nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

This new 'catch-all' thread will operate similar to the Creationism and Protestant/Catholic Debate threads.

Too many threads are spoilt and dragged off topic when a non-Christian poster demands, "What evidence do you have for God?" While some may enjoy such discussion, it is frequently off-topic and derails discussion of other subjects (the very discussion that is the reason for this Forum's existence).

So, in order to protect the Forum and facilitate on topic discussions, all that stuff now belongs here. Anyone who keeps trying to derail other discussions by demanding evidence for God's existence will be warned, and if those warnings are ignored then swift infractions and bans will ensue.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Turtwig

I like to think of morality/ethics (never sure which is the correct terminology) as mathematics, whether they actually have an objective truth is debatable but used within our world they have practical uses and elegant truths.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

It was not on about what I like or whether I was for or against the idea of moral absolutes. I was only pointing to the definition of objective. To someone who believes in objective morals of course it matters if morals are relative. Whether or not they can prove morals are subjective or objective is beside the point.

Ok. I interpreted "matters to you" as "matters to you when determining if it's true or not". If that's not the case then there's no immediate disagreement.

I find it ironic that many atheists who insist on moral relativity also support the idea of objective empirical science.

Well it really depends on how you talk about morals. I believe morals are objective in the sense that, what is true under a given moral system, is true for everyone. Similarly, if a scientific theory makes accurate predictions, it does so for everybody. If a theorem is true under a given set of mathematical axioms, it is true for everybody.

But I also accept that the adoption of one moral system over another reflects our subjective opinions. And in this sense I would say morals are subjective. If we are relativists because of this, then it is a purely descriptive relativism, as opposed to a meta-ethical or normative relativism. And as I have mentioned previously, it is often more accurate to describe the common atheist position as moral nihilism.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

I have not mentioned evolution applied to society or culture. You (per usual) seem to be reading your own narrative into what I'm saying. To avoid further frustration I suggest you take a step back.

I suggest you look two lines above that comment where you stated:

Evolution of humans explains why certain moral notions exist in all humans across all cultures.

A clear mentioning of evolution being the mechanism explaining how morality applies to cultures

contradicting yourself (per usual)

I refer you to the start of the thread and Phil's original posts that triggered this discussion. It doesn't matter what Christians believe, it matters what they can support (in this thread, not the forum in general)

But we are talking about you supporting your belief in objective morals. fair enough if it doesn't really matter what you believe but how about supporting that belief?

I didn't know I required evidence to believe in moral absolutes. I think you are confusing that with objectivism, which would require evidence.

You don't no more than someone requites evidence to believe in God. But if as you claim it matters objectively as an argument from reason as to what people support then how about you supporting your belief?

Absolutism is objectivism just as subjectivism is relativism. i think you are the one who is contradicting yourself continually.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/relativi/

For example, moral subjectivism is that species of moral relativism that relativizes moral value to the individual subject.

And why does the creator of the universe have to be the first cause? Remember in this thread we are looking for a reason for that being the case, not simply "Well that is what Christians believe"

Remember in this thread i referred to "turtles all the Way down" and "Occam's Razor"?
Go look them up please.

Occam's razor would state you cannot say that the creator is or isn't infinite, is or isn't the first cause, as neither of those things are necessary for the creation of the universe. Adding erroneous details beyond saying that it was what ever is required to make the universe is adding unnecessary complexity to the explanation.

Occam's razor would state adding unnecessary turtles is not necessary!

Remember I'm not saying it is or isn't finite. I'm challenging Phil's proposition that is must have been, or at least likely was.

Mainstream science accepts that the Universe is finite and had a beginning in time.

And that point must be supported. The argument is that "God did it" is a more likely explanation that any of the other ones. What is the support for such a position, assuming you agree.

The argument that a belief in God as the first cause is reasonable, is valid.

No, as I've already stated. These discussions will move a lot faster if you simply assume that I believe what I state I believe.

I can only go by what you actually type. If you state

Evolution of humans explains why certain moral notions exist in all humans across all cultures.

I view this a contradictory to

I have not mentioned evolution applied to society or culture

Accusing me of not keeping up with you isn't changing contradictions.

That is off topic. If you think my comments to PDN where unfair you need to take it up with the mods.

Whether or not I think it was unfair is a different issue. You made a claim about what PDN believed and how he acted. How about supporting that claim?

That link contradicts you in the first line.

Relativism is sometimes identified (usually by its critics) as the thesis that all points of view are equally valid.

If you believe in subjective morality it is not a requirement to believe that all points of view are equally valid. That is moral relativity, contrasted by moral absolutism. It is distinct from the objective vs subjective morality.

"Sometimes" and "usually" isn't an absolute definition is it?

They can be sometimes equally valid. RElativity is subjective . Absolutism is objective.

I believe in subjective morality. I believe that morality is only opinion.

Then you care a moral relative and can't claim you also believe in objective/absolute morals.

I certainly do not think that all moral opinions are equally valid.

That is a straw man! You cant believe in "subjective morality" and also believe in "moral absolutes" since absolutes are objective.

In fact unless a moral opinion agrees with my own I tend to think it is utterly invalid and the person who came up with it is a moron.

The fact that you claim to be morally and intellectually superior to people who don't agree with you is also beside the point that you can't believe in "subjective morality" and also believe in "moral absolutes" since absolutes are objective.

CerebralCortex

ISAW wrote: »

Occam's razor would state adding unnecessary turtles is not necessary!

Who's positing turtles?

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

Well it really depends on how you talk about morals. I believe morals are objective in the sense that, what is true under a given moral system, is true for everyone.

that is a form of moral relativism if the "given system" can change.

Similarly, if a scientific theory makes accurate predictions, it does so for everybody. If a theorem is true under a given set of mathematical axioms, it is true for everybody.

But that isn't anything to do with science. It is because mathematics is a formal language - an extension of logic. It has to be true by definition.

But I also accept that the adoption of one moral system over another reflects our subjective opinions. And in this sense I would say morals are subjective. If we are relativists because of this, then it is a purely descriptive relativism, as opposed to a meta-ethical or normative relativism. And as I have mentioned previously, it is often more accurate to describe the common atheist position as moral nihilism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism

Morality may simply be a kind of make-believe, a complex set of rules and recommendations that represents nothing real and is seen as a human creation

Fair enough but it still means one can't be a nihilist and believe in objective/absolute morals if they are human creations.

CerebralCortex

ISAW wrote: »

Fair enough but it still means one can't be a nihilist and believe in objective/absolute morals if they are human creations.

But a theist can't be believe either, moral codes are at the whim of the their creator. He can change them as he wishes.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

True. But I suspect that the type of person who would reach atheism as a conclusion would also find some serious flaws in the idea of moral relativism, so I suspect they are a minority.

Moral relativism seems to be more of a straw man idea of what atheists must believe if they don't accept objective moral authority. You see this time and time in posts by theists who seem to think we must regard all moral opinions as equally valid unless God can magically tell is which ones to believe.

I never said you regard all moral opinions as equally valid or that moral relativists have to.
and I have come across agnostics who are very opposed to atheistic anti religious people.

There is a poster to the alt.atheism.satire usenet group going under the name of Fasgnadh who fits this category.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

I suggest you look two lines above that comment where you stated:

And I repeat

I have not mentioned evolution applied to society or culture.

I in fact made the exact opposite point you think I was making, I said it applies across all cultures, ie isn't culturally determined.

ISAW wrote: »

But we are talking about you supporting your belief in objective morals.

That might be what you are talking about, but since I don't believe in objective morals it certainly isn't what I'm talking about.

What you call me contradicting myself I call you not listening/reading properly and jumping to false conclusions about what you think I'm saying based on erroneous assumptions on your part.

It seems to be a feature of our discussions, I've lost track of the amount of times I've had to correct a statement of yours that presented me saying something that is the exact opposite of what I actually stated.

ISAW wrote: »

fair enough if it doesn't really matter what you believe but how about supporting that belief?

I already have, earlier in the thread as I said.

ISAW wrote: »

You don't no more than someone requites evidence to believe in God.

God's existence is an objective fact though, isn't it? It is either correct or it is not correct? Since my morality isn't, it is subjective I can only give the reasons for my different moral opinions.

ISAW wrote: »

Absolutism is objectivism just as subjectivism is relativism.

No it isn't, as I've explained already.

ISAW wrote: »

Remember in this thread i referred to "turtles all the Way down" and "Occam's Razor"?
Go look them up please.

I'm very familiar with what Occam's razor states.

ISAW wrote: »

Occam's razor would state adding unnecessary turtles is not necessary!

No one is adding extra turtles. There is no reason to believe this creator isn't the infinite first cause. But equally there is no reason to believe it isn't.

The simplest explanation is the one that makes no comment on the finite or infinite aspect of this entity at all since it has no bearing on the universe.

ISAW wrote: »

Mainstream science accepts that the Universe is finite and had a beginning in time.

We aren't talking about the universe, we are talking about the creator of the universe. There is no more reason to suppose such a creator must have been the infinite first cause than to suppose it wasn't. It is an unknown as neither proposition is required to explain the universe (hence Occam's razor)

ISAW wrote: »

The argument that a belief in God as the first cause is reasonable, is valid.

You don't seem to be following. I know Christians believe that. The question is why is it more likely an explanation. Again read the first page of the thread.

ISAW wrote: »

I can only go by what you actually type. If you state

I view this a contradictory to

Well that is very foolish of you since it was perfectly clear that the point I was making is that it is not cultural dependent and this theories of cultural or social evolution, such as memetics, have little relevance.

ISAW wrote: »

Accusing me of not keeping up with you isn't changing contradictions.

The contradictions only exist because you are not following properly what is being said.

Its like me saying "this has nothing to do with God" to have you say something like "Ah you mention God, so clearly you think it has something to do with God". :rolleyes:

ISAW wrote: »

Whether or not I think it was unfair is a different issue. You made a claim about what PDN believed and how he acted. How about supporting that claim?

Not unless I get permission from the mods to drag this thread off topic. Like I said take it up with the mods.

ISAW wrote: »

"Sometimes" and "usually" isn't an absolute definition is it?

So you are disagreeing with the definition in the link you gave me to demonstrate that I was wrong. Brilliant ISAW.

ISAW wrote: »

They can be sometimes equally valid. RElativity is subjective . Absolutism is objective.

No it isn't, as I explained.

ISAW wrote: »

Then you care a moral relative and can't claim you also believe in objective/absolute morals.

Since objective doesn't mean absolute I can most certainly claim I believe in absolute morals without claiming I believe in objective morals.

ISAW wrote: »

That is a straw man! You cant believe in "subjective morality" and also believe in "moral absolutes" since absolutes are objective.

I'm pretty sure I can since I do, thus demonstrating I can.

Explain to me the problem with me saying "In my opinion rape is universally wrong no matter what context it is carried out in". That statement accepts subjectivity ("in my opinion") and absolutism ("universally wrong")

Can you point out the contradiction there

ISAW wrote: »

The fact that you claim to be morally and intellectually superior to people who don't agree with you is also beside the point that you can't believe in "subjective morality" and also believe in "moral absolutes" since absolutes are objective.

If I was morally relative I would have to view other moral opinions as equally valid as my own. As you point out, I don't, I view my opinion as more valid than anyone else.

You are proving your own argument wrong simply by discussing this with me.

ISAW

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Well I have to admit I find the concept absolutely abhorrent, secondly I'm bored and I enjoy argument and sharpening my arguments. Also I think it's important to spread rationality wherever possible(impossible as that seems in here). You still haven't answered my question, do you prefer the one view or the other?

Your belief that Christianity is irrational is not supported.

Come on omniscience and free will as incompatible properties is a gaping wound in the theists arguments

How is it a gaping wound?
Please read the references i supplied.

Also if free will existed seperate from the physical interaction of the brain, why does neuroscience show evidence to the contrary etc.

You realise you are claiming tantamount neuroscience proves free will is dependent on the brain and proves souls can't exist? Given that science falsifies rather than validates claims it seems a bit extraordinary to me.

How does this preclude scientific study?

I stated some tyhings like values or ethics are outside of or maybe above science. One can not scientifically pre determine what is mnorally right and which people are superiour to others . That is what the Nazis tried to do and it is why genetics was embargoed - not because of scientific proof but because scientists themselves beliieved their science was not sufficient to make moral decisions about their science.

Can you clarify this? Is this just you saying that there are scientists that think that scientific inquiry has it's limitations? I'd say must scientists would agree but that is limitation of ability not the method.

Im saying several things. One is that ther are several philosophies of science. another is science is not sufficient for society . It needs guidance and judgement from outside science. Otherwise scientism is the result.

I'm confident that cognitive science is not a pseudo-science.

so what. scientists arand philosophers of science are confident memetics is pseudo science.

I'm not a proponent of memetics.

Apparently Dawkings last his faith in it too.

I am a reductionist however, the brain is the mind the mind is the brain. All the evidence points in this direction and so does the philosophical consensus. Do you reject the consensus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Mind

These approaches have been particularly influential in the sciences, especially in the fields of sociobiology, computer science, evolutionary psychology and the various neurosciences.[12][13][14][15] Other philosophers, however, adopt a non-physicalist position which challenges the notion that the mind is a purely physical construct. Reductive physicalists assert that all mental states and properties will eventually be explained by scientific accounts of physiological processes and states.[16][17][18] Non-reductive physicalists argue that although the brain is all there is to the mind, the predicates and vocabulary used in mental descriptions and explanations are indispensable, and cannot be reduced to the language and lower-level explanations of physical science.[19][20] Continued neuroscientific progress has helped to clarify some of these issues. However, they are far from having been resolved, and modern philosophers of mind continue to ask how the subjective qualities and the intentionality (aboutness) of mental states and properties can be explained in naturalistic terms.[21][22]

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Come on omniscience and free will as incompatible properties is a gaping wound in the theists arguments and molinism does not suffice.

Not at all. We've had discussions on this forum about this in the past and no-one has been able to demonstrate any more convincing reason why they should be incompatible other than "Well, because I can't understand it and therefore I say they are incompatible."

If we remember that omniscience is different from predestination, then there is no incompatibility. If I view you making a choice then my observation of you does not impinge upon your freedom to choose. That remains true no matter where in time I observe your choice from, be it past present or future.

CerebralCortex

ISAW wrote: »

Your belief that Christianity is irrational is not supported.

Actually you couldn't be more wrong. FYI I'm using someone else's blog because there are far too many arguments for the irrationality of religion in general that I'd be here all day. If your interested in rationality. May I recommend this site?

ISAW wrote: »

How is it a gaping wound?
Please read the references i supplied.

The gaping wound of logically incompatible properties of a deity. You think I haven't read the references?

ISAW wrote: »

You realise you are claiming tantamount neuroscience proves free will is dependent on the brain and proves souls can't exist? Given that science falsifies rather than validates claims it seems a bit extraordinary to me.

My views on this are articulated in this video if you care to watch it? No I'm seeing that there is no such thing as contra causal free will this is evident from neuroscience, the study of minds and computation.

ISAW wrote: »

I stated some tyhings like values or ethics are outside of or maybe above science. One can not scientifically pre determine what is mnorally right and which people are superiour to others . That is what the Nazis tried to do and it is why genetics was embargoed - not because of scientific proof but because scientists themselves beliieved their science was not sufficient to make moral decisions about their science.

What the hell are you talking about? Genetics isn't embargoed! The Nazis where a hopelessly misinformed and irrational group, they thought the were superior to others granted and used confirmation bias to twist actual truths into nonsense so they could advance their goals. Fortunately they were misguided in one sense or else we'd be speaking German right now.

ISAW wrote: »

Im saying several things. One is that ther are several philosophies of science. another is science is not sufficient for society . It needs guidance and judgement from outside science. Otherwise scientism is the result.

No there is just one scientific method. Indeed I'm a scientific naturalist.

ISAW wrote: »

so what. scientists arand philosophers of science are confident memetics is pseudo science.

Well your original contention was that the mind was non physical and super natural until you started straw manning memetics. Cognitive science is built up around the idea of the mind and minds being amenable to science.

ISAW wrote: »

Apparently Dawkings last his faith in it too.

Straw man. I don't have faith in memetics if the evidence accrues in favour of memetics then I'll have no choice but to accept it.

ISAW wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Mind

Why did you add this? There are plenty of atheist philosophers of mind. David Chalmers is one proponent of property dualism, an atheist afaik and also completely wrong.

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

Not at all. We've had discussions on this forum about this in the past and no-one has been able to demonstrate any more convincing reason why they should be incompatible other than "Well, because I can't understand it and therefore I say they are incompatible."

If we remember that omniscience is different from predestination, then there is no incompatibility. If I view you making a choice then my observation of you does not impinge upon your freedom to choose. That remains true no matter where in time I observe your choice from, be it past present or future.

Yes I remember the dicusssion being hastily closed before I could respond too. Omniscience and all omni qualities of a deity imply predestination logically or else you get a paradox. How can I do something other than what I was created to do if God knew everything and created everything!
That's not even getting to these problems.
FWIW I have only logic to go by.

Turtwig

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Yes I remember the dicusssion being hastily closed before I could respond too. Omniscience and all omni qualities of a deity imply predestination logically or else you get a paradox. How can I do something other than what I was created to do if God knew everything and created everything!
That's not even getting to these problems.
FWIW I have only logic to go by.

But relying on the rules of logic itself has constraints.
"This sentence is a lie."
What's to say it can't be both true and false at the same time?

CerebralCortex

Malty_T wrote: »

But relying on the rules of logic itself has constraints.
"This sentence is a lie."
What's to say it can't be both true and false at the same time?

Good point. How does it impact my argument? I'm curious. In fairness I think if you look at the universe and the way it behaves and you believe then that some intelligence created then you have to reconcile the actual evidence with the belief or lose it. Human behaviour is reducible to quarks. Baring Heisenberg's uncertainty principle you can fairly accurately predict a persons behaviour given enough information. If you're all knowing and not subject to the laws of the system you've created how then can you send someone to hell for all eternity for something you knew they would and designed them to do. It's nonsense.

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Yes I remember the dicusssion being hastily closed before I could respond too.

Well so long as people abide by the Charter and try to discuss the issues rather than attacking personalities then there's no need for that to happen.

Omniscience and all omni qualities of a deity imply predestination logically or else you get a paradox.

Then it should be possible to demonstrate the logic instead of just making an assertion.

How can I do something other than what I was created to do if God knew everything and created everything!

You were created to worship God and enjoy Him forever. So you are already doing something other than what you were created to do. God created you with free will, and, although He is watching you as you use that free will, He is not interfering with your freedom.

Turtwig

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Good point. How does it impact my argument? I'm curious.

Well you're discussing the supposed creator of all things. If Christians believe He follows a logical framework then your arguments could be valid, but from a more pragmatic approach the reality that we know of thus far is hardly logical and if there is a creator it's quite possible logic isn't a reliable tool into reasoning for or against his existence.

(Am I taking an ignostic position here?)

CerebralCortex

Malty_T wrote: »

Well you're discussing the supposed creator of all things. If Christians believe He follows a logical framework then your arguments could be valid, but from a more pragmatic approach the reality that we know of thus far is hardly logical and if there is a creator it's quite possible logic isn't a reliable tool into reasoning for or against his existence.

(Am I taking an ignostic position here?)

Yes and for that reason I find ignosticism interesting. However the Christian does claim to be on the side of logic and this is what I'm contesting. They're not.

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

Well so long as people abide by the Charter and try to discuss the issues rather than attacking personalities then there's no need for that to happen.

I wasn't abiding by the charter and I attacked the person? News to me and I'm very disappointed I did. Sincerely I apologise for that.

PDN wrote: »

Then it should be possible to demonstrate the logic instead of just making an assertion.

You were created to worship God and enjoy Him forever. So you are already doing something other than what you were created to do. God created you with free will, and, although He is watching you as you use that free will, He is not interfering with your freedom.

Nonsense.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

And I repeat

I have not mentioned evolution applied to society or culture.

I in fact made the exact opposite point you think I was making, I said it applies across all cultures, ie isn't culturally determined.

You seem to be at odd with reason! the issue was not whether morals were culturally determined or not. The point you made was that biology determines morality; that biological evolution not only relates to but is a causal factor in culture. And you conbtradict this in saying that you never mentioned any relationship between culture and society denying the relationship exists which you subsequently insist exists. Straw men about cultural determinism aren't dealing with the contradiction.

That might be what you are talking about, but since I don't believe in objective morals it certainly isn't what I'm talking about.

so you are not a moral objective/absolutist and are a subjective/relativist. Elsewhere you are subjective/relativist and not objective/absolute. Which is it? You can't be both absolutist and also believe in relative/subjective standards.

What you call me contradicting myself I call you not listening/reading properly and jumping to false conclusions about what you think I'm saying based on erroneous assumptions on your part.

It seems to be a feature of our discussions, I've lost track of the amount of times I've had to correct a statement of yours that presented me saying something that is the exact opposite of what I actually stated.

Hand waving arguments about what you think I said aren't really supporting anything. As far as i remember You denied being a moral relativist in the past and I took ytou at your word on that. But here you claim that you believe in subjective standards.

the problem seems to be that you think one can be subjective and absolute at the same time. One cant believe in moral absolutes and also believe in subjective morals at the same time. It is a logical contradiction.

God's existence is an objective fact though, isn't it?
It is either correct or it is not correct?

Yes.

Since my morality isn't, it is subjective I can only give the reasons for my different moral opinions.

we haven't got that far yet (despite yopur suggestion that you move fast). we have not got past you explaining how you can claim to be morally subjective and also claim to believe in moral absolutes?

I'm very familiar with what Occam's razor states.

entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity

No one is adding extra turtles. There is no reason to believe this creator isn't the infinite first cause. But equally there is no reason to believe it isn't.

You did! You added two turtles remember? Where you used the number "3" but you said this number could be as large as anyone wanted? I only pointed out Occams Razor suggests it should be "1".

The simplest explanation is the one that makes no comment on the finite or infinite aspect of this entity at all since it has no bearing on the universe.

the infinite regression of God that created god ...that created the universe are unnecessary additional turtles.

We aren't talking about the universe, we are talking about the creator of the universe. There is no more reason to suppose such a creator must have been the infinite first cause than to suppose it wasn't. It is an unknown as neither proposition is required to explain the universe (hence Occam's razor)

And uncaused cause does not require additional uncaused causes to add to them (which when added become the uncaused cause) Only ONE is required.

You don't seem to be following. I know Christians believe that. The question is why is it more likely an explanation. Again read the first page of the thread.

Why is it an unreasonable explanation?

Well that is very foolish of you since it was perfectly clear that the point I was making is that it is not cultural dependent

Rubbish! that straw man was burned above! You never mentioned cultural determinism until your last reply. culture predetermining morals is an entirely differe3nt argument to evolution predetermining morals.

and this theories of cultural or social evolution, such as memetics, have little relevance.

They have a lot of relecvance whn you equate biological evolution with social "evolution "
It is a mis use of the word!

The contradictions only exist because you are not following properly what is being said.

Its like me saying "this has nothing to do with God" to have you say something like "Ah you mention God, so clearly you think it has something to do with God". :rolleyes:

Not at all! You claim to be morally subjective and also to believe in objective morals.
A clear contradiction!

Not unless I get permission from the mods to drag this thread off topic. Like I said take it up with the mods.

No you introduced a point about PDN motivation and manner and I have no recollection of any mod posting that it was off topic.

So you are disagreeing with the definition in the link you gave me to demonstrate that I was wrong. Brilliant ISAW.

No I am saying that the BEGINNING of that link makes a non absolute definition but lower down it does make an absolute statement. I am not surprised you can't distinguish between absolute and non absolutes since you claim to believe in absolute morals and also to be morally subjective!

Since objective doesn't mean absolute I can most certainly claim I believe in absolute morals without claiming I believe in objective morals.

Absolutism is not a subjective philosophy it is objective. Subjective is not universal. It is relative to the person.

Explain to me the problem with me saying "In my opinion rape is universally wrong no matter what context it is carried out in". That statement accepts subjectivity ("in my opinion") and absolutism ("universally wrong")

Can you point out the contradiction there

Something can't be universally wrong and that only be your opinion. You can't believe something is always wrong and also believe other people have different valid opinions.

If I was morally relative I would have to view other moral opinions as equally valid as my own.

Not necessarily "equally" but logically valid. You seem to have a problem with this. If you are a moral relative there is no absolute right or wrong it all depends on the persons opinion. There is no person who has truth. But you claim to be an absolutist and say that only you have the true position and anyone disagreeing with you is wrong.

As you point out, I don't, I view my opinion as more valid than anyone else.

Yes you state you view your opinion as the only correct one. To do so there has to be an objective standard of "truth" or "right" or "absolute morals" which are always right. In effect all you are doing is elevating your subjective opinion to that of God. teh contradiction is that you cant claim all opinions are subjective and also claim that there are also claim there are absolute opinions always right no matter who thinks otherwise.

Also by saying your opinions are always right you are claiming that you are the standard by which moral opinion of all the other people in the world should be judged. that is an entirely subjective position and has no support as an absolute/objective moral standard.

ISAW

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Yes and for that reason I find ignosticism interesting. However the Christian does claim to be on the side of logic and this is what I'm contesting. They're not.

How so? In what way is Christianity illogical?

CerebralCortex

ISAW wrote: »

How so? In what way is Christianity illogical?

Are kidding me? Seriously are actually joking? Have you read any of my posts?

ISAW

CerebralCortex wrote: »

But a theist can't be believe either, moral codes are at the whim of the their creator. He can change them as he wishes.

No they don't necessarily though this is closer to the Islamic view than the christian one.
Christians believe a reasonable God wont act against reason.

ISAW

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Are kidding me? Seriously are actually joking? Have you read any of my posts?

No . since you claim Christianity is illogical and unreasonable could you perhaps supply something to back up this claim?

CerebralCortex

ISAW wrote: »

No . since you claim Christianity is illogical and unreasonable could you perhaps supply something to back up this claim?

I have already here, here, here, here etc.

Just to make my argument more clear please check all the links as well.

Also are you not reading my posts because of my claims because that would save me a lot of time?

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I wasn't abiding by the charter and I attacked the person? News to me and I'm very disappointed I did. Sincerely I apologise for that.

Dear me, we're not making a very good start, are we?

Nobody said you had done any such thing. Maybe this discussion would proceed better if you actually read what others post and try not to be overly defensive?

You commented on a previous discussion being closed before you could respond, therefore it's pretty unlikely that anyone is accusing you of anything, is it? Unless, of course, you think that I am omniscient and can see into the future.

Anyway, rather than conduct a backseat modding post-mortem of why a previous thread was locked, perhaps we could proceed with this thread by giving rational reasoning for our positions and examining each other's points in a calm and reasoned manner .....

Nonsense.

Hmm, I suspect you haven't quite grasped the concept of having a reasoned discussion where we examine each other's points.

Can we raise the tone of the debate a notch or two perhaps?

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

Dear me, we're not making a very good start, are we?

Nobody said you had done any such thing. Maybe this discussion would proceed better if you actually read what others post and try not to be overly defensive?

You commented on a previous discussion being closed before you could respond, therefore it's pretty unlikely that anyone is accusing you of anything, is it? Unless, of course, you think that I am omniscient and can see into the future.

Anyway, rather than conduct a backseat modding post-mortem of why a previous thread was locked, perhaps we could proceed with this thread by giving rational reasoning for our positions and examining each other's points in a calm and reasoned manner .....

Hmm, I suspect you haven't quite grasped the concept of having a reasoned discussion where we examine each other's points.

Can we raise the tone of the debate a notch or two perhaps?

Fair enough. I apologise for the closing of the thread remark. Anyway see post #355.

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Fair enough.

Great!

Now, my point is this. God, or at least God by Christian definitions, is Eternal. As such there is no past, present, or future tense for God.

However, unless we ever learn to travel at the speed of light or perfect a time machine, we live in a steady space/time straight line running from the past, through the present, into the future.

So, it makes no difference to God whether an event (from our perspective) is past, present or future. To Him it is always present. When I cried as a baby - God sees me. As I type this post - God sees me. And whatever I choose to eat for lunch next Tuesday - God sees me.

So we exercise our free will, and God sees us. He doesn't see it before we do it (from His perspective) because 'before' does not exist for Him. He is the God who revealed Himself to Moses as "I AM" (not I was, or I will be).

There only appears to be a paradox concerning free will because we find it so hard to imagine Eternity. Therefore we think of God as being trapped into a Newtonian timeline like us, instead of grasping that He experiences time as something more akin to an Einsteinian space/time loaf.

(Brian Greene, in "The Fabric of the Cosmos" had a great diagram of this, demonstrating how, according to one's position in space and speed of travel, it is theoretically possible to see into the past or the future, effectively cutting through the loaf at different angles. I tried google image search, but couldn't find it. Of course this is theoretical because we humans can't travel fast enough - but that would hardly be a problem for a God who has, in your words, "all omni qualities".)

Morbert

CerebralCortex wrote: »

@Morbert my position is either God is omniscient or he is not a good. That is he's all knowing and also omnipotent, for us to be able to do things that he couldn't anticipate means he's neither omniscient or omnipotent. Essentially I think it's a fallacy to attribute omniscience and omnipotence to a being and then say we're responsible for anything which Christianity certainly does. It's a paradox to me.

Where is the inconsistency in God being aware of what we do in the past, present, and futurue, and us determining what we do in the past, present, and future?

Morbert

PDN wrote: »

(Brian Greene, in "The Fabric of the Cosmos" had a great diagram of this, demonstrating how, according to one's position in space and speed of travel, it is theoretically possible to see into the past or the future, effectively cutting through the loaf at different angles. I tried google image search, but couldn't find it. Of course this is theoretical because we humans can't travel fast enough - but that would hardly be a problem for a God who has, in your words, "all omni qualities".)

It sounds like he was referring to simultaneity. The notion of a single present disappears in relativity. It's hard to observe, but gravity can shift the "angle" of the present, which is why GPS clocks need to take into account the resultant time dilation.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

The point you made was that biology determines morality; that biological evolution not only relates to but is a causal factor in culture. And you conbtradict this in saying that you never mentioned any relationship between culture and society

I didn't. I said it effects morality. You seem to be saying now that well morality effects culture with effects society so Wicknight must have been saying it effects society as well.

That is your leap, not mine. I'm not denying that biology effects society indirectly through various stages. But I didn't make any point about social evolution. And I certainly was never talking about societal evolution along the lines of memes.

ISAW wrote: »

so you are not a moral objective/absolutist and are a subjective/relativist.

You know perfectly well, or should by now, that those things aren't the same. There is nothing contradictory about a subjective absolutist, as I've explained many many times.

ISAW wrote: »

Hand waving arguments about what you think I said aren't really supporting anything. As far as i remember You denied being a moral relativist in the past and I took ytou at your word on that. But here you claim that you believe in subjective standards.

Yes. And it is only your stubborn insistence that relativism means subjectivism that is stopping you grasping this position.

You will notice that if you simply give this up all these supposed contradictions disappear.

ISAW wrote: »

the problem seems to be that you think one can be subjective and absolute at the same time.

I do think that, though it isn't a problem since they can. If someone applies their opinion absolutely they are being subjective (recognizing that it is their opinion) and absolute (applying that opinion absolutely). See how simply it is when you just take a minute to think about it.

ISAW wrote: »

One cant believe in moral absolutes and also believe in subjective morals at the same time. It is a logical contradiction.

I've already explained why it isn't. Objectivity/Subjectivity describes where morals come from and absolutism/relativism describes how they are applied.

ISAW wrote: »

we haven't got that far yet (despite yopur suggestion that you move fast). we have not got past you explaining how you can claim to be morally subjective and also claim to believe in moral absolutes?

If you think I haven't explained that you haven't been reading my posts (as I suspect).

ISAW wrote: »

entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity

Correct. The property of finite or infinite is not necessary for the creation of the universe. An all powerful finite being can create a universe just as much as an all powerful infinite being. Thus supposing that the being must be infinite (or finite for that matter) breaks Occam's razor as it adds a determination of a property that is unnecessary.

ISAW wrote: »

You did! You added two turtles remember? Where you used the number "3" but you said this number could be as large as anyone wanted? I only pointed out Occams Razor suggests it should be "1".

Occam's Razor does not suggest it should be 1, if you think that you don't understand the principle.

Occam's razor suggests you should say nothing about whether it is infinite or finite because such information adds nothing to the explanation. Any insertion of this unnecessary property adds nothing to the explanation. You might as well argue was he wearing a hat or not.

ISAW wrote: »

the infinite regression of God that created god ...that created the universe are unnecessary additional turtles.

Correct. As is supposing it was only one infinite being. Neither claim is necessary to explain the creation of the universe since either being could have done it.

ISAW wrote: »

And uncaused cause does not require additional uncaused causes to add to them (which when added become the uncaused cause) Only ONE is required.

The universe does not require an uncaused cause. It could just as easily be the result of a caused cause. As such adding a fact of whether the cause was itself caused or uncaused adds unnecessary complexity to the explanation and breaks Occam's razor.

ISAW wrote: »

Why is it an unreasonable explanation?

That isn't the question. The question is why is it more likely than any other explanation.

ISAW wrote: »

They have a lot of relecvance whn you equate biological evolution with social "evolution "
It is a mis use of the word!

I did not equate biological evolution with social evolution, as I've already explained.

Your logic seems to be that I said morals are effected by biological evolution, and you then jumped to well morals effect culture, which effects society, so Wicknight must be saying biological evolution equates to social evolution (memetics)

Again I cannot take responsibility for the misinformed jumps you make as to what you think I'm saying. Stick with what I'm actually saying, this will go smoother

ISAW wrote: »

Not at all! You claim to be morally subjective and also to believe in objective morals.

No I don't. I'll give you 10 euro if you find a quote from where where I say I believe in objective morals. Actually saying that, not saying something completely different that you then change to fit what you think I must be saying.

ISAW wrote: »

No you introduced a point about PDN motivation and manner and I have no recollection of any mod posting that it was off topic.

I'm not telling with this off topic point again, I've told you what to do.

ISAW wrote: »

No I am saying that the BEGINNING of that link makes a non absolute definition but lower down it does make an absolute statement.

Correct, which is in line with the first one

1) They all assert that one thing (e.g. moral values, beauty, knowledge, taste, or meaning) is relative to some particular framework or standpoint (e.g. the individual subject, a culture, an era, a language, or a conceptual scheme).
2) They all deny that any standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.

I do not deny that any standpoint is uniquely privilege. My stand point is uniquely privilege.

Thus I am not a relativist.

ISAW wrote: »

Absolutism is not a subjective philosophy it is objective. Subjective is not universal. It is relative to the person.

Yes. My moral opinions are subject to my opinion. But I hold them as absolute in how they are applied.

You seem to be misunderstanding the two concepts here. As I said, objective/subjective describe where the morals come from. Absolutism/Relativism describe how they are applied.

If I was a relativist I would say that my subjective opinions are of no more value or important (privilege) than anyone else's subjective opinions.

I don't say that, I say the opposite. Thus I am not a relativist.

ISAW wrote: »

Something can't be universally wrong and that only be your opinion.

Yes it can, because it can be my opinion that something is universal wrong.

ISAW wrote: »

You can't believe something is always wrong and also believe other people have different valid opinions.

Correct. And I don't. I don't believe other people have different valid opinions. I believe they have opinions and I have opinions and my opinions are valid and theirs are stupid, assuming they differ from mine.

ISAW wrote: »

If you are a moral relative there is no absolute right or wrong it all depends on the persons opinion. There is no person who has truth. But you claim to be an absolutist and say that only you have the true position and anyone disagreeing with you is wrong.

I don't claim to have the true position. There is no true position because there is no objective morality. There is only subjective opinion.

There is nothing in that though that means I have to think that anyone else's opinion is valid. I don't. I apply my morality universally, to everything and everyone. If people don't like that I don't care. If people say But my opinion is as valid as yours, I don't care.

You seem, like a lot of religious people, to be utterly unable to imagine what it is like not to subscribe to objective morality, even when you are trying to describe what you think subjective morality is like.

You think I care whether my morality is "true" or not. I don't, there is no true morality.

ISAW wrote: »

In effect all you are doing is elevating your subjective opinion to that of God. teh contradiction is that you cant claim all opinions are subjective and also claim that there are also claim there are absolute opinions always right no matter who thinks otherwise.

That only appears to be a contradiction to you because you cannot imagine how a non-objective system would work. That is your issue, not mine.

ISAW wrote: »

Also by saying your opinions are always right you are claiming that you are the standard by which moral opinion of all the other people in the world should be judged.

Correct. And I judge the entire world by my own opinion. (in reality everyone does this, just some pretend otherwise)

ISAW wrote: »

that is an entirely subjective position and has no support as an absolute/objective moral standard.

It doesn't require support, it does not require an objective standard. I just do it.