Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

We've strayed quite a long way away from my original point, which was that nothing you have put forward as evidence of God actually warrants that claim.

And I've pointed out that you don't know that.

Let me try to be more precise, then. I have seen nothing from you that matches the requirements or standards I regard as necessary for something to legitimately be called evidence. I can't comment on anything you have posted that I haven't seen, of course. When I said, "nothing you have put forward as evidence of God actually warrants that claim", I was expressing my opinion.

And yet, I've mentioned arguments that have great evidence in them, and you're not inclined to investigate. There's not much I can do about that, really.

You say you don't even know what evidences I know -- such as the "fine tuning" argument, say. I think it's also therefore likely you don't know the mathematical arguments, the logical arguments, the theological arguments, the moral argument, the argument from evil, the various ontological arguments, the teleological argument, the argument from meaning, the argument from consciousness, the case from science, the archaeological evidence...

Arguments aren't evidence, they are just arguments.

Any good argument comes complete with evidence...or a logic that is compelling, in the case of strictly logical or mathematical arguments.

What you do know, and what I think we can accept, is that Harbal does not know God. Harbal says he doesn't even know of any evidence for God. But whether such evidence exists cannot be decided based purely on what Harbal knows. Moreover, that conclusion only refers to the present moment. Presuming Harbal has not stopped learning and experiencing, he may learn something new today. How does Harbal know he won't learn some new evidence for God in the next five minutes? He certainly could...

Yes, he certainly could, but if past experience is any guide, he certainly won't.

Then his past has been most unfortunate, I must deduce.

I don't want to be reading pages and pages of stuff.

And we don't want to be repeating pages and pages of stuff that others have already written. Quite a pickle, really.

That sort of thing might be called a clue, but certainly not evidence.

Well, all human empirical knowledge -- including science -- is probabilistic, not absolute. "Evidence" is always probabilistic, not absolute. So all evidence is a clue, not a certitude.

But we expect it to cross a certain threshold before we consider it to be evidence.

Maybe you can explain what your "threshold" is. What would evidence for God be, for you?

There are also numerous concepts of what God actually is.

Yes, but that is, as I pointed out earlier, only a second question. The first question always has to be whether or not there's any God at all, not what sort of God He is. If He didn't exist, then obviously, He'd be no sort.

I don't anticipate ever getting to the second question.

I think that's probably true. You certainly have no desire to solve the first, it would seem; and without it, you'll have no logical reason ever to pose the second.

Tragic, that.

[Harbal]

And I've pointed out that you don't know that.

Let me try to be more precise, then. I have seen nothing from you that matches the requirements or standards I regard as necessary for something to legitimately be called evidence. I can't comment on anything you have posted that I haven't seen, of course. When I said, "nothing you have put forward as evidence of God actually warrants that claim", I was expressing my opinion.

And yet, I've mentioned arguments that have great evidence in them, and you're not inclined to investigate. There's not much I can do about that, really.

You don't need to do anything about it, because I'm not looking for evidence. This started by your telling someone about evidence of God, and I challenged your claim that it actually was evidence. I just think that, on a philosophy forum, we need to be rigorous about things like that.

There was actually another reason why I initiated this episode. You disappeared for a few days, and during that period I only had Alexis Jacobi to argue with, which was okay for a while, but then it seemed to run out of steam. Then when I saw you were back, it made me realise how much I'd missed you, and I wondered if you felt the same about me, so in I jumped.

I wasn't really all that bothered about evidence, I just needed something to argue about.

I don't want to be reading pages and pages of stuff.

And we don't want to be repeating pages and pages of stuff that others have already written.

And I thank you for not doing that.

But we expect it to cross a certain threshold before we consider it to be evidence.

Maybe you can explain what your "threshold" is.

Well the basic requirement would have to be that it must firmly point to only one conclusion, and not be open to any other credible explanation.

What would evidence for God be, for you?

I think that is probably something I couldn't know until I saw it.

I don't anticipate ever getting to the second question.

I think that's probably true. You certainly have no desire to solve the first, it would seem; and without it, you'll have no logical reason ever to pose the second.

Tragic, that.

It would be a bad idea for me to try to find God, I don't think our senses of humour would be compatible.

[Gary Childress]

Let me try to be more precise, then. I have seen nothing from you that matches the requirements or standards I regard as necessary for something to legitimately be called evidence. I can't comment on anything you have posted that I haven't seen, of course. When I said, "nothing you have put forward as evidence of God actually warrants that claim", I was expressing my opinion.

And yet, I've mentioned arguments that have great evidence in them, and you're not inclined to investigate. There's not much I can do about that, really.

You don't need to do anything about it, because I'm not looking for evidence. This started by your telling someone about evidence of God, and I challenged your claim that it actually was evidence. I just think that, on a philosophy forum, we need to be rigorous about things like that.

There was actually another reason why I initiated this episode. You disappeared for a few days, and during that period I only had Alexis Jacobi to argue with, which was okay for a while, but then it seemed to run out of steam. Then when I saw you were back, it made me realise how much I'd missed you, and I wondered if you felt the same about me, so in I jumped.

I wasn't really all that bothered about evidence, I just needed something to argue about.

I don't want to be reading pages and pages of stuff.

And we don't want to be repeating pages and pages of stuff that others have already written.

And I thank you for not doing that.

But we expect it to cross a certain threshold before we consider it to be evidence.

Maybe you can explain what your "threshold" is.

Well the basic requirement would have to be that it must firmly point to only one conclusion, and not be open to any other credible explanation.

What would evidence for God be, for you?

I think that is probably something I couldn't know until I saw it.

I don't anticipate ever getting to the second question.

I think that's probably true. You certainly have no desire to solve the first, it would seem; and without it, you'll have no logical reason ever to pose the second.

Tragic, that.

It would be a bad idea for me to try to find God, I don't think our senses of humour would be compatible.

IC's a good guy. As much as we differ, I think there are some core concerns that most people share with each other. Unfortunately, we've become so entrenched in where we differ that we come to odds. I'm probably responsible for going overboard with that at times.

[Immanuel Can]

...I'm not looking for evidence...

Yes, I've discerned that much. But when you're not looking for something, don't be surprised if you never find it.

There was actually another reason why I initiated this episode. You disappeared for a few days, and during that period I only had Alexis Jacobi to argue with, which was okay for a while, but then it seemed to run out of steam. Then when I saw you were back, it made me realise how much I'd missed you, and I wondered if you felt the same about me, so in I jumped.

Hey, don't go soft on me...people will talk.

But we expect it to cross a certain threshold before we consider it to be evidence.

Maybe you can explain what your "threshold" is.

Well the basic requirement would have to be that it must firmly point to only one conclusion, and not be open to any other credible explanation.

Let's be specific. Let's not even talk about me. Let's suppose that somebody wanted to provide you with evidence that would actually convince you of the existence of God: how would he go about doing that, so that you would believe him? Or is it impossible, so that no matter what he did or showed you, you'd never accept anything anyway?

It would be a bad idea for me to try to find God, I don't think our senses of humour would be compatible.

You might be surprised. The human ability to find humour in things is perhaps not something we came up with by ourselves.

[Immanuel Can]

IC's a good guy. As much as we differ, I think there are some core concerns that most people share with each other. Unfortunately, we've become so entrenched in where we differ that we come to odds. I'm probably responsible for going overboard with that at times.

We all do, Gary. To discuss things we care about, particularly in a forum like this, is difficult without some misunderstanding and personal conflicts coming up. But it's not always because somebody's being prickly, but rather because it's so difficult to read tone from a written medium like this one. There's no facial expression (except the odd emoji, which is a bit trite), no body language, no vocal pitch, no gestures, no back-and-forth rapid fire...many of the key things we use to interpret other people's intentions are not available here. So it's easy to take somebody as being mean or petty or sarcastic when they're actually not trying to be.

I think this is why sticking to the issues, rather than insulting the speaker, is helpful to us all. We don't actually know each other, or really understand each other, but we do sometimes develop fairly vivid (but fanciful) pictures in our minds of the person to whom we are speaking...and they're not always fair or flattering pictures. However, they're almost guaranteed to be wildly wrong, since none of us has really met the others.

The issues, however, are what they are. Whatever is said can be taken at face value, without implicating motives, or character, or personality, or intentions.

Don't kick yourself too much. We all slip on that from time to time, even when we make a conscious effort not to.

[Gary Childress]

IC's a good guy. As much as we differ, I think there are some core concerns that most people share with each other. Unfortunately, we've become so entrenched in where we differ that we come to odds. I'm probably responsible for going overboard with that at times.

We all do, Gary. To discuss things we care about, particularly in a forum like this, is difficult without some misunderstanding and personal conflicts coming up. But it's not always because somebody's being prickly, but rather because it's so difficult to read tone from a written medium like this one. There's no facial expression (except the odd emoji, which is a bit trite), no body language, no vocal pitch, no gestures, no back-and-forth rapid fire...many of the key things we use to interpret other people's intentions are not available here. So it's easy to take somebody as being mean or petty or sarcastic when they're actually not trying to be.

I think this is why sticking to the issues, rather than insulting the speaker, is helpful to us all. We don't actually know each other, or really understand each other, but we do sometimes develop fairly vivid (but fanciful) pictures in our minds of the person to whom we are speaking...and they're not always fair or flattering pictures. However, they're almost guaranteed to be wildly wrong, since none of us has really met the others.

The issues, however, are what they are. Whatever is said can be taken at face value, without implicating motives, or character, or personality, or intentions.

Don't kick yourself too much. We all slip on that from time to time, even when we make a conscious effort not to.

Yes. I know all that.

[Harbal]

Well the basic requirement would have to be that it must firmly point to only one conclusion, and not be open to any other credible explanation.

Let's be specific. Let's not even talk about me. Let's suppose that somebody wanted to provide you with evidence that would actually convince you of the existence of God: how would he go about doing that, so that you would believe him?

But that somebody is definitely not you, right?

The first thing he would have to do is stop wanting to convince me. The more effort someone puts into trying to persuade me of something, the more cautious I become about believing him. A double glazing salesman inadvertently taught me that lesson. And what about all the "arguments" various people have come up with? The ontological arguments, the teleological argument, etc; I think you listed about eleven of them. Then there's all the Youtube videos about God, and why we should believe in him, although I admit there are loads of Youtube videos about absolutely everything. If we put all this together, we can see that great lengths have been gone to to convince me there is a God, but it strikes me that only something very unlikely to be true would require such a massive mobilisation of resources in order to get it to be believed. Once suspicion has set in, it is not easy to overcome, and especially so when I have no reason to try to overcome it. The issue of God's existence really doesn't matter to me enough.

It would be a bad idea for me to try to find God, I don't think our senses of humour would be compatible.

You might be surprised. The human ability to find humour in things is perhaps not something we came up with by ourselves.

Perhaps not, but I came up with what I find funny myself, and I suspect God would consider it an abuse of his gift.

[Immanuel Can]

Well the basic requirement would have to be that it must firmly point to only one conclusion, and not be open to any other credible explanation.

Let's be specific. Let's not even talk about me. Let's suppose that somebody wanted to provide you with evidence that would actually convince you of the existence of God: how would he go about doing that, so that you would believe him?

But that somebody is definitely not you, right?

Right. I'm only trying to see what ANYBODY would have to do to convince you. I want to know if it's even possible. And let me accept wholesale that you find me so personally odious that I would NEVER be that person, for you.

Still, what would it take?

The first thing he would have to do is stop wanting to convince me.

So you would only listen to somebody who didn't offer you any arguments?

...it strikes me that only something very unlikely to be true would require such a massive mobilisation of resources in order to get it to be believed.

There are, perhaps, at least two possible explanations for that. One might be that what is being advocated is so implausible to people that it requires extraordinary measures to convince anybody. But then, why would at least 96% of the world's population find that same thing so credible that they already believe it (i.e. that God exists, or, in the case of 4%, that He could exist)? Something hard-to-believe should, one would expect, meet with a great deal more instinctive resistance than it actually does, for some reason. Maybe that's a reason worth knowing, yes?

But there's a second explanation: that for some reason (which we can leave vague at the moment) some set of people is very hard to convince. Maybe the argument isn't really hard to make after all, but the listeners have strong personal incentives to resist the hearing of it, for some reason. So maybe extraordinary arguments are required for extraordinarily hard-headed and hard-hearted skeptics. And this is precisely what God says is the case in Romans 1: men should know, and could know, but refuse to know...and thus become culpable of willful unbelief, a defiance in the face of the abundance of evidence that exists, and which should surely teach them otherwise.

Pick your explanation. But obviously, one is more likely to be right than the other.

[Harbal]

Let's be specific. Let's not even talk about me. Let's suppose that somebody wanted to provide you with evidence that would actually convince you of the existence of God: how would he go about doing that, so that you would believe him?

But that somebody is definitely not you, right?

Right. I'm only trying to see what ANYBODY would have to do to convince you. I want to know if it's even possible. And let me accept wholesale that you find me so personally odious that I would NEVER be that person, for you.

Shut up, I don't find you remotely odious, why do you think that?

Still, what would it take?

I don't know what it would take. I really can't envisage anything that would convince me. What would it take to convince you that there is no God?

The first thing he would have to do is stop wanting to convince me.

So you would only listen to somebody who didn't offer you any arguments?

No, I didn't mean that. I have found that the harder someone tries to influence me, the less it tends to be for my benefit, and the more it tends to be for theirs.

...it strikes me that only something very unlikely to be true would require such a massive mobilisation of resources in order to get it to be believed.

There are, perhaps, at least two possible explanations for that. One might be that what is being advocated is so implausible to people that it requires extraordinary measures to convince anybody. But then, why would at least 96% of the world's population find that same thing so credible that they already believe it (i.e. that God exists, or, in the case of 4%, that He could exist)? Something hard-to-believe should, one would expect, meet with a great deal more instinctive resistance than it actually does, for some reason. Maybe that's a reason worth knowing, yes?

I think it would be a very different story if that 96% weren't introduced to the idea of God until they had reached full adulthood.

But there's a second explanation: that for some reason (which we can leave vague at the moment) some set of people is very hard to convince. Maybe the argument isn't really hard to make after all, but the listeners have strong personal incentives to resist the hearing of it, for some reason. So maybe extraordinary arguments are required for extraordinarily hard-headed and hard-hearted skeptics.

Well I can only see this from the perspective of someone who thinks like one of your "hard-headed and hard-hearted skeptics", so I would say they are right to adopt that attitude.

Pick your explanation. But obviously, one is more likely to be right than the other.

So you are giving me the choice of being burnt or scalded. Which is more appealing?

[Immanuel Can]

Still, what would it take?

I don't know what it would take. I really can't envisage anything that would convince me.

Then your disbelief is simply incapable of rational disproof. Which would then mean, it's entirely unremarkable that you continue to disbelieve. Even if there is evidence, you can't even conceive of the terms upon which you'd ever accept it.

I have found that the harder someone tries to influence me, the less it tends to be for my benefit, and the more it tends to be for theirs.

There's an element of judicious wisdom in that. But not only that. If a man is trying to convince you to flee a burning building, he might be very adamant indeed; and according to that rule, you should disbelieve him more the more urgent for your good he becomes.

...it strikes me that only something very unlikely to be true would require such a massive mobilisation of resources in order to get it to be believed.

There are, perhaps, at least two possible explanations for that. One might be that what is being advocated is so implausible to people that it requires extraordinary measures to convince anybody. But then, why would at least 96% of the world's population find that same thing so credible that they already believe it (i.e. that God exists, or, in the case of 4%, that He could exist)? Something hard-to-believe should, one would expect, meet with a great deal more instinctive resistance than it actually does, for some reason. Maybe that's a reason worth knowing, yes?

I think it would be a very different story if that 96% weren't introduced to the idea of God until they had reached full adulthood.

Maybe. But maybe that's only because adults tend to be more self-willed and hard-hearted. It's not unsual for the vicissitudes of life to induce increasing cynicism and selfishness, is it?

But there's a second explanation: that for some reason (which we can leave vague at the moment) some set of people is very hard to convince. Maybe the argument isn't really hard to make after all, but the listeners have strong personal incentives to resist the hearing of it, for some reason. So maybe extraordinary arguments are required for extraordinarily hard-headed and hard-hearted skeptics.

Well I can only see this from the perspective of someone who thinks like one of your "hard-headed and hard-hearted skeptics", so I would say they are right to adopt that attitude.

But then, as you say, you "cannot" even "envisage" conditions under which you'd be anything else. So what would you have to say?

Pick your explanation. But obviously, one is more likely to be right than the other.

So you are giving me the choice of being burnt or scalded. Which is more appealing?

Not at all. I recognized that your explanation could be right, at least theoretically. I just don't think it is.

[Harbal]

Still, what would it take?

I don't know what it would take. I really can't envisage anything that would convince me.

Then your disbelief is simply incapable of rational disproof.

I can't tell you my response to rational proof of God until I am presented with some.

I have found that the harder someone tries to influence me, the less it tends to be for my benefit, and the more it tends to be for theirs.

There's an element of judicious wisdom in that. But not only that. If a man is trying to convince you to flee a burning building, he might be very adamant indeed; and according to that rule, you should disbelieve him more the more urgent for your good he becomes.

I would probably be too preoccupied with getting out of the building to even notice him.

I think it would be a very different story if that 96% weren't introduced to the idea of God until they had reached full adulthood.

Maybe. But maybe that's only because adults tend to be more self-willed and hard-hearted. It's not unsual for the vicissitudes of life to induce increasing cynicism and selfishness, is it?

Adults also tend to be more discerning about what they are prepared to believe, while children tend to be impressionable and malleable.

"Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man." Jesuit maxim

Well I can only see this from the perspective of someone who thinks like one of your "hard-headed and hard-hearted skeptics", so I would say they are right to adopt that attitude.

But then, as you say, you "cannot" even "envisage" conditions under which you'd be anything else. So what would you have to say?

I can't even imagine how someone would go about believing something they didn't believe, or why they would want to try.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't know what it would take. I really can't envisage anything that would convince me.

Then your disbelief is simply incapable of rational disproof.

I can't tell you my response to rational proof of God until I am presented with some.

You should, at least, be able to say what you'd accept. If you're just waiting for some nameless thing to happen which will change your mind, you're waiting for magic. You have to set a reasonable standard of evidence, or you'll never see any.

The same is true in science. No test means no way of knowing.

I have found that the harder someone tries to influence me, the less it tends to be for my benefit, and the more it tends to be for theirs.

There's an element of judicious wisdom in that. But not only that. If a man is trying to convince you to flee a burning building, he might be very adamant indeed; and according to that rule, you should disbelieve him more the more urgent for your good he becomes.

I would probably be too preoccupied with getting out of the building to even notice him.

According to your theory, you'd be inclined to assume he was lying, because he was so urgent.

I think it would be a very different story if that 96% weren't introduced to the idea of God until they had reached full adulthood.

Maybe. But maybe that's only because adults tend to be more self-willed and hard-hearted. It's not unsual for the vicissitudes of life to induce increasing cynicism and selfishness, is it?

Adults also tend to be more discerning about what they are prepared to believe, while children tend to be impressionable and malleable.

Both are true. Which explanation applies in this case, well, that's the matter of debate.

Well I can only see this from the perspective of someone who thinks like one of your "hard-headed and hard-hearted skeptics", so I would say they are right to adopt that attitude.

But then, as you say, you "cannot" even "envisage" conditions under which you'd be anything else. So what would you have to say?

I can't even imagine how someone would go about believing something they didn't believe, or why they would want to try.

Because it's what's called "learning something new." And it's a very good thing.

[Harbal]

Then your disbelief is simply incapable of rational disproof.

I can't tell you my response to rational proof of God until I am presented with some.

You should, at least, be able to say what you'd accept.

If I agreed that I should be able to do that, I would probably say I would accept anything that was too compelling to deny, but I don't agree that I should.

If you're just waiting for some nameless thing to happen which will change your mind, you're waiting for magic.

I would certainly be waiting for evidence of magic, but I'm not actually waiting for anything.

You have to set a reasonable standard of evidence, or you'll never see any.

The evidence appears to need me more than I need the evidence, so why should I compromise?

I would probably be too preoccupied with getting out of the building to even notice him.

According to your theory, you'd be inclined to assume he was lying, because he was so urgent.

Okay, I'll go along with this. What evidence is he presenting to me?

Maybe. But maybe that's only because adults tend to be more self-willed and hard-hearted. It's not unsual for the vicissitudes of life to induce increasing cynicism and selfishness, is it?

Adults also tend to be more discerning about what they are prepared to believe, while children tend to be impressionable and malleable.

Both are true. Which explanation applies in this case, well, that's the matter of debate.

I can only give you my opinion, which is; I don't think many adults would believe in God had they never heard of God before reaching adulthood.

I can't even imagine how someone would go about believing something they didn't believe, or why they would want to try.

Because it's what's called "learning something new." And it's a very good thing.

If you think it's such a good thing, why don't you set an example by learning that God doesn't exist, after all?

[Immanuel Can]

I can't tell you my response to rational proof of God until I am presented with some.

You should, at least, be able to say what you'd accept.

If I agreed that I should be able to do that, I would probably say I would accept anything that was too compelling to deny, but I don't agree that I should.

You don't have to. But you'll never see any evidence if you don't even have a scenario in mind in which that mind can be changed.

You have to set a reasonable standard of evidence, or you'll never see any.

The evidence appears to need me more than I need the evidence, so why should I compromise?

It's not compromise, of course. It's being open to rational persuasion. That's all.

I would probably be too preoccupied with getting out of the building to even notice him.

According to your theory, you'd be inclined to assume he was lying, because he was so urgent.

Okay, I'll go along with this. What evidence is he presenting to me?

In the case of a fire, what evidence would you be willing to accept from him?

I can't even imagine how someone would go about believing something they didn't believe, or why they would want to try.

Because it's what's called "learning something new." And it's a very good thing.

If you think it's such a good thing, why don't you set an example by learning that God doesn't exist, after all?

Well, when one has gone from not knowing God to knowing Him, one would be insane to go the other direction.

You're against learning?

[popeye1945]

morality is made objective by the conscious subjective subject, it is not out there like fallen apples beneath a tree.