Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-12-2014, 03:36 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(12-12-2014 03:12 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  In a scenario of you having no concept of wrongness, but physically contacting and harming a person you identify with as a person; you're brain may experience chemical reactions of empathic and guilt feelings. It doesn't mean it will stop you from continuing any action though.

Let's say this does happen. Even though I don't believe in morality/wrongness. I start to feel a bit of guilt for what I did. I recognize that this just a feeling, chemical reactions taking place, and not in way revealing that what I did was wrong.

Wouldn't these feelings, the chemical reactions just fizzle out after a period of time, particularly when I don't attach any moral weight to them? Wouldn't they likely evaporate perhaps by the morning or so?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2014, 03:42 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habituation

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
12-12-2014, 06:40 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(12-12-2014 09:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-12-2014 08:06 AM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  ]You haven't answered the question:
How does the existence of a deity whom holds a non-human perspective make that perspective objective?

I’m not to sure what it is you’re asking.

I'm not sure how I could be clearer.

If a god is a being who by any definition; is not human. How is that being any more objective than humans are unless you say that a god is objective by that definition?

Quote:
Quote:How would behaving in accordance with those morals be a "law?

Well, it presupposes that we have inherent moral obligation, such as to love our neighbor as ourself, just by being human. It’s seen as a law in the sense, that it’s a law that police officers have an obligation to protect and serve, just by being police officers. If i were to see a woman being raped, even though I’d be compelled by my emotions to stop it, there exists beliefs that underlying these feelings as well, that I have an moral obligation to stop it, and if I don’t then I failed in these obligations, that I’ve transgressed some sort of law, of being human, that I failed in my humanity. In fact from this point of reference I would accuse others who didn’t come to the woman’s aid, of failing in the same ways.

A god created us with certain feelings-> The god expects us to behave in accordance with those feelings and that governs our behaviour-> Punishment and reward in response to that behaviour-> Therefore law.

Sure. OK. Except that's not our situation:
A god created a social situation for some of us that imbues us with certain feelings-> The god expects us to behave in accordance with some of those feelings and that governs some of our behaviour-> Therefore law.

That's kind of a problem and that doesn't cover situations where the gods wishes conflict with those feelings (Not saying that you hold the belief but the whole kill the gay's thing is a perfect example) and you're still pre-supposing the objectivity of that god.

Quote:
Quote:Or an objective one if we're behaving in that manner because of that deity's preferences?

What I mean by objective, is that I am making a statement of fact, when making claims of what is morally wrong or right, rather than a statement of opinion, such I like Taylor swift (for which there is no right or wrong). I am presupposing some sort of reality about human beings, having an intrinsic purpose, which they are called to serve.

You've done this before. Didn't buy it then either.

They're stating their opinion that a certain behaviour is wrong because god doesn't like it. Another person is stating their opinion that a certain behaviour is wrong because another god doesn't like it. A third person is stating their opinion that a certain behaviour is wrong because they don't like it.

It's the same claim unless they can demonstrate that god exists and does/ does not like something.

Furthermore unless they can demonstrate that that god exists and is objective then they're just deferring to another person/ non-person's opinion.

Quote:
Quote:Why would behaving in a way that is in accordance with the deities wishes be a purpose if behaving in a way that is in accordance with another persons wishes is not a purpose?

It could be, such as if I signed up to be a police officer. It can be said that my purpose as a police officer is to fulfill the wishes of those that assigned me that role. It can be said that I failed, or lived up to my obligations as a police officer. For believers, it can be said that God by giving us life, by making us human, makes us obligated to fulfill the moral roles and purposes of what that means, to be able to live our lives as profoundly and meaningfully as possible.

A) Somebody can't opt into being created.
B) You still haven't differentiated "behaviour in service of another" and "behaviour in service of a god" except to say that one is potentially more meaningful because it is a more powerful being and it created us.
C) You haven't demonstrated that people are obligated to that god. It is currently an assertion.

Quote:
Quote:How then would heaven be an end goal if all that is there is more living in accordance with the deities wishes?

How would it not be?

You're living in accordance with the gods wishes in order to get into heaven. In order to continue living in accordance with gods wishes.

See the problem?

Quote:
Quote:Why would any meaning derived from that life be any more important, any more meaningful, than a life without that deity?

I wouldn’t know how to answer that question for you, because to me God is that life, “I am the way the truth, and the life”.

"Because." Great.

(Edit: Actually great. Admitting you don't know is fine. The problem is that "I don't know/ Because" is same answer you gave to the other questions and you seemed to have thought that you'd made a point there.)

I couldn't work out how to work this into the post so here's Hard Gay's first appearance.



Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue's post
13-12-2014, 12:44 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
The basic moral guidelines that make up human morals IS objective. They are objective to our evolution and the way we have evolved over billions of years.

It is quite clear that this is the case. Otherwise, every animal on the planet would be far more violent than they are now. Why is killing someone typically seen as immoral or not the right thing to do to "most" people? It is quite simple. It is because if our species spent 100% of it's time, energy and effort in wan ton killing each other, our species out not exist anymore. Thus, through evolution and in the evolution of our brains, we have evolved to not want to just kill someone for no reason. However, things like religion. defects in the brain and the overly complicated evolution of our society breeding the ideas of ownership of land and resources meant for survival has corrupted us quite a lot.

For example, let us say that some over there has more than you on their land and your land is not so great. Your survival instincts will kick in, adrenaline pops up, fight takes over flight and you go kill the guy to grab at his resources because it is needed for your survival and the primitive evolutionary parts of our brain that wants us to survive is being activated for the wrong reasons that stems from these exterior evolutionary parts that make up our society that is the result of the need to form groups.

To steal is wrong because while you are robbing someone else of something they may need to survive and thus, killing them by stealing it. Killing them by stealing their stuff is damaging to the survival of the species.

Rape is wrong because the evolution of our species in parts to us being a social species that makes us survive better depends on us all being happy and safe and caring about each other. Which also, has been perverted by the complex workings of the ideas that parts of our species have formed. Religion has further made this a problem as the religions have always favored a females have no rights ideal that has stuck since the beginning because men are generally stronger and faster and thus made better hunters. Since men were the hunters in larger parts to females, they were dominant since the survival of the group depended on them and were the masters of the pack.

Since our species is not endangered and has grown very large. There is no reason to have very young baby makers! Thus, young girls and boys should not be having sex and we should not be impregnating 11-12 year old girls.

They are not mentally or physically ready for that and survival of the species is not dependent on them anymore.

Inscest creates a genetically inferior future for humanity and does not make for a good survivable species. Thus, Incest is an Objectively immoral thing.

Murder, Rape, Theft, incest. Its all objective to our evolution of both our biological and mental form and has been influenced and corrupted and even evolved a bit from the evolution of our social groups which is a bi product of evolution to give our species a greater chance of survival.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2014, 03:44 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
I'm no rocket surgeon, but can't the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world be proved with one word: Mom? We all have one, and most of us learn the same basic moral guidelines from them or mother figures with little variation aside from the unique quirks of our situations, societies and environments. Are 'Mom' moral laws objective? Collectively, yes. Only respectively are they subjective, right? An example of such an objective moral law might be: Do not poop where you eat or sleep. That's one that resonates in any time in history, in any situation, society or environment, and even applies to most animals, too, who are all, I am proud to say, godless.

~incrédulité~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2014, 06:33 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(12-12-2014 06:40 PM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  If a god is a being who by any definition; is not human. How is that being any more objective than humans are unless you say that a god is objective by that definition?

It’s quite vague to me as to what you mean by “God is objective”.

Quote:You've done this before. Didn't buy it then either.

They're stating their opinion that a certain behavior is wrong because god doesn't like it. Another person is stating their opinion that a certain behavior is wrong because another god doesn't like it. A third person is stating their opinion that a certain behavior is wrong because they don't like it.

You seem to have missed the point I have been arguing. A third person is making a statement of preference, the other two are making statements of fact. It’s the difference between an “opinion” that the holocaust was a hoax, and statement that you didn’t find Hitler’s mustache attractive.

What I mean by a statement of fact, is that I am making a truth claim, whether or not we have a means to validate this, doesn’t mean that I am not making such a claim. Validity of the claim is an entirely different question, but they are questions of validity, unlike I don’t like eggs, for which there is no right or wrong “opinion”.

Quote:Furthermore unless they can demonstrate that that god exists…

I never tried to demonstrate the existence of God, in fact his existence is irrelevant to much of any of the points I’ve made. But I'll summarize my point to you, in hopes that there’s no further confusion. All I’ve been arguing is that there is a difference between various moral claims, that some are statements of facts, and some are statements of preference.

And even further than this, that nearly all secular moral statements, are statements of preference. They are claims such is I like greens eggs, and this is why I like them. I like Taylor Swift’s music, and this is why I like her music. They are neither right or wrong as a result.

While religious moral statements, are statements of fact, such as the holocaust is a hoax, and 9/11 was an inside job.

This is my entire argument in a nut shell. There’s nothing here about the superiority of the religious moral views, or the validity of them. No arguments for the existence of God. It’s merely an attempt to show how two types of statements differ in form
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2014, 07:42 AM (This post was last modified: 13-12-2014 10:41 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(13-12-2014 06:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You seem to have missed the point I have been arguing.

You've been making an argument ? Really ? What you've been making is a bigger and bigger (meaningless) word salad.

(13-12-2014 06:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  What I mean by a statement of fact, is that I am making a truth claim, whether or not we have a means to validate this, doesn’t mean that I am not making such a claim. Validity of the claim is an entirely different question, but they are questions of validity, unlike I don’t like eggs, for which there is no right or wrong “opinion”.

It has already been pointed out to you why your claims do not neet the definition of "facts".

(13-12-2014 06:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But I'll summarize my point to you, in hopes that there’s no further confusion.

Since you're the confused one here, it's highly unlikely you'll be able to clear up anything.

(13-12-2014 06:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  All I’ve been arguing is that there is a difference between various moral claims, that some are statements of facts, and some are statements of preference.

Yet you've never defined the difference, other than state your OPINION.

(13-12-2014 06:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And even further than this, that nearly all secular moral statements, are statements of preference.

Is meaningless, special pleading, AND nothing but an unsupported clause, (and not an English sentence).

(13-12-2014 06:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  They are claims such is I like greens eggs, and this is why I like them. I like Taylor Swift’s music, and this is why I like her music. They are neither right or wrong as a result.

Is a non-sequitur.

(13-12-2014 06:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  While religious moral statements, are statements of fact, such as the holocaust is a hoax, and 9/11 was an inside job.

So you CLAIM, but have never defined the difference, just made the CLAIM.
Your OPINIONS are not "facts", and are not verifiable. you moron.

(13-12-2014 06:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  This is my entire argument in a nut shell.

Exactly. You don't have one.

(13-12-2014 06:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  There’s nothing here about the superiority of the religious moral views, or the validity of them. No arguments for the existence of God. It’s merely an attempt to show how two types of statements differ in form

And you FAILED utterly to demonstrate the DIFFERENCE. You CLAIM there is a difference, but don't know what that difference is, and are unable to demonstrate it.
But by all means, keep up demonstrating you have no point and are unable to substantiate your CLAIM.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
13-12-2014, 08:57 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(13-12-2014 07:42 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(13-12-2014 06:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You seem to have missed the point I have been arguing.

You've make making an argument ? Really ?

(13-12-2014 06:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  What I mean by a statement of fact, is that I am making a truth claim, whether or not we have a means to validate this, doesn’t mean that I am not making such a claim. Validity of the claim is an entirely different question, but they are questions of validity, unlike I don’t like eggs, for which there is no right or wrong “opinion”.

It has already been pointed out to you why your claims do not neet the definition of "facts".

(13-12-2014 06:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But I'll summarize my point to you, in hopes that there’s no further confusion.

Since you're the confused one here, it's highly unlikely you'll be able to clear up anything.

(13-12-2014 06:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  All I’ve been arguing is that there is a difference between various moral claims, that some are statements of facts, and some are statements of preference.

Yet you're never defined the difference, other than state your OPINION.

(13-12-2014 06:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And even further than this, that nearly all secular moral statements, are statements of preference.

Is meaningless, special pleading, AND nothing but a clause, and not a proper English sentence.

(13-12-2014 06:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  They are claims such is I like greens eggs, and this is why I like them. I like Taylor Swift’s music, and this is why I like her music. They are neither right or wrong as a result.

Is a non-sequitur.

(13-12-2014 06:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  While religious moral statements, are statements of fact, such as the holocaust is a hoax, and 9/11 was an inside job.

So you CLAIM, but have never defined the difference, just made the CLAIM.
Your OPINIONS are not "facts", and are not verifiable. you moron.

(13-12-2014 06:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  This is my entire argument in a nut shell.

Exactly. You don't have one.

(13-12-2014 06:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  There’s nothing here about the superiority of the religious moral views, or the validity of them. No arguments for the existence of God. It’s merely an attempt to show how two types of statements differ in form

And you FAILED utterly to demonstrate the DIFFERENCE. You CLAIM there is a difference, but don't know what that difference is, and are unable to demonstrate it.
But by all means, keep up demonstrating you have no point and are unable to substantiate your CLAIM.

Bucky I think he's trying to say a statement of fact is a statement about the world, not whether it's true, simply what the nature of the claim is, you seem to think he's claiming that a statement of fact is true. He isn't.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes tear151's post
13-12-2014, 09:02 AM (This post was last modified: 13-12-2014 09:18 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(13-12-2014 08:57 AM)tear151 Wrote:  
(13-12-2014 07:42 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You've make making an argument ? Really ?


It has already been pointed out to you why your claims do not neet the definition of "facts".


Since you're the confused one here, it's highly unlikely you'll be able to clear up anything.


Yet you're never defined the difference, other than state your OPINION.


Is meaningless, special pleading, AND nothing but a clause, and not a proper English sentence.


Is a non-sequitur.


So you CLAIM, but have never defined the difference, just made the CLAIM.
Your OPINIONS are not "facts", and are not verifiable. you moron.


Exactly. You don't have one.


And you FAILED utterly to demonstrate the DIFFERENCE. You CLAIM there is a difference, but don't know what that difference is, and are unable to demonstrate it.
But by all means, keep up demonstrating you have no point and are unable to substantiate your CLAIM.

Bucky I think he's trying to say a statement of fact is a statement about the world, not whether it's true, simply what the nature of the claim is, you seem to think he's claiming that a statement of fact is true. He isn't.

A fact is something that's verifiable. Whatever he's doing, is not verifiable. His "truth claims" are not verifiable. It does not meet the definition of the word "fact".
He's trying to elevate his OPINIONS to the level of fact. He failed.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
13-12-2014, 09:26 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
I'm a little drunk so I'm gonna get too the rest of this shit in the morning. I'm not sure how much I'd add though; Bucky handled it admirably.

Only tackling this::
(13-12-2014 06:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-12-2014 06:40 PM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  If a god is a being who by any definition; is not human. How is that being any more objective than humans are unless you say that a god is objective by that definition?

It’s quite vague to me as to what you mean by “God is objective”.

I'm not saying that god is objective. I'm asking how god could be objective. Otherwise any bullshit "moral law" set by that god also wouldn't be objective as it would just be affirming that gods subjective preference of moral behaviour.

I don't see how that's vague.

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: