Objective Morality and God

[Sy Borg]

I'm sorry, Creation, but your approach is not what I am looking for from the forum. Thanks for replying anyway.

Fair enough.

What 'approach' are you LOOKING FOR, EXACTLY?

I am looking for:

1. Posts where a writer makes an effort to understand what the other person is trying to say. Not every detail should require a demand for explanation.

2. Posts where every single sentence is not taken out of context and challenged as if absent from the larger concepts of which they are part.

3. Posts where the writer provides a narrative of their thoughts more than a broken up, piecemeal adversarial approach. It's a readability issue.

4. Posts where random words are not emphasised with capital letters, which is the online version of shouting. Less intrusive means of emphasis are:

italics

*stars*

bold

underline

Still, if overused, these devices are also intrusive. If you emphasise more than three words in a total post, then most times that will be too much, impacting readability (and credibility with academic readers).

You, my friend have the patience of Job.

Sorry, I must have given a false impression

As a side note, I worry about Job's children. They were killed and then, seemingly, were replaced with new offspring. A tough call for the originals! One can wonder about Job's morality. For instance, if someone killed my dog and then offered a replacement I would not consider the problem solved one iota. I expect it would be even worse if it's your offspring, but Job was a happy chappy with his new, improved spawn.

[Gertie]

Right, as I said, I think that's a different god of the gaps argument, one which we haven't got a testable non-supernatural answer for yet. Aquinas laid this out well, we now usually talk about the uncaused cause, or the cosmological argument for God.


You can make your 'grounding principle' version of that type of argument for god, lay out the premises, it usually arrives at a creator/first cause god which is somehow 'outside' the universe.


This is an untestable claim, but we can look to where the current science is pointing as to whether the universe appears to be finite or infinite, whether quantum theory or particle physics suggests the possibility that stuff can actually pop into existence, or whatever. Because this is basically a god of the gaps claim addressing questions like why is there something rather than nothing.

Now if it turns out there is something inherent about the universe which makes its existence necessary, infinite, or simply a contingent event, which removes the need for an 'outside' creator - then we're just talking about the universe with no need to invoke god - as with morality. A brute fact. And calling this aspect of the nature of the universe ''god'' adds no further information or explanation.

I agree with your last point that if there is something inherent about the universe that makes it necessary, adding God to the mix would add no explanatory value. However, I do not think that there necessarily will ever be a testable scientific proof of this, and that is something I am perfectly okay with accepting. I see no need to be bound or supported by science, the discipline that continually debunks and disproves itself, in any metaphysical claims that I make.

So you're not arguing for a Prime Mover God, somehow separate from the universe which created the universe?

And you're not arguing that attributing some Godliness quality to the brute fact of the existence of the universe?

Where does God come into it then, what are you identifying as the God part, and what is your argument?

[Gertie]

Right, as I said, I think that's a different god of the gaps argument, one which we haven't got a testable non-supernatural answer for yet. Aquinas laid this out well, we now usually talk about the uncaused cause, or the cosmological argument for God.


You can make your 'grounding principle' version of that type of argument for god, lay out the premises, it usually arrives at a creator/first cause god which is somehow 'outside' the universe.


This is an untestable claim, but we can look to where the current science is pointing as to whether the universe appears to be finite or infinite, whether quantum theory or particle physics suggests the possibility that stuff can actually pop into existence, or whatever. Because this is basically a god of the gaps claim addressing questions like why is there something rather than nothing.

Now if it turns out there is something inherent about the universe which makes its existence necessary, infinite, or simply a contingent event, which removes the need for an 'outside' creator - then we're just talking about the universe with no need to invoke god - as with morality. A brute fact. And calling this aspect of the nature of the universe ''god'' adds no further information or explanation.

I agree with your last point that if there is something inherent about the universe that makes it necessary, adding God to the mix would add no explanatory value. However, I do not think that there necessarily will ever be a testable scientific proof of this, and that is something I am perfectly okay with accepting. I see no need to be bound or supported by science, the discipline that continually debunks and disproves itself, in any metaphysical claims that I make.

So you're not arguing for a Prime Mover God, somehow separate from the universe which created the universe?

And you're not arguing that attributing some Godliness quality to the brute fact of the existence of the universe



Where does God come into it then, what are you identifying as the God part, and what is your argument?

EDIT -

''And you're not arguing that attributing some Godliness quality to the brute fact of the existence of the universe adds anything?''

[Steve3007]

I agree with your last point that if there is something inherent about the universe that makes it necessary, adding God to the mix would add no explanatory value. However, I do not think that there necessarily will ever be a testable scientific proof of this, and that is something I am perfectly okay with accepting. I see no need to be bound or supported by science, the discipline that continually debunks and disproves itself, in any metaphysical claims that I make.

Leaving aside the misrepresentation of what science does which I mentioned in a previous post, I think you're essentially right in this post. Propositions like "there is something inherent about the universe that makes it necessary" or similar claims that you've described here as "metaphysical claims" are nothing to do with science, evidence, argument, etc. That is one reason why religious faith is called faith and why most people who hold that faith don't seek to make arguments to support it. They just experience it and share it with like-minded others.

[evolution]

science, the discipline that continually debunks and disproves itself

It doesn't do that.

If it does not do that, then what do you claim it does do?

From what I have seen throughout human history the discipline that they call "science" has been continually debunking and disproving the previous conflicts, contradictions, and discrepancies within itself, continuously.

But 'we' appear to be looking at and seeing 'things' completely different here.

[Terrapin Station]

I am a theist, and I believe in objective morality, but I believe that I have justification for objective morality in God's existence. This is not a new claim, but I feel as if my defense of it satisfies a certain collection of objections that I'll lump together under the umbrella of cultural/evolutionary moral relativism. Broadly speaking I categorize these objections as objections that nullify the Truth value of morality and make it into a tool for building a better society or a way to oppress the masses, whatever it may be that morality's function is described as.

Of course a theist could say that they believe that God handed down morality, in a some way like handing Moses the 10 Commandments, or that our rational reflection could discover God's intended moral laws. While I believe these are plausible arguments, I believe that there are also many plausible arguments against these views. Many of these views point towards science as showing that what we believe is moral really is just something that creates a positive reaction in our brain, or helps our community run smoothly, so while morality is good, it is not objective because different things could create happiness or different situations might make communities acquire different moral principles.

I believe that these arguments, at first, counter the theists belief well, but if these ideas are pursued further, that they actually contribute to the theist's argument.

Take for instance the idea that morality is not objective because it is entirely influenced by evolutionary forces, and could have given us a number of rules. To this I would ask, what creates the biology or psychology necessary to create ideas such as morality? Some could say that the fields of chemistry and physics ground these ideas, but if so, what do these ideas rest upon? The main idea behind my argument is then that if there is a single ungrounded principle in the universe, then its grounding would have to be God. And I do believe that we do not have, nor can we develop, satisfactory grounding principles with our purely physical and scientific universe. Therefore, we must reach outside of these fields to find their justification. And here is where my theism steps in.

So, I believe that there must only be one ungrounded principle in existence to prove the existence of God. Now, I do not believe that this is the case, but my broader strategy is to prove that even if one is to reject objective morality as a justification for God because they believe it is related to something else, a broad swath of their counter-arguments are invalid in my opinion.

Maybe you answer this further into the thread, but just what sort of thing do you have in mind as an "ungrounded principle"? I'm not even sure what the idea is there.

[Terrapin Station]

My argument is meant to show that even if morality is taken to be only as what you are showing with the monkeys and describing as the need of a group to survive, that it is still based in something else, and if we follow the origins of this we will eventually reach something that cannot be described with any scientific law. The earth and the sun can contribute to our biology, but what is the force that holds our atoms together? And what drives this force? I admit this seems like begging the question, but science constantly questions itself, so I believe it is only fair play. I believe that if science questions itself enough, it will be forced to throw up its hands and admit to a non-physical grounding for its principles or singular principle. And this, although this is a discussion for another day, would be God.

Ah-- so with "ungrounded principle" you're not thinking specifically of a "moral principle" but something like a "(uncaused) cause for everything" or an "(uncaused) thing that 'holds everything together'" or something like that?

What I never understand with comments like your is this: if you think that we need to answer "what 'drives' the electroweak force" and so on, then (a) how in the world do you think that would be satisfactorily answered with something like "some nonphysical whatever"--as if that explains anything better rather than being hopelessly incoherent (the very notion of nonphysical anythings strikes me as completely incoherent), and (b) why wouldn't your "nonphysical whatever" (or god or whatever you'd want to posit as the "final answer") require a "what drives it" question? In other words, re (b), why would the "final answer" proposed count as a final answer? Just because we're going to stipulate as much?

[evolution]

My argument is meant to show that even if morality is taken to be only as what you are showing with the monkeys and describing as the need of a group to survive, that it is still based in something else, and if we follow the origins of this we will eventually reach something that cannot be described with any scientific law. The earth and the sun can contribute to our biology, but what is the force that holds our atoms together? And what drives this force? I admit this seems like begging the question, but science constantly questions itself, so I believe it is only fair play. I believe that if science questions itself enough, it will be forced to throw up its hands and admit to a non-physical grounding for its principles or singular principle. And this, although this is a discussion for another day, would be God.

Ah-- so with "ungrounded principle" you're not thinking specifically of a "moral principle" but something like a "(uncaused) cause for everything" or an "(uncaused) thing that 'holds everything together'" or something like that?

What I never understand with comments like your is this: if you think that we need to answer "what 'drives' the electroweak force" and so on, then (a) how in the world do you think that would be satisfactorily answered with something like "some nonphysical whatever"--as if that explains anything better rather than being hopelessly incoherent (the very notion of nonphysical anythings strikes me as completely incoherent), and (b) why wouldn't your "nonphysical whatever" (or god or whatever you'd want to posit as the "final answer") require a "what drives it" question?

Because 'It' could be Self-driven, which is, exactly, what does occur. As can be and has already been verified and proven True.

In other words, re (b), why would the "final answer" proposed count as a final answer? Just because we're going to stipulate as much?

Because, as just seen, it is obviously, and has just proven to be, - 'thee final answer'.

[Terrapin Station]

Because 'It' could be Self-driven, which is, exactly, what does occur. As can be and has already been verified and proven True.

It could be self-driven and other things couldn't be based on what, exactly? Stipulation?

[evolution]

Because 'It' could be Self-driven, which is, exactly, what does occur. As can be and has already been verified and proven True.

It could be self-driven and other things couldn't be based on what, exactly? Stipulation?

What else do you imagine what 'you', human beings, could base things on, other than your own stipulations, definitions, and/ or judgements?

[Steve3007]

What I never understand with comments like your is this: if you think that we need to answer "what 'drives' the electroweak force" and so on, then (a) how in the world do you think that would be satisfactorily answered with something like "some nonphysical whatever"--as if that explains anything better rather than being hopelessly incoherent (the very notion of nonphysical anythings strikes me as completely incoherent), and (b) why wouldn't your "nonphysical whatever" (or god or whatever you'd want to posit as the "final answer") require a "what drives it" question? In other words, re (b), why would the "final answer" proposed count as a final answer? Just because we're going to stipulate as much?

That's a standard rebuttal of the "first cause" argument for the existence of a creator, but if we're asking questions like "how in the world do you think that would be satisfactorily answered with..." then I suppose the answer hinges on the sense in which the word "satisfactory" is used. On questions like this I think it can only really be used in an emotional sense. i.e. the answer that one finds satisfactory is the one that gives one most pleasure. But clearly different people take pleasure in different things. Some people (a lot of people, it seems) take pleasure in thinking that at the base of a chain of causality sits a wise and benevolent parent figure.

[Terrapin Station]

Because 'It' could be Self-driven, which is, exactly, what does occur. As can be and has already been verified and proven True.

It could be self-driven and other things couldn't be based on what, exactly? Stipulation?

What else do you imagine what 'you', human beings, could base things on, other than your own stipulations, definitions, and/ or judgements?

observations, empirical data, etc.

[evolution]

Because 'It' could be Self-driven, which is, exactly, what does occur. As can be and has already been verified and proven True.

It could be self-driven and other things couldn't be based on what, exactly? Stipulation?

What else do you imagine what 'you', human beings, could base things on, other than your own stipulations, definitions, and/ or judgements?

observations, empirical data, etc.

Great. So why would the "final answer" proposed count as a final answer is because of these things, combined.

Once things are unified, agreed upon, and accepted, based on the same shared, observations and experiences, and stipulations, definitions, judgments, empirical data, et cetera, et cetera, then a final answer would be counted as a final answer.

Until then a unification of all things will continue.

[Terrapin Station]

It could be self-driven and other things couldn't be based on what, exactly? Stipulation?

What else do you imagine what 'you', human beings, could base things on, other than your own stipulations, definitions, and/ or judgements?

observations, empirical data, etc.

Great. So why would the "final answer" proposed count as a final answer is because of these things, combined.

Once things are unified, agreed upon, and accepted, based on the same shared, observations and experiences, and stipulations, definitions, judgments, empirical data, et cetera, et cetera, then a final answer would be counted as a final answer.

Until then a unification of all things will continue.

Consensus has nothing to do with what's the case.

[evolution]

What else do you imagine what 'you', human beings, could base things on, other than your own stipulations, definitions, and/ or judgements?

observations, empirical data, etc.

Great. So why would the "final answer" proposed count as a final answer is because of these things, combined.

Once things are unified, agreed upon, and accepted, based on the same shared, observations and experiences, and stipulations, definitions, judgments, empirical data, et cetera, et cetera, then a final answer would be counted as a final answer.

Until then a unification of all things will continue.

Consensus has nothing to do with what's the case.

If consensus has 'nothing' to with what is the case, like you claim it has not, then what, exactly, is 'it', which has to do, with what is the case?

Also, your claim is obviously false, wrong, and incorrect. For the very 'fact' that if 'every' one was in consensus, and in agreement, then there would not be anyone who was not in agreement, and not in consensus, with what the 'final answer' IS, with what thee actual Truth IS, or with what is called, 'what is the case'. And, obviously, if there is NO thing in disagreement with what the case actually IS, then there could not be absolutely 'any' thing, which could be nor would be disagreeing with what the case actually IS, anyway.

See, it is 'agreement' and 'consensus' which is what actually forms and creates Truth.

I can and will show and prove you how this is thee actual Truth of things.

Until then you however are absolutely 'free' to 'believe' whatever you want to believe.

When you rid yourself of the belief that what I am saying is anything in relation to the 'ad populum fallacy', then you will be able to see what I am actually saying and meaning.

What I am saying and meaning has absolutely nothing at all in relation to that fallacy. Is this understood?