Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

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

Well, Will, I don't have any reason to think that they are your kind of Atheist.

My kind of atheist is anyone who is not a theist.

Well, you're not a sort of aggressive, arbitrary, dogmatic, angry and arrogant Atheist, like Dawkins or Harris...at least you seem much more reasonable than they.

I can't speak for others, but the conclusion of my studies is that there may or may not be a god.

That would position you as an agnostic, rather than as an Atheist; and I'm a little puzzled as to why anybody would prefer the term "Atheist" to "agnostic," since the latter is so much more accurate. However, on we go...

What is quite clear though, is that every text which claims to be the inspired word of a god, is very clearly the work of people, and in all cases I am aware of, people who had no idea how the world actually works.

Well, Will, nobody denies that the Bible was written by men; the question on which they disagree is whether or not it was ONLY written by men, and not by men under the direction of God. Nobody denies, for example, the literary features or the human concerns of the Book; the question, though, is whether the substance of the message it presents is divinely inspired.

...the dichotomy of "Does God prefer some moral imperative because it's good, or because He's God," proposes a dichotomy between "God" and "good" that would have to be justified by the proposer.

I'm not proposing such a dichotomy. Nor am I suggesting that it is

...impossible for "good" and "what God prefers" to be the same thing.

Oh. Well, fair enough, then.

I was under the impression you were perhaps referring to the old "Euthypho Dilemma." But if you were not proposing a dichotomy between "God" and "good," then I suppose you weren't. My apologies for missing the point.

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

"Tortured"? I wouldn't say that. Not all unpleasantness or even suffering is "torture."

In that case:

Well, according to your objective morality, the vast majority of human beings will spend eternity being subjected to "unpleasantness or even suffering", but that is the price of freedom.

It is still hard to imagine a subjective morality that could be worse. No godless morality could countenance eternal "unpleasantness or even suffering", and if that is what your God 'prefers', I would suggest the onus is on you to explain how that is good.

Well, goodness has two components, at the least. If one of them goes missing, so does the other one. I mean that goodness requires both mercy and justice.

Mercy is good, because all of us are failures, morally speaking. To use the Biblical wording, "All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God." A perfectly fair and righteous Judge, therefore, would give us exactly what we deserve -- eternal separation from Him, at the very least; and He being the Source of all goodness, light, life and health, would then be also severing us from all of the same. Call that "torture," if you will; but "torture" is a kind of gleeful punishment, a kind of sadism, and there's none of that in God. However, for us, the effect would be quite unpleasant, to say the least; and even if we had asked for it ourselves, and had insisted upon it, separation from God is one awful penalty to pay.

So then, the next obvious complaint is that God is being TOO just, TOO fair. He's applying a harsh and unrelenting standard to creatures it will only destroy, creatures not capable of rescuing themselves from their dilemma or stopping themselves from earning the strict result of justice. Even if separation from God is what we ask for and deserve, it's a hard outcome. So mercy is also a feature of goodness without which goodness cannot exist. But how can God be merciful to evil-seeking and undeserving creatures, without undermining that first principle, absolute justice?

The answer comes this way: God Himself takes our penalty, and offers us forgiveness...mercy...and a way of escape from what perfect justice requires. The penalty gets paid, but not by us; yet not in an arbitrary or imposed way, and not in an indiscriminate kind of mercy that forces compliance and deprives its object of volition and identity, nor in any corrupt way that undermines justice. The penalty is paid, and we are freed; but the penalty is executed, as well. So both mercy and justice are upheld, in a perfectly good way.

That's the Biblical message: God is just, and God is merciful. The way is open for man to come into right relationship with Him. All that remains is for man to choose it.

[Will Bouwman]

Tell me Skepdick; how is a second measured?

By measuring the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the cesium-133 atom. Which is precisely 9192631770 Hz.

e.g 9192631770 cycles per second. Thus making the definition of "second" circular.

Can't you fucking read?

Clearly I can read better than you can understand.

[Skepdick]

Tell me Skepdick; how is a second measured?

By measuring the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the cesium-133 atom. Which is precisely 9192631770 Hz.

e.g 9192631770 cycles per second. Thus making the definition of "second" circular.

Can't you fucking read?

Clearly I can read better than you can understand.

Clearly you are lying about that too.

1 Hz = 1 event / second.

So defining the second in terms of 9192631770 events / second is....? Circular!

[Will Bouwman]

Tell me Skepdick; how is a second measured?

By measuring the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the cesium-133 atom.

I rest my case!

[bahman]

You mean, "the Big Bang," right? You're saying it was what you call "the Singularity," and it had no cause?

Yes.

Well, a couple of things about that: one is that I know of no scientist who thinks the BB was devoid of being caused.

I say that. There are two options, (1) The singularity existed at the beginning, and (2) Singularity was caused at the beginning. We are working on (1) right now. We are left with (2) if we could exclude (1).

They tend to say that there were various gasses floating in space (thus implying the pre-existence of both gasses and space) and "something" caused them to explode (though they are never able to say just what that might be). So that's a theory that is pretty much unique to you.

No, the Big Bang is not like that. There is the point of the Big Bang where things started from. There is no point prior to the Big Bang.

But secondly, is the First Cause you are suggesting (the BB) really adequate to explain the effects (the universe, order, consciousness) you are ascribing to that Cause? Can random explosions produce such things? Do you have a single case of them having done so?

If "yes," then maybe you have a basis for that sort of theory. If "no," then the theory seems again rather gratuitous, as explosions, so far as we experience any of them, produce chaos, destruction, disorder and death, rather than organization, order, life and sentient beings.

There are two arguments here: (1) The Big Bang was such that it led to order instead of disorder. Of course, there was no sort of life if the Big Bang led to disorder rather than order. There is however a life, so the Big Bang led to order. That is one possibility we cannot exclude. (2) The universe is vast so there are disordered areas whereas there are ordered areas. We are living in an ordered area, the place where life can take place.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So if neither you as a Christian, nor I as an atheist, can do anything about what you call evil, what point were you trying to make?

Human beings have never been able to do anything about evil, other than make more of it. Hence, the need for divine intervention.

It is hard for me, given my own background and perhaps I could say my social and cultural conditioning, to be clear as to how to deal with an assertion like this. ↑

First, I say that I reject it. To say, to believe, to act as if, a man needs 'divine intervention' to be a proper man, to act responsibly, to take stock of himself, to order his life, to apply order to what he builds and how he creates livelihood (in the widest sense), is in my view a symptom of a sick worldview.

But I must make it plain: this is a Semitic and therefore an inherited Christian view. Man as an *evil child* who requires an external agent to rein him in. It implies all sorts of potential ramifications but the essence is that *the child refuses to grow up and be a man*. A man admits that he is uncontrollable; that his destiny is to be evil and to commit evil. He therefore demands that *god* intervene.

But this is a sick and distorted relationship with deity. Rather that if man conceives of a deity, or believes he is in a world created by that divinity, it is his duty to live up to the expectation that man himself establishes with the deity (i.e. immortal being) and in that sense rise to meet god, the god-concept, that the man emulates. It is the duty of that man to choose to live morally and despite obstacles and the tendency to deviate from moral commitments, but one that the man must apply himself. He must voluntarily accept the burden that he imposes on himself. Then he is truly moral.

There is no *evil* in this world, there is simply the world and the way it works. But if one believes that divinity created this world, then evil is part-and-parcel of that reality (in the sense of pain, mutability, impermanence, and death). I do recognize *evil* in man's choices certainly. Yet that evil tendency is only found in man. But that evil will be committed no matter how god is conceived.

Nevertheless the renunciation of that evil, certainly for the individual, is a choice that the ideal, circumspect, responsible man must make for himself. No one else -- and no god -- can or will do that for him.

I do not see this difference in attitude -- to life, to existence, to the way things are -- as being a minor issue. For this reason I reject the notion that Jesus Christ made some type of metaphysical sacrifice that saves man from himself, or saves man from destiny. This is actually what it hinges on: how destiny here is conceived. If one believes that everything that happens to one is through Providence (destiny determined by god), then one believes in an absurdly immoral, tyrannical deity-type. But when reality is seen correctly (in my view of course) the strange, unfortunate and random things that happen can only be taken by man as *destiny* in the sense of cruel destiny, or unforgiving destiny. Not to be taken personally.

What should a man do in the face of that? Break down and whimper? Cry out to god complainingly "Why did you make a world like this where I suffer so?!?"

The heart's wave would not have foamed upwards so beautifully and become spirit, if the old silent rock, destiny, had not faced it. -- Hölderlin

No. One can only face things as they are -- face destiny. So then, one can only face oneself for exactly what one is within a world ruled by a destiny that is hard, perhaps impossible, to understand. But the idea that because of some wrong turn that an act of sin brought the entire created world down into the mire of disorder -- this is what the idea behind The Fall actually suggests -- that entire idea must be rejected. First because it was someone else's 'evil act' (Adam & Eve) and not my own choice that brought it about. Even there responsibility is not assumed.

The problem with the Christian-Semitic deity is that it is based on a false or perhaps misconstrued metaphysics. It would be one thing if Jesus Christ were to have said "See the world as it is. And set your will to act differently and to create very different things!" and "Be a full man".

Such a man would take responsibility for himself in a weird, unpredictable, mutable world.

I can't say that the Christian idea of *taking up one's cross* (in the face of an intractable world or a world that goes in the wrong direction) is not somewhat compatible with the attitude I propose though.

For this reason (this is my view) I must re-envision metaphysics. It is like I have to rewrite the script.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I rest my case!

And so I will rest mine!

[Skepdick]

Tell me Skepdick; how is a second measured?

By measuring the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the cesium-133 atom.

I rest my case!

You have no case. The hertz is defined in terms of the second and the second is defined in terms of the hertz.

The hertz (symbol: Hz) is the unit of frequency in the International System of Units (SI), equivalent to one event (or cycle) per second.

You don't even understand the difference between definition and derivation. The second is defined (circularly). It's not (empirically) derived.

This particular version is a consequence of The Big Redefinition (of 2019).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_rede ... its#Second

second-definition.png

[Will Bouwman]

The second is defined (circularly). It's not (empirically) derived.

Duh! How did the spuds find out how many shakes of caesium there are in a second?

[Skepdick]

Duh! How did the spuds find out how many shakes of caesium there are in a second?

According to you - they counted the number of oscillations per second.

And it turned out to be 9192631770.

[Will Bouwman]

Duh! How did the spuds find out how many shakes of caesium there are in a second?

According to you - they counted the number of oscillations per second.

And it turned out to be 9192631770.

Yup. What's your version?

[Will Bouwman]

I can't speak for others, but the conclusion of my studies is that there may or may not be a god.

That would position you as an agnostic, rather than as an Atheist; and I'm a little puzzled as to why anybody would prefer the term "Atheist" to "agnostic," since the latter is so much more accurate.

It's not because I am not a theist. Nor am I an atheist for lack of interest, and I'm certainly not an ideologically motivated Atheist that you describe.

Nobody denies, for example, the literary features or the human concerns of the Book; the question, though, is whether the substance of the message it presents is divinely inspired.

As I understand, your claim is that only the authors of some or all of the Bible, a few people confined to a small area and brief time, were divinely inspired. Further, you believe that your God wants his message to be shared, and that inspiring the people he did is the best way to achieve that aim.

That's the Biblical message: God is just, and God is merciful. The way is open for man to come into right relationship with Him. All that remains is for man to choose it.

What of people who haven't or couldn't read the inspired words?

[Immanuel Can]

Yes.

Well, a couple of things about that: one is that I know of no scientist who thinks the BB was devoid of being caused.

I say that.

And you are a scientist?

They tend to say that there were various gasses floating in space (thus implying the pre-existence of both gasses and space) and "something" caused them to explode (though they are never able to say just what that might be). So that's a theory that is pretty much unique to you.

There is no point prior to the Big Bang.

Like I say: most scientists seem to think that's not plausible. They seem to think they can even name some of the elements and substances that were in play and resulted in the BB. Are you suggesting they don't know about hydrogen, or quark-gluon plasma, or the other things they believe contributed to the BB? Are they making it up when they say they think those things produced the BB?

But secondly, is the First Cause you are suggesting (the BB) really adequate to explain the effects (the universe, order, consciousness) you are ascribing to that Cause? Can random explosions produce such things? Do you have a single case of them having done so?

If "yes," then maybe you have a basis for that sort of theory. If "no," then the theory seems again rather gratuitous, as explosions, so far as we experience any of them, produce chaos, destruction, disorder and death, rather than organization, order, life and sentient beings.

There are two arguments here: (1) The Big Bang was such that it led to order instead of disorder. Of course, there was no sort of life if the Big Bang led to disorder rather than order. There is however a life, so the Big Bang led to order.[/quote]
Whoops. That's a logical fallacy. What you're doing is called, "begging the question," there.

We can't argue that because there is order, therefore the BB caused it. The other postulate that is still very much alive is that there is order because God created order. So even if we don't know which is true, yet, we can't get a closed conclusion that the BB created order out of the mere observation that there IS order.

But we do know there is order. And we know, from every experience we ourselves have, that explosions do not create order but disorder. So we need some explanation of how the BB, contrary to every other case of random explosions, could create order.

That is one possibility we cannot exclude. (2) The universe is vast so there are disordered areas whereas there are ordered areas. We are living in an ordered area, the place where life can take place.

Actually, we CAN exclude that explanation, for a couple of reasons. One is that there didn't HAVE to be ordered areas in the universe at all. It's a massive surprise, statistically, that there are any anywhere. Disorder can mean and infinite number of types of disorder.

And this takes us to the second problem: namely, that positing a very big universe with many things happening in it only means that there is an infinite number of other possibilities. So the chances are infinite against there being any order anywhere.

You see, you're supposing that order HAD to happen. And that takes for granted that there is a limited number of alternatives. But such is obviously not the case in an infinite situation.

So we're back to the basic problem: why is there any order at all, when, in fact, we should expect no order -- far less the extreme level of order and complexity to produce a universe, and one containing life, and one containing intelligent life, and one containing life capable of observing it and asking the question we're asking. The odds against your theory being right would be...what's the word? "Astronomical."

[Immanuel Can]

I can't speak for others, but the conclusion of my studies is that there may or may not be a god.

That would position you as an agnostic, rather than as an Atheist; and I'm a little puzzled as to why anybody would prefer the term "Atheist" to "agnostic," since the latter is so much more accurate.

It's not because I am not a theist. Nor am I an atheist for lack of interest, and I'm certainly not an ideologically motivated Atheist that you describe.

Right. I wasn't suspecting you were, Will. I just think "agnostic" much more accurately and fairly describes the position you've claimed.

Nobody denies, for example, the literary features or the human concerns of the Book; the question, though, is whether the substance of the message it presents is divinely inspired.

As I understand, your claim is that only the authors of some or all of the Bible, a few people confined to a small area and brief time, were divinely inspired. Further, you believe that your God wants his message to be shared, and that inspiring the people he did is the best way to achieve that aim.

Not quite the way I would put it, perhaps, but not dead wrong. The timespan is actually quite huge. And the message is literally global. And there is one better way for God to share His message, and that is, personally...which the Bible claims He has also done.

That's the Biblical message: God is just, and God is merciful. The way is open for man to come into right relationship with Him. All that remains is for man to choose it.

What of people who haven't or couldn't read the inspired words?

Mankind is responsible for what they know...not what they could not possibly know.

There is a general knowledge of God that is available from creation itself, one that all men have (Romans 1 speaks of this.) There is knowledge of God through His Word. There is knowledge of God available through people sent to share it -- which, today, includes pretty much the entire world. And what other dealings God has with particular people, through their spiritual awareness, we cannot say, since apparently, it often entails personal experience, or even visions or dreams, in some cases.

What we can know is what you and I know...what you and I have access to know. And we are very privileged people, in that regard; for we, in the West, have absolute open access to the whole counsel of God. You have it on your computer right now, as a matter of fact. You and I are not some remote tribesman on a jungle island in the Pacific. We don't know the name or identity of any such, and don't know what God has done and will do with the opportunities available to such, though God promises to be fair. So what we can know is that whoever such a person is, he has enough revelation from God to be morally accountable to his Creator...and that you and I are much more accountable, since we know much more.

[bahman]

Well, a couple of things about that: one is that I know of no scientist who thinks the BB was devoid of being caused.

I say that.

And you are a scientist?

Yes, I am a scientist and a philosopher.

They tend to say that there were various gasses floating in space (thus implying the pre-existence of both gasses and space) and "something" caused them to explode (though they are never able to say just what that might be). So that's a theory that is pretty much unique to you.

There is no point prior to the Big Bang.

Like I say: most scientists seem to think that's not plausible. They seem to think they can even name some of the elements and substances that were in play and resulted in the BB. Are you suggesting they don't know about hydrogen, or quark-gluon plasma, or the other things they believe contributed to the BB? Are they making it up when they say they think those things produced the BB?

The hydrogen, quark-gluon plasma, and other things appeared after the Big Bang when the things were cooled down enough.

But secondly, is the First Cause you are suggesting (the BB) really adequate to explain the effects (the universe, order, consciousness) you are ascribing to that Cause? Can random explosions produce such things? Do you have a single case of them having done so?

If "yes," then maybe you have a basis for that sort of theory. If "no," then the theory seems again rather gratuitous, as explosions, so far as we experience any of them, produce chaos, destruction, disorder and death, rather than organization, order, life and sentient beings.

There are two arguments here: (1) The Big Bang was such that it led to order instead of disorder. Of course, there was no sort of life if the Big Bang led to disorder rather than order. There is however a life, so the Big Bang led to order.

Whoops. That's a logical fallacy. What you're doing is called, "begging the question," there.

I should said two scenarios instead of two arguments.

We can't argue that because there is order, therefore the BB caused it. The other postulate that is still very much alive is that there is order because God created order. So even if we don't know which is true, yet, we can't get a closed conclusion that the BB created order out of the mere observation that there IS order.

But we do know there is order. And we know, from every experience we ourselves have, that explosions do not create order but disorder. So we need some explanation of how the BB, contrary to every other case of random explosions, could create order.

Well, I am claiming that the Big Bang can lead to order or disorder. The universe is ordered therefore the second scenario is out of the table. Moreover, if we believe that God caused the Big Bang, then it follows that such a state which leads to an ordered universe is possible. Therefore, there could be a Big Bang without God's intervention that could lead to an ordered universe as well.

That is one possibility we cannot exclude. (2) The universe is vast so there are disordered areas whereas there are ordered areas. We are living in an ordered area, the place where life can take place.

Actually, we CAN exclude that explanation, for a couple of reasons. One is that there didn't HAVE to be ordered areas in the universe at all. It's a massive surprise, statistically, that there are any anywhere. Disorder can mean and infinite number of types of disorder.

We could have an infinite number of types of orders as well.

And this takes us to the second problem: namely, that positing a very big universe with many things happening in it only means that there is an infinite number of other possibilities. So the chances are infinite against there being any order anywhere.

That does not follow considering my last comment.

You see, you're supposing that order HAD to happen. And that takes for granted that there is a limited number of alternatives. But such is obviously not the case in an infinite situation.

So, the order is possible. Considering my last comments. Moreover, the universe is infinite, therefore it is possible to have a small area that is ordered even if I buy your assumption that types of disorder are infinite and the types of order are finite.

So we're back to the basic problem: why is there any order at all, when, in fact, we should expect no order -- far less the extreme level of order and complexity to produce a universe, and one containing life, and one containing intelligent life, and one containing life capable of observing it and asking the question we're asking. The odds against your theory being right would be...what's the word? "Astronomical."

It is too early to conclude that God made it.