Philosophy Now Forum

Comparing God to gravity is false equivalence as there is evidence for gravity and so its existence is not at all in question
Also the fact you have to use the conditional qualifier if means any evidence that you have for God is insufficient anyway
Whether atheists accept the evidence or not is irrelevant because the only thing that matters is how reliable it actually is
This is true for all knowledge claims so if you have any present it and stop complaining about its potential non acceptance
It is not conditional on how popular it is but if the evidence is sufficient that is all that matters regardless of anything else

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 8:13 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 6:10 pm You have absolutely nothing but your unjustified and therefore irrational belief in a god for whose existence and nature there is no serious evidence.

You clearly won't accept anything at all as evidence.

What evidence?

I've offered to try to meet the challenge you set, if it's a sensible one, one I can be expected to meet. But nothing's what you will consider evidence.

It's all very well crying in your communion wine. But you've not given ANY substantive evidence for god.

In a court, there are rules for what will and won't count as evidence...like, "no hearsay," or "two witnesses required for a murder conviction," or "spouses cannot be compelled to testify," or "mental incapacity will exclude witnesses and will mitigate culpability," or "a dying declaration is taken with extra seriousness..." and so on. But in the court of Peter, there are no rules for evidence. Nothing ever counts as evidence, apparently.

In the court of Immanuel Cant there is no evidence at all.

That is, unless you've changed your mind, and now have a standard of evidence you would consider reasonable...

But if not, you're in no position to judge whether or not evidence is available. All you are enabled to say is that nothing you ever see will be, for you, evidence.

What is your evidence? A tear on the eye of a child? What about rainbows and ponies?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 9:34 pm As a working principle, evidence for a natural occurrence has to be natural. And the more unusual the claim, the stronger the evidence needs to be. But I expect you agree with those criteria.

Well, what do you mean by "natural"?

You can't mean something that's, say, automatic, as in the phrase "the natural result," or something that you can account for from the natural processes you know already, like planetary motion, can you?

So help me understand what you mean by "natural."

Natural is any observable and demonstrable phenomenon that can be experienced by the physical senses
Now can you apply this definition to your metaphysical God so that we can examine the evidence for him

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 12:30 am Natural is any observable and demonstrable phenomenon that can be experienced by the physical senses
Now can you apply this definition to your metaphysical God so that we can examine the evidence for him

Done.

https://www.wiley.com/en-ca/The+Blackwe ... 1405176576

I've read it, cover to cover. If anyone else has a serious intention of knowing what the best current "natural"-type arguments for the existence of God are, here they are, and they can grapple with them too. The book is academic, documented, and precisely argued, in an edited, peer-reviewed source, published by one of the top philosophy publishers in the world, Blackwell.

I doubt you'll find a better source anywhere. If you do, let me know...I'll want to read it too.

You need to provide a summary of the arguments rather than just post a lazy link to a book I have not read
You have read the book so should have no problem doing this for it is your words I want not some one elses

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 4:05 am

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 12:30 am Natural is any observable and demonstrable phenomenon that can be experienced by the physical senses
Now can you apply this definition to your metaphysical God so that we can examine the evidence for him

Done.

https://www.wiley.com/en-ca/The+Blackwe ... 1405176576

I've read it, cover to cover. If anyone else has a serious intention of knowing what the best current "natural"-type arguments for the existence of God are, here they are, and they can grapple with them too. The book is academic, documented, and precisely argued, in an edited, peer-reviewed source, published by one of the top philosophy publishers in the world, Blackwell.

I doubt you'll find a better source anywhere. If you do, let me know...I'll want to read it too.

I'm happy to go with surreptitious57's definition of 'natural' for now. And I endorse the request for your take, rather than a link to a book.

To save time: what do you think is the strongest natural evidence for the existence of a god?

(And to repeat, this has nothing to do with the the objectivity or subjectivity of morality.)

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 12:55 pm Veritas Aequitas

Claim: we are the co-creators of the reality we observe. So it wouldn't partly be what it is, if we weren't here to observe it. Which part? And anyway, prove it.

Do you agree you and all humans as subjects [past and present] are intricately part and parcel of reality?
or you deny the above?

Since you [subjects] are intricately part and parcel of reality [all there is] whatever is created of reality, you are the co-creator of that reality, albeit of the minutest role.

Whatever of reality, fundamentally we cannot make the subjects independent of reality.
Thus whatever is objective cannot be independent of the subjects via intersubjective consensus or otherwise.

Note Chaos Theory whereby;
"a flap of a butterfly wing caused a hurricane in Florida"
thus that butterfly is the co-creator of that hurricane in Florida.

This is why I stated your thinking is too narrow and shallow.

Btw, in this case 'creator' do not meant creating with conscious deliberation as in a creator God.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 2:05 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 7:24 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 02, 2020 2:45 pm
Okay, but you haven't said what "evidence" you would take into consideration and what line of "reasoning" would lead to the right conclusion. So the claim that "evidence" and "philosophical reasoning" to produce morality are out there somewhere, but that you don't know what, and where they are, is not a helpful strategy...either to us, or to your argument.

You need to give us something to work with there.

I have done that in this thread and various threads.
I am NOT going tru them again at present.

Yes, you have tried to offer something, it's true. I can't deny that you've said stuff.

But it has all been shown. by many different interlocutors and by many lines of argument, to be totally inadequate, and you continue to cling to it. So I don't know what more can be said about that. There's no way to make a person believe what she's devoted not to believe even if the clearest arguments and the best reasons are adduced in hopes to change her mind.

I maintain a reasonable degree of intellectual integrity.
If the counter arguments are convincing, I would have accepted them.

Note Peter and Sculptor had countered my argument, but at this point Peter's view are too shallow and narrow, while Sculptor has lost his ways re Hume's is-ought.
Your counter from the theistic perspective can be brushed off as pseudo morality.

Btw, I have reinforced my stance with a detailed looked at Hume's Treatise and Enquiry related to morality. Note the thread I opened on Hume's is-ought which is opened to dig deep into Hume's thoughts.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29252
I invite you to read Hume's Treatise and Enquiry if you have not read them or to reread if you have done before, then to counter my views with references directly from Hume's work.

Here is a comment from SEP re Hume's latest view on theistic morality;

SEP wrote:In the moral Enquiry Hume is more explicit about what he takes to be the errors of Christian (or, more cautiously, Roman Catholic) moralists.

Not only have they [Christian Moralists] elevated craven humility to the status of a virtue, which he hints in the Treatise is a mistake, but they also favor penance, fasting, and other “monkish virtues” that are in fact disapproved by all reasonable folk for their uselessness and disagreeableness, and so are in fact vices. [Treatise X Pt.I]

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 6:45 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 4:05 am

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 12:30 am Natural is any observable and demonstrable phenomenon that can be experienced by the physical senses
Now can you apply this definition to your metaphysical God so that we can examine the evidence for him

Done.

https://www.wiley.com/en-ca/The+Blackwe ... 1405176576

I've read it, cover to cover. If anyone else has a serious intention of knowing what the best current "natural"-type arguments for the existence of God are, here they are, and they can grapple with them too. The book is academic, documented, and precisely argued, in an edited, peer-reviewed source, published by one of the top philosophy publishers in the world, Blackwell.

I doubt you'll find a better source anywhere. If you do, let me know...I'll want to read it too.

I'm happy to go with surreptitious57's definition of 'natural' for now. And I endorse the request for your take, rather than a link to a book.

To save time: what do you think is the strongest natural evidence for the existence of a god?

(And to repeat, this has nothing to do with the the objectivity or subjectivity of morality.)

IF IC's strongest argument is the Moral Argument, then that would be relevant to this OP.

IC had thrown that book at me previously, I had a look, there is nothing special with all arguments therein from the ones that are commonly floating around the internet. All these arguments had be squashed by non-theists.

Note my novel argument against the existence of God as real.
God is an Impossibility to be Real - empirically and philosophically
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

The question of the reality of God is a non-starter except for personal and psychological reasons.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 7:46 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 6:45 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 4:05 am

Done.

https://www.wiley.com/en-ca/The+Blackwe ... 1405176576

I've read it, cover to cover. If anyone else has a serious intention of knowing what the best current "natural"-type arguments for the existence of God are, here they are, and they can grapple with them too. The book is academic, documented, and precisely argued, in an edited, peer-reviewed source, published by one of the top philosophy publishers in the world, Blackwell.

I doubt you'll find a better source anywhere. If you do, let me know...I'll want to read it too.

I'm happy to go with surreptitious57's definition of 'natural' for now. And I endorse the request for your take, rather than a link to a book.

To save time: what do you think is the strongest natural evidence for the existence of a god?

(And to repeat, this has nothing to do with the the objectivity or subjectivity of morality.)

IF IC's strongest argument is the Moral Argument, then that would be relevant to this OP.

Not so. The argument from objective morality to the existence of a god - the Moral Argument - can't use the existence of a god to establish moral objectivity.

The OP asks 'What could make morality objective?' And neither IC's answer - it's a god wot does it - nor yours - subjectively chosen moral goals can be objective - does the job. You're both wrong for different reasons. But you both misconstrue the function of moral assertions, which means they must be subjective.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 10:18 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 9:40 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 9:10 am

So, let's be crystal clear about this.

The only reason you have to claim that morality is objective - that there are moral facts - is that your invented god is their source.

So those of us who don't believe any gods or other supernatural things exist - let alone things whose nature and desires we know anything about - can rationally dismiss your claim. It's all, and has always been, sound and fury signifying nothing.

The bleak moral wilderness you fear if your invented god is absent - that's your peculiar psychological projection and problem - and I recommend 'Recovering from Religion', among other excellent secular organisations dedicated to helping those escaping or recently escaped from the asylum and coping with post-abuse trauma.

I wonder if that book would persuade me this world is not a bleak moral wilderness. No, I will hold on to the bleak moral wilderness view. I wish more people were pessimists, much safer for all of us.

(Recovering from Religion is an organisation, not a book - sorry I used quote marks.)

I'm not sure either pessimism or optimism is appropriate or useful. But, if we and our planet have a better future, it's in recognising that it's in our collective hands - and not outsourcing our moral judgements to some Great Leader, divine or secular - and not claiming there are moral facts which any of us happens to know about, and damn the rest of yous. In my opinion, of course.

Yes.

Apart from removing the powers of autocrats how are we to implement this better future? There are lots of people who would agree with you Peter The way to go is political.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 8:29 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 7:46 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 6:45 am
I'm happy to go with surreptitious57's definition of 'natural' for now. And I endorse the request for your take, rather than a link to a book.

To save time: what do you think is the strongest natural evidence for the existence of a god?

(And to repeat, this has nothing to do with the the objectivity or subjectivity of morality.)

IF IC's strongest argument is the Moral Argument, then that would be relevant to this OP.

Not so. The argument from objective morality to the existence of a god - the Moral Argument - can't use the existence of a god to establish moral objectivity.

The OP asks 'What could make morality objective?' And neither IC's answer - it's a god wot does it - nor yours - subjectively chosen moral goals can be objective - does the job. You're both wrong for different reasons. But you both misconstrue the function of moral assertions, which means they must be subjective.

I have argued you are misled by common and the HERD's wrong interpretation of Hume's theory related to the is-ought issue.

Note the points I raised here;
Various Readings of Hume's "Is-Ought" Principle.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29252

My argument is we can approach Morality like what we do with Science which generate relative objective scientific truths and facts on a reality which is "co-created"* inevitably by humans collectively.

To be more precise "Co-created" is emergence of reality as it is where such an emergence imperatively must be intertwined with the human conditions.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 9:34 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 8:29 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 7:46 am
IF IC's strongest argument is the Moral Argument, then that would be relevant to this OP.

Not so. The argument from objective morality to the existence of a god - the Moral Argument - can't use the existence of a god to establish moral objectivity.

The OP asks 'What could make morality objective?' And neither IC's answer - it's a god wot does it - nor yours - subjectively chosen moral goals can be objective - does the job. You're both wrong for different reasons. But you both misconstrue the function of moral assertions, which means they must be subjective.

I have argued you are misled by common and the HERD's wrong interpretation of Hume's theory related to the is-ought issue.

Note the points I raised here;
Various Readings of Hume's "Is-Ought" Principle.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29252

My argument is we can approach Morality like what we do with Science which generate relative objective scientific truths and facts on a reality which is "co-created"* inevitably by humans collectively.

To be more precise "Co-created" is emergence of reality as it is where such an emergence imperatively must be intertwined with the human conditions.

Yes, and I've shown why the claim that when we describe something we create or co-create it is patent non-sense. And I've shown that moral assertions don't describe things in the way that factual assertions do. Now you can tell me what you've argued. And then I can tell you what I've argued. And then you can tell me what you've argued. And on and on and on and on and on and on...

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 9:52 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 9:34 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 8:29 am
Not so. The argument from objective morality to the existence of a god - the Moral Argument - can't use the existence of a god to establish moral objectivity.

The OP asks 'What could make morality objective?' And neither IC's answer - it's a god wot does it - nor yours - subjectively chosen moral goals can be objective - does the job. You're both wrong for different reasons. But you both misconstrue the function of moral assertions, which means they must be subjective.

I have argued you are misled by common and the HERD's wrong interpretation of Hume's theory related to the is-ought issue.

Note the points I raised here;
Various Readings of Hume's "Is-Ought" Principle.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29252

My argument is we can approach Morality like what we do with Science which generate relative objective scientific truths and facts on a reality which is "co-created"* inevitably by humans collectively.

To be more precise "Co-created" is emergence of reality as it is where such an emergence imperatively must be intertwined with the human conditions.

Yes, and I've shown why the claim that when we describe something we create or co-create it is patent non-sense.

You can tell me you have argued your points?
Where??

You have not address my argument here.
viewtopic.php?p=453754#p453754
where I justify why we humans are inevitably co-creators of the reality we talked about or even perceived as independent from a shallow perspective.

And I've shown that moral assertions don't describe things in the way that factual assertions do. Now you can tell me what you've argued. And then I can tell you what I've argued. And then you can tell me what you've argued. And on and on and on and on and on and on...

You did not address to this point of mine from above;

• Note the points I raised here;
  Various Readings of Hume's "Is-Ought" Principle.
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29252
  
  My argument is we can approach Morality like what we do with Science which generate relative objective scientific truths and facts on a reality which is "co-created"* inevitably by humans collectively.

Note I can understand all your points and perspectives, but they are limited, narrow and shallow.