Evidence for God from Science

I think that people tend to forget, or want to forget, that IF morality is 100% subjective then, at a certian, point ANYTHING is permissible.
Regardless of how THEY feel or if THEY would "walk down that road", the fact is that someone WILL "walk down that road".
Case in point:
Soviet Russia
Cambodia under Pol Pot
China under Mao
Romania under Nicolae Ceaușescu
And so forth

PaulSacramento wrote:I think that people tend to forget, or want to forget, that IF morality is 100% subjective then, at a certian, point ANYTHING is permissible.
Regardless of how THEY feel or if THEY would "walk down that road", the fact is that someone WILL "walk down that road".
Case in point:
Soviet Russia
Cambodia under Pol Pot
China under Mao
Romania under Nicolae Ceaușescu
And so forth

But anything IS permissible. Case in point; Soviet Russia, Pol Pot, Mao, Nicolae Ceausescu and so forth. The only thing preventing people from doing things are other people.

K

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:Kurieuo; I looked at the video, and though there is much I disagree with, I do understand the logic presented. At approx the 4 minute mark, he presents premix #4 which says “Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary rational source”.

Kenny, to also answer your question in direct reference to that moral argument video.

Note that Premise 4 ("Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary, rational source") is the result of accepting premises 1, 2 and 3. Therefore, if you dislike Premise 4, which is a logical a conclusion drawn from premises 1, 2 & 3, then you must work through which of its former premises is wrong.

Premises 1-3 are each elaborated upon within the video, but written as:

• Premise 1: Morality is a rational enterpreise.
  Premise 2: Moral Realism is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist.
  Premise 3: The moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much for us to assume moral facts and duties are grounded in a human source of rationality.

If we accept all these premises, then Premise 4 logically follows:

• Premise 4: Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary, rational source. (from premises 1, 2 & 3)

From there, I don't see many options for what this rational source would be, other than to assume this is what many would call God. Therefore, the final conclusion from premise 4 is:

• Conclusion: This source is what we call God. (from premise 4)

Yes I get it. Because I disagree with premises 1,2,and 3, Obviously I'm going to disagree with premises #4. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

K

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:Kurieuo; I looked at the video, and though there is much I disagree with, I do understand the logic presented. At approx the 4 minute mark, he presents premix #4 which says “Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary rational source”.

Kenny, to also answer your question in direct reference to that moral argument video.

Note that Premise 4 ("Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary, rational source") is the result of accepting premises 1, 2 and 3. Therefore, if you dislike Premise 4, which is a logical a conclusion drawn from premises 1, 2 & 3, then you must work through which of its former premises is wrong.

Premises 1-3 are each elaborated upon within the video, but written as:

• Premise 1: Morality is a rational enterpreise.
  Premise 2: Moral Realism is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist.
  Premise 3: The moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much for us to assume moral facts and duties are grounded in a human source of rationality.

If we accept all these premises, then Premise 4 logically follows:

• Premise 4: Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary, rational source. (from premises 1, 2 & 3)

From there, I don't see many options for what this rational source would be, other than to assume this is what many would call God. Therefore, the final conclusion from premise 4 is:

• Conclusion: This source is what we call God. (from premise 4)

Yes I get it. Because I disagree with premises 1,2,and 3, Obviously I'm going to disagree with premises #4. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

K

Well, why are premises 1, 2, and 3 wrong?

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I think that people tend to forget, or want to forget, that IF morality is 100% subjective then, at a certian, point ANYTHING is permissible.
Regardless of how THEY feel or if THEY would "walk down that road", the fact is that someone WILL "walk down that road".
Case in point:
Soviet Russia
Cambodia under Pol Pot
China under Mao
Romania under Nicolae Ceaușescu
And so forth

But anything IS permissible. Case in point; Soviet Russia, Pol Pot, Mao, Nicolae Ceausescu and so forth. The only thing preventing people from doing things are other people.

K

Ah Kenny, that you don't see the issue in your statement says so much...
Why on earth should people stop people from doing those things?

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:Kurieuo; I looked at the video, and though there is much I disagree with, I do understand the logic presented. At approx the 4 minute mark, he presents premix #4 which says “Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary rational source”.

Kenny, to also answer your question in direct reference to that moral argument video.

Note that Premise 4 ("Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary, rational source") is the result of accepting premises 1, 2 and 3. Therefore, if you dislike Premise 4, which is a logical a conclusion drawn from premises 1, 2 & 3, then you must work through which of its former premises is wrong.

Premises 1-3 are each elaborated upon within the video, but written as:

• Premise 1: Morality is a rational enterpreise.
  Premise 2: Moral Realism is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist.
  Premise 3: The moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much for us to assume moral facts and duties are grounded in a human source of rationality.

If we accept all these premises, then Premise 4 logically follows:

• Premise 4: Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary, rational source. (from premises 1, 2 & 3)

From there, I don't see many options for what this rational source would be, other than to assume this is what many would call God. Therefore, the final conclusion from premise 4 is:

• Conclusion: This source is what we call God. (from premise 4)

Yes I get it. Because I disagree with premises 1,2,and 3, Obviously I'm going to disagree with premises #4. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

K

Well, why are premises 1, 2, and 3 wrong?

I guess Kenny views morality as irrational, LOL !

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:Kurieuo; I looked at the video, and though there is much I disagree with, I do understand the logic presented. At approx the 4 minute mark, he presents premix #4 which says “Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary rational source”.

Kenny, to also answer your question in direct reference to that moral argument video.

Note that Premise 4 ("Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary, rational source") is the result of accepting premises 1, 2 and 3. Therefore, if you dislike Premise 4, which is a logical a conclusion drawn from premises 1, 2 & 3, then you must work through which of its former premises is wrong.

Premises 1-3 are each elaborated upon within the video, but written as:

• Premise 1: Morality is a rational enterpreise.
  Premise 2: Moral Realism is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist.
  Premise 3: The moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much for us to assume moral facts and duties are grounded in a human source of rationality.

If we accept all these premises, then Premise 4 logically follows:

• Premise 4: Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary, rational source. (from premises 1, 2 & 3)

From there, I don't see many options for what this rational source would be, other than to assume this is what many would call God. Therefore, the final conclusion from premise 4 is:

• Conclusion: This source is what we call God. (from premise 4)

Yes I get it. Because I disagree with premises 1,2,and 3, Obviously I'm going to disagree with premises #4. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

K

Well, why are premises 1, 2, and 3 wrong?

I guess Kenny views morality as irrational, LOL !

More likely, Kenny doesn't understand premises 1, 2, and 3, therefore premise 4 must be wrong.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I think that people tend to forget, or want to forget, that IF morality is 100% subjective then, at a certian, point ANYTHING is permissible.
Regardless of how THEY feel or if THEY would "walk down that road", the fact is that someone WILL "walk down that road".
Case in point:
Soviet Russia
Cambodia under Pol Pot
China under Mao
Romania under Nicolae Ceaușescu
And so forth

But anything IS permissible. Case in point; Soviet Russia, Pol Pot, Mao, Nicolae Ceausescu and so forth. The only thing preventing people from doing things are other people.

K

Ah Kenny, that you don't see the issue in your statement says so much...
Why on earth should people stop people from doing those things?

Why did people stop Pol Pot? Why did people stop Nicolae Ceausescu? Why did people stop Hitler? History is full of examples of good people stopping the bad, because it is in their best interest.

Ken

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:Kurieuo; I looked at the video, and though there is much I disagree with, I do understand the logic presented. At approx the 4 minute mark, he presents premix #4 which says “Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary rational source”.

Kenny, to also answer your question in direct reference to that moral argument video.

Note that Premise 4 ("Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary, rational source") is the result of accepting premises 1, 2 and 3. Therefore, if you dislike Premise 4, which is a logical a conclusion drawn from premises 1, 2 & 3, then you must work through which of its former premises is wrong.

Premises 1-3 are each elaborated upon within the video, but written as:

• Premise 1: Morality is a rational enterpreise.
  Premise 2: Moral Realism is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist.
  Premise 3: The moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much for us to assume moral facts and duties are grounded in a human source of rationality.

If we accept all these premises, then Premise 4 logically follows:

• Premise 4: Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary, rational source. (from premises 1, 2 & 3)

From there, I don't see many options for what this rational source would be, other than to assume this is what many would call God. Therefore, the final conclusion from premise 4 is:

• Conclusion: This source is what we call God. (from premise 4)

Yes I get it. Because I disagree with premises 1,2,and 3, Obviously I'm going to disagree with premises #4. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

K

Well, why are premises 1, 2, and 3 wrong?

Actually my disagreement is with #2 & #3. As far as morality consisting of moral facts, and duties, (#2) that sounds more like an objective moral belief, something I disagree with. With #3, if one believes mankind is the most advanced and intelligent being in existence, there is nobody left to provide us moral guidance other than mankind. Who would be next in line? A Dog?

Ken

Ken: if one believes mankind is the most advanced and intelligent being in existence, there is nobody left to provide us moral guidance other than mankind.

If man is the arbitrator of morality - how do you decides WHICH man's sense of morality should be obeyed? If morality is merely a question of self-interests, and you are on the top of the food chain because of your oppression of others - because it KEEPS you on the top - then that self interest would appear to be working just fine for the oppressor. To criticize such a person, you cannot merely use the argument of what is moral is what is in one's self interests. Barbarians and genocidal maniacs of all stripes have long wrought havoc across the earth, and it worked out pretty good for many of THEM.

Kenny wrote:Actually my disagreement is with #2 & #3. As far as morality consisting of moral facts, and duties, (#2) that sounds more like an objective moral belief, something I disagree with. With #3, if one believes mankind is the most advanced and intelligent being in existence, there is nobody left to provide us moral guidance other than mankind. Who would be next in line? A Dog?

Your question actually doesn't make sense Kenny if we reject objective morality. What moral "guidance" can be provided on morality if such is constructed rather than discoverable and knowable?

Guidance can be provided on mathematics, because the goal is to have a person increase in their math knowledge so they can perform calculations correctly and obtain the right answers. If an answer to a math question is merely relative or subjective though, then no guidence is needed to obtain the right objective answer. Any answer will do so long as one feels it is right.

Ken: if one believes mankind is the most advanced and intelligent being in existence, there is nobody left to provide us moral guidance other than mankind.

Philip wrote:If man is the arbitrator of morality - how do you decides WHICH man's sense of morality should be obeyed?

A group of elected people (called politicians) pass laws based on what they agree is moral. If I disagree with the laws they pass, I have a voice by electing someone else to represent me when their term is up.

Philip wrote:If morality is merely a question of self-interests,

Morality is not merely a question of self-interests.

Philip wrote:and you are on the top of the food chain because of your oppression of others - because it KEEPS you on the top - then that self interest would appear to be working just fine for the oppressor. To criticize such a person, you cannot merely use the argument of what is moral is what is in one's self interests. Barbarians and genocidal maniacs of all stripes have long wrought havoc across the earth, and it worked out pretty good for many of THEM.

Kenny wrote:Actually my disagreement is with #2 & #3. As far as morality consisting of moral facts, and duties, (#2) that sounds more like an objective moral belief, something I disagree with. With #3, if one believes mankind is the most advanced and intelligent being in existence, there is nobody left to provide us moral guidance other than mankind. Who would be next in line? A Dog?

Kurieuo wrote: Your question actually doesn't make sense Kenny if we reject objective morality. What moral "guidance" can be provided on morality if such is constructed rather than discoverable and knowable?

A group of elected people called politicians construct laws based on what they believe is moral. If you or I disagree with the laws they construct, we have to option of voting the out of office when their political term is up.

Kurieuo wrote: Guidance can be provided on mathematics, because the goal is to have a person increase in their math knowledge so they can perform calculations correctly and obtain the right answers. If an answer to a math question is merely relative or subjective though, then no guidence is needed to obtain the right objective answer. Any answer will do so long as one feels it is right.

I agree! But as I pointed out before, IMO unlike morality; math is objective.
Question for you; if Math and Morality are both objective, how come we’ve discovered true math thousands of years ago (it has yet to be changed), but we have yet to discover true morality seeing it is in a constant state of change?

Ken

Kenny wrote:I agree! But as I pointed out before, IMO unlike morality; math is objective.
Question for you; if Math and Morality are both objective, how come we’ve discovered true math thousands of years ago (it has yet to be changed), but we have yet to discover true morality seeing it is in a constant state of change?

Actually, foundations to morality are not in a constant state of change. Moral laws are different from moral values, and I believe I've discussed such on several occasions with you in the distant past.

It is broadly understood it's not good to kill another human being. That love (a virtue) and being loving is better than hating. That raping and abusing another person is wrong. Stealing is wrong. There are certain moral values we all share, and terms like "psychopath" is a label given to those who would have no emotional response to extremely immoral or cruel acts that trangress many of these values.

In a normal functioning human, those of us who hear a story of some child being molested, raped, trapped for days and then beat to death, there's something within us that screams out for justice, the perpetrator ought to be punished. Why is that? Is there something really wrong with such, or is it truly just our opinion it is wrong. Would such an act still be wrong even if everyone agreed it was right? If you believe so, then you are treating morality as an "object" external to us.

Where moral rules often become muddy is when certain rules affront a person gaining power, wealth or doing what they want to do. For example, a man finds a woman attractive who won't sleep with him, so he'll just rape her. Or screwing many people over for money and claiming "its just business". People don't like feeling like a bad guy, people don't like being held accountable, being told they're wrong, that they're a sinner -- so then all the excuses start coming out to justify themselves.

In some instances, wrong actions can be normalised socially and find their ways into laws -- I mean if everyone wants to do it, will do it and is doing it anyway -- either we punish a majority of people or just make an allowance of sorts. Making allowances often gains a popular vote and so works in the favour of a political party wanting to be elected.

So then, I fundamentally disagree with your statement. Certain moral concepts and values are shared by all of us. Certainly, morality is qualitatively a different area than say mathematics. But, nonetheless just as real.

As an aside, I also disagree that government (politicians) construct laws based upon what they believe in moral -- in fact, many construct laws based upon what they see will give them the popular vote (and power).

Further, you may reject there is a real moral fabric that exists. Which just goes back to the point of my previous post, that then, no guidance is necessary as to what is truly morally right or wrong. We should just do that which gives us an advantage in life, since such is what maximise our happiness. Is it better to be selfish rather than altruistic? Without some sort of morality standing as judge over us, then there is no reason why it isn't better to be selfish.

Finally, you accept math is objective. But, to say that is is means believing math is something we humans discover rather than construct. You've previously said math doesn't exist, except in the minds of humans or something such. In which case, math isn't objective at all. It isn't an "object" we discover, but rather manufactured by the "subject" (i.e., us). Therefore, you're again being confusing and contradictory with your positions. Do you really believe math is now objective and something we discover?

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I think that people tend to forget, or want to forget, that IF morality is 100% subjective then, at a certian, point ANYTHING is permissible.
Regardless of how THEY feel or if THEY would "walk down that road", the fact is that someone WILL "walk down that road".
Case in point:
Soviet Russia
Cambodia under Pol Pot
China under Mao
Romania under Nicolae Ceaușescu
And so forth

But anything IS permissible. Case in point; Soviet Russia, Pol Pot, Mao, Nicolae Ceausescu and so forth. The only thing preventing people from doing things are other people.

K

Ah Kenny, that you don't see the issue in your statement says so much...
Why on earth should people stop people from doing those things?

Why did people stop Pol Pot? Why did people stop Nicolae Ceausescu? Why did people stop Hitler? History is full of examples of good people stopping the bad, because it is in their best interest.

Ken

And why did those people get power?
Because it was in their ( some peoples) best interest.