Incontrovertible proof God exists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-03-2014, 11:14 AM (This post was last modified: 12-03-2014 12:07 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: Incontrovertible proof God exists
(11-03-2014 11:41 AM)Miss Meng Wrote:  From Uncommon Descent:

Moral Subjectivism - Nazis Were Doing Good and We Shouldn’t Have Stopped Them

Under moral subjectivism, good and bad are entirely subjective commodities. This means that if I think a thing is right, it is as right as is possible for moral right to exist. The principle of subjective morality authorizes an act as “morally good” if the person that performed the act believed it to be the right thing to do; that is the only framework available to moral subjectivism for an evaluation of “moral” and “immoral”. It is strictly a relationship between the actor/believer and the act.

Therefore, as long as Hitler believed his actions right, and those who carried out his orders believed similarly, then to the full extent that the principle of moral subjectivism has to authorize anything as “moral” or “good”, the holocaust was a good and moral event, and moral subjectivists must (rationally speaking) admit this. (I doubt they will, though.)

The way that moral relativists attempt to wiggle out of this is by saying that in their opinion, Hitler was behaving immorally. Unfortunately, they have no rational basis for making this statement. It is a category error, a non-sequitur under moral subjectivism, offered as if there was some means by which to pass judgement on what others consider to be right. Their principle necessarily endorses the actions of the Nazis as morally good as long as they (the Nazis) believed what they were doing was right; what anyone else thought or thinks is entirely irrelevant. The most that the principle of moral subjectivism logically allows subjectivists to say is that gassing the Jews would not be morally good for them personally to do, but that it was morally good for the Nazis to do.

Furthermore, since the principle of moral subjectivism offers no valid reason to intervene in the moral affairs of others (since it is entirely subjective and there is no objective obligation or authority to do so), and since moral relativists must admit that nothing morally wrong was occurring in the first place (in fact, only moral good was likely happening, since the Nazis believed what they were doing was right), they must hold that we should not have interfered with the Nazis.

Thus, moral subjectivism necessary means that the Nazis were doing good and we shouldn’t have stopped them.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellige...ectivism-n azis-were-doing-good-and-we-shouldnt-have-stopped-them/

Thus, we NEED God for morality. Thus, morality, love, creativity, ethics all emanate from his divine authority.

I am so happy I was able to offer people who are a little confused about His existence some guidance, help and support.

Miss Meng takes a sip of her mineral water. Let the facts speak for themselves, shall we?

~ Miss Meng

(If you're short of attention span, skip to the end for the tldr version. I'm replying to the original post "cold", meaning without reading the other replies first, so apologies if I'm repeating what others have said. I'll catch up on the rest of the thread after I post this.)

This falls neatly into a broader category of fallacious God-arguments.

A: We have a need for something. (In the case of this argument from morality, it's a source of absolute morals. In the case of the cosmological argument, it's a source of the universe. In the case of an anti-determinism argument, free will. Etc.)
B: God, as proposed, provide such a something.
C: Therefore, God exists as proposed.

Missing elements from this logic:

The logic itself is not sound. To show this logic is not sound, all I have to do is to provide a counterexample showing that the things which people need sometimes are not provided. Such as, say, a cure for the illness that kills them. Just because we might feel that we need something, doesn't mean it actually exists.

Showing unique necessity. Even if B were true, that the proposed God (which seems to be fairly Christian in how it is proposed, though MM has yet to actually commit to this, that I've seen) would fill the need, there is still the possibility that a million other things could fit the bill. One example might be, say, realization of the 4 Noble Truths and following of the 8-fold path, from Buddhism. If this argument argues for the necessary truth of Buddhist philosophy just as easily as it argues for the necessary truth of the Christian God... and the Muslim Allah... and for the validity of ingrained instinctual empathy... and for humanism... and for Confucian ethics... then this argument really isn't an argument for anything in particular.

For myself, I think that moral disagreements are best understood as feuds over social conventions. We have a social convention that killing people is wrong, for example. We also have a social convention that people guilty of heinous crimes must receive extreme punishment. Hence, the debate over the death penalty. We also have a social convention to avoid needless suffering and allow self-determination. Hence, the debate over right-to-die. These disagreements arise when and where our social conventions contradict themselves. What follows is a debate... sometimes vigorous, sometimes violent... about which social conventions take precedence. Protestant Germany had an antisemitic social convention stretching back all the way to Luther... and before that, the Catholic Germanies had an antisemitism dating back to the establishment of Christianity in the region, which was in turn rooted in the Biblical narrative of Jews being the ones who got Christ executed. They also had a social convention of obedience to authority, which was part of why World War II happened. We can contest the consequences of these social conventions, both in their attempts to establish themselves in our own neck of the woods, and in their presence elsewhere, on the basis of our own social mores of individual liberty and industrial-murder-is-wrong. Nor can we really say that Germany had its own social convention and the rest of us had a different convention, that these two exist in isolation. Philosophy flowed freely between Germany and the rest of the world. Condemnation of Nazi crimes are better understood as a larger society's internal debate over the conventions of its members, rather than different societies forcing their will upon one another. (Though to be honest, ending Nazi Germany was never about ending the Holocaust or even about ending fascism. It was about the basic principle of "if you try to conquer us and our friends, we will defend ourselves against your aggression, even if we have to conquer you and your friends to do so," which is a convention shared by most nations.) Please note that NONE of this requires the presence of, or the exclusion of, a god. If the various social conventions arise entirely from natural human nature or behavior, this adequately explains moral disagreements. If we inject that some or all moral stances are informed by a god, then this model of conflicting social conventions STILL works just fine for explanation or prediction. God is not a necessary element, or even a relevant element.

This brings us to a critical fault with A: That we need a source of absolute morals. We seem to be getting by reasonably well without one. It's rough, and we're kinda just muddling through, but we're getting by nonetheless.

Another problem: Establishing B. How would the presence of a rule-giving God provide an absolute morality? Would that not just arbitrarily designate one individual's relative morality as absolute? On what basis? Power? Does might make right? Proven track record? You're going to have to commit to a particular religious narrative to establish that one... and ideally, a narrative in which God does not wipe out almost the entirety of the world's population in an epic rage quit, or order the slaughter of entire nations down to the last baby, or... well, the list goes on and on. Bottom line, if we're going to arbitrarily designate someone as a source of absolute morality (perhaps because we've taken leave of our senses), then we can do that already without a god... I'm pretty sure my high-school friend Brian would love to volunteer... so why the need for one? (Also, given that whole trinity business, I'm not sure whether "individual" is the right word here. But that's tangential.)

Another problem with B: The problem of interpretation. Having a moral rule-giver only gets rid of these problems if those rules are freely verifiable and accessible to all... and even were we to suppose that your proposed God existed, that is demonstrably not true just from looking around. Look, for example, at the American Civil Rights movement, where you had preachers on one side saying that this divine morality demanded the end to segregation, and on the other side saying that this divine morality demanded its continuation. Or a hundred years before, on slavery. Or the Reformation era, regarding Catholicism versus Protestantism. Or all those people who insisted that God wished individuals to be free, as opposed to those who insisted that God had given a divine mandate to the aristocracy and royalty to rule over everyone else. Any thinking individual not consumed by hubris could look at the lay of the land and say, "Most, possibly all, of these people genuinely seeking to understand divine, absolute morality are getting it wrong, so if I genuinely sought to understand it, I'd get probably get it wrong too." If we have a million people supposedly informed by God, all apparently somewhat genuine, preaching a hundred different contradictory revelations of morality, none of which constitutes a majority... then God doesn't really provide that absolute morality, does it? (He? She? It? They? Whatever.) Establish, maybe... though see my objection above. Provide, no. You're still left with exactly the problem you originally cited: A group of people believing they're in the right (with an added qualifier of "because we think God says so"... and we can find countless examples of that throughout history) opposed by others who believe they are in the right (again, because God says so). The need that God is supposedly filling is not actually being filled, even if we were to assume the existence of God.

So in conclusion, no. This is not incontrovertible evidence of God. It's quite controvertible. See? I controverted it. Also, it isn't evidence of God... it can be taken as evidence for any moral code, pick your poison. Except it isn't even evidence, because aside from a single example to illustrate a supposed demand for whatever moral source you care to argue for, no factual evidence is actually proffered for consideration. It is simply an argument. A monstrously idiotic, poorly constructed, utterly sophomoric argument which any Introduction-to-Logic instructor not swayed by special pleading would be hard-pressed to grade higher than a C.

... and I've got to ask. THIS is what you lead with? Granted, someone giving a bad argument for their position doesn't make their position false. But when you've got a billion people all putting forward nothing but bad arguments... and after years of wading through the bad arguments you don't find a single good one... at some point you have to say, "there's nothing here to find, these people have nothing, time to move on."

tl;dr: I think the following sums up my response nicely. Facepalm

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
12-03-2014, 11:30 AM
RE: Incontrovertible proof God exists
[Image: dog_2-jpg.jpg]

Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like EvolutionKills's post
12-03-2014, 11:37 AM
RE: Incontrovertible proof God exists
(12-03-2014 11:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  [Image: dog_2-jpg.jpg]

Drinking Beverage

[Image: Jbf1uV2.gif]


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
12-03-2014, 11:41 AM (This post was last modified: 12-03-2014 12:10 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: Incontrovertible proof God exists
(11-03-2014 01:10 PM)Miss Meng Wrote:  Also Taqiyya, you overlooked the proof that before information can increase in a system, it has to be created. Who created it Taqiyya? Certainly not you. Also evolutionist Margulis admitted:

The question is, is natural selection enough to explain evolution? … This is the problem I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection… Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create.…

Darwinists don't seem to get that natural selection is not creating anything Taqiyya...it can only act on what is already present. Please look into this confusion as it is important.

Three elements are required for evolution. Inheritance, selection, and variation (eg mutation). Selection, indeed, does eliminate rather than create. Inheritance preserves. The new "information" comes from mutation (though, really, "information" is a bad word choice, or at best a weak metaphor). Selection works as the editor, slowly weeding out the "bad" new information (gibberish, stuff not as good as what is already there, et cetera) while inheritance preserves the good. All three are essential; remove any one, and evolution stops working. Straw-manning evolutionary theory as being nothing more than natural selection (false) and then saying that natural selection can't provide all critical functions (true) proves nothing beyond the ignorance or lack of integrity of the one doing the straw-manning. Simultaneously asserting in hubristic terms the utter perfection of one's proffered arguments (as was done in later posts) adds nothing to this, save displaying one's own strutting arrogance to critics. (Also, is Pride a sin?)

... also, Chas beat me to the meat of that response.

.... damn, it's been only 12 hours since the OP and thread place has already devolved into dog pics and memes? I've GOT to find a better place for actually discussing these topics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
12-03-2014, 11:44 AM
RE: Incontrovertible proof God exists
(12-03-2014 11:41 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  .... damn, it's been only 12 hours since the OP and thread place has already devolved into dog pics and memes? I've GOT to find a better place for actually discussing these topics.

Yep! Big Grin

[Image: bella-dozer-the-english-bulldog.jpeg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
12-03-2014, 11:45 AM
RE: Incontrovertible proof God exists
That is one ugly ass dog.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes natachan's post
12-03-2014, 11:50 AM
RE: Incontrovertible proof God exists
(12-03-2014 11:45 AM)natachan Wrote:  That is one ugly ass dog.

You have no idea... Gasp

[Image: Dog-Its-Owner-Upside-Down-83379.jpg]

[Image: WhatHasBeenSeenCannotBeUn-Seen.jpg]

You're welcome! Thumbsup

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
12-03-2014, 12:46 PM (This post was last modified: 12-03-2014 12:51 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: Incontrovertible proof God exists
Also, I thought I should put this example of quote-mining into context.

(11-03-2014 01:10 PM)Miss Meng Wrote:  The question is, is natural selection enough to explain evolution? … This is the problem I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection… Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create.…

Here's Margulis's actual quote:

Quote:This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs, you keep selecting the hens that are laying the biggest eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create.

The portions of the quote which the OP redacted (or maybe had redacted for her by whatever trusted source she let do her reading for her, if she didn't actually read Margulis directly) seem tangential, but on closer examination, it tells us what point Margulis was trying to make. NOT that there is no mechanism for mutation and variation, the "new information" to put it in Creationist pseudo-science terms, but that accumulation of purely random mutations is not the proper mechanism for understanding this.

A couple minutes with Google gave me a reasonable synopsis of what Lynn Margulis was really talking about.

Quote:Most recently, Lynn was skewered because she didn’t agree with the idea that point mutations create genetic variation responsible for major leaps forward in evolution. Because of the complexity of molecular biology and mobile genetic elements (transposons, retrotransposons, plasmids, SINEs, LINEs, crossover and recombination during meiosis, etc,) it is challenging for people to understand what she was talking about. These mobile genetic elements are responsible for horizontal gene transfer, which is the primary mechanism for creating genetic variation, NOT point mutations. Because she disagreed that point mutations cause evolution, some claim that Margulis was against evolution. This is absurd. What she was against was teaching evolution from a 19th century perspective that ignores the origin of genetic variation. Darwin didn’t know about the origins of genetic variation, because he didn’t know about genes or DNA. To teach Darwinian natural selection while ignoring the origin of genetic variation is ludicrous. It’s like saying human culture evolved because of war, while ignoring the role of communication in its various forms: literature, art, music, education. Darwin himself would have scoffed at anyone who insisted that natural selection provides a full explanation of biological evolution.
Attributed to Cathy McGowan Russell. Bold emphasis added. Sourced from an internet page I can't really vouch for, so it shouldn't be taken as Gos-... okay, it SHOULD be taken as Gospel, but that's the Gospels' fault.

In short, she wasn't saying that natural selection didn't work. She was saying that there were additional elements to variation beyond simple "point mutation"... eg, radiation striking a nucleotide and altering it. (There seems to be a disconnect here, between what is being referred to as "natural selection" -- eg, the combination of mutation and fitness-based attrition -- and what natural selection actually is -- fitness based attrition alone, with mutation separate. Maybe I'm being overly-selective in my definitions.) In particular, she was pointing to ways that this "information" could be transferred between organisms and species (eg, a cold virus swaps some of its DNA into your cells... and it may have gotten that DNA from another person, or even another species), and even how distinct species could become so symbiotic that they might be viewed as a single organism, such as how we might think of our mitochondria as being part of our body, even if they were bacteria or viruses that invaded organized cells billions of years back, found a symbiotic relationship there, and went on reproducing along with the organized cells. In no way at all was she proposing that evolution does not work... just that a particular model of evolution was incomplete because it ignored several important modes of variation.

None of this constitutes proof of God, nor could it be construed as such proof by any reasonable person.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
12-03-2014, 12:57 PM
RE: Incontrovertible proof God exists
I would like to point out that I will probably only reply to shorter posts, as I have an attention disorder that prevents me from taking in large amounts of useless information (something atheists seem to have a prowess in).

~ Miss Meng
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2014, 12:57 PM
RE: Incontrovertible proof God exists
So... what you're telling me is this:
godlessgeeks.com Wrote:ARGUMENT FROM NEGATIVE DIVINE JUSTICE (I)
(1) If there is no God, then Hitler and Stalin were never punished for the evil that they did.
(2) There would be no Divine Justice for them, and this is not acceptable.
(3) Only God could give us Divine Justice.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

...right?

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: