Is God necessary for morality?

[henry quirk]

Atoms" apparently don't "look"at all like the tightly-proportioned diagrams we were shown, and are composed mostly of space, not of "matter."

it's all billiard balls circlin' billiard balls

me: I'm made of Magic 8-balls

without a doubt

[Ginkgo]

To say that something, especially something as odd as quantum physics, exists without causality is thus a non-sequitur. It's only possible to say that at this point we don't happen to know what causes the effects we observe, if anything does. It does not justify us asserting that the quantum level exists without causality; just that we don't presently know exactly what's going on there. And that's hardly surprising.

Actually we know a fair bit about the quantum world thanks to physicists such as Planck, Schrodinger, Bohr and Feynman.

[Ginkgo]

As stated previously I have two main problem with causal chains. Firstly, If we try to trace the process of cause and effect to find a first cause we find that it disappears into the myriad of causes and effects of unlimited interaction.

If I trace that sentence, I find it disappears into a puddle of jargon, actually.

I can't make my sentence any simpler than that, it's fairly straightforward. I am still interested in how you intend to sum up your argument relating to God as the First Cause.

[Immanuel Can]

I am still interested in how you intend to sum up your argument relating to God as the First Cause.

Naturally. And I shall do so.

I only want to see if the groundwork for it is properly laid. Once it is, I shall be happy to make my case.

[Immanuel Can]

Atoms" apparently don't "look"at all like the tightly-proportioned diagrams we were shown, and are composed mostly of space, not of "matter."

it's all billiard balls circlin' billiard balls

Yes, that's the conventional diagram.

Except in proportion, we should say something closer to, "It's all a ping pong ball circling a basketball at a distance of something like several hundred yards." The proportions of that diagram are all off, all fictive. And it gets worse when you realize that the so-called ping pong ball isn't necessarily the final "solid" story either. For example, see...

https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves ... _Electrons

[Belinda]

There's no contradiction. In fact, "human-based" meaning is the OPPOSITE of teleology.

Then how do you know what "teleology" means?

Because "teleology" is a comprehensible, defined word describing a concept, one of the stock one's in philosophy. And while teleologies themselves are not created by human wish, the concept or idea of one can be, just as human beings can know what "unicorn" and "deer" mean, even though the former is only a concept and the latter is real.

Either teleology refers to a real thing, or it does not. That's the point of debate. If teleology is merely a human concept, and does not refer to a reality, then it is merely a fictive concept. If it does refer to the fact that we are created for some goal, purpose or outcome, then it refers to something real.

That's what we've been debating.

In a world in which only human beings construct their "meanings" for themselves, there IS no actual teleological goal they could be aiming at...

What do you mean by a "teleological goal" if all you have at your disposal is human meaning?

We don't. Either human meaning describes some reality, or it does not. Like "unicorn" versus "deer." Some words do, and some do not.

The meaning of 'teleology' or 'deer' varies according to the individual. No doubt there are individuals who think final cause affects rocks and rivers. I am sure there are a few individuals for whom deer are one of the main reasons the people have for living. There are individuals for whom God is their main reason for living. Therefore it does not matter that God is something 'out there ' apart from how the God believer lives their life. God is as God does. Deer, and teleology, atoms, and nuclear physics, would be undetectable unless they were of interest to how people live their lives.

I like ontology as much as anyone, but in the end, what substances we take to exist is an academic pursuit. God is not an ontic essence and neither are deer or teleology.

[Immanuel Can]

The meaning of 'teleology' or 'deer' varies according to the individual.

Not substantially. If it were otherwise, I could not even interpret your sentence.

Rather, words and language are social conventions, common touch-points of linguistic groups of people. But these touch-points are also created in reference to a common, objective world. We can speak of "deer" because we both understand the essence of the term, and we can speak of them realistically because there are such things as "deer" in the objective world around us.

No doubt there are individuals who think final cause affects rocks and rivers.

We are not speaking of Aristotle's idea of "final cause."

God is not an ontic essence and neither are deer or teleology.

And the basis of these three (erroneous) claims is....?

I understand you saying, "I personally don't know if God is an ontic reality," or "I don't believe teleology is possible, because I'm a Materialist." The first would at least be frank, and the second might be wrong but at least sensible. But "I don't believe deer are real" is much harder for me to believe: I'm sure you do, and if you don't, then I would be looking for some very bizarre explanation as to how that was possible to you...such as that you live at one of the poles, and thus have never seen deer.

[Belinda]

The meaning of 'teleology' or 'deer' varies according to the individual.

Not substantially. If it were otherwise, I could not even interpret your sentence.

Rather, words and language are social conventions, common touch-points of linguistic groups of people. But these touch-points are also created in reference to a common, objective world. We can speak of "deer" because we both understand the essence of the term, and we can speak of them realistically because there are such things as "deer" in the objective world around us.

No doubt there are individuals who think final cause affects rocks and rivers.

We are not speaking of Aristotle's idea of "final cause."

God is not an ontic essence and neither are deer or teleology.

And the basis of these three (erroneous) claims is....?

I understand you saying, "I personally don't know if God is an ontic reality," or "I don't believe teleology is possible, because I'm a Materialist." The first would at least be frank, and the second might be wrong but at least sensible. But "I don't believe deer are real" is much harder for me to believe: I'm sure you do, and if you don't, then I would be looking for some very bizarre explanation as to how that was possible to you...such as that you live at one of the poles, and thus have never seen deer.

Deer are fairly common animals and many have met deer and some have even found deer to be indispensable to life. There is a difference between the concept of deer held by Jon who has never seen one in the flesh and is uninterested in the animals, and the concept of deer held by Sven who is a Sami reindeer herder in Lapland. Besides varying intellectual conceptualisations of deer the sensible experiences of deer are vastly different as they affect or don't affect Sven and Jon. Subsequently deer hardly exist for Jon but are a major event for Sven.

Now, God for instance. My younger relatives and their friends are not affected either intellectually/conceptually or sensibly by God. Moreover all of them would think the belief quite mad that God puts ideas in people's minds.


I conclude reality is that which affects subjects of experience

It depends on what you mean by 'real'. Nobody knows what a thing or an event really is, apart from sensibly or intellectual experiencing the thing or event. We can't know whether or not a Being called God, or a being called 'a deer' is an actual substance. I too like metaphysics. However what matters in life is not metaphysics but how the conscious subject of experience is affected by this and that.

[Immanuel Can]

There is a difference between the concept of deer held by Jon who has never seen one in the flesh and is uninterested in the animals, and the concept of deer held by Sven who is a Sami reindeer herder in Lapland.

Yes, there is SOME qualitative difference.

But it there a DEFINITIVE, substantive difference? No.

When Sven says to Jon, "I herd deer for a living," Jon doesn't think he means goats or armchairs. He thinks he means some sort of deer. And he's right.

Now, God for instance. My younger relatives and their friends are not affected either intellectually/conceptually or sensibly by God.

So what? Honestly, that's the least relevant thing one could say.

If you wrote, "My younger relatives and their friends are not affected by cancer," would you expect me to assume cancer does not exist for them? If you told me, "My younger relatives do not practice hygiene, and therefore hygiene has nothing to do with them," do you suppose they wouldn't stink to other people? If you told me, "My friends don't believe in tigers," do you think one will not eat them if they smear themselves with blood and go wandering in the jungles of India?

It's utterly irrelevant what people choose to believe about these things: all that matters is what's true.

I conclude reality is that which affects subjects of experience

Well, cancer will affect your younger relatives and friends one day. And they will experience it, either in themselves or somebody they know. And it will not be of the most minute consequence whether or not up to that point they believed or disbelieved in cancer.

Nobody knows what a thing or an event really is, apart from sensibly or intellectual experiencing the thing or event.

This is an old mistake. You've confused epistemology (what a person "knows") with ontology (what actually exists).

They are different questions. People can "not know" about all kinds of things that do exist, or think they "know" things that are not real. Human knowledge changes nothing about ontology.

[Skepdick]

There's no contradiction. In fact, "human-based" meaning is the OPPOSITE of teleology.

Then how do you know what "teleology" means?

Because "teleology" is a comprehensible, defined word describing a concept, one of the stock one's in philosophy.

Yes. And philosophers are human. So philosophical definitions give you the human-based meaning of "teleology".

And while teleologies themselves are not created by human wish, the concept or idea of one can be, just as human beings can know what "unicorn" and "deer" mean, even though the former is only a concept and the latter is real.

Show me a teleology. I want to see one. Oh, wait - you can't. Because it's an abstract idea. Like God.

Either teleology refers to a real thing, or it does not. That's the point of debate. If teleology is merely a human concept, and does not refer to a reality, then it is merely a fictive concept. If it does refer to the fact that we are created for some goal, purpose or outcome, then it refers to something real.

Everything humans ever talk about refers to a real things. Even God is real - it's just in your head. Like teleology. And unicorns.

Simply put. The only thing that's not real is nothing.

We don't. Either human meaning describes some reality, or it does not. Like "unicorn" versus "deer." Some words do, and some do not.

It doesn't matter what it describes - all descriptions capture human meaning.

[Skepdick]

Nobody knows what a thing or an event really is, apart from sensibly or intellectual experiencing the thing or event.

This is an old mistake. You've confused epistemology (what a person "knows") with ontology (what actually exists).

Ontology is contingent upon epistemology.

You can't possibly talk about things existing without knowing about them.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes. And philosophers are human. So philosophical definitions give you the human-based meaning of "teleology".

A "definition" is often merely a human attempt to describe what really exists independent of humans' opinions. Whether or not teleology is a real thing is not dependent on somebody's skill in defining it, anymore than gravity would cease to operate if you didn't have a definition for it.

And while teleologies themselves are not created by human wish, the concept or idea of one can be, just as human beings can know what "unicorn" and "deer" mean, even though the former is only a concept and the latter is real.

Show me a teleology. I want to see one. Oh, wait - you can't. Because it's an abstract idea.

Show me "love." Show me "courage." Show me "intelligence." You can't. And yet, they're real things.

Everything humans ever talk about refers to a real things.

Nope. Obviously not.

[Immanuel Can]

Nobody knows what a thing or an event really is, apart from sensibly or intellectual experiencing the thing or event.

This is an old mistake. You've confused epistemology (what a person "knows") with ontology (what actually exists).

Ontology is contingent upon epistemology.

That's the error. It's not true.

You may not believe in gravity (epistemology). If you jump off a roof, and you'll still find you hit the ground (ontology). And whether or not you know exactly how to describe it when you do has no impact at all on that fact, either way.

[Skepdick]

A "definition" is often merely a human attempt to describe what really exists independent of humans' opinions. Whether or not teleology is a real thing is not dependent on somebody's skill in defining it, anymore than gravity would cease to operate if you didn't have a definition for it.

What is this thing that you are labelling as "gravity"? What does "gravity" mean?

Show me "love." Show me "courage." Show me "intelligence." You can't. And yet, they're real things.

Of course they are real. But the meaning of love, the meaning of courage and the meaning of intelligence are all human meanings.

Everything humans ever talk about refers to a real things.

Nope. Obviously not.

Obviously yes. Go ahead and tell me about something, anything, that's not a real concept in your head.

[Skepdick]

This is an old mistake. You've confused epistemology (what a person "knows") with ontology (what actually exists).

Ontology is contingent upon epistemology.

That's the error. It's not true.

You may not believe in gravity (epistemology). If you jump off a roof, and you'll still find you hit the ground (ontology). And whether or not you know exactly how to describe it when you do has no impact at all on that fact, either way.

And yet you are telling me about gravity. How are you doing this if you don't know about it?