Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

Subjective experiences and their meanings to the biological subject constitute all meanings including systems of morality.

Let's see if this is correct.

Let's take the axiom, "Slavery is wrong." We probably all agree with that, right? But if not, let's still use it as our example, since it doesn't change anything either way whether we happen to favour it or not: we're discussing the meaning of the sentence, not its moral value, at the moment. (After all, you say "morality" is "constituted" by "subjective experiences," right?)

Your claim, then, is that this is merely a subjective claim, with no meaning outside of the "biological subject" who utters it.

But in that case, what can it mean? What predication can we be making when we say "Slavery is wrong"?

Can it merely mean that I, as the "biological subject," don't happen to choose slavery? But then, what about that other "biological subject" who equally happens to choose to enslave somebody: have I made any statement about him? And what about my society: am I making any statement about what my society ought to do, or am I accepting that a smart society would realize that the only meaning of morality is "subjective experience"?

What, then, is the meaning of "Slavery is wrong"? And please explain it without using the word "wrong" (which would be circular), or any synonym or equivalent (such as "bad," or "nasty," or "unhelpful," or any other term that comes value-laden, which would also obviously be circular). For according to your claim, we have to accept as a premise that the "subjective experiences" of that person "constitute all meanings" -- assuming you're right, of course.

[popeye1945]

Subjective experiences and their meanings to the biological subject constitute all meanings including systems of morality.

Let's see if this is correct.

Let's take the axiom, "Slavery is wrong." We probably all agree with that, right? But if not, let's still use it as our example, since it doesn't change anything either way whether we happen to favour it or not: we're discussing the meaning of the sentence, not its moral value, at the moment. (After all, you say "morality" is "constituted" by "subjective experiences," right?)

The world you know is subjective, that is just an inescapable reality, as a biological subject you are the source of all meaning. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. That something is wrong or immoral is a subjective judgment, a subjective sentiment within your biological being about what is right or wrong, moral or immoral, and your judgment or evaluation you will project upon the outside world and its inhabitants. As Shakespeare once said, "There is no such thing as right or wrong, only thinking makes it so." In nature, there is no morality other than that conjured by biological/subjective consciousness. Slavery is only wrong if you feel it so, or judge it so, you are the source that judges the situation.

Your claim, then, is that this is merely a subjective claim, with no meaning outside of the "biological subject" who utters it.
But in that case, what can it mean? What prediction can we make when we say "Slavery is wrong"?
Can it merely mean that I, as the "biological subject," don't happen to choose slavery? But then, what about that other "biological subject" who equally happens to choose to enslave somebody: have I made any statement about him? And what about my society: am I making any statement about what my society ought to do, or am I accepting that a smart society would realize that the only meaning of morality is "subjective experience"? [/quote]

Every person has their own subjective experience of the world around them, having a common biology means we experience things in much the same ways. We however do not all have the same values the same sentiments the same sensitivities which condition the subjective judgments made by us, so we will not always agree. Remember in nature there is no morality, only that morality that is conjured up by biological life forms, and this is not restricted to the human family. As Heraclitus once said, " Only to man is there right and wrong, for to god all things are right and good."

What, then, is the meaning of "Slavery is wrong"? And please explain it without using the word "wrong" (which would be circular), or any synonym or equivalent (such as "bad," or "nasty," or "unhelpful," or any other term that comes value-laden, which would also obviously be circular). For according to your claim, we have to accept as a premise that the "subjective experiences" of that person "constitute all meanings" -- assuming you're right, of course.
[/quote]

You remember the old saying, no man is an island unto himself, well that is only partly true for a social creature. We are all somewhat subjective and isolated creatures but with an expanded concept of the self we gather together to form societies. As likes of kind, we form moralities to serve our mutual well-being, and security. As a common species have pretty much the same values and sentiments, thus in our collective we put together a mutual agreement as to what is moral and what is justice. BIOLOGY IS THE MEASURE AND THE MEANING OF ALL THINGS---ON A SUBJECTIVE LEVEL.

[Immanuel Can]

Subjective experiences and their meanings to the biological subject constitute all meanings including systems of morality.

Let's see if this is correct.

Let's take the axiom, "Slavery is wrong." We probably all agree with that, right? But if not, let's still use it as our example, since it doesn't change anything either way whether we happen to favour it or not: we're discussing the meaning of the sentence, not its moral value, at the moment. (After all, you say "morality" is "constituted" by "subjective experiences," right?)

The world you know is subjective, that is just an inescapable reality, as a biological subject you are the source of all meaning....

I read all that.

Now, I'm asking you a question: what does the phrase "X is wrong" mean?

Does it imply anything for anybody but the speaker? Does it imply anything about a particular action (like slavery)? Does it imply any duty for society? Or does it mean nothing at all.

The phrase seems to be trying to predicate something. What is its predicative meaning?

...having a common biology means we experience things in much the same ways.

No, no it doesn't. Whatever "wrong" means, we disagree often about how it applies. I'm asking you to clear up what you think it means. To put it another way, I'm asking you what somebody who says "X is wrong" is trying to communicate.

As a common species have pretty much the same values and sentiments,...

This is very easy to show not to be true. Take any of the following issues: abortion, slavery, euthanasia, queerness, transgenderism, war, property, economics, free speech, capital punishment, drugs...and you will find that people are radically opposed on each of them. Their "sentiments" and "values" are not only not "pretty much the same," but dead opposite and mutually irreconcilable. And passionately so.

But even were they not, then "sentiments" even common ones, do not come with any duty of wrongness or rightness. They're just "sentiments." And one can "value" anything, or not "value" the same thing, with no duty or oughtness implied to any other person by the mere fact that you do.

So again, what does the sentence, "X is wrong" mean? What is this "wrongness" thing? To whom is it applicable, and how?

[popeye1945]

Let's see if this is correct.

Let's take the axiom, "Slavery is wrong." We probably all agree with that, right? But if not, let's still use it as our example, since it doesn't change anything either way whether we happen to favour it or not: we're discussing the meaning of the sentence, not its moral value, at the moment. (After all, you say "morality" is "constituted" by "subjective experiences," right?)

The world you know is subjective, that is just an inescapable reality, as a biological subject you are the source of all meaning....

I read all that.

Now, I'm asking you a question: what does the phrase "X is wrong" mean?

Does it imply anything for anybody but the speaker? Does it imply anything about a particular action (like slavery)? Does it imply any duty for society? Or does it mean nothing at all.

The phrase seems to be trying to predicate something. What is its predicative meaning?

...having a common biology means we experience things in much the same ways.

No, no it doesn't. Whatever "wrong" means, we disagree often about how it applies. I'm asking you to clear up what you think it means. To put it another way, I'm asking you what somebody who says "X is wrong" is trying to communicate.

As a common species have pretty much the same values and sentiments,...

This is very easy to show not to be true. Take any of the following issues: abortion, slavery, euthanasia, queerness, transgenderism, war, property, economics, free speech, capital punishment, drugs...and you will find that people are radically opposed on each of them. Their "sentiments" and "values" are not only not "pretty much the same," but dead opposite and mutually irreconcilable. And passionately so.

But even were they not, then "sentiments" even common ones, do not come with any duty of wrongness or rightness. They're just "sentiments." And one can "value" anything, or not "value" the same thing, with no duty or oughtness implied to any other person by the mere fact that you do.

So again, what does the sentence, "X is wrong" mean? What is this "wrongness" thing? To whom is it applicable, and how?

You didn't get much out of my response so I am folding here. Good luck!

[Immanuel Can]

The world you know is subjective, that is just an inescapable reality, as a biological subject you are the source of all meaning....

I read all that.

Now, I'm asking you a question: what does the phrase "X is wrong" mean?

Does it imply anything for anybody but the speaker? Does it imply anything about a particular action (like slavery)? Does it imply any duty for society? Or does it mean nothing at all.

The phrase seems to be trying to predicate something. What is its predicative meaning?

...having a common biology means we experience things in much the same ways.

No, no it doesn't. Whatever "wrong" means, we disagree often about how it applies. I'm asking you to clear up what you think it means. To put it another way, I'm asking you what somebody who says "X is wrong" is trying to communicate.

As a common species have pretty much the same values and sentiments,...

This is very easy to show not to be true. Take any of the following issues: abortion, slavery, euthanasia, queerness, transgenderism, war, property, economics, free speech, capital punishment, drugs...and you will find that people are radically opposed on each of them. Their "sentiments" and "values" are not only not "pretty much the same," but dead opposite and mutually irreconcilable. And passionately so.

But even were they not, then "sentiments" even common ones, do not come with any duty of wrongness or rightness. They're just "sentiments." And one can "value" anything, or not "value" the same thing, with no duty or oughtness implied to any other person by the mere fact that you do.

So again, what does the sentence, "X is wrong" mean? What is this "wrongness" thing? To whom is it applicable, and how?

You didn't get much out of my response so I am folding here. Good luck!

I fully understood what you said. I just think it's not true. And we can find out, because it doesn't explain what "X is wrong" means.

And you haven't answered. It's a direct, simple question. Surely any view worthy of the term "moral" should be able to say what is meant when somebody says something is "wrong," no? I mean, if it can't...then it can't even be called a view of morality, surely...

[popeye1945]

I read all that.

Now, I'm asking you a question: what does the phrase "X is wrong" mean?

Does it imply anything for anybody but the speaker? Does it imply anything about a particular action (like slavery)? Does it imply any duty for society? Or does it mean nothing at all.

The phrase seems to be trying to predicate something. What is its predicative meaning?

No, no it doesn't. Whatever "wrong" means, we disagree often about how it applies. I'm asking you to clear up what you think it means. To put it another way, I'm asking you what somebody who says "X is wrong" is trying to communicate.


This is very easy to show not to be true. Take any of the following issues: abortion, slavery, euthanasia, queerness, transgenderism, war, property, economics, free speech, capital punishment, drugs...and you will find that people are radically opposed on each of them. Their "sentiments" and "values" are not only not "pretty much the same," but dead opposite and mutually irreconcilable. And passionately so.

But even were they not, then "sentiments" even common ones, do not come with any duty of wrongness or rightness. They're just "sentiments." And one can "value" anything, or not "value" the same thing, with no duty or oughtness implied to any other person by the mere fact that you do.

So again, what does the sentence, "X is wrong" mean? What is this "wrongness" thing? To whom is it applicable, and how?

You didn't get much out of my response so I am folding here. Good luck!

I fully understood what you said. I just think it's not true. And we can find out, because it doesn't explain what "X is wrong" means.

And you haven't answered. It's a direct, simple question. Surely any view worthy of the term "moral" should be able to say what is meant when somebody says something is "wrong," no? I mean, if it can't...then it can't even be called a view of morality, surely...

X is a holding position and can mean anything. X is wrong simply means something is wrong and that my friend would be a subjective judgment.

[Harbal]

Give me a sample of your evidence, and let's have a look at it.

Let's start with this: open your eyes. Look at who you are, and where you're living, and what's going on in this universe, and ask yourself if it isn't just the most obvious thing that this whole drama is no accident.

That's a bit general, isn't it? I was expecting something a bit more specific.

I wouldn't describe this "drama", as you call it, as an accident, but more the probable outcome of the prevailing circumstances. Given the particular elements and forces that the universe consists of, a particular set of interactions are bound to lead to a particular set of events. The exact configuration of the universe was a matter of chance, I suppose.

For anyone who feels that the universe had to be guided and manipulated into the exact state in which we find it, it seems to me there is no end to the imaginative and fanciful theories and speculations one could come up with.

I'm just saying that you are misleading people if you tell them that there is evidence of his existence, because there simply isn't.

Ah, I see: you're claiming to be God? You know what evidence exists in the whole universe, and even what other people can or do know?

You'll forgive me if I find that just a little implausible, and not a little hubristic.

Of course I'll forgive you. I know we can't agree on much, and our arguments can often become quite exasperating, but I would like to think there is an underlying state of friendliness there.

...she knows it is an irrational belief.

Apparently she's more rational than her dad.

It is very difficult to live a life and not -from time to time- get a feeling that there is more going on than our sense of reason can account for. That might be because there is more going on, or it might just be a characteristic of the human mind that tends us to think like that; who knows?

Even if there are things that seem to suggest there is more to the universe than science and our understanding can account for, that isn't evidence of God, and all we are really entitled to say is that, at least for now, we don't know what it means.

I'm astonished at how confidently you claim to be able to know what all other people can know. Truly, wisdom will die with you.

Confidence and wisdom are not qualities that I have in the abundance you suggest; they just come to me in isolated flashes.

[Immanuel Can]

...it doesn't explain what "X is wrong" means.

X is a holding position and can mean anything. X is wrong simply means something is wrong and that my friend would be a subjective judgment.

But you use the word "wrong" to explain what "wrong" means. That's circular and question-begging. It's not an answer. That's why I pointed out in my last message that you can't use a word to define the same word.

Imagine a dictionary in which the definitions go, "Aardvark: an aardvark. Bat: something that is a bat"...and so on. How useful in aiding your understanding of bats and aardvarks would such a dictionary be?

So, if I take your answer at face value. "X is wrong" means nothing at all. It's a mere tautology and cliche. So "slavery is wrong" means the same as "slavery is slavery," or "slavery is noxdidl." But "slavery is slavery" tells us nothing at all about slavery, and "slavery is noxdidl" is pure nonsense. So you're saying that the word "wrong" has absolutely no content, and refers to nothing but a subjective twinge of an undescribed kind.

So let's put my question in other words: for example, is it your view that "X is wrong" merely means, "Popeye dislikes X"? And is Popeye also saying something more? Is Popeye saying something about others, and their rightful way to regard X, too?" Is he trying to prescribe an attitude for his society, perhaps? What is his intention?

Where's the moral bit, in what he's trying to say?

[Immanuel Can]

Give me a sample of your evidence, and let's have a look at it.

Let's start with this: open your eyes. Look at who you are, and where you're living, and what's going on in this universe, and ask yourself if it isn't just the most obvious thing that this whole drama is no accident.

That's a bit general, isn't it? I was expecting something a bit more specific.

Well, it's the most obvious and readily accessible evidence. It's also the prima facie evidence that Scripture itself presents to you. It asks you just to look around, and stop failing to see what's so evident.

I could send you to other things, and will, if you continue to be interested: but they all take more work, and I'm not sensing you want that. You seem to say, "I can't be bothered," or similar things, rather a lot.

The exact configuration of the universe was a matter of chance, I suppose.

Why? Why would you "suppose" that an immensely complex, interactive system fell out of chance like coins out of a bag? And where do you see chance ever produce complex, specific and interrelated order?

If I give you a thousand coins, and you spill them repeatedly on a table, how long will you have to do it until all thousand spell out "To be or not to be, that is the question," just one line of a comparatively simple entity within this astronomically-complex system we call the universe? Will ten, or a thousand, or a million years, or a billion do it?

So we see demonstrated right before our eyes, every single day, that chance results in disorder, not order. And complex, meaningful, interactive and specific systems do not just "fall out on the table in front of us." And if we doubt that, we can do that test to our heart's content.

I'm just saying that you are misleading people if you tell them that there is evidence of his existence, because there simply isn't.

Ah, I see: you're claiming to be God? You know what evidence exists in the whole universe, and even what other people can or do know?

You'll forgive me if I find that just a little implausible, and not a little hubristic.

Of course I'll forgive you. I know we can't agree on much, and our arguments can often become quite exasperating, but I would like to think there is an underlying state of friendliness there.

Yes, there is for me. I bear you no ill will. But I do find your claim to know what everybody else knows, or even more implausibly, what everybody else is even allowed to know, highly unlikely.

It is very difficult to live a life and not -from time to time- get a feeling that there is more going on than our sense of reason can account for. That might be because there is more going on, or it might just be a characteristic of the human mind that tends us to think like that; who knows?

Well, if God does exist, as I believe, then He would know, surely. And if he does, it would be no difficulty to Him at all to tell us, and to do so very clearly. He could give us a revelation to a particular set of persons, or write it down for us...or, to make the case very clear, He could incarnate and explain it to us. He might even call it something like, "the good news," or "the gospel," so we'd realize how important it was.

But would we believe Him? Apparently not. We'd apparently hate Him, and nail Him to a cross. Such is the mendacity of mankind, who will not even listen to the truth from His Creator, but would rather run his own life his own way, even if that leads him to down to death and lostness forever. We're just that bad, sometimes.

[Harbal]

Let's start with this: open your eyes. Look at who you are, and where you're living, and what's going on in this universe, and ask yourself if it isn't just the most obvious thing that this whole drama is no accident.

That's a bit general, isn't it? I was expecting something a bit more specific.

Well, it's the most obvious and readily accessible evidence. It's also the prima facie evidence that Scripture itself presents to you. It asks you just to look around, and stop failing to see what's so evident.

Well we know how God does things, don't we; he just creates stuff. When I look around I see trees that have grown from tiny seeds, they didn't just materialise. I see animals that started off as microscopic clumps of cells, but they never just spontaneously appear, fully grown. I see biology, not God.

I could send you to other things, and will, if you continue to be interested: but they all take more work, and I'm not sensing you want that. You seem to say, "I can't be bothered," or similar things, rather a lot.

Well there are other things that I'm much more interested in, let's put it that way.

The exact configuration of the universe was a matter of chance, I suppose.

Why? Why would you "suppose" that an immensely complex, interactive system fell out of chance like coins out of a bag? And where do you see chance ever produce complex, specific and interrelated order?

You are misinterpreting my use of the word, "chance". When matter is under the influence of particular forces it will behave in a particular way, but there are bound to be random factors that cause the outcome to be subject to variation.

If I give you a thousand coins, and you spill them repeatedly on a table, how long will you have to do it until all thousand spell out "To be or not to be, that is the question," just one line of a comparatively simple entity within this astronomically-complex system we call the universe? Will ten, or a thousand, or a million years, or a billion do it?

Which part of the sky do you have to look at to see stars that spell out "To be or not to be"? that would be my question. If you did spill a load of coins onto a table, they would all come to rest in a particular position, and you might just as well say, "what were the chances of every coin just happening to land where it did"? That would only be remarkable if you intended every coin to end up exactly where it did. I don't see any reason to think that the universe was somehow intended to be exactly as it is.

So we see demonstrated right before our eyes, every single day, that chance results in disorder, not order. And complex, meaningful, interactive and specific systems do not just "fall out on the table in front of us." And if we doubt that, we can do that test to our heart's content.

But if you see the universe as being governed by some sort of order, how is it even possible for coins to fall into a state if disorder?

But I do find your claim to know what everybody else knows, or even more implausibly, what everybody else is even allowed to know, highly unlikely.

Well that isn't exactly what I'm claiming. There are certain things that are a matter of public knowledge. The earth is round would be an example of such knowledge. On the other hand, there are things about which it is commonly acknowledged we/anybody don't/doesn't know. We don't know if life exists anywhere else in the universe, for example. Would it be unreasonable to say so just because it is conceivable that the possibility of someone actually knowing cannot be totally ruled out?

But let's say life on another planet was discovered; that would be a massive news story; the TV, the newspapers and the internet would be completely dominated by it, at least for a while. Well don't you think that the discovery of firm evidence of God's existence would make an even bigger impact?

It is very difficult to live a life and not -from time to time- get a feeling that there is more going on than our sense of reason can account for. That might be because there is more going on, or it might just be a characteristic of the human mind that tends us to think like that; who knows?

Well, if God does exist, as I believe, then He would know, surely. And if he does, it would be no difficulty to Him at all to tell us, and to do so very clearly. He could give us a revelation to a particular set of persons, or write it down for us...or, to make the case very clear, He could incarnate and explain it to us. He might even call it something like, "the good news," or "the gospel," so we'd realize how important it was.

If God existed, and considered it important for us to know about it, would he really have just asked some desert tribesman a few thousand years ago to pass on the message, and then hoped for the best?

But would we believe Him? Apparently not. We'd apparently hate Him, and nail Him to a cross. Such is the mendacity of mankind, who will not even listen to the truth from His Creator, but would rather run his own life his own way, even if that leads him to down to death and lostness forever. We're just that bad, sometimes.

Well let's test that with a thought experiment. What would your response be to someone turning up and claiming to be the son of God?

[Immanuel Can]

...When I look around I see trees that have grown from tiny seeds, they didn't just materialise. I see animals that started off as microscopic clumps of cells, but they never just spontaneously appear, fully grown. I see biology, not God...When matter is under the influence of particular forces it will behave in a particular way, but there are bound to be random factors that cause the outcome to be subject to variation.

Note what you're passing over. It's a huge amount. First, you're assuming the existence of an ordered universe, one with "particular forces" or laws already regulating everything that's going on in it. Secondly, you're assuming "biology," meaning the existence of exceedingly complex, replicating systems. And only when all these exist already do you launch your explanation, using the assumption that these things already exist to do what you attribute to them.

In other words, you pass over the entire universe, then try to use the existence of the universe to explain the genesis of the universe.

I don't see any reason to think that the universe was somehow intended to be exactly as it is.

That's because you're taking its existence completely for granted, and not realizing you've done that.

how is it even possible for coins to fall into a state if disorder?

"OF disorder"? Is that what you meant? I'll assume so.

One of our most fundamental and easily testable physical laws is the Principle of Entropy: namely, that things in this universe tend from a higher state of order to a state of lower organization.

For example, if you park your car in your driveway, and leave it sitting there for ten years, when you come back, what's happened? Is it a better car, or a worse car, when you return? The answer's very obvious and universal. Left to itself, it has deteriorated. It has not spontaneously improved. And the same could be said for many, many things with which you could do similar experiments: left to time, they decline, not improve.

Entropy means that any system that is highly ordered either a) started that way, or in even a higher state of order, or b) has achieved a kind of miracle, but swimming upstream against a fundamental physical law. And our whole universe is dominated by entropy.

The short answer, then: coins being in random order is not remarkable, and happens all the time; coins falling by random choice into any pattern of order demands an explanation of the most extraordinary kind.

But I do find your claim to know what everybody else knows, or even more implausibly, what everybody else is even allowed to know, highly unlikely.

Well that isn't exactly what I'm claiming. There are certain things that are a matter of public knowledge. The earth is round would be an example of such knowledge. On the other hand, there are things about which it is commonly acknowledged we/anybody don't/doesn't know. We don't know if life exists anywhere else in the universe, for example. Would it be unreasonable to say so just because it is conceivable that the possibility of someone actually knowing cannot be totally ruled out?

Well, without any evidentiary elaboration, it would certainly be unreasonable to claim you had any reason to know what you were saying was true. But your example is not very good: for if you want to go with "public knowledge," then 92% of the people in the present world (and even more of the previous generations) believe some kind of God or gods exist, and another 4% thinks it's possible, and only 4% has this "public knowledge" on which you're relying. So if you rely on "a matter of public knowledge," then you're up against the wall, I'd say.

And then, if you came along and insisted, "You 96% are a bunch of liars and fools: there's no such thing," then you should forgive the 96% for asking you to provide some sort of evidence that you have special knowledge to justify such a claim. And I'd say you owe it to them.

But if you want to also say that you know what they have or have not experienced, and that you have some personal insight into their spiritual experience that allows you to know what they even CAN and CANNOT know, then I'm certain you owe them evidence.

But let's say life on another planet was discovered; that would be a massive news story; the TV, the newspapers and the internet would be completely dominated by it, at least for a while. Well don't you think that the discovery of firm evidence of God's existence would make an even bigger impact?

You're making my case for me. By any reasonable account, the life of Christ is, as the link I gave you puts it, "the greatest story ever told." It's certainly had far more impact than any other single event in all of history, and the Bible is the #1 bestseller in the world every single year.

So I think you're up against it again, on that criterion.

If God existed, and considered it important for us to know about it, would he really have just asked some desert tribesman a few thousand years ago to pass on the message, and then hoped for the best?

Well, assuming God wished to speak, the revelation of God's plan had to happen at some point in history, didn't it? And if you think the point at which it was is somehow inappropriate, I think you should probably make a case that there's a better date you know. But I don't think you do.

Still, I'll ask: when should God have revealed His word, and when appeared as Christ? What's the right date? Why?

But would we believe Him? Apparently not. We'd apparently hate Him, and nail Him to a cross. Such is the mendacity of mankind, who will not even listen to the truth from His Creator, but would rather run his own life his own way, even if that leads him to down to death and lostness forever. We're just that bad, sometimes.

Well let's test that with a thought experiment. What would your response be to someone turning up and claiming to be the son of God?

Skepticism. One should always be skeptical of such a claim, of course. But if there were reasons for it to be possible, or even expected -- say, thousands of years of prophecy of that very thing happening at that very time -- then one should perhaps examine the case and see if there was anything to it. For such predictions are impossible to arrange and overwhelmingly difficult to reproduce after the fact. Further investigation would be warranted, I'd say.

However, were it to happen today, things would be even more problematic for the claimant, since Christ has already come. He'd have to show he was a better and more complete expression of God than Jesus Christ Himself. And I think he'd find that he, too, was up against a serious wall.

[Harbal]

...When I look around I see trees that have grown from tiny seeds, they didn't just materialise. I see animals that started off as microscopic clumps of cells, but they never just spontaneously appear, fully grown. I see biology, not God...When matter is under the influence of particular forces it will behave in a particular way, but there are bound to be random factors that cause the outcome to be subject to variation.

Note what you're passing over. It's a huge amount. First, you're assuming the existence of an ordered universe, one with "particular forces" or laws already regulating everything that's going on in it. Secondly, you're assuming "biology," meaning the existence of exceedingly complex, replicating systems. And only when all these exist already do you launch your explanation, using the assumption that these things already exist to do what you attribute to them.

But we know these things exist, there is no doubt about that. The thing is, I do not speculate on how they came to exist, because I simply don't know. It is also my assertion that no one else knows, either. You might not think I am intitled to make that assertion, but I'm still going to insist on making it, so there.

In other words, you pass over the entire universe, then try to use the existence of the universe to explain the genesis of the universe.

No, I am simply making observations about the universe, but without making up explanations for what I observe.

I don't see any reason to think that the universe was somehow intended to be exactly as it is.

That's because you're taking its existence completely for granted, and not realizing you've done that.

I'm taking it for granted that the universe is the way it is, but I'm not taking anything for granted about why it is the way it is; you are the one who is doing that.

Well that isn't exactly what I'm claiming. There are certain things that are a matter of public knowledge. The earth is round would be an example of such knowledge. On the other hand, there are things about which it is commonly acknowledged we/anybody don't/doesn't know. We don't know if life exists anywhere else in the universe, for example. Would it be unreasonable to say so just because it is conceivable that the possibility of someone actually knowing cannot be totally ruled out?

Well, without any evidentiary elaboration, it would certainly be unreasonable to claim you had any reason to know what you were saying was true. But your example is not very good: for if you want to go with "public knowledge," then 92% of the people in the present world (and even more of the previous generations) believe some kind of God or gods exist, and another 4% thinks it's possible, and only 4% has this "public knowledge" on which you're relying. So if you rely on "a matter of public knowledge," then you're up against the wall, I'd say.

It wouldn't make any difference if 100% of the world population all believed in the same God, that, in itself, is not evidence that God exists. And that is all I am saying does not exist; genuine, objective evidence. I'm not even saying that God does not exist, just that there is no evidence of his existence.

But let's say life on another planet was discovered; that would be a massive news story; the TV, the newspapers and the internet would be completely dominated by it, at least for a while. Well don't you think that the discovery of firm evidence of God's existence would make an even bigger impact?

You're making my case for me. By any reasonable account, the life of Christ is, as the link I gave you puts it, "the greatest story ever told." It's certainly had far more impact than any other single event in all of history, and the Bible is the #1 bestseller in the world every single year.

I didn't click on any link, so I don't really know what you are referring to. If the historic character, Jesus, did actually exist, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest he was anything other than just a man. So, no, I am not making your case for you when I say that actual evidence of God's existence would be the biggest news item ever, and we haven't had that news story yet.

If God existed, and considered it important for us to know about it, would he really have just asked some desert tribesman a few thousand years ago to pass on the message, and then hoped for the best?

Well, assuming God wished to speak, the revelation of God's plan had to happen at some point in history, didn't it? And if you think the point at which it was is somehow inappropriate, I think you should probably make a case that there's a better date you know. But I don't think you do.

Still, I'll ask: when should God have revealed His word, and when appeared as Christ? What's the right date? Why?

Oh come on, you can't seriously believe that a being capable of bringing the entire universe into existence would mess about like it says in the Bible.

[popeye1945]

Morality is a meaning, and all meanings are derived from the experiences of conscious subjects and are never the property of the object or the physical world as an object. Apparent reality is as it seems due to the constitutions of reactive organisms, apparent reality is entirely dependent on how biology reacts to its outer world, when its constitution is altered by the outside world it creates an impression and experiences particular to the state of the biology in question. This impression/experience is meaning/morality which the conscious subject then projects upon a meaningless world, the world has meaning only for life forms, it has no meaning of its own. The human conscious subject in the process of attributing meaning to the world through projection soon forgets that meaning is just his/her/experience, the organism's projection is the process of objectifying its experiences/feelings and attributing them to the physical world as an object. Morality is subjective, as is all meanings.

[Immanuel Can]

...When I look around I see trees that have grown from tiny seeds, they didn't just materialise. I see animals that started off as microscopic clumps of cells, but they never just spontaneously appear, fully grown. I see biology, not God...When matter is under the influence of particular forces it will behave in a particular way, but there are bound to be random factors that cause the outcome to be subject to variation.

Note what you're passing over. It's a huge amount. First, you're assuming the existence of an ordered universe, one with "particular forces" or laws already regulating everything that's going on in it. Secondly, you're assuming "biology," meaning the existence of exceedingly complex, replicating systems. And only when all these exist already do you launch your explanation, using the assumption that these things already exist to do what you attribute to them.

But we know these things exist, there is no doubt about that.

What we don't know, though, and what is the real question here, as you point out, is HOW they exist. Do they exist as products of mere accident, or do they exist as the products of the creative wisdom of God.

It is also my assertion that no one else knows, either. You might not think I am intitled to make that assertion, but I'm still going to insist on making it, so there.

I don't have to "think" that. Anybody can "know" that, for certain. It's obvious by way of basic logic. No ordinary person has access to the experiences or the mind of another person, so nobody is equipped to say what you propose to assert, namely, that you know what knowledge there is for those people to have -- unless, of course, you're yourself God.

In which case, there IS a God, and He's you. But I'm banking on that not being the case.

In other words, you pass over the entire universe, then try to use the existence of the universe to explain the genesis of the universe.

No, I am simply making observations about the universe, but without making up explanations for what I observe.

You're trying to use biology and natural laws to explain why the universe exists as it does, in its current specific and irreducibly complex form. But biology and natural laws are subfeatures of the very universe itself, the one you're trying to explain.

It was you who appealed to "biology" and "particular forces," was it not? Look back and see what you wrote.

Well that isn't exactly what I'm claiming. There are certain things that are a matter of public knowledge. The earth is round would be an example of such knowledge. On the other hand, there are things about which it is commonly acknowledged we/anybody don't/doesn't know. We don't know if life exists anywhere else in the universe, for example. Would it be unreasonable to say so just because it is conceivable that the possibility of someone actually knowing cannot be totally ruled out?

Well, without any evidentiary elaboration, it would certainly be unreasonable to claim you had any reason to know what you were saying was true. But your example is not very good: for if you want to go with "public knowledge," then 92% of the people in the present world (and even more of the previous generations) believe some kind of God or gods exist, and another 4% thinks it's possible, and only 4% has this "public knowledge" on which you're relying. So if you rely on "a matter of public knowledge," then you're up against the wall, I'd say.

It wouldn't make any difference if 100% of the world population all believed in the same God, that, in itself, is not evidence that God exists.

That is true. And it makes me wonder why you appealed to "public knowledge" when it was not even a good argument if you'd been 100% right. It's a much worse argument when you're 96% wrong, obviously.

And that is all I am saying does not exist; genuine, objective evidence.

Well, again, you're running into the same problem: making an utterly implausible claim, there. For how are you, poor little Harbal of Lower Yorkshire, equipped to tell everybody what they are allowed to know, or what experience they can have in the world?

You can say "Harbal doesn't know." But you can't say "Nobody else does." And you certainly can't say you have a basis to tell us all what evidence is even out there to be had.

If the historic character, Jesus, did actually exist, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest he was anything other than just a man.

Again, the overeach there. You don't know that. You can only say "Harbal doesn't know any evidence for Jesus' divinity." And if, as I would argue, such evidence does, indeed exist, how are you positioned to gainsay that?

If God existed, and considered it important for us to know about it, would he really have just asked some desert tribesman a few thousand years ago to pass on the message, and then hoped for the best?

Well, assuming God wished to speak, the revelation of God's plan had to happen at some point in history, didn't it? And if you think the point at which it was is somehow inappropriate, I think you should probably make a case that there's a better date you know. But I don't think you do.

Still, I'll ask: when should God have revealed His word, and when appeared as Christ? What's the right date? Why?

Oh come on, you can't seriously believe that a being capable of bringing the entire universe into existence would mess about like it says in the Bible.

I'll hear your case. Why do you say that?

[Immanuel Can]

Morality is a meaning, and all meanings are derived from the experiences of conscious subjects and are never the property of the object or the physical world as an object...

Repeating an erroneous claim, one you find impossible to defend, will not make your case for you. You would have to show that your view can do some moral work. And it can't even explain the phrase, "X is wrong."

Without that, all you're campaigning for is not morality: it's complete amorality, or complete moral nihilism. And that's the view that morality doesn't exist at all. Is that your actual view?