Thought Experiment

[El Cid]

See the BBC Horizon documentary in which top physicists were discussing what might have occurred before the big bang, and why it might not be an absolute beginning.

I dont deny that there is a minority view.

 

[El Cid]

No, orthodox Islam allows you to beat your wife, does not believe that women are equal to men, and converts people by force.
And in fact it is ok to kill unbelievers. Christianity teaches none of these things.

Many Christian cults adhered to and practiced all of those things and backed them scripturally. It would be trivial to show this both historically and contemporarily.

Yes, not all Christian groups have lived like Christians and obeyed Christian morality. But they cannot back that behavior up scripturally, especially if they dont take verses out of context. Most cults take verses out of context and even many atheists do as well to try to distort Biblical teaching.

El Cid said:
Hinduism's problem is pantheism, ie everything is god. So that means Hitler was god, and therefore he did nothing wrong. In fact that may be why the evidence points to Hitler being a pantheist.

That is upheld in the Christian view that all events glorify God.

That is not the Christian view.

 

[Whatsisface]

I dont deny that there is a minority view.

Here are two conclusion from an article on the latest thinking about the Big Bang …

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we can no longer speak with any sort of knowledge or confidence as to how — or even whether — the universe itself began.

The Big Bang still happened a very long time ago, but it wasn’t the beginning we once supposed it to be.

Found here.

You are coming to conclusions about the universe where our knowledge is definitely lacking.

 

[El Cid]

No, God loves us and wanted us to be able to survive in a physical world, without eyes and ears we would have gone extinct.

God banished man at the fall and cursed them to hard toil and childbirth. Your concept of God's love providing us the means to survive contains too many biblical headwinds to be an accurate view of our relationship to the God of Genesis.

Even though our sin caused us many trials, He provided us a means to avoid eternal death which we deserve because of our rebellion. He certainly would provide us a means to survive on this earth so that we can enjoy His creation during our short time here and then provide a means to live forever.

El Cid said:
No, this was rabbinic hyperbole (first century jewish rabbis used exaggeration to make a point). Jesus was explaining the extreme seriousness of sin, if anything leads you astray, you should try to avoid it as much as possible. But He did not mean to literally remove your eye. For one thing, even blind people sin, so it would do no good. And second, the Jewish Torah plainly teaches that self mutilation is frowned upon by God.

No it wasn't. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth was law, not hyperbole.

Most scholars both Christian and non Christian agree that Jesus often used hyperbole just as any first century Jewish rabbi would do. Lex talonis (eye for eye and tooth for tooth) is the principle that the punishment fits the crime. While in some cases it can be interpreted literally, generally it was not meant to be.

El Cid said:
No, according to logic the origin of the universe cannot be natural.

There is no logic available to you that can deduce this.

Fraid so, see post 1104.

 

[El Cid]

I agree that we dont have as much information about the universe than if we had multiple examples of other universes, but we do know that the universe is an effect and we can deduce what probably caused that effect. When the first black hole was discovered we had no other examples of black holes to compare to, but we were able to deduce what caused the black hole. So it is with the universe.

You were not just claiming "it is sometimes possible to deduce the cause of an effect"; you were claiming "we can reliably deduce the identity of the creator of the universe based on the qualities of his creation, the same way we can reliably deduce the identity of the creator of a musical piece based on the qualities of that piece, using a sample of one." But you can't deduce the identity, or even the general personality, of the creator of a musical piece, based on a sample of one composition.

There are some characteristics you can deduce from a musical sample of one. You can deduce that the composer is personal and intelligent, and creative because only creative intelligent persons can create musical pieces.

El Cid said:
I was just using a simplistic example, I am sure that a real music expert could probably study much more subtle characteristics of the music to determine the personality of the composer.

Nobody does this sort of thing, at least not for the last century and a half or so. Musicologists have almost entirely given up on trying to link particular pieces to the mood of the composer at the time of their creation, and for good reason. Mozart composed The Magic Flute and the Requiem at almost the same time. Give a listen to both, and tell me "the personality of the composer." Or listen to the 20th and 21st piano concerti, composed within a week or so of each other.

I dont claim to be a music expert, but I have heard that some experts can do so. If they did it a century and a half ago, they could probably do it today.

El Cid said:
If a creator doesnt care to interact with its creation, then it is irrelevant. Wouldn't you agree?

It would be mostly irrelevant to my life, but it wouldn't be irrelevant to the question "what is the source of the universe?"

Yes, but there would be no way to discover its existence, so it is irrelevant in that sense. It would be like trying to prove there is a unicorn living on Alpha Centauri. There would be no way to determine if it existed. Also, if it doesnt interact with its creation, I think it would be a rational assumption that whatever it is, it is not a personal being. Because we know from experience that persons like to interact with other persons.

El Cid said:
Theoretically then it cares nothing about its creation or it doesnt exist.

First, it is possible that God exists and interacts with & cares about his creation, but has not founded a religion. Maybe she has no intention of doing so, because that just doesn't fit in with her plans; maybe she's just taking her time getting around to it. (There was a long period of human history before YHVH supposedly founded the Jewish religion, let alone the Christian one, after all.)

Maybe, but see above about personal beings. Anthropologists and sociologists have found evidence that even the most primitive societies if you go back far enough believed in one supreme god over all others. This is evidence that originally humans were monotheists which fits the story in the Bible of the first humans believing in a single God.

But even if those are the alternatives, "I have proven that either Christian god created the universe, or that some god who is indifferent to us did" does not give me a good reason to think that the former is more likely to be true than the latter. And of course this is -- again -- just assuming for the sake of argument that you have offered a good reason to believe that it is either the Christian god or some indifferent deity, which I don't actually think is the case.

I dont claim to have proven it, only that there is strong evidence He exists.

 

[El Cid]

“The universe keeps expanding; tents do not keep expanding; therefore, when the writer says ‘He stretches it like a tent,’ he is referring to the universe.”

Makes no sense.

(I’ll get to the rest some other time.)

Its called metaphorical language.

 

[El Cid]

I dont remember saying that they have little or nothing to do with objective reality.

In post #967 (by the way, post numbers seem inconsistent depending on how you're looking at them) you responded to my quote, "People can feel they are communicating with God, and that God is good, for psychological reasons which have little or nothing to do with objective reality" by saying "True."

El Cid said:
If I did, I was wrong. Our subjective experience is based on objective events, just as it is with experiences with other persons.

The existence of wishful thinking, motivated reasoning, confabulations and outright hallucinations is too well known to need arguing for.

Yes, but those things are not as common as people think.

El Cid said:
[. . .] One of the main purposes of morality is to produce good consequences, such as justice and prevention of suffering. Do you deny this?

Not at all. But an "argument from consequences" means, more specifically, an argument in the form "you should believe that this is true, because if you don't, the consequences would be bad." For example: "as an American you should believe that Washington and Jefferson were great and moral men, because if you don't, it will diminish your attachment to your country." An argument from consequences is intrinsically problematic because it asks you to believe something, not because it is true, but for some other reason. You were offering an argument that we should believe morality is objective, not because you could offer a good (objective?) reason for considering it true, but because disbelieving it had bad social consequences.

No, I am using multiple reasons. But I was just making the point that Gods moral laws are not just because He is a killjoy, sometimes non Christians use that argument. His moral laws are for human good and flourishing in this world and the next.

El Cid said:
Nevertheless this [nations declining into anarchy and then tyranny because relativistic morality was taught] has happened many times in different societies down thru history.

Citation needed. I don't know of a single case in which this happened as you describe.

I already mentioned Germany and the Soviet Union. In addition, it is happening in Europe and America right now, though at a very gradual pace.

El Cid said:
That value exists outside of human thinking and desire so therefore it objectively exists. . . . Bats possess unique capacities as well, such as sonar navigation. On what objective basis are those capacities less valuable than the capacities you state humans possess?

Again, I'll defer responding until you've caught up with my earlier comments about what it means to call something "objective."

Something is objective from the perspective of humans if it exists outside the human mind.

El Cid said:
How would you convince a fellow atheist that he ought not to rape a woman in a coma as long as no one finds out?

First, this has nothing to do with the quote you are supposedly responding to, which was "I don't think [oughts] 'come from' previous causes, the way that mountains or molecules come from previous causes. I think they're an irreducible aspect of things. Whether or not I can make a case for this which convinces you, it is still the case that in saying this I am not being inconsistent with atheism, and therefore your claim that 'if atheism is true, there are no oughts' is false."

So, first, you are essentially abandoning your claim that "if atheism is true, there are no oughts."

No, if atheism is true, there are no objective oughts. And if they are not objective then they are not real.

Second, "how would you convince a psychopath, who felt no empathy or moral obligations to others, that he shouldn't rape others?" is an entirely pointless question with no bearing on the issue of "objective morality." The whole point of objective morality is that some things are wrong even if you can't convince a majority (let alone a unanimous one) that they're wrong.

No, because most people want to live according to what they believe is objective reality, so if you can convince them that there is an objective moral law that they are violating, many people would start to live according to that code. This has happened in the few societies that are based on Christian principles.

It's also a pointless question because the answer to it basically is, "you can't, duh, and theists can't do it either." You can only convince somebody that some particular action is wrong if they already agree with you that there is such a thing as a wrong action. An atheist may be able to convince other atheists not to do something if those other atheists already believe in, say, the golden rule, and the atheist can present a convincing case that the golden rule implies they should not do that thing. And a theist may be able to convince other theists not to do something if those theists already believe in the golden rule, but he would also not be able to convince other theists not to rape if they believed that God smiled upon rape as retaliation against His enemies.

No, see above. I think many fairly educated people can be convinced using logic that there is a moral law giving God and from that logically extrapolate that there is an objective moral law. Having some education does help but it is not necessary.

El Cid said:
[. . .] Why do you believe in something for which you dont find the evidence convincing?

I don't. I didn't say that I believed in the Platonic Forms, I said that it would be possible for an atheist to believe in it, and thus to have basis for morality which was "outside of human thought." I'm pretty sure there actually are atheist Platonists.

It would be an irrational belief given that there is no evidence for Platonic Forms.

El Cid said:
There is much more evidence for the existence of the Christian God than there is for Platonic ideas and forms.

Not that I can tell.

Ok what is the evidence for those forms?

El Cid said:
And His existence and moral character provides an objective moral standard upon which His written moral laws are based.

That is, if God exists, and if his moral character could be objectively determined to be perfect (which again seems quite impossible, even hypothetically), and if it could be determined that he had written certain moral laws, it would follow that those moral laws were objectively true. I'm happy to stipulate to that.

Well I am glad you at least admit that.

 

[Komodo]

Its called metaphorical language.

If somebody claims "insects have no skeletons, therefore when he talked about skeletons, he was referring to insects," then calling it "metaphorical language" is almost as absurd as the original claim. And the same is true for “The universe keeps expanding; tents do not keep expanding; therefore, when the writer says ‘He stretches it like a tent,’ he is referring to the universe.”

Nonsense doesn't get rehabilitated by framing it as "metaphorical."

 

[Komodo]

Yes, but those things are not as common as people think.

No, I am using multiple reasons. But I was just making the point that Gods moral laws are not just because He is a killjoy, sometimes non Christians use that argument. His moral laws are for human good and flourishing in this world and the next.

I already mentioned Germany and the Soviet Union. In addition, it is happening in Europe and America right now, though at a very gradual pace.

Something is objective from the perspective of humans if it exists outside the human mind.

No, if atheism is true, there are no objective oughts. And if they are not objective then they are not real.

No, because most people want to live according to what they believe is objective reality, so if you can convince them that there is an objective moral law that they are violating, many people would start to live according to that code. This has happened in the few societies that are based on Christian principles.

No, see above. I think many fairly educated people can be convinced using logic that there is a moral law giving God and from that logically extrapolate that there is an objective moral law. Having some education does help but it is not necessary.

It would be an irrational belief given that there is no evidence for Platonic Forms.

Ok what is the evidence for those forms?

Well I am glad you at least admit that.

Rather than trying to support your claims or rebut challenges to those claims, you‘re just blandly repeating them.

”If atheism is true, there are no oughts.”
”Here are some reasons why I’m disputing this.”
”That‘s not right, because if atheism is true, there are no oughts.”

Sorry, but this is getting tedious.

 

[El Cid]

Well because we are free will beings and also because we are emotional beings as well, our reasoning can easily go off track.

Here's what you said … "If a Creator has the power to create such a being as a human it is rational to assume that He can "program" them to use logic to think".

Then how can you judge we have been programmed to think logically?

Because without basic logic we cannot even communicate, ie the law of non contradiction.

El Cid said:
If something exists outside human thoughts and desires then it is exists objectively from the perspective of humans.

Not really. How does an alien's thoughts and desires achieve objectivity just because they are outside a humans?

Its thoughts and desires objectively exist from the perspective of humans. Anything that exists outside of the human mind exists objectively from the perspective of humans.

El Cid said:
Because if it was just subjective, it could not be explained by mathmatics.

But that the rule of thirds is pleasing isn't explained by mathematics, it's just described by mathematics.

Yes, if it was just subjective then it could not be described by mathmatics.

 

[Whatsisface]

Because without basic logic we cannot even communicate, ie the law of non contradiction.

But that doesn't tell me we have been programmed to think logically by God, it just tells me we have the ability to think logically. How that ability came about can be explained by evolution.

It also doesn't take into account people who struggle to think logically. People also get by without invoking or understanding the law of non contradiction.

Its thoughts and desires objectively exist from the perspective of humans. Anything that exists outside of the human mind exists objectively from the perspective of humans.

But aliens would still be creatures like us in their ability to think abstract thoughts, which means to them our thoughts and desires objectively exist from their perspective.

Yes, if it was just subjective then it could not be described by mathmatics.

Anything can be described by mathematics in one way or another.

 

[El Cid]

The statement you are replying to:

If your argument starts "IF naturalism is true," then you have to assume naturalism is true. And:

If naturalism is true, then physical activities of the brain give us certain mental capacities.
If we have those mental capacities, we can reason logically. (This is what you are saying, is it not, when you say "the mind uses logic to come to certain conclusions"?)
Therefore, if naturalism is true, we can reason logically.

Do you dispute either premise? Do you dispute the validity of the logic? If not, you have to accept the conclusion.



So, again, you don't dispute either premise, and you don't dispute the validity of the logic, but you still deny the conclusion. That isn't how reasoning works.

Even if you were right that "evidence says physical activities can't give us mental capacities" -- and I've seen nothing convincing to that effect -- that still would not undermine the conclusion that if naturalism is true, we can reason logically. It would only undermine the claim that naturalism was true. I must have made the point at least a half-dozen times by now that these are two different claims, and yet here you are for the sixth or seventh time, responding to a criticism of one claim by defending the other claim.

Plainly, you are either unable or unwilling to defend the claim that "if naturalism is true, we cannot reason logically." At this point I consider the matter closed.

I dont dispute that that is what naturalists believe. And I have already defended the claim that if naturalism happened to be true, we would not be able to reason logically, our conclusions would be based on the ratio of chemicals in our brains not on the weighing of evidence and arguments.

 

[El Cid]

If an alien held the opinion that Avengers Endgame is the greatest film ever made, does that count as an objective fact?

Yes, its opinion would objectively exist from our perspective.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Yes, its opinion would objectively exist from our perspective.

Absolute madness - "non-human opinions constitute objective facts".

I know that you had to double down to avoid reversing yourself, but come on.

 

[Komodo]

I dont dispute that that is what naturalists believe. And I have already defended the claim that if naturalism happened to be true, we would not be able to reason logically, our conclusions would be based on the ratio of chemicals in our brains not on the weighing of evidence and arguments.

Again, you are just entirely avoiding the point. Again, you don't dispute either premise, and you don't dispute the validity of the logic, but you still deny the conclusion. Again: that isn't how reasoning works. And, again: repeatedly pointing out this self-evident fact has gotten tedious. So that's it from me on this topic.

 

[El Cid]

I made a number of points in my previous post, about the problems with your definition of "objective" (anybody who's interested can see them by looking at the quote in your last post, #1,116), and so far as I can tell you didn't directly address any of them.

Now as for the points you did make...

El Cid said:
No, anything that exists outside the human mind is objective from the perspective of humans.

It sounds like you're offering a relativist theory of objectivity: that there's no such thing as "objectivity" in itself, only objectivity from the perspective of some subject. Not only is this paradoxical, It's not at all clear why having ideas that are "objective" in that sense would help us obtain truth or clarity on moral issues.

Not sure what that theory is. But as I explained earlier, people generally want to live according to reality, so if there is an objectively real moral standard then people would be more likely to live by them. This is why Western societies (societies that are based on the objectively existing Christian principles) have given the world most of the greatest goods to the world.

El Cid said:
God as the standard of good and His value of us exists outside the human mind, therefore they objectively exist from our perspective. The reason He values us as created in His image because only through us can God destroy evil forever.

Then something exists objectively, from the perspective of members of Set S, if that thing exists outside the minds of members of Set S. Correct?

Also, if members of Set S are valuable to someone who is not a member of Set S, because they serve the purposes of that someone, then members of Set S have objective value. Correct?

Feel free to modify or qualify these statements to be in line with your position, obviously.

Not necessarily, while their valuing objectively exists from the perspective of the members of Set S, value has to be built in and designed, so only if those outside Set S are also the creators or designers of Set S do they have objective value.

 

[Komodo]

[. . .] people generally want to live according to reality, so if there is an objectively real moral standard then people would be more likely to live by them.

But the criterion you offer for objective value -- namely, that "anything that exists outside the human mind is objective from the perspective of humans" -- does not at all imply "the value of human beings is real"; it only implies "somebody who isn't human believes human beings have value." These are not the same thing.

[. . .] while their valuing objectively exists from the perspective of the members of Set S, value has to be built in and designed, so only if those outside Set S are also the creators or designers of Set S do they have objective value.

You are claiming that only theists can possess a moral system in which human beings are objectively valuable, and your proof of that claim depends on the premise that human beings can only be objectively valuable if God regards them as valuable. This is obviously circular reasoning. (You have also altered your original position, which was that human beings had objective value if any outsider regarded them as valuable, e.g. the machines in The Matrix.)

It is not at all self-evident that any outsider, including God, can "build in" objective value to his/her/its creation; at least not in a way which would be relevant to moral reasoning. For one thing, it's not at all necessary that a creator be morally good. So if humans ever create or design intelligent androids, they might enslave and abuse those androids, and yet you would be forced to say that the androids' value objectively existed, because those outside the android set who valued them were their creators and designers. But obviously this would not at all ensure that the androids who obeyed the Laws of Robotics were acting in an objectively moral way.

 

[El Cid]

Evidence that the truth of the Golden Rule exists outside of human thought and desire?

That would be nice - prove that it is objectively morally correct.

It is based on the objectively existing perfectly good moral character of the Christian God.

 

[Eightcrackers]

It is based on the objectively existing perfectly good moral character of the Christian God.

Prove it to an atheist.

Or, prove that his character is perfectly moreally good, don't just define it that way.

 

[El Cid]

All that you've done is declare "God's goodness exists outside of human thought or desire," so if that's good enough to establish that "God's goodness" is an objective truth, then my declaration that "the Golden Rule exists outside of human thought or desire" is good enough to establish that the Golden Rule is an objective truth. It's true that I don't have evidence, supporting my declaration, that would satisfy skeptics, but neither do you.

I have provided a great deal of evidence for God and His moral character existing outside of human thought and desire. Many skeptics have been convinced by the evidence I have provided.