When you call them merely subjective you're implying that there is nothing objectively true about your senses.

I don't call my senses subjective. So, you misunderstood my arguments.

All I said was that I can subjectively/internally/non-logically differentiate objective facts (such as the information given by my senses) from something that is produced in my mind. That's all I said.

You're re-affirming your self evident basis for believing your perceptions are true again. Which is the point I was making - You don't treat your perceptions as though they are subjective in the sense of being something you can't trust to give you objectively true information.

I can grant that. No problem.

That analogy illustrates the problem you face with being willig to give up other self evident beliefs you have in the service of belief in materialism as a philosophy.
Such as: Consciousness, reason, objective morality, free will.

That assumes objective morality is self-evident, though, which is what we're debating here.

And again, I'll be more than happy to come back later and address consciousness, reason and free will.

 

[Moonjuice]

If everything in spiritual teaching was 100% clear, how would a spiritual person advance in wisdom?

I don't think everything needs be 100% clear, except one very important thing. The existence of god. It's one thing to be confused about what god wants, or which holy book he wants us to follow, but why has god hidden himself so completely, that we are arguing about whether he is real at all? Is there anything else that actually exists in our reality that we have such a hard time proving exists? Especially something so important, where our eternal lives are evidently on the line.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I don't think everything needs be 100% clear, except one very important thing. The existence of god. It's one thing to be confused about what god wants, or which holy book he wants us to follow, but why has god hidden himself so completely, that we are arguing about whether he is real at all? Is there anything else that actually exists in our reality that we have such a hard time proving exists? Especially something so important, where our eternal lives are evidently on the line.

Maybe God is not hidden at all, but the vail in front of disbelievers are so tightly pull down that they do not recognize God at all?

 

[firedragon]

The existence of god

For some people, the existence of God is 100% clear.

 

[Rise]

I don't think everything needs be 100% clear, except one very important thing. The existence of god. It's one thing to be confused about what god wants, or which holy book he wants us to follow, but why has god hidden himself so completely, that we are arguing about whether he is real at all? Is there anything else that actually exists in our reality that we have such a hard time proving exists? Especially something so important, where our eternal lives are evidently on the line.

You are operating out of unchecked presumptions that you take for granted are true.

Your presumptions:
1. That you have reason to be confused about what God wants.
2. That God has hidden himself completely, in a way you can't be expected to find.
3. That the fact that people argue about Him being real is evidence that he isn't.
4. That its hard to prove God exists.

But what makes you think you can take for granted your presumptions are true?

Others would say the opposite is true: It's easy to prove God exists, He hasn't hidden Himself so we can't find Him, and we have ways of knowing what God wants.

There are other possibilities here to explain why you claim to be so confused.

What if you don't actually want to know the truth because you don't want to have to obey God?
The Bible says people do that. They suppress the truth of God because they don't want to obey God.
The Bible also tells us that each person has an inner knowing that God exists, that God created them, that creation itself makes this plain to them, and they have an inner knowing that they have a moral obligation to do what is right and not what is wrong - so no one will be without excuse on the day of judgement by claiming they were ignorant of what the truth was and what was required of them.

How would you know you're not one of those people?

What if you merely put up a front for yourself of pretending you are open to the truth, but really you can't even tell us what would convince you because you yourself don't even know what it would take, probably because you don't actually want to be convinced?

But you wouldn't be able to admit that is your real motive because then you'd have to admit you don't have a logical basis for rejecting the truth of God. And then you can't deceive yourself into thinking you have reason to believe you're not accountable to God. You wouldn't be able to maintain rebellion to God under the cognitive dissonance of admitting He's real but that you just don't want to obey Him - because you'd then have to know what the eternal consequences of doing that is.

 

[Rise]

Again, your question doesn't make sense. In my view you're asking "You feel wrongness when thinking about child torture, yes? Why? Because you feel wrongness, yes?"

...

All I can say to them is that it is not self-evident to me that it is objectively wrong in the sense that moral values and duties exist outside of human minds and would still obtain even if no human being existed, including me. This is obvious because I don't perceive moral values like I would perceive the moon. I just feel them like I feel sadness (when seeing bad apologetical arguments like this, for example).

...

Exactly. It is wrong to me based on what I subjectively feel. I don't perceive objective values. I feel them like I feel happiness or sadness. It would be incredibly inane to claim something would be sad even if everyone on the planet didn't think so. The same applies to morality (in my view, at least).

...

Sure. That's not a problem since I'm not trying to explain objective morality (in the sense of it existing outside of and independently of human minds), but instead the feelings of wrongness and rightness which are similar to other feelings that can be explained by evolution (according to Harris, at least).

Now we're getting somewhere: You affirm you don't believe objective morality exists and that you believe there is nothing but subjective feelings.

From there we can move on to the next step:

How I should persuade others to behave in accordance with my feelings is not pertinent to whether moral values are only feelings in my mind or actually exist independently of what I think or feel.

...

How I'll convince/persuade others that they should behave according to my feelings is another question.

Not only is it pertinent to the question of how you enforce morality on society, but the only reason we even ask the question of what the source of morality is is so that we know what we should enforce and how we should enforce it.

No other question you ask about morality can be answered unless you first answer the question of whether or not morals are subjective or objective. Every other conclusion you come to can only logically flow out of how you answer that first foundational question.


I will demonstarte why:

Let's continue with the moral example in question.
Your neighbor starts to torture children.
You feel that is wrong.
You try to tell the police to stop it, but they tell you it's not against the law.
You approach the government and tell them that a law should be passed asap to make torturing children illegal so the police can go put a stop to what your neighbor is doing.

Now the big question:
Upon what basis do you advocate that society pass a law to make it illegal to torture children?

What are you going to tell them?

"I just feel wrong about it"

Ok, but your neighbor says he doesn't feel wrong about it. In fact he says he likes it.

So how do we settle this dispute?

Shall we put it to a popular vote?

But what if we live in a society where the popular vote would be to continue allowing the torturing of children?

Does it become right because the majority of people think it's right?

You presumably still feel it's wrong.

But you can't tell anyone why they should think what you feel is right and what they feel is wrong.

Because you don't have any objective standard to appeal to.

Sheesh, I thought this was obvious! Anyway, I'll explain why. The 2nd premise of Craig's axiological argument is that Objective Morality exists. In support of this premise, Craig asserts that we all know "deep down" that X and Y are objectively wrong. By rejecting the justification of this premise, however, I have an undercutting defeater of his argument. Even though it is not a rebutting defeater, it is still sufficient to reject the argument.

It is sufficient to establish the premise is common ground between Craig and the listeners or opponents of the conclusion in order for Craig to be valid in using that as a sound premise to conduct the argument from.

And no one he has debated this with has been willing to argue that they have no grounds for telling someone else that what they want to do is immoral. They might not want to admit to objective morality as a concept because they know it's not compatible with materialism, but they still try to assert they can act as though it exists (which is illogical and without basis).

The reason is that it's a completely untennable position to hold if you want a functional society for the reasons I outlined above about why you would have no basis for telling anyone anything they are doing is wrong.


But I can go further than that. I can demonstrate that you also believe objective morality exists. No matter what you might intellectually assert, we can show you do actually believe in objective morality based on your actions and by exposing what your deep beliefs really are.



We can prove this by you answering the following questions:
1. If the majority of society was outside your window torturing children in the street, would you judge them as doing wrong? Or would you simply affirm to yourself that you have no basis for judging them as wrong because it's just your subjective feeling that their behavior is wrong?
2, Would you try to tell them what they are doing is wrong and get them to stop, or simply force them to stop?
3, If someone started torturing you, would you judge what they are doing is wrong, or would you say you can't judge them for their behavior and simply tell yourself it's your subjective feeling that it's wrong?
4. Would you try to tell them what they are doing is wrong and get them to stop, or force them to stop?

That assumes objective morality is self-evident, though, which is what we're debating here.

And when you answer those questions we'll see why it is self evident.

 

[Magical Wand]

Now we're getting somewhere: You affirm you don't believe objective morality exists and that you believe there is nothing but subjective feelings.

From there we can move on to the next step:

Not only is it pertinent to the question of how you enforce morality on society, but the only reason we even ask the question of what the source of morality is is so that we know what we should enforce and how we should enforce it.

No other question you ask about morality can be answered unless you first answer the question of whether or not morals are subjective or objective. Every other conclusion you come to can only logically flow out of how you answer that first foundational question.

I will demonstarte [sic] why:

Let's continue with the moral example in question.
Your neighbor starts to torture children.
You feel that is wrong.
You try to tell the police to stop it, but they tell you it's not against the law.
You approach the government and tell them that a law should be passed asap to make torturing children illegal so the police can go put a stop to what your neighbor is doing.

Now the big question:
Upon what basis do you advocate that society pass a law to make it illegal to torture children?

What are you going to tell them?

"I just feel wrong about it"

Ok, but your neighbor says he doesn't feel wrong about it. In fact he says he likes it.

So how do we settle this dispute?

Shall we put it to a popular vote?

But what if we live in a society where the popular vote would be to continue allowing the torturing of children?

Does it become right because the majority of people think it's right?

You presumably still feel it's wrong.

But you can't tell anyone why they should think what you feel is right and what they feel is wrong.

Because you don't have any objective standard to appeal to.

All of this is irrelevant to the second premise of Craig's axiological argument. Again, here I'm not interested in presenting a meta-ethical theory or persuading others to act according to my feelings. I'm only interested in attacking the justification for the second premise which says objective morality (i.e., moral values and duties which allegedly exist outside of and independently of human minds) obtains and we all know this because it is self-evident and properly basic. I'll repeat that as long as you repeat the same irrelevant questions. Ready?!

I'll try to address the first premise when you (eventually) admit you failed to provide reasons to show your opponent is wrong, or when you provide valid and sound reasons to think I'm wrong.

It is sufficient to establish the premise is common ground between Craig and the listeners

Agree. I reject this common ground, though. That was my point.

We can prove this by you answering the following questions:
1. If the majority of society was outside your window torturing children in the street, would you judge them as doing wrong? Or would you simply affirm to yourself that you have no basis for judging them as wrong because it's just your subjective feeling that their behavior is wrong?

Again, it doesn't matter what others feel or think about the issue as long as I feel it (it doesn't matter to the 2nd premise, at least). The example I gave before is that of the death of my relative. Even if the whole world felt happiness when my relative died and I felt profound sadness, it would still be my genuine feeling. I can still say "This is sad!". Therefore, my basis for saying something is sad is that I feel sadness. The same applies to wrongness in the case you mentioned.

2, Would you try to tell them what they are doing is wrong and get them to stop, or simply force them to stop?

I would surely try to do something to stop them (since their behavior is not in accordance with my feelings), but how I would try to persuade them to act according to my feelings is irrelevant to the ontological question, which says it is self-evident (and properly basic) to us that moral values and duties obtain outside of our minds.

3, If someone started torturing you, would you judge what they are doing is wrong, or would you say you can't judge them for their behavior and simply tell yourself it's your subjective feeling that it's wrong?

It depends on what you mean by "judge." I can judge them in the sense that I disapprove of what they're doing because their behavior is not in accordance with my feelings. I can say the same thing about the feeling of sadness. I may strongly dislike something or someone for causing sadness. For this reason, I may try to stop this object or person from doing so. So, all you're showing here is that morality is very similar to feelings. This is expected in the view that wrongness and rightness are actually feelings.

4. Would you try to tell them what they are doing is wrong and get them to stop, or force them to stop?

I think I already answered these questions above. You're just asking the same questions again and again. Perhaps you're expecting a different answer? I could contradict myself, right? Well, keep trying.

And when you answer those questions we'll see why it is self evident.

Wrong. I honestly and genuinely answered your questions and I still have no reason think it is self-evident and properly basic that moral values and duties exist outside of my mind.

 

[Rise]

but how I would try to persuade them to act according to my feelings is irrelevant to the ontological question, which says it is self-evident (and properly basic) to us that moral values and duties obtain outside of our minds.

Logical fallacy, strawman and red herring.

You are strawmanning my conclusion by acting as though my arguments were trying to prove that a theistic basis for morality exists, when that was not the conclusion I was trying to establish with my arguments.

My arguments had a simple conclusion: You believe objective morality exists, even though you don't want to admit it.

Therefore, you don't disprove my conclusion or refute my arguments by trying to change the topic.


You are also engaging in a red herring fallacy by trying to change the topic.
You originally tried to claim you are disputing Craig's premise that objective morality exists.

I am refuting your objection on the basis that I can demonstrate you do believe objective morality exists by the logical and necessary conclusion of your answers and actions.

You are then trying to change the topic by saying I haven't proven that this objective morality exists outside of the mind - but that's not what I was trying to establish, nor need to establish, with my arguments.

You're getting ahead of yourself because we can't go into what the source of objective morality is until you first are willing to admit you believe in objective morality.

Talking about the source of objective morality is completely irrelevant if you don't first concede that objective morality exists

The only reason Craig needs to debate what the source of morality is with other atheists is because they actually do try to claim they can say things are objectively morally wrong.

We don't even need to go there if you're still stuck on trying to deny the premise that objective morality exists.

I would surely try to do something to stop them (since their behavior is not in accordance with my feelings), but how I would try to persuade them to act according to my feelings is irrelevant to the ontological question.

By using physical force (ie. violence) to stop their behavior, you already are trying to change their behavior by definition. You are forcibly putting a stop to their behavior which is by definition changing their behavior. You're just doing it by force instead of by persuasion.

All of this is irrelevant to the second premise of Craig's axiological argument. Again, here I'm not interested in presenting a meta-ethical theory or persuading others to act according to my feelings.

...

Again, it doesn't matter what others feel or think about the issue as long as I feel it (it doesn't matter to the 2nd premise, at least). The example I gave before is that of the death of my relative. Even if the whole world felt happiness when my relative died and I felt profound sadness, it would still be my genuine feeling. I can still say "This is sad!". Therefore, my basis for saying something is sad is that I feel sadness. The same applies to wrongness in the case you mentioned.

...


It depends on what you mean by "judge." I can judge them in the sense that I disapprove of what they're doing because their behavior is not in accordance with my feelings. I can say the same thing about the feeling of sadness. I may strongly dislike something or someone for causing sadness. For this reason, I may try to stop this object or person from doing so. So, all you're showing here is that morality is very similar to feelings. This is expected in the view that wrongness and rightness are actually feelings.

You say you aren't interested in persuading others to change their behavior, but you've admitted you're interested in physically forcing them to change their behavior.

Upon what basis do you think you have the right to go forcing people to stop their behavior by physical force (ie violence)?

You don't realize the serious implications of what your worldview leads to if taken to it's logical conclusion.

You're saying you think you have the right to use violence to do what feels right to you - for no other reason than because it feels right to you.

So what if you decide one day you feel you really want to have sex with someone - do you think you get to use violence to rape them because it's what feels right to you?

Maybe you won't feel that way? Ok, but what if someone else feels it is right for them to rape someone by force just because it feels right to them?

If you think you get to live by the standard of doing whatever feels right to you then you have no logical basis for telling others they can't do the same.

Otherwise you're a hypocrit thinking you have the right to act according to what you feel but no one else does. What makes you so special?

The only way you have the right to force others to stop doing something you think is wrong is if you think you can claim it is objectively wrong; which therefore gives you not only the moral right but the moral duty to put a stop to it by force.

I'm only interested in attacking the justification for the second premise which says objective morality (i.e., moral values and duties which allegedly exist outside of and independently of human minds) obtains and we all know this because it is self-evident and properly basic. I'll repeat that as long as you repeat the same irrelevant questions. Ready?!

...

Agree. I reject this common ground, though. That was my point.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely asserting that it is irrelevant doesn't make your claim true just because you assert it is.
You have given no reasons why we should believe my question to you is not relevant.

I explained it's relevance by demonstrating that you act as though objective morality exists while at the same time denying it's reality.

What you claim to believe is not consistent with what you actually believe.

And if you don't actually believe that objective morality doesn't exist, then you have no basis for claiming Craig doesn't have a sound premise.

Therefore, upon what basis can you claim objective morality doesn't exist if you act as though it does?

You can claim you believe it doesn't exist all day long but t the end of the day you still are going to try to force other people to align their behavior with what you think is right by demanding a law be passed to make torturing children illegal if it isn't already so - and if it isn't done you say you're prepared to use physical force yourself to put a stop to it.

If your actions were consistent with what you claim to be true then you wouldn't try to stop anyone from doing anything because you have already admitted you have no basis for claiming their actions are wrong.

What gives you the right to stop what they are doing?

The fact is you think you have the right to stop them because you know deep down it's objectively wrong.

And if you don't really believe objective morality doesn't exist then you can't dispute Craig using that fact as common ground for a sound premise.

I think I already answered these questions above. You're just asking the same questions again and again. Perhaps you're expecting a different answer? I could contradict myself, right? Well, keep trying.

The questions are diagnostic in nature.
They help establish where exactly your viewpoint falls.
Question 2 and 4 are to establish if you are comfortable with letting other people get tortured but feel you have the right to put a stop to people who want to torture you.
How you answer depends on what kind of response is necessary to show you what is wrong with your worldview.

So the question is then: What makes you think you have the right to put a stop to people doing something just because you don't like it?

Upon what basis do you justify your actions as acceptable?

Why shouldn't you be rightly executed as a lawbreaker by this society who has decided it's legal to torture whoever they want without interference from anyone? On what basis would you presume to claim otherwise should happen?

Wrong. I honestly and genuinely answered your questions and I still have no reason think it is self-evident and properly basic that moral values and duties exist outside of my mind.

We have now exposed a tremendously dangerous logical contradiction in your worldview.

According to your worldview, you can just do whatever you want based on what feels right to you. You don't need to have a justification for what you do. You just do it because feelings.

Now if you want to dispute that, you're welcome to show why you don't think that is the only logical conclusion of what you have tried to tell us. I am not trying to strawman your position - because I know that can't be what you actually believe.
The point is to show you that what you actually believe is not logically consistent with what you claim to believe.

The fact is, that outcome is the only logical conclusion from what you claim to believe - because you haven't considered the full philosophical and logical ramifications of what would also be true if what you claim were true.

If you are not willing to affirm the ultimate logical conclusion of your worldview then you have to abandon it and admit you were in error by claiming there is no such thing as objective morality.

 

[Magical Wand]

Logical fallacy, strawman and red herring.

You are strawmanning my conclusion by acting as though my arguments were trying to prove that a theistic basis for morality exists, when that was not the conclusion I was trying to establish with my arguments.

My arguments had a simple conclusion: You believe objective morality exists, even though you don't want to admit it.

Therefore, you don't disprove my conclusion or refute my arguments by trying to change the topic.


You are also engaging in a red herring fallacy by trying to change the topic.
You originally tried to claim you are disputing Craig's premise that objective morality exists.

I am refuting your objection on the basis that I can demonstrate you do believe objective morality exists by the logical and necessary conclusion of your answers and actions.

You are then trying to change the topic by saying I haven't proven that this objective morality exists outside of the mind - but that's not what I was trying to establish, nor need to establish, with my arguments.

You're getting ahead of yourself because we can't go into what the source of objective morality is until you first are willing to admit you believe in objective morality.

Talking about the source of objective morality is completely irrelevant if you don't first concede that objective morality exists

The only reason Craig needs to debate what the source of morality is with other atheists is because they actually do try to claim they can say things are objectively morally wrong.

We don't even need to go there if you're still stuck on trying to deny the premise that objective morality exists.



By using physical force (ie. violence) to stop their behavior, you already are trying to change their behavior by definition. You are forcibly putting a stop to their behavior which is by definition changing their behavior. You're just doing it by force instead of by persuasion.




You say you aren't interested in persuading others to change their behavior, but you've admitted you're interested in physically forcing them to change their behavior.

Upon what basis do you think you have the right to go forcing people to stop their behavior by physical force (ie violence)?

You don't realize the serious implications of what your worldview leads to if taken to it's logical conclusion.

You're saying you think you have the right to use violence to do what feels right to you - for no other reason than because it feels right to you.

So what if you decide one day you feel you really want to have sex with someone - do you think you get to use violence to rape them because it's what feels right to you?

Maybe you won't feel that way? Ok, but what if someone else feels it is right for them to rape someone by force just because it feels right to them?

If you think you get to live by the standard of doing whatever feels right to you then you have no logical basis for telling others they can't do the same.

Otherwise you're a hypocrit thinking you have the right to act according to what you feel but no one else does. What makes you so special?

The only way you have the right to force others to stop doing something you think is wrong is if you think you can claim it is objectively wrong; which therefore gives you not only the moral right but the moral duty to put a stop to it by force.



Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely asserting that it is irrelevant doesn't make your claim true just because you assert it is.
You have given no reasons why we should believe my question to you is not relevant.

I explained it's relevance by demonstrating that you act as though objective morality exists while at the same time denying it's reality.

What you claim to believe is not consistent with what you actually believe.

And if you don't actually believe that objective morality doesn't exist, then you have no basis for claiming Craig doesn't have a sound premise.

Therefore, upon what basis can you claim objective morality doesn't exist if you act as though it does?

You can claim you believe it doesn't exist all day long but t the end of the day you still are going to try to force other people to align their behavior with what you think is right by demanding a law be passed to make torturing children illegal if it isn't already so - and if it isn't done you say you're prepared to use physical force yourself to put a stop to it.

If your actions were consistent with what you claim to be true then you wouldn't try to stop anyone from doing anything because you have already admitted you have no basis for claiming their actions are wrong.

What gives you the right to stop what they are doing?

The fact is you think you have the right to stop them because you know deep down it's objectively wrong.

And if you don't really believe objective morality doesn't exist then you can't dispute Craig using that fact as common ground for a sound premise.



The questions are diagnostic in nature.
They help establish where exactly your viewpoint falls.
Question 2 and 4 are to establish if you are comfortable with letting other people get tortured but feel you have the right to put a stop to people who want to torture you.
How you answer depends on what kind of response is necessary to show you what is wrong with your worldview.

So the question is then: What makes you think you have the right to put a stop to people doing something just because you don't like it?

Upon what basis do you justify your actions as acceptable?

Why shouldn't you be executed as a lawbreaker by this corrupt society who has decided it's legal to torture whoever they want without interference from anyone?



We have now exposed a tremendously dangerous logical contradiction in your worldview.

According to your worldview, you can just do whatever you want based on what feels right to you. You don't need to have a justification for what you do. You just do it because feelings.

Now if you want to dispute that, you're welcome to show why you don't think that is the only logical conclusion of what you have tried to tell us. I am not trying to strawman your position - because I know that can't be what you actually believe.
The point is to show you that what you actually believe is not logically consistent with what you claim to believe.

The fact is, that outcome is the only logical conclusion from what you claim to believe - because you haven't considered the full philosophical and logical ramifications of what would also be true if what you claim were true.

If you are not willing to affirm the ultimate logical conclusion of your worldview then you have to abandon it and admit you were in error by claiming there is no such thing as objective morality.

I wonder if you write these very extensive comments to bore your opponents and discourage them to take time and reply to every irrelevant and false point you've made.

Anyway, you asserted I'm straw manning you when I said I reject the premise that moral values and duties exist outside of and independent of human minds. But that's not straw manning at all given that this is how objective morality was defined. To say something is objective is to say it will obtain independently of what human minds think or feel. Just like the moon exists independently of what human minds exist or feel. Therefore, to say it is not self-evident to me that objective morality obtains is to say that there are no moral values and duties existing outside of my mind.

Also, I didn't say anything about the source of this; whether these alleged moral values are metaphysically necessary or come from a mind is another question. I didn't say anything of the sort. So, you're the one straw manning me.

I'll reply to your other points later. I'll study now.

 

[Rise]

I wonder if you write these very extensive comments to bore your opponents and discourage them to take time and reply to every irrelevant and false point you've made.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion and repetition.
You have not demonstrated with logical arguments that any point I have made is either irrelevant or false. I offered a counter argument already that refuted your claim and you have no counter argument in response.
Your claim is not proven to be true just because you assert it is so.
Nor is your claim proven just because you repeat it.

Anyway, you asserted I'm straw manning you when I said I reject the premise that moral values and duties exist outside of and independent of human minds.

I gave reasons why you were. You didn’t refute those reasons. They still stand.

I will say them again for you even more simply so perhaps you will understand:

I said you were falsely misrepresenting what the conclusion of my argument was.

You claimed the conclusion of my argument was that there is a source of morals outside of the mind of man.

No, it is quite clear in the post you are responding to that the conclusion of my arguments was thus:
You are falsely claiming to not believe in objective morality. We know this because the exposition of your true beliefs and actions shows that you do actually believe in objective morality.

But that's not straw manning at all given that this is how objective morality was defined. To say something is objective is to say it will obtain independently of what human minds think or feel. Just like the moon exists independently of what human minds exist or feel. Therefore, to say it is not self-evident to me that objective morality obtains is to say that there are no moral values and duties existing outside of my mind.

You just admitted that objective morality by definition cannot exist without an objective source for it.

The problem for you is: I already logically demonstrated that you do, in fact, believe in objective morality. Your true beliefs and actions show you do because you think you have the right to use violence to stop people from doing certain things you feel are wrong.

So unless you can refute the fact that you do believe in objective morality then you admit you have no choice but to believe in a source for objective morality.

Also, I didn't say anything about the source of this; whether these alleged moral values are metaphysically necessary or come from a mind is another question. I didn't say anything of the sort. So, you're the one straw manning me.

That's not relevant to the truth of my conclusion nor the validity of my arguments.

It doesn't matter what you think the objective source is, the fact that you have demonstrated you think objective morality exists, and the fact that you have admitted objective morality can't exist without an objective source, means you must not only believe in objective morality but that you also believe there must be an objective source for it.

Although, I can show with other arguments, once you admit that you really do believe in objective morality, that the only possible source for objective morality is God.

 

[Alex22]

The writers of the various holy books just claimed that god inspired them to write them, so no.

 

[Magical Wand]

The apologist wrote: "You say you aren't interested in persuading others to change their behavior, but you've admitted you're interested in physically forcing them to change their behavior."

I said I'm not interested in presenting a meta-ethical theory or persuading others (or, alternatively, in explaining how I'll persuade others) here. I'm only interested in refuting the 2nd premise of Craig's axiological argument -- which doesn't require any meta-ethical theory or explaining how I'll persuade others. And I never said I'm interested in "physically forcing them".

The apologist wrote: "Upon what basis do you think you have the right to go forcing people to stop their behavior by physical force (ie violence)?
...
You're saying you think you have the right to use violence to do what feels right to you - for no other reason than because it feels right to you. ... What makes you think you have the right to put a stop to people doing something just because you don't like it?"

I'll try to stop the person from committing something I feel is immoral on the basis of my feelings of rightness and wrongness. To say I have the moral "right" to do something is simply to say I'm morally allowed to do it. And what is morally allowed is dependent on my moral feelings of rightness and wrongness.

The apologist wrote: "what if you decide one day you feel you really want to have sex with someone - do you think you get to use violence to rape them because it's what feels right to you?"

I can't decide how I'll feel, but letting that aside, let's say one day a tumor grows in a very specific region of my brain and I start associating the feeling of rightness with something that I previously felt to be wrong. The obvious consequence of the brain disease is that I may act wrongly (namely, in the way I consider it to be now) feeling it to be right. I hope that's clear. If not, read again.

That's not a desirable result, of course. But my desires are irrelevant; they will not change reality.

The apologist wrote: "what if someone else feels it is right for them to rape someone by force just because it feels right to them?"

I'll act according to my moral feelings and try to stop this person from acting according to his/her feelings. On what basis? What right do I have? Again, the basis of the right do so is my moral feeling. The possibility that his/her moral feelings are different from mine doesn't change the fact that I still have the feeling of wrongness associated with her action.

The apologist wrote: "If you think you get to live by the standard of doing whatever feels right to you then you have no logical basis for telling others they can't do the same."

You haven't shown that the way I would try to persuade others to act according to my feelings is relevant to the question of whether moral values and duties exist outside of and independently of human minds (remember, this is the definition of objective morality).

The apologist wrote: "The only way you have the right to force others to stop doing something you think is wrong is if you think you can claim it is objectively wrong; which therefore gives you not only the moral right but the moral duty to put a stop to it by force."

I see no reason to believe this is true. Another possibility is that I'm allowed to change others' behaviors on the basis of my moral feeling that it is right to do so. Given that it is not self-evident to me that objective morality obtains, I'm being perfectly rational if I accept the alternative explanation I just gave.

The apologist wrote: "I explained it's relevance by demonstrating that you act as though objective morality exists while at the same time denying it's reality. ... upon what basis can you claim objective morality doesn't exist if you act as though it does?"

(1) No, I act according to my feelings of rightness and wrongness. (2) On the basis of my moral feelings.

The apologist wrote: "If your actions were consistent with what you claim to be true then you wouldn't try to stop anyone from doing anything because you have already admitted you have no basis for claiming their actions are wrong. ... The fact is you think you have the right to stop them because you know deep down it's objectively wrong."

Wrong. I'll try to stop the person from acting in a way that isn't in accordance with my moral feelings the same way I would try to stop a snake from causing me pain and (eventually) the feeling of suffering. Given that the latter only requires subjective feelings, the former can work in a similar way.

The apologist wrote: "According to your worldview, you can just do whatever you want based on what feels right to you. You don't need to have a justification for what you do."

My moral actions are justified by (or grounded on) my moral feelings.

 

[infrabenji]

I don’t think we have any evidence for a god writing any books? Do we? We know how and when writing came about. Unless the pen picked itself up and started writing. But that could just be an invisible inter dimensional time traveling Sasquatch. Who knows.

 

[danieldemol]

A filthy heart can not realize the truth.

a) Why not and
b) This sounds like a trap. If I recognise the truth and it is contrary to what you consider to be truth, you can just claim that I have not recognised what you consider to be true because my heart is filthy, so how do you measure the actual filthiness of hearts, and measure the amount of truth they contain to come to your conclusion?

 

[Spirit of Light]

a) Why not and
b) This sounds like a trap. If I recognise the truth and it is contrary to what you consider to be truth, you can just claim that I have not recognised what you consider to be true because my heart is filthy, so how do you measure the actual filthiness of hearts, and measure the amount of truth they contain to come to your conclusion?

In my understanding the spiritual truth from God can only be fully realized when our mind and body has been purified, so there is no ego, greed and other attachments within our being.

I can not say your understanding of the truth is wrong, because how we understand and realize truth arise from within. So what you perceive as truth may well be the truth at the level you are at.
My Understanding is that no human are at the same level of understanding truth.

 

[danieldemol]

In my understanding the spiritual truth from God can only be fully realized when our mind and body has been purified, so there is no ego, greed and other attachments within our being.

I can not say your understanding of the truth is wrong, because how we understand and realize truth arise from within. So what you perceive as truth may well be the truth at the level you are at.
My Understanding is that no human are at the same level of understanding truth.

Ok, but do you acknowledge that a person could have no ego, greed and other attachments and for example be an atheist?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Ok, but do you acknowledge that a person could have no ego, greed and other attachments and for example be an atheist?

Yes, I believe that to be possible

 

[PearlSeeker]

I remain unconvinced. There are plenty of people capable of uttering a simple moral precept like this, including you and me. When I read this, all I see is the moral concept that we should "treat people the way we want to be treated", just reworded. Which, as we all know, is a moral understanding that predates the new testament. There is nothing in that sentence that could only come from the all knowing creator of the universe. It can (and I think it did) come from a human who agrees we should treat each other well.

The golden rule is known in different religions/philosophc schools independently of each other. That means people didn't invent absolute and universal moral principles. They discovered them. Maybe this line of thinking would help.