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
13-12-2014, 04:18 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(12-12-2014 01:36 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And if i chose to believe that nothing is right or wrong, then I can possibly free myself of a great deal of guilt, even of actions you yourself might feel guilty about committing.

If I believe there is nothing wrong with me being selfish, with being greedy, or arrogant, or dickish, than I can be free of any guilt when I chose to act in such ways. Correct?
Everyone is ultimately selfish. If they dedicate their lives to helping others then they get pleasure and satisfaction from helping others. If they had no emotions, felt no pleasure then they would not have any interest in helping others.

There really is no reason to feel guilt for being selfish, greedy, arrogant or dickish.
You behave the way you choose to behave. Your choices and your reputation often has consequences. If you are clued up, walk around with your eyes open, then you behave in a way that best suits your purposes, both short term and long term.


(12-12-2014 02:50 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(12-12-2014 02:04 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  What exactly does this psychological concept boosted by my evolutionary past cause me to do here? Will it keep me believing that these things are wrong? Or that it will keep me feeling guilty even when I no longer believe these things are wrong?

I don't know why you keep bringing things back to wrongness, it's not really relevant. Your brain would still likely to have chemical reactions toward feelings of empathy and guilt regardless. Unless you really weren't just someone who didn't believe in wrongess/morality and were physiologically a sociopath.
Morality is not merely an observation of behaviour. It's a belief system. Our behavioural patterns are both genetic and learned. Our belief systems are learned.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2014, 07:14 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(13-12-2014 09:02 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

I'm using the word fact as somewhat synonomous with the word truth. And the main function of "statement of fact/truth", is to distinguish it from matters of taste.

If I claim a teapot is orbiting the sun, it's clear that I am not expressing a matter of taste.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2014, 07:22 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(14-12-2014 07:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-12-2014 09:02 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

I'm using the word fact as somewhat synonomous with the word truth. And the main function of "statement of fact/truth", is to distinguish it from matters of taste.

If I claim a teapot is orbiting the sun, it's clear that I am not expressing a matter of taste.

You are using neither "truth" nor "fact" correctly. A fact is something not only demonstrably true, but has been demonstrated as true.

You are making claims, not statements of fact.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
14-12-2014, 07:49 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(13-12-2014 09:26 AM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  
(13-12-2014 06:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

No, now it's clearer what you meant.

What I mean by objective is this. Watches have an objective purpose, "to tell time". They are designed by their creator for this purpose. If we ran across a watch that no longer tells time, or tells time incorrectly, we can say that it's not working properly, that it's not serving the purpose it was intended for. This sort of thing is fairly obvious when we speak of created things, like watches, for which we speak of teleologically.

The question of whether the watchmaker was objective when he desired to create a watch for such an intent, doesn't make much sense. It was just his desire, his intent that he made intrinsic to his design.

In a religious worldview, human beings are seen as sort of like living watches, figuring out the appropriate movements to tell time properly, as they were intended for.

In the counterpart atheists perspective, human beings are not like living watches, they are not created nor do they exist for any intrinsic intent or purpose, therefore all statements that appeal to intent or purpose are false. Or an agnostic counter perspective could be that even if we were created with intent and purpose we can never know what this intent or purpose are, that such claims are unverifiable by any means we have at our disposal, like claims about a tea pot orbiting a sun.

It's important to remember that even these two parties are making statements of fact/truth. They are not making statements that are merely a matter of taste.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2014, 08:00 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(14-12-2014 07:22 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-12-2014 07:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm using the word fact as somewhat synonomous with the word truth. And the main function of "statement of fact/truth", is to distinguish it from matters of taste.

If I claim a teapot is orbiting the sun, it's clear that I am not expressing a matter of taste.

You are using neither "truth" nor "fact" correctly. A fact is something not only demonstrably true, but has been demonstrated as true.

You are making claims, not statements of fact.

This is just semantics, and we're now left with arguing about the supposed differences between making a claim, and making a statement. There's no meaningful difference for me between making a truth claim, or making a statement of fact/truth.

This doesn't mean that the claims, or statements that I am making are in fact true, but just that I am making such a statement, as distinguished from statements of taste, such as I like green eggs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2014, 08:07 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(13-12-2014 08:57 AM)tear151 Wrote:  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.

Exactly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2014, 08:16 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(14-12-2014 08:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-12-2014 07:22 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are using neither "truth" nor "fact" correctly. A fact is something not only demonstrably true, but has been demonstrated as true.

You are making claims, not statements of fact.

This is just semantics, and we're now left with arguing about the supposed differences between making a claim, and making a statement. There's no meaningful difference for me between making a truth claim, or making a statement of fact/truth.

That you can't see the difference between those two things says a great deal about your thinking skills, none of it good.

Quote:This doesn't mean that the claims, or statements that I am making are in fact true, but just that I am making such a statement, as distinguished from statements of taste, such as I like green eggs.

"Truth claim" and "statement of fact" are not the same thing.

Your claim that they are is not a statement of fact. It is a statement of falsehood.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
14-12-2014, 08:32 AM (This post was last modified: 14-12-2014 09:26 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(14-12-2014 08:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  This is just semantics, and we're now left with arguing about the supposed differences between making a claim, and making a statement. There's no meaningful difference for me between making a truth claim, or making a statement of fact/truth.

What you claim as "truth" is nothing but your opinions. There is no way to verify what you claim as truth, therefore they are not facts. It's NOT "just semantics". You claimed it was about "facts", and you used the word incorrectly. YOU may not recognize the definitions the entire world uses, but that's your problem, only. You have FAILED to make any coherent argument. You are intellectually bankrupt. If you had presented this nonsense in a college paper, you would have received an "F" grade. Your lame attempt to make your "eggs" analogy is preposterous. Throughout all this your repeated misspellings, repeated use of improper grammar, and total lack of critical thinking skills has demonstrated you have no education, and you ARE indeed suffering from Dunning-Krueger. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%...ger_effect
You NEED to think you can play with the big kids, yet again and again have proven you are unable to do so. You are to be pitied. Nothing more.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
14-12-2014, 10:17 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(12-12-2014 01:02 PM)Stevil Wrote:  All you need to do is to look at all the different groups of people convinced that their god it the real one, Allah, Vishnu, YHWH, Ra etc. They are all convinced, but they can't all be correct.

I think there’s tendency to view religion, and different religions from the perspective of their fundamentalist, from the least reflective, or thoughtful among them, the Pat Robertson’s of faith. But when I read works by reflective religious types, christian, muslim, jewish, hindu or otherwise, it’s hard for me to look at these works and say we are speaking of something all together different. They appear more like various witnesses to the same crime scene, sharing their retelling of the same event, from fractured, and frail memories of it, rather than folks describing numerous and unrelated events, such as someone talking about their birthday, and someone talking about the meal they ate this morning.

Of course these commonalities may not mean that what they perceive is true. While there’s a great deal of variety among human experiences, there’s also a great deal of commonality too. And it could just be that these commonalities of life, produced a commonality of beliefs as well, regardless if those beliefs are actually true of false. Perhaps we're all just seeing patterns, when there's none there.

Quote:As intelligent as we people are, we are still very prone to jumping to conclusions. We have developed the ability to recognize patterns and to try and derive knowledge from that, but we often find patterns where none exist or find correlations or causes that do not exist.

That’s true. How would I know that I am perceiving a pattern which is not actually there? Clearly on occasions we see patterns, and when we move closer, try and get a better view, and perspective, there does in fact appear to be a pattern.

I think the best that I can do, is consider the questions. Is the pattern or rhythm than I am seeing not there, am I giving meaning to meaningless noise? Am I believing these things because I’m indoctrinated so heavily, because of the warm fuzzy feelings it gives me that cloud my judgement, and my ability to recognize what in essence is nothing but meaningless noise. I can also go out and find others, read writers and thinkers who engage in the same sort of question and explorations, who appear in touch with the overall human experience, who navigate the same abyss, including those who are not christians, including those who don’t believe at all.

I find that those that produce for me meaningful internal dialogue, are not scientist, but tend to be artists, novelist, poets, filmmakers, musicians even, such as Dostoevsky, and the Cohen brothers.

Quote:We hence need to employ some methodology to improve our chances of discovering the truth. For matters pertaining to natural causes the scientific method has developed so that we can discern false speculation from truth.

Yes, if I was concerned with questions about the mechanics of the natural world, the structure of the cosmos, and how all life evolved from a single cell, it’s probably best that I stick with getting this information from actual scientist, who devote their lives to exploring such questions.

But for me the religious question is one about the question of meaning, whether life has some sort of direction or purpose.

But as Stuffed Assumption would likely say, that even when speaking of novels, where an author may have written a work to convey a certain meaning, that we wouldn’t be using the “scientific method” to discover this, that something like literary analysis or akin to it, wouldn’t be using the “scientific method”.

Some, would also argue that even when it comes to something like a novel we can never know an authors intention, meaning, or purpose, from his work alone, particularly if the author is not willing to clarify these things, or is dead or unable to do so. While the work may be composed by the author to convey a particular intention, meaning, or purpose, the truth, is one we are unable to ascertain. And this view seems to be a somewhat common one among unbelievers on the internet, a consistency between life and novels. But likely not one shared by many literary analyst, NT Scholars, or Shakespeare scholars, religious or otherwise.

For folks for whom the question is one that we cannot ask, we appear to have little in common. They quit the journey before it’s even started, because they believe it will take them nowhere. They see an abyss, and say there’s no point in exploring it, that we’ll find nothing there, and we should all just move along, and explore the city in front of us, the one given light by science. They are those who believe questions that are not pliable to scientific inquiry are one’s not important enough to be asking.

The unbelievers I find some sort of kinship with are those, who not only ask the question, but also attempt to answer it, those that state with a great deal of passion, perhaps even melancholy, that life is nothing but meaningless noise, a nihilistic void, that there is no rhyme or reason for it. They are unbelievers who can understand that the claim they are making is not a scientific one, but one that they believe is true with just as much certainty as the discoveries of the best scientist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
14-12-2014, 10:24 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(14-12-2014 08:32 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  What you claim as "truth" is nothing but your opinions.

Sure, if you wanna say it's an opinion, in the same sense that a claim that there's a tea pot orbiting the sun, is an opinion that's fine.

As long as you understand that my opinion is not a matter of taste, like my opinion that eggs taste better scrambled than over easy.

This work for you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: