The Biggest Questions About Life Thread

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
How do you know that leprechauns don't exist? Just because you haven't seen any on YouTube? The world is a mysterious place.

It's not that mysterious.

Do you really want to degrade faith to the point that it's so weak, so diluted, so meaningless, that you'll entertain the existence of fantastical fairy creatures just for the sake of argument? To project the appearance of an open mind?

You'd really claim agnosticism with regard to leprechauns? Really? That's not an open mind, that's not polite nonjudgmental acceptance of others' faith. Refusing to freely and openly deny the existence of leprechauns is just silly.

If another physician claimed a patient's FUO was a result of unclean contact with evil spirits, would you hedge your judgment of his theory with an agnostic "well he could be right but it's impossible to know?" ... of course not.


I hope you don't believe in leprechauns. I hope that you can honestly say with confidence and without reservation, that there are no little magical green men with Irish accents and pots of Krugerrands and/or marshmallowy breakfast cereal at the end of rainbows. I hope you can make the positive assertion that leprechauns don't exist.

Just as I am now making the positive assertion that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Sure, I could be wrong: the earth could be hit by an asteroid tonight, reversing its rotational movement and causing a westerly sunrise. But that remote possibility doesn't lend any kind of credibility or philosophical value to an agnostic "I don't know for sure where the sun will rise tomorrow, so I will have no opinion on the matter" statement.


If you feel the need to hedge your bets concerning leprechauns and sunrises with agnostic "we can't know for sure" statements, a discussion really has nowhere to go.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Dwindlin, my video is blocked by the firewall, but I will assume it is the leprechaun in Alabama??
leprechaun+amateur+sketch.png
 
It's not that mysterious.

Do you really want to degrade faith to the point that it's so weak, so diluted, so meaningless, that you'll entertain the existence of fantastical fairy creatures just for the sake of argument? To project the appearance of an open mind?

You'd really claim agnosticism with regard to leprechauns? Really? That's not an open mind, that's not polite nonjudgmental acceptance of others' faith. Refusing to freely and openly deny the existence of leprechauns is just silly.

If another physician claimed a patient's FUO was a result of unclean contact with evil spirits, would you hedge your judgment of his theory with an agnostic "well he could be right but it's impossible to know?" ... of course not.


I hope you don't believe in leprechauns. I hope that you can honestly say with confidence and without reservation, that there are no little magical green men with Irish accents and pots of Krugerrands and/or marshmallowy breakfast cereal at the end of rainbows. I hope you can make the positive assertion that leprechauns don't exist.

Just as I am now making the positive assertion that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Sure, I could be wrong: the earth could be hit by an asteroid tonight, reversing its rotational movement and causing a westerly sunrise. But that remote possibility doesn't lend any kind of credibility or philosophical value to an agnostic "I don't know for sure where the sun will rise tomorrow, so I will have no opinion on the matter" statement.


If you feel the need to hedge your bets concerning leprechauns and sunrises with agnostic "we can't know for sure" statements, a discussion really has nowhere to go.

Well then WHO makes my lucky charms then??!!
 
Members don't see this ad :)
There is no leap of faith required since "belief in atheism" is a non-sequitur. Sometimes atheism is classified into strong and weak, I.e. making the positive claim that god definitely does not exist vs simply being without belief in god. The original human condition is weak atheism- it takes the right amount of indoctrination/selective use of logic to become a theist, and I suspect most atheists who have sat down and thought about the issue would not be foolish enough to make the strong, positive claim. Similarly, I don't feel the need to call myself a leprechaun agnostic or santa agnostic just because I can't prove those negatives either.

Well said. I'd say agnosticism is like weak atheism. I wouldn't call it hedging my bets because I don't think I'd be any better off when I'm knocking on heaven's door just because I don't assert with certainty that no gods exist.
It's more like aliens than leprachauns. I don't have any strong reason to believe in aliens but don't reject the possibility. At least aliens don't defy the laws of nature, unlike god.
 
Surely you don't purport to know the "laws of nature."

Surely you aren't pretending to disagree that there are laws of nature/physics/whatever you want to call them that apply to the real world. When something apparently impossible happens a rational person looks for a non-magical explanation. A religious person thinks it's a miracle (but only if the miracle occured in the context of one's own religion, other religions' miracles are hoaxes obviously)
 
RE GASSMAN/POOH AND ANNIE

Pooh and annie you seem to continue to state that somehow free decisions are possible in a purely physical system with no outside influences...without any justification for this difficult claim other than vague statments that the human neural system is complex. So what? So is a car engine, and it does not have free will. Imagine an infinitely complex car engine. This would not have some-type of emergent free-will property any more than your brain does...if in fact it is merely a complicated meat machine.

Gassman, I do endorse the current scientific framework unequivocally including evolution. I also endorese orthodox Christian beliefs. Francis Collins, current head of NIH, and former head of the human genome project takes a similar position. As to how, specifically, in this context, the soul comes to exist and be identified with a specific physical organism, and how this interacts with natural selection and genetic mutation, I remain ignorant but interested! You might want to check out his thinktanks website...biologos.org, if this is of interest to you...or his book..The Language of God. In any case, your characterization of having to "accept so much" to endorse the soul is misplaced. To accept the soul, all you have to accept is the existance of God...which is why I used it is part of my argument in the first place against materialism. On the contrarly, to deny the soul, as argued in detail in previous posts, you must deny free will, morality, rationality, and personhood.

GYPSYSONGMAN
I agree that I have not here argued for Christianity. While I feel a solid case can be made, that is an involved discussion taking us far afield from our current argument, which is only for Theism generally.

RE AGNOSTICS ET AL
In order to adequately asses the evidence for the existance of God, two types of arguments must be considered. First, what is the strength of the various arguments for the existence of God (ie here are some reasons why God exists)? Given the fine tuning of the initial conditions constitiuing our universe, the sudden and otherwise inexplicable existence of our universe from nothing as described by the Big Bang, the issues of free will, morality, etc being incoherent on materialism we have discussed here, as well as the ontological argument, the argument from religous experinece, etc...I feel the proposition has fairly strong merit.
On the other hand, you would have to consider any arguments against the existence of God (i.e. here are some reasons why God might not exist). Such arguments are in relative paucity comparitevly, and I feel much weaker than the positive arguments for His existence. Can you offer any?
Given the weight of this ballance, it seems we should incline in favor of theism. It seems intellectually irresponsible to shrug your shoulders at all the many, complicated and elegant arguments both for and against, and somehow state that they are completely and exactly equal in merit and in value, and so therefore we can have no knowledge at all either way re God's existence. In any case, to take this position, you would have to discount the arguments I have given in this thread for one, something I have not seen anyone do yet. In fact, if you claim you are an agnostic, you should watch one of William Lane Craigs debates on line, with any of the many famous atheists he has debated, and honestly ask yourself whether you feel the weight of the evidence is completely equal on both sides. I would find it hard to believe.
 
RE AGNOSTICS ET AL
...
Given the weight of this ballance, it seems we should incline in favor of theism. It seems intellectually irresponsible to shrug your shoulders at all the many, complicated and elegant arguments both for and against, and somehow state that they are completely and exactly equal in merit and in value, and so therefore we can have no knowledge at all either way re God's existence. In any case, to take this position, you would have to discount the arguments I have given in this thread for one, something I have not seen anyone do yet. In fact, if you claim you are an agnostic, you should watch one of William Lane Craigs debates on line, with any of the many famous atheists he has debated, and honestly ask yourself whether you feel the weight of the evidence is completely equal on both sides. I would find it hard to believe.

You make two mistakes.

1) You assert that we must weigh the evidence "on both sides" and then declare for theism or against it. This is not correct.

There is a third (and preferable) alternative. After noting that the evidence on either side is not conclusive, we may conclude that neither proposition is proved, and that we simply do not know yet whether or not God exists.

2) You conflate the agnostic position (we do not know whether God exists or not) with another -- entirely different -- position, which as you state it is that "the ... arguments both for and against ... are completely and exactly equal in merit and value."

These are two very different propositions. Endorsing the former does not require endorsing the latter.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
RE GASSMAN/POOH AND ANNIE

Pooh and annie you seem to continue to state that somehow free decisions are possible in a purely physical system with no outside influences...without any justification for this difficult claim other than vague statments that the human neural system is complex. So what? So is a car engine, and it does not have free will. Imagine an infinitely complex car engine. This would not have some-type of emergent free-will property any more than your brain does...if in fact it is merely a complicated meat machine.

You're absolutely right in your summation! I'm not sure why it needs justification. It makes very good sense. Unfortunately even the best neuroscientists are a little "vague" in describing the various neural processing centers, but we know the interactions between these centers are ridiculously numerous and complicated. They are, however, all made up of physical substances and natural properties.

And yes, your complex engine idea is correct! Although it in no way needs to be infinitely complex. Our brain is far from infinitely complex, but is able to perform functions that provide us emotions, analytical abilities, etc... This does mean that a complex machine/computer COULD conceivably be programmed to have emotions and think for itself. Since I think that's what the human brain does for us, I DO believe this is theoretically possible. We'll never figure out how to do it though. After billions of years, nature has a pretty big head start.
 
Last edited:
Incidentally, we see people's "souls" change all the time with damage to frontal lobes, limbic structures, etc... The "theory" that I'm describing is really a scientific fact that really is difficult to refute.
 
GLORFINDEL:

You state that we do not know whether or not God exists, because, "after noting that the evidence on either side is not conclusive, we may conclude that neither proposition is proved, and that we simply do not know yet whether or not God exists." You are right, it is not possible to prove that God exists. Also, it is not possible to prove anything in the strict sense of the term, other than in certain fields of mathematics. To use the word proof in the context of philosophy, science, law, or any other human endevor is misleading. The reality is that we are forced to weigh the evidence on either side and decide which is the most probable explanation. To merely cross your arms, and state that none of the evidence is convincing at all, you first have to show that the evidence is not convincing. In order to do this, you would have to deal with the argument I have produced in this thread...given the fact that the argument is deductive and the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises if they are true. E.g:
1. Objective moral values, real persons, and free will exist
2. Objective moral values, real persons, and free will can only exist if God exists
3. Therefore, God exists
If you do not critique any of these points effectively, then you are forced out of agnosticism, and must acknowledge the fact that there are good arguments for God's existence.

POOH AND ANNIE:
A purely deterministic world, of only physical reactions, each and every one of which is totally outside of human agency or control, by definition rules out free will. It doesnt matter how complex a given system is, including your brain. If there is nothing immaterial, there are only physical interactions, which invariably obey physical laws. Just insisting you have free will, while maintianing everything is determined doesnt make it so.

You comment that souls change in responce to brain damage is mistaken. Brain function changes in responce to brain damage. As one nobel prize winning neurologist Sir John Eckles recently stated: "the mind uses the brain as an instrument for thought. Just as a pianist cannot produce beautiful music if his piano is broken down and out of tune, even though he himself has the innate ability to produce such music, so the mind cannot think properly when the brain is impaired through disease or drugs." (quote from William Lane Craig).
 
You haven't establish 1 or 2 so 3 is baseless.
Even if we grant you 1, you'd still have to prove 2, which you can't.
 
1. Objective moral values, real persons, and free will exist
2. Objective moral values, real persons, and free will can only exist if God exists
3. Therefore, God exists
If you do not critique any of these points effectively, then you are forced out of agnosticism, and must acknowledge the fact that there are good arguments for God's existence.

This almost sounds like the cosmological argument.
 
GLORFINDEL:

To merely cross your arms, and state that none of the evidence is convincing at all, you first have to show that the evidence is not convincing.

Ah, you are asserting that the default position should be credulity. I disagree, and I don't see that you've persuasively argued for your preferred default position.

I think the default position should be, that we withhold judgment, until we encounter an argument that we find convincing.

In other words, you should prove to me that the evidence is convincing, rather than my proving to you that the evidence is not convincing.

After all, you're arguing that I take an action, i.e., that I make a commitment to theism or atheism. The burden of proof is on you. ;)


In order to do this, you would have to deal with the argument I have produced in this thread...given the fact that the argument is deductive and the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises if they are true. E.g:
1. Objective moral values, real persons, and free will exist
2. Objective moral values, real persons, and free will can only exist if God exists
3. Therefore, God exists
If you do not critique any of these points effectively, then you are forced out of agnosticism, and must acknowledge the fact that there are good arguments for God's existence.

OK, for grins I'll address the argument that you find so convincing:

I reject premise #1, specifically that objective moral values exist.
 
I see the issue. We are arguing about separate, incompatible views. I can't explain your view with science when you are arguing for a transcendental definition of "free will", and vice-versa.

To me the human experience is an EXPERIENCE. The brain and body provide us an "instrument" for gathering info in the form of various stimuli, which the brain and CNS organize in various modalities. Higher order parts of the brain integrate bits and parts of that info, into a complete physical/emotional/mental/etc experience. All of these levels of processing, in addition to the genetic contribution to our CNS function, ultimately result in an amazing (yet very faulty) "thought machine".

Animals near to us on the evolutionary ladder demonstrate very similar, but slightly less complex thought processes. That holds true as you go down the evolutionary ladder.

I won't argue for what you call "free will" because my idea of "choice" is purely an integrative, educated PHYSICAL process. To me it is explainable through neurobiology.

I would agree that your "free will" is NOT explainable by science. I think free will by your defenition is limitless and requires an a priori "soul" that does not adhere to physical boundaries. To me our power of choice/"free will" is VERY limited by the boundaries of the functional capacity of our brain. I strongly believe that my belief is proveable, and once again I think the various pathologies of the CNS indicate how faulty our integrating "thought machine" can be.
 
the argument I have produced in this thread...given the fact that the argument is deductive and the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises if they are true. E.g:
1. Objective moral values, real persons, and free will exist
2. Objective moral values, real persons, and free will can only exist if God exists
3. Therefore, God exists

With respect, this argument is absolute garbage.

1 is simply an assertion. You might believe it, but simply typing out your belief doesn't constitute evidence or even a logical train of thought.

2 is the same as 1, except you add yet another assertion, and pretend one follows from the other.
 
Starting to feel like I am being trolled.
 
Hey guys, sorry I have been a little slow with responses. I am busy these days, and most of them have been typed out on call when things are slow.

I am getting the impression that people are merely reading my most recent post, and commenting as if that was all the argument that I had made thus far, and are understandably frustrated lol! For argument's sake, let me briefly summarize and copy and paste some where we have been in this thread in the form of the syllogism I mentioned above:

1. Objective moral values, real persons, and free will exist
2. Objective moral values, real persons, and free will can only exist if God exists
3. Therefore, God exists

1. Objective moral values, real persons, and free will exist
We are moral beings. Is anyone here going to honestly argue that rape, racisim, or cruel, gratuitous torture is not objectively wrong? Not just unpleasant but actually something that ought not be done? Michael Ruse has said, “The man who says it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2=5.” People who deny objective moral values demonstrate a strong sign of intellectual dishonesty, as these people go through their days making all sorts of moral judgments (that resident getting three less calls then me is unfair, or that drunk guy I have to take care of who beat up his wife is a bad dude). Real moral judgments, both big and small.

Similarly, there cannot be moral obligations or decisions in the absence of free will, this goes without saying and is accepted by philosophers. The materialistic view of the world, which sees personhood as non-real (i.e. we are merely arrangements of atoms with no trans-material significance), but again, moral values and obligations require real persons. And all of us who are intellectually honest would argue that a person should be treated with much more due care and respect then, say, a rock. And that humans have moral obligations then, for instance, apes.


2. Objective moral values, real persons, and free will can only exist if God exists

On the materialistic view of the universe, there is no morality. Everything is just matter and energy. You are made out of the same stuff as rocks or slime or dogs. There is no such thing as inherit worth or dignity or personality. Persons do not exists. Only transient conglomerations and arangments of carbon atoms, electrons, etc...of which you happen to be one. And yet, we are not just this, which is why this is not a coherent view of the universe.

Richard Taylor, the non-Christian American philosopher has said, “The concept of moral obligation is unintelligible apart from the idea of God."
R. Z. Friedman (Philosopher, University of Toronto) “Without religion the coherence of an ethic of compassion cannot be established. The principle of respect for persons and the principle of the survival of the fittest are mutually exclusive.”
The famous Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky said, "If there is no God, everything is permitted."

Further, on materialism, there is no free will. If you are only matter, energy, and physical forces are the only real forces...what part of you actually chooses anything? And if you cannot choose anything, this again, as mentioned above undermines morality. Better not ever express your desire that any criminal be convicted, no matter how egregious the crime...because they didnt choose to do it anyway!

Not only that, but materialism undermines rationality. If after all, what you call your thoughts is simply electrochemical activity controlled only by physical forces, acting on the matter which consitutites your brain...rationality is an illusion. You cannot even actually choose to accept or reject a simple logical premise, as you cannot choose anything. How can a theory of the universe be true, if the theory itself undermines rationality!

In short, many thinkers, both atheist, and theist argue that without God, objective moral values cannot exist.

3. Therefore, God exists
3 follows necessarily from 1 and 2.
And a note to PGG....you have misunderstood the argument. I did not argue that 2 follows from 1. I argued that 1 is true, and then I argued that 2 is true (both with independent lines of supporting evidence)...and I then noted that 3 necessarily follows.

If anyone is going to respond to this post, please make it a point to familiarize yourself, at least briefly with the other posts I made thus far in this thread...as it is to no one's benefit to continue raising objections that have already been raised and for me to answer them that have already been answered ad naseum.

I like to challenge you guys because there are some good thinkers on here. Do you have the guts to face up to the conclusions of these arguments, to follow the evidence where it lead no matter what? Can you be evidenced based not just in your medicine, but also in the areas that count most?
 
Free will evolved with intelligence and consciousness. Man created morality. People exist even though we are made up of the same elements as everything else.
 
When one ape rapes another is that objectively morally wrong?

Actually is this objectively morally wrong?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khwjD-KVQ_Q

WARNING! WARNING! THIS VIDEO IS POTENTIALLY VERY VERY OFFENSIVE! WARNING! WARNING! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
 
Once again, "choice" and materialism are not incompatible. There is absolutely NO reason why a brain limited by physical forces is incapable of self-analysis/free-thought. The "physical forces" argument against choice assumes a natural world would have to lack organization and evolution. That is not true.


And:
Of course we have some degree of inherent understanding (and/or quickly develop an understanding) of what is socially correct. We are social animals. As we would expect with evolution, sociopathy has been selected against, and is not the norm. Activities that would set us apart from the group make us uncomfortable because we seek/need human interaction for survival. This leaning toward social acceptability is what we as humans have labeled "morality."

By the way, if you believe in the judeo-Christian God you must also believe that he wasn't very confident in the "morality" he provided us. The Ten Commandments indicate that he didn't trust the morality in us that He would have been responsible for.
 
Last edited:
1. Objective moral values, real persons, and free will exist
We are moral beings. Is anyone here going to honestly argue that rape, racisim, or cruel, gratuitous torture is not objectively wrong?

I disagree with your premise. Few people (if any) are inherently 'moral'. We are killers and takers by nature.
Watch any animal in nature. All it does is try to stay alive and eat and reproduce. It will fight and kill to do these things. Most people are inherently no different. Civilized, moral behavior is taught. It is practiced in many cases because there would be consequences for not doing so.
 
I disagree with your premise. Few people (if any) are inherently 'moral'. We are killers and takers by nature.
Watch any animal in nature. All it does is try to stay alive and eat and reproduce. It will fight and kill to do these things. Most people are inherently no different. Civilized, moral behavior is taught. It is practiced in many cases because there would be consequences for not doing so.

Put 2 kids in a room with one toy and they will demonstrate their lack of innate universal morality within a few seconds.
 
Put 2 kids in a room with one toy and they will demonstrate their lack of innate universal morality within a few seconds.

Put two bacteria in a dish and watch as they argue that they are the pinnacle of emergent properties.

How is it they don't see the microscopist who will winnow wheat from chaff and select out the one whose properties suit the master's desire?
 
Sorry about the delay in replying to the recent posts, was swamped. Let me respond
to your comments in the context of the argument I laid out above. I
grouped up the similar objections, as different people raised the same issues:

Few people (if any) are inherently 'moral'. We are killers and takers by nature. Watch any animal in nature. All it does is try to stay alive and eat and reproduce. It will fight and kill to do these things. Most people are inherently no different. Civilized, moral behavior is taught. It is practiced in many cases because there would be consequences for not doing so." Another poster says: "Put 2 kids in a room with one toy and they will demonstrate their lack of innate universal morality within a few seconds. "Man created morality. " Put by another poster: "This leaning toward social acceptability is what we as humans have labeled "morality."

This is the most radical objection. Although you seem content to bite the bullet, I am not sure you are aware of the full implications of the language you are using. "Man created morality." Really? You dont believe in objective moral values? You dont think that the Cleavland kidnapper did anything wrong at all? Brutally raping and torturing children, which he did, is not wrong? Would you tell that to the face of those girl's parents? If you really feel this is the case, I would say there is some basic defect in your perception of the world, analogous to someone who is color-blind. And the vast majority of humans who have ever lived would staunchy disagree with you. As the philosopher Michael Ruse has said, "The man who says it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2=5."

Actually, if you think further about it, a person who holds this view is dangerous and frightening, a monster of sorts. Take for instance, Musollini: "Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth ... then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity... From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable." How horrible to think that he felt no hestitation at all with what he was complicit in, because he had this view...

Also, like I pointed out earlier, I highly doubt that you go throughout your days without making any moral demands or judgments of anyone. If someone dumps an extra call on you, or breaks into your house and steals your stuff, do you just shrug your shoulders and start picking up the pieces, or do you express some moral indignation? My point is that even radical types like Richard Dawkins who deny objective moral values end up espousing them all the time. For instance, he calls teaching religion "child abuse", and has plenty of moral denouncments of the Old Testament God all throughout his work.

"If you believe in the judeo-Christian God you must also believe that he wasn't very
confident in the "morality" he provided us...[becuase he gave us the 10 commandments] "


I did not argue that God gave people perfect knowledge of moral values (this would, as you correctly infered, make the 10 commandments redundant). In fact, people have demonstrably false knowledge of moral values (see Musollini quote above). Instead, I argued that objective moral values exist. This is true whether or not people have correct (or any) knowledge of them. So your objection mistakes moral epistimology (knowledge of morality) with moral ontology (the objective nature of moral values).

"Free will evolved with intelligence and consciousness. People exist even though we are made up of the same elements as everything else. " "Once again, "choice" and materialism are not incompatible.

These seem to be just blatant assertions. I.e: Somehow...impossibly...in a purely physical world, non-physical realities (intelligence, consciousness, personhood, free-will) come to be. PoohandAnnie continues to state that this state of affairs is perfectly logical and non-problematic/obvious. E.g. "There is absolutely NO reason why a brain limited by physical forces is incapable of self-analysis/free-thought." However, philosophers of many stripes, and ordinary folks too, disagree.

Jerry Coyne, proffesor of ecology/evolution at U Chicago:
"...free will is ruled out, simply and decisively, by the laws of physics. Your brain and body, the vehicles that make "choices," are composed of molecules, and the arrangement of those molecules is entirely determined by your genes and your environment. Your decisions result from molecular-based electrical impulses and chemical substances transmitted from one brain cell to another. These molecules must obey the laws of physics, so the outputs of our brain—our "choices"—are dictated by those laws. (It's possible, though improbable, that the indeterminacy of quantum physics may tweak behavior a bit, but such random effects can't be part of free will.) And deliberating about your choices in advance doesn't help matters, for that deliberation also reflects brain activity that must obey physical laws. To assert that we can freely choose among alternatives is to claim, then, that we can somehow step outside the physical structure of our brain and change its workings. That is impossible. Like the output of a programmed computer, only one choice is ever physically possible: the one you made."

John Gray, the British philosopher and atheist says..."We can be free agents only if we are authors of our acts; but we are ourselves products of chance and necessity. We cannot choose to be what we are born. In that case, we cannot be responsible for what we do""

The atheist Nietzsche is a famous example.
"The desire for "freedom of the will" in the superlative metaphysical sense, which still holds sway, unfortunately, in the minds of the half-educated; the desire to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for one's actions oneself, and to absolve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society involves nothing less than to be precisely this causa sui and, with more than Munchhausen's audacity, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, out of the swamps of nothingness."


The bottom line is if you are going to make a tremendously counter-intuitive and difficult assertion, you have to at least argue for it...instead of simply continue to insist that it is true. At the bare minimum, you would have to address some of the objections by the thinkers above.
 
"Not only that, but materialism undermines rationality. If after all, what you call your thoughts is simply electrochemical activity controlled only by physical forces, acting on the matter which consitutites your brain...rationality is an illusion. You cannot even actually choose to accept or reject a simple logical premise, as you cannot choose anything. How can a theory of the universe be true, if the theory itself undermines rationality!"

Just because rationality is represented in the neurochemical milieu that goes down inside our skulls does not mean that it is an illusion from the perspective of physicalism. The fact that rationality has developed along with the evolution of our species (and others) is pretty convincing evidence that it is simply a reflection of the world outside our skulls (noumenon). The idea that rationality has to be handed down from a deity or else it is an illusion is laughable. Come on dude... you're better than that.

Regarding morality/free will: I'll accept our lack of "free will" and "personhood". However, you say that we can't punish those who have committed crimes unless we accept free will and "objective morality". However, from a pragmatist's perspective, punishment of an entity that is wired to act in such a way that is harmful to others is perfectly reasonable. Such punishment acts as a deterrent to be considered by any of those that may think about acting in that way in the future. That's the whole point. Saying that we don't have free will is not the same as saying that we don't have the ability to reason to preserve self interest.

With regard to your intuition pump about rape/racism/pedophilia/whatever ("objective morality"): I would direct you to my argument about rationality. It could be argued that this moral sense has developed along with the evolution of our species because it is a reflection of the "Ding an sich", which would indicate the presence of an "objective morality" without appealing to God. I don't know if I particularly buy that argument, but it does the job. I'll have to think some more about the whole "I believe in God or else I'm just as bad as Mussolini/the Cleveland rapist/everyone else who ever did something bad to someone" argument before I decide which way I would like to refute it.
 
I find the prospect of having objective morality irrespective of the circumstances to be much more frightening.

edit:

The bottom line is if you are going to make a tremendously counter-intuitive and difficult assertion, you have to at least argue for it...instead of simply continue to insist that it is true. At the bare minimum, you would have to address some of the objections by the thinkers above.

By thinkers do you mean the various people you quoted? Well honestly a lot of them seem to be asserting things without much argument either. They suck as much as we do.
 
I keep saying this, and I'll say it again.

"Free will" is a philosophical idea that suggests choice unlimited by neurophysiological influence. I don't believe in this, so no need to ask me to explain it.

I think our thought is a very limited neurophysiological process. Every prior event in our life is "recorded" and categorized to some degree. In addition, we're afforded variable degrees of cognitive function based on genetics, education, diet, etc...

We are able to make conclusions and decisions based on all these limitations. I argue that this is very clearly true. I will not "explain" free will because I think free will is a philosophical construct that WOULD require transcendentalism, as you suggest. CHOICE, which is a complex physiological process, is an obvious point along the continuum of the evolution of cognition. I would be happy to discuss this with any of your philosophers, most of whom would be in agreement. If they argued that choice does not exist, I would also be happy to discuss that with them!
 
Last edited:
A bit late in joining the discussion, but Timeoutofmind, I wonder if you can entertain the idea of a dualistic nature of mind, where an individual can truly believe something on level, perhaps intellectually, and yet act in the complete opposite way based on...emotion let's say.

I myself believe in moral relativism. I don't think there's objective morality. At the same time, I will vehemently defend a moral position if I think it's "right." Do i think murder/rape is objectively wrong? No. But would I put away a murderer/rapist? Absolutely.

Is this intellectual "dishonesty" or "hypocrisy?" Why? Because the two positions cannot be logically reconciled? What happens when abstract reasoning from a set of premises leads to a different solution than that which is shown by empirical study? What do you trust? Science or abstract reasoning?

Moreover, have you read any Wittgenstein? Or read about him and his idea that our forms of communication via the use of language is somewhat inherently dysfunctional due to its layers of removal from reality?

What I'm getting at is that it's perhaps not necessary to reconcile our institutions, laws, and behaviors with our abstract logic and beliefs, especially if they would be harmful to self and society. It doesn't mean that the beliefs are wrong per se. Maybe our premises require revision. Quantum mechanics is only one possible revision of the "physical determinism" postulate. Maybe more will come.

This just means that those of us who live in the present are kind of left hanging and cannot close the gap. I don't think that automatically positing the existence of God just to soothe our cognitive dissonance is the solution. It just creates another form of cognitive dissonance. I don't know about anyone else, but I've just kind of learned to live in limbo.
 
Hey guys, sorry I have been a little slow with responses. I am busy these days, and most of them have been typed out on call when things are slow.

I am getting the impression that people are merely reading my most recent post, and commenting as if that was all the argument that I had made thus far, and are understandably frustrated lol! For argument's sake, let me briefly summarize and copy and paste some where we have been in this thread in the form of the syllogism I mentioned above:

1. Objective moral values, real persons, and free will exist
2. Objective moral values, real persons, and free will can only exist if God exists
3. Therefore, God exists

1. Objective moral values, real persons, and free will exist
We are moral beings. Is anyone here going to honestly argue that rape, racisim, or cruel, gratuitous torture is not objectively wrong? Not just unpleasant but actually something that ought not be done? Michael Ruse has said, “The man who says it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2=5.” People who deny objective moral values demonstrate a strong sign of intellectual dishonesty, as these people go through their days making all sorts of moral judgments (that resident getting three less calls then me is unfair, or that drunk guy I have to take care of who beat up his wife is a bad dude). Real moral judgments, both big and small.

Similarly, there cannot be moral obligations or decisions in the absence of free will, this goes without saying and is accepted by philosophers. The materialistic view of the world, which sees personhood as non-real (i.e. we are merely arrangements of atoms with no trans-material significance), but again, moral values and obligations require real persons. And all of us who are intellectually honest would argue that a person should be treated with much more due care and respect then, say, a rock. And that humans have moral obligations then, for instance, apes.


2. Objective moral values, real persons, and free will can only exist if God exists

On the materialistic view of the universe, there is no morality. Everything is just matter and energy. You are made out of the same stuff as rocks or slime or dogs. There is no such thing as inherit worth or dignity or personality. Persons do not exists. Only transient conglomerations and arangments of carbon atoms, electrons, etc...of which you happen to be one. And yet, we are not just this, which is why this is not a coherent view of the universe.

Richard Taylor, the non-Christian American philosopher has said, “The concept of moral obligation is unintelligible apart from the idea of God."
R. Z. Friedman (Philosopher, University of Toronto) “Without religion the coherence of an ethic of compassion cannot be established. The principle of respect for persons and the principle of the survival of the fittest are mutually exclusive.”
The famous Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky said, "If there is no God, everything is permitted."

Further, on materialism, there is no free will. If you are only matter, energy, and physical forces are the only real forces...what part of you actually chooses anything? And if you cannot choose anything, this again, as mentioned above undermines morality. Better not ever express your desire that any criminal be convicted, no matter how egregious the crime...because they didnt choose to do it anyway!

Not only that, but materialism undermines rationality. If after all, what you call your thoughts is simply electrochemical activity controlled only by physical forces, acting on the matter which consitutites your brain...rationality is an illusion. You cannot even actually choose to accept or reject a simple logical premise, as you cannot choose anything. How can a theory of the universe be true, if the theory itself undermines rationality!

In short, many thinkers, both atheist, and theist argue that without God, objective moral values cannot exist.

3. Therefore, God exists
3 follows necessarily from 1 and 2.
And a note to PGG....you have misunderstood the argument. I did not argue that 2 follows from 1. I argued that 1 is true, and then I argued that 2 is true (both with independent lines of supporting evidence)...and I then noted that 3 necessarily follows.

If anyone is going to respond to this post, please make it a point to familiarize yourself, at least briefly with the other posts I made thus far in this thread...as it is to no one's benefit to continue raising objections that have already been raised and for me to answer them that have already been answered ad naseum.

I like to challenge you guys because there are some good thinkers on here. Do you have the guts to face up to the conclusions of these arguments, to follow the evidence where it lead no matter what? Can you be evidenced based not just in your medicine, but also in the areas that count most?

I've gotta roll a

MUCH BIGGER BLUNT

if I have

ANY CHANCE

of understanding this thread.
 
Pass the dutchie on the left hand side, brah cuz I don't understand this sh_it (sober) either.
 
Top