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
14-12-2014, 03:13 PM (This post was last modified: 14-12-2014 03:21 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(14-12-2014 03:07 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-12-2014 02:50 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You exactly said and implied they are. Your exact prroccess was giving an example of CLAIMS and calling them FACTS.

How are you this dishonest or this stupid?

No, I didn't.

In fact to avoid these sort of implications. I made an explicit choice when defining what I meant by statement of fact to use false and even unverifiable claims, such as a tea pot orbiting the sun, the holocaust was a hoax, 9/11 was an inside job as examples. And I've used such examples repeatedly to drive this point home.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid700220


At this point there's no excuse, for calling me dishonest, other than you just haven't been following along.

Then you're just too dense and narrow-minded. What has been repeatedly stated to you and why. That these are not statements of facts. They're either claims or opinions in your different examples.

If you really "didn't want to bicker about semantics" You always can ignore it and actually talk about the points on point to the topic you think you are discussing. That's what always amazes me is how people react negatively opposed to being able to steer conversation with is quite manageable to do. But your attitude in this isn't really showing anything open or deserving embracing..

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2014, 03:17 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(14-12-2014 03:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Good.
You have nothing to say.
YOU said it was about "semantics" and now are totally unable to support your claims.

And what claim do you think I made?

The claim that there's a difference between, using your word, "opinions" such as there is a teapot orbiting the sun, and an opinion that scrambled eggs taste better than over easy? That one is an "opinion" that is a matter of taste, while the other is not?

Or is there some other claim that I've made here that you have in mind, that I'm apparently unaware of?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2014, 03:33 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(11-12-2014 09:54 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-12-2014 09:20 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Well, that's kind of the point. That the moral proclamations of believers, are truth claims, they are not merely expressing an individual preference.

The claim that the universe posses a moral arc, that bends towards justice, is not the same as a statement that I like green eggs. It's equivalent to statement that the sun revolves around the earth, the earth is flat, the earth is round, Obama is the president of the US, or there's a tea pot orbiting the sun.

That's your opinion, and as was just pointed out to you, there is no way to verify it.
Nice try.
It's not about a "fact".
They ARE just expressing individual preferences as about almost every "moral" subject, believers differ, and your Holy Book CHANGED its mind about.


"The claim that the universe posses a moral arc, that bends towards justice, is not the same as a statement that I like green eggs."

That's hilarious as YOU YOURSELF just yesterday used the same example to conflate those very two things.

You aren't feeling well, are you ?

Secular facts are verifiable to degrees of probability,based on observation, testing,peer review, and durability. If lacking durability they become less than a 'fact'.
A personal consideration as to a possible existential move towards goodness, based on many observations, is not the same as the trite claim 'I like green eggs.'
The former involves estimates and considerations, albeit perhaps intuitive and subjective, but quite far removed from the latter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2014, 03:36 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(14-12-2014 10:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.

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.
I think for the most part they tend to approach certain questions:
Why are we here? Why am I here?
Why does anything exist?
Is there a purpose to life?
Why are humans different to the other animals?
How come we are conscious and can make decisions?
Why do bad things happen?
Why are some people bad?
Am I just material substance or is there something more?
Am I obligated to be considerate to others or can I just do what is best for me?
What happens when my loved ones or I die?
What happens when bad people die?
What is love?

These are natural questions for animals with self awareness to consider. Many human cultures have answered them with myth-stories. Using the recently developed scientific method scientists have answered some and have given the label "mystery" to others. Some of these questions will never be in the scientific realm e.g. "Is there a purpose to life?".

Science partially answers some e.g. "Why do bad things happen?", science tells us why volcano's errupt, why disease evolves and spreads. But does not address the question of "is there a purpose behind disease?"


(14-12-2014 10:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
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?
I'm reading a book at the moment called "The particle at the end of the universe". This describes the Large Hadron Collider and in particular the search for and discovery of a Higgs boson like particle. The scientists gain confidence in the discovery by statistical analysis, by gaining consistent results that differ from the expected null hypothesis by a factor of 5 sigma. 5 sigma equates to a 1 in 3.5 million chance. They have quantified the chances, they verified that these chances are correct, they have two experimental teams looking at two different experiments (ATLAS, CMS) which have both concluded that the results that observed differ from the expected null hypothesis by 5 sigma. The certainty isn't 100% but its pretty darn close. The scientific criteria is precise and difficult, it's objective and transparent. At no point does it resort to asking an Authority for the answer.

With regards to questions of the supernatural e.g. a supernatural creator with magical powers, a supernatural mind/soul non constrainted by the physical properties of the universe, conceptual "truths" behind morality. Unless there is a methodical, verifiable way to discovery why do we even bother to entertain myth-stories regarding "god did it" or "moral truths exist but are undiscoverable"?


(14-12-2014 10:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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'm sure that it's fun to ponder. But you can't take much stock out of your conclusions.

(14-12-2014 10:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.
Artists don't tend to provide answers, they attempt to provoke questions or emotions or simply they are an outlet of emotions or ponderances of the artist. They are not trying to convey truths, they are trying to connect to you and to expand your thoughts (be thought provoking). You take out of a song or a story whatever it is that you personaly take from it. There is no answer.

(14-12-2014 10:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.
How do you verify or substantiate any "answers" within this context?


(14-12-2014 10:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.
Works of art are not documentation to convey truths. The artists themselves are not priveliged with universal truths. Their intent is not to convey universal truths.

(14-12-2014 10:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.
Personally, I would say if you are looking for universal truths then you won't find them in this mannor. If you are self reflecting, contemplating and pondering, then sure take this path. Don't expect to find truths, but allow yourself to try and make sense of things for yourself in a way that works for you, that perhaps helps you to lead a satisfying life.

I struggle to see any value in looking to an authority for answers e.g. the pope, other religious leaders, a church pastor etc. I see no value in assuming the existence of a magical invisible personality creator.

But I can see value in wondering why many people think theft is wrong.
My answer is because we naturally see value in possessions, possessions can improve our chances of survival, make our lives easier and provide us with entertainment and comfort. I can see why we don't want to spend all our time guarding our stuff. I can see why we would agree to society rules protecting property rights. I don't need to guess that universal truths exist, that moral truths exist. Of course my position isn't scientifically proven. I can't prove a negative, I cannot prove that moral truths don't exist. I merely lack a belief in them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
14-12-2014, 04:02 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(14-12-2014 03:13 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Then you're just too dense and narrow-minded. What has been repeatedly stated to you and why. That these are not statements of facts. They're either claims or opinions in your different examples.

That's fine.

To me the holocaust was a hoax, 9/11 was an inside job, there's a teapot orbiting the sun, an invisible dragon in my closet, are all statement of facts, regardless if they are true or not, or even verifiable.

Now, I was speaking of these claims being made, prior to us even evaluating or even looking at the claims, to determine whether they are verifiable or not, true or not.

But hey that's fine, if your quibble is that I can't call them statements of facts for whatever reason, that's fine. You disagree with my terminology.

Call them claims, call them even opinions, but it should be clear that these are not claims, or opinions of taste, such as scrambled eggs taste better than over easy.

Opinions of taste, can be both true and false.

Opinions of a tea pot orbiting the sun, can either be true or false, but not both, even if we are unable to verify if it is true or not. There is a difference between such opinions, and opinions of taste. You can see this simple point well enough now correct?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2014, 04:50 PM (This post was last modified: 15-12-2014 08:44 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(14-12-2014 04:02 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-12-2014 03:13 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Then you're just too dense and narrow-minded. What has been repeatedly stated to you and why. That these are not statements of facts. They're either claims or opinions in your different examples.

That's fine.

To me the holocaust was a hoax, 9/11 was an inside job, there's a teapot orbiting the sun, an invisible dragon in my closet, are all statement of facts, regardless if they are true or not, or even verifiable.

Now, I was speaking of these claims being made, prior to us even evaluating or even looking at the claims, to determine whether they are verifiable or not, true or not.

But hey that's fine, if your quibble is that I can't call them statements of facts for whatever reason, that's fine. You disagree with my terminology.

Call them claims, call them even opinions, but it should be clear that these are not claims, or opinions of taste, such as scrambled eggs taste better than over easy.

Opinions of taste, can be both true and false.

Opinions of a tea pot orbiting the sun, can either be true or false, but not both, even if we are unable to verify if it is true or not. There is a difference between such opinions, and opinions of taste. You can see this simple point well enough now correct?

You can call it simple, I would call it misconstrued. I don't think any opinion "of taste" or not can be true and false. I think you are fundamentally at odds with trying to think your making a point so badly, that you really are without any logical justification in any of these concepts you keep trying to manage around.

Sure, even if I say yes, It doesn't matter. None of what you indicate has any merit to say anything significant.

I'll say there is a difference form inaccurately thinking something and having a preference., if you could understand it that way.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2014, 05:36 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(12-12-2014 09:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

You said these were "fact claims".

There's something very bizarre about all this. I think you're trying to prove to someone (yourself ?) you're up to a task you clearly are not up to.

What a total waste of time.

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
15-12-2014, 07:14 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(14-12-2014 05:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(12-12-2014 09:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

You said these were "fact claims".


Would you like me to call them opinions on what is fact, rather than fact claims?

Do you think these claims are matters of taste, or one's more like there's a teapot orbiting the sun?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2014, 07:52 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(15-12-2014 07:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Would you like me to call them opinions on what is fact, rather than fact claims?
Yup. Is important to draw distinction between what is just your opinion, and what has data to back it up. Honest scientists try very hard to identify clearly when they're making a statement of opinion.

A lot of dishonest arguers try very hard to obfuscate that they are making a statement of just their opinion, and try to pretend that it is undisputed fact. That's why these kinda statements where you use non-standard terminology like "fact claim" draw the ire that they do - too many dishonest arguers make use of language & semantics to make a smoke screen. If you're an honest arguer you can feel upset, but... blame the ones who came before for why you get jumped on.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
15-12-2014, 09:04 AM (This post was last modified: 15-12-2014 09:11 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(15-12-2014 07:52 AM)morondog Wrote:  Yup. Is important to draw distinction between what is just your opinion, and what has data to back it up. Honest scientists try very hard to identify clearly when they're making a statement of opinion.

You mean draw a distinction when others are likely to view your claims as an opinion?

I'm curious.

Let's assume, I come across several different people making a variety of claims such as, the world is 6000 years old, 9/11 was an inside job, that the american government faked a moon landing, that there's a tea pot orbiting the sun, the man evolved from a single cell billions of years ago, that time is relative. They all claim to have evaluated these things themselves, and are confident that these claims are true.

Let's assume that I know next to nothing about the validity of these claims, whether or not anything is true, or false, or unverifiable, all I know is that they are claiming something about reality, and not matters of taste.

Should I view all these claims as opinions, since i haven't evaluated them myself?

If someone were to tell me we evolved from a single cell billions of years ago, should I inform them that this is just an opinion for me, until I evaluate the claim to see if it's something more than that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: