Moral Argument for God: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Moral Argument for God » Moral Argument for God

Moral Argument for God

Page: First 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Last

Moral Argument for God

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 691

Posted 09/15/07 - 03:15 PM:	#326
If no one was left alive, then could an act be immoral? could there be an act? if three objects are moving through empty space at different speeds (all well below the speed of light), from the frame of reference of object a, object b is moving away slowly, object c is moving away faster. From the frame of reference of object b, both object a and c are moving away at the same speed in opposite directions. From the frame of reference of object c, object b is moving away slowly, object a faster. As said, it all depends on which frame we measure it from. Three different ways of looking at things. Is it correct to say that one of these ways is correct? It is not. They are all correct. Now how far does this analogy hold? It is sometimes considered wrong to earn interest upon money. It is sometimes considered wrong to gamble. It is sometimes considered right to kill, it is sometimes considered right to incarcerate.. It depends upon the frame of reference. If their were no mankind, then morality would not exist still in the space left behind. Loveofsophia wrote something beautiful on another thread which is relivant:- loveofsophia wrote: I see only two choices when it comes to moral judgment. Either one is entirely justified in their chosen action or they are entirely unjustified. However, the model one employs in describing this justification may be different and so different actions that are right given the model will be wrong given another model. What is most important of all is, thinking upon the occasions when we are in the same context as others, our models will be better or worse depending upon the results they achieve in accomplishing our end. We do have collective goals and given this consideration certain models will be better at arriving at the demonstrative effect our desires wish realized. So it is important to be able to differentiate between when there are different contexts/biological/behavioral influences upon the particular model being employed and when one is in the same context and should be attempting to realize the same model for only one could exist given we are of the same context and biological/behavioral constitution. It is sometimes difficult to realize when one should be uncompromising in what they want and when one should be compromising or at least accepting of a difference (a different model).

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 818

Posted 09/15/07 - 04:52 PM:	#327
Makarismos wrote: It is sometimes considered wrong to earn interest upon money. It is sometimes considered wrong to gamble. It is sometimes considered right to kill, it is sometimes considered right to incarcerate.. It depends upon the frame of reference. This need not imply acceptance of ethical relativism however. It should be noted that moral objectivism (the belief that moral truths are objective, and are binding independently of what humans think, feel and believe) does not necessarily imply moral absolutism (the belief that what we ought to do is independent of the context of the situation). A moral objectivist would be perfectly willing to admit that there are some situations where killing is justified (e.g. in self-defense) and others where it is unethical (e.g. racial hatred).
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 2881

Posted 09/15/07 - 06:08 PM:	#328
Tisthammerw wrote: To recap: A more general definition of God is "the ultimate and supreme metaphysical reality." Well, if that's the case, then why bother arguing at all. With this pathetic definition, if anything exists, then God exists. Congratulations on a completely useless argument
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "â€¦Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 818

Posted 09/15/07 - 06:28 PM:	#329
Kwalish Kid wrote: To recap: A more general definition of God is "the ultimate and supreme metaphysical reality." Well, if that's the case, then why bother arguing at all. With this pathetic definition, if anything exists, then God exists. Er, I'm not sure that follows. Morality being based in reality and existence in some general sense seems like a special case because of the is-ought problem. It's hard to go from what is to what ought to be. If we are saying that it is the universe that somehow tells us how we ought to behave, that sort of thing does have religious overtones not expected from a straightforward atheistic worldview. And let us not forget that this pantheistic God would by necessity have some interesting characteristics. This pantheistic God might not contain consciousness but would have to possess supremely transcendent moral authority (transcending all peoples and cultures) while also possessing perfect moral correctness (it cannot be mistaken about what is right). Since a pantheistic God is equated with the universe/reality/existence, this supreme metaphysical reality is omnipresent and eternal. This is perhaps to be expected however, given that objective morality commands our behavior regardless of where we are and when we are. Interestingly, this pantheistic God must also be incorporeal if objective morality is not dependent on collections of atoms. Suppose for instance we took everything away from the physical universe except Mount Rushmore. Would Mount Rushmore be the source of objective moral values? No, moral values are incorporeal and their underlying basis (the supreme metaphysical reality that says how we ought to behave) must also be incorporeal. Yet a God that is transcendent, eternal, omnipresent, incorporeal and perfectly moral is treading awfully close to theism. Not to mention a moral God sounds an awful lot like a person—a moral God that says what everyone ought to do and a God that everyone ought to obey. So even if it’s not an outright proof, to the very least the existence of objective morality still seems to provide strong evidence for theism (by suggesting the existence of a God that is transcendent, omnipresent, perfectly moral etc.).
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 2881

Posted 09/15/07 - 07:20 PM:	#330
The problem is that you are equivocating on the meaning of "ultimate and supreme". In one sense, you use it to mean that something really does exist. Then, in order to get your pantheism off the ground, you use it to mean that something has authority. Frankly, the is-ought "problem" is interesting, but nobody has ever offered a good argument for it. Sure, there are definitely cases where it applies, but there is no reason every offered that there cannot be moral facts other than the circular reference to the is-ought distinction.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "â€¦Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 818

Posted 09/15/07 - 07:41 PM:	#331
Kwalish Kid wrote: The problem is that you are equivocating on the meaning of "ultimate and supreme". In one sense, you use it to mean that something really does exist. Hmm, I'm not sure if I've used it in that context (perhaps you are thinking of how I defined brute fact). Then, in order to get your pantheism off the ground, you use it to mean that something has authority. In this case we have a little of both when it comes to the metaphysical basis of morality. Anything that exists has some basis in existence (else it would not exist). According to the brute fact explanation, the metaphysical basis of moral values existing is simply existence itself. Yet moral values prescribe our behavior. So existence itself somehow tells us how we ought to behave, and has the authority to do so. The prescriptive nature of morality permits this otherwise bizarre implication. Frankly, the is-ought "problem" is interesting, but nobody has ever offered a good argument for it. For the problem existing or for the problem's solution?
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 2881

Posted 09/16/07 - 04:20 AM:	#332
Tisthammerw wrote: Hmm, I'm not sure if I've used it in that context (perhaps you are thinking of how I defined brute fact). Of course I am. Because your argument is that if we define brute facts in a certain way, then it leads to pantheism. You tend to change definitions in mid-argument. You said, "Except of course reality. All facts are based in reality (else they wouldn't be real), and anything that exists has basis in existence (else it wouldn't exist). A brute fact is something that has no basis other than the universe/reality/existence itself." You then took that to mean that existence/reality itself is the supreme and ultimate authority. Then you introduce your extremely vacuous God definition. In this case we have a little of both when it comes to the metaphysical basis of morality. Anything that exists has some basis in existence (else it would not exist). According to the brute fact explanation, the metaphysical basis of moral values existing is simply existence itself. Yet moral values prescribe our behavior. So existence itself somehow tells us how we ought to behave, and has the authority to do so. The prescriptive nature of morality permits this otherwise bizarre implication. Sure, but it doesn't grant authority in the sense that reality as a whole has some special knowledge or ability. It only licenses the inference that these prescriptive rules are a part of reality. But this was an assumption! For the problem existing or for the problem's solution? There is no reason to think that there cannot be moral facts. If this is the case, then these facts are an example of the collapse of the supposed is/ought distinction.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "â€¦Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

Buddahchuck
Bodhisatva

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 16, 2006
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 574

Posted 09/16/07 - 07:43 AM:	#333
Why morality? Why Existence? I see that what is trying to be established is the real, knowable concept of morality and that somehow it is linked to existence, but I just don't see a meaningful argument supporting this claim. The part about morality part of existence seems more of a simple assertion, and there is no argument supporting it. I will admit that what you believe about morality is very much tied to your metaphysical concept, but then again, there is no argument supporting a particular metaphysical concept. Tisthammerw argues for pantheism, and while I think pantheism is a brilliant, simple way to understand the world, I also recognize Kwalish's point that defining existence this way does not put you any closer to a moral answer. Instead, it seems more of a trivial redefining of existence just so that we can lay claims about god. If you are going to use pantheism, then you have to be aware of the throwback of labeling all of existence as god: no act can be immoral. If our conception of God is one that entails an infallible being whose every act is moral, then all acts that occur in the universe are moral, for immoral acts are not part of god and therefore do not exist. So, pantheism cannot really support a claim concerning morality on a metaphysical level because the way in which morality exists is nothing more than a concept in the mind of a very specific part of the universe. In order for morality to exist and have a meaningful effect on the lives of humanity, God would need to be a moral authority, one that is beyond questioning. Maybe a year ago, I would have argued differently, for I do truly believe that existence is a first principle, but this only means, when it comes to morality, that the term "moral" is a reference to something that we feel as humans. What? I don't know, perhaps a sense of guilt, perhaps a rational confusion as to what's occurring, perhaps a societal outlash against a certain act. But it would be hard to convince me that there are metaphysical truths to begin with, much less that morality is linked to those metaphysical truths (and the truths of which I am speaking are knowable metaphysical truths). For if these truths were knowable they would not be metaphysics, they would just be physics.

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 818

Posted 09/16/07 - 01:58 PM:	#334
Kwalish Kid wrote: You said, "Except of course reality. All facts are based in reality (else they wouldn't be real), and anything that exists has basis in existence (else it wouldn't exist). A brute fact is something that has no basis other than the universe/reality/existence itself." You then took that to mean that existence/reality itself is the supreme and ultimate authority. Not really. That is, I didn't ascribe "authority" to it merely from the the brute fact definition. Nor did I ascribe authority to it merely from defining reality/existence. How then did I do it? According to the brute fact position, the metaphysical basis of moral values existing is existence itself. The "authority" aspect logically follows from the prescriptive nature of morality if we say that moral values existing has no basis other than existence itself (as I explain in the blue quote below:). In this case we have a little of both when it comes to the metaphysical basis of morality. Anything that exists has some basis in existence (else it would not exist). According to the brute fact explanation, the metaphysical basis of moral values existing is simply existence itself. Yet moral values prescribe our behavior. So existence itself somehow tells us how we ought to behave, and has the authority to do so. The prescriptive nature of morality permits this otherwise bizarre implication. Sure, but it doesn't grant authority in the sense that reality as a whole has some special knowledge or ability. Except of course that it somehow tells us how we ought to behave, and that its authority to tell us such overrides what any human thinks. As I have argued, this suggests pantheism. Do you disagree? If so why? We're ascribing the universe/reality/existence with supreme metaphysical authority telling everyone how to behave, so why exactly doesn't this imply that universe/reality/existence is the supreme metaphysical reality? If that doesn't, what does? Remember however, that a pantheistic God does not necessarily possess consciousness (so it might not have special "knowledge" in the traditional sense). But perhaps you're referring to "reality as a whole" in a different sense. Obviously, if we got rid of a rock or a car, moral values would still exist (methinks even a pantheist would agree with that). I of course use the term "based in reality" differently from "every physical component is necessary for it to be real." Then you introduce your extremely vacuous God definition. This definition is what pantheism uses (considering that a pantheistic God need not posses omnipotence or even consciousness). Pantheism is certainly not traditional theism, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call it "vacuous." It would at least allow objective morality to be possible. For the [is-ought] problem existing or for the problem's solution? There is no reason to think that there cannot be moral facts. If this is the case, then these facts are an example of the collapse of the supposed is/ought distinction. This might be a tad question begging. An objector would argue that the is-ought problem is a reason to doubt the existence of moral facts (please recognize that here I am playing devil's advocate, since I am a staunch ethical objectivist). Edited by Tisthammerw on 09/16/07 - 03:29 PM
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 818

Posted 09/16/07 - 02:20 PM:	#335
Buddahchuck wrote: I see that what is trying to be established is the real, knowable concept of morality and that somehow it is linked to existence, but I just don't see a meaningful argument supporting this claim. The part about morality part of existence seems more of a simple assertion, and there is no argument supporting it. I'll try again. All existing things are based in existence (else they wouldn't exist). The "morality as brute fact" position says there is no metaphysical basis for moral values existing other than existence itself. If moral values exist, they must have some basis in existence, if only in some general sense. Tisthammerw argues for pantheism, and while I think pantheism is a brilliant, simple way to understand the world, I also recognize Kwalish's point that defining existence this way does not put you any closer to a moral answer. Please recognize however that nowhere did I define existence as pantheism. I instead argued that if existence has certain characteristics (and that it must have these characteristics if moral values existing has no basis other than existence itself), it is the supreme metaphysical reality. If you are going to use pantheism, then you have to be aware of the throwback of labeling all of existence as god: no act can be immoral. If our conception of God is one that entails an infallible being whose every act is moral, then all acts that occur in the universe are moral, for immoral acts are not part of god and therefore do not exist. What is true for the whole is not necessarily true for its components however (confer the fallacy of division). An airplane has the ability to fly, but that does not entail that an individual component can fly by itself (say, a wing without its engine). A pantheist could make the same sort of argument here. Remember that a pantheistic God need not be omnipotent. So while existence may say X should not happen, that need not imply that X won't happen, and it need not imply that some component of the universe won't do so. Existence being the supreme metaphysical reality does not actually entail that everything happening within it it is supposed to happen. I should point out that I am not actually a pantheist, or arguing for pantheism as such. I am saying that if objective morality exists, there are only two plausible answers to the question "Who or what says how we ought to behave?" One of them is the universe/reality/existence, and the other is God. The former suggests pantheism, and this (as I argue in post post #330) ends up pointing to theism anyway. But it would be hard to convince me that there are metaphysical truths to begin with, much less that morality is linked to those metaphysical truths (and the truths of which I am speaking are knowable metaphysical truths). For if these truths were knowable they would not be metaphysics, they would just be physics. Would it? Do you, for instance, claim to know that the physical world is real? If so, then you claim to know a metaphysical truth (namely, the rejection of idealism).
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Buddahchuck
Bodhisatva

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 16, 2006
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 574

Posted 09/16/07 - 02:43 PM:	#336
Tisthammerw wrote: What is true for the whole is not necessarily true for its components however (confer the fallacy of division). An airplane has the ability to fly, but that does not entail that an individual component can fly by itself (say, a wing without its engine). But if we have such a division with a a metaphysical truth and morality, how does morality apply? What form does it take? I can't think of a single thing that occurs that in not in conjunction with existence. In other words, how does existence say that X should not happen? Would it? Do you, for instance, claim to know that the physical world is real? Yes, it would be physics. First, I do not claim to know the physical world is real. For me, such a consideration is useless as such knowledge affects nothing of how I interact with the world. Additionally, such knowledge is epistemologically unobtainable. And if by some way I could know metaphysical truths as such (aside from simply believing/claiming them), then the way in which I know them would be indistinguishable from the way in which I know physics.

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 818

Posted 09/16/07 - 03:05 PM:	#337
Buddahchuck wrote: What is true for the whole is not necessarily true for its components however (confer the fallacy of division). An airplane has the ability to fly, but that does not entail that an individual component can fly by itself (say, a wing without its engine). But if we have such a division with a a metaphysical truth and morality, how does morality apply? What form does it take? Remember the context of the quote. The "whole" was the pantheistic God, and the "component" was the thing doing the immoral act. I'm not saying morality takes a form as such. I can't think of a single thing that occurs that in not in conjunction with existence. In other words, how does existence say that X should not happen? I'll play devil's advocate here and try to answer this question. "It just does." Moral values are based in existence and that is the end of it. That's what it means to be a brute fact. Yes, it would be physics. First, I do not claim to know the physical world is real. But doesn't physics assume the physical world is real? If not, what does physics study? For science to give us any real knowledge whatsoever, we're going to have to take some metaphysical and epistemological positions. There's just no way around that. Thus I don't think one can say something like "if it were knowable it would be physics not metaphysics." For me, such a consideration is useless as such knowledge affects nothing of how I interact with the world. Additionally, such knowledge is epistemologically unobtainable. Then so is scientific knowledge. Does not science study the physical world and its workings? Is not physics, for instance, "a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions"? Wouldn't that by definition presuppose that the physical world is real?
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Buddahchuck
Bodhisatva

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 16, 2006
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 574

Posted 09/16/07 - 03:27 PM:	#338
I'm not saying morality takes a form as such. But what form does morality take? How does one do something that existence tells it that it shouldn't? It's a fair question, right? But doesn't physics assume the physical world is real? If not, what does physics study? No, physics assumes that perceptions are real, as does all of science. They are studies based in the realm of sense datum, and therefore do not examine anything closer than perceptions. Certainly we devise instruments to enhance these perceptions, but if we are to doubt the reality of those perceptions, then we can likewise doubt the reality of the conclusions drawn from them. For science to give us any real knowledge whatsoever, we're going to have to take some metaphysical and epistemological positions. What is real knowledge? If the metaphysical positions we take include that perceptions are real, and we are wrong, then the knowledge we gain is wrong. In other words, if we cannot know the metaphysical truth, then we cannot obtain "real knowledge". Then so is scientific knowledge. Does not science study the physical world and its workings? Is not physics, for instance, "a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions"? Wouldn't that by definition presuppose that the physical world is real? It could, but not if you are taking the position that metaphysical truths are unknowable. If we are discussing matter and energy and their interactions, we are only discussing the ones about which we observe or hypothesize. So if I am doubting that these things are a reality, then I can still accept them as illusion and continue from there.

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 691

Posted 09/17/07 - 09:16 AM:	#339
Tisthammerw wrote: But doesn't physics assume the physical world is real? If not, what does physics study? Actually Tist, the way around this problem is very simple:- There is no alternative to physics in explaining the world - or rather physics is a science which uses observable phenomena to match predicted effects with observed effects, choosing the best model. There are many alternatives to your rather eccentric position. therefore Buddahchuck does not need to deny all knowledge, only that which has an alternative.

munty13
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 08, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 197

Posted 09/17/07 - 09:55 AM:	#340
Just a little take on morality. If God is unconditional love, and everything is God, then everything is unconditional love. There is no right, and there is no wrong. These judgements are created by the observer. You as an observer can adopt the position that right and wrong don't even exist. This is unconditional love. The mind dismisses this position as 'nothing', and constantly overlooks it; but it's definitely there as a state of being. It reveals love is inherent to man's very being by simply doing 'nothing'. To forgive is simply to forget. To stop judging others asks you to do 'nothing'. Every conflict in the world throughout history has always taken place in man's need to be right, or resentment in being wronged.

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 691

Posted 09/17/07 - 01:20 PM:	#341
Seem that if all is love, and nothing is love, then killing and torture is also love.., Doh!

munty13
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 08, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 197

Posted 09/17/07 - 01:42 PM:	#342
I'm afraid so...harsh as it is. Everything is unconditional love. Only the observer creates right or wrong. When one man is killing another man he is not acting out of love - he is acting out of fear. The need to protect himself. I'd probably feel a lot differently if it was me being tortured though...

TMB
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 283

Posted 09/17/07 - 02:15 PM:	#343
It's easy to make villifying accusations to the opposition in controversial debates, but please provide one specific example of me sidestepping a point pertinent to the deductive validity of my argument. The difficulty with doing this is that you are incapable of seeing flaws in your argument. The previous time I broke apart your symbolic argument you dismissed as issues with definition. On that matter we seemed to be operating on different definitions. For me, morality saying how we ought to behave (e.g. "thou shalt not kill") is an instance of a command. To you that was apparently not the case (and thus you seemed to use a different definition). Reread my posts, you have missed my points. Even when you seem to sidestep my points (for whatever reason) and even though I am at times a little irked by this, I do not seek to vilify you. Let's please try to keep things civil. Things could be worse, you could be me and faced with an argument from you. I cannot help thinking that you are a hoax poster and doing this to see how far you can string people along. I recognise that some people do truly think upon these lines, however its hard sometimes to accept this is possible. When debating with a faith based position and the social pressure to offer rational support, positions like yours are taken. Let me suggest a deal. I will be civil if you are prepared to be rational.

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 818

Posted 09/18/07 - 04:03 PM:	#344
Buddahchuck wrote: I'm not saying morality takes a form as such. But what form does morality take? Again, I'm not saying morality takes a form as such. How does one do something that existence tells it that it shouldn't? It's a fair question, right? Perhaps, but it's somewhat off topic and doesn't affect the validity of my argument. One could argue that existence gives humanity a conscience. Although not perfect, it at least gives us some general ideas of what we should and shouldn't do. For instance, there are at least some limitations on theft and violence in nearly all cultures. But doesn't physics assume the physical world is real? If not, what does physics study? No, physics assumes that perceptions are real, as does all of science. They are studies based in the realm of sense datum, and therefore do not examine anything closer than perceptions. I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying physics simply studies perceptions rather than the physical world? If so, what to make of theories like atoms and DNA? These are not real entities but some very awkward way of describing perceptions? And if so, it seems to contradict the dictionary definition of physics (which among other things is that it studies matter). I'm not sure what you mean by "physics assumes that perceptions are real, as does all of science." Because if that were true, wouldn't that imply the existence of a real physical world that our perceptions tell us exists? What is real knowledge? For one, it tells us something about reality. If physics does not tell us anything about reality, it doesn't seem to be of much use. Then so is scientific knowledge. Does not science study the physical world and its workings? Is not physics, for instance, "a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions"? Wouldn't that by definition presuppose that the physical world is real? It could, but not if you are taking the position that metaphysical truths are unknowable. If we are discussing matter and energy and their interactions, we are only discussing the ones about which we observe or hypothesize. But if matter does not exist, we are not observing it or studying it at all and physics is a sham.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Buddahchuck
Bodhisatva

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 16, 2006
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 574

Posted 09/18/07 - 04:42 PM:	#345
Again, I'm not saying morality takes a form as such. But if you are going to say that morality is based in existence, then in order for that to mean anything, you need to be able to describe what the means. What are you trying to say by morality is based in existence if you are saying that it doesn't exist? Simply explain what you mean. Perhaps, but it's somewhat off topic and doesn't affect the validity of my argument. Actually, its right on topic. If you can't give a practical moral principle based in existence, then i see no point in believing that morality is based in existence. Are you saying physics simply studies perceptions rather than the physical world? Insofar as physics is based on observable data, yes. We can only study things we observe, and without sense data, we would not be able to have science. Things like DNA and Atoms are theories we would not adhere to if we did need a way to explain certain things that we observe. ALL SCIENCE IS BASED ON OBSERVATION! For one, it tells us something about reality. If physics does not tell us anything about reality, it doesn't seem to be of much use. This didn't really answer my question, so let me ask it a different way. How are we to discern "real" knowledge from....."fake" knowledge? But if matter does not exist, we are not observing it or studying it at all and physics is a sham. Well, not necessarily. I could describe a scenario in which observe something but it is not the core of reality, but I perceive it as such. And I subsequently go about studying all these observations that I make based on this false sense data. Of course, I am not advocating any of this, because I abstain from such useless metaphysical babble.

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 818

Posted 09/18/07 - 04:44 PM:	#346
Makarismos wrote: But doesn't physics assume the physical world is real? If not, what does physics study? Actually Tist, the way around this problem is very simple:- There is no alternative to physics in explaining the world - or rather physics is a science which uses observable phenomena to match predicted effects with observed effects, choosing the best model. Perhaps, but that doesn't answer the question. Doesn't physics assume the physical world is real? If not, what does physics study?
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 818

Posted 09/18/07 - 05:42 PM:	#347
TMB wrote: It's easy to make villifying accusations to the opposition in controversial debates, but please provide one specific example of me sidestepping a point pertinent to the deductive validity of my argument. The difficulty with doing this is that you are incapable of seeing flaws in your argument. Of course, I could easily say the same thing to you about your positions. Naturally, we both think we have the correct way of seeing things. Nonetheless I was still able to provide evidence behind my claim, if only because I consider backing up accusations to be good manners. If you're not willing to provide any evidence for your accusation, why make it at all? The previous time I broke apart your symbolic argument you dismissed as issues with definition. If we are arriving at different conclusions because we are using different definitions, why isn't this a valid point? In any case, the point almost doesn't seem worth arguing, since it was about supporting the position of morality having authority, and in post #242 you have very specifically stated that "I agree with you that morality does have authority." On that matter we seemed to be operating on different definitions. For me, morality saying how we ought to behave (e.g. "thou shalt not kill") is an instance of a command. To you that was apparently not the case (and thus you seemed to use a different definition). Reread my posts, you have missed my points. Are you sure you have any that addresses this issue? Again, if we are arriving at different conclusions because we are using different definitions, why isn't this a valid point? If you do have any, can't you just put it here? I don't mean to offend you, but I have been sent on wild goose chases before when people seem unable or unwilling to address a point. Bear in mind I can play that game too against anything you say. "You have missed my points; reread my posts." This isn't nearly as helpful as giving a straight answer to the matter at hand. Heck, even a post number would be much more suitable. I cannot help thinking that you are a hoax poster and doing this to see how far you can string people along. Bear in mind, I could accuse you of the same thing. You did, after all accuse me of sidestepping points while refusing to give any specific examples (where as I was the one who provided specific examples of you sidestepping matters). You were the one who sidestepped a point of mine yet again, this time by responding with "reread my [very many] posts [instead of reading a straight answer here or even reading a specific post]"; it's a tactic I've seen people use before when they seem unwilling or unable to address an issue (like a wild goose chase). With all due respect, I think I might have better grounds to be saying "you are a hoax poster...doing this to see how far you can string people along" than you do. Of course, vilifying the opposition is still not as good as addressing apropos points. So can we please move on with civility? (I promise to be as rational as I can in debating my "If objective morality exists, it is evidence for the existence of God" argument). Edited by Tisthammerw on 09/18/07 - 06:45 PM
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 818

Posted 09/18/07 - 06:21 PM:	#348
Buddahchuck wrote: But if you are going to say that morality is based in existence, then in order for that to mean anything, you need to be able to describe what the means. When justifying something as being real, the "basis" of a given truth is often done by appealing to aspects of reality (e.g. how we might justify a symbolic logic statement by appealing to modus ponens). Some facts are "irreducible" and are not based upon further aspects of reality; they are based in reality in some general sense. It's the sort of thing I mean here. A claim having "basis in fact" means the facts support the claim. A claim "based in reality" means reality supports a claim. All facts are based in reality; some (brute) facts are based in reality in some general sense. It's a similar thing with existence. If you can't give a practical moral principle based in existence, then i see no point in believing that morality is based in existence. Anything that exists is based in existence, else it wouldn't exist. Thus, if objective morality exists, it has some basis in existence. (I should point out that I'm not here to argue whether objective morality exists; rather I'm saying that if it does it is evidence for the existence of God.) Are you saying physics simply studies perceptions rather than the physical world? Insofar as physics is based on observable data, yes. We can only study things we observe, and without sense data, we would not be able to have science. Things like DNA and Atoms are theories we would not adhere to if we did need a way to explain certain things that we observe. ALL SCIENCE IS BASED ON OBSERVATION! Great, but that doesn't answer my question. According to standard dictionary definitions, physics studies "matter and energy and their interactions." Does physics indeed study and deal with the physical world as dictionaries and science textbooks suggest? I'm not denying science uses empirical data. However, is it not the purpose of assaying such data to study the physical world? For one, it tells us something about reality. If physics does not tell us anything about reality, it doesn't seem to be of much use. This didn't really answer my question, so let me ask it a different way. How are we to discern "real" knowledge from....."fake" knowledge? Hm, it appears I have misunderstood what you meant by "What is real knowledge?" If you're question is how we distinguish real knowledge from fake knowledge, we must use logic and reason. Apart from pure logic and mathematics, we typically can't get ironclad proofs and can't be certain we have properly justified true beliefs. There are certain principles of rationality we go by to obtain knowledge as best we can (e.g. inference to the best explanation). Nonetheless, while such beliefs of reality may be rational to believe (and others irrational), we cannot strictly prove them. But if matter does not exist, we are not observing it or studying it at all and physics is a sham. Well, not necessarily. I could describe a scenario in which observe something but it is not the core of reality, but I perceive it as such. Perhaps, but it would not be physics. You would not be studying or dealing with physical reality at all (which is what physics purports to do). Thus, the branch of science called physics would still be a sham.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

TMB
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 283

Posted 09/20/07 - 02:46 AM:	#349
Tist, you say, If you're not willing to provide any evidence for your accusation, why make it at all? OK lets try this again. You positioned an argument using symbolic logic a few posts ago. (at this point the detail of this is not relevant) I analysed each line and pointed out some flaws (again at this point the detail is not relevant) You replied with this comment Lately, the only real basis you had in disputing my logic (in the point regarding my previous post) was an apparent disharmony of the definitions we were using. We were using different definitions and so came to different conclusions. I then said this The previous time I broke apart your symbolic argument you dismissed as issues with definition. You replied with this If we are arriving at different conclusions because we are using different definitions, why isn't this a valid point? Can you see the problem? Actually there are two. The first one is that you have returned to a position that we had different definitions around the symbolic logic, when in fact the process you applied to get there was flawed. It was not the issue with definitions. When I pointed this out, you still came back to a defence of 'definitions'. This means you have either no will or no capability to review logical process flaws in your position. Or you are unable to understand what is being said to you. This apparent inability to read what I say, means we are stuck with a position where regardless of the strength of a point I make, either you do not read/understand it so cannot even review your own point on that basis. In order for you to even begin to assess your own logic you have to be able to understand what is being said to you. By defining this rebuttal as being 'definition' based, you can still stay with your illusion that your arguments are logically sound. For anyone debating with you, you create a catch-22 position. It does not matter what position I (or others take) you always return to your starting position (if you do not believe me, just watch how you will turn this post on its head, and retreat to your starting intention of proving that you can provide logical proof for both God and OM).

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 2881

Posted 09/20/07 - 03:33 AM:	#350
I have to agree with TMB. That "symbolic logic" version of the argument was seriously lacking. No attempt was made to fix it other than claims like, "I've given my argument for that elsewhere." That's a poor reason for leaving something out of a symbolization.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "â€¦Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

Page: First 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.