Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Well, 4), the "it is ordered" one, is not clear. If you mean, "The only changes possible are by natural regularities (such as gravity or surfact tension, or the interactions of chemicals, etc.), then to accept that would be to assume the conclusion that needs to be proved: we don't KNOW that those are the only ways in which changes can take place. Even if you don't think, for example, that divine intervention is possible, what would you say about human volition and will? Can it make changes to things? Many people think it can, and every single person acts like it can. So what do we do with that?

Other than that, the premises seem fine.

Okay. Let's start from 2). We know that the universe has a beginning. Do we agree on an additional step (we can call it #5), namely that things that begin have to have a cause? It seems obvious to me we ought to, because otherwise we're believing that effects happen with no causes, and that looks like magical thinking.

Good so far?

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Well, even if it's true, it's not helpful for us to observe it. Because if my belief in God is true, and if I know it's true, then there would be no longer any reason for me to be open to the possiblity it's not true, would there? It would, in fact, be crazy of me to deny what I know to be true, would it not?

So my readiness to change my mind is not the real issue. The real issue is, what should one be "changing one's mind to," if to anything.

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?

Well, I don't hesitate to invite you to inform yourself about all of them. I, myself, have read the Koran, the Gita, the Dhammapada, the Tao, the Torah...and I really think that if you read them you'll learn a lot. Mostly, you'll see through some of the "religions" at the most basic level; but after that, you may well find useful insights about what could plausibly be right.

However, I know most people don't want to go on a long search like that, having neither the patience nor the tools to benefit from that experience, perhaps. So, by way of being helpful, I would say that they could cut the process short by going with the most plausible alternative first; and in my assessment that is, by far, the Bible. And I would even suggest there are ways to cut the length of the required inquiry further, if somebody was really interested in doing that.

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.

Yes, you would be correct about that. They're not the only things to which I've pointed, or even the central One; but yes, that's two.

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.

In my experience, I've seen that that's not true. What's usually the case is that people have been "told about" things they've never read or investigated for themselves, and have simply believed whatever they were told. Ironically, it's these same people who want to reproach Christians with "believing what other people have told them." Very ironic, that.

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.

Atheists? Well, since Atheism, by its own account, is a non-evidence-based conclusion, I think the problem with that is obvious. One cannot say, "I know there are not gods or God," when one has not done the collecting of sufficient evidence to warrant that knowledge. And what would it take to warrant the conclusion that there is, and can be, no God?

It would take a person who was capable of looking everywhere (as God is said to be omnipresent), knows everything (so as to know what is and is not a manifestation of divine action), and is able to see all times, as well (since God must transcend the boundaries of time and space, if He is the explanation of the existence of both). Can any Atheist say he's done these things? If he can, he's wrong about there not being a God -- because the Atheist has all these qualifications of God in himself: he's God! But if he cannot, or if it's not even reasonable to suggest he should have to try, then how can the Atheist claim to "know" what he very obviously cannot even be asked or expected to know?

All that makes no sense. Atheism, as a declaration of (dis-)belief makes no sense. No wonder, then, that even Dawkins quickly retreats into agnosticism, when pressed. Even Dawkins knows Atheism cannot be supported logically, so he doesn't dare try.

However, a great many who set out on "the process" of investigation have come to very different conclusions than that...and a great many of them are highly intelligent and academic, too, for what that matters. And as for you, I'm sure you're intelligent enough to go on whatever search you have to, if you want to.

[bahman]

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.

Well, 4), the "it is ordered" one, is not clear. If you mean, "The only changes possible are by natural regularities (such as gravity or surfact tension, or the interactions of chemicals, etc.), then to accept that would be to assume the conclusion that needs to be proved: we don't KNOW that those are the only ways in which changes can take place.

Yes, we don't know whether change is ordered on the whole. That is why said that we are talking about the observable universe.

Even if you don't think, for example, that divine intervention is possible, what would you say about human volition and will?

We can have an ordered universe in which human has volition.

Can it make changes to things? Many people think it can, and every single person acts like it can. So what do we do with that?

What do mean?

Other than that, the premises seem fine.

Okay. Let's start from 2). We know that the universe has a beginning. Do we agree on an additional step (we can call it #5), namely that things that begin have to have a cause? It seems obvious to me we ought to, because otherwise we're believing that effects happen with no causes, and that looks like magical thinking.

No. The stuff that made the universe does not necessarily begin to be by this I mean there was nothing then something, whether as the result of God's causation or as the result of nothing to something. The stuff that made the universe in the beginning simply could exist.

[iambiguous]

...if my belief in God is true, and if I know it's true, then there would be no longer any reason for me to be open to the possiblity it's not true, would there? It would, in fact, be crazy of me to deny what I know to be true, would it not?

Let's bring this down to Earth. IC believes in the Christian God. And, in believing this, he has access to moral Commandments here and now and to immortality and salvation there and then. Now, if others here convince him that the Christian God does not exist, he loses all of that.

Carry on.

[Immanuel Can]

Can it make changes to things? Many people think it can, and every single person acts like it can. So what do we do with that?

What do mean?

I mean, can your choice begin a causal chain? Can whether you say yes or no to something "make a difference," so to speak, about what happens afterward? That's an important thing to add, if we think it's true.

Other than that, the premises seem fine.

Okay. Let's start from 2). We know that the universe has a beginning. Do we agree on an additional step (we can call it #5), namely that things that begin have to have a cause? It seems obvious to me we ought to, because otherwise we're believing that effects happen with no causes, and that looks like magical thinking.

The stuff that made the universe in the beginning simply could exist.

But then, we'd have to say that whatever "stuff" we decide made the universe did not have a beginning, so it didn't need a cause anyway, and couldn't possibly have one. The other side of this claim is, "That which has NO beginning DOES NOT have a cause." So we can add that to "Things that DO have a beginning do have a cause." Those two statements are completely compatible.

So far, so good?

[Immanuel Can]

...if my belief in God is true, and if I know it's true, then there would be no longer any reason for me to be open to the possiblity it's not true, would there? It would, in fact, be crazy of me to deny what I know to be true, would it not?

Let's bring this down to Earth.

It's already there. If you cannot follow the discussion, feel free not to do so. But you don't get to change the terms just because you find them too complicated for you. Feel free to have your own discussion, at a level you feel you can manage.

[bahman]

Can it make changes to things? Many people think it can, and every single person acts like it can. So what do we do with that?

What do mean?

I mean, can your choice begin a causal chain? Can whether you say yes or no to something "make a difference," so to speak, about what happens afterward? That's an important thing to add, if we think it's true.

We normally follow a chain of causality unless a free decision is needed.

Other than that, the premises seem fine.

Okay. Let's start from 2). We know that the universe has a beginning. Do we agree on an additional step (we can call it #5), namely that things that begin have to have a cause? It seems obvious to me we ought to, because otherwise we're believing that effects happen with no causes, and that looks like magical thinking.

The stuff that made the universe in the beginning simply could exist.

But then, we'd have to say that whatever "stuff" we decide made the universe did not have a beginning, so it didn't need a cause anyway, and couldn't possibly have one. The other side of this claim is, "That which has NO beginning DOES NOT have a cause." So we can add that to "Things that DO have a beginning do have a cause." Those two statements are completely compatible.

So far, so good?

Can we agree that there is a distinction between "begin to exist at the beginning at the beginning" and simply "exist at the beginning"?

[promethean75]

"if my belief in God is true, and if I know it's true, then there would be no longer any reason for me to be open to the possiblity it's not true, would there?"

... and even if u were, you'd not be able to know u were wrong becuz the theory can't be falsified, anyway. So you're good.

"It would, in fact, be crazy of me to deny what I know to be true, would it not?"

Better to say 'believe firmly' rather than 'know to be true'. Things u know to be true are deductive truths and inductive truths that can be empirically verified. Now u may not like this, but we ask that u nonetheless exhibit proper philosophical ethics and behavior when practicing here, sir.

What if some exceptionally bright young person comes here, and becuz he's read something u wrote, doesn't become a revolutionary nihilist and instead goes to college, begins a career, finds a wife, buys a house, starts a family, and goes to church regularly? How terrible would u feel?

[Immanuel Can]

What do mean?

I mean, can your choice begin a causal chain? Can whether you say yes or no to something "make a difference," so to speak, about what happens afterward? That's an important thing to add, if we think it's true.

We normally follow a chain of causality unless a free decision is needed.

That's identical with what all believers in free will believe...that free will is one among the causes, not the only cause, of why things happen. So far, so good, then.

The stuff that made the universe in the beginning simply could exist.

But then, we'd have to say that whatever "stuff" we decide made the universe did not have a beginning, so it didn't need a cause anyway, and couldn't possibly have one. The other side of this claim is, "That which has NO beginning DOES NOT have a cause." So we can add that to "Things that DO have a beginning do have a cause." Those two statements are completely compatible.

So far, so good?

Can we agree that there is a distinction between "begin to exist at the beginning at the beginning" and simply "exist at the beginning"?

I can't even tell what that means, so I don't know what to say.

"The beginning" of the causal chain is, by definition, the very start of all things in the causal chain. There's no way to fudge that.

[iambiguous]

...if my belief in God is true, and if I know it's true, then there would be no longer any reason for me to be open to the possiblity it's not true, would there? It would, in fact, be crazy of me to deny what I know to be true, would it not?

Let's bring this down to Earth.

It's already there. If you cannot follow the discussion, feel free not to do so. But you don't get to change the terms just because you find them too complicated for you. Feel free to have your own discussion, at a level you feel you can manage.

On the other hand...

IC believes in the Christian God. And, in believing this, he has access to moral Commandments here and now and to immortality and salvation there and then. Now, if others here convince him that the Christian God does not exist, he loses all of that.

Though, sure, others here will sustain exchanges with you that steer clear of that particular bottom line. I don't, however, because, in part, I am myself quite familiar with the "for all practical purposes" consequences of no longer being able to make that leap of faith to Jesus Christ. Only unlike those devout atheists who take pride in accepting the consequences of living in a No God world, I'd very much like to believe again.

Besides, unlike you, I don't have access to a bunch of YouTube videos I claim demonstrates the Christian God does not exist.

Sure, He might exist. And, again, if you believe that He does why on Earth aren't you here saving souls by coming back to that evidence over and over and over again?



Just out of curiosity, do you post on Christian forums where you do explore in depth that historical and scientific evidence?

Or is the "philosophy of religion" all that matters to you?

God...the intellectual contraption?

[bahman]

I mean, can your choice begin a causal chain? Can whether you say yes or no to something "make a difference," so to speak, about what happens afterward? That's an important thing to add, if we think it's true.

We normally follow a chain of causality unless a free decision is needed.

That's identical with what all believers in free will believe...that free will is one among the causes, not the only cause, of why things happen. So far, so good, then.

Cool.

But then, we'd have to say that whatever "stuff" we decide made the universe did not have a beginning, so it didn't need a cause anyway, and couldn't possibly have one. The other side of this claim is, "That which has NO beginning DOES NOT have a cause." So we can add that to "Things that DO have a beginning do have a cause." Those two statements are completely compatible.

So far, so good?

Can we agree that there is a distinction between "begin to exist at the beginning at the beginning" and simply "exist at the beginning"?

I can't even tell what that means, so I don't know what to say.

"The beginning" of the causal chain is, by definition, the very start of all things in the causal chain. There's no way to fudge that.

You are trying to say that the causal chain has a beginning and it is caused. I am saying that it has a beginning and nothing more.

[Immanuel Can]

We normally follow a chain of causality unless a free decision is needed.

That's identical with what all believers in free will believe...that free will is one among the causes, not the only cause, of why things happen. So far, so good, then.

Cool.

Can we agree that there is a distinction between "begin to exist at the beginning at the beginning" and simply "exist at the beginning"?

I can't even tell what that means, so I don't know what to say.

"The beginning" of the causal chain is, by definition, the very start of all things in the causal chain. There's no way to fudge that.

You are trying to say that the causal chain has a beginning and it is caused. I am saying that it has a beginning and nothing more.

No, I'm saying that it has a beginning. I'm insisting, in fact, that it would be both irrational and impossible for that Entity, whatever we decide it was, that Entity that began that chain, to itself have any beginning, or to be attributed any cause. That just doesn't work, rationally.

That's what I'm saying. Are we agreeing?

[bahman]

That's identical with what all believers in free will believe...that free will is one among the causes, not the only cause, of why things happen. So far, so good, then.

Cool.

I can't even tell what that means, so I don't know what to say.

"The beginning" of the causal chain is, by definition, the very start of all things in the causal chain. There's no way to fudge that.

You are trying to say that the causal chain has a beginning and it is caused. I am saying that it has a beginning and nothing more.

No, I'm saying that it has a beginning. I'm insisting, in fact, that it would be both irrational and impossible for that Entity, whatever we decide it was, that Entity that began that chain, to itself have any beginning, or to be attributed any cause. That just doesn't work, rationally.

Why? You need to provide an argument that that entity cannot possibly be the beginning of the chain of causality. I cannot simply discard it, the entity just existed at the beginning. Prove that that cannot be the case.

That's what I'm saying. Are we agreeing?

No.

[Immanuel Can]

Cool.


You are trying to say that the causal chain has a beginning and it is caused. I am saying that it has a beginning and nothing more.

No, I'm saying that it has a beginning. I'm insisting, in fact, that it would be both irrational and impossible for that Entity, whatever we decide it was, that Entity that began that chain, to itself have any beginning, or to be attributed any cause. That just doesn't work, rationally.

Why? You need to provide an argument that that entity cannot possibly be the beginning of the chain of causality. I cannot simply discard it, the entity just existed at the beginning. Prove that that cannot be the case.

You're either completely misunderstanding me, or completely failiing to convey whatever point it is you think you're conveying. Did you read what I said carefully? I'm saying that whatever entity is at the ultimate beginning cannot itself have a cause. And logic and mathematics show that's absolute. It's true beyond any possibility of doubt. So I don't know what you can possibly be disagreeing with.

[iambiguous]

No, I'm saying that it has a beginning. I'm insisting, in fact, that it would be both irrational and impossible for that Entity, whatever we decide it was, that Entity that began that chain, to itself have any beginning, or to be attributed any cause. That just doesn't work, rationally.

See how it does work? He thinks himself into believing that "in the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth". And from there he "deduces" that those who don't think this are irrational.

I merely suggest there were particular experiences in his life that predisposed him existentially to embrace the Christian God. Whereas the particular experiences in the lives of many of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...led them to embrace a different God.

That's why nothing could possibly be more crucial here than in establishing -- if only philosophically? -- which God it is.

Starting now, okay?