Debate the origins of morality and the bibles authenticity on morality:Jeremy Walker
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-05-2014, 10:37 PM
Debate the origins of morality and the bibles authenticity on morality:Jeremy Walker
I would like to challenge Jeremy Walker to a debate on biblical morality. The topics include a divine source for morality and the moral veracity of the bible.

Rules:
  1. You must take a position and defend it.
  2. You cannot user personal experience or how a person "feels" as evidence
  3. Your argument must be based on either sound reasoning or evidence
  4. You are not allowed to ask me what I believe.


I ask that we avoid equivocating on terms and definitions.
Find all posts by this user
24-05-2014, 06:53 AM
RE: Debate the origins of morality and the bibles authenticity on morality:Jeremy Walker
(23-05-2014 10:37 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I would like to challenge Jeremy Walker to a debate on biblical morality. The topics include a divine source for morality and the moral veracity of the bible.

Rules:
  1. You must take a position and defend it.
  2. You cannot user personal experience or how a person "feels" as evidence
  3. Your argument must be based on either sound reasoning or evidence
  4. You are not allowed to ask me what I believe.


I ask that we avoid equivocating on terms and definitions.

The topics are far too broad to be dealt with in one debate.

It seems that even if we took the first topic i.e. Is the Bible a divine source for morality? I would first have to argue that the Bible was indeed inspired by God, which in itself is the subject of numerous volumes of literature.

I suggest you narrow your debate topic down to something that is manageable.

For example:

We could debate on whether or not it is more plausible that objective moral values and duties exist.

Or if we both agree that objective moral values and duties, we could debate on what is the more plausible grounding for said values and duties, God, or something else.

So just try to be very specific in choosing the topic for the sake of manageability.

I am open to suggestions but the topics need to be more succinct and focused.
Find all posts by this user
24-05-2014, 10:02 AM
RE: Debate the origins of morality and the bibles authenticity on morality:Jeremy Walker
(24-05-2014 06:53 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 10:37 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I would like to challenge Jeremy Walker to a debate on biblical morality. The topics include a divine source for morality and the moral veracity of the bible.

Rules:
  1. You must take a position and defend it.
  2. You cannot user personal experience or how a person "feels" as evidence
  3. Your argument must be based on either sound reasoning or evidence
  4. You are not allowed to ask me what I believe.


I ask that we avoid equivocating on terms and definitions.

The topics are far too broad to be dealt with in one debate.

It seems that even if we took the first topic i.e. Is the Bible a divine source for morality? I would first have to argue that the Bible was indeed inspired by God, which in itself is the subject of numerous volumes of literature.

I suggest you narrow your debate topic down to something that is manageable.

For example:

We could debate on whether or not it is more plausible that objective moral values and duties exist.

Or if we both agree that objective moral values and duties, we could debate on what is the more plausible grounding for said values and duties, God, or something else.

So just try to be very specific in choosing the topic for the sake of manageability.

I am open to suggestions but the topics need to be more succinct and focused.

Why don't we start with proof that morality is objective at all. If we can graduate from that we will move on to whether or not it has anything to do with god.

This can be a long debate. I have time.
Find all posts by this user
24-05-2014, 10:23 AM
RE: Debate the origins of morality and the bibles authenticity on morality:Jeremy Walker
(24-05-2014 10:02 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 06:53 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The topics are far too broad to be dealt with in one debate.

It seems that even if we took the first topic i.e. Is the Bible a divine source for morality? I would first have to argue that the Bible was indeed inspired by God, which in itself is the subject of numerous volumes of literature.

I suggest you narrow your debate topic down to something that is manageable.

For example:

We could debate on whether or not it is more plausible that objective moral values and duties exist.

Or if we both agree that objective moral values and duties, we could debate on what is the more plausible grounding for said values and duties, God, or something else.

So just try to be very specific in choosing the topic for the sake of manageability.

I am open to suggestions but the topics need to be more succinct and focused.

Why don't we start with proof that morality is objective at all. If we can graduate from that we will move on to whether or not it has anything to do with god.

This can be a long debate. I have time.

I will argue that premise two of the moral argument for the existence of God is more plausibly true than its negation.

The premise reads:

2. Objective moral values and duties exist.

I will define my terms and then provide support for the premise. If you wish to deny that the premise is more plausibly true than its negation, you will have to provide at least one defeater for each support that I give. If you do this then I will need to provide a defeater for each defeater your put forward.

No videos will be allowed and external material if used must simply be referenced.

I will begin with my post with my support, then you will present your defeaters in your post. After that I will address the defeaters you have given and then we will have closing remarks.

No logical fallacies permitted.

Agreed?
Find all posts by this user
24-05-2014, 10:34 AM
RE: Debate the origins of morality and the bibles authenticity on morality:Jeremy Walker
Most of my posts are going to be in the form of questions. If you can provide satisfactory answers to those questions than you win. We will keep going until either I posit a question you are incapable or unwilling to answer according my rules, or until I have no more questions or objections. Then we can move on to a different topic.

Lets start with defining terms. What does "objective" mean, and what would the burden of proof be to prove that morality is objective.
Find all posts by this user
24-05-2014, 02:04 PM
RE: Debate the origins of morality and the bibles authenticity on morality:Jeremy Walker
(24-05-2014 10:34 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Most of my posts are going to be in the form of questions. If you can provide satisfactory answers to those questions than you win. We will keep going until either I posit a question you are incapable or unwilling to answer according my rules, or until I have no more questions or objections. Then we can move on to a different topic.

Lets start with defining terms. What does "objective" mean,




The distinction between being objective or subjective.

By “objective” I mean “independent of people’s opinions.” By “subjective” I mean “dependent on people’s opinions.” So to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad independent of whatever people think about it. Similarly, to say that we have objective moral duties is to say that certain actions are right or wrong for us regardless of what people think about it. So, for example, to say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong is to say that it was wrong even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was right, and it would still have been wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them so that everyone believed the Holocaust was right.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-a...z32fI6NhWm

(24-05-2014 10:34 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  and what would the burden of proof be to prove that morality is objective.

Whatever it takes for you to believe that it is more plausible that objective moral values and duties exist than not.

This would vary from person to person.

Personally, I do not need someone to prove to me that running over a child with a lawnmower while the blades are running just for the fun of it is objectively wrong.

I would not ask someone to prove that that act is objectively wrong. I would say it is objectively wrong.

The same way I do not need someone to prove to me that they exist when they are standing in front of me talking to me. I can see they exist.

Likewise, when I see a man take a lawnmower and run a child over with it just for fun, I see that this is objectively wrong. I do not need any argument for this.
Find all posts by this user
24-05-2014, 02:48 PM
RE: Debate the origins of morality and the bibles authenticity on morality:Jeremy Walker
(24-05-2014 02:04 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 10:34 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Most of my posts are going to be in the form of questions. If you can provide satisfactory answers to those questions than you win. We will keep going until either I posit a question you are incapable or unwilling to answer according my rules, or until I have no more questions or objections. Then we can move on to a different topic.

Lets start with defining terms. What does "objective" mean,




The distinction between being objective or subjective.

By “objective” I mean “independent of people’s opinions.” By “subjective” I mean “dependent on people’s opinions.” So to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad independent of whatever people think about it. Similarly, to say that we have objective moral duties is to say that certain actions are right or wrong for us regardless of what people think about it. So, for example, to say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong is to say that it was wrong even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was right, and it would still have been wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them so that everyone believed the Holocaust was right.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-a...z32fI6NhWm

(24-05-2014 10:34 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  and what would the burden of proof be to prove that morality is objective.

Whatever it takes for you to believe that it is more plausible that objective moral values and duties exist than not.

This would vary from person to person.

Personally, I do not need someone to prove to me that running over a child with a lawnmower while the blades are running just for the fun of it is objectively wrong.

I would not ask someone to prove that that act is objectively wrong. I would say it is objectively wrong.

The same way I do not need someone to prove to me that they exist when they are standing in front of me talking to me. I can see they exist.

Likewise, when I see a man take a lawnmower and run a child over with it just for fun, I see that this is objectively wrong. I do not need any argument for this.

Excellence.

What is your argument then that morality is objective? Do you have any evidence to support that claim?
Find all posts by this user
24-05-2014, 03:04 PM
RE: Debate the origins of morality and the bibles authenticity on morality:Jeremy Walker
(24-05-2014 02:48 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 02:04 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The distinction between being objective or subjective.

By “objective” I mean “independent of people’s opinions.” By “subjective” I mean “dependent on people’s opinions.” So to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad independent of whatever people think about it. Similarly, to say that we have objective moral duties is to say that certain actions are right or wrong for us regardless of what people think about it. So, for example, to say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong is to say that it was wrong even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was right, and it would still have been wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them so that everyone believed the Holocaust was right.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-a...z32fI6NhWm


Whatever it takes for you to believe that it is more plausible that objective moral values and duties exist than not.

This would vary from person to person.

Personally, I do not need someone to prove to me that running over a child with a lawnmower while the blades are running just for the fun of it is objectively wrong.

I would not ask someone to prove that that act is objectively wrong. I would say it is objectively wrong.

The same way I do not need someone to prove to me that they exist when they are standing in front of me talking to me. I can see they exist.

Likewise, when I see a man take a lawnmower and run a child over with it just for fun, I see that this is objectively wrong. I do not need any argument for this.

Excellence.

What is your argument then that morality is objective? Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

I do.

Let us start with the following:

What convinces me is a cumulative case argument from empirical observation.

1) Different societies which have progressed independently still adopt a strikingly similar core set of moral values (i.e. with respect to lying, theft, murder, etc.). History is pretty clear on this.

2) Differences in tertiary moral codes often develop from an underlying difference in factual belief. For example, if a society adopts a law forbidding the killing of cows because they hold the cow to be sacred, and another society eats cows, the difference is in the status of the cow, not that killing sacred animals is morally permissible. Or a more applicable moral issue - abortion - can be discussed. "Pro-choice" proponents NEVER argue that murder is okay, they argue that a fetus isn't a person in the sense that it has a right to life. They argue about the facts of what constitutes a person, not that murder is okay in this situation.

3) Generally, societies have discovered morality through trial and error as opposed to simply inventing it. Complex legal codes follow similar paths of progression from simplistic codes such as "thou shall not bear false witness" to fairly intricate libel or slander laws. Much of contract law can be traced back through this same progression. The distinction between discovery of something vs. inventing it in a subjective fashion should be apparent. Mathematics was discovered, though humans assigned to the concepts varying symbols and notation schemes. We didn't get to subjectively decide that murder is wrong any more than we were able to decide that 2+2=4.

4) Differences in beliefs do not prove subjectivity of the subject matter. This is the most common subjectivist argument I've seen is unpersuasive. "Well, different people have differing beliefs on morality" So what? That really begs the question. The existence of differing beliefs doesn't prove subjectivity nor is it even a very good argument. At one time, some people believed the world was flat while others held that the world was round. Does that mean that the Earth was in fact flat for some people and round for others? No, it means someone was objectively wrong.

5) Further, we can reduce subjective morality to an absurdity. Simply demonstrate a robust society which has thrived while systemically adopting the opposite core moral laws in the treatment of members of its own society. In fact, show one that has lived to tell about it. There are core moral beliefs which cannot be violated, no matter what the mass of society subjectively wants, without destructive consequences. Murder is the obvious one. If a society chose to hold murder as a virtue, whereby a civic duty or obligation would be to murder others in cold blood, the society would go extinct. To a lesser degree, a society which decided to uphold lying as a moral virtue would lose cohesiveness rather quickly. Sexual transgressions likewise have destructive consequences. So, a majority of society certainly CAN adopt a moral system that contradicts the historical moral core (in the same sense that they could revert to "flat earth" beliefs), but not without problems.
Find all posts by this user
24-05-2014, 03:32 PM
RE: Debate the origins of morality and the bibles authenticity on morality:Jeremy Walker
(24-05-2014 03:04 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 02:48 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Excellence.

What is your argument then that morality is objective? Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

I do.

Let us start with the following:

What convinces me is a cumulative case argument from empirical observation.

1) Different societies which have progressed independently still adopt a strikingly similar core set of moral values (i.e. with respect to lying, theft, murder, etc.). History is pretty clear on this.

True, however this is a fallacious appeal to authority. Because many people claim something to be true does not make it objectively true. One example, at one point in time many people believed that the earth was flat, however we know objectively that the earth is a sphere.

This is also an over generalization. Many peoples throughout history have had remarkable agreement on morality, and they have had a great deal of disagreement on morality. One of many example, in Islamic nations practicing Shariah law the punishment for adultery is death. In the United States killing someone for the offense of adultery would be an injustice and likewise immoral.

By both accounts, popular appeal is not evidence for objective morality.

Quote:2) Differences in tertiary moral codes often develop from an underlying difference in factual belief. For example, if a society adopts a law forbidding the killing of cows because they hold the cow to be sacred, and another society eats cows, the difference is in the status of the cow, not that killing sacred animals is morally permissible. Or a more applicable moral issue - abortion - can be discussed. "Pro-choice" proponents NEVER argue that murder is okay, they argue that a fetus isn't a person in the sense that it has a right to life. They argue about the facts of what constitutes a person, not that murder is okay in this situation.

In the flat earth example there are mathematical principles and definitions we all agree upon that describe the properties of a plane and a sphere. In addition, we have photographs from space of the earth, and we can see with our own eyes the curvature and the depth of it shape. If someone says the earth is flat, they are factually in error.

If someone says that the fetus is not a person, as just one of many possible examples, how are they factually in error?

Quote:3) Generally, societies have discovered morality through trial and error as opposed to simply inventing it. Complex legal codes follow similar paths of progression from simplistic codes such as "thou shall not bear false witness" to fairly intricate libel or slander laws. Much of contract law can be traced back through this same progression. The distinction between discovery of something vs. inventing it in a subjective fashion should be apparent. Mathematics was discovered, though humans assigned to the concepts varying symbols and notation schemes. We didn't get to subjectively decide that murder is wrong any more than we were able to decide that 2+2=4.

4) Differences in beliefs do not prove subjectivity of the subject matter. This is the most common subjectivist argument I've seen is unpersuasive. "Well, different people have differing beliefs on morality" So what? That really begs the question. The existence of differing beliefs doesn't prove subjectivity nor is it even a very good argument. At one time, some people believed the world was flat while others held that the world was round. Does that mean that the Earth was in fact flat for some people and round for others? No, it means someone was objectively wrong.

5) Further, we can reduce subjective morality to an absurdity. Simply demonstrate a robust society which has thrived while systemically adopting the opposite core moral laws in the treatment of members of its own society. In fact, show one that has lived to tell about it. There are core moral beliefs which cannot be violated, no matter what the mass of society subjectively wants, without destructive consequences. Murder is the obvious one. If a society chose to hold murder as a virtue, whereby a civic duty or obligation would be to murder others in cold blood, the society would go extinct. To a lesser degree, a society which decided to uphold lying as a moral virtue would lose cohesiveness rather quickly. Sexual transgressions likewise have destructive consequences. So, a majority of society certainly CAN adopt a moral system that contradicts the historical moral core (in the same sense that they could revert to "flat earth" beliefs), but not without problems.

Lets stay on topic Jeremy. If you want to throw punches at strawmen you will have to do it some place else. This debate is about what you, and only you, believe.
Find all posts by this user
24-05-2014, 04:11 PM
RE: Debate the origins of morality and the bibles authenticity on morality:Jeremy Walker
(24-05-2014 03:32 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  True, however this is a fallacious appeal to authority. Because many people claim something to be true does not make it objectively true. One example, at one point in time many people believed that the earth was flat, however we know objectively that the earth is a sphere.

I think you mean an appeal to popularity, not authority.

[Image: popularity1.jpg]

I have not said that objective moral values and duties exist because many people think they do. The charge is therefore groundless.

I have alluded to inductive reasoning and empirical observation that reveals that different societies which have progressed independently still adopt a strikingly similar core set of moral values. This is more plausibly explained by there being objective moral values and duties.

(24-05-2014 03:32 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Many peoples throughout history have had remarkable agreement on morality,

This serves only to reinforce my point.

(24-05-2014 03:32 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  and they have had a great deal of disagreement on morality.

Expound upon this please.

(24-05-2014 03:32 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  One of many example, in Islamic nations practicing Shariah law the punishment for adultery is death. In the United States killing someone for the offense of adultery would be an injustice and likewise immoral.

In the United States adultery is like in Islamic nations, still seen as an immoral act. It is discouraged, not encouraged. It is seen not as a virtue but as a vice.

The respective governments may handle the issue differently, but this is only evidence that different governments have different ideologies on how certain immoral acts should be dealt with.

So this actually only serves to reinforce my point. In no culture or civilization will you find that it is deemed morally obligatory or good for a man to be unfaithful to his wife for selfish reasons and vice versa. And if a society did encourage this, the society would suffer from it, not be strengthened by it.

(24-05-2014 03:32 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  By both accounts, popular appeal is not evidence for objective morality.

I have not appealed to popularity at all. I have simply given empirical data that reveals that throughout history and throughout all societies there is a common underlying moral code that undergirds whatever respective system of applied ethics said societies may possess. This underlying moral code is best explained by the existence of objective moral values and duties.

(24-05-2014 03:32 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  If someone says that the fetus is not a person, as just one of many possible examples, how are they factually in error?

[Image: header-right.png]

I know you did not intentionally mean to introduce a red herring but that is what this is.

The question of whether or not a fetus is a person is simply impertinent to my support for objective moral values or duties. The point being made was that BOTH pro-choice and pro-life proponents AGREE that murdering a person is wrong. They disagree on what qualifies as a "person".

So their disagreement is not on whether murder is acceptable (they both agree that it is not) but rather, is a fetus a person. Thus this cannot be used as a defeater for the support I gave.

(24-05-2014 03:32 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Lets stay on topic Jeremy. If you want to throw punches at strawmen you will have to do it some place else. This debate is about what you, and only you, believe.

I am giving support for my view that it is more plausible that objective moral values and duties exist than not. You now must deal with my responses.
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: