Is morality objective or subjective?

[bahman]

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.

I mean that the entity that existed at the beginning does not need a cause. I call that entity the beginning of the universe. You call it God with all omni attributes. Am I correct in your take, not mine?

[Immanuel Can]

I mean that the entity that existed at the beginning does not need a cause. I call that entity the beginning of the universe. You call it God with all omni attributes. Am I correct in your take, not mine?

Oh, I see...you jumped way ahead of me, and assumed I was going to make my case before I had even tried to make it.

No, all I want you to consider, and see if you agree with it, is whether whatever it was that began the universe had to be caused or uncaused. I didn't ask you for any more of a concession than that.

And it seems you do agree with that much: you also see that it's inescapable logic that whatever began the universe's causal chain had to, itself, be uncaused.

So far, are we in agreement now? I'm not asking you for more.

[bahman]

I mean that the entity that existed at the beginning does not need a cause. I call that entity the beginning of the universe. You call it God with all omni attributes. Am I correct in your take, not mine?

Oh, I see...you jumped way ahead of me, and assumed I was going to make my case before I had even tried to make it.

No, all I want you to consider, and see if you agree with it, is whether whatever it was that began the universe had to be caused or uncaused. I didn't ask you for any more of a concession than that.

And it seems you do agree with that much: you also see that it's inescapable logic that whatever began the universe's causal chain had to, itself, be uncaused.

So far, are we in agreement now? I'm not asking you for more.

Yes, that entity, whatever you like to call it is the uncaused cause.

[promethean75]

"whatever entity is at the ultimate beginning cannot itself have a cause."

And it gets worse. The idea that something, some entity, can exist without being in some space/time is as incomprehensible as it is counter-intuitive. We would literally have to use some other word than 'exist' to describe what this entity was doing, becuz every existing thing we have ever experienced or conceived of has existed in space/time.

So it's like a double whammy. Not only is the word 'god' nonsense, but the phrase 'god existed before space/time existed' is nonsense on steroids.

Bahman u should check out the promtological argument while you're looking at the kalam argument. The promtological argument claims that if the kalam argument claims that something can exist without being caused and we cannot know if the universe hasn't always existed, there is no reason to assert the kalam argument as an explanation for anything. It's a moot point; for all we know, the universe never began, so the kalam argument is useless. There may be no need to posit a first uncaused cause.

Couple the promtological argument with what i explained above and you'll never have any problems with religious charlatans again.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, that entity, whatever you like to call it is the uncaused cause.

Right. Fine. We're agreed. Next step.

But now, we have to ask an obvious next question: namely, what IS that Entity? To answer that, we'd have to resort to a kind of explanation that is called, "argument to the best explanation," meaning, "choosing the most likely of various alternatives, rather than being able to say in an absolute way."

That's because absolute proof would require us to be present at the beginning of the universe...and we weren't. So we're making a sort of best-estimate, based on what evidence we do have access to.

Fair enough?

[bahman]

"whatever entity is at the ultimate beginning cannot itself have a cause."

And it gets worse. The idea that something, some entity, can exist without being in some space/time is as incomprehensible as it is counter-intuitive. We would literally have to use some other word than 'exist' to describe what this entity was doing, becuz every existing thing we have ever experienced or conceived of has existed in space/time.

I agree. Spacetime is fundamental. I have an argument for time being fundamental here.

So it's like a double whammy. Not only is the word 'god' nonsense, but the phrase 'god existed before space/time existed' is nonsense on steroids.

I agree.

Bahman u should check out the promtological argument while you're looking at the kalam argument. The promtological argument claims that if the kalam argument claims that something can exist without being caused and we cannot know if the universe hasn't always existed, there is no reason to assert the kalam argument as an explanation for anything. It's a moot point; for all we know, the universe never began, so the kalam argument is useless. There may be no need to posit a first uncaused cause.

Couple the promtological argument with what i explained above and you'll never have any problems with religious charlatans again.

I will read about it later. Thanks for the reference.

[bahman]

Yes, that entity, whatever you like to call it is the uncaused cause.

Right. Fine. We're agreed. Next step.

But now, we have to ask an obvious next question: namely, what IS that Entity? To answer that, we'd have to resort to a kind of explanation that is called, "argument to the best explanation," meaning, "choosing the most likely of various alternatives, rather than being able to say in an absolute way."

That's because absolute proof would require us to be present at the beginning of the universe...and we weren't. So we're making a sort of best-estimate, based on what evidence we do have access to.

Fair enough?

Yes, it is fair.

[Harbal]

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.

I can see how that might be your perspective, but from mine you are just a man who believes in God and would not be prepared to consider that he might be mistaken under any circumstances. I won't go as far as saying that you only believe in God because you absolutely refuse not to, but I would say that if I adopted your style of argument.

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?

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.

That doesn't say much for the plausibility of the rest, does it?

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.

A good deal of what I have heard of the Bible has come from you, as it happens, and I have never been tempted to believe what I was told, so I don't accept that.

When I was growing up, Christianity had a more prominent presence in society than it does now, but nobody ever tried to influence my attitude towards it. At school, we had assembly every morning, when someone read something from the Bible and then we sang a hymn; boring! On Sundays, everything was closed, and it was somehow because of God, and there was nothing to do; boring! There were only two TV channels, and Sunday early evening viewing was religious programs or nothing; boring! I know all that was a long time ago, but the impression has stayed with me all my life; Christianity is bloody well boring! So although there is no chance of my ever picking up a Bible in ernest, it is nothing to do with what I've been told about it.

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,

To me, atheism is a disinterest in taking an absurd claim seriously. It is nothing to do with evidence, or the lack of it, it is much more a matter of common sense.

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?

What do you normally do when presented with a claim that is both ridiculous and uninteresting? Don't tell me you rush out and investigate it.

It would take a person who was capable of looking everywhere (as God is said to be omnipresent)

Yes, how does he manage to be omnipresent yet completely inconspicuous? He must get round it by being conspicuous by his absence, I suppose.

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?

I'm sorry, but I can't make an ounce of sense out of that.

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.

This makes me wonder how familiar you have to become with someone before they lose the power to astonish you with what they ask you to accept as being the truth.

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.

Belief in God has obviously got nothing to do with intelligence. As you say, some very intelligent people believe in God, and although I find it puzzling, I accept it as a fact.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

I can see how that might be your perspective, but from mine you are just a man who believes in God and would not be prepared to consider that he might be mistaken under any circumstances. I won't go as far as saying that you only believe in God because you absolutely refuse not to, but I would say that if I adopted your style of argument.

My style of argument is not ad hominem. I argue with the propositions of Atheism itself, on logical grounds, rather than the private motivations of the people who believe in it. So I haven't modeled that kind of thinking to you, and if you adopted my style, you wouldn't either.

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?

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.

That doesn't say much for the plausibility of the rest, does it?

Perhaps not. But such an investigation makes quite a few things immediately obvious. That's one of them.

When I was growing up, Christianity had a more prominent presence in society than it does now, but nobody ever tried to influence my attitude towards it. At school, we had assembly every morning, when someone read something from the Bible and then we sang a hymn; boring! On Sundays, everything was closed, and it was somehow because of God, and there was nothing to do; boring! There were only two TV channels, and Sunday early evening viewing was religious programs or nothing; boring! I know all that was a long time ago, but the impression has stayed with me all my life; Christianity is bloody well boring! So although there is no chance of my ever picking up a Bible in ernest, it is nothing to do with what I've been told about it.

I was raised in an English-style school myself, with all of the trappings thereof. So I'm familiar with the sterile, ritualistic and dead sorts of forms of religosity of which you speak. And I sympathize with the impression.

There's an analogy here with people who hate eating fish. What one usually finds is that what they were exposed to early was a lot of frozen, non-fresh and low-grade fish, which put them off it for life. Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't delicious fish dishes around...or even good ol' fish 'n' chips worth having...but it's still hard to convince those who have been put off in that way.

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,

To me, atheism is a disinterest in taking an absurd claim seriously. It is nothing to do with evidence, or the lack of it, it is much more a matter of common sense.

That's not really Atheism, I would say, but rather a reflexive rejection of the whole issue. It's too uninterested in information to count as a position on the key issues.

Yes, how does he manage to be omnipresent yet completely inconspicuous? He must get round it by being conspicuous by his absence, I suppose.

Well, there are reasons for that, too...if you're not uninterested in hearing any. You let me 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.

This makes me wonder how familiar you have to become with someone before they lose the power to astonish you with what they ask you to accept as being the truth.

With Dawkins, one doesn't have to be very familiar at all. He's a very brash public figure.

[promethean75]

"Belief in God has obviously got nothing to do with intelligence. As you say, some very intelligent people believe in God, and although I find it puzzling, I accept it as a fact."

It's the complexity, the fine tuning, the (what seems like) intelligent design of the universe, that gets smart people.

Now there's two kinds of smart people here. There's the smart people who need to anthropomorphize this phenomena so they can believe that the universe has a righteous moral purpose (with humans at the center of this purpose), and then there's the other kind who believe the universe is just a kind of autopoietic complex that organizes itself into various kinds of systems (astronomic, physical, chemical, biological, etc) and that there is no final purpose for it all. The interesting thing is that the universe seems to phase from the simpler to the more complex... and then the direction reverses. Integrated complexities disintegrate. We'd have to assume that this pattern probably repeats itself eternally, tho we can't pretend to understand how exactly. But the driving force behind it all is the will to power. This just means that systems want (or tend toward) evolving greater capacities, incorporating more, becoming more active, and, in biological cases, experiencing greater and more pleasure. Living things are more or less rational hedonists (i agree with Spinz here). That's our purpose, but there's no purpose for that purpose. It just happens that biological systems are purposed with that MO.

[Harbal]

When I was growing up, Christianity had a more prominent presence in society than it does now, but nobody ever tried to influence my attitude towards it. At school, we had assembly every morning, when someone read something from the Bible and then we sang a hymn; boring! On Sundays, everything was closed, and it was somehow because of God, and there was nothing to do; boring! There were only two TV channels, and Sunday early evening viewing was religious programs or nothing; boring! I know all that was a long time ago, but the impression has stayed with me all my life; Christianity is bloody well boring! So although there is no chance of my ever picking up a Bible in ernest, it is nothing to do with what I've been told about it.

I was raised in an English-style school myself, with all of the trappings thereof. So I'm familiar with the sterile, ritualistic and dead sorts of forms of religosity of which you speak. And I sympathize with the impression.

There's an analogy here with people who hate eating fish. What one usually finds is that what they were exposed to early was a lot of frozen, non-fresh and low-grade fish, which put them off it for life. Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't delicious fish dishes around...or even good ol' fish 'n' chips worth having...but it's still hard to convince those who have been put off in that way.

I don't think it's the right analogy, because although the fish was put in front of me, I never ate any, so I didn't get to experience how low grade it was. And I'm sure that many of the others who went through exactly the same situation that I did don't feel the same as I do now. Of all the people I know personally, I honestly couldn't say whether any one of them believes in God or not, I just don't know. Actually there is one, but only one. God just isn't a big deal to the average person, even if they believe in him. I don't care what they believe, and they don't seem to care what I believe. Why do people like you care so much, and, indeed, why do people like Dawkins and Hitchens care so much? The thing is, when people get passionate about religion, no good ever comes of it.

[Harbal]

"Belief in God has obviously got nothing to do with intelligence. As you say, some very intelligent people believe in God, and although I find it puzzling, I accept it as a fact."

It's the complexity, the fine tuning, the (what seems like) intelligent design of the universe, that gets smart people.

Now there's two kinds of smart people here. There's the smart people who need to anthropomorphize this phenomena so they can believe that the universe has a righteous moral purpose (with humans at the center of this purpose), and then there's the other kind who believe the universe is just a kind of autopoietic complex that organizes itself into various kinds of systems (astronomic, physical, chemical, biological, etc) and that there is no final purpose for it all. The interesting thing is that the universe seems to phase from the simpler to the more complex... and then the direction reverses. Integrated complexities disintegrate. We'd have to assume that this pattern probably repeats itself eternally, tho we can't pretend to understand how exactly. But the driving force behind it all is the will to power. This just means that systems want (or tend toward) evolving greater capacities, incorporating more, becoming more active, and, in biological cases, experiencing greater and more pleasure. Living things are more or less rational hedonists (i agree with Spinz here). That's our purpose, but there's no purpose for that purpose. It just happens that biological systems are purposed with that MO.

I think I'm as curious about the universe as anybody, but I don't lose any sleep over any unanswered questions I have about it. And I'm quite glad about that.

[Immanuel Can]

God just isn't a big deal to the average person, even if they believe in him.

In the West, that might be so...worldwide, and historically, it's very far from the average.

If somebody said to me, "There's a huge lion in my bedroom, but it's just isn't a big deal to me," I'd still think they're smarter than somebody who says, "I just don't bother to think about God."

The thing is, when people get passionate about religion, no good ever comes of it.

That's such a funny belief...and again, it can only be sustained by knowing nothing about history, really.

In point of fact, religions have had varying effects on people; but Christianity in particular, and Judaism as well, despite their imperfections, have had overwhelmingly positive effects on human history. One religion has caused as much misery as all other religions put together: that's Islam. But by contrast, even Islam cannot compare to the ideology that has had the most negative impact, by orders of magnitude, in all of history. And those were the Atheist regimes. None other has killed even a fraction so many people as the various such regimes, especially the Communist ones, which were the most-ardently Atheist.

How ironic! The Atheist wants to tell the world about the evils of "religion": whereas, Atheists have killed over 140 million people in the last century alone!

Those are just the facts: that so few people in the modern West are even cognizant of those facts is really a testimony to how little people actually know about it...and how absurdly effective anti-religious propaganda has proved to be in the West.

[Skepdick]

Do tell us what any of that has to do with determining constants.

You don't understand what measure theory and measurements have to do with determining the value of a constant?

How much spelling out do you require?

Let x be a constant. Could you explain how we'd go about acquiring its value given that the universe doesn't produce any numbers?

You're right, I don't. You show me, Skepdick.

Wow... The level of spelling out a "philosopher of science" requires. It boggles minds.

You don't recognize any of the mathematical operations in 8.854×10^-12 F/m do you?

Last I checked the universe doesn't speak Mathematics; nor does it have any "constants".
You seem to have mistaken the map for the territory...

[Dontaskme]

That's not really Atheism, I would say, but rather a reflexive rejection of the whole issue.

It's more the reflexive rejection of a rhetorical claim that there ever was a God in the first place.

Before humans arrived on earth, the idea of God was never an issue, the idea simply did not exist. So the idea logically had to be of 'someone's' imagination, who dreamt up this so called God idea out of thin air.
So once the idea of God got out, it became known as a concept for everyone in the world who understands human language. And that's all it could be, just a simple idea without any obvious semblance of an image to look at or examine closely like one can do with any objective thing.


An 'Atheist' was then given the label by the believer of the God who invented it, God the idea was simply planted in every living human. The Atheist then realised it was absurd to believe in a God that never existed until the human invented it. What was even more absurd to the Atheist was the idea had no physical construct or substance to it.

The Atheist would never have had a God to reject if the inventor of this God had not imagined it into being in the first place, so the blame is on the claimer of this God only...and no blame of the Atheist.

The invention of God had to have always been a rhetorical claim made by humans, it couldn't have existed in any other way or form. Some people chose to believe the claim, while others realised the claim was never their claim, but was the absurdity of someone's else's claim, and so the inventor was to blame for all the mess and chaos that religion has caused in the world so far.