Is God necessary for morality?

[Belinda]

I thought that the design argument was a teleological argument.

That depends on what you mean by "teleological argument."

If you mean that an "end" or "outcome" (telos) has to be implied, it isn't. The design argument follows the pattern of argument-to-the-best-explanation. In that, it's different from the mathematical argument, which is deductive. But no particular "telos" is required to advance it.

Our first conclusion was that there must be an uncaused First Cause.

Our second argument is probabilistic: is it more likely to be an intelligent uncaused First Cause, or a unintelligent uncaused First Cause?

And here's where the various design arguments come online. Design is detectable from features of the designed, such as irreducible complexity, specification, and function. And wherever we have established that design exists, an unintelligent cause, or mere chance, becomes an overwhelmingly improbable hypothesis. So were are drawn, by argument-to-the-the-best-explanation of the data, to the far more probable hypothesis of design...and a Designer as the First Cause.

Now, I had asked what you considered a best hypothesis, and you suggested Aristotle's Unmoved Mover. Okay. Then I double-checked to see if you had any hypothesis involving an unintelligent First Cause, and it seems you didn't. So I was preparing to move on to the question of the identity and nature of this First Cause...but perhaps we're now going back to that, and suggesting that maybe that there is some kind of quantum state that accounts for the origin of the universe...is that correct?

Certainly the teleological argument for the existence of God is an argument from design! The theme of the argument is God's intention (to create). The teleological argument therefore is anthropomorphic. Immanuel Can believes in an anthropomorphic version of God, and is fundamentally unable to see any other interpretation of God.

Moreover, Immanuel Can shies away from the immanence of God, as IC is a creationist. Anyone who believes in 'irreducible complexity" is a creationist.

[Immanuel Can]

Certainly the teleological argument for the existence of God is an argument from design!

You've got the category and the specific reversed, actually. The argument from design is one possible argument that can be construed as teleological. But it neither needs to be teleologically explained, nor are all the teleological arguments arguments from design.

But carry on...

The theme of the argument is God's intention (to create). The teleological argument therefore is anthropomorphic.

"Anthropomorphic" implies that God has to be construed after the pattern of the human. It's quite the opposite, actually. Any right understanding of the human must be construed after the divine pattern. Again, you've got it backwards, B.

Immanuel Can believes in an anthropomorphic version of God, and is fundamentally unable to see any other interpretation of God.

I can "see" many bad interpretations of the term "god," and have reasons for rejecting them, actually.

But again, carry on...

Moreover, Immanuel Can shies away from the immanence of God, as IC is a creationist.

Actually, Creationists believe God is both immanent and transcendent. Again, your terms are wrong.

But carry on...

Anyone who believes in 'irreducible complexity" is a creationist.

Not at all. A person can observe, say, the "irreducible complexity" of his computer, and deduce from that that it is a human artifact. That doesn't even implicate the God question yet.

Interesting, B. Not one right claim among the lot. Are you sure you know anything about the relevant arguments?

[Belinda]

Certainly the teleological argument for the existence of God is an argument from design!

You've got the category and the specific reversed, actually. The argument from design is one possible argument that can be construed as teleological. But it neither needs to be teleologically explained, nor are all the teleological arguments arguments from design.

But carry on...

The theme of the argument is God's intention (to create). The teleological argument therefore is anthropomorphic.

"Anthropomorphic" implies that God has to be construed after the pattern of the human. It's quite the opposite, actually. Any right understanding of the human must be construed after the divine pattern. Again, you've got it backwards, B.

Immanuel Can believes in an anthropomorphic version of God, and is fundamentally unable to see any other interpretation of God.

I can "see" many bad interpretations of the term "god," and have reasons for rejecting them, actually.

But again, carry on...

Moreover, Immanuel Can shies away from the immanence of God, as IC is a creationist.

Actually, Creationists believe God is both immanent and transcendent. Again, your terms are wrong.

But carry on...

Anyone who believes in 'irreducible complexity" is a creationist.

Not at all. A person can observe, say, the "irreducible complexity" of his computer, and deduce from that that it is a human artifact. That doesn't even implicate the God question yet.

Interesting, B. Not one right claim among the lot. Are you sure you know anything about the relevant arguments?

Computers are certainly designed , meaning some humans being intended them to be just as they are. There is no reason apart from juvenile thinking to believe God intends anything.
There is no irreducible complexity in nature, because nature intends nothing.

Natural design works like a recipe : artifice works according to template or blueprint.

There is probably no "divine pattern" or if there is it's a conceited man who thinks he knows what it is.

NB God's immanence is notdemonstrated by miraculous interventions in history, as fundamentalists claim. God's immanence is what panentheists believe in .

[Immanuel Can]

Computers are certainly designed , meaning some humans being intended them to be just as they are.

Stop.

How do you know? I mean, what line of thinking tells you beyond any reasonable doubt that the item on your desk is a human artifact? Think, and you'll find that two such criteria are that it is a) very complex, and far too complex to exist by accident, and b) its parts are connected in such a way that they co-work to produce the outcome, and the absence of any of them would destroy the function of the whole...in other words, it's "irreducible.'

There is no reason apart from juvenile thinking to believe God intends anything.

Gratuitous insult with no relevant content.

There is no irreducible complexity in nature, because nature intends nothing.

Look at the above: are you actually going to tell us that organisms are a) not complex, and b) not irreducible?

Well, maybe you could try it out. Take your puppy or cat (a product of nature) and dissect it. See if it is complex, and if the constituent parts are necessarily interwoven in such a way that the disassembled animal is no longer the same as the whole.

Natural design works like a recipe...

Well, try to leave the ingredients for a recipe on the counter, and see if dinner just happens all by itself. Let me know when you've eaten.

But in point of fact, you'd have to remove even the physical laws that govern baking or cooking from the equation, since they also are products of design, and cannot be explained in terms of random chance plus time.

[Belinda]

Computers are certainly designed , meaning some humans being intended them to be just as they are.

Stop.

How do you know? I mean, what line of thinking tells you beyond any reasonable doubt that the item on your desk is a human artifact? Think, and you'll find that two such criteria are that it is a) very complex, and far too complex to exist by accident, and b) its parts are connected in such a way that they co-work to produce the outcome, and the absence of any of them would destroy the function of the whole...in other words, it's "irreducible.'

There is no reason apart from juvenile thinking to believe God intends anything.

Gratuitous insult with no relevant content.

There is no irreducible complexity in nature, because nature intends nothing.

Look at the above: are you actually going to tell us that organisms are a) not complex, and b) not irreducible?

Well, maybe you could try it out. Take your puppy or cat (a product of nature) and dissect it. See if it is complex, and if the constituent parts are necessarily interwoven in such a way that the disassembled animal is no longer the same as the whole.

Natural design works like a recipe...

Well, try to leave the ingredients for a recipe on the counter, and see if dinner just happens all by itself. Let me know when you've eaten.

But in point of fact, you'd have to remove even the physical laws that govern baking or cooking from the equation, since they also are products of design, and cannot be explained in terms of random chance plus time.

Gosh no, my computer is not an artefact after all as it was bred like pedigree animals are bred after all I can go to a shop and buy a puppy and I can go to another shop and buy a computer therefore neither puppies or computers are artifacts, Oh but wait! Harrods in London sells both computers and puppies therefore both computers and puppies are inorganic artefacts.

God intends nothing, or if He does then Immanuel Can can't know what he intends unless IC is very conceited and thinks God has told him what's what.

Complex organisms' complexity is caused by natural selection, not supernatural intention.

I am an old experienced cook and usually successfully vary recipes to suit circumstances. I'd not be able to put a car together the way I can cook. I'd be an idiot if I were to claim God creates like I cook because I have no idea what God aims to do.

Little children think God is a sort of Big Man like Santa or an invisible Daddy who means to act like Santa or Daddy mean to do what they do, only more magically. Educated adults think they can't know anything about God except that He is probably not like a man at all. Educated adults sometimes think it is a little hubristic to believe God and men are alike in any respect whatsoever.

[henry quirk]

God intends nothing

My god does.

My god is the first purpose, the first intent, the first fact, the first principle.

Creation: on-going, is my god's intent.

[Immanuel Can]

Gosh no, my computer is not an artefact after all as it had was bred like pedigree animals are bred...

You get the point. Computers don't appear without being engineered by somebody. But do puppies?

Your hypothesis has to be that the reason for your puppy is puppy = "chance + time, acting on nothing." (Since any prior "materials" we posit need their own causal explanation, too.)

Happy with that hypothesis?

God intends nothing,

Well, okay; apparently whatever you understand by the word 'god' intends nothing...if you say so. I don't know your 'god,' so I can't say. The God, however, is a different question.

IC is very conceited

Empty ad homimem. Perhaps true, perhaps not; it's certainly a guess. But even were it true, it adds no relevant information. Let my head be as big as a float at the Macy's parade, and I still might be speaking the truth on this occasion.

Complex organisms' complexity is caused by natural selection, not supernatural intention.

Bad explanation.

"Selecting" is an intelligent process: you're anthropomorphizing "Nature". Worse still, one can't "select" what isn't there yet. So in offering that attempted explanation, you're presupposing the existence of both materials and life as if they didn't themselves call for any prior causal explanation. But obviously, they do, if you believe in causality at all.

I have no idea what God aims to do.

If you say so; I have no reason to doubt your claim. It seems right to me.

[Belinda]

Gosh no, my computer is not an artefact after all as it had was bred like pedigree animals are bred...

You get the point. Computers don't appear without being engineered by somebody. But do puppies?

Your hypothesis has to be that the reason for your puppy is puppy = "chance + time, acting on nothing." (Since any prior "materials" we posit need their own causal explanation, too.)

Happy with that hypothesis?

God intends nothing,

Well, okay; apparently whatever you understand by the word 'god' intends nothing...if you say so. I don't know your 'god,' so I can't say. The God, however, is a different question.

IC is very conceited

Empty ad homimem. Perhaps true, perhaps not; it's certainly a guess. But even were it true, it adds no relevant information. Let my head be as big as a float at the Macy's parade, and I still might be speaking the truth on this occasion.

Complex organisms' complexity is caused by natural selection, not supernatural intention.

Bad explanation.

"Selecting" is an intelligent process: you're anthropomorphizing "Nature". Worse still, one can't "select" what isn't there yet. So in offering that attempted explanation, you're presupposing the existence of both materials and life as if they didn't themselves call for any prior causal explanation. But obviously, they do, if you believe in causality at all.

I have no idea what God aims to do.

If you say so; I have no reason to doubt your claim. It seems right to me.

There may not be a being Who is The God, but you cannot know this so your "The God" is as subjective as Belinda's god if she were actually to believe in such a being.
You might be speaking the truth when you talk of God, but you cannot know whether it is the truth or not as you are only a man with a man's limitations.You say God revealed truth to man , but you would say so would you not. You are hardly a disinterested observer in this connection.

Natural selection is not an intelligent process. The designed, qua selected, aspect of nature is not intelligent design , neither is it random.I don't presuppose an entity or a concept called life in order for me to believe in natural selection. Virus is not exactly alive yet we know coronavirus is opportunistic. And we know things that are not alive such as iron filings form patterns. I wish you could understand all this. I do believe in a material world and I also believe biosphere to be a useful concept.

That there is anything at all is a mystery and must remain so. Whether or not what exists is orderly apart from our ordering what exists is also a mystery we will never penetrate.
The fact I believe in transcendent order will not make it so .

You've just supposed that "sand" or "crystals" or the universe itself are eternal, uncaused entities.

Original cause of each and everything, including sand and crystals, is itself uncaused cause which you call God and I call God or Nature. Uncaused cause needs no origin or finality as time itself is caused by uncaused cause

[Immanuel Can]

...your "The God" is as subjective as Belinda's god

Let's find out.

You might be speaking the truth when you talk of God, but you cannot know whether it is the truth or not as you are only a man with a man's limitations.

Of course. I never pretended otherwise. But God is God.

So it's impossible for me to obtain knowledge of God independently. Is it impossible for God to speak?

You are hardly a disinterested observer in this connection.

Not really relevant, actually. Only what's true matters.

Who's "interested" in this or that floats no boats.

The designed, qua selected, aspect of nature is not intelligent design , neither is it random.

Unfortunately for your theory, it really has to be one or the other. If it's "not random," then it's guided and directional...purposeful...and we're back to something awfully close to the God hypothesis.

That there is anything at all is a mystery and must remain so.

Why foreclose on such a question in this way? Afraid of the answer? And how could we know beforehand that it "must remain so"?

The fact I believe in transcendent order will not make it so .

Quite right: just as disbelieve in it will not make it not-so.

But I have to wonder, why bother saying something so obvious and uncontroversial?

[Ginkgo]

I thought that the design argument was a teleological argument.

That depends on what you mean by "teleological argument."

If you mean that an "end" or "outcome" (telos) has to be implied, it isn't. The design argument follows the pattern of argument-to-the-best-explanation. In that, it's different from the mathematical argument, which is deductive. But no particular "telos" is required to advance it.

Our first conclusion was that there must be an uncaused First Cause.

Our second argument is probabilistic: is it more likely to be an intelligent uncaused First Cause, or a unintelligent uncaused First Cause?

And here's where the various design arguments come online. Design is detectable from features of the designed, such as irreducible complexity, specification, and function. And wherever we have established that design exists, an unintelligent cause, or mere chance, becomes an overwhelmingly improbable hypothesis. So were are drawn, by argument-to-the-the-best-explanation of the data, to the far more probable hypothesis of design...and a Designer as the First Cause.

Now, I had asked what you considered a best hypothesis, and you suggested Aristotle's Unmoved Mover. Okay. Then I double-checked to see if you had any hypothesis involving an unintelligent First Cause, and it seems you didn't. So I was preparing to move on to the question of the identity and nature of this First Cause...but perhaps we're now going back to that, and suggesting that maybe that there is some kind of quantum state that accounts for the origin of the universe...is that correct?

Yes, that's right, my claim is that a quantum state was the first cause of the universe. Believe it or not I do have an affinity with the argument from design. We are only just beginning to understand the importance of quantum mechanics and how it influences the physical world. For example, Stewart Hameroff has shown that plants carry out a quantum function, it is only a small step to the realization that all living things carry out a quantum function. It wouldn't surprise me to find that in the future evolution will be explained in terms of quantum mechanics. Until that day the design argument will suffice.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, that's right, my claim is that a quantum state was the first cause of the universe.

Well, let's look at that.

A quantum state obviously isn't a "nothing." It's a state OF something. For example, if it's a state "of matter," then we're back to the infinite regress problem, because the "matter" in question needs a causal explanation of its own. In that case, we would be positing that the quantum state was a state through which things passed, travelling from a prior cause to a subsequent effect, but it would then not be the original state.

So do you think the quantum state had any prerequisite state or prior cause?

Believe it or not I do have an affinity with the argument from design.

Yeah, I believe that. It's a very compelling argument, really...empirically, the evidence for it is very strong, I would say. So it makes sense you have a connection to it. I think any reasonable person should.

But we need to hold it until we resolve the First Cause problem. So let's wait on that.

[Belinda]

...your "The God" is as subjective as Belinda's god

Let's find out.

You might be speaking the truth when you talk of God, but you cannot know whether it is the truth or not as you are only a man with a man's limitations.

Of course. I never pretended otherwise. But God is God.

So it's impossible for me to obtain knowledge of God independently. Is it impossible for God to speak?

You are hardly a disinterested observer in this connection.

Not really relevant, actually. Only what's true matters.

Who's "interested" in this or that floats no boats.

The designed, qua selected, aspect of nature is not intelligent design , neither is it random.

Unfortunately for your theory, it really has to be one or the other. If it's "not random," then it's guided and directional...purposeful...and we're back to something awfully close to the God hypothesis.

That there is anything at all is a mystery and must remain so.

Why foreclose on such a question in this way? Afraid of the answer? And how could we know beforehand that it "must remain so"?

The fact I believe in transcendent order will not make it so .

Quite right: just as disbelieve in it will not make it not-so.

But I have to wonder, why bother saying something so obvious and uncontroversial?

To claim God can speak is to anthropomorphise God. How can supernatural Substance possibly communicate with natural substance? We have trouble claiming natural minds can communicate with natural bodies!

If you are not a disinterested observer of phenomena you will inevitably be biased in your selection of evidence.

Creation is not limited to 1. deliberate creation by God , or 2. random event. The other option is natural selection and its inorganic forerunners such as crystals formations, or patterns in sand. The latter are not design by God but natural design which, unlike God, has no final cause.

[Skepdick]

Not rationally, so far.

You can't meaningfully define "rationality" without falling into circularities let alone assert it.

But I'm hopeful you'll provide me with at least one example of an effect for which there is no cause. If there are any, there should be at least one you can name.

Go ahead.

Sure. Any "first cause" fits.

The Big Bang.
Your God.

But in more practical terms - the delayed choice quantum eraser.

[Immanuel Can]

To claim God can speak is to anthropomorphise God.

Not at all.

Wouldn't it be far more strange to say, "The creature, man, is capable of all kinds of speech; but the Creator, the Supreme Being who made man, cannot speak?"

If you are not a disinterested observer of phenomena you will inevitably be biased in your selection of evidence.

Postmodernists tell us NOBODY's "disinterested." I think that's a fairly excessive claim, since people can be relatively fair-minded at times, and it's true that some tend to "select" more than others do. But they're right about this: there's no such thing, among human beings, as total "disinterestedness."

In point of fact, "disinterestedness" isn't even really the issue. After all, even an inveterate liar is obliged to tell the truth sometimes, if only to support the impression of truthfulness needed for his lies to go forward. So the real question in every case is not "is this person disinterested," but "is this person lying on this occasion."

Creation is not limited to 1. deliberate creation by God , or 2. random event. The other option is natural selection and its inorganic forerunners such as crystals formations, or patterns in sand.

Notice that you have just assumed the eternal pre-existence of "crystals" or "patterns in sand," among other forms of "inorganic" stuff. One wonders where this "beach" is.

But it's the totality of the universe, right down to its basic principles and regularities, that needs a causal explanation, not just the latest organic features of it. So you've offered no objection to the causal-regress problem at all. You've just supposed that "sand" or "crystals" or the universe itself are eternal, uncaused entities.

Do you really think that?

[Belinda]

To claim God can speak is to anthropomorphise God.

Not at all.

Wouldn't it be far more strange to say, "The creature, man, is capable of all kinds of speech; but the Creator, the Supreme Being who made man, cannot speak?"

If you are not a disinterested observer of phenomena you will inevitably be biased in your selection of evidence.

Postmodernists tell us NOBODY's "disinterested." I think that's a fairly excessive claim, since people can be relatively fair-minded at times, and it's true that some tend to "select" more than others do. But they're right about this: there's no such thing, among human beings, as total "disinterestedness."

In point of fact, "disinterestedness" isn't even really the issue. After all, even an inveterate liar is obliged to tell the truth sometimes, if only to support the impression of truthfulness needed for his lies to go forward. So the real question in every case is not "is this person disinterested," but "is this person lying on this occasion."

Creation is not limited to 1. deliberate creation by God , or 2. random event. The other option is natural selection and its inorganic forerunners such as crystals formations, or patterns in sand.

Notice that you have just assumed the eternal pre-existence of "crystals" or "patterns in sand," among other forms of "inorganic" stuff. One wonders where this "beach" is.

But it's the totality of the universe, right down to its basic principles and regularities, that needs a causal explanation, not just the latest organic features of it. So you've offered no objection to the causal-regress problem at all. You've just supposed that "sand" or "crystals" or the universe itself are eternal, uncaused entities.

Do you really think that?

Within your frame of reference it would be strange if the Almighty could not speak; this is because your frame is anthropomorphic.

Indeed there is no such thing as total disinterestedness. Your God, and the pantheists' God or Nature are disinterested as they are not bound by any final causes, let alone selfish causes.

So the real question in every case is not "is this person disinterested," but "is this person lying on this occasion."

Selfish people can be adept at pretending to be disinterested.

Notice that you have just assumed the eternal pre-existence of "crystals" or "patterns in sand," among other forms of "inorganic" stuff. One wonders where this "beach" is.

I nearly always do presume that something exists rather than nothing exists.I believe what exists is far and away more than we men can contemplate. I believe what exists is orderly but this belief is faith not reason.

You've just supposed that "sand" or "crystals" or the universe itself are eternal, uncaused entities.

Sand and crystals what they do, and men's notions about sand and crystals are all caused by God or Nature. God or Nature is uncaused cause.