Do Athiests have morals?

[1robin]

There is a huge murky area here.
How does one distinguish between:
1) Asserting false beliefs that one believes are false.

2) Asserting false beliefs that one believes are true, because one only looks at the evidence that supports the beliefs and dismisses the evidence that contradicts the belief.

Humans are good at both. I've noticed this.

I am a believer. I believe that religionists are more rational and compelling when they are describing the religious beliefs of others. Then they don't gloss over the irrational and incoherent teachings they prefer to believe. @a_servant_of_one can better describe Christianity than @1robin, and vice versa.

Tom

Hello Tom, you tagged me for this post but I am not sure what you wanted me to do here. I do not really understand your question.

 

[1robin]

Sorry. I'll try to stick to the morality topic. However that being said, what is morality others than a set of rules of behavior which we state what is right and what is wrong?

Laws are not morality. Even God's laws do not produce morality. Laws are derived from moral truths (if they are not then they are not moral) and are applied through law. For example the moral would be that human life has infinite worth and a purpose. So the law though shall not murder is an application of that moral truth. Making a law that says though shall not murder without the foundation for it will never produce moral truths. Your talking about ethics not objective morality.

I grant there are probably some genetic and cultural traits which affects what I feel is right and wrong. So therefore we could probably find a lot of common ground. However we can also find areas of dispute. Like I might adopt some of the moral codes of Buddhism and you adopt those of Christianity. Buddhism was able to adopt it's morals without a God. Based on whatever they believed was true. Someone had to define this morality. Obviously you don't have to accept it but why would they need to accept yours?

I am not trying to convince you what morals are true. I am trying to show that without a transcendent source none of them are true. This is not an argument about which morals are best or even how we come to know them. This is about the nature of morality it's self.

Right, correct. You can refuse to accept the moral code of any group of your choosing. Enforcement only means you might have to deal with whatever consequences deemed appropriate by the groups moral code.

I agree but if my God exists you will be absolutely accountable for those decisions eternally. So those moral precepts which you denied will none the less apply to you anyway. That is the very nature of objective things. I can deny gravity but I still going to fall if I jump out the window. Gravity is objectively true and if and only if God exists is morality objectively true.

Jimmy Crickets, what is it with folks and using gravity to prove their point? So gravity needs math in order to exist? You can perceive the effect of gravity without math so I don't see our perception as particularly support the truth of math. I might try describing it in Japanese if I knew it. Math is a conceptual language used to describe what we see, and predict what we might perceive. Man created math to provide a more accurate language to describe what we perceive. It's not necessary but quite a bit more accurate in conveying the details of that observation than Japanese.

What? are you from the anti-gravity coalition? Let me say this one more time. Mathematics is a language used to quantify and describe natural laws and events. Gravity is just a mysterious force which we do not understand at all beyond what it's strength relates to. I agree man created mathematical language but we did not create the truths it describes. No man ever made 2 things plus two things equal to four things. We simply came up with an equation 2 + 2 = 4 to describe it. I have said two things from the start.

1. Man has never created a mathematical truth.
2. Unless by math you mean the language used to describe natural processes.

Ok so lets take something you see as a mathematical truth and lets see how it holds up.

Integration of the outside radius equation then subtracting the integral of the interior radius leaves the volume of the interior.

Ok, we know, you accept this perception of authority that man has. It is only perception/illusion. People come to understand it is only an illusion and rebel. So I'm saying this perception of authority is the only "real" authority that exists. I know it's an illusion, but we have to accept that illusion for the sake of society.

Does or does not mankind generally dominate the animal kingdom? There are some exceptions but in countless ways animals act subservient to humans even when not threatened. It is almost impossible to force a horse to run into a man. We have no natural defenses and are very weak creatures yet we subdue the mightiest creatures on earth. Humans have authority over their freewill. No other human can make me will something I chose not to. Humans are moral agents. We have authority over our moral decisions.

You claim the existence of an objective authority. My perception of authority can exists regardless of this objective authority. None need exist to explain why we accept the perception of authority.

Your perceptions can but only if God exists can your perceptions be based in fact. You may believe that murder is wrong. With God you would be right, without him your would be wrong.

What do you believe your objective authority allows for which does not or cannot exist with the situation we currently have?

Let's say that this was 1942. Hitler is exterminating Jews by the millions and euthanizing the infirm in Europe. Your the US president. The only way you can justify stopping him is if you have a transcendent criteria or moral truths which Hitler has violated. Without God you literally have to violate the system you support to stop him. Without God Hitler's opinions are just as valid as yours and there is no transcendent standard to see who is right. You either have to stop him regardless of the fact you can not show you are right or you have to invent a standard you cannot found on anything. IOW you must become a liar and a hypocrite to stop him without God. That is why no politician tried to get support through Social Darwinism to stop Hitler but instead insisted Hitler had violated objective moral duties which are true only if God existed. I can give countless examples like this.

Government takes away and bestow right as they see fit. If these rights are not enforced by somebody, then they don't really exist. Calling them God given is just something to pretend there is some justification for it.

No governments take away permissions as they see fit. If I am entitled to the pursuit of happiness no one can strip me of that right and they will ultimately be accountable for their attempts to do so. hey can only deny me permission to actualize that right for a period of time. Governments do not have any rights to give anyone. It was not the government Jefferson cited as the source of rights but God. And he was certainly no Christian. They cannot bestow or take away rights. They can only interfere with my ability to exercise them. Having a right and the ability to exercise it are two entirely different things.

Hey, I glad to have the enforcement of this rights. I don't want to rock the boat, as a matter of convenience. If I had the ability to enforce my own will, then maybe you'd have to worry. All of your rights you think you have can be taken away from you by anyone possessing the power to do so. Your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of can be taken away by anyone wit ha gun.

Governments cannot take away rights. Lets say God granted I have the right to bear arms. A government cannot take that right away even if they took me guns. After this geological microsecond is over and we go into eternity I will be compensated for the infringement upon my rights and they will be held accountable for their attempts to limit my ability to exercise them.

That is why we say our rights are being trampled on or infringed upon instead of saying trampled away or infringed into non existence. A right and the ability to exercise it are distinct concepts.

We are talking about reality and perception. The perception of a truth, whether it has anything to do with reality of not prevents the chaos. Doesn't make the perception true, it only means the perception is more important than whether any truth exists.

Nope, if the illusion is all we have then it never mattered too much. After this brief life Hitler and my destiny are the same. In fact everything ends the same for eternity. Compared with laws that reflect actual eternal truths and that earthly accountability reflects eternal accountability mere perception is almost meaningless. However I have not been discussing what could be the value of the illusion or the real thing. It has been what the nature of the thing really is. I really only have two points:

A. If God exists objective moral truth exists.
B. If he does not it cannot.

That's it.

You believe in a God, great. If you think as if and act as if this is true, then it really doesn't matter whether it is true. You life would be the same regardless of the truth.

Now that is just not even close to true. If God exists then I may be rewarded for good deeds, prayer may be answered, insight into transcendent truth may be granted, my actions will have eternal consequences, final justice will prevail. Now if he did not merely thinking that was true will never make it true.

Yes the reality is chaos, man brings order through belief in whatever truth they accept as true.

Actually the universe is lawful not chaotic. From a math background I am not even sure chaos is possible. Everything is either the result of laws like cause and effect, natural determinism, or freewill. I agree they may seem chaotic to us but I am not sure if anything is truly chaotic. We can't even build truly random number generators intentionally trying to do so.

Order is better than chaos, so whatever truth people end up believing is better than reality.

I would mostly agree here. I think in most cases common knowledge or perception is better than nihilism, but in some cases chaos may be better than intentional evil.

 

[1robin]

We need the dogma of some kind. Society needs dogma of some kind. Yours, mine, somebody we all want to follow.

Natural law or whatever you can get people to agree to accept. The US was freedom of religion, freedom to determine our own taxes, some vague idea of liberty. Whatever you can get people to agree to. Provide them a truth and provide them a vested self interest. If you can come up with a kinder gentler dogma, I'm all for it.

I found this post by accident. If I have already answered it feel free to ignore it.

I agree that we need dogmas. That was my point. Secularism is not being free of dogmas. It comes with a set of dogmas but lacks any foundation for most of the important ones. Theism and secularism both posit that life has meaning, life has worth, men have equality, morality exists, etc..... but only with theism are any of those actually true. Secularism comes with just as much dogma but unlike theism it is many times empty dogmas.

The US was never intended to be free of religion. The Washington monument has a bible in it's corner stone, the capitol has scripture carved into it's walls, congress has had chaplains. It was only to be free of state backed religious coercion.

I agree that the US has been the most benevolent political theory ever tried. It was the result of a body of men who were 95% Christian and most of the rest theists. The US system is inexorably linked with faith. That started to change somewhat in the late 50's and just about every moral and secular indicator or excellence has fallen. As secularism has grown we have gone much father into debt, moral insanity, and fallen in standards we used to dominate like education.

 

[1robin]

If we believe that logic can exist/work only if God exists, then the logical conclusion is that only a theistic worldview is logically coherent and all arguments that are not based on a theistic premise are necessarily self defeating. That is, we embrace presuppositionalism and its extensions, like the trascendent arguments for the existence of God.

That is not exactly what I am saying. I am saying if we find rationality or things similar like information and we have no ultimate natural explanation for them. The they make God a virtual necessity. Things like the existence of objective morality or a lawful universe which has no natural necessity to be lawful point to a transcendent reason for their being here. It is not because they work, my car works but I don't need God to explain my car unless you want o be technically demanding.

That this kind of "philosophy" is hopelessly victim of circularity is obvious. Evidential theologians like W.L.Craig actually ridicule it, noticing, correctly, that they all beg the question and reduce to "if God exists, then God exists". Therefore, the untenability of such arguments is a logical conclusion that has nothing to do with being atheist or theist, nihilist or not nihilist (I assume Craig is not a nihilist atheist).

That is not true, I know Craig very well. He uses the same arguments I have. They are usually not among his main contention but he uses arguments from reason all the time. In fact his primary argument is a contingent cosmological argument very similar to the ones I have made. They are of the same type. We find a reality (x) which seems to have no natural explanation for it's existence.

So much for the necessity of God from the laws of logic.

BTW I never said this. I said rationality not logic. It might be true but I have never thought about whether logic requires God or not.

So, what's next in line?. You put a lot of things on the table, each requiring a separate thread.

Please NO!!!!!!

I propose to address first your question "does morality exist?" On account of being in line with the OP. I suppose you mean objective morality.

You bet.

Of course, the existence of objectve morality does not entail the existence of God unless we, again, beg the question by attributing to God the nature of objectivity.

That is a property of God we find true of the concept. Even philosophers who have deduced a generic concept of God grant that aspect. If fact they go even further and suggest he is necessary which naturally entails objectivity. To consider Go dis to consider an objective being.

Put let's analyze the premise first: objective morality exists.

I claim it does not. You claim it does. You make the positive claim.

I make this claim only. That is reasonable to believe objective reality because it is a virtually universally apprehended truth. It depends on how technical you want to be. Normally we credit experiential data with objective fact. The ultimate test usually being "well did you see it". The same way my visual experience makes comprehension reliable my moral experience makes it's comprehension reliable. However if you want to get technical then only the fact we think is an objective fact beyond question. My criteria is what is used in common discourse.

Can you provide evidence that objective morality exists? At present, I perceive the proclaimed evidence of objective morality at the same level as the evidence for Bigfoot or alien abductions.

I explained that above and no they are not equivalent. Bigfoot is a thing experienced by a mere handful many of which are suspicious to begin with. It also is something that if true you should rationally expect more evidence for. Objective morality is experienced by almost everyone (billons and billions) and which we would expect to have no more evidence for than we do. So you have categorical nightmares to straighten out here.

Let's take an example that is somewhat becoming controversial even within the Christian community, at least here in Europe: the day-after pill.

I claim that the day-after pill is not only acceptable but it is actually a good idea in order to prevent possble pregnancy. Its alleged moral objections are ridicolous, for the simple reason that one day old duplicating human cells cannot be called a person. Period.

This is a epistemological issue. It's like saying that Pluto is not an objective solar body because some say planet and some say something else. I really have no opinion myself here so I leave between the person and God.

If objective morality exists and you do not agree with my moral predicate, then I expect to show me who is right in a clear cut and unambiguous way. In the same way I could prove to you an objecive mathematical truth or the objective existence of gravity.

About the day after pill? I have no need or ability to do so. The fact that objective morality exists is not related to whether we are aware of what it is in al situations or as you have it here whether we all perfectly agree about it. The two subjects just are not related or dependent.

I hope it is easy to see that delegating the existence of objective morality to beings which have even less evidence of existing will not be very helpful.

Ciao

- viole

Less than helpful. Ok lets put that to the test.

Abortion.

1. The secular view is that we have no idea and have no means to determine when a life has rights. However we will make laws up anyway and based on those arbitrary laws exterminate humans in the womb by the millions for the sake of the convenience of the person who actually is responsible. Secularists don't know but gamble for death.

2. The Christian position is that we don't know when a life becomes a sovereign entity with a soul. It could be a day one or day 250. However we say to not take the chance. We gamble for life. Millions would be alive today that are dead (perhaps the guy who would have cured cancer).

That is an example where just the idea would be helpful. If in fact the idea is true it would become infinitely helpful.

Now you may not see anything helpful in millions living instead of dying, but I do. I could give countless examples like this where faith was or would be very helpful. In fact I am inclined to think I would die before I could post them all.

 

[viole]

That is not exactly what I am saying. I am saying if we find rationality or things similar like information and we have no ultimate natural explanation for them. The they make God a virtual necessity. Things like the existence of objective morality or a lawful universe which has no natural necessity to be lawful point to a transcendent reason for their being here. It is not because they work, my car works but I don't need God to explain my car unless you want o be technically demanding.

That is not true, I know Craig very well. He uses the same arguments I have. They are usually not among his main contention but he uses arguments from reason all the time. In fact his primary argument is a contingent cosmological argument very similar to the ones I have made. They are of the same type. We find a reality (x) which seems to have no natural explanation for it's existence.

BTW I never said this. I said rationality not logic. It might be true but I have never thought about whether logic requires God or not.

Please NO!!!!!!

You bet.

That is a property of God we find true of the concept. Even philosophers who have deduced a generic concept of God grant that aspect. If fact they go even further and suggest he is necessary which naturally entails objectivity. To consider Go dis to consider an objective being.

I make this claim only. That is reasonable to believe objective reality because it is a virtually universally apprehended truth. It depends on how technical you want to be. Normally we credit experiential data with objective fact. The ultimate test usually being "well did you see it". The same way my visual experience makes comprehension reliable my moral experience makes it's comprehension reliable. However if you want to get technical then only the fact we think is an objective fact beyond question. My criteria is what is used in common discourse.

I explained that above and no they are not equivalent. Bigfoot is a thing experienced by a mere handful many of which are suspicious to begin with. It also is something that if true you should rationally expect more evidence for. Objective morality is experienced by almost everyone (billons and billions) and which we would expect to have no more evidence for than we do. So you have categorical nightmares to straighten out here.

This is a epistemological issue. It's like saying that Pluto is not an objective solar body because some say planet and some say something else. I really have no opinion myself here so I leave between the person and God.

About the day after pill? I have no need or ability to do so. The fact that objective morality exists is not related to whether we are aware of what it is in al situations or as you have it here whether we all perfectly agree about it. The two subjects just are not related or dependent.

Less than helpful. Ok lets put that to the test.

Abortion.

1. The secular view is that we have no idea and have no means to determine when a life has rights. However we will make laws up anyway and based on those arbitrary laws exterminate humans in the womb by the millions for the sake of the convenience of the person who actually is responsible. Secularists don't know but gamble for death.

2. The Christian position is that we don't know when a life becomes a sovereign entity with a soul. It could be a day one or day 250. However we say to not take the chance. We gamble for life. Millions would be alive today that are dead (perhaps the guy who would have cured cancer).

That is an example where just the idea would be helpful. If in fact the idea is true it would become infinitely helpful.

Now you may not see anything helpful in millions living instead of dying, but I do. I could give countless examples like this where faith was or would be very helpful. In fact I am inclined to think I would die before I could post them all.

A sovereign entity with a soul? Do we think we have a soul? Silly question, of course you do. But most of us here don't, so the moral justifications we use do not involve hypothetical entities, obviously. I do not believe in objective morality, but if there was one, then I would say that laying down moral precepts on the basis of being commanded by imaginary things (e.g. gods) is morally wrong. Incidentally, the existence of an immortal soul at embryo level would make abortion not so much of a deal, wouldn't it?

You really seem to be obsessed with abortion, though. It is perfectly ok to have your opinion on the subject, but I would not promote your opinions to universal truths without a strong rational support. You seem to have only emotional support, which is obviously not very effective towards finding objective truths, if any.

So, what makes you think that your views about abortion are no more than your personal opinion? After all, ethics comes from ethos which means "customs" in Greek. So, it is entirely possible that what we consider moral is just a reflection of some ever changing customs.

I could show you evidence of many objectve things, including Pluto, independently of its classification. Or, I can say that Pluto objectively exists. Being a planet or not, seems to depend on our arbitrary ways to classify things. Is morality the same? Arbitrary? Or do you think that there is an objective planetness and we just miss the epistemological instruments to ascertain it?

So, what evidence can you show us that abortion is objectively wrong (whatever wrong means). With evidence I mean something different from stomping your feet, references to an ancient book or to likely imaginary deities, or question begging comparisons between secular vs. not secular societies.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

A sovereign entity with a soul? Do we think we have a soul? Silly question, of course you do. But most of us here don't, so the moral justifications we use do not involve hypothetical entities, obviously. I do not believe in objective morality, but if there was one, then I would say that laying down moral precepts on the basis of being commanded by imaginary things (e.g. gods) is morally wrong. Incidentally, the existence of an immortal soul at embryo level would make abortion not so much of a deal, wouldn't it?

The existence of the soul is incidental to my point. My point was that we grant life with sovereignty at some point. Secular people do so by arbitrary means and have no idea when this takes place but despite the ignorance kill of life on an industrial scale. Christians don't know but believe it on a rational basis and do not decide by arbitrary means when this occurs but instead decide not to support the killing of millions in the womb. The soul is a rational basis but is not required. However most people believe we have a soul or something very similar. I bet that that still small voice in you believes that you are not merely a sum of your organic components.

You really seem to be obsessed with abortion, though. It is perfectly ok to have your opinion on the subject, but I would not promote your opinions to universal truths without a strong rational support. You seem to have only emotional support, which is obviously not very effective towards finding objective truths, if any.

I am not obsessed with anything. I however do use the greatest and clearest example of what I am trying to say and will use them many times.

So, what makes you think that your views about abortion are no more than your personal opinion? After all, ethics comes from ethos which means "customs" in Greek. So, it is entirely possible that what we consider moral is just a reflection of some ever changing customs.

It does not matter. That was a case where my faith (wrong or right) would have produced millions more lives instead of deaths. That is a gain that faith would have wrought. Cultures have almost always distinguished between things contrary to man's law and things contrary to transcendent truth. Look up the Roman Mallum concepts and you will find the best explanations of this. Almost everyone (even you) act as if some moral duties are facts. I am certain you think at something is actually wrong like virtually everyone else. I hope if you see a child being tortured for fun you think it is wrong, not that it is merely out of fashion currently.

I could show you evidence of many objectve things, including Pluto, independently of its classification. Or, I can say that Pluto objectively exists. Being a planet or not, seems to depend on our arbitrary ways to classify things. Is morality the same? Arbitrary? Or do you think that there is an objective planetness and we just miss the epistemological instruments to ascertain it?

Every piece of evidence would be an experiential one the same as morality would be. If I can trust my eyes and fingers why can't I trust my moral perceptions?

So, what evidence can you show us that abortion is objectively wrong (whatever wrong means). With evidence I mean something different from stomping your feet, references to an ancient book or to likely imaginary deities, or question begging comparisons between secular vs. not secular societies.

That was not my claim. I am not here to read anyone the law. My point was very simplistic.

1. Objective morality only exists if God does.
2. We are reasonable to believe objective morality exists.
3. WE are therefor reasonable to believe God exists.

That does not require I provide evidence for which moral edicts are objectively true.

Ciao

- viole

That is enough for me. I am gone. You have a great Christmas.

 

[viole]

The existence of the soul is incidental to my point. My point was that we grant life with sovereignty at some point. Secular people do so by arbitrary means and have no idea when this takes place but despite the ignorance kill of life on an industrial scale. Christians don't know but believe it on a rational basis and do not decide by arbitrary means when this occurs but instead decide not to support the killing of millions in the womb. The soul is a rational basis but is not required. However most people believe we have a soul or something very similar. I bet that that still small voice in you believes that you are not merely a sum of your organic components.

I am not obsessed with anything. I however do use the greatest and clearest example of what I am trying to say and will use them many times.

It does not matter. That was a case where my faith (wrong or right) would have produced millions more lives instead of deaths. That is a gain that faith would have wrought. Cultures have almost always distinguished between things contrary to man's law and things contrary to transcendent truth. Look up the Roman Mallum concepts and you will find the best explanations of this. Almost everyone (even you) act as if some moral duties are facts. I am certain you think at something is actually wrong like virtually everyone else. I hope if you see a child being tortured for fun you think it is wrong, not that it is merely out of fashion currently.

Every piece of evidence would be an experiential one the same as morality would be. If I can trust my eyes and fingers why can't I trust my moral perceptions?

That was not my claim. I am not here to read anyone the law. My point was very simplistic.

1. Objective morality only exists if God does.
2. We are reasonable to believe objective morality exists.
3. WE are therefor reasonable to believe God exists.

That does not require I provide evidence for which moral edicts are objectively true.

That is enough for me. I am gone. You have a great Christmas.

You too.

I will be back.

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

1. Objective morality only exists if God does.
2. We are reasonable to believe objective morality exists.
3. WE are therefor reasonable to believe God exists.

Except number one is nothing but a bold empty claim.

 

[icehorse]

I found this post by accident. If I have already answered it feel free to ignore it.

I agree that we need dogmas. That was my point. Secularism is not being free of dogmas. It comes with a set of dogmas but lacks any foundation for most of the important ones. Theism and secularism both posit that life has meaning, life has worth, men have equality, morality exists, etc..... but only with theism are any of those actually true. Secularism comes with just as much dogma but unlike theism it is many times empty dogmas.

The US was never intended to be free of religion. The Washington monument has a bible in it's corner stone, the capitol has scripture carved into it's walls, congress has had chaplains. It was only to be free of state backed religious coercion.

I agree that the US has been the most benevolent political theory ever tried. It was the result of a body of men who were 95% Christian and most of the rest theists. The US system is inexorably linked with faith. That started to change somewhat in the late 50's and just about every moral and secular indicator or excellence has fallen. As secularism has grown we have gone much father into debt, moral insanity, and fallen in standards we used to dominate like education.

This is an interesting correlation. There are lots of factors of course. WW II was a boon to the US economy, and that economic momentum lasted quite a while. I'm not sure what you mean by "moral insanity", and maybe we don't need to open that can of worms to pursue this idea. As soon as I read this post it got me thinking about the US's infrastructure problems. Back in the day we built an amazing interstate highway system. Since then we don't seem to be willing to maintain it. On the education front, I suspect that what's really happened is that the countries that are now ahead of us educationally probably just kept evolving educationally, and we've been relatively stagnant.

As possible counter arguments to your idea, we've seen a strong surge of fundamentalism and frequently that correlates to a rejection of science. I also think that a big factor is that technology has given the immoral a whole new set of ways to fleece more honest people. I think technology has played a huge role in the rise of the oligarchy and with it a steep rise in political corruption. I don't have any stats, but it *seems* that corruption in Washington is at a record high.

 

[Cephus]

Quick definitions for the unlearned:

Amoral: lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something.

Immoral: not conforming to accepted standards of morality.

Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

When someone claims that he/she is irreligious, does it give them justifications to negate teachings of religious communities. For example, thou not steal. Does it give someone who claims to be irreligious the right to steal?

Also, which of the above words excellently describes the life of an Athiest?

The law is not based on religion, especially in most western nations. I do not accept the teachings of the Bible, I accept the secular laws on the books of the nation in which I live. If you're incapable of seeing the difference, there's no hope for you.

 

[Cephus]

Except number one is nothing but a bold empty claim.

As is #2. The conclusion is based on two bold, empty claims and thus irrelevant.

 

[Nakosis]

Laws are not morality. Even God's laws do not produce morality. Laws are derived from moral truths (if they are not then they are not moral) and are applied through law. For example the moral would be that human life has infinite worth and a purpose. So the law though shall not murder is an application of that moral truth. Making a law that says though shall not murder without the foundation for it will never produce moral truths. Your talking about ethics not objective morality.

Yes well it get difficult as some people constantly confuse the two, so it is easier to think of ethics as group morals. Then there is my personal morals. However you're right it's better termed ethics.

I am not trying to convince you what morals are true. I am trying to show that without a transcendent source none of them are true. This is not an argument about which morals are best or even how we come to know them. This is about the nature of morality it's self.

The nature of morality I find is that I have a inherent sense of right and wrong. It may or may not be much different than yours. No guarantees. In some cases I can consciously understand the source of this morality, sometimes I can't. What I feel is right and wrong I don't necessarily choose.

Anything externally applied, such as "God's Laws" I see them as ethics. Christian ethics since they would be enforced by God. God's morality, since God would be the source, man's ethics since assuming man is not the source.

I agree but if my God exists you will be absolutely accountable for those decisions eternally. So those moral precepts which you denied will none the less apply to you anyway. That is the very nature of objective things. I can deny gravity but I still going to fall if I jump out the window. Gravity is objectively true and if and only if God exists is morality objectively true.

Do you believe God could control gravity or is God subject to it? If God is all powerful then gravity is not a universal truth. I would think God allows gravity to exist and we are subject to it. I think we agree?

If there is no God as an Atheist might say then there is no truth... Personally I think the ultimate position of a lack of God is nihilism. My personal beliefs aside, I can't be certain whether you or the Atheist is correct. I am personally ready to accept either case as the truth of it becomes apparent to me.

So I am fine with nihilism. Whereas sometimes atheists try to find a way to avoid it. If it is the case then we are free to set our own purpose. Determine our own morals.

What? are you from the anti-gravity coalition? Let me say this one more time. Mathematics is a language used to quantify and describe natural laws and events. Gravity is just a mysterious force which we do not understand at all beyond what it's strength relates to. I agree man created mathematical language but we did not create the truths it describes. No man ever made 2 things plus two things equal to four things. We simply came up with an equation 2 + 2 = 4 to describe it. I have said two things from the start.

We determine the division. We decide that something is two not one. Sorry, my beliefs. There is only unity not division. Division is an arbitrary perspective of man. I've no guarantee that man's perspective is the truth. I seems arrogant to me to assume that man's perspective of what is true is universal. It may be true enough for man, doesn't make it universal.

1. Man has never created a mathematical truth.
2. Unless by math you mean the language used to describe natural processes.

What about geometry? The concept of a line is based on a number of unprovable postulates. Accepting something which is unprovable the concept of which was created by man we determine the "truth" of other mathematical concepts.

Integration of the outside radius equation then subtracting the integral of the interior radius leaves the volume of the interior.

The concept of a sphere. What sphere exists naturally in the universe? We developed the concept and apply it. No man, no sphere, nothing existent to apply.

Does or does not mankind generally dominate the animal kingdom? There are some exceptions but in countless ways animals act subservient to humans even when not threatened. It is almost impossible to force a horse to run into a man. We have no natural defenses and are very weak creatures yet we subdue the mightiest creatures on earth. Humans have authority over their freewill. No other human can make me will something I chose not to. Humans are moral agents. We have authority over our moral decisions.

Umm... That what I am saying. Your claim is there exists a higher authority, I think?

Your perceptions can but only if God exists can your perceptions be based in fact. You may believe that murder is wrong. With God you would be right, without him your would be wrong.

I wouldn't be wrong for me. When Moses murdered the Egyptian overseer was that right or wrong?

Let's say that this was 1942. Hitler is exterminating Jews by the millions and euthanizing the infirm in Europe. Your the US president. The only way you can justify stopping him is if you have a transcendent criteria or moral truths which Hitler has violated. Without God you literally have to violate the system you support to stop him. Without God Hitler's opinions are just as valid as yours and there is no transcendent standard to see who is right. You either have to stop him regardless of the fact you can not show you are right or you have to invent a standard you cannot found on anything. IOW you must become a liar and a hypocrite to stop him without God. That is why no politician tried to get support through Social Darwinism to stop Hitler but instead insisted Hitler had violated objective moral duties which are true only if God existed. I can give countless examples like this.

Depending on what my personal sense of right and wrong I might even support hm. Many did. My personal morals say what he did was bad. If I can find enough other people to agree with me, then I can enforce my personal morals. They just happen to be in common with enough other people. I don't need them to be universally moral.

Genocide is "wrong" for me, it is wrong for enough other people we can enforce my personal morals on the rest of the world. If Hitler was strong enough then he could have enforced his. Just because we happen to have some morals in common doesn't make them universal.

I don't need them to be universal to justify them or even justify them. I am going to go ahead and act according to my morals whether you see them as right or wrong. The only thing that is going to stop me from doing that is some kind of enforcement like a war. War stopped Hitler. Might allowed us to enforce a set of morals we held in common. This whether God exists or not.

No governments take away permissions as they see fit. If I am entitled to the pursuit of happiness no one can strip me of that right and they will ultimately be accountable for their attempts to do so. hey can only deny me permission to actualize that right for a period of time. Governments do not have any rights to give anyone. It was not the government Jefferson cited as the source of rights but God. And he was certainly no Christian. They cannot bestow or take away rights. They can only interfere with my ability to exercise them. Having a right and the ability to exercise it are two entirely different things.

Idealism created by man like the sphere. If you can get enough to accept it's truth it works. We all agree to the truth of this and act as if it were true then it might as well be true for all intents and purposes. Whether it has any actuality or not. It's a postulate. Something not provable but something we choose to accept and base other truths on.

Governments cannot take away rights. Lets say God granted I have the right to bear arms. A government cannot take that right away even if they took me guns. After this geological microsecond is over and we go into eternity I will be compensated for the infringement upon my rights and they will be held accountable for their attempts to limit my ability to exercise them.

You are making claims the truth of which is not readily apparent. You are basing truth on something unprovable. Same as a non-believer might do. For me I see "truth" doesn't have to have actuality for man, only acceptance. Acceptance is no guarantee of actuality. However that doesn't mean it can't work for us.

That is why we say our rights are being trampled on or infringed upon instead of saying trampled away or infringed into non existence. A right and the ability to exercise it are distinct concepts.

So a right is something you believe you should be able to do. Belief is no guarantee you will actually be able to do it. What I believe I should be able to do and what I believe you should be able to do maybe different. So which of us have the power to determine that?

Nope, if the illusion is all we have then it never mattered too much. After this brief life Hitler and my destiny are the same. In fact everything ends the same for eternity. Compared with laws that reflect actual eternal truths and that earthly accountability reflects eternal accountability mere perception is almost meaningless. However I have not been discussing what could be the value of the illusion or the real thing. It has been what the nature of the thing really is. I really only have two points:

A. If God exists objective moral truth exists.
B. If he does not it cannot.

That's it.

The only differing possibility I would note is the existence of a "God" without objective moral truths.

Basically I don't see whether a God exists of not as a justification for the existence of moral truths.

Not your argument, I understand. So otherwise I agree. The bug in my shorts is the disbelief that God provides morality. Maybe a position you don't want to argue against so I'll try to keep that in mind.

Now that is just not even close to true. If God exists then I may be rewarded for good deeds, prayer may be answered, insight into transcendent truth may be granted, my actions will have eternal consequences, final justice will prevail. Now if he did not merely thinking that was true will never make it true.

Well, I agree with the last line.

Actually the universe is lawful not chaotic. From a math background I am not even sure chaos is possible. Everything is either the result of laws like cause and effect, natural determinism, or freewill. I agree they may seem chaotic to us but I am not sure if anything is truly chaotic. We can't even build truly random number generators intentionally trying to do so.

I find that intelligence creates order. I choose to create order. I don't believe order can exist without intelligence. So no God or no man, no order. It is easy to assume the order we create, "find", has always been there.

I would mostly agree here. I think in most cases common knowledge or perception is better than nihilism, but in some cases chaos may be better than intentional evil.

The judgement of evil is the root of morality...

I judge evil based on my morals which I accept I can't justify. That is not a problem for me. I enforce my morals where I can. Just because I can.

If there exists a God, I would assume God to enforce God's morals just because God can, not because there exists a universal moral truth.

 

[1robin]

Yes well it get difficult as some people constantly confuse the two, so it is easier to think of ethics as group morals. Then there is my personal morals. However you're right it's better termed ethics.

You must have been saving up. This is one long post. I would not agree that ethics are group morals. Ethics are not objectively moral at all. They are social constructs. They may apply to a group or an individual but do not reflect any objective fact. As the philosopher of science said without God morality is an illusion. Ethics are either illusionary or contrived.

The nature of morality I find is that I have a inherent sense of right and wrong. It may or may not be much different than yours. No guarantees. In some cases I can consciously understand the source of this morality, sometimes I can't. What I feel is right and wrong I don't necessarily choose.

The point I am making is that in order for a single moral feeling you or anyone has ever had to actually reflect objective fact is if God exists. With God my feelings exists but beyond that there is a transcendent truth to the matter. Without God feelings is all there is. This reminds me of something a famous atheistic moralist said. He was asked how he knew the difference between right and wrong. He smugly answered "feelings what else". The theist responded "some cultures love their neighbors and some eat them both based on feeling, do you have a preference?"

Anything externally applied, such as "God's Laws" I see them as ethics. Christian ethics since they would be enforced by God. God's morality, since God would be the source, man's ethics since assuming man is not the source.

That is like saying gravity is Newton's physics. God being the author of everything made morality true of everything. Murder would be actually wrong if he exists. BTW it is not true because he said it. His eternal nature determined what is right or wrong, his commands only reflect the fact.

Do you believe God could control gravity or is God subject to it? If God is all powerful then gravity is not a universal truth. I would think God allows gravity to exist and we are subject to it. I think we agree?

Strange analogy. I believe God created gravity but at times may superseded it. He is not governed by it. However gravity is not derived from his nature. Gravity does not want to exist and God merely need to get out of it's way. God created gravity literally from nothing. Gravity like morality is an objective truth we are subject to.

If there is no God as an Atheist might say then there is no truth... Personally I think the ultimate position of a lack of God is nihilism. My personal beliefs aside, I can't be certain whether you or the Atheist is correct. I am personally ready to accept either case as the truth of it becomes apparent to me.

Is the statement there is no truth actually true? If it is then it isn't, if it isn't then it is. Atheism produces all kinds of these incoherencies. I disagree in that without God truth can still exist but not objective moral truth. Nature has many true properties without God but morality is not among them. I agree that without God only moral nihilism exists but not total nihilism. Total nihilism even serves as it's own defeater. I am not attempting to prove whether God exists. I am making a necessary conditional proposition that is true if he exists or what would be true if he does not.

So I am fine with nihilism. Whereas sometimes atheists try to find a way to avoid it. If it is the case then we are free to set our own purpose. Determine our own morals.

Society is not fine with nihilism. No government has ever been based on nihilism and total nihilism can't possibly be true. You may be fine with 6 billion independent feudal kingdoms with their own laws but that has never been how man has lived. The only people who live as if their moral preference is the basis for moral reality are psychopaths.

We determine the division. We decide that something is two not one. Sorry, my beliefs. There is only unity not division. Division is an arbitrary perspective of man. I've no guarantee that man's perspective is the truth. I seems arrogant to me to assume that man's perspective of what is true is universal. It may be true enough for man, doesn't make it universal.

Your analogy disproves what it analyzes. We do not determine mathematic fats. We discover them. The only thing we determine is the language they are described by. Gravity is an objective fact not a mater of opinion. It is such an objective concept that despite having the slightest idea what it is it is universally consented to and obeyed by all macroscopic entities.

What about geometry? The concept of a line is based on a number of unprovable postulates. Accepting something which is unprovable the concept of which was created by man we determine the "truth" of other mathematical concepts.

Something unproven is never by default man made. The concept of a line is testable even in the abstract. I work in electronics and everything from the oscillations of rubidium atoms to the calibration of absolute zero-ized quantities bears witness to the factual nature of a line. A line is an abstract ray that connects two points in space. It has no test it has ever failed.

The concept of a sphere. What sphere exists naturally in the universe? We developed the concept and apply it. No man, no sphere, nothing existent to apply.

If you mean a perfect sphere then it is an abstract concept that is independent of nature. BTW mathematics is among the few issues that scholars suggest has no dependence on nature. It is said that even if there were not two things in existence to add together the proposition that 1 + 1 = 2 would still be true. However spherical concepts are testable. I know of no test they have ever failed.

Umm... That what I am saying. Your claim is there exists a higher authority, I think?

I was pointing out reasons to believe there is a higher authority. Faith and proof are exclusionary. Faith precludes proof.

I wouldn't be wrong for me. When Moses murdered the Egyptian overseer was that right or wrong?

I believe the bible concludes it was wrong. Killing is not condemned by God, only murder is. If Moses murdered the Egyptian he was wrong, but only God knows whether he was justified or not.

Depending on what my personal sense of right and wrong I might even support hm. Many did. My personal morals say what he did was bad. If I can find enough other people to agree with me, then I can enforce my personal morals. They just happen to be in common with enough other people. I don't need them to be universally moral.

What in our extremely finite view is right or wrong is many times flawed. That is why I am glad there is a final arbiter of justice. Without God the eternal result for Hitler and
Billy Graham is the same. The Atheist can only shrug and say "oh well", where as the Christian has a real hope that justice will occur. You can enforce your personal choices but you cannot make a single one of them true. If God exists and even if you had everyone on your side you will all lose. The eternal fact of the matter will prevail. My computer is screwing up so I will separate this post into two.

 

[1robin]

Genocide is "wrong" for me, it is wrong for enough other people we can enforce my personal morals on the rest of the world. If Hitler was strong enough then he could have enforced his. Just because we happen to have some morals in common doesn't make them universal.

That is not true. You might not prefer it but that does not make it wrong or right for anyone.

I don't need them to be universal to justify them or even justify them. I am going to go ahead and act according to my morals whether you see them as right or wrong. The only thing that is going to stop me from doing that is some kind of enforcement like a war. War stopped Hitler. Might allowed us to enforce a set of morals we held in common. This whether God exists or not.
Idealism created by man like the sphere. If you can get enough to accept it's truth it works. We all agree to the truth of this and act as if it were true then it might as well be true for all intents and purposes. Whether it has any actuality or not. It's a postulate. Something not provable but something we choose to accept and base other truths on.

I made no comments about what you may use to justify what you do. God has made you a free moral agent but he did not make you capable of creating moral truth. The bible says you may agree with God and the truth and live with that truth eternally or you may deny it and be crushed by it. God and the bible endows you with freewill. I am not denying it or attempting to discuss what motivates it. I am talking about the nature of the concept of morality not what you may like or not like to do and why.

You are making claims the truth of which is not readily apparent. You are basing truth on something unprovable. Same as a non-believer might do. For me I see "truth" doesn't have to have actuality for man, only acceptance. Acceptance is no guarantee of actuality. However that doesn't mean it can't work for us.
So a right is something you believe you should be able to do. Belief is no guarantee you will actually be able to do it. What I believe I should be able to do and what I believe you should be able to do maybe different. So which of us have the power to determine that?

Let me state what my claims are again. You seem to have lost track of them.

1. Only with God does an objective moral realm exist.
2. There is virtually a universal perception of an objective moral realm.
3. It is reasonable to trust our moral perceptions just as with out visual perceptions.
4. It is reasonable to believe objective moral truths exist.
5. It is reasonable to believe God exists.

A right does not exists because we believe it does. A right either exists or not regardless of what I believe. What I believe may interfere with the capacity to actualize a right but a right is inherent to our nature and if it exists it requires God. No human being has any rights to grant another. We can only grant to ability to enjoy those rights. Even if I deprive your ability to enjoy a right I can't take the right it's self away. If you had it then God must exist, if God exists then that right was immutable, if immutable then we will be held responsible for our acknowledgement of it. IOW we can only temporarily interfere with a right, if God exists we have those rights and will all be held accountable for the abuse of them eternally.

The only differing possibility I would note is the existence of a "God" without objective moral truths.
Basically I don't see whether a God exists of not as a justification for the existence of moral truths.

I do not understand how you cannot see the difference between the existence of a transcendent moral law giver and it's absence. The moral locus or all moral truth or it's absence. The foundation for al possible objective moral facts or it's existence. It is like saying you don't see what gravity has to do with things falling.

Not your argument, I understand. So otherwise I agree. The bug in my shorts is the disbelief that God provides morality. Maybe a position you don't want to argue against so I'll try to keep that in mind.

I am a little lost by this. BTW belief is irrelevant the concept of God inherently includes the grounding of all moral truths. The only issue is whether that God exists.

Well, I agree with the last line.

You weave and bon a lot but I think you actually understand my primary point.

I find that intelligence creates order. I choose to create order. I don't believe order can exist without intelligence. So no God or no man, no order. It is easy to assume the order we create, "find", has always been there.

I don't believe we disagree in any significant way. God is a disembodied mind and has created a lawful and rational universe. Faith in that is what created modern science. The great Christian thinkers determined a rational God would create a rational universe. Their efforts to decode the rationality in the universe created modern science. Newton, Galileo, Pascal, Faraday, Maxwell, Sandage and most of the fathers of modern science were motivated by faith. Newton wrote more of faith than science for example.

The judgement of evil is the root of morality...

However evil as an exclusive and objective category of truth does not even exist without God. There is no evil to judge without Good, No good or evil without a transcendent law by which to determine which is which, with God no law by which to determine or make evil......evil.

I judge evil based on my morals which I accept I can't justify. That is not a problem for me. I enforce my morals where I can. Just because I can.

IOW you decide what you prefer and subject anyone you can, to your own opinion. Congratulations you are a psychopath who has made himself God. I am kidding because I know you don't actually act like what you said is actually true. No sane person does.

If there exists a God, I would assume God to enforce God's morals just because God can, not because there exists a universal moral truth.

God enforces morals like gravity because they are true. He leaves us able for a time to decide whether we will substitute truth with falsehood and in the end we get exactly what we chose. Eternity with God and all becomes with (truth, justice, love, etc.....) or eternity with the hell of lies we created and everything that lacks. Many have said that hell is the absence of the ability to reason.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I carried out a poll here a while back and the majority view was that atheists do indeed have morals. So that proves it then.

 

[Nakosis]

You must have been saving up. This is one long post. I would not agree that ethics are group morals. Ethics are not objectively moral at all. They are social constructs. They may apply to a group or an individual but do not reflect any objective fact. As the philosopher of science said without God morality is an illusion. Ethics are either illusionary or contrived.

Kind of surprised at how quickly you responded. Been away on a family trip for a few days.

I agree just can't always get other posters to adopt the terms.

The point I am making is that in order for a single moral feeling you or anyone has ever had to actually reflect objective fact is if God exists. With God my feelings exists but beyond that there is a transcendent truth to the matter. Without God feelings is all there is. This reminds me of something a famous atheistic moralist said. He was asked how he knew the difference between right and wrong. He smugly answered "feelings what else". The theist responded "some cultures love their neighbors and some eat them both based on feeling, do you have a preference?"

Yes, some cultures eat animals and some cultures respect their right to exist. Personally I have a preference not to eat animals. So based on that all meat-eaters are immoral? Actually I see it as immoral for myself. What others do is their business. I suppose some just see humans as another animal.

"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them?"

That is like saying gravity is Newton's physics. God being the author of everything made morality true of everything. Murder would be actually wrong if he exists. BTW it is not true because he said it. His eternal nature determined what is right or wrong, his commands only reflect the fact.

When I understand the eternal nature of God then I can verify your claim. Until then I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I don't know that you are right. It's usually not very persuasive to try and get acceptance for a position by making claims others can't validate. I do so myself when I think the claim should be self-evident, but apparently we don't all agree what is self-evident.

Does it ever seem suspicious to you that you and God are so like minded? Such suspicions lead me to doubt what I really know about God. I can't honestly equal your certainty.

Strange analogy. I believe God created gravity but at times may superseded it. He is not governed by it. However gravity is not derived from his nature. Gravity does not want to exist and God merely need to get out of it's way. God created gravity literally from nothing. Gravity like morality is an objective truth we are subject to.

If God exists then we would be subject to both. From that perspective then isn't even an atheist subject to it? So to say an atheist has no morality is to deny God.

Is the statement there is no truth actually true? If it is then it isn't, if it isn't then it is. Atheism produces all kinds of these incoherencies. I disagree in that without God truth can still exist but not objective moral truth. Nature has many true properties without God but morality is not among them. I agree that without God only moral nihilism exists but not total nihilism. Total nihilism even serves as it's own defeater. I am not attempting to prove whether God exists. I am making a necessary conditional proposition that is true if he exists or what would be true if he does not.

So no real disagreement here. Total nihilism perhaps for a different thread.

Society is not fine with nihilism. No government has ever been based on nihilism and total nihilism can't possibly be true. You may be fine with 6 billion independent feudal kingdoms with their own laws but that has never been how man has lived. The only people who live as if their moral preference is the basis for moral reality are psychopaths.

Or not....

I would argue that Buddhism is a form of nihilism. Maybe a reason why some governments object to it.

Your analogy disproves what it analyzes. We do not determine mathematic fats. We discover them. The only thing we determine is the language they are described by. Gravity is an objective fact not a mater of opinion. It is such an objective concept that despite having the slightest idea what it is it is universally consented to and obeyed by all macroscopic entities.

That man is subject to. At this moment in time at least. We observe something and give it a name. Little real understanding of it's cause. I don't think that puts us in a position to make a claim on "truth". It is true enough that we can work with it. Maybe a hundred years from now that truth will be obsolete. I'm happy for your certainty of a truth I don't possess. Just because, in this moment, I am subject to it doesn't mean I'm capable of determining some universal truth about it. You believe you can ok. I'm reserving my complete certainty about it's nature.

Something unproven is never by default man made. The concept of a line is testable even in the abstract. I work in electronics and everything from the oscillations of rubidium atoms to the calibration of absolute zero-ized quantities bears witness to the factual nature of a line. A line is an abstract ray that connects two points in space. It has no test it has ever failed.

Well probably because it is abstract. We determine two points in space and imagine a line. Not reality, imagination. No existent line. You want to base the truth on something you imagine, ok. Lets accept that you have more confidence in your authority over the universe then I have in mine.

I assume I work with the same reality as you, however I also expect the universe to throw me a curve ball when I'm not looking. Whatever and if there is some actual universal truth, it would be incidental to what man has actually accept as truth. You accept God as truth. I can question and doubt anything as the truth. Not because of what I know but because what I don't know.

Truth is based on your certainty which is based on your feelings about something. In this I think the atheist was correct.

If you mean a perfect sphere then it is an abstract concept that is independent of nature. BTW mathematics is among the few issues that scholars suggest has no dependence on nature. It is said that even if there were not two things in existence to add together the proposition that 1 + 1 = 2 would still be true. However spherical concepts are testable. I know of no test they have ever failed.

We define a concept, them we find cool mathematical properties about it. Since we defined a perfect concept it's properties will be perfect. It may not precisely represent reality but it is accurate enough to be usable. It's "true" because it works with all of the other concepts and ideas about the universe developed by man. What I see is man forgetting that the source of his knowledge is other men. You test it, it works well enough, that's all the is required for it to be accepted as "truth" by others.

I was pointing out reasons to believe there is a higher authority. Faith and proof are exclusionary. Faith precludes proof.

Proof requires faith in ones own ability to determine a conclusion from the evidence provided. I determine conclusions but continue to question and doubt those conclusions. There is usually more evidence to be found which may alter a conclusion. And there exists a degree of competence in the person making the conclusion. Proof requires faith in something. What you accept as proof and what I accept as proof can be different and lead to different conclusions of truth.

Faith just lacks the getting someone else to accept evidence they've decided as valid and coercing them into the same conclusion part. A way to get agreement on truth whether it is actually truth or not. [/quote]

I believe the bible concludes it was wrong. Killing is not condemned by God, only murder is. If Moses murdered the Egyptian he was wrong, but only God knows whether he was justified or not.

If God doesn't exists we are out of luck. You are left to judge it on your personal feelings. Killing is wrong but maybe necessary for survival sometimes. Can circumstances make it right? I don't know but I will go with my feelings if necessary.

What in our extremely finite view is right or wrong is many times flawed. That is why I am glad there is a final arbiter of justice. Without God the eternal result for Hitler and
Billy Graham is the same. The Atheist can only shrug and say "oh well", where as the Christian has a real hope that justice will occur. You can enforce your personal choices but you cannot make a single one of them true. If God exists and even if you had everyone on your side you will all lose. The eternal fact of the matter will prevail. My computer is screwing up so I will separate this post into two.

Yes, pretty long post. Thanks for your time.

Fine, I accept that possibility. I also accept the responsibility for my choices. Lets say there is a judgement of some kind. I want to be judge for who I actually am. imperfection and all. Rather then pretend to be someone somebody else thought I should be. My morals are what they are. If that is not good enough then it is not. I really have no problem being judged and accepting the consequences of who I truly am.

 

[1robin]

Kind of surprised at how quickly you responded. Been away on a family trip for a few days.

My response time depends on whether I am at work and bored. I have been stuck here except for Christmas with technical issues I can't solve so I was bored.

I agree just can't always get other posters to adopt the terms.

It is extra hard in this case because morality can mean objective fact, or it can be taken to mean societal convention. In this context I define it is objective fact. I use ethics for societal convention just to make it easier.

Yes, some cultures eat animals and some cultures respect their right to exist. Personally I have a preference not to eat animals. So based on that all meat-eaters are immoral? Actually I see it as immoral for myself. What others do is their business. I suppose some just see humans as another animal.

It was not really my point to suggest that eating animals or even people is wrong. It was to suggest the things we invent you call morals are not moral unless God exists. Our laws are merely self serving speciesm without God. We have no more value than a gnat yet will not blink an eye if someone kills a millions gnats but put them under the jail if they kill a baby. My point was that without God we are self interested biological anomalies who invent laws and call them morals but they are not true, not constant, and not based on a single moral fact. Only with God are humans actually the primary entities on earth and our laws related to moral truth.

"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them?"

My point was not that eating humans is evil (though it probably is). It is hat feelings produce moral opposites and are among the worst possible foundations for morality. BTW you must take these verses in context. This is not about cannibalism. It is about Peter's acting like he was morally superior because he did not eat meat dedicated to idols. It merely means a piece of chicken is not immoral because some idiot offered it to an idol. I do appreciate the attempt to use scripture though.

When I understand the eternal nature of God then I can verify your claim. Until then I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I don't know that you are right. It's usually not very persuasive to try and get acceptance for a position by making claims others can't validate. I do so myself when I think the claim should be self-evident, but apparently we don't all agree what is self-evident.

Again my claim is conditional. The God of the bible is a well defined concept. If that God exists then what I have said necessarily follows. Only whether that God exists remains a question. It is pervasive in all forms of academia to make "conditional" propositions that can't be verified to a certainty. All court cases do so, science is based on it, history is almost entirely composed of them. Almost all issues beyond the fact we think are conditional and cannot be verified to a certainty but are resolved to a probability. In fact you cannot name one thing that is certain other than you think and you can't even make that a certainty to me, but only to yourself. My claim it is highly probable God exists and therefor highly probable morality exists objectively.

Does it ever seem suspicious to you that you and God are so like minded? Such suspicions lead me to doubt what I really know about God. I can't honestly equal your certainty.

No, that is exactly what I would expect. Humans are made in his image. However we do not think the same way in many ways. I want to do all kinds of things he forbids, many of them I can't even see the harm in.

If God exists then we would be subject to both. From that perspective then isn't even an atheist subject to it? So to say an atheist has no morality is to deny God.

We are all subject to moral fact if God exists but unlike gravity morality can be denied and resisted effectively temporarily, however no one will escape perfect moral accountability. I never say atheists lack morality. I say atheism lacks a foundation for objective morality.

So no real disagreement here. Total nihilism perhaps for a different thread.

Yes.

Or not....

I would argue that Buddhism is a form of nihilism. Maybe a reason why some governments object to it.

Buddhism is not really theology. It was a philosophical attempt to compete with Hinduism and it is utterly incoherent.

That man is subject to. At this moment in time at least. We observe something and give it a name. Little real understanding of it's cause. I don't think that puts us in a position to make a claim on "truth". It is true enough that we can work with it. Maybe a hundred years from now that truth will be obsolete. I'm happy for your certainty of a truth I don't possess. Just because, in this moment, I am subject to it doesn't mean I'm capable of determining some universal truth about it. You believe you can ok. I'm reserving my complete certainty about it's nature.

Mathematics is inherently testable. For example we can predict the exact angle a wall should topple. If we then construct one and it falls at that precise angle then the mathematics behind it has been proven. We do not determine what that angle is, we discover preexisting.

Well probably because it is abstract. We determine two points in space and imagine a line. Not reality, imagination. No existent line. You want to base the truth on something you imagine, ok. Lets accept that you have more confidence in your authority over the universe then I have in mine.

If you take classes in vector mechanics the lines become things that can be applied in reality and tested.

I assume I work with the same reality as you, however I also expect the universe to throw me a curve ball when I'm not looking. Whatever and if there is some actual universal truth, it would be incidental to what man has actually accept as truth. You accept God as truth. I can question and doubt anything as the truth. Not because of what I know but because what I don't know.

We all work with the same reality but we do not all grant that that same reality exists. Some still think the earth is flat. However that can be tested and proven round. If God exists we all deal with the same moral facts, though we do not all grant the same moral truths, but we will all be held accountable to them.

Truth is based on your certainty which is based on your feelings about something. In this I think the atheist was correct.

That is incorrect. The ontological nature of a thing is independent of the epistemological method by which I comprehend it. I may feel that the sun is cold but that will not change the fact it is hot.

We define a concept, them we find cool mathematical properties about it. Since we defined a perfect concept it's properties will be perfect. It may not precisely represent reality but it is accurate enough to be usable. It's "true" because it works with all of the other concepts and ideas about the universe developed by man. What I see is man forgetting that the source of his knowledge is other men. You test it, it works well enough, that's all the is required for it to be accepted as "truth" by others.

We find mathematical truths if they bear objective testing and we create a language to describe them. You cannot define a single thing into existence. The sun exists despite any description of it.

Proof requires faith in ones own ability to determine a conclusion from the evidence provided. I determine conclusions but continue to question and doubt those conclusions. There is usually more evidence to be found which may alter a conclusion. And there exists a degree of competence in the person making the conclusion. Proof requires faith in something. What you accept as proof and what I accept as proof can be different and lead to different conclusions of truth.

That depends on your standards. Most proof are subject to valid premise and logical conclusions that are then tested. However if you want to be extremely technical all we know is that we think. I am not making a claim to certainty. I am making a claim to a necessary deduction from a conditional premise.

Faith just lacks the getting someone else to accept evidence they've decided as valid and coercing them into the same conclusion part. A way to get agreement on truth whether it is actually truth or not.

That is true but not really the issue. The issue is whether or not faith turns out to be true.

If God doesn't exists we are out of luck. You are left to judge it on your personal feelings. Killing is wrong but maybe necessary for survival sometimes. Can circumstances make it right? I don't know but I will go with my feelings if necessary.

That is my point. If God exists good, evil, right, wrong, and justice are true. If not we are selfish contrivers of illusion which is unrelated in anyway to moral fact.

Yes, pretty long post. Thanks for your time.

Time is one commodity I have an abundance of in many cases. My job depends on technology do what it is supposed to. It rarely does and so must be sent back for re-design, meanwhile I get bored.

Fine, I accept that possibility. I also accept the responsibility for my choices. Lets say there is a judgement of some kind. I want to be judge for who I actually am. imperfection and all. Rather then pretend to be someone somebody else thought I should be. My morals are what they are. If that is not good enough then it is not. I really have no problem being judged and accepting the consequences of who I truly am.

I am not attempting to tell you what morals to obey. I am attempting to tell you what the nature of morality is given two possible scenarios.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

....good, evil, right, wrong, and justice...

All those things were around long before Moses came down from the mountain.

 

[1robin]

All those things were around long before Moses came down from the mountain.

I did not say Moses is the basis for a single moral truth. In fact I have repeatedly said the exact opposite. We seem to be having the exact same discussion in two threads and in both you have responded to my posts in ways that have nothing to do with what I said. I have been at this a long time and make specific arguments. I suggest you look closer at what I am saying, it is not random or haphazard and nothing I said is affected by your responses.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I have been at this a long time and make specific arguments.

Maybe they just aren't very good arguments then.