How believing in God can resolve moral conflict?

[bahman]

Sorry...yes.


Apparently not. You're using a framework that assumes the existence of an essential feature of the universe ("time") to account for the origin of the universe (and thus, of time).

The explanation fails, because it's simply circular. Time cannot be a feature of the creation of time.

That's what a creation "ex nihilo" implies: it implies "from nothing." And "time" is a thing, and the product of a material universe existing.

Creation out of nothing means that there was a point…

There’s the first error.

“Creation out of nothing” means there was no “point,” because a “point” marks the existence of substance. You can’t use the concept “point” when there is no “thing” for the “point” to be in or to refer to. And you certainly can’t use it of time, since time actually is not composed of points, but of an unpunctuated continuum.

The term “point in time” is a metaphor for “this particular segment of the continuum.” It isn’t actually a “point.”

Ok, if you don't like the point then how about this: Was there a state of affair in which only God existed?

What?

It means, “I don’t have a clue what you just said.”

By causation I mean creation.

Mind does seem to "experience" qualia...I don't know what "freely decide qualia" would imply, and it doesn't "cause/create qualia," since they come from the external world.

I'm not sure what to conclude from that...except that qualia are products of substance, but are not themselves a substance.

If your mind does not experience qualia then what does that?

Easy. External reality.

So external reality experiences qualia?

If there’s an apple on the table, then the “qualia” I experience is that of there being an apple on the table. Now, of course I can also experience such a qualia if I am stoned, or dreaming, or in some other state of mental disorder; but ordinarily, normally, the qualia of there being an apple on the table is generated by there being one there.

That I agree.

That is your mind that creates thoughts.

No, my mind responds to the apple’s being there. It does not create the apple, nor even dictate the perception of there being on there.

If it does, then by definition, what I am having is a hallucination, an imagining, a dream, a delusion, or some other such state. When the products of the mind are untethered from the realities outside it, then the person is deluded.

So any account of “mind”’s creative powers that does not pay any attention at all to what the external world is doing in its interactions with the mind is incomplete, at best.

I was talking about thought and not the experience of an apple.

Now I don't know what you mean by "moral fact."

I said that God has a certain character, and that character defines or determines what a "moral fact" is for us.

Ok, as you said. How do you determine moral fact from the character of God?

Well, obviously you have to know the character of God. And for that, God would have to tell us what He’s like, because we have nowhere enough information to form a full account of morality without that.

But Christians think God has done just that.

That does not answer my question: How do you derive moral facts from the character of God?

What you're saying, I don't understand. You can't use words like "evil" and "neutral" meaningfully, unless you've already imposed an objective moral grade or value on things. But where are you going to get an objective moral grade or value, since you don't believe God exists?

How do you get moral facts or value if there is a God? What if God is evil or neutral?

You can’t ask the “evil or neutral” question, because without reference to God, you have no criteria for either. Nothing is “evil” and nothing is “neutral” if “evilness” and “neutrality” are not objective facts. So that question’s a question-begging one. It assumes the existence-already of what it purports to ask the recipient to explain.

You are not answering my question: How could you prove that God is not Neutral or Evil?

Again: one gets moral facts from two sources: God’s Word and God’s character. One knows God’s character because He has revealed it propositionally, in the Bible, and existentially, in the Person of Jesus Christ.

God's word does not count as a moral fact. God's character also does not count as a moral fact.

[Immanuel Can]

Creation out of nothing means that there was a point…

There’s the first error.

“Creation out of nothing” means there was no “point,” because a “point” marks the existence of substance. You can’t use the concept “point” when there is no “thing” for the “point” to be in or to refer to. And you certainly can’t use it of time, since time actually is not composed of points, but of an unpunctuated continuum.

The term “point in time” is a metaphor for “this particular segment of the continuum.” It isn’t actually a “point.”

Ok, if you don't like the point then how about this: Was there a state of affair in which only God existed?

Same problem. To have a "state" of "affairs," you already have to have a "state" and some "affairs."

But you say creation is "from nothing." A "state" and "affairs" is a great deal more than nothing.

What?

It means, “I don’t have a clue what you just said.”

By causation I mean creation.

If your mind does not experience qualia then what does that?

Easy. External reality.

So external reality experiences qualia?

No...reread my last post, and you'll get it.

If there’s an apple on the table, then the “qualia” I experience is that of there being an apple on the table. Now, of course I can also experience such a qualia if I am stoned, or dreaming, or in some other state of mental disorder; but ordinarily, normally, the qualia of there being an apple on the table is generated by there being one there.

That I agree.

Then the mind doesn't "cause" qualia.

That is your mind that creates thoughts.

No, my mind responds to the apple’s being there. It does not create the apple, nor even dictate the perception of there being on there.

If it does, then by definition, what I am having is a hallucination, an imagining, a dream, a delusion, or some other such state. When the products of the mind are untethered from the realities outside it, then the person is deluded.

So any account of “mind”’s creative powers that does not pay any attention at all to what the external world is doing in its interactions with the mind is incomplete, at best.

I was talking about thought and not the experience of an apple.

There's no relevant difference, in this case. All that I said is true of both.

Ok, as you said. How do you determine moral fact from the character of God?

Well, obviously you have to know the character of God. And for that, God would have to tell us what He’s like, because we have nowhere enough information to form a full account of morality without that.

But Christians think God has done just that.

That does not answer my question: How do you derive moral facts from the character of God?

Ummm...I just answered it. Literally, just.

I can't understand the objection.

How do you get moral facts or value if there is a God? What if God is evil or neutral?

You can’t ask the “evil or neutral” question, because without reference to God, you have no criteria for either. Nothing is “evil” and nothing is “neutral” if “evilness” and “neutrality” are not objective facts. So that question’s a question-begging one. It assumes the existence-already of what it purports to ask the recipient to explain.

You are not answering my question: How could you prove that God is not Neutral or Evil?

It's a flawed question. You can't presume a "neutral" or "evil" conception without already referring to an objective standard you don't have.

Again: one gets moral facts from two sources: God’s Word and God’s character. One knows God’s character because He has revealed it propositionally, in the Bible, and existentially, in the Person of Jesus Christ.

God's word does not count as a moral fact.

You don't get to decide that.

You only get to decide what you will do with the fact that it's true. I've decided to accept it. But you can reject it. You do so at the cost of your own bewilderment, though, because that is the objective truth.

[Belinda]

Bahman:

You are not answering my question: How could you prove that God is not Neutral or Evil?

Immanuel Can:

It's a flawed question. You can't presume a "neutral" or "evil" conception without already referring to an objective standard you don't have

.

Bahman's question is like questioning "How do you prove that 2=2=4? " You don't set out to prove a tautology. God is tautologous with good. God =good. Evil is absence of good. God can't be neutral, neither good or bad, because God is absolute good. Or you might say that absolute good uniquely defines God.

[bahman]

There’s the first error.

“Creation out of nothing” means there was no “point,” because a “point” marks the existence of substance. You can’t use the concept “point” when there is no “thing” for the “point” to be in or to refer to. And you certainly can’t use it of time, since time actually is not composed of points, but of an unpunctuated continuum.

The term “point in time” is a metaphor for “this particular segment of the continuum.” It isn’t actually a “point.”

Ok, if you don't like the point then how about this: Was there a state of affair in which only God existed?

Same problem. To have a "state" of "affairs," you already have to have a "state" and some "affairs."

But you say creation is "from nothing." A "state" and "affairs" is a great deal more than nothing.

You are not making any sense. So another question: Was God alone before the act of creation?

If there’s an apple on the table, then the “qualia” I experience is that of there being an apple on the table. Now, of course I can also experience such a qualia if I am stoned, or dreaming, or in some other state of mental disorder; but ordinarily, normally, the qualia of there being an apple on the table is generated by there being one there.

That I agree.

Then the mind doesn't "cause" qualia.

No, the mind causes qualia, like thought.

No, my mind responds to the apple’s being there. It does not create the apple, nor even dictate the perception of there being on there.

If it does, then by definition, what I am having is a hallucination, an imagining, a dream, a delusion, or some other such state. When the products of the mind are untethered from the realities outside it, then the person is deluded.

So any account of “mind”’s creative powers that does not pay any attention at all to what the external world is doing in its interactions with the mind is incomplete, at best.

I was talking about thought and not the experience of an apple.

There's no relevant difference, in this case. All that I said is true of both.

They are different categories. Thought is created by the mind but the experience of an apple is caused by an apple.

Well, obviously you have to know the character of God. And for that, God would have to tell us what He’s like, because we have nowhere enough information to form a full account of morality without that.

But Christians think God has done just that.

That does not answer my question: How do you derive moral facts from the character of God?

Ummm...I just answered it. Literally, just.

I can't understand the objection.

No, you did not answer it.

You can’t ask the “evil or neutral” question, because without reference to God, you have no criteria for either. Nothing is “evil” and nothing is “neutral” if “evilness” and “neutrality” are not objective facts. So that question’s a question-begging one. It assumes the existence-already of what it purports to ask the recipient to explain.

You are not answering my question: How could you prove that God is not Neutral or Evil?

It's a flawed question. You can't presume a "neutral" or "evil" conception without already referring to an objective standard you don't have.

Do you have an objective standard?

Again: one gets moral facts from two sources: God’s Word and God’s character. One knows God’s character because He has revealed it propositionally, in the Bible, and existentially, in the Person of Jesus Christ.

God's word does not count as a moral fact.

You don't get to decide that.

You only get to decide what you will do with the fact that it's true. I've decided to accept it. But you can reject it. You do so at the cost of your own bewilderment, though, because that is the objective truth.

Are you claiming that you know the objective truth? Can you prove that?

[bahman]

Bahman:

You are not answering my question: How could you prove that God is not Neutral or Evil?

Immanuel Can:

It's a flawed question. You can't presume a "neutral" or "evil" conception without already referring to an objective standard you don't have

.

Bahman's question is like questioning "How do you prove that 2=2=4? " You don't set out to prove a tautology. God is tautologous with good. God =good. Evil is absence of good. God can't be neutral, neither good or bad, because God is absolute good. Or you might say that absolute good uniquely defines God.

Evil is the opposite of good. Do I exist if I am an evil person? Do you experience suffering?

[Immanuel Can]

Was God alone before the act of creation?

Same problem.

The term "alone" implies the pre-existence of a kind of place. "Alone" means, "being in a place where there is nobody."

But if there was nothing, there was no-place. So it can't be clear how that term should be understood, in reference to eternity past.

That I agree.

Then the mind doesn't "cause" qualia.

No, the mind causes qualia, like thought.

We might say that the mind "produces" qualia in response to the environmental stimuli. But we can't say that the mind "causes" the qualia, because it does not do so without the stimuli from the external environment -- except in the case of delusions, dreams, errors and such. Any true qualia are going to be products not just of the mind, but of mind and the environment conjointly.

Thought is created by the mind but the experience of an apple is caused by an apple.

No, that cannot be right, either.

Because the mind doesn't create "thought" without reference to the external environment (except, as we noted, in delusions, hallucinations, etc.), and external stimuli do not get transformed into "experiences" without reference to a mind.

That does not answer my question: How do you derive moral facts from the character of God?

Ummm...I just answered it. Literally, just.

I can't understand the objection.

No, you did not answer it.

We disagee, then. I gave the answer.

I think what you're trying to say is, "I don't understand your answer," not "You didn't give one."

Ask a question about my answer, and I'll clarify.

You are not answering my question: How could you prove that God is not Neutral or Evil?

It's a flawed question. You can't presume a "neutral" or "evil" conception without already referring to an objective standard you don't have.

Do you have an objective standard?

Yes, because I refer to God for that. But if you are trying to create a "morality" unanchored to belief that there is a God with a particular character and wishes, as revealed through His own speaking, you are going to find you don't have any basis for any value judgments at all.

So "neutral" or "evil" simply do not have any meaning in a universe without God.

Are you claiming that you know the objective truth? Can you prove that?

I'm claiming that whatever the real nature and wishes of God are, that is the truth. And your opinion and mine will only be so good as our relative relation to that essential fact, that basic reality, that basic truth, and that fundamental grounds for moral judgment.

There is no alternative. Reality always wins.

[Belinda]

Bahman:

You are not answering my question: How could you prove that God is not Neutral or Evil?

Immanuel Can:

It's a flawed question. You can't presume a "neutral" or "evil" conception without already referring to an objective standard you don't have

.

Bahman's question is like questioning "How do you prove that 2=2=4? " You don't set out to prove a tautology. God is tautologous with good. God =good. Evil is absence of good. God can't be neutral, neither good or bad, because God is absolute good. Or you might say that absolute good uniquely defines God.

Evil is the opposite of good. Do I exist if I am an evil person? Do you experience suffering?

There is no such thing as an evil person. So-called "evil men" are men whose intentions and world views are less good.
Good and evil are not polar opposites but are relative positions on a moral scale on which good is the default position. The reason it's easier to identify evil than to identify good is that good is what every event defaults to and evil is relative absence of , or greater distance from, the default.

[bahman]

Was God alone before the act of creation?

Same problem.

You are kidding. Don't you?

The term "alone" implies the pre-existence of a kind of place. "Alone" means, "being in a place where there is nobody."

By alone I mean that there was only God and nothing else.

But if there was nothing, there was no-place.

Yes.

So it can't be clear how that term should be understood, in reference to eternity past.

What do you mean?

Then the mind doesn't "cause" qualia.

No, the mind causes qualia, like thought.

We might say that the mind "produces" qualia in response to the environmental stimuli.

This is totally misunderstanding of mind. Mind experiences what the other minds produce.

But we can't say that the mind "causes" the qualia, because it does not do so without the stimuli from the external environment -- except in the case of delusions, dreams, errors and such.

It is take and give. Like our conversation. I say something, you understand it, and then you say something.

Any true qualia are going to be products not just of the mind, but of mind and the environment conjointly.

We are minds embedded in qualia.

Thought is created by the mind but the experience of an apple is caused by an apple.

No, that cannot be right, either.

That is very true. You cannot say that my thought is not mine.

Because the mind doesn't create "thought" without reference to the external environment (except, as we noted, in delusions, hallucinations, etc.), and external stimuli do not get transformed into "experiences" without reference to a mind.

So you agree that mind causes thought? Of course, mind needs input.

Ummm...I just answered it. Literally, just.

I can't understand the objection.

No, you did not answer it.

We disagee, then. I gave the answer.

I think what you're trying to say is, "I don't understand your answer," not "You didn't give one."

Ask a question about my answer, and I'll clarify.

Could you please answer that again: How do you derive moral facts from the character of God?

It's a flawed question. You can't presume a "neutral" or "evil" conception without already referring to an objective standard you don't have.

Do you have an objective standard?

Yes, because I refer to God for that.

If morality is objective then you don't need to refer it to God. It must be true whether God exists or not.

But if you are trying to create a "morality" unanchored to belief that there is a God with a particular character and wishes, as revealed through His own speaking, you are going to find you don't have any basis for any value judgments at all.

I am wondering how you could have any value judgment at all if there is a God.

So "neutral" or "evil" simply do not have any meaning in a universe without God.

No, neutral and evil have meaning in a universe without God.

Are you claiming that you know the objective truth? Can you prove that?

I'm claiming that whatever the real nature and wishes of God are, that is the truth.

So you are claiming that you can derive the truth from God's nature and wishes. Can you derive a wrongness of an action from these?

[bahman]

Bahman:
Immanuel Can:
.

Bahman's question is like questioning "How do you prove that 2=2=4? " You don't set out to prove a tautology. God is tautologous with good. God =good. Evil is absence of good. God can't be neutral, neither good or bad, because God is absolute good. Or you might say that absolute good uniquely defines God.

Evil is the opposite of good. Do I exist if I am an evil person? Do you experience suffering?

There is no such thing as an evil person.

Of course, there are.

So-called "evil men" are men whose intentions and world views are less good.

No. Less good is just good until you reach neutral. After that evil starts. More evil obviously less good but the opposite is also true, more good is less evil. Etc.

Good and evil are not polar opposites but are relative positions on a moral scale on which good is the default position.

No. Good and evil are both fundamental and opposite of each other. We can distinguish both. We can experience both, like pleasure and suffering.

The reason it's easier to identify evil than to identify good is that good is what every event defaults to and evil is relative absence of , or greater distance from, the default.

Easier? That cannot be a good reason.

[Immanuel Can]

Was God alone before the act of creation?

Same problem.

You are kidding. Don't you?

The term "alone" implies the pre-existence of a kind of place. "Alone" means, "being in a place where there is nobody."

By alone I mean that there was only God and nothing else.

When you say, "There was..." which "there" are you speaking of, when there was no "there" there?

But if there was nothing, there was no-place.

Yes.

So it can't be clear how that term should be understood, in reference to eternity past.

What do you mean?

I mean the word "alone." Under those conditions, it doesn't refer to any reality.

No, the mind causes qualia, like thought.

We might say that the mind "produces" qualia in response to the environmental stimuli.

This is totally misunderstanding of mind. Mind experiences what the other minds produce.

So now you don't believe the external world has anything to do with the production of "qualia"?

Now I don't believe you.

Any true qualia are going to be products not just of the mind, but of mind and the environment conjointly.

We are minds embedded in qualia.

We are also bodies embedded in a universe. We can't forget either side of that.

Because the mind doesn't create "thought" without reference to the external environment (except, as we noted, in delusions, hallucinations, etc.), and external stimuli do not get transformed into "experiences" without reference to a mind.

So you agree that mind causes thought?

No; as I said above, I don't. I believe mind generates its pictures or "qualia" as a product of external stimuli.

Of course, mind needs input.

From where does it get that "input," if not from the external reality?

How do you derive moral facts from the character of God?

"Moral" means that which is consonant with the character and wishes of God. There is no other coherent meaning.

Do you have an objective standard?

Yes, because I refer to God for that.

If morality is objective then you don't need to refer it to God.

Non-sequitur. "Objective" does not mean or imply "without reference to God," as if anything could have objective meaning apart from God.

But if you are trying to create a "morality" unanchored to belief that there is a God with a particular character and wishes, as revealed through His own speaking, you are going to find you don't have any basis for any value judgments at all.

I am wondering how you could have any value judgment at all if there is a God.

Easily, of course. The value judgment is based on the criterion of harmoniousness with the character and wishes of God.

So "neutral" or "evil" simply do not have any meaning in a universe without God.

No, neutral and evil have meaning in a universe without God.

They don't, actually.

So you are claiming that you can derive the truth from God's nature and wishes. Can you derive a wrongness of an action from these?

Of course.

I actually don't see why any of this is particularly hard for you to understand. I can get that you have a different view of what reality and God might be, but I can't see why you'd have any difficulty at all understanding what I'm saying, even if you disagree with it.

[Belinda]

Evil is the opposite of good. Do I exist if I am an evil person? Do you experience suffering?

There is no such thing as an evil person.

Of course, there are.

So-called "evil men" are men whose intentions and world views are less good.

No. Less good is just good until you reach neutral. After that evil starts. More evil obviously less good but the opposite is also true, more good is less evil. Etc.

Good and evil are not polar opposites but are relative positions on a moral scale on which good is the default position.

No. Good and evil are both fundamental and opposite of each other. We can distinguish both. We can experience both, like pleasure and suffering.

The reason it's easier to identify evil than to identify good is that good is what every event defaults to and evil is relative absence of , or greater distance from, the default.

Easier? That cannot be a good reason.

I understand your stance on good and evil as polar opposites. Would a good God see good and evil as polar opposites, or would a good God see evil as relative distance from good?

[bahman]

Same problem.

You are kidding. Don't you?

The term "alone" implies the pre-existence of a kind of place. "Alone" means, "being in a place where there is nobody."

By alone I mean that there was only God and nothing else.

When you say, "There was..." which "there" are you speaking of, when there was no "there" there?

I think I was clear enough. There was only God before the act of creation. That is the very meaning of creation out of nothing: It was nothing but God then God created everything.

But if there was nothing, there was no-place.

Yes.

So it can't be clear how that term should be understood, in reference to eternity past.

What do you mean?

I mean the word "alone." Under those conditions, it doesn't refer to any reality.

No, it refers to God who was alone by which I mean there was nothing else but God.

We might say that the mind "produces" qualia in response to the environmental stimuli.

This is totally misunderstanding of mind. Mind experiences what the other minds produce.

So now you don't believe the external world has anything to do with the production of "qualia"?

The external reality is nothing more than minds and qualia.

Now I don't believe you.

You will believe me.

Any true qualia are going to be products not just of the mind, but of mind and the environment conjointly.

We are minds embedded in qualia.

We are also bodies embedded in a universe. We can't forget either side of that.

The body is nothing but minds and qualia.

Because the mind doesn't create "thought" without reference to the external environment (except, as we noted, in delusions, hallucinations, etc.), and external stimuli do not get transformed into "experiences" without reference to a mind.

So you agree that mind causes thought?

No; as I said above, I don't. I believe mind generates its pictures or "qualia" as a product of external stimuli.

So your thoughts are not yours.

Of course, mind needs input.

From where does it get that "input," if not from the external reality?

If by external reality you mean other minds and qualia then yes.

How do you derive moral facts from the character of God?

"Moral" means that which is consonant with the character and wishes of God. There is no other coherent meaning.

No. That really does not follow. You have to try better. First, prove that your God is the true one. Then provide moral fact which is more than what God wishes, since different God wishes different things. Then tell me how you derive the rightness or wrongness of an act from moral fact. You see, you have a long way to go.

Yes, because I refer to God for that.

If morality is objective then you don't need to refer it to God.

Non-sequitur. "Objective" does not mean or imply "without reference to God," as if anything could have objective meaning apart from God.

No. God cannot create something which is objectively true, like knowledge. Knowledge cannot be created. The trouble is whether morality is in the same category as knowledge or not.

So "neutral" or "evil" simply do not have any meaning in a universe without God.

No, neutral and evil have meaning in a universe without God.

They don't, actually.

They do. Good, neutral, and evil have meaning. Their meaning is a part of knowledge that is objective. God cannot create knowledge.

[bahman]

There is no such thing as an evil person.

Of course, there are.

So-called "evil men" are men whose intentions and world views are less good.

No. Less good is just good until you reach neutral. After that evil starts. More evil obviously less good but the opposite is also true, more good is less evil. Etc.

Good and evil are not polar opposites but are relative positions on a moral scale on which good is the default position.

No. Good and evil are both fundamental and opposite of each other. We can distinguish both. We can experience both, like pleasure and suffering.

The reason it's easier to identify evil than to identify good is that good is what every event defaults to and evil is relative absence of , or greater distance from, the default.

Easier? That cannot be a good reason.

I understand your stance on good and evil as polar opposites. Would a good God see good and evil as polar opposites, or would a good God see evil as relative distance from good?

A good God just likes good and dislikes evil.

[Belinda]

Of course, there are.


No. Less good is just good until you reach neutral. After that evil starts. More evil obviously less good but the opposite is also true, more good is less evil. Etc.


No. Good and evil are both fundamental and opposite of each other. We can distinguish both. We can experience both, like pleasure and suffering.


Easier? That cannot be a good reason.

I understand your stance on good and evil as polar opposites. Would a good God see good and evil as polar opposites, or would a good God see evil as relative distance from good?

A good God just likes good and dislikes evil.

No no! Good is the unchanging nature of God. To say "dislikes" trivialises God to a person who "likes" and "dislikes". Personification is accepted literally by children who can't handle abstractions.

[bahman]

I understand your stance on good and evil as polar opposites. Would a good God see good and evil as polar opposites, or would a good God see evil as relative distance from good?

A good God just likes good and dislikes evil.

No no! Good is the unchanging nature of God. To say "dislikes" trivialises God to a person who "likes" and "dislikes". Personification is accepted literally by children who can't handle abstractions.

So God is not a being?