Objective Morality and God

[Sy Borg]

... I would ask, what creates the biology or psychology necessary to create ideas such as morality?

The Earth and the Sun.

What about the wind, the water, the fire, AND absolutely EVERY 'thing' else ...

Wind, water and fire are part of the Earth. Everything we know that's not space is part of the Earth.

Clearly the evolution of intelligence was part of the Earth's potential. How far that potential can go is anyone's guess.

[Sy Borg]

I am agnostic. What the heck do we know about the most fundamental aspects of reality, glued to the surface of one planet amongst an estimated minimum 700,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe?

... I would ask, what creates the biology or psychology necessary to create ideas such as morality?

The Earth and the Sun.

Some could say that the fields of chemistry and physics ground these ideas, but if so, what do these ideas rest upon?

The contingencies of social living.

A group that cooperates is more likely to survive - and its members pass on those proclivities - than a group that does not cooperate. So cooperativeness is selected. This is not the case for non-social animals, that need not cooperate until mating. Again, mating and rearing of offspring require cooperation from the caring parent animals.

An essential part of group living in sharing and perceived fairness. Without that, a group will fall part. An example of simple morality in animals is seen when a capuchin monkey rejects what it sees as an unfair reward:

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.

Basically you asking why order exists, why chaos does not rule. Simulations suggest what logic tells us. That is, in any given chaotic field, relatively stable ordered entities will emerge by probability.

Consider the emergence of planets from the proto-planetary disc. It was relatively homogeneous. Aside from the Sun, there were no extremely large entities like today's planets, mostly just dust. Through time, gravity and the Sun's emissions, larger entities emerged out of the dust. After millions of years of chaos - with planetoids accreting, being destroyed or ejected - eight planets with their moons rule, with numerous smaller bodies and much more space between bodies.

Cooperation is a bit like gravity, in that it makes possible the building of larger entities (groups). Morality is ideally all about cooperation, although today many things that are claimed to be morals are actually just some people's preferences, eg. enforced subservience of women.

Still, falling back on to a war deity of ancient Middle Eastern people is definitely a last resort explanation. The Last Stop Saloon of philosophical musings. I'd be looking at panpsychism as a possibility before considering that Yahweh is responsible for it all (although some might say both are true).

[Gertie]

We're beginning to get a broad picture of how the evolved predispositions of our complex social species came up with our particular notions of right and wrong. This gives a brief outline -

https://moralfoundations.org/

This means we don't need to invoke God to explain human morality. The argument for God from morality has turned out to be another god of the gaps argument which has been debunked as we learn more.

If you want to take it back a step and argue there is something fundamental about the universe which has some inherent teleological drive towards morality, that's a difficult argument to make without relying on untestable premises. It could be true, but in effect it's retreating to a deeper remaining gap.

I totally agree that this is a plausible explanation to why we have our normative moral practices. However, truthfully I do believe that God is the law giver for moral practices, but that is not the point of this thread.

The process of evolution is one driven by biology, psychology, whatever disciplines you would like to ascribe to it, I won't argue that. However, what I will argue is that if you were to successively question what each of these rely upon for their explanatory value, you will eventually land on something that has no explanatory value in itself. Another commenter referred to these potentially being referred to as brute facts, and my question to them was if these brute facts share attributes that you would ascribe to God. I believe that a good portion of the attributes of God and these brute facts can align, and that is the reasoning for my argument.

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.

[evolution]

... I would ask, what creates the biology or psychology necessary to create ideas such as morality?

The Earth and the Sun.

What about the wind, the water, the fire, AND absolutely EVERY 'thing' else ...

Wind, water and fire are part of the Earth. Everything we know that's not space is part of the Earth.

Do you mean, the earth is a part of everything we know? Or, do you want to stand by your CLAIM here that everything 'you' know, that is not space, is part of the earth?

See, are you saying/claiming that what was created/came into Existence, existed, and stopped existing and had gone out of Existence, BEFORE the earth even came into Existence is part of the earth?

If yes, then HOW is this even POSSIBLE?

Clearly the evolution of intelligence was part of the Earth's potential. How far that potential can go is anyone's guess.

But there is NO guess. CLEARLY the evolution of intelligence was part of 'the BEFORE earth even existed's potential.

CLEARLY the evolution of intelligence IS part of the Universe's potential. How far that potential goes is OBVIOUS. The Universe, Itself, IS eternal. Therefore, that potential has ALWAYS EXISTED. Or, in more Truer words; is ALWAYS EXISTING.

There is NO 'guessing' here AT ALL. There is just 'observations' AND 'experiences', which can be backed up and supported with ACTUAL EVIDENCE and PROOF.

That is; IF ANY one would like to CHALLENGE me on this.

[Sy Borg]

The Earth and the Sun.

What about the wind, the water, the fire, AND absolutely EVERY 'thing' else ...

Wind, water and fire are part of the Earth. Everything we know that's not space is part of the Earth.

Do you mean, the earth is a part of everything we know? Or, do you want to stand by your CLAIM here that everything 'you' know, that is not space, is part of the earth?

See, are you saying/claiming that what was created/came into Existence, existed, and stopped existing and had gone out of Existence, BEFORE the earth even came into Existence is part of the earth?

If yes, then HOW is this even POSSIBLE?

Yes, ALL we KNOW is the EARTH, aside FROM outer SPACE. What ELSE do YOU suggest?

How IS it POSSIBLE?

https://www.discovery.com/science/how-d ... tem-form--

NEXT question.

Clearly the evolution of intelligence was part of the Earth's potential. How far that potential can go is anyone's guess.

There is NO 'guessing' here AT ALL. There is just 'observations' AND 'experiences', which can be backed up and supported with ACTUAL EVIDENCE and PROOF.

That is; IF ANY one would like to CHALLENGE me on this.

AGAIN, how FAR THAT potential CAN go IS unknown. If YOU know THEN you SHOULD contact THE world's LEADING thinkers AND enlighten THEM, rather THAN just chatting ON a philosophy FORUM.

DO we REALLY have to KEEP alternating CAPS and lower CASE for NO apparent REASON?

[HJCarden]

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.

Basically you asking why order exists, why chaos does not rule. Simulations suggest what logic tells us. That is, in any given chaotic field, relatively stable ordered entities will emerge by probability.

Consider the emergence of planets from the proto-planetary disc. It was relatively homogeneous. Aside from the Sun, there were no extremely large entities like today's planets, mostly just dust. Through time, gravity and the Sun's emissions, larger entities emerged out of the dust. After millions of years of chaos - with planetoids accreting, being destroyed or ejected - eight planets with their moons rule, with numerous smaller bodies and much more space between bodies.

Cooperation is a bit like gravity, in that it makes possible the building of larger entities (groups). Morality is ideally all about cooperation, although today many things that are claimed to be morals are actually just some people's preferences, eg. enforced subservience of women.

Still, falling back on to a war deity of ancient Middle Eastern people is definitely a last resort explanation. The Last Stop Saloon of philosophical musings. I'd be looking at panpsychism as a possibility before considering that Yahweh is responsible for it all (although some might say both are true).

This seems like an entirely plausible alternative to my argument. I will look more into panpsychism, only heard the term in passing and never looked into it properly.

[HJCarden]

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.

[Sy Borg]

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.

I like to use science as the basis for my speculations. It's good to have a firm grounding. Speculations heaped upon speculations can veer markedly from actual reality. Science is not perfect but it is the most reliable information we have. Also, I find that scientists themselves often seem less strictly bound to materialism and logical positivism than are science fans online.

The gaps that science leaves are ripe for speculation, though, as long as one does not immediately adopt the "god of the gaps", which necessarily halts further investigations, since God is essentially a black box labelled "unknowable".

[evolution]

What about the wind, the water, the fire, AND absolutely EVERY 'thing' else ...

Wind, water and fire are part of the Earth. Everything we know that's not space is part of the Earth.

Do you mean, the earth is a part of everything we know? Or, do you want to stand by your CLAIM here that everything 'you' know, that is not space, is part of the earth?

See, are you saying/claiming that what was created/came into Existence, existed, and stopped existing and had gone out of Existence, BEFORE the earth even came into Existence is part of the earth?

If yes, then HOW is this even POSSIBLE?

Yes,

What are you saying "Yes" to, EXACTLY? My first question, my second question, or my third question?

Could you NOT recognize and SEE that there are three very distinctly DIFFERENT CLARIFYING QUESTIONS here?

ALL we KNOW is the EARTH, aside FROM outer SPACE.

When 'you' use the 'we' word here, who and/or what are 'you' referring to, EXACTLY?

Because if 'you' are including 'me', then you are WRONG.

Also, besides earth and, so called, "outer space". What else is there?

You made the CLAIM that 'what creates the biology or psychology necessary to create ideas such as morality?' is the earth and the sun.

I was just suggesting that what created the sun and the earth could be considered to be what creates the biology or psychology to create ideas such as morality, and NOT just the sun and the earth ALONE. But, you appear to just NOT even want to consider this idea and/or suggestion, correct?

What ELSE do YOU suggest?

In regards to what, EXACTLY?

How IS it POSSIBLE?

https://www.discovery.com/science/how-d ... tem-form--

NEXT question.

This link here, which you provided, leads to a page with the question;
How did the solar system form?

And, the answer to this is the same answer to; How did EVERY thing else, besides 'matter' and 'space' themselves, form?

Thee answer, by the way, is quite very simple and very easy to learn, understand, and KNOW, indeed.

Clearly the evolution of intelligence was part of the Earth's potential. How far that potential can go is anyone's guess.

There is NO 'guessing' here AT ALL. There is just 'observations' AND 'experiences', which can be backed up and supported with ACTUAL EVIDENCE and PROOF.

That is; IF ANY one would like to CHALLENGE me on this.

AGAIN, how FAR THAT potential CAN go IS unknown.

I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that 'this' is UNKNOWN by 'you', the one known as "greta" here.

But what 'you', "greta", know and/or do NOT KNOW has NO necessary actual bearing on what "others" KNOW and/or do NOT KNOW. Is this UNDERSTOOD by 'you'?

If YOU know THEN you SHOULD contact THE world's LEADING thinkers AND enlighten THEM, rather THAN just chatting ON a philosophy FORUM.

WHY?

The, so called, " world's LEADING 'thinkers' " are NOT necessarily ANY more 'intelligent' nor 'curious' are IN THE POTENTIAL, than the readers and posters on a philosophy forum are?

Just because one is labeled and called "a world class thinker" does NOT make them ANY more OPEN nor CLOSED to ANY "other" human being.

It may well be the most, perceived, UNLIKELY and UNASSUMING 'one' who ACTUALLY is able to be ENLIGHTENED to what it is that I have to SHOW and REVEAL.

DO we REALLY have to KEEP alternating CAPS and lower CASE for NO apparent REASON?

To 'you', there may be NO REASON AT ALL. But, to and for 'me', there are VERY SPECIFIC REASONS, of which could ALL be EXPLAINED. That is; IF ANY one was Truly interested, in discovering and/or learning MORE and ANEW.

You are AWARE right that you do NOT 'have to do' ANY thing that you do NOT want to do?

Also, and by the way, your use of the word 'apparent' here is ABSOLUTELY PERFECT. As the MESSAGES, which can be CLEARLY SEEN in MY WRITINGS, ARE EXPLAINED and UNDERSTOOD, when 'reading between the lines', as it is said.

[Sy Borg]

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

[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.

WHY would you make such a CLAIM?

Do you have ANY actual evidence OR proof for this CLAIM?

Oh, and by the way, when one does go ALL the way "back", then what is eventually reached can be and IS described, and proven, with, and by, scientific laws.

The earth and the sun can contribute to our biology, but what is the force that holds our atoms together?

There is NO actual "our" atoms. But if you are referring to the atoms of the human body, then In the shortest and quickest of explanations; 'magnetism', or equal and opposite forces, is what holds atoms 'together' as well as 'apart'.

But if you did not mean the atoms of the human body, then please correct this.

And what drives this force?

There is NO 'separate force', which drives 'magnetism', as it is 'magnetism', itself, that has ALWAYS existed, or, in other words, is existing ALWAYS.

This HAS TO BE, and HAS TO BE ALWAYS, because there could NOT possibly be ANY other way.

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.

You could do this. But just do NOT forget that what is non-visible does NOT necessarily mean that 'it' is non-physical as well.

As far as 'you' or ANY one "else" is aware, we might, when we eventually reach the, so called, " last 'thing' " in understanding, not be able to physically see 'It', or we might not YET be able to detect what 'It' is with ANY "scientific" nor human being constructed tools, but we might be able to 'observe' and SEE 'It' through 'experience' alone?

And this, although this is a discussion for another day, would be God.

'God', in one sense, might be found out to be an ACTUAL 'thing', but which 'we', human beings, can NOT see with the physical eyes. But this does NOT YET necessarily make It a non-physical 'thing'.

When what 'God' ACTUALLY IS, in the spiritual or non-visible sense, is learned and thus becomes KNOWN and UNDERSTOOD, then, and only then, finding out and discovering if this Thing is physical or NOT could and WILL take place.

Basically you asking why order exists, why chaos does not rule. Simulations suggest what logic tells us. That is, in any given chaotic field, relatively stable ordered entities will emerge by probability.

Consider the emergence of planets from the proto-planetary disc. It was relatively homogeneous. Aside from the Sun, there were no extremely large entities like today's planets, mostly just dust. Through time, gravity and the Sun's emissions, larger entities emerged out of the dust. After millions of years of chaos - with planetoids accreting, being destroyed or ejected - eight planets with their moons rule, with numerous smaller bodies and much more space between bodies.

WHY do 'you' say, " millions of years of 'chaos' "?

Can you REALLY NOT also SEE the order, in the making?

Cooperation is a bit like gravity, in that it makes possible the building of larger entities (groups). Morality is ideally all about cooperation, although today many things that are claimed to be morals are actually just some people's preferences, eg. enforced subservience of women.

As well as instilled hatred of men.

By the way, they are NOT actual 'morals', but rather just some people's views.

Still, falling back on to a war deity of ancient Middle Eastern people is definitely a last resort explanation.

WHERE and/or WHAT IS this LOL, supposed and alleged, "war deity", EXACTLY?

The Last Stop Saloon of philosophical musings. I'd be looking at panpsychism as a possibility before considering that Yahweh is responsible for it all (although some might say both are true).

BOTH are the SAME THING, when LOOK AT, properly AND correctly, by the way.

This seems like an entirely plausible alternative to my argument. I will look more into panpsychism, only heard the term in passing and never looked into it properly.

I suggest instead of LOOKING INTO some 'thing' on its own and believing and/or following 'that' ALONE. You LOOK INTO ALL 'things' and just find what is True and Right, and, what is False and Wrong, in ALL of them.

[evolution]

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?

[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).

[LuckyR]

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.

[Steve3007]

science, the discipline that continually debunks and disproves itself

It doesn't do that.