Why Morality cannot come from God

[Apologetics]

Saying a murderous regime is going to murder you when you are actively trying to irritate them is not a prophecy.

If you had read the Gospels you would not have made this erro . You see Pilot found no fault In Jesus and was going to let him Go Luke 23.20 It was the Jews who said crucify him. Luke 23:21-23

 

[Apologetics]

What mountain was moved? As I said, Kid Krishna could use a mountain like an umbrella. Didn't Jesus have enough faith?

You still dont get it. Its a fiqure of speech. Like something very difficult one is confronted with and cant see their way around it.

 

[Sunstone]

What does 'moral fact' mean? What's an example illustrating that meaning?

Unless Curious George is using the term in a new or different way, examples of "moral facts" would be, "murder is evil", "murder is morally bad", "usury is morally bad", "stealing is immoral except in certain cases", and so forth. It's a common enough term in philosophy and people who use it typically believe in a objective moral order. That objective moral order is what makes a moral fact a "fact".

 

[Sunstone]

If you had read the Gospels you would not have made this erro . You see Pilot found no fault In Jesus and was going to let him Go Luke 23.20 It was the Jews who said crucify him. Luke 23:21-23

Those rascally Jews! I do so hate the way they controlled the mind and will of Pilate!

 

[Apologetics]

What mountain was moved? As I said, Kid Krishna could use a mountain like an umbrella. Didn't Jesus have enough faith?


Saying a murderous regime is going to murder you when you are actively trying to irritate them is not a prophecy.


We can't even agree on what death means NOW. I doubt the ancients had an EKG handy. Plus, John the Baptist was faithful and that didn't glue his head back on.


Jews lived in an area conquered about every other week. Syria owned the land more often than Jews did. It is a vital strategic location and that's why everyone wanted it.


I just don't like self-serving hypocrisy. If that was absent, I'd be more of a fan.


I have a decent enough relationship with God. I don't need a book to tell me something when God can do it more directly.


And some theists are hypochondriacs, seeing illness where none except the mental instability to think of imagined sickness exists.


The Bible isn't my God. God is my God.

Take the title Christian off our post. Christians follow the teaching of Jesus which are contained in the Bible which you say you dont need.

 

[Curious George]

What does 'moral fact' mean? What's an example illustrating that meaning?

@Sunstone explained, but I would choose a less controversial example that is harder to challenge. I gave the example earlier: it is wrong to brutally kill a woman in the neck only for helping her children. Now I am pretty sure we can find this moral fact universally accepted as true. I don't know of any culture that would suggest all women who help their children ought to be brutally killed. But just because we can find a universally accepted moral fact does not mean morality is objective.

In order to create objectivity we need anot objective standard. Some have pointed toward a god or gods, some have pointed toward evolution, some have pointed towards pragmatism. The idea is that there is some standard by which we can judge some individual action as right or wrong.

I find it curious that any person, having read about the subject, would challenge the idea that objective morality is accepted and discussed or is a reasonable concept.

 

[Curious George]

No, we no one can prove the negative in this nor any other, and that is not the issue at hand. This is request is a fallacy.

I have seen negatives proved with contradiction many times.

In logic and arguments it is up to the claimant to prove or demonstrate the positive.

I think you are mistaken about logic.

If something is ONLY theoretical without supporting evidence there is no reason to believe.

I am not asking you to "believe" anything except the idea that even your assessment of morality does not remove itself from the objective/subjective question.

I have provided good references that describe the problems of an objective morality from either the Christian apologist and secular perspective and you have not responded

One can find plenty of contemporary discussion regarding objective and subjective morality. This just goes to show that these are not anachronisms.

 

[blü 2]

Unless Curious George is using the term in a new or different way, examples of "moral facts" would be, "murder is evil", "murder is morally bad", "usury is morally bad", "stealing is immoral except in certain cases", and so forth. It's a common enough term in philosophy and people who use it typically believe in a objective moral order. That objective moral order is what makes a moral fact a "fact".

Thanks for that.

I have difficulty thinking any of those might qualify as a fact as I understand the word, for two reasons.

One is that they're not facts, ie are not accurate reports of real states of affairs.

The other is that 'murder' (as 'evil' / 'morally bad') is a highly technical concept for which no definition is offered; eg doesn't distinguish homicide in self-defense, in military operations with particular qualities [more specifics needed], due to insanity of a kind with particular qualities [more specifics needed], in crime passionel and honor killing, eye for an eye justice and feud, by accident, by accident in the course of an offense [more specifics needed], by negligence, and so on and so on. And that usury has never been more popular, either with buyers or lenders.

And an example someone offered, 'Killing infants for fun is bad', based on the evolutionary imperative to protect and nurture one's children, is not moral but practical in origin, enforced as an instinct in the form of the moral sense.

Ah well.

 

[blü 2]

@Sunstone explained, but I would choose a less controversial example that is harder to challenge. I gave the example earlier: it is wrong to brutally kill a woman in the neck only for helping her children. Now I am pretty sure we can find this moral fact universally accepted as true. I don't know of any culture that would suggest all women who help their children ought to be brutally killed. But just because we can find a universally accepted moral fact does not mean morality is objective.

Two things. First, wouldn't such a command go unnoticed in the massacres of men, women and children carried out at God's command in the Tanakh? In other words, neither God nor his agents would agree with it at that particular time and place.

Second, the fact that we all agree doesn't make it objective. It simply points to the Darwinian practicality of having your children survive, and that's only moral because humans think it is. Actually its origins are practical.

I find it curious that any person, having read about the subject, would challenge the idea that objective morality is accepted and discussed or is a reasonable concept.

I continue to think the idea of objective morality is at the very best a misdescription, and more likely a total misconception.

 

[Sunstone]

...they're not facts, ie are not accurate reports of real states of affairs.

I agree. By that definition of "fact", they are not facts, and something along those lines is what most of us mean by "fact". I think calling things "moral facts" often enough lends them a weight they don't deserve because many of us will associate the term "fact" with, say, so called, "scientific" facts.

The other is that 'murder' (as 'evil' / 'morally bad') is a highly technical concept for which no definition is offered; eg doesn't distinguish homicide in self-defense, in military operations with particular qualities [more specifics needed], due to insanity of a kind with particular qualities [more specifics needed], in crime passionel and honor killing, eye for an eye justice and feud, by accident, by accident in the course of an offense [more specifics needed], by negligence, and so on and so on. And that usury has never been more popular, either with buyers or lenders.

And an example someone offered, 'Killing infants for fun is bad', based on the evolutionary imperative to protect and nurture one's children, is not moral but practical in origin, enforced as an instinct in the form of the moral sense.

Ah well.

I expect you understand that calling "murder is bad" a moral fact is merely shorthand for saying something like "Murder is bad if the circumstances are P, Q, R, S, T, U, and V. Saves a ton of typing to just say, "murder is bad" when the only thing needed is to communicate what a moral fact is.

 

[shunyadragon]

I have seen negatives proved with contradiction many times.

I think you are mistaken about logic.

No I am not mistaken. I have taken a course in logic at the college level.

I do not believe you have, because it is logically fallacious.

From: negative proof - Wiktionary
negative proof (plural negative proofs) A fallacious judgment that, because a premise cannot be proven true, that premise must be false.

burden of proof
You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.

From: Your logical fallacy is burden of proof
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.

I am not asking you to "believe" anything except the idea that even your assessment of morality does not remove itself from the objective/subjective question.

Again, proving the negative is fallacious. See above.

One can find plenty of contemporary discussion regarding objective and subjective morality. This just goes to show that these are not anachronisms.

Not meaningful, because 'One can find plenty' is not a way to argue without references,. Yes there have been many writings dealing with the issue and I have cited some that deal with the problem, and you have cited nothing.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

If you had read the Gospels you would not have made this erro . You see Pilot found no fault In Jesus and was going to let him Go

If you had read history you would know there was a LOT of stretching to make Pilate seem sympathetic. Pilate was so evil that an Empire built on evil banished him for being evil.

You still dont get it. Its a fiqure of speech. Like something very difficult one is confronted with and cant see their way around it.

But it still fails because faith does NOT solve everything.

Take the title Christian off our post.

No. I am "post" Christian. I was raised Christian and I still believe in God. I just no longer idolize a poorly written set of texts to the point I think reality must conform to what it says and not the other way around. A false prophet is one who gets things wrong and the bible frequently gets things wrong, so by it's OWN judgment ....

Christians follow the teaching of Jesus which are contained in the Bible which you say you dont need.

Jesus is the milk. I'm eating solid foods now.

 

[Curious George]

Two things. First, wouldn't such a command go unnoticed in the massacres of men, women and children carried out at God's command in the Tanakh? In other words, neither God nor his agents would agree with it at that particular time and place.

I do not know that anyone would disagree with it at any particular point in time.

Second, the fact that we all agree doesn't make it objective. It simply points to the Darwinian practicality of having your children survive, and that's only moral because humans think it is. Actually its origins are practical.

Are you quoting me here? I said precisely this already-that we all agree does not make it objective. Appeals to evolution or pragmatism do not void objective morality. In fact, we could rest an objective morality on exactly that.

I continue to think the idea of objective morality is at the very best a misdescription, and more likely a total misconception.

Yet you have not explained why. That you or I or some other guy does not believe in an objective morality does not discredit the notion. There is a difference between saying this other idea makes more sense to me and this idea is wrong. Objective morality is not so easily dismissed.

 

[Curious George]

No I am not mistaken. I have taken a course in logic at the college level.

Lol, I am not interested in your cv.

I do not believe you have, because it is logically fallacious.

From: negative proof - Wiktionary
negative proof (plural negative proofs) A fallacious judgment that, because a premise cannot be proven true, that premise must be false.

I question whether you understand this.

burden of proof
You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.

Quote me. I responded to your insinuation that there was some magical burden of proof on me.

From: Your logical fallacy is burden of proof

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.



Again, proving the negative is fallacious. See above.

Again you are wrong. See proof by contradiction.

Not meaningful, because 'One can find plenty' is not a way to argue without references,. Yes there have been many writings dealing with the issue and I have cited some that deal with the problem, and you have cited nothing.

This is disingenuous. Either you are aware or not. If you are not aware then that is the problem. If you are this is a dishonest tactic.

 

[blü 2]

I agree. By that definition of "fact", they are not facts, and something along those lines is what most of us mean by "fact". I think calling things "moral facts" often enough lends them a weight they don't deserve because many of us will associate the term "fact" with, say, so called, "scientific" facts.

D'Ac.

I expect you understand that calling "murder is bad" a moral fact is merely shorthand for saying something like "Murder is bad if the circumstances are P, Q, R, S, T, U, and V. Saves a ton of typing to just say, "murder is bad" when the only thing needed is to communicate what a moral fact is.

*Bites lip*

 

[blü 2]

you have not explained why. That you or I or some other guy does not believe in an objective morality does not discredit the notion. There is a difference between saying this other idea makes more sense to me and this idea is wrong. Objective morality is not so easily dismissed.

The expression 'objective morality' indicates that at least some moral rules or statements exist independently of the concept of them in any brain.

Rules are concepts, not real objects, and concepts are only found in brains. Hence I can no more attach a coherent meaning to the expression than you can provide me with an example of a moral statement that has objective existence.

 

[Curious George]

The expression 'objective morality' indicates that at least some moral rules or statements exist independently of the concept of them in any brain.

Rules are concepts, not real objects, and concepts are only found in brains. Hence I can no more attach a coherent meaning to the expression than you can provide me with an example of a moral statement that has objective existence.

That would indicate that thought itself did not objectively exist. Is that your claim?

 

[Sunstone]

To: To Whomever it May Concern
From: Your Doting Uncle Sunstone
Date: March, 23, 2018
Subject: Have You Gotten "the Memo" Yet On Proving a Negative?


In folk logic, it is impossible to prove a negative. So it is impossible, according to folk logicians, to prove that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, Bigfoot, and @Debater Slayer's morals don’t exist.

*cough* *cough* However, all or almost all professional logicians would laugh at such a notion. "Hah! Hah!", they would laugh! "Hah! Hah!" (<--------- Disclaimer: This is a mere simulation of logicians laughing. Real logicians might or might not laugh in a similar manner. No logicians were hurt during the creation of this simulation.)

Seriously, I have yet to come across even a single paper by a professional in logic or in epistemology that says you can't prove a negative. Not one! Moreover, I've come across papers in peer-reviewed journals that argue (persuasively, in my opinion) that you can indeed prove a negative -- just as well as you can prove anything else (and both inductively and deductively).

Just one example here, just one example to keep things short and to the point:

One of the most basic rules or laws of logic is called the "Law of Non-Contradiction". Here's one formulation of it: "A proposition cannot be both true and not true at the same time." Nothing is both true and false at the same moment.

Please take a moment to notice that the law is a negative statement.

Now, I won't go into the gory details here, but you can actually prove that law is true, prove it according to rigorous, air-tight, reasoning (although it's a little complicated). So, right off the bat, with a very basic law of logic, we have a case of proving the negative.

Inductively speaking, you can also prove negatives! To be precise, you can prove them just as well as you can prove anything else inductively.

So you have now "gotten the memo" on whether you can or cannot logically prove a negative.

Please enjoy the rest of your day and accept my apologies for yet once again being insufferable.



cc @Terese

 

[blü 2]

That would indicate that thought itself did not objectively exist. Is that your claim?

Not at all. Thought, concepts, &c exist as physical brain states. However, the contents of a concept may be either real ─ have an objective counterpart eg 'this chair' ─ or have no objective counterpart eg 'unicorn'. Not unlike a drawing on a piece of paper ─ the paper and ink / paint &c exist in reality, the chair whose image is drawn at the top exists in reality, so this image has a real counterpart, and the unicorn whose image is drawn below does not exist in reality, so that image has no real counterpart.

 

[Curious George]

Not at all. Thought, concepts, &c exist as physical brain states. However, the contents of a concept may be either real ─ have an objective counterpart eg 'this chair' ─ or have no objective counterpart eg 'unicorn'. Not unlike a drawing on a piece of paper ─ the paper and ink / paint &c exists physically, the chair whose image is drawn at the top exists physically, so this image has a real counterpart, and the unicorn whose image is drawn below does not exist physically, so that image has no real counterpart.

Are you now suggesting that thought exists independently of a brain?