|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
 Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 9:47 pm Post subject: 681 |
 |
|
| Zag wrote: |
| jadesmar wrote: |
| Why is a higher power required for an objective morality? |
I demonstrated above that it is not. |
I'm not really sure "morality" (in the phrase "objective morality") has been defined well enough to say whether that's been demonstrated. I mean, yes, for some definition of it. Would the compulsion of geese to fly south for the winter constitute part of their "morality"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 8:13 pm Post subject: 682 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| Ok, so there's an objective moral code. How do I know what actions are allowed or forbidden by it? It's not a solid object that I can look at. People might compile lists of values and duties, and declare them to be objective morality, but they might not agree with each other. What makes it objectively true? How is an objective moral code that no one knows about any different from none at all? |
An objective moral value or set of values would have an effect on people regardless of whether or not they knew about it. "None at all" would not. That's the difference.
How someone would know what the objectively true moral values are is not what I'm discussing, so I don't find it pertinent to try and answer that. My question is about what possible foundation there could be for it, rather than how it would be communicated or made known.
| Chuck wrote: |
| It does't matter whether William Lane Craig borrows magic from others or makes it up. He doesn't show that any of it is true. I can do it too. The Big Bang happened outside of time so it didn't need a cause any more than a god does. The universe is magically suitable for life just like his god is magically intelligent. There, I've deduced that no god is needed giving as much evidence as he does. |
The Big Bang was a physical event, implying that it took place in time. Your premise is false.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 9:30 pm Post subject: 683 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| Ok, so there's an objective moral code. How do I know what actions are allowed or forbidden by it? It's not a solid object that I can look at. People might compile lists of values and duties, and declare them to be objective morality, but they might not agree with each other. What makes it objectively true? How is an objective moral code that no one knows about any different from none at all? |
An objective moral value or set of values would have an effect on people regardless of whether or not they knew about it. "None at all" would not. That's the difference.
How someone would know what the objectively true moral values are is not what I'm discussing, so I don't find it pertinent to try and answer that. My question is about what possible foundation there could be for it, rather than how it would be communicated or made known. |
Would performing an objectively immoral act negatively affect anyone who performs it? That would be one way of establishing a foundation.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| It does't matter whether William Lane Craig borrows magic from others or makes it up. He doesn't show that any of it is true. I can do it too. The Big Bang happened outside of time so it didn't need a cause any more than a god does. The universe is magically suitable for life just like his god is magically intelligent. There, I've deduced that no god is needed giving as much evidence as he does. |
The Big Bang was a physical event, implying that it took place in time. Your premise is false. |
The Big Bang created time and space. It didn't happen in either any more than creation by a god did. It created the universe the same way a god is thought to have created it but it's not intelligent. Its sole capability was to create this one universe with these exact laws of nature. The explanation for its existence is the same as the explanation for a god's existence. It needs no explanation that a god doesn't also need. It's no less likely to have the function of making a life friendly universe than a god is of being intelligent. This function needs no explanation that a god's intelligence doesn't also need. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 10:50 pm Post subject: 684 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Zag wrote: |
| jadesmar wrote: |
| Why is a higher power required for an objective morality? |
I demonstrated above that it is not. |
I'm not really sure "morality" (in the phrase "objective morality") has been defined well enough to say whether that's been demonstrated. I mean, yes, for some definition of it. Would the compulsion of geese to fly south for the winter constitute part of their "morality"? |
You're confusing the cart and the horse. I started with the accepted definition of morality, at least, that much of it which could credibly be called objective and universal (basically, compassion for others) and demonstrated how those could have come about as a simple result of evolution -- no deity needed. There are also lots of other things that come about as a result of evolution that are not related to morality (such as intelligence), but that was not the conversation we were having.
Last edited by Zag on Sun May 13, 2012 10:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 10:53 pm Post subject: 685 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
The Big Bang was a physical event, implying that it took place in time. Your premise is false. |
Umm, no. The Big Bang was not a physical event. The physical part came after the Big Bang. The Big Bang was the "coming into existence" of time and space. (I originally had the word "creation" there, which is inaccurate because creation implies a creator. Note that the clumsiness of the English language does not change the facts. Also note that my phrase does not necessarily imply that there wasn't a creator, but the point is that there does not need to be any implication either way.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 1:03 am Post subject: 686 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| Would performing an objectively immoral act negatively affect anyone who performs it? |
Yes.
| Chuck wrote: |
| That would be one way of establishing a foundation. |
How? That's just part of the definition of an objectively immoral act. The foundation is the explanation for it's existence.
| Chuck wrote: |
| The Big Bang created time and space. It didn't happen in either any more than creation by a god did. It created the universe the same way a god is thought to have created it but it's not intelligent. Its sole capability was to create this one universe with these exact laws of nature. The explanation for its existence is the same as the explanation for a god's existence. It needs no explanation that a god doesn't also need. It's no less likely to have the function of making a life friendly universe than a god is of being intelligent. This function needs no explanation that a god's intelligence doesn't also need. |
And...
| Zag wrote: |
| The Big Bang was not a physical event. The physical part came after the Big Bang. The Big Bang was the "coming into existence" of time and space. (I originally had the word "creation" there, which is inaccurate because creation implies a creator. Note that the clumsiness of the English language does not change the facts. Also note that my phrase does not necessarily imply that there wasn't a creator, but the point is that there does not need to be any implication either way.) |
But....
| wikipedia wrote: |
| There is little evidence regarding the absolute earliest instant of the expansion. Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on. |
Is this Wikipedia assessment true? If so, then isn't the Big Bang Theory, being an explanation of the rapid expansion of the Universe from it's initial instant on, an explanation of an occurrence over time? Or did I miss something?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 3:33 am Post subject: 687 |
|
|
Why would an objective moral code need an explanation? Wouldn't it be true no matter what? If someone says there's a tree in his back hard I can go look for it. I don't have to explain it.
We don't have a natural explanation for the beginning of the universe. If we're going to call it a supernatural beginning then why bother with a god? Why does a supernatural cause have to be intelligent? How can we make any other claims about it all? Once we accept something as supernatural, any more claims about it seem absurd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 11:18 am Post subject: 688 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Zag wrote: |
| The Big Bang was not a physical event. The physical part came after the Big Bang. The Big Bang was the "coming into existence" of time and space. (I originally had the word "creation" there, which is inaccurate because creation implies a creator. Note that the clumsiness of the English language does not change the facts. Also note that my phrase does not necessarily imply that there wasn't a creator, but the point is that there does not need to be any implication either way.) |
But....
| wikipedia wrote: |
| There is little evidence regarding the absolute earliest instant of the expansion. Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on. |
Is this Wikipedia assessment true? If so, then isn't the Big Bang Theory, being an explanation of the rapid expansion of the Universe from it's initial instant on, an explanation of an occurrence over time? Or did I miss something? |
There is a lot more to the theory than the initial event. It includes the expansion of the universe, etc. However, the event, the Big Bang itself, is what started it all (quite literally!) The theory, however, doesn't make a lot of attempt to explain WHY the event occurred, because it recognizes the futility of trying. There probably isn't a WHY, or maybe it's supernatural, as Chuck says. Maybe it's the Judeo-Christian God. Or some other one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 12:29 pm Post subject: 689 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Zag wrote: |
| jadesmar wrote: |
| Why is a higher power required for an objective morality? |
I demonstrated above that it is not. |
I'm not really sure "morality" (in the phrase "objective morality") has been defined well enough to say whether that's been demonstrated. I mean, yes, for some definition of it. Would the compulsion of geese to fly south for the winter constitute part of their "morality"? |
You're confusing the cart and the horse. I started with the accepted definition of morality, at least, that much of it which could credibly be called objective and universal (basically, compassion for others) and demonstrated how those could have come about as a simple result of evolution -- no deity needed. |
No, I'm questioning whether we have a horse here. Do we even have yet an accepted definition of morality (objective or otherwise)? Is compassion for others any more morality than geese flying south for the winter? Both fall under "an innate tendency to behave a particular way". Is there a distinction between "moral values" and any arbitrary mapping from actions to some set of abstractions like "right, wrong".
Also, what's the connection between objective and universal? If everyone were wired differently, with different moral values, would they be any less objective?
But I think before even getting into what we mean by objective, "moral value" needs to be defined. I don't think it has. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 12:47 am Post subject: 690 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| Why would an objective moral code need an explanation? Wouldn't it be true no matter what? If someone says there's a tree in his back hard I can go look for it. I don't have to explain it. |
You might not have to explain, but there's still an explanation of how it got there. Why would someone need one? Maybe they're into botany. Maybe they're a detective hired to find out how long the tree owner lived there. Maybe they don't know a lot about trees and are curious? Reasons for wanting/ needing to know the explanation for the existence of that tree are endless. As for objective morality and what it implies, I'm just curious. I generally believe that you can't really deduce God's existence from observations. But every once in a while an idea pops up that maybe you can, so I try to put it through scrutiny.
| Chuck wrote: |
| We don't have a natural explanation for the beginning of the universe. If we're going to call it a supernatural beginning then why bother with a god? Why does a supernatural cause have to be intelligent? How can we make any other claims about it all? Once we accept something as supernatural, any more claims about it seem absurd. |
I guess it all comes down to what people find absurd. All I know about that argument from Craig is that he appears to believe the scientific consensus is that the Universe came into existence ex nihilo or "out of nothing". He doesn't find that absurd. But he finds the idea of something coming from nothing by nothing absurd. The only thing he believes is both not necessarily made entirely up of physical matter or energy and capable of bringing about something is mind. That's his reasoning behind the supernatural mind idea. I don't feel qualified to assume these are bogus claims, and certainly not qualified to assume he's insincere in making them.
| Zag wrote: |
There is a lot more to the theory than the initial event. It includes the expansion of the universe, etc. However, the event, the Big Bang itself, is what started it all (quite literally!) The theory, however, doesn't make a lot of attempt to explain WHY the event occurred, because it recognizes the futility of trying. There probably isn't a WHY, or maybe it's supernatural, as Chuck says. Maybe it's the Judeo-Christian God. Or some other one. |
Are you saying the event, the Big Bang itself, is the initial instant? If so, then by substitution, Wikipedia seems to be saying there is little evidence regarding the Big Bang itself. The entire theory is actually about the expansion and not really about the actual Bang at all. I did not know this. In any case, I agree that nothing factual is likely to be concluded from looking at the why, but it's still a valuable philosophical exercise.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 1:50 am Post subject: 691 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| Why would an objective moral code need an explanation? Wouldn't it be true no matter what? If someone says there's a tree in his back hard I can go look for it. I don't have to explain it. |
You might not have to explain, but there's still an explanation of how it got there. Why would someone need one? Maybe they're into botany. Maybe they're a detective hired to find out how long the tree owner lived there. Maybe they don't know a lot about trees and are curious? Reasons for wanting/ needing to know the explanation for the existence of that tree are endless. As for objective morality and what it implies, I'm just curious. I generally believe that you can't really deduce God's existence from observations. But every once in a while an idea pops up that maybe you can, so I try to put it through scrutiny.
|
I can see how there could be an interest in how a tree came to be, but it isn't needed to establish its objective existence. I can try to walk through it and smash my face. Someone who claims it isn't there would have the same experience. This doesn't seem to be the case with morality. If someone claims that an action that seems wrong to me is really acceptable, the moral principle, unlike the tree, really seems to not exist for him.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| We don't have a natural explanation for the beginning of the universe. If we're going to call it a supernatural beginning then why bother with a god? Why does a supernatural cause have to be intelligent? How can we make any other claims about it all? Once we accept something as supernatural, any more claims about it seem absurd. |
I guess it all comes down to what people find absurd. All I know about that argument from Craig is that he appears to believe the scientific consensus is that the Universe came into existence ex nihilo or "out of nothing". He doesn't find that absurd. But he finds the idea of something coming from nothing by nothing absurd. The only thing he believes is both not necessarily made entirely up of physical matter or energy and capable of bringing about something is mind. That's his reasoning behind the supernatural mind idea. I don't feel qualified to assume these are bogus claims, and certainly not qualified to assume he's insincere in making them.
|
So I guess, to Craig, anything that leads away from God is absurd. I guess you have to do that if you're going to deduce from the premise that nothing begins to exist without a cause that the universe was created by an ancient Jewish carpenter.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Zag wrote: |
There is a lot more to the theory than the initial event. It includes the expansion of the universe, etc. However, the event, the Big Bang itself, is what started it all (quite literally!) The theory, however, doesn't make a lot of attempt to explain WHY the event occurred, because it recognizes the futility of trying. There probably isn't a WHY, or maybe it's supernatural, as Chuck says. Maybe it's the Judeo-Christian God. Or some other one. |
Are you saying the event, the Big Bang itself, is the initial instant? If so, then by substitution, Wikipedia seems to be saying there is little evidence regarding the Big Bang itself. The entire theory is actually about the expansion and not really about the actual Bang at all. I did not know this. In any case, I agree that nothing factual is likely to be concluded from looking at the why, but it's still a valuable philosophical exercise. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 2:00 am Post subject: 692 |
|
|
| extro' wrote: |
| Do we even have yet an accepted definition of morality (objective or otherwise)? Is compassion for others any more morality than geese flying south for the winter? Both fall under "an innate tendency to behave a particular way". Is there a distinction between "moral values" and any arbitrary mapping from actions to some set of abstractions like "right, wrong". |
That's a good question. I suck at definitions and I'm not sure if I can define it in such a way that there are no exceptions to it, but how about this: Any value or duty to which the word "should" is applicable. A moral act is an attempt to conform to a standard of goodness.
| extro wrote: |
| Also, what's the connection between objective and universal? If everyone were wired differently, with different moral values, would they be any less objective? |
Objective just means that it's presence is not dependent on personal opinion about it or belief in it's value. So theoretically, it doesn't have to be any less objective if different values existed for each person.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 2:26 am Post subject: 693 |
|
|
| Maybe objective morality is complex beyond human imagination and separately covers every possible situation that every possible person could ever encounter. Then if someone else and I did different things in the same situation we could still be behaving morally because we're different people and are covered by different parts of the moral code. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 3:00 am Post subject: 694 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| I can see how there could be an interest in how a tree came to be, but it isn't needed to establish its objective existence. I can try to walk through it and smash my face. Someone who claims it isn't there would have the same experience. This doesn't seem to be the case with morality. If someone claims that an action that seems wrong to me is really acceptable, the moral principle, unlike the tree, really seems to not exist for him. |
Just because he claims it? People can lie and/or believe false things. His claim doesn't indicate one way or another whether the moral principle, if objective, effects him or not.
I'm not trying to determine whether or not objective moral values exist. I'm trying to determine what follows if their existence is already accepted.
| Chuck wrote: |
| So I guess, to Craig, anything that leads away from God is absurd. |
But to Craig, is it absurd because it leads away from God, or is it absurd in it's own right, and happens to lead away from God as well?
You seem to suggest it's the former rather than the latter, but I don't think that's necessarily true.
| Chuck wrote: |
| I guess you have to do that if you're going to deduce from the premise that nothing begins to exist without a cause that the universe was created by an ancient Jewish carpenter |
Funny, but inapplicable. His cosmological argument has nothing to do with deducing that Jesus is God.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 3:09 am Post subject: 695 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| Maybe objective morality is complex beyond human imagination and separately covers every possible situation that every possible person could ever encounter. Then if someone else and I did different things in the same situation we could still be behaving morally because we're different people and are covered by different parts of the moral code. |
It's possible, yes. That's why one of my moral values is the avoiding of judging others in moral terms. You can never know what is causing them to act the way they do.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 3:55 am Post subject: 696 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| I can see how there could be an interest in how a tree came to be, but it isn't needed to establish its objective existence. I can try to walk through it and smash my face. Someone who claims it isn't there would have the same experience. This doesn't seem to be the case with morality. If someone claims that an action that seems wrong to me is really acceptable, the moral principle, unlike the tree, really seems to not exist for him. |
Just because he claims it? People can lie and/or believe false things. His claim doesn't indicate one way or another whether the moral principle, if objective, effects him or not.
I'm not trying to determine whether or not objective moral values exist. I'm trying to determine what follows if their existence is already accepted. |
What if everyone agreed that there was an objective moral code but didn't agree on what was in it? Endless wars by everyone against the immoral?
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| So I guess, to Craig, anything that leads away from God is absurd. |
But to Craig, is it absurd because it leads away from God, or is it absurd in it's own right, and happens to lead away from God as well?
You seem to suggest it's the former rather than the latter, but I don't think that's necessarily true. |
I think it's true. He said in one video that he needs no evidence at all because he's experienced the Holy Ghost or something like that. He knows that anything that contradicts something he knows with absolute certainty can't be true. The conclusion was arrived at before the reasoning was done.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| I guess you have to do that if you're going to deduce from the premise that nothing begins to exist without a cause that the universe was created by an ancient Jewish carpenter |
Funny, but inapplicable. His cosmological argument has nothing to do with deducing that Jesus is God. |
True, but it still can't be wrong because everything must lead to Jesus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 5:10 am Post subject: 697 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| What if everyone agreed that there was an objective moral code but didn't agree on what was in it? Endless wars by everyone against the immoral? |
How does that follow? Why would fighting each other be necessary?
| Chuck wrote: |
| He said in one video that he needs no evidence at all because he's experienced the Holy Ghost or something like that. He knows that anything that contradicts something he knows with absolute certainty can't be true. The conclusion was arrived at before the reasoning was done. |
The conclusion that there is a God was arrived at independently from his reasoning. I already acknowledged this earlier in the thread. It suggests nothing about his reasoning coming afterwards, but even it did, so what? Suppose I have an experience that confirms to me that the sky is blue. Then I try to argue that the sky is blue, and in one of my premises, I claim that a lake reflecting blue from another color sky seems absurd to me. The reason it seems absurd is not because I already know the sky is blue. The reason it seems absurd is because it makes no sense to me why a lake would reflect blue if the sky was any other color. The fact that this impression of absurdity may be naive (properties in the water might give the impression of reflecting a blue sky, when the sky may actually be white or something) does not mean that it came to me because I already believed the sky is blue. It just means the other possibilities never occurred to me. That fact that he already believes the conclusion says nothing whatsoever about why he believes his premises.
| Chuck wrote: |
| True, but it still can't be wrong because everything must lead to Jesus. |
It could absolutely be wrong!! Nothing has to lead to Jesus. If it's a bad argument, it's a bad argument! I believe I have facial hair because I can see it and feel it. If I try to construct an argument proving that I have facial hair, my premises could still be wrong, even though the conclusion is still true. It's really a non-sequitor to say that he's stating premises he wouldn't otherwise believe unless he already believed the conclusion.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 6:15 am Post subject: 698 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| What if everyone agreed that there was an objective moral code but didn't agree on what was in it? Endless wars by everyone against the immoral? |
How does that follow? Why would fighting each other be necessary? |
It's what people do when then have different beliefs.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| He said in one video that he needs no evidence at all because he's experienced the Holy Ghost or something like that. He knows that anything that contradicts something he knows with absolute certainty can't be true. The conclusion was arrived at before the reasoning was done. |
The conclusion that there is a God was arrived at independently from his reasoning. I already acknowledged this earlier in the thread. It suggests nothing about his reasoning coming afterwards, but even it did, so what? Suppose I have an experience that confirms to me that the sky is blue. Then I try to argue that the sky is blue, and in one of my premises, I claim that a lake reflecting blue from another color sky seems absurd to me. The reason it seems absurd is not because I already know the sky is blue. The reason it seems absurd is because it makes no sense to me why a lake would reflect blue if the sky was any other color. The fact that this impression of absurdity may be naive (properties in the water might give the impression of reflecting a blue sky, when the sky may actually be white or something) does not mean that it came to me because I already believed the sky is blue. It just means the other possibilities never occurred to me. That fact that he already believes the conclusion says nothing whatsoever about why he believes his premises. |
If the sky isn't always blue but a voice in your head says it is, so you ignore the times when it's night or cloudy, you're being more like Craig.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| True, but it still can't be wrong because everything must lead to Jesus. |
It could absolutely be wrong!! Nothing has to lead to Jesus. If it's a bad argument, it's a bad argument! I believe I have facial hair because I can see it and feel it. If I try to construct an argument proving that I have facial hair, my premises could still be wrong, even though the conclusion is still true. It's really a non-sequitor to say that he's stating premises he wouldn't otherwise believe unless he already believed the conclusion. |
We've never seen anything begin to exist from nothing and we haven't seen the universe begin, but he needs those for his argument. On the other hand, every intelligent being we've ever seen has had a cause. But that's inconvenient for his argument so that's not mentioned. He's treating speculation as fact and ignoring observation. His argument seems strongly directed by what he already believes rather than by what is observed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 10:41 am Post subject: 699 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| extro' wrote: |
| Do we even have yet an accepted definition of morality (objective or otherwise)? Is compassion for others any more morality than geese flying south for the winter? Both fall under "an innate tendency to behave a particular way". Is there a distinction between "moral values" and any arbitrary mapping from actions to some set of abstractions like "right, wrong". |
That's a good question. I suck at definitions and I'm not sure if I can define it in such a way that there are no exceptions to it, but how about this: Any value or duty to which the word "should" is applicable. A moral act is an attempt to conform to a standard of goodness. |
"goodness" needs defining too then. I don't mean to bog this down in definitions, but obviously it's trivial to show an objective moral code does not require a deity (or any sentient entity), unless "moral value", "right and wrong", means something apart from a tendency for a thing to behave some way.. The Mars rovers should avoid walking off cliffs. It's good that they avoid that. That "moral value" is part of their programming, objectively present inside them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Undercover Monk
Professor Chaos
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 8:00 pm Post subject: 700 |
|
|
Probably a mistake to jump into a discussion about atheism when I find atheists to be on the whole condescending and stubborn. Also Im a christian and am myself condescending and stubborn but Im bored to tears and I do love a good debate.
many of you arguing from the atheists side have pointed out that without a frame of refrence of time or space we can not know what went on before the big bang (I know there was nothing before the big bang and the whole thing gets very convuluted when you use words like nothing or before when describing the big bang.) But how is that any different then The creation story from the bible. we believe god created the universe so what came before then. how was god created. It just seems to me that these are the same questions we ask you about the big bang. Since I assume none of us have advanced degrees in theoretical physics how can we use our language to describe either the big bang or the initial creation when in both cases time and space do not exist before either event
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 9:01 pm Post subject: 701 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| Why would fighting each other be necessary? |
It's what people do when then have different beliefs. |
But I'm a person, and I don't generally start wars with others because they believe different things. Am I some special exception to the rule?
| Chuck wrote: |
| If the sky isn't always blue but a voice in your head says it is, so you ignore the times when it's night or cloudy, you're being more like Craig. |
What scientific facts, reasoning, or observations is he ignoring?
| Chuck wrote: |
| We've never seen anything begin to exist from nothing and we haven't seen the universe begin, but he needs those for his argument. |
We've never seen the Napoleonic wars, either, but it's generally accepted that they occurred. No historical claim can be "shown", so that's an absurd requirement for accepting one.
| Chuck wrote: |
| On the other hand, every intelligent being we've ever seen has had a cause. But that's inconvenient for his argument so that's not mentioned. He's treating speculation as fact and ignoring observation. His argument seems strongly directed by what he already believes rather than by what is observed. |
There are other reasons for not mentioning an observation in one's argument, besides it being "inconvenient":
1. The observation is irrelevant
2. The observation never entered the equation in the first place (either by not occurring to the arguer or by not being brought up by the opposition)
3. Both
It's seems that your argument against his intellectual honesty is strongly directed by that preconception about him rather than what is observed. Show me where that observation about known intelligent beings having causes is brought up in a debate, interview, or conversation with him, and show me where he clearly ignores this. Provide me a link or quote me a transcript.
| extro wrote: |
| "goodness" needs defining too then |
"Goodness" in the moral sense, is a perceived ideal. That would mean there must be a perceptive entity involved. An entity that can potentially perceive an ideal. Maybe a better definition of a moral action is an action performed in an attempt to conform to a perceived ideal. A machine that is only following it's programming doesn't really attempt to do anything. It is only following the nature that was given to it. The entity that programmed it might be attempting something, because there could be an ideal set before it. I don't see how ideals can be programmed into machines, however. Instructions on what to do if certain conditions are deviated from, yes. But the ideal itself, no. The conditions programmed are merely conditions that manifest the ideal to the programmer.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax
Last edited by BraveHat on Sun May 20, 2012 2:56 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 9:34 pm Post subject: 702 |
|
|
| Undercover Monk wrote: |
| how can we use our language to describe either the big bang or the initial creation when in both cases time and space do not exist before either event |
It seems that we can't really describe much of it. It seems that we can say something about it's nature, however, just by sheer logic. If it (God or the Big Bang) created time than it (God or the Big Bang) must have existed outside of time. Otherwise, you have a chicken and egg scenario with time and time's cause. If time's cause exists entirely within time, than time's cause caused it's own basis for existence, which is absurd.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Undercover Monk
Professor Chaos
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 11:07 pm Post subject: 703 |
|
|
@bravehat
but thats my point the construct of time is just that a construct. Its why each civilization has its own calender of varying lengths. Its why we can lose or gain an hour in daylight savings and yet the world continues. Time is an abstract a perception. It something humans made up to better function in their world. Not to say it doesnt exist but it exists in the same way the color red exists. so of course we cant describe pre-big bang creation event as both are the pre-time events. My point is why is that a point in favor of the atheists.
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 11:10 pm Post subject: 704 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| Why would fighting each other be necessary? |
It's what people do when then have different beliefs. |
But I'm a person, and I don't generally start wars with others because they believe different things. Am I some special exception to the rule? |
I'm sure you're not alone in this, but enough people will fight over disagreements to keep war going somewhere much of the time.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| If the sky isn't always blue but a voice in your head says it is, so you ignore the times when it's night or cloudy, you're being more like Craig. |
What scientific facts, reasoning, or observations is he ignoring? |
Conservation of mass/energy, for one, which he states doesn't bother him. He has no trouble accepting creation of something from nothing since he needs that for his argument. He objects to creation without cause because he needs cause for a god to be necessary. It seems that only the portion of reality that supports his claims is actually real.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| We've never seen anything begin to exist from nothing and we haven't seen the universe begin, but he needs those for his argument. |
We've never seen the Napoleonic wars, either, but it's generally accepted that they occurred. No historical claim can be "shown", so that's an absurd requirement for accepting one. |
We see wars today. It's the kind of thing that happens. We don't see creation from nothing.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| On the other hand, every intelligent being we've ever seen has had a cause. But that's inconvenient for his argument so that's not mentioned. He's treating speculation as fact and ignoring observation. His argument seems strongly directed by what he already believes rather than by what is observed. |
There are other reasons for not mentioning an observation in one's argument, besides it being "inconvenient":
1. The observation is irrelevant
2. The observation never entered the equation in the first place (either by not occurring to the arguer or by not being brought up by the opposition)
3. Both
It's seems that your argument against his intellectual honesty is strongly directed by that preconception about him rather than what is observed. Show me where that observation about known intelligent beings having causes is brought up in a debate, interview, or conversation with him, and show me where he clearly ignores this. Provide me a link or quote me a transcript. |
If he mentioned it in a debate then it wouldn't be ignored . He ignores it in every debate. We observe that the universe existed before intelligent beings existed. Inconvenient observations seem to be ignored.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Quote: |
| "goodness" needs defining too then |
"Goodness" in the moral sense, is a perceived ideal. That would mean there must be a perceptive entity involved. An entity that can potentially perceive an ideal. Maybe a better definition of a moral action is an action performed in an attempt to conform to a perceived ideal. A machine that is only following it's programming doesn't really attempt to do anything. It is only following the nature that was given to it. The entity that programmed it might be attempting something, because there could be an ideal set before it. I don't see how ideals can be programmed into machines, however. Instructions on what to do if certain conditions are deviated from, yes. But the ideal itself, no. The conditions programmed are merely conditions that manifest the ideal to the programmer. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 11:32 pm Post subject: 705 |
|
|
| Under Cover Monk wrote: |
| but thats my point the construct of time is just that a construct. Its why each civilization has its own calender of varying lengths. Its why we can lose or gain an hour in daylight savings and yet the world continues. Time is an abstract a perception. It something humans made up to better function in their world. Not to say it doesnt exist but it exists in the same way the color red exists. so of course we cant describe pre-big bang creation event as both are the pre-time events. My point is why is that a point in favor of the atheists. |
All your argument supports is that the measurement of time is a human construct. It doesn't show that time itself is a human construct. Having said that, there's no necessary dichotomy between God and the Big Bang. Many theists believe in both. The Big Bang seems to be a hypothesized event implied by the behavior of the Universe. I don't know much about the theory, so I'll let someone with more of an expertise on it answer the question.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 12:09 am Post subject: 706 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| I'm sure you're not alone in this, but enough people will fight over disagreements to keep war going somewhere much of the time. |
If people fight over disagreements in order to keep wars going, then obviously the disagreements are just an excuse to have wars! This implies that if they did agree, they'd find some other excuse to fight. I don't see how moral disagreements have to be the cause of wars.
| Chuck wrote: |
| Conservation of mass/energy, for one, which he states doesn't bother him. |
Could you provide me a quote or link, please?
| Chuck wrote: |
| He has no trouble accepting creation of something from nothing since he needs that for his argument. He objects to creation without cause because he needs cause for a god to be necessary. |
Again, you keep saying that he bases his acceptance and nonacceptance of premises on how supportable they are to his belief. This implies that if he didn't have a firm belief in God's existence, he wouldn't accept something from nothing as plausible and/or wouldn't dismiss creation without a causal agent as absurd. But you've provided no quote or link to support this claim, so it seems like it's just a projection of motives onto him.
| Chuck wrote: |
| It seems that only the portion of reality that supports his claims is actually real. |
How about only the claims supported by the portion of reality which genuinely seems real to him are ones he makes?
| Chuck wrote: |
| We see wars today. It's the kind of thing that happens. We don't see creation from nothing. |
What about Dinosaurs and the cataclysmic event that wiped them out? We never see anything like that happen today. Yet we generally believe the historical claim that they existed and that the event occurred.
| Chuck wrote: |
| If he mentioned it in a debate then it wouldn't be ignored. He ignores it in every debate. |
I didn't say proof of him mentioning it, but of someone else mentioning it to him, and him ignoring it. To say that he ignores it in every debate without referring to one of more instances of it coming up, implies that it's a kind of intrinsic elephant in the room when he argues. I don't think that's necessarily the case. It may just never have occurred to him, or be a superfluous or irrelevant issue.
| Chuck wrote: |
| We observe that the universe existed before intelligent beings existed. Inconvenient observations seem to be ignored. |
How on earth do we actually observe that the universe existed before intelligent beings existed? All we observe is that every being that we know is intelligent existed afterwards. I would like to see Craig's response to that observation, but the one you mention is not an observation, but an assumption.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 1:41 am Post subject: 707 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| I'm sure you're not alone in this, but enough people will fight over disagreements to keep war going somewhere much of the time. |
If people fight over disagreements in order to keep wars going, then obviously the disagreements are just an excuse to have wars! This implies that if they did agree, they'd find some other excuse to fight. I don't see how moral disagreements have to be the cause of wars. |
The disagreements are enough to keep wars going. That doesn't mean they're disagreeing for the purpose of keeping wars going.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| Conservation of mass/energy, for one, which he states doesn't bother him. |
Could you provide me a quote or link, please? |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyV0ozKi0ok
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| He has no trouble accepting creation of something from nothing since he needs that for his argument. He objects to creation without cause because he needs cause for a god to be necessary. |
Again, you keep saying that he bases his acceptance and nonacceptance of premises on how supportable they are to his belief. This implies that if he didn't have a firm belief in God's existence, he wouldn't accept something from nothing as plausible and/or wouldn't dismiss creation without a causal agent as absurd. But you've provided no quote or link to support this claim, so it seems like it's just a projection of motives onto him. |
I've watched some of his videos. That's what I observe.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| It seems that only the portion of reality that supports his claims is actually real. |
How about only the claims supported by the portion of reality which genuinely seems real to him are ones he makes? |
That would be whatever leads to Jesus. He defending Christianity.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| We see wars today. It's the kind of thing that happens. We don't see creation from nothing. |
What about Dinosaurs and the cataclysmic event that wiped them out? We never see anything like that happen today. Yet we generally believe the historical claim that they existed and that the event occurred. |
We see old fossils of skeletons and skeletons of animals today. Having a skeleton roughly shaped like the animal is something that is observed to happen often. Falling rocks are observed to make craters in experiments and we see large craters today. Falling rocks are seen to kick up dust. More dust for larger rocks. Dust is seen to block sunlight. Plants kept out of sunlight don't thrive. Animals need to eat plants or other animals that eat plants because animals can't use sunlight directly.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| If he mentioned it in a debate then it wouldn't be ignored. He ignores it in every debate. |
I didn't say proof of him mentioning it, but of someone else mentioning it to him, and him ignoring it. To say that he ignores it in every debate without referring to one of more instances of it coming up, implies that it's a kind of intrinsic elephant in the room when he argues. I don't think that's necessarily the case. It may just never have occurred to him, or be a superfluous or irrelevant issue. |
I didn't claim he was ignoring the argument from someone else. He's ignoring observable facts.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| We observe that the universe existed before intelligent beings existed. Inconvenient observations seem to be ignored. |
How on earth do we actually observe that the universe existed before intelligent beings existed? All we observe is that every being that we know is intelligent existed afterwards. I would like to see Craig's response to that observation, but the one you mention is not an observation, but an assumption. |
We can't directly observe the distant past but we can do experiments now to see what is and isn't possible. In any case, we're said to have been designed by God, but if intelligence is something that doesn't need design then why insist that ours was designed? If intelligence needs a designer then who made God? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2012 11:19 pm Post subject: 708 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| The disagreements are enough to keep wars going. That doesn't mean they're disagreeing for the purpose of keeping wars going. |
Oooh, I read that wrong originally, sorry. But if we all agreed there was an objective moral code, and all disagreed on moral issues, that wouldn't mean we'd all think that our moral codes, at least insofar as they differed from one another, were THE objective moral code. That would just be self-righteousness and that, I think, is what leads to war (when wars are fought over morality) We might think, instead, that at best we're approximating it some times in some ways with some values to some degree.
For one, I don't see where in that link, he suggests that the laws of conservation of mass/energy don't bother him, but even if he did state that, why ought they to bother him? The laws of conservation of mass/energy say that they are constant over time. When talking about the cause of time itself, those laws can't apply. Like I said, if he's ignoring an observation, fact, or law, it doesn't mean he's doing it in order to support his belief (though he could be), it could just mean that the observation, fact, or law is irrelevant to the point.
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| you keep saying that he bases his acceptance and nonacceptance of premises on how supportable they are to his belief. This implies that if he didn't have a firm belief in God's existence, he wouldn't accept something from nothing as plausible and/or wouldn't dismiss creation without a causal agent as absurd. But you've provided no quote or link to support this claim, so it seems like it's just a projection of motives onto him. |
I've watched some of his videos. That's what I observe. |
How? How do you "observe" someone's motives for what they do? How do you "observe" that someone's belief in premises are dependent on their belief in the conclusion?? I believe I have facial hair. I might try to argue to a blind person as follows:
1. When one feels hair on one's face, one has facial hair
2. I feel hair on my face
3. Therefore, I have facial hair
I already believed I had facial hair before I felt it because I have the knowledge of not having shaved for 3 days. But that doesn't mean I don't sincerely believe I feel it. I believe I feel it, independently of my belief that it exists. How do you, then, observe that it's not the same way with Craig's premises: That he believes the premises because of his conclusion rather than existing as separate beliefs? There's no way to observe that kind of thing about someone's beliefs.
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| How about only the claims supported by the portion of reality which genuinely seems real to him are ones he makes? |
That would be whatever leads to Jesus. He defending Christianity. |
It doesn't matter what he's defending, to say his premises only seem real to him because they lead to a certain conclusion is to accuse him, baselessly, of intellectual dishonesty. And there's just no evidence for that.
| Chuck wrote: |
| We see old fossils of skeletons and skeletons of animals today. Having a skeleton roughly shaped like the animal is something that is observed to happen often. Falling rocks are observed to make craters in experiments and we see large craters today. Falling rocks are seen to kick up dust. More dust for larger rocks. Dust is seen to block sunlight. Plants kept out of sunlight don't thrive. Animals need to eat plants or other animals that eat plants because animals can't use sunlight directly. |
Everything that we see begin to exist today, we see a cause for. Why can't this not be transposed deductively to the past to conclude a creator, the same way observations of dust are used to conclude the cataclysm?
| Chuck wrote: |
| I didn't claim he was ignoring the argument from someone else. He's ignoring observable facts. |
Again, ignoring is justified when the observations are irrelevant to the point. Show me a relevant point that he's ignoring.
| Chuck wrote: |
| We can't directly observe the distant past but we can do experiments now to see what is and isn't possible |
What experiment can we do now to show that an intelligent cause of the universe is not possible?
| Chuck wrote: |
| ...we're said to have been designed by God, but if intelligence is something that doesn't need design then why insist that ours was designed? |
Who says our intelligence was designed?
| Chuck wrote: |
| If intelligence needs a designer then who made God? |
What if God created His own intelligence? Would he need intelligence to do that? If so, why?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 12:49 am Post subject: 709 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| The disagreements are enough to keep wars going. That doesn't mean they're disagreeing for the purpose of keeping wars going. |
Oooh, I read that wrong originally, sorry. But if we all agreed there was an objective moral code, and all disagreed on moral issues, that wouldn't mean we'd all think that our moral codes, at least insofar as they differed from one another, were THE objective moral code. That would just be self-righteousness and that, I think, is what leads to war (when wars are fought over morality) We might think, instead, that at best we're approximating it some times in some ways with some values to some degree. |
If there's an objective moral code but we don't have access to it then it would be the same as having only subjective morality that we only think is approximating objective morality. There would be no consequences of the objective moral code existing.
| BraveHat wrote: |
For one, I don't see where in that link, he suggests that the laws of conservation of mass/energy don't bother him, but even if he did state that, why ought they to bother him? The laws of conservation of mass/energy say that they are constant over time. When talking about the cause of time itself, those laws can't apply. Like I said, if he's ignoring an observation, fact, or law, it doesn't mean he's doing it in order to support his belief (though he could be), it could just mean that the observation, fact, or law is irrelevant to the point. |
We've observed cause and effect happening only in time as well, so that should be just as irrelevant to his argument as conservation of mass/energy. If we're justified in disregarding some of what we see within the universe, shouldn't we disregard the rest as well unless it can be demonstrated? But he clings to cause being needed at all costs because he needs it, not be cause any observation supports it. He's pointed out in other videos that we don't see random things appearing out of nothing for no reason and calls that evidence for his position. But none of those observations were made at the beginning of time. We haven't seen gods creating things all over the place either.
If he wants to discard what we see locally as not applying, he should at least be consistent or justify the inconsistency.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| you keep saying that he bases his acceptance and nonacceptance of premises on how supportable they are to his belief. This implies that if he didn't have a firm belief in God's existence, he wouldn't accept something from nothing as plausible and/or wouldn't dismiss creation without a causal agent as absurd. But you've provided no quote or link to support this claim, so it seems like it's just a projection of motives onto him. |
I've watched some of his videos. That's what I observe. |
How? How do you "observe" someone's motives for what they do? How do you "observe" that someone's belief in premises are dependent on their belief in the conclusion?? I believe I have facial hair. I might try to argue to a blind person as follows:
1. When one feels hair on one's face, one has facial hair
2. I feel hair on my face
3. Therefore, I have facial hair
I already believed I had facial hair before I felt it because I have the knowledge of not having shaved for 3 days. But that doesn't mean I don't sincerely believe I feel it. I believe I feel it, independently of my belief that it exists. How do you, then, observe that it's not the same way with Craig's premises: That he believes the premises because of his conclusion rather than existing as separate beliefs? There's no way to observe that kind of thing about someone's beliefs. |
His main premise has not been observed to be true and things that are true are omitted. The beginning of the universe is beyond our understanding. I doubt that he chose his premises at random, so what does that leave?
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| How about only the claims supported by the portion of reality which genuinely seems real to him are ones he makes? |
That would be whatever leads to Jesus. He defending Christianity. |
It doesn't matter what he's defending, to say his premises only seem real to him because they lead to a certain conclusion is to accuse him, baselessly, of intellectual dishonesty. And there's just no evidence for that.
| Chuck wrote: |
| We see old fossils of skeletons and skeletons of animals today. Having a skeleton roughly shaped like the animal is something that is observed to happen often. Falling rocks are observed to make craters in experiments and we see large craters today. Falling rocks are seen to kick up dust. More dust for larger rocks. Dust is seen to block sunlight. Plants kept out of sunlight don't thrive. Animals need to eat plants or other animals that eat plants because animals can't use sunlight directly. |
Everything that we see begin to exist today, we see a cause for. Why can't this not be transposed deductively to the past to conclude a creator, the same way observations of dust are used to conclude the cataclysm? |
We can observe dust at other times to see what makes it. We've never seen a universe begin. If we use this reasoning on the universe anyway then we should also use it on God.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| I didn't claim he was ignoring the argument from someone else. He's ignoring observable facts. |
Again, ignoring is justified when the observations are irrelevant to the point. Show me a relevant point that he's ignoring. |
Physical things that begin to exist have physical causes. He's pushing a nonphysical god so that's ignored. If that's not relevant to the beginning of the universe then why is anything else that we observe within the universe, such as things needing causes at all?
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| We can't directly observe the distant past but we can do experiments now to see what is and isn't possible |
What experiment can we do now to show that an intelligent cause of the universe is not possible? |
We can observe how intelligence comes to exist.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| ...we're said to have been designed by God, but if intelligence is something that doesn't need design then why insist that ours was designed? |
Who says our intelligence was designed? |
Christians claim that God made man in his own image.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| If intelligence needs a designer then who made God? |
What if God created His own intelligence? Would he need intelligence to do that? If so, why? |
God is supposed to be unchanging. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 11:38 am Post subject: 710 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| If there's an objective moral code but we don't have access to it then it would be the same as having only subjective morality that we only think is approximating objective morality. There would be no consequences of the objective moral code existing. |
Not true at all. First of all, why say we wouldn't have access to it? Another non-sequitur. Second, even if we didn't, to say it's objective means that it would have an effect on us whether we realized it or not, so the difference, again, is affected vs unaffected. For example, suppose honesty was an objective moral value. Suppose that every time we lie (betray the value) we decrease our ability to think clearly, and every time we tell the truth (conform to the value) we increase our ability to think clearly. It would be possible for no one to actually catch on to this fact and it wouldn't matter: we'd still be hampering ourselves every time we lied and helping ourselves every time we told the truth. We just wouldn't recognize it as the primary cause and have other, more immediate or mechanical explanations for our changes in mental clarity.
| Chuck wrote: |
| We've observed cause and effect happening only in time as well, so that should be just as irrelevant to his argument as conservation of mass/energy. |
Have we? My walls are causing my ceiling to suspend in that position. I'm observing cause and effect happening at the same instant, not in time. The cause is the walls standing up. The effect is the ceiling being suspended in the air.
| Chuck wrote: |
| If we're justified in disregarding some of what we see within the universe, shouldn't we disregard the rest as well unless it can be demonstrated? |
No. Sometimes disregarding is justified (if it's irrelevant), and sometimes it isn't (if it's relevant).
| Chuck wrote: |
| But he clings to cause being needed at all costs because he needs it, not be cause any observation supports it. |
I'm not sure what you mean by "at all costs." You seem to be putting words in his mouth. You're also putting motivations in his head. "because he needs it". What if it's just because it makes the most sense to him? I still see no reason to think he's being dishonest.
| Chuck wrote: |
| He's pointed out in other videos that we don't see random things appearing out of nothing for no reason and calls that evidence for his position. But none of those observations were made at the beginning of time. We haven't seen gods creating things all over the place either. |
None of the rock/dust observations were made at the time of the Dinosaur extinction either.
| Chuck wrote: |
| If he wants to discard what we see locally as not applying, he should at least be consistent or justify the inconsistency. |
If it doesn't challenge (or help) the argument, why NOT discard it? Here would be a simple justification: Any observation occuring to him that challenges or helps his argument is addressed. Any observation occuring to him that does neither is discarded.
| Chuck wrote: |
| His main premise has not been observed to be true and things that are true are omitted. |
It's true that I have facial hair. It's true that tulips can come in yellow. It's true that Obama is currently the President of the United States. Should Dr. Craig not have omitted these facts in his argument on the Universe's cause? Of course he should have, because even though they're true, they're not relevant. Same with the law of conservation of mass/energy. It's not relevant when talking about the origins of time itself.
| Chuck wrote: |
| The beginning of the universe is beyond our understanding. I doubt that he chose his premises at random, so what does that leave? |
Intuition, basic beliefs. Of course he didn't choose the premises at random. He chose them because they support his conclusion. That doesn't mean he believes them because they support his conclusion. HUGE difference. If he believes them independently of his conclusion, then it's his grounds for believing them that should be disputed. That's the only point I'm trying to make. You're making it seem that he's being dishonest, that he's choosing premises that he only believes because of his belief in God. I'm saying that's not apparent to me.
| Chuck wrote: |
| We can observe dust at other times to see what makes it. |
But do we need those other observations to conclude the cataclysm?
| Chuck wrote: |
| If we use this reasoning on the universe anyway then we should also use it on God. |
But the "Origin of God" is a different argument. This argument is about the origin of the Universe. Origin of God does not apply. It's like trying to prove that grandma exists by showing your kid pictures, videos, and return addresses on envelopes with her name on it, and your kid doesn't believe you because you haven't explained where grandma came from. It's completely irrelevant to the argument.
| Chuck wrote: |
| Physical things that begin to exist have physical causes. He's pushing a nonphysical god so that's ignored. If that's not relevant to the beginning of the universe then why is anything else that we observe within the universe, such as things needing causes at all? |
Yes we observe that physical things that begin to exist have physical causes, but we also observe types of causes which aren't determined to be entirely physical, like ideas, desires, intuitions. These are causes the mind produces, which are not necessarily dependent on the physical. One of the causes of a painting, for instance, could be an idea. Naturalism requires that ideas, desires, and intuitions are entirely physical. But to Craig, naturalism is what makes matter from nonmatter absurd. Only supernaturalism, where mind exists independently from, though interacting with, physical causes can make sense of matter from nonmatter.
| Chuck wrote: |
| We can observe how intelligence comes to exist. |
How?
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| Who says our intelligence was designed? |
Christians claim that God made man in his own image. |
Yes, which means they claim two things: 1) we were designed and 2)We have intelligence like Him. It doesn't follow that the intelligence we were given was designed. If I take a drop of my blood and design a miniture version of me with it, that doesn't mean I designed my blood.
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| What if God created His own intelligence? Would he need intelligence to do that? If so, why? |
God is supposed to be unchanging. |
True, I used the wrong tense. What if God creates His own intelligence constantly?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 1:47 pm Post subject: 711 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| If there's an objective moral code but we don't have access to it then it would be the same as having only subjective morality that we only think is approximating objective morality. There would be no consequences of the objective moral code existing. |
Not true at all. First of all, why say we wouldn't have access to it? Another non-sequitur. Second, even if we didn't, to say it's objective means that it would have an effect on us whether we realized it or not, so the difference, again, is affected vs unaffected. For example, suppose honesty was an objective moral value. Suppose that every time we lie (betray the value) we decrease our ability to think clearly, and every time we tell the truth (conform to the value) we increase our ability to think clearly. It would be possible for no one to actually catch on to this fact and it wouldn't matter: we'd still be hampering ourselves every time we lied and helping ourselves every time we told the truth. We just wouldn't recognize it as the primary cause and have other, more immediate or mechanical explanations for our changes in mental clarity. |
If lying decreased my ability to think clearly, what would that have to do with morality? Even if I knew it would happen, I might consider it a fair trade if the lie got me lots of money. I still wouldn't know anything about objective moral values or that I had violated one. Even if we caught on, who's to stay that a loss of thinking ability has anything to do with morality? The loss of thinking ability might just be a cost of doing business.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| We've observed cause and effect happening only in time as well, so that should be just as irrelevant to his argument as conservation of mass/energy. |
Have we? My walls are causing my ceiling to suspend in that position. I'm observing cause and effect happening at the same instant, not in time. The cause is the walls standing up. The effect is the ceiling being suspended in the air. |
Perfect example. Without the passage of time the ceiling would not fall whether the walls were there or not.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| If we're justified in disregarding some of what we see within the universe, shouldn't we disregard the rest as well unless it can be demonstrated? |
No. Sometimes disregarding is justified (if it's irrelevant), and sometimes it isn't (if it's relevant). |
If I see someone disregarding some of what we see around us because it's irrelevant due to his subject matter being elsewhere, and he then uses some of what we see around us as supporting evidence, he's being inconsistent.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| But he clings to cause being needed at all costs because he needs it, not be cause any observation supports it. |
I'm not sure what you mean by "at all costs." You seem to be putting words in his mouth. You're also putting motivations in his head. "because he needs it". What if it's just because it makes the most sense to him? I still see no reason to think he's being dishonest. |
If someone insisted that his neighbor robbed him and didn't think it was relevant that his neighbor was in a distant city that day, shouldn't I think that the person claiming he was robbed has some other motive than catching the thief? It would look more like he was trying to cause trouble for his neighbor. I wouldn't know what his actual motives were but that doesn't mean I'd have no idea at all.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| He's pointed out in other videos that we don't see random things appearing out of nothing for no reason and calls that evidence for his position. But none of those observations were made at the beginning of time. We haven't seen gods creating things all over the place either. |
None of the rock/dust observations were made at the time of the Dinosaur extinction either. |
We can do experiments now to see that rocks hitting the ground raise dust. No universe creation experiments have been done that I know about.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| If he wants to discard what we see locally as not applying, he should at least be consistent or justify the inconsistency. |
If it doesn't challenge (or help) the argument, why NOT discard it? Here would be a simple justification: Any observation occuring to him that challenges or helps his argument is addressed. Any observation occuring to him that does neither is discarded. |
I can't read his mind. The only impressions of him are from what he says. He doesn't seem to be ignorant of reality so that leaves selectively choosing only what needs to support his case.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| His main premise has not been observed to be true and things that are true are omitted. |
It's true that I have facial hair. It's true that tulips can come in yellow. It's true that Obama is currently the President of the United States. Should Dr. Craig not have omitted these facts in his argument on the Universe's cause? Of course he should have, because even though they're true, they're not relevant. Same with the law of conservation of mass/energy. It's not relevant when talking about the origins of time itself. |
Then how is the observation of things beginning to exist having causes relevant? That's also something we observe locally, like conservation of mass/energy. But Craig calls it absurd that the universe had no cause. His reasoning is that we don't see things appearing without cause locally, but we're discarding local rules, like conservation of mass/energy, for the beginning of the universe. So his claim that the universe must have a cause is just something he made up with no supporting evidence at all.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| The beginning of the universe is beyond our understanding. I doubt that he chose his premises at random, so what does that leave? |
Intuition, basic beliefs. Of course he didn't choose the premises at random. He chose them because they support his conclusion. That doesn't mean he believes them because they support his conclusion. HUGE difference. If he believes them independently of his conclusion, then it's his grounds for believing them that should be disputed. That's the only point I'm trying to make. You're making it seem that he's being dishonest by choosing premises that he only believes because of his belief in God. I'm saying that's not apparent to me. |
Proving that belief in God is not based solely on blind faith seems to be his intent. Of course I can't prove that he's being dishonest. All I hear is what he says. His argument appears to be dishonest.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| We can observe dust at other times to see what makes it. |
But do we need those other observations to conclude the cataclysm? |
They help. With no observations at all we wouldn't know anything about it.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| If we use this reasoning on the universe anyway then we should also use it on God. |
But the "Origin of God" is a different argument. This argument is about the origin of the Universe. Origin of God does not apply. It's like trying to prove that grandma exists by showing your kid pictures, videos, and return addresses on envelopes with her name on it, and your kid doesn't believe you because you haven't explained where grandma came from. It's completely irrelevant to the argument. |
It is relevant because Craig claims that everything that begins to exist has a cause and that time had a beginning, so nothing is infinitely old. If these are true then God needs a cause. If God doesn't need a cause then his premises are false and can be ignored and we need not listen to his arguments.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| Physical things that begin to exist have physical causes. He's pushing a nonphysical god so that's ignored. If that's not relevant to the beginning of the universe then why is anything else that we observe within the universe, such as things needing causes at all? |
Yes we observe that physical things that begin to exist have physical causes, but we also observe types of causes which aren't determined to be entirely physical, like ideas, desires, intuitions. These are causes the mind produces, which are not necessarily dependent on the physical. One of the causes of a painting, for instance, could be an idea. Naturalism requires that ideas, desires, and intuitions are entirely physical. But to Craig, naturalism is what makes matter from nonmatter absurd. Only supernaturalism, where mind exists independently from, though interacting with, physical causes can make sense of matter from nonmatter. |
Even if there is a supernatural cause of a painting, the physical is still required. I've never seen someone's mind paint a painting.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| We can observe how intelligence comes to exist. |
How? |
Watch various things form and see which ones develop into intelligent beings.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| Who says our intelligence was designed? |
Christians claim that God made man in his own image. |
Yes, which means they claim two things: 1) we were designed and 2)We have intelligence like Him. It doesn't follow that the intelligence we were given was designed. If I take a drop of my blood and design a miniture version of me with it, that doesn't mean I designed my blood. |
You'd have copied an existing product. Since God made everything he didn't have that option.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| What if God created His own intelligence? Would he need intelligence to do that? If so, why? |
God is supposed to be unchanging. |
True, I used the wrong tense. What if God creates His own intelligence constantly? |
Then he'd be creating something that already exists. Where did it originally come from? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 11:04 pm Post subject: 712 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| If lying decreased my ability to think clearly, what would that have to do with morality? |
Well, as extro pointed, we didn't clearly define what morality was in the first place. Only as got as far in defining at the following, which no one has yet disputed, and I just realized it was probably because I left out extro's name in the quote block, and just now fixed it:
| I wrote: |
| Maybe a better definition of a moral action is an action performed in an attempt to conform to a perceived ideal. |
If that is morality, then we might say that the perceived ideal is this case would be being in the best mental state possible to make decisions.
| Chuck wrote: |
Even if I knew it would happen, I might consider it a fair trade if the lie got me lots of money. I still wouldn't know anything about objective moral values or that I had violated one. |
Yes, that's what I'm saying, too. What's your point?
| Chuck wrote: |
| Even if we caught on, who's to stay that a loss of thinking ability has anything to do with morality? The loss of thinking ability might just be a cost of doing business. |
The moral ideal would be our intention to remain as clear-minded as possible for as long as possible to make the best decisions possible. The loss and gain of thinking ability is a VERY simplistic example, and probably a poor one, to try and illustrate my point. I'm sure the effects of betrayal/conforming to an objective moral code would be a lot more subtle and dynamic than that. My point was that, if there exists an objective moral value X which no one knows about, the betrayal/conforming to it could still effect them in way Y without anyone ever catching on. Y would still be significant to them, but they would have a plethora of theories of the cause of Y, attributing it to value A, B, or C, etc. and never attributing it to the actual primary cause, the betrayal/conforming to value X. If the objective moral value X did not exist objectively, then the primary cause of Y would either not exist or be values A, B, or C, etc. That's the difference.
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| We've observed cause and effect happening only in time as well, so that should be just as irrelevant to his argument as conservation of mass/energy. |
Have we? My walls are causing my ceiling to suspend in that position. I'm observing cause and effect happening at the same instant, not in time. The cause is the walls standing up. The effect is the ceiling being suspended in the air. |
Perfect example. Without the passage of time the ceiling would not fall whether the walls were there or not. |
I'm not talking about the process of falling, I'm talking about the reason the ceiling is 12 feet from the floor rather than on it in the first place. If there were no walls, the ceiling wouldn't be in that position. The walls don't need the passage of time to cause the ceiling to be in that position.
| Chuck wrote: |
| If I see someone disregarding some of what we see around us because it's irrelevant due to his subject matter being elsewhere, and he then uses some of what we see around us as supporting evidence, he's being inconsistent. |
No, he's not.
First of all, it's not irrelevant due to his subject matter, it's irrelevant to his point. If I'm trying to say something about the cause of my facial hair, the observation that each hair is more or less the same length has nothing to do with what caused it, and not relevant to what I'm trying to say.
He WOULD be inconsistent if he were saying that some local observations, such as the law of conservation of mass/energy, were unsuitable premises for arguments in general, but he's not. He's just saying some local observations neither challenge nor aid this argument, and so are not germane to this argument. The law of conservation of mass/energy may be germane to another argument, just not this one.
| Chuck wrote: |
| If someone insisted that his neighbor robbed him and didn't think it was relevant that his neighbor was in a distant city that day, shouldn't I think that the person claiming he was robbed has some other motive than catching the thief? |
No. Couldn't his neighbor have gotten someone else to rob the place and instructed him over the phone? The person who was robbed could have sufficient evidence that his neighbor was behind it, regardless of where the neighbor physically was during the time of the robbery. If he's claiming his neighbor physically robbed him, then of course it's relevant where his neighbor physically was. But then you could easily show that it's relevant, because our reasoning is unable to come up with a way of physical robbery while being physically distant. By contrast, you have not shown how the law of conservation of mass/energy, a law which only says something about what happens over time, would be relevant to an argument about what causes time itself.
| Chuck wrote: |
| It would look more like he was trying to cause trouble for his neighbor. I wouldn't know what his actual motives were but that doesn't mean I'd have no idea at all. |
Of course you would have an idea. All I'm saying is that the idea is based on a preconception of motives. I happen to believe that Dr. Craig sincerely views his premises as true independently of the truth of God's existence. I have no reason to believe they are not what he says they are. My preconception is "innocent until proven guilty". Yours is the opposite. Please note that I'm not talking about the argument being true until proven false. I'm just talking about his motives being innocent until proven guilty.
| Chuck wrote: |
| We can do experiments now to see that rocks hitting the ground raise dust. No universe creation experiments have been done that I know about. |
No dinosaur cataclysm experiments have been done that I know about either. Craig never claims that these arguments establish the existence of God as a scientific fact. It's obvious that the existence of God is not a scientific fact and I don't think Craig would dispute that. He claims rather that they are good arguments which support the idea that God exists, and that they outweigh arguments supporting the idea that God does not exist.
| Chuck wrote: |
| I can't read his mind. The only impressions of him are from what he says. He doesn't seem to be ignorant of reality so that leaves selectively choosing only what needs to support his case. |
Right, as anyone building a case would and should do.
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| Same with the law of conservation of mass/energy. It's not relevant when talking about the origins of time itself. |
Then how is the observation of things beginning to exist having causes relevant? That's also something we observe locally, like conservation of mass/energy. |
I see your point. We can only observe that something began to exist by observing it's lack of existence in a previous point in time, making time just as much a requirement for that observation as for the law of conservation of mass/energy.
I think the mistake may be mine, however, rather than Craig's:
| I wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| We see old fossils of skeletons and skeletons of animals today. Having a skeleton roughly shaped like the animal is something that is observed to happen often. Falling rocks are observed to make craters in experiments and we see large craters today. Falling rocks are seen to kick up dust. More dust for larger rocks. Dust is seen to block sunlight. Plants kept out of sunlight don't thrive. Animals need to eat plants or other animals that eat plants because animals can't use sunlight directly. |
Everything that we see begin to exist today, we see a cause for. Why can't this not be transposed deductively to the past to conclude a creator, the same way observations of dust are used to conclude the cataclysm? |
The answer to my question, I suppose, is that the observation can't be transposed deductively to conclude a non-temporal creator because the observation itself relies on the prevalence of time, just as the conservation observation does.
As I said, this is probably my mistake rather than Craig's. After doing more research it seems that the strength of the premise of things beginning to exist needing causes does not, in fact, arise from local observations, but rather on the A-Theory of Time. I haven't done research on the theory, so I can't say what gives it strength. Craig's citation of it is here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/beginning-to-exist
| Chuck wrote: |
But Craig calls it absurd that the universe had no cause. His reasoning is that we don't see things appearing without cause locally |
Was that his reasoning as well, or just mine? If it's his also, please cite (link or quote)
| Chuck wrote: |
| but we're discarding local rules, like conservation of mass/energy, for the beginning of the universe. |
Just remember that he has to discard that rule due to the fact that the cause of time itself is being discussed. He has no choice but to discard that rule.
| Chuck wrote: |
| So his claim that the universe must have a cause is just something he made up with no supporting evidence at all. |
Non-sequitur. He argues that the Universe began to exist, he asserts that everything which begins to exist has a cause (based on A-Theory of time and other things?? I would have to do more research), and from that concludes that the Universe has a cause. That doesn't sound like something he just made up.
| Chuck wrote: |
| Proving that belief in God is not based solely on blind faith seems to be his intent. Of course I can't prove that he's being dishonest. All I hear is what he says. His argument appears to be dishonest. |
The most we could prove is that his statements contradict themselves. If that was brought to his attention, and he couldn't explain it, but continued using them anyway, then I think we would have reasonable grounds to say he's being dishonest. Otherwise, no dice.
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| We can observe dust at other times to see what makes it. |
But do we need those other observations to conclude the cataclysm? |
They help. With no observations at all we wouldn't know anything about it. |
I'm not talking about no observations at all, I just mean that if you're going to argue for the existence of the extinction event, it's perfectly honest to discard observations that don't challenge or aid the argument.
| Chuck wrote: |
| Craig claims that everything that begins to exist has a cause and that time had a beginning, so nothing is infinitely old. If these are true then God needs a cause. |
Your missing premise in that line of reasoning is that God must exist only in time. Why must God exist only in time?
| Chuck wrote: |
| If God doesn't need a cause then his premises are false and can be ignored and we need not listen to his arguments. |
Nope. If he claimed that God must exist only in time, then God would need a cause according to his premises. But since he doesn't claim that, his premises aren't shown to be false.
| Chuck wrote: |
| Even if there is a supernatural cause of a painting, the physical is still required. I've never seen someone's mind paint a painting. |
Physical material is not in option in the creation of the physical Universe. Craig is claiming a mind is a necessary cause, but he's not claiming it's necessarily a sufficient one. What else, if anything, might be involved is anyone's guess. All we know is that it can't be the very things being created (time, space, matter, energy)
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| We can observe how intelligence comes to exist. |
How? |
Watch various things form and see which ones develop into intelligent beings. |
How do I know if something's intelligent or not? Who's to say by way of observation that a plant or a piece of fungus isn't intelligent?
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| If I take a drop of my blood and design a miniture version of me with it, that doesn't mean I designed my blood. |
You'd have copied an existing product. Since God made everything he didn't have that option. |
If God's intelligence is part of God's nature, then it was only created if God was created. If God was never created, and God's intelligentce is part of His nature, then God's intelligence was never created.
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| What if God creates His own intelligence constantly? |
Then he'd be creating something that already exists. Where did it originally come from? |
What if God and God's intelligence always existed?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 3:29 am Post subject: 713 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| If lying decreased my ability to think clearly, what would that have to do with morality? |
Well, as extro pointed, we didn't clearly define what morality was in the first place. Only as got as far in defining at the following, which no one has yet disputed, and I just realized it was probably because I left out extro's name in the quote block, and just now fixed it:
| I wrote: |
| Maybe a better definition of a moral action is an action performed in an attempt to conform to a perceived ideal. |
If that is morality, then we might say that the perceived ideal is this case would be being in the best mental state possible to make decisions. |
That seems like common sense, but why label it as morality?
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
Even if I knew it would happen, I might consider it a fair trade if the lie got me lots of money. I still wouldn't know anything about objective moral values or that I had violated one. |
Yes, that's what I'm saying, too. What's your point? |
There seems to be no reason to call it morality.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| Even if we caught on, who's to stay that a loss of thinking ability has anything to do with morality? The loss of thinking ability might just be a cost of doing business. |
The moral ideal would be our intention to remain as clear-minded as possible for as long as possible to make the best decisions possible. The loss and gain of thinking ability is a VERY simplistic example, and probably a poor one, to try and illustrate my point. I'm sure the effects of betrayal/conforming to an objective moral code would be a lot more subtle and dynamic than that. My point was that, if there exists an objective moral value X which no one knows about, the betrayal/conforming to it could still effect them in way Y without anyone ever catching on. Y would still be significant to them, but they would have a plethora of theories of the cause of Y, attributing it to value A, B, or C, etc. and never attributing it to the actual primary cause, the betrayal/conforming to value X. If the objective moral value X did not exist objectively, then the primary cause of Y would either not exist or be values A, B, or C, etc. That's the difference. |
If someone did something that impaired his ability to think while harming no one else and it got him enough money to send his kids to a good college, it would still have to be called immoral because of some objective moral code that he doesn't even know about. I don't see how something can reasonably be called immoral just because it's on some list.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| We've observed cause and effect happening only in time as well, so that should be just as irrelevant to his argument as conservation of mass/energy. |
Have we? My walls are causing my ceiling to suspend in that position. I'm observing cause and effect happening at the same instant, not in time. The cause is the walls standing up. The effect is the ceiling being suspended in the air. |
Perfect example. Without the passage of time the ceiling would not fall whether the walls were there or not. |
I'm not talking about the process of falling, I'm talking about the reason the ceiling is 12 feet from the floor rather than on it in the first place. If there were no walls, the ceiling wouldn't be in that position. The walls don't need the passage of time to cause the ceiling to be in that position. |
The ceiling needed the walls to stay up while time was passing. If you instantly removed the walls and stopped time, the ceiling would stay where it was.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| If I see someone disregarding some of what we see around us because it's irrelevant due to his subject matter being elsewhere, and he then uses some of what we see around us as supporting evidence, he's being inconsistent. |
No, he's not.
First of all, it's not irrelevant due to his subject matter, it's irrelevant to his point. If I'm trying to say something about the cause of my facial hair, the observation that each hair is more or less the same length has nothing to do with what caused it, and not relevant to what I'm trying to say.
He WOULD be inconsistent if he were saying that some local observations, such as the law of conservation of mass/energy, were unsuitable premises for arguments in general, but he's not. He's just saying some local observations neither challenge nor aid this argument, and so are not germane to this argument. The law of conservation of mass/energy may be germane to another argument, just not this one. |
He also uses the fact that we don't see things appearing from nothing without cause as evidence the beginnings of things need causes. I could say that the absence of gods creating things all over the place is evidence that there are no creator gods. We could dismiss both since we're not at the beginning of time which is what is being discussed, but if his claim is evidence, isn't mine evidence also?
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| If someone insisted that his neighbor robbed him and didn't think it was relevant that his neighbor was in a distant city that day, shouldn't I think that the person claiming he was robbed has some other motive than catching the thief? |
No. Couldn't his neighbor have gotten someone else to rob the place and instructed him over the phone? The person who was robbed could have sufficient evidence that his neighbor was behind it, regardless of where the neighbor physically was during the time of the robbery. If he's claiming his neighbor physically robbed him, then of course it's relevant where his neighbor physically was. But then you could easily show that it's relevant, because our reasoning is unable to come up with a way of physical robbery while being physically distant. By contrast, you have not shown how the law of conservation of mass/energy, a law which only says something about what happens over time, would be relevant to an argument about what causes time itself. |
Then why assume that causes for beginnings of things, which we've also observed only locally within time, has anything to do with the beginning of the universe? Why selectively keep one such observation and discard another?
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| It would look more like he was trying to cause trouble for his neighbor. I wouldn't know what his actual motives were but that doesn't mean I'd have no idea at all. |
Of course you would have an idea. All I'm saying is that the idea is based on a preconception of motives. I happen to believe that Dr. Craig sincerely views his premises as true independently of the truth of God's existence. I have no reason to believe they are not what he says they are. My preconception is "innocent until proven guilty". Yours is the opposite. Please note that I'm not talking about the argument being true until proven false. I'm just talking about his motives being innocent until proven guilty. |
I can't read his mind. All I know is what he says. He's seems highly intelligent and well informed. But his beliefs seem unexpectedly arbitrary. He's a very convincing speaker and has succeeded in convincing me that he's not unaware of this.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| We can do experiments now to see that rocks hitting the ground raise dust. No universe creation experiments have been done that I know about. |
No dinosaur cataclysm experiments have been done that I know about either. Craig never claims that these arguments establish the existence of God as a scientific fact. It's obvious that the existence of God is not a scientific fact and I don't think Craig would dispute that. He claims rather that they are good arguments which support the idea that God exists, and that they outweigh arguments supporting the idea that God does not exist. |
Rocks have been seen to hit the earth. We don't have to set up experiments. We can observe what happens.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| I can't read his mind. The only impressions of him are from what he says. He doesn't seem to be ignorant of reality so that leaves selectively choosing only what needs to support his case. |
Right, as anyone building a case would and should do. |
I could prove that every store in the country sells surf boards if I ignore those that don't. Would that satisfy you that every store does sell surf boards? Why does simply ignoring the fact that all thinking beings we've seen are made of matter make an immaterial intelligence likely to exist?
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| Same with the law of conservation of mass/energy. It's not relevant when talking about the origins of time itself. |
Then how is the observation of things beginning to exist having causes relevant? That's also something we observe locally, like conservation of mass/energy. |
I see your point. We can only observe that something began to exist by observing it's lack of existence in a previous point in time, making time just as much a requirement for that observation as for the law of conservation of mass/energy.
I think the mistake may be mine, however, rather than Craig's: |
Not really. It seems to be Craig's position that it would be absurd if the universe began to exist without cause. And this is with no relevant observations.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| We see old fossils of skeletons and skeletons of animals today. Having a skeleton roughly shaped like the animal is something that is observed to happen often. Falling rocks are observed to make craters in experiments and we see large craters today. Falling rocks are seen to kick up dust. More dust for larger rocks. Dust is seen to block sunlight. Plants kept out of sunlight don't thrive. Animals need to eat plants or other animals that eat plants because animals can't use sunlight directly. |
Everything that we see begin to exist today, we see a cause for. Why can't this not be transposed deductively to the past to conclude a creator, the same way observations of dust are used to conclude the cataclysm? |
The answer to my question, I suppose, is that the observation can't be transposed deductively to conclude a non-temporal creator because the observation itself relies on the prevalence of time, just as the conservation observation does. |
Everything we see begin today has a material cause, but Craig drops that inconvenient fact and just goes with some kind of cause.
| BraveHat wrote: |
As I said, this is probably my mistake rather than Craig's. After doing more research it seems that the strength of the premise of things beginning to exist needing causes does not, in fact, arise from local observations, but rather on the A-Theory of Time. I haven't done research on the theory, so I can't say what gives it strength. Craig's citation of it is here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/beginning-to-exist |
He states that, in A-Theory, things don't come into existence without cause but doesn't say why this is necessarily true, especially under special circumstances like the beginning of time.
Off-topic but amusing, he says that in B-Theory the block universe exists along side God. Why not instead of God? Well, I find it amusing.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
But Craig calls it absurd that the universe had no cause. His reasoning is that we don't see things appearing without cause locally |
Was that his reasoning as well, or just mine? If it's his also, please cite (link or quote) |
I saw it in videos months ago. You can take my word for it for now. I'll see what I can do about finding it later.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| but we're discarding local rules, like conservation of mass/energy, for the beginning of the universe. |
Just remember that he has to discard that rule due to the fact that the cause of time itself is being discussed. He has no choice but to discard that rule. |
But he's not discarding the whole observation that material things have material causes. He's just discarding the inconvenient material part but keeping the need for a cause. We have no more evidence for an immaterial cause than we do for no cause at all.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| So his claim that the universe must have a cause is just something he made up with no supporting evidence at all. |
Non-sequitur. He argues that the Universe began to exist, he asserts that everything which begins to exist has a cause (based on A-Theory of time and other things?? I would have to do more research), and from that concludes that the Universe has a cause. That doesn't sound like something he just made up. |
But what is the nature of this cause? He's already discarded a material cause. An immaterial cause and no cause are both unobserved. Why insist on a cause? Why not just admit that we don't understand the situation?
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| Proving that belief in God is not based solely on blind faith seems to be his intent. Of course I can't prove that he's being dishonest. All I hear is what he says. His argument appears to be dishonest. |
The most we could prove is that his statements contradict themselves. If that was brought to his attention, and he couldn't explain it, but continued using them anyway, then I think we would have reasonable grounds to say he's being dishonest. Otherwise, no dice. |
The claim that everything is as it is because a powerful being who magically exists without cause and who is magically intelligent without design and who can magically create matter from nothing and who can magically make time start is consistent with everything that we observe. Is that any reason to take it seriously? How is that any better than something magically starting to exist without cause, or any other magical explanation that anyone would care to make up?
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| We can observe dust at other times to see what makes it. |
But do we need those other observations to conclude the cataclysm? |
They help. With no observations at all we wouldn't know anything about it. |
I'm not talking about no observations at all, I just mean that if you're going to argue for the existence of the extinction event, it's perfectly honest to discard observations that don't challenge or aid the argument. |
We should probably also not include nuclear weapons as an explanation since there's no evidence that they existed back then. Craig should not include a cause for the beginning of time since there's no evidence that cause was necessary at that time. At least for dinosaurs we have fossils and impact craters. We have nothing for the beginning of time.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| Craig claims that everything that begins to exist has a cause and that time had a beginning, so nothing is infinitely old. If these are true then God needs a cause. |
Your missing premise in that line of reasoning is that God must exist only in time. Why must God exist only in time? |
If there's a place called outside of time where things don't need causes then God is unnecessary. We can just put the universe there and say time and space exist only within the universe.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| If God doesn't need a cause then his premises are false and can be ignored and we need not listen to his arguments. |
Nope. If he claimed that God must exist only in time, then God would need a cause according to his premises. But since he doesn't claim that, his premises aren't shown to be false. |
He doesn't show that existing outside of time is even relevant. If time had a beginning God can't be older than the universe no matter where he might be.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| Even if there is a supernatural cause of a painting, the physical is still required. I've never seen someone's mind paint a painting. |
Physical material is not in option in the creation of the physical Universe. Craig is claiming a mind is a necessary cause, but he's not claiming it's necessarily a sufficient one. What else, if anything, might be involved is anyone's guess. All we know is that it can't be the very things being created (time, space, matter, energy) |
If there can be something else then why claim a mind? Why not admit that it's entirely unknown instead of making something up?
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| We can observe how intelligence comes to exist. |
How? |
Watch various things form and see which ones develop into intelligent beings. |
How do I know if something's intelligent or not? Who's to say by way of observation that a plant or a piece of fungus isn't intelligent? |
Some things act like they make intelligent decisions. If anything might be intelligent then we can call the big bang intelligent and dump the god theory. I suspect that Craig would agree that people are intelligent and plants aren't.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| If I take a drop of my blood and design a miniture version of me with it, that doesn't mean I designed my blood. |
You'd have copied an existing product. Since God made everything he didn't have that option. |
If God's intelligence is part of God's nature, then it was only created if God was created. If God was never created, and God's intelligence is part of His nature, then God's intelligence was never created. |
And if beginning to exist without cause and being life friendly is part of the universe's nature then no creator is needed. Is one supernatural theory any better or worse than another? Is an undesigned god any less likely than undesigned life friendly laws of nature? Who can say?
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| What if God creates His own intelligence constantly? |
Then he'd be creating something that already exists. Where did it originally come from? |
What if God and God's intelligence always existed? |
What if things don't need causes? Once you start making things up, who can say what's possible and what's not? Why bother making any claims at all when any other claim is just as good? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 1:23 pm Post subject: 714 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| But Craig calls it absurd that the universe had no cause. His reasoning is that we don't see things appearing without cause locally |
| Bravehat wrote: |
| Was that his reasoning as well, or just mine? If it's his also, please cite (link or quote) |
| Chuck wrote: |
| I saw it in videos months ago. You can take my word for it for now. I'll see what I can do about finding it later. |
This isn't the original video that I saw, but it will do
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1pvLz9PRMw |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 2:16 pm Post subject: 715 |
|
|
| What it all boils down to is yes, there is a good bit of mystery about whatever conditions allowed something to come from nothing. It wasn't really nothing, was it? Were there no laws of physics under which something could spring from nothing? We don't know. We can postulate all sorts of things. One might be an infinite series of big bang, expansion, collapse ... another might be a "universe" with an eternal past that collapsed "prior" to the big bang of ours ... another might be a God, but what the heck is a God, really? Some "thing" that might cause a big bang to happen ... something other than nothing, is pretty much all we can conclude, if we reject something from nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 1:50 am Post subject: 716 |
|
|
| Another of Craig's opinions that I find amusing is his rejection of the many worlds theory because there's no evidence that any other universes exist. He dismisses the existence of more of what we already see while pushing for belief in an invisible, magical spirit that we have no examples of at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 1:50 pm Post subject: 717 |
|
|
| What I don't get is even if you assume there had to have been some first cause, why couldn't it have been, hypothetically, a machine, without any soul, mind, sentience, intelligence, or so many of the things we ascribe to God. Where did that machine come from? It always existed, or it created itself, or any of the answers given when that is asked of God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 2:15 pm Post subject: 718 |
|
|
| If we're dealing with the supernatural, it seems like it could be just about anything. Maybe we're just used to the idea of a single intelligent spirit because the idea has been around for so long. Even someone who doesn't believe in it has spent years living in a society in which most people do believe, and hears about it over and over. Even if it's not believed, it's still familiar. We're not used to a supernaturally existing computer so the idea seems more strange than the intelligent spirit idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 11:36 am Post subject: 719 |
|
|
From this page of great quotes by one of the most brilliant men ever to live, I found this one to share here. I've arrived at this position probably in the past couple of years, certainly within the past decade, and I have the many intelligent (and less so) discussions here on GL to thank for helping me arrive there. I feel a little chagrined to have found this position that I had to work to reach is already occupied, but then pleased and proud to find who it is standing there.
| Isaac Asimov wrote: |
I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.
Free Inquiry (Spring 1982) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:26 pm Post subject: 720 |
|
|
I think that's a fine quote. I may consider him (and you!) to be wilfully obtuse in ignoring evidence for God - and no, I don't mean "creationism" or even "intelligent design" - but I am also willing to respect that position since the argument (for me at least) would end up being about the definition of the word "evidence" rather than anything else!
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
