Evidence for God from Science

Actually, I just thought about it in the greek style, and I got it. But first.

Echoside,
1. The discussion is actually over. Here is why.
2. You assume a belief system to be true. That is a contradiction. If it is true, it is absolute. It is not relative or hypothetical absolute.
ALL truth claims ARE absolute, narrow, and exclusive.
Hence, you immediately violate the principle of self stultification if you maintain a relative stance.
3. Truth exists independently of anyone's knowledge of it.

We can do this.

A. Truth exists INDEPENDENTLY or anyone's knowledge of it
B. If truth is INDEPENDENT, it is OBJECTIVE.
C. Morals contain propositions.
D. Propositions are truthbearers
E. Therefore, Morals are objective and exist independently of anyone's knowledge.

I actually thought a few steps ahead of you Echoside.
Any claims that there is no truth violates the principle of self stultification

Any claims that the truth cannot be known by way of relativism is explicit or implicit of plural truth claims. This violates the principle of self stultification and the law of non contradiction.

Any claims of truth cannot be known by way of regress violates the principle of self stultification, is anti-intellectual, and has no desire to be intelligent or rational in thought.

4. Actually, I haven't avoided anything. Funny this is that you do avoid my response. You have no response to your fallacy of IS and OUGHT. No resolution to breaking the law of non contradiction. No resolution to violation of the principle of self stultification.

You want my stance on abortion and homosexuality? Murder is wrong, and homosexuality is the equivalent of refusal to breathing, refusing food, refusing sleep, and refusal to do essential body function.

domokunrox wrote: 1. The discussion is actually over. Here is why.
2. You assume a belief system to be true. That is a contradiction. If it is true, it is absolute. It is not relative or hypothetical absolute.
ALL truth claims ARE absolute, narrow, and exclusive.
Hence, you immediately violate the principle of self stultification if you maintain a relative stance.
3. Truth exists independently of anyone's knowledge of it.

1.
2. And your point? I don't disagree on any level with the nature of a truth, once again respond to something I said and I'll put it into context.
3.

domokunrox wrote: A. Truth exists INDEPENDENTLY or anyone's knowledge of it
B. If truth is INDEPENDENT, it is OBJECTIVE.
C. Morals contain propositions.
D. Propositions are truthbearers
E. Therefore, Morals are objective and exist independently of anyone's knowledge.

That's a nice rephrasing of something you've already said, but "C." is the obvious flaw. I'm not convinced that morals contain propositions, because I'm not convinced they are anything more than preference. If you would like to try to demonstrate it in a way you haven't, feel free.

domokunrox wrote:Any claims that there is no truth violates the principle of self stultification

And so?

domokunrox wrote:Any claims that the truth cannot be known by way of relativism is explicit or implicit of plural truth claims. This violates the principle of self stultification and the law of non contradiction.

the truth or a truth? Relativism exists alongside objectivity. If you disagree, please show me your proof for objectivity in ice cream preference.

domokunrox wrote:Any claims of truth cannot be known by way of regress violates the principle of self stultification, is anti-intellectual, and has no desire to be intelligent or rational in thought.

ok

domokunrox wrote: Funny this is that you do avoid my response.

Things like this only show how dishonest you are being. I have not avoided anything, but I can think of many points I've made that you have yet to address.

domokunox wrote:You want my stance on abortion and homosexuality? Murder is wrong, and homosexuality is the equivalent of refusal to breathing, refusing food, refusing sleep, and refusal to do essential body function.

Yes but how is this different than stealing? Why aren't these universally despised?

Echoside wrote:That's a nice rephrasing of something you've already said, but "C." is the obvious flaw. I'm not convinced that morals contain propositions, because I'm not convinced they are anything more than preference. If you would like to try to demonstrate it in a way you haven't, feel free.

You're not convinced morals contain propositions? You're mistaken.

1. Two plus Two equals Four
2. The Dog is barking at the Cat in the tree
3. Raping and torturing little children is wrong

All 3 are propositions. Any denial of the 3rd sentence containing meaning is complete utter ignorance. Raping and torturing little children is either right or wrong. All propositions MUST follow the rules of the logic. Logic MUST follow the rule of non-contradiction. Raping and torturing little children cannot be right and wrong at the same time and same sense.

Let me go ahead and give you examples of what isn't propositions

xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxx xxx xxxxx xxxxx x x
xxx x xxx xxxxx xxx xx xxxx xxx xxx x xxxxxxxx xxx
xxxx xxx x xxxx xxxx xxxxxx xx x

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxx xxxxx xxxx xxx xxx xxxx xxxx xxxxxx xx x xx xxx xxxx xxx xxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxx

You see, in order to make ANY sense of the world around us, it MUST contain propositions. Any admittance that you cannot make sense of the world around us is confirmation that you believe it is an illusion. In other words, you are admitting that you are a boltzmann brain.

You go ahead and tell us why anyone should take your ideas seriously if you believe the world is an illusion.

The conclusion follows regardless of weather you affirm it or deny it.

Morals are objective and exist independently of anyone's knowledge

Echoside wrote:And so?

So, basically no truth = no knowledge. I am just bringing this to your attention. There is knowledge, so there is truthbearers in every meaningful aspect. Any attempt to deny existence of propositions is affirmation of an illusionary world.

Echoside wrote:the truth or a truth? Relativism exists alongside objectivity. If you disagree, please show me your proof for objectivity in ice cream preference.

The truth!

There is no existence of "a truth". That is explicitly pluralism and that is a clear violation of the law of non-contradiction.
2 + 2 cannot be 4 AND 5
The dog cannot bark AND not bark at the cat in the tree
Raping and torturing little children cannot be right AND wrong

Relativism exists alongside objectively? You just made a positive claim. The burden of proof is not on me. I'll grant you permission to prove it. Good luck with that.

Facts are not concepts
Truth corresponds to the facts

Do NOT REDEFINE TRUTH or OBJECTIVE

Heres what you need to show us

1. The world you perceive is not an illusion
2. A criterion of meaning that can be verified
3. The cognitive value of your facts
4. You must resolve the IS-OUGHT problem you will face
5. Do not Appeal to nature (If its a fallacy for me, its a fallacy for you)
6. The conclusion is not Pragmatism

If you do not resolve the IS-OUGHT problem. Don't even bother. It is invalid if you do not resolve it.

Echoside wrote:ok

In orderwords, if you cannot apply infinitism. Just making sure you don't because that would be anti-intellectual.

Echoside wrote:Things like this only show how dishonest you are being. I have not avoided anything, but I can think of many points I've made that you have yet to address.

Really?

domokunrox wrote:You have no response to your fallacy of IS and OUGHT. No resolution to breaking the law of non contradiction. No resolution to violation of the principle of self stultification.

I'm sure I've covered most of everything. Right now you have your plate full I suggest chewing that first.

Echoside wrote:Yes but how is this different than stealing? Why aren't these universally despised?

Appeal to nature isn't a fallacy when you want it to be?
Doesn't work that work like that.


Good luck, Echoside. You have plenty of homework to do.

domokunrox wrote: 3. Raping and torturing little children is wrong
Any denial of the 3rd sentence containing meaning is complete utter ignorance. Raping and torturing little children is either right or wrong. All propositions MUST follow the rules of the logic. Logic MUST follow the rule of non-contradiction. Raping and torturing little children cannot be right and wrong at the same time and same sense.

Do you deny meaning in the phrase, "Chocolate ice cream is the best tasting"? For it cannot be that both chocolate ice cream is the worst and best at the same time and same sense. I do not deny meaning in the sentence, I deny that the derived meaning is necessarily objective. (it could be).

domokunrox wrote: So, basically no truth = no knowledge. I am just bringing this to your attention. There is knowledge, so there is truthbearers in every meaningful aspect. Any attempt to deny existence of propositions is affirmation of an illusionary world.

I do not deny existence of propositions, I argue the existence of propositions in regards to morality. The word "meaningful" here is a dangerous thing to be throwing around, how exactly do you discern what is meaningful in every case without ever resorting to subjectivity?

domokunrox wrote: Relativism exists alongside objectively? You just made a positive claim. The burden of proof is not on me. I'll grant you permission to prove it. Good luck with that.

Since my ice cream preference point has gone uncontested for a good couple weeks now, I think I'll take my time

domokunrox wrote:Appeal to nature isn't a fallacy when you want it to be?
Doesn't work that work like that.

Could you actually answer the question? I think you keep taking me to be an atheist grounded in a set of presuppositions I do not hold.

I have not made any positive claims in regards to what is moral anywhere.

This is a legitimate question, and as it is the main point against your entire argument a couple posts back I'd like a real answer

Echoside wrote:Do you deny meaning in the phrase, "Chocolate ice cream is the best tasting"? For it cannot be that both chocolate ice cream is the worst and best at the same time and same sense. I do not deny meaning in the sentence, I deny that the derived meaning is necessarily objective. (it could be).

The phrase has meaning, but how is best tasting RIGHT OR WRONG? Who wants to know that? Most importantly, why does ice cream need to be "best tasting"?

We're trying to answer a question. Does objective morals exist?

You're turning around and going "Well, I want to know if chevy or ford trucks are right or wrong?" WHY DOES THAT MATTER?! ANSWER THE QUESTION!

Echoside wrote:I do not deny existence of propositions, I argue the existence of propositions in regards to morality. The word "meaningful" here is a dangerous thing to be throwing around, how exactly do you discern what is meaningful in every case without ever resorting to subjectivity?

You break the words down. Identify them.

Here is your problem. Why do you have a fear for words? Words have meaning! and it MUST have an intelligent design the way they are ordered. How many times can you use the letters R A P E? in what order?

Rape
Aper
Pare
etc

Rape however has a meaning. Do you know what it means? Can you use it in a sentence?
Rape
1. the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
She was a victim of rape in the dark alley

Torture has a meaning. Do you know what it means?
Torture
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

So now that we establish the meaning the words, we can then begin to use sentence structure to figure out a proposition

A. Rape and torture of innocent children is wrong

The very idea that you cannot figure out if that is a proposition is STAGGERING.

Again, here is a sentence with no meaning

B. xxxx xxx xxxxxxx xx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xx xxxxx

Don't be delusional. Sentence A has meaning. Sentence B has no meaning at all.

Echoside wrote:Since my ice cream preference point has gone uncontested for a good couple weeks now, I think I'll take my time

You make absolutely no point in terms of ice cream in relation to morals. You made a positive claim. You have burden of proof. No response, right? I didn't think so.

Echoside wrote:Could you actually answer the question? I think you keep taking me to be an atheist grounded in a set of presuppositions I do not hold.

No, the question will not be answered. Its an appeal to nature, and you know it is. Appealing to anything in an attempt to undermine the truth is exactly your goal. I will not grant you it. Get over it.

Echoside wrote:I have not made any positive claims in regards to what is moral anywhere.

Yes you have!

Echoside wrote:Relativism exists alongside objectively

Echoside wrote:This is a legitimate question, and as it is the main point against your entire argument a couple posts back I'd like a real answer

No, its not legitimate! Its an appeal to nature. I attempted to appeal to nature to prove that OM exists. Because THEFT, MURDER, ETC is NOT ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR ANYWHERE in the world. You denied me the appeal. I will not grant you that same appeal.

domokunrox wrote: The phrase has meaning, but how is best tasting RIGHT OR WRONG? Who wants to know that? Most importantly, why does ice cream need to be "best tasting"?

It's not, which is my point. How is morality any different then the above, without invoking God? Why does torture and rape need to be right or wrong? To a subjective moral standard right and wrong are essentially meaningless words.

domokunrox wrote:We're trying to answer a question. Does objective morals exist?

Possibly

domokunrox wrote:Rape however has a meaning. Do you know what it means? Can you use it in a sentence?
Rape
1. the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
She was a victim of rape in the dark alley

It has a meaning, but you cannot arbitrarily assign it immoral meaning. Immoral isn't even in the definition.

domokunrox wrote:So now that we establish the meaning the words, we can then begin to use sentence structure to figure out a proposition

A. Rape and torture of innocent children is wrong

The very idea that you cannot figure out if that is a proposition is STAGGERING.

You've defined rape and torture, but you have not shown me why these must be inherently wrong. The very idea that you cannot see this is "staggering"

domokunrox wrote:No, its not legitimate! Its an appeal to nature. I attempted to appeal to nature to prove that OM exists. Because THEFT, MURDER, ETC is NOT ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR ANYWHERE in the world. You denied me the appeal. I will not grant you that same appeal.

You should probably reread when I said "Yes but how is this different than stealing? Why aren't these universally despised?

" This is a counterpoint against your claims, do not point the finger at me when you started us down this road

Two options here

1. You concede that your moral argument is a fallacious appeal to nature.
2. You deal with my objection, rather than accusing me of appealing to nature. This is YOUR argument, I'm just following you where it leads.

I don't think you get it at all, Echoside.

This discussion already ended in checkmate. I'll explain it to you step by step because you seem to be floundering like a fish out of water and losing your grip on reality since you seem to want to be arguing semantics now.

The very fact that you can even read this sentence is confirming that you know what words mean and if all the propositions have meaning and some propositions have moral value and duty involved in them (Hence, vice or virtue. i.e. It is wrong to murder my wife).

So, lets go ahead and go step by step here.

A. Truth exists INDEPENDENTLY of anyone's knowledge of it

Example: Gravity existed before Newton discovered it.
Also, on that matter. Truth is discovered, not invented. I however want to go ahead and point something else out here. Truth doesn't just exist, it exists regardless if you know about it. Hence, from this point forward even if you don't observe the evidence empirically or get ANY sort of impression of it, the conclusion doesn't care about how you feel about it.

B. If truth is INDEPENDENT, it is OBJECTIVE.

Now here is the kicker to eliminate the plurality in truth claims. A truth claim MUST BE true OR false because it MUST FOLLOW a simple law of logic we know as the law of non-contradiction. A truth claim cannot be plural at the same time and same sense. i.e. The dog is barking and not barking at the cat in the tree

C. Moral values and duties REQUIRE propositions.

I am going to elaborate it further. Morals do not simply contain propositions. They REQUIRE propositions. In order to hold a moral value, it must have value in the proposition. Now, you disagree, but you're very mistaken. Words do have meaning, and they do not require the word "immoral" in the definition. IF the word "immoral" was in definition of the word, it wouldn't be objective anymore because a human wrote it. You're trying to smuggle subjective into objective, so no, you are denied. You're playing with words and arguing semantics. I will not allow it. Most importantly, I have already established that the truth exists independently of anyone's knowledge of it.

To say that these words do not have value is simply ignorant and disrespectful to the men and women who labored and died for the life we are able to enjoy. Nobody labors for "subjective" value, and nobody would ever put their life on the line for something that was derivative. Thats just asinine. These meaningful values and duties go beyond the words themselves at times. You ever heard the expression, "words don't do it justice"? I doubt when people say that and are deciding if their David Hume impressions had any value at all yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

D. Moral propositions are truthbearers

Theres no way around this after I explained C. Meaningful Moral values and duties are NOT derivative. Derivatives only apply strictly to numbers, not vice and virtues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative) As already stated, once it is logically categorized as truth, it is objective and MUST follow the law of non-contradiction.

E. Therefore, Morals values and duties are objective and exist independently of anyone's knowledge.

And here we are. The conclusion follows. There is a truth value. Truth is narrow, exclusive, and absolute. Truth is objective, and doesn't care if you know it exists or not. It does not care if you got impressions of it or not. Objective moral values and duties exist.

domokunrox wrote: C. Moral values and duties REQUIRE propositions.

I am going to elaborate it further. Morals do not simply contain propositions. They REQUIRE propositions. In order to hold a moral value, it must have value in the proposition.

An objective moral claim requires propositions. You have not demonstrated that this is the case, you simply declare it to be true. The concept of moral values if they are not objective are borderline meaningless anyways. So the value you speak of cannot simply be smuggled in without an explanation.

domokunrox wrote:To say that these words do not have value is simply ignorant and disrespectful to the men and women who labored and died for the life we are able to enjoy.

Yea, I'll remember that when I'm deployed

No, the conclusion does not follow, you haven't demonstrated morality as objective, but we are at an impasse at this point because you seem to be reiterating the same arguments while I don't seem satisfied with your responses. This is about as far as we are going to get. By all means if you think differently keep going.

Echoside wrote:An objective moral claim requires propositions. You have not demonstrated that this is the case, you simply declare it to be true. The concept of moral values if they are not objective are borderline meaningless anyways. So the value you speak of cannot simply be smuggled in without an explanation.

Wrong wrong wrong.

Again, you're playing with words and arguing semantics. You're even arguing in a circle!

Actions require meaning. Especially the ones that hold moral value and duties!

A. Raping and torturing children is wrong
B. xxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xx xxxxx

"A" is an example of a moral value that has a meaningful purpose.
"B" is a meaningless statement

Do they look the same to you?

I really would like to borrow your eyes. When you look at a moral vice or virtue, do the words blur? Do they blur or do you get a black rectangle covering it? When you go out in the world and some person on the street corner pulls out a gun and starts firing it at another person, do you not see anything? Is it a blur or a huge black rectangle?

Do you think those actions are meaningless or do they have meaning?

You need to follow the law of non-contradiction. The answer cannot be a plural answer. At the same time and same sense.

Here is the funniest statement you made so far.

"You have not demonstrated that this is the case, you simply declare it to be true"

You want a demonstration?

"So the value you speak of cannot simply be smuggled in without an explanation"

Yet the explanation "smuggles" in value?

Again, here you arguing semantics. I am not smuggling any value in anywhere. The words and actions have value, and to prove otherwise you MUST prove that that the words and actions are meaningless.

Echoside wrote:Yea, I'll remember that when I'm deployed

No, the conclusion does not follow, you haven't demonstrated morality as objective, but we are at an impasse at this point because you seem to be reiterating the same arguments while I don't seem satisfied with your responses. This is about as far as we are going to get. By all means if you think differently keep going.

It has nothing exclusively to do that.
Do you value your life? Do you value your time?

Nobody thinks that theses values are derivative! If someone makes a declaration of vice or virtue they will uphold, it has value. It is not meaningless.

Echoside wrote: No, the conclusion does not follow, you haven't demonstrated morality as objective, but we are at an impasse at this point because you seem to be reiterating the same arguments while I don't seem satisfied with your responses. This is about as far as we are going to get. By all means if you think differently keep going.

Why would you not be satisfied when the arguments are sound?

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:
Why would you not be satisfied when the arguments are sound?

Could you ask that again in a format that is not so subtly insulting? I obviously do not think the arguments are sound.

http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammer ... ality.html

I thought this was an interesting read.

jlay wrote:http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammer ... ality.html

I thought this was an interesting read.

The thing is jlay, I do not disagree with anything said in that article. My problem here, as well as what I've heard of WLC's work on the subject, is that objective morality is smuggled in with no justification. Once you prove OM exists, in my eyes it is very easy to therefore reason God. But I never see this done.

I'll give you an example from the article "Interestingly enough, it seems almost self-evident to both the theist and the atheistic moral objectivist that objective morality is a fundamental part of reality."

Basically, the theist is already set up to win this because an "atheistic moral objectivist" is an astonishingly terrible position to hold. Any atheist with even a shred of honesty towards his position would not claim OM to exist. The very idea is absurd without at least changing your stance to something like deism.

It is when you ask an atheistic moral subjectivist that the issue is not so clear, most people assume OM and then answer the easy questions. You cannot simply assume OM exists, you have to demonstrate it. And it is that demonstration that I am not (as of yet) satisfied with.

jlay wrote:http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammer ... ality.html

I thought this was an interesting read.

Very nice article, thanks J.

Echoside wrote: Basically, the theist is already set up to win this because an "atheistic moral objectivist" is an astonishingly terrible position to hold. Any atheist with even a shred of honesty towards his position would not claim OM to exist. The very idea is absurd without at least changing your stance to something like deism.

It is when you ask an atheistic moral subjectivist that the issue is not so clear, most people assume OM and then answer the easy questions. You cannot simply assume OM exists, you have to demonstrate it. And it is that demonstration that I am not (as of yet) satisfied with.

Are you speaking to the ontology or epistimology?

Allow me to be suspicious and ask why starting from moral skepticism is not an assumption? Because OM seems to be known a priori, doesn't seem like a problem too me.