Is morality objective or subjective?

[bahman]

Well, yes; that's what you keep saying. But also, that's wrong. It's very much about whether or not there's ANYTHING you would EVER accept as proof of God's existence.

If there's not, then the game is over. And the reason you've lost it is not for lack of evidence, but for lack of anything you would ever agree to accept.

So again, what will you accept?

I don't think there is any valid argument for the existence of God. If you think there is any just bring it in.

And, of course, in his response, IC left out the second sentence when he quoted you. The onus seems to be a hot potato.
I'd ask for a sound argument, by the way, not merely a valid one.

Oh, thanks. I should have asked for a sound argument.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, Atheists...like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Nietzsche...the proud ones, the ones who trumpet their Atheism, exhibit their own anger and rebelliion against God, and in fact, often declare it as a badge of honour.

These 'proud', 'angry', 'rebellious' men are not your ideological "Atheists"; they are people who, like you, think that religions are false; they just happen to apply it to one more religion than you.

Well, Will, I don't have any reason to think that they are your kind of Atheist. But Atheists, they certainly are...though Dawkins, in particular, backs off that stance when pressed. They certainly revel in publishing books and taking speaking engagements in which they confidently denounce all kinds of "religions," including Christianity. But I don't find that you are like them. So let me offer that caveat from the start, if I may.

However, such certainly do exist. And within the Atheist 'community,' if one can even use such a word, these are highly celebrated figures -- often the first ones referred to by even more-informal Atheists, whenever they attempt to dismiss "religions." So I think the claim applies very fairly: and if they were less vocal in declaring it themselves, perhaps you'd have a case in suggesting they're being misrepresented; however, their own claims carry the case very well.

...IF God exists, then objective morality is not at all hard to understand; and even a reasonable Atheist would indeed have to concede that.

Nonsense. A reasonable atheist could reasonably ask whether morality is objective because God says it, or God says it because it is objective. I'm not a mind reader, but based on your previous comments, I'm confident your response to that will be that God's nature is supreme goodness.

Not quite, but not quite wrong.

I would simply point out that some proposed dichotomies are false. If I ask, "Is Will a male or a husband," or "Is Will a male or a Bouwman," then plausibly the answer could be "Yes, both." Likewise, the dichotomy of "Does God prefer some moral imperative because it's good, or because He's God," proposes a dichotomy between "God" and "good" that would have to be justified by the proposer. And if the proposer cannot do that, then there's not reason not to think that God commands a thing both because he is a good God, and because what He commands is good.

So if that's going to continue to be a dilemma, the ball would be in the skeptic's court to show that it was impossible for "good" and "what God prefers" to be the same thing. And I can't see how he's going to be able to do that...though if you have a proposal on that, I'm all for entertaining it.

Just as I would concede, quite freely, that IF God did not exist, then there would be no objective morality (and, we might add, subjective morality would be a mere imagining). That's all totally fair.

Well, according to your objective morality, the vast majority of human beings will spend eternity being tortured, but that is the price of freedom. It is hard to imagine a subjective morality that could be worse.

"Tortured"? I wouldn't say that. Not all unpleasantness or even suffering is "torture." A great deal of what we experience in that line has more to do with natural consequences than anything. And sometimes, it has to do with justice, as well. For justice requires us to get exactly what we deserve -- not a bit more, and not a bit less. And if our complaint is that God is unjust, then that can be answered by Him being perfectly just -- which is just what He promises to be, at the end of it all.

So there's really only one remaining question: if God is just, what is it that I justly deserve, given who I am and what choices I've made with my freedom? And since I have no window on your heart, I can simply leave that question with you, for your own consideration.

The Theist says, "There's evidence," and the Atheist says, "There's none." And the Theist cannot beat the Atheist's strategy, because how can you argue with somebody who simply refuses the evidence before him?

Well again that's projection. You simply refuse the evidence of human evolution.

I wouldn't say I do.

I fully accept that some of the evidence around us, if assembled in a certain way and eliminating other evidence, could be used to compose a narrative about human evolution. I just don't think there's anything close to enough evidence, or sufficient reason to suppress contrary evidence, to justify that kind of selective evidence-taking.

What I have from my own experience is not, as you claim, "thousands of examples of fossils consistent with human evolution," and if I may say, it's also obvious to me that the scientific community doesn't have them, either. If they did, they would be producing them. But as the monkey-to-man fiasco shows us, what actually happens is that if a single fossil, one which even potentially might seem to support the monkey-to-man theory was ever found, it was seized upon with far too much enthusiasm and credulity by that same community that purports to be "scientific" about it, and the result was that they got bamboozled repeatedly by their own credulity and enthusiasm.

You will remember the rejoicing an press-coverage of that sort of thing, won't you? Like when the alleged "Lucy" fossil (40 percent of the skeleton of a female of the alleged hominid species Australopithecus afarensis) was found, what great rejoicing and fanfare there was: but this clearly says there were no "thousands" of Lucys. If there had been, then this one would have been of no particular note to anybody. What's evident is that the human-evolution narrative is still a story in search of evidence -- the glee and desperation with which any such "fossil" is seized upon testifying eloquently to just how hard it really has proved to put any such evidence behind the human-evolution narrative.

But again, I know you can say, "Well, this is a fraud, but the next one won't be." A lot of Evolutionists seem to operate that way all the time. And I don't have any particular rejoinder to such optimism, though I don't share it at all.

...and one that's been justified by the previous debate. For example, the impossibility of an actual regress of causes is an absolute slam-dunk mathematical proof of a First Cause of some kind. What are you to make of people who don't accept the truth of mathematics?

Whatever mathematics proves, it only applies to mathematical proofs.

If that were true, engineering would be impossible. In actual fact, mathematics is, in science, considered the master-discipline that unlocks all sorts of things in the real world. And in practice, it does, we know and can see.

All the more of a marvel, then, if we disregard it in this one area that conclusively disproves the eternal-universe hypothesis.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think there is any valid argument for the existence of God.

You mean "true," not "valid' in the logical sense, I'm sure. There are logically "valid" arguments for all kinds of things. But let that be.

If there is no test you will accept for the existence of God, the reason that you have found no evidence for God is that you do not allow for any. In which case, what evidence there is will remain permanently invisible to you, and nobody can do anything about that...except maybe God Himself.

So I guess that's the end of that road.

And where is your argument?

There is none you will believe. You have said so yourself: no grounds exist upon which your demanded 'proof' can be based.

[bahman]

You mean "true," not "valid' in the logical sense, I'm sure. There are logically "valid" arguments for all kinds of things. But let that be.

If there is no test you will accept for the existence of God, the reason that you have found no evidence for God is that you do not allow for any. In which case, what evidence there is will remain permanently invisible to you, and nobody can do anything about that...except maybe God Himself.

So I guess that's the end of that road.

And where is your argument?

There is none you will believe. You have said so yourself: no grounds exist upon which your demanded 'proof' can be based.

I am open to ideas.

[Immanuel Can]

And where is your argument?

There is none you will believe. You have said so yourself: no grounds exist upon which your demanded 'proof' can be based.

I am open to ideas.

But if no ideas will be allowed to convince you, what good would that do?

[bahman]

There is none you will believe. You have said so yourself: no grounds exist upon which your demanded 'proof' can be based.

I am open to ideas.

But if no ideas will be allowed to convince you, what good would that do?

Prove me that I am wrong. I would accept it. In fact, I will be very happy to find a sound argument for the existence of God. I told you that I have had extensive spiritual experiences. I will become sure that they represent something more than hallucinations.

[Immanuel Can]

I am open to ideas.

But if no ideas will be allowed to convince you, what good would that do?

Prove me that I am wrong. I would accept it.

But you've said you wouldn't. You've insisted that you know of no terms at all on which any such proof would be allowed to count for you.

But if you're now saying that's not true, then let me ask you again: what would you accept as proof of the existence of God?

[bahman]

But if no ideas will be allowed to convince you, what good would that do?

Prove me that I am wrong. I would accept it.

But you've said you wouldn't. You've insisted that you know of no terms at all on which any such proof would be allowed to count for you.

I didn't say that I wouldn't accept any argument for God.

But if you're now saying that's not true, then let me ask you again: what would you accept as proof of the existence of God?

A sound argument that we can agree on premises.

[Harbal]

I don't think there is any valid argument for the existence of God.

You mean "true," not "valid' in the logical sense, I'm sure. There are logically "valid" arguments for all kinds of things. But let that be.

If there is no test you will accept for the existence of God, the reason that you have found no evidence for God is that you do not allow for any. In which case, what evidence there is will remain permanently invisible to you, and nobody can do anything about that...except maybe God Himself.

So I guess that's the end of that road.

In other words; anyone who doesn't believe in God only has themself to blame.

Being unable to suggest what might be evidence of God's existence does not necessarily point to a reluctance to believe it, although I daresay that is often the case. I really don't know how guilty I might be of that, but I'm pretty sure your reluctance to stop believing in God is far greater, and therefore so is your bias towards what could reasonably be regarded as evidence. To an impartial mind, the Bible is just one of many different sets of texts from many different religions around the world and throughout history, and has no particular claim to be taken more seriously than any of the others. As for an explanation of the world, or universe, or "creation", as you would call it, well anyone who didn't want to look to science for an explanation would only need a bit of imagination to be able to come up with any number of fanciful theories. You are the expect here on Godly matters, so if you can't suggest any other alternatives, what chance do the rest of us have?

[Immanuel Can]

Prove me that I am wrong. I would accept it.

But you've said you wouldn't. You've insisted that you know of no terms at all on which any such proof would be allowed to count for you.

I didn't say that I wouldn't accept any argument for God.

But if you're now saying that's not true, then let me ask you again: what would you accept as proof of the existence of God?

A sound argument that we can agree on premises.

Well, what premises will you agree to? I'll see what I can do, if you have some.

[bahman]

But you've said you wouldn't. You've insisted that you know of no terms at all on which any such proof would be allowed to count for you.

I didn't say that I wouldn't accept any argument for God.

But if you're now saying that's not true, then let me ask you again: what would you accept as proof of the existence of God?

A sound argument that we can agree on premises.

Well, what premises will you agree to? I'll see what I can do, if you have some.

Well, I am asking for your argument, what you have in mind. I cannot tell what are the premises as I cannot read your mind.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think there is any valid argument for the existence of God.

You mean "true," not "valid' in the logical sense, I'm sure. There are logically "valid" arguments for all kinds of things. But let that be.

If there is no test you will accept for the existence of God, the reason that you have found no evidence for God is that you do not allow for any. In which case, what evidence there is will remain permanently invisible to you, and nobody can do anything about that...except maybe God Himself.

So I guess that's the end of that road.

In other words; anyone who doesn't believe in God only has themself to blame.

Only if there is NO test they will accept. If they have one, then it may not be their fault...if it's reasonable.

Being unable to suggest what might be evidence of God's existence does not necessarily point to a reluctance to believe it, although I daresay that is often the case. I really don't know how guilty I might be of that, but I'm pretty sure your reluctance to stop believing in God is far greater, and therefore so is your bias towards what could reasonably be regarded as evidence.

I wouldn't say so. And the reason has nothing to do with "partiality" or "impartiality", but simply with the way all knowledge works. When you find the answer to something is X, you stop thrashing about, looking for a different answer. If I already know God, why would I suddenly want to act as if I didn't? And would that indicate that I was more "impartial," or rather more "partial" to skepticism?

The "partiality" argument works the other way, you see. If one can believe out of wanting to, then one can disbelieve the same way. I would suggest that it's better to go with what one knows.

To an impartial mind, the Bible is just one of many different sets of texts from many different religions around the world and throughout history, and has no particular claim to be taken more seriously than any of the others.

I can't see why "impartial" applies to that postion. I would suggest it's much better characterized as "uninformed." And those who form conclusions without information are surely more "partial" than anybody.

You are the expect here on Godly matters, so if you can't suggest any other alternatives, what chance do the rest of us have?

The "expert," you mean? Hardly. But I am one with some experience in that area, and some knowledge of the alternatives. I would never present myself as more than that.

But it's not clear to me what you're asking. You say, "if you can't suggest any other alternatives" -- to what, may I ask?

[Immanuel Can]

I didn't say that I wouldn't accept any argument for God.


A sound argument that we can agree on premises.

Well, what premises will you agree to? I'll see what I can do, if you have some.

Well, I am asking for your argument, what you have in mind. I cannot tell what are the premises as I cannot read your mind.

And I am asking what you would accept as evidence, for precisely the same reason.

The problem being, of course, that your answer seems to be that nothing is ever going to satisfy you.

Let's summarize. Essentially where we are is this:

Bahman: Give me proof of God.
IC: What proof will you accept?
Bahman: None
IC: What do you want me to provide that would prove it to you?
Bahman: Just give me something.
IC: You won't like it.
Bahman: I will like it.
IC: What about the evidence of design in nature?
Bahman: I don't like it.
IC: What can I give you?
Bahman: A proof. One of yours.
IC: I did, and you wouldn't accept it.
Bahman: I can't read your mind.
IC: Nor I, yours. What will you accept?

After this, we can just go around and around. I can't give evidence to somebody for whom no evidence counts. You can't seem to tell me any evidence you WOULD count. So how do we break the deadlock?

[bahman]

Well, what premises will you agree to? I'll see what I can do, if you have some.

Well, I am asking for your argument, what you have in mind. I cannot tell what are the premises as I cannot read your mind.

And I am asking what you would accept as evidence, for precisely the same reason.

The problem being, of course, that your answer seems to be that nothing is ever going to satisfy you.

OK, let's see if we can agree on these: 1) The universe (I mean the observable universe) exists, 2) It has a beginning, 3) It is subject to change, and 4) It is ordered (the change follows the laws of nature). I agree with these premises so you do need to prove them to me. These are what come to my mind right now, perhaps there are others but I have to think through.

[Harbal]

Being unable to suggest what might be evidence of God's existence does not necessarily point to a reluctance to believe it, although I daresay that is often the case. I really don't know how guilty I might be of that, but I'm pretty sure your reluctance to stop believing in God is far greater, and therefore so is your bias towards what could reasonably be regarded as evidence.

I wouldn't say so. And the reason has nothing to do with "partiality" or "impartiality", but simply with the way all knowledge works. When you find the answer to something is X, you stop thrashing about, looking for a different answer. If I already know God, why would I suddenly want to act as if I didn't? And would that indicate that I was more "impartial," or rather more "partial" to skepticism?

The "partiality" argument works the other way, you see. If one can believe out of wanting to, then one can disbelieve the same way. I would suggest that it's better to go with what one knows.

You are not open to the possibility of being talked out of your belief in God; that was my point.

To an impartial mind, the Bible is just one of many different sets of texts from many different religions around the world and throughout history, and has no particular claim to be taken more seriously than any of the others.

I can't see why "impartial" applies to that postion. I would suggest it's much better characterized as "uninformed." And those who form conclusions without information are surely more "partial" than anybody.

So if I decided to become informed, why should I choose to become informed about the Bible in preference to the texts of some other religion?

You are the expect here on Godly matters, so if you can't suggest any other alternatives, what chance do the rest of us have?

The "expert," you mean? Hardly. But I am one with some experience in that area, and some knowledge of the alternatives. I would never present myself as more than that.

But it's not clear to me what you're asking. You say, "if you can't suggest any other alternatives" -- to what, may I ask?

Am I wrong in thinking that the two things I mentioned -the Bible and "creation"- would count as evidence of the existence of God, in your opinion? I seem to think you have previously offered them as such. If so, and you have no further suggestions about what could count as evidence, then the evidence has already been considered and judged inadequate by a good many of us. You seem to be saying that we (atheists) are deliberately obstructing the process of examining the evidence, or refusing to participate in it, but the fact is, many of us have already completed the process, and arrived at our conclusion.