Please do not get turned off by the length of this blog entry, if you are a spiritual person or just care about our society I think you will be interested in reading this.
I want to start this post by saying that I believe there is a high risk that organized religion will be the end of human existence.
I’ve been a part of this site for about a week now and I’ve already gotten into some good discussions. There are a couple of repeating questions which people ask me now and then when it comes to discussions about religion and my quest to clear the world from it. Why do I want to take peoples faith away?
-I don’t. I do not get motivation from dissing believers. My intent is to attack religion, not faith directly. It is important to seperate the two. To me, religion is the same as intellectual rape, it makes you less curious and makes it harder for you to distinguish facts from fiction. The harder you blindly believe the more you get deluded and less open for new ideas, but hang on, I will give a more detailed answer in a bit.
Another question I often get is this: Why is it a bad thing to believe in something if it can make your life better?
-First of all I don’t think its religion in itself that make religious people feel better, I think its the feeling of being part of something bigger than yourself and all the social things that come with it, we are after all social beings. I think It also is due to a false feeling of security and comfort, especially if you are experiencing rough periods in your life or having a hard time coping with the fear of death and all the uncertainties around it.
Religion is a system with certain rules you have to follow to be a part of it. It would for instance be hard to call yourself a Christian without believing in Jesus, even if you still believed in God or vice versa. If you experience things which makes you rethink certain aspects of your religion you still cannot actually change anything about it without an exhausting amount of energy spent, there are just so many obstacles in your way because of the way religion is organized. What would your religious leaders say? What would your co-believers, friends and family say? Disputing anything the holy scriptures say would most likely turn you into a victim of ridicule, at the very least they would not be very positive about it. This often results in a fear of new\different ideas and you may start to give up on critical thinking, just buying into whatever the Bible or your religious comrades are telling you. Which brings me over to another problem, preaching. When you hear something enough times it will eventually become true to you, even without anything else than the preachers word for it.
To me, faith is something quite different. Faith is the belief in something which cannot or have not yet been physically proven, like reincarnation or God. Faith, which partly consist of your imagination, has no rules, it is not organized and it does not hinder your mind in any way, on the contrary. Faith is something personal, atleast I believe it should be, based on your own perception of existence and faith is something which changes naturally with it. This is exactly why I think faith is a good thing opposed to religion, since it complements your personality instead of working against it.
I want to continue by showing you some disturbing facts regarding our two biggest religions, Christianity and Islam:
-About 50% of all Americans believe in Creationism and that it is based on science.
-Practically all creationists think that gay individuals choose their sexuality and that it has nothing to do with biology.
-Quote from the Bible: God says all gays must die: Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
-Quote from the Qu’ran: 5:49-51 "O YOU WHO BELIEVE! DO NOT TAKE THE JEWS AND THE CHRISTIANS FOR FRIENDS; THEY ARE FRIENDS OF EACH OTHER; AND WHOEVER AMONGST YOU TAKES THEM FOR A FRIEND, THEN SURELY HE IS ONE OF THEM; SURELY ALLAH DOES NOT GUIDE THE UNJUST PEOPLE."
-The final words from the 9-11 highjackers were: "Allah is the greatest, Allah is the greatest"
We have come to a technological point now where our survival as a race depends on how able we are to understand the world and the people in it. I think we have overwhelming evidence that religion works against knowledge and facts. With understanding comes empathy, with empathy comes tollerance, with tollerance comes peace. This is why fighting AGAINST religion equals fighting FOR peace.
Please let me know your views on the matter and what you think needs to be done to overcome the problems that come with religion.
Kind Regards
-L
"To me, religion is the same as intellectual rape, it makes you less curious and makes it harder for you to distinguish facts from fiction. The harder you blindly believe the more you get deluded and less open for new ideas"
Leo, This was not my experience fortunately. Religion meant celebrating half a dozen festivals every year. Superstitious ? If you can call celebrating a full moon or a mythological story of a kings victory of good over evil that, sure. It was fun. But I do wish I could have learnt the 'real' stuff, all the spiritual things that I'm only lately exploring. I wish someone had told me to meditate earlier on!
Yes, I did find Christianity somewhat adamant about 'believing' in certain concepts. But it hasn't stopped me from being a fan of Jesus' words and life.
I'm at a point where I believe God is everywhere and it means in every person too. Religion was created by man, not by the Gods or the teachers after who it was modelled. Human tendencies have created wide chasms between religions when all the religions are only meant to serve the whole in different ways. We have put religions before God, when religion is just a path to God. They have been used and abused throughout history more than I can say.
Hoping for peace… and faith.
Great comment, rekha. =)
I guess it depends how you define religion. I've looked through several dictionaries and it's hard to find two matching definitions. If religion is something which equals for instance Christianity and Islam, then it is something we would be much better without. I'm not sure if you can define religion as something which you do just to have fun, like celebrating events and mythology. I think that in order to be religious "belief" is the key word. You say you are a fan of what Jesus said, but if you are not a fan of or believe in what the rest of the bible teach then I don't think you could call yourself a Christian, therefor it's not a religion for you personally.
I also think of religion as a path to God, but unfortunately a wrong path. If there is one or several Gods then yes, I am also relatively sure they are all around and within us.
I do think we will prevail in the end and I have faith in that I am not alone in having faith in peace and knowledge. =)
Cheers!
-L
You make several interesting points, Leo. It makes for good questions to ask oneself. Yes, I don't think I'm religious then. But I think all religions have an associated spirituality that is being direly undermined in favor of it's dogmas.
I've seen religious people who are least interested in it's spirituality but have no qualms about using it for personal, social or national ideologies. Even if this leads to something good in the short-term, it is just a seed of "yours and mine" waiting to explode.
I used to think that bringing the wonderful spirituality inherent in every religion to their attention would be useful. But over time I've become not so sure. Religious people can be very defensive and are typically not open-minded thinkers. They usually don't even agree to have something as simple as peace to be the common ground of every religion.
So I say, keep going with the faith and reason. Cheers!
Interesting article given the truth of the assumption "God does not exist." You argued that faith and religious belief should be erased by humanity because it causes men to act irrationally and will cause people to do outrageous things against society. I of course believe there is a God and think there is substantial evidence. You'll remember in my youtube message to you where I argued that
1. God makes sense of the origin of the universe.
2. God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
3. God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.
4. God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
5. God can be immediately known and experienced.
I do not think it is irrational to believe in God by any means. These outrageous acts on the part of the religious occur in contradiction to their own beliefs. If you read the Koran or the Bible in full context you will realize that terrorists and the inquisition and such only come about in direct contradiction to their beliefs. This proves that there are radicals everywhere, including Atheism. We could go back and fourth about whether Hitler was an Atheist or Catholic. IT really doesn't matter. On Atheism, the Nazi's were justified in what they did. Without God objective moral values do not exist. Therefore, moral values are subjective and it is the right of the Nazi's to do as they see fit. Many atheists concur on this point. if God doesn't exist than objective moral values and duties do not exist. Listen to philosopher of science Micheal Ruse
"Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says "love thy neighbor as thyself," they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . And any deeper meaning is illusory."
Atheism justifies subjective morality. Rape on atheism my not be social advantages and through the course of human history has become taboo, but that doesn't mean that rape is really wrong.
Atheism, once brought to its logical conclusions is the most dangerous thing that has every happened to mankind.
I'm not arguing either of these things
1.Atheism is therefore wrong
2.Atheists are immoral
I'm not saying any of these. I believe Atheists in general can be and sometimes are more moral than our Christian Brethren!
The great German philosopher Frederick Nietzsche was right when he said the death of God was the death of all meaning and morality in our lives. Listen to Nietzche in this famous passage
"'Whither is God?' he cried, 'I shall tell you. We have killed him
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."
-C.S. Lewis
Thanks for the reply Paul.
Although I do not agree that the Bible is true, I fully agree with you that we need to look into this as deeply as we can and I am happy to have an intelligent believer to discuss with. We'll continue the discussion on youtube.
Cheers
-Leo
What is your response to my claim "life and morality on Atheism become meaningless". This was the most fundamental point of my comment. If life is meaningless and morality is an illusion why do you care what people believe? If life is meaningless all of your points become meaningless.
Cheers
,
Paul
I've seen religious people who are least interested in it's spirituality but have no qualms about using it for personal, social or national ideologies. Even if this leads to something good in the short-term, it is just a seed of "yours and mine" waiting to explode.
club penguin cheats
Where would yo like to continue our discussion from here? youtube is not going to work
Just a reiterate a previous comment, if life and morality have no ultimate significance, why do you care what people believe?
One more comment:
The apostle Paul simply defined faith as "believing in what you don't see". He by no means meant just believe in it for the heck of it!
This definition could fit more than just Christianity, it could fit all sorts of fields such as theoretical physics or advanced mathematics.
The truth of the matter is, you are using an incorrect definition of faith. Christianity says to the contrary that one should know why one believes what one believes.
"…Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have…"
1 peter 3:15
The epistles of Paul are filled of instances where he defends the claims of the Christian message.
You are not attacking Christianity, you are attacking its foolish followers. Such form of argumentation are good examples of logical fallacies of relevance.
Even if all of the above you said was true, does that therefore mean that the Christian God doesn't exist?
Of course not. You didn't level one criticism against Christianity. You simply mocked its more ignorant followers.
So, if you have made no arguments against Christianity, what rights do you have to take away their faith?
Sincerely,
Paul
The apostles are never about letting go of your critical thinking!
When talking to the Greeks, Paul says
"to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ."
Dear Leo:
I'm sorry I missed your interesting blog and the running conversation here. I'm glad Paul's comment today drew my attention.
I do not believe that religion is truth, I believe religion "points" to truth. My understanding of Islam is not well developed admittedly but I do feel comfortable commenting on Christianity.
The Hebrew Scriptures passage on the condemnation of gay people I believe must be taken in historic and cultural context. It is not the Word of God, it is primitive humanity's conception of morality. While my own church has not grown to embrace the blessing of gay couples, it does acknowledge officially that being gay is not a choice or lifestyle but a given, something that one is born and or formed with that cannot be reversed through any kind of reparative therapy. It takes this cue from science so religion doesn't always oppose science, it sometimes simply doesn't keep up with it or go as fast. It is my hope that soon, all gay people will enjoy respect and dignity and live out who they are, openly, with the blessing of religious institutions.
I share your concern about institutional religion. The many wars that have been fought and continue to be fought over matters of religion and denomination are evidence that religion is often a matter of ego. But to throw God or Spirit out the window because institutions are human isn't something I can accept or endorse. I will never believe God is dead Leo, God is alive and eternal. God is in everything and in everyone, God is in you, God is in me. It is simply peoples' understanding of God that dies, hopefully in order for something healthier and more vibrant and life giving to take its place.
Wishing you love, light and peace.
Love, Greg
Although I do take the old testament to be inerrant scripture, I do mostly agree with Greg.
The Christian is only commited to
1.The belief in God
2.Gos has revealed himself decisively through Christ
3.God exists as three distinct persons;father, son, and the holy spirit
4.Salvation is attained by grace in faith in Jesus alone
Someone doesn't have to accept the old testament at all! Heck! If someone sincerely believes that there is nothing wrong with being a Christian and a homsexual then they will be saved! As long as they are sincere in their beliefs.
Salvation is the chore of the gospel. Even beliefs 2 and three are not requirements to be saved!
I think Greg is right when he says that God cannot be held accountable for his egotistic and ignorant followers(the former aren't even true followers of Jesus! Jesus said those who love me keep my commandments)
Hypocrisy and ignorance have no relevance on the truth claims of Christianity!
sincerely,
Paul
I'm sorry for talking so much, Leo! I keep on thinking of things that I should have said earlier. After this I will be quiet until you say something.
It is very odd for me to see you as "New Atheist". Several times including your most recent response to me, you always say you are an agnostic. As an agnostic, you realize that God does or does not exist, you simply don't believe there are compelling reasons either way.
Why would you, an agnostic, dare to take someone's faith away if you have no idea whether or not that being exists?
If he exists, you don't know, then you could be taking away something genuine from people and damning them to hell. If you truly are an agnostic, then why would you take the chance?
One more time I will say, why do you care at all if the universe has no standard of morality or meaning?
IF you truly are an Atheist, then you now must carry a burden of proof. You must supply arguments against the existence of God. Until you can carry that burden of proof you have no right to take away someones faith, especially if you concede meaning and morality do not exist.
There appears to be an internal inconsistency within your worldview.
Well, I'll be quiet and let you speak for yourself!
With complete sincerity,
Paul
Leo, I think it is best we continue our conversation on a blog. Either one of yours or I can create one.
Hi Leo. Since youtubes message system, or maybe a problem with my computer, has prevented us from discussing the existence of God. So, I'd like to continue it here in the open. This is a good thing because now that we are in the public, it will keep us more poignant and intellectually honest.
So, a while ago I offered the axiological argument for the existence of God.
I argued
1.If God does not exist then objective moral values, moral duties, and moral accountability do not exist.
2.Objective moral values, duties, and accountability do exist.
=>God exists.
Last time I brought this argument up, you quickly agreed to premise one. On the atheistic worldview moral values have no more meaning then my dislike in certain foods.
I will now turn my attention to the second premise. A few quick sub-arguments for it
1.We experience moral values
Things like child abuse, rape, cruelty and discrimination ARE moral abominations. Things like equality, justice, and self-sacrifice are really good. We expereince these things in the same way we experience anythings else
2.Think about this one. Any argument you try to give against objective moral values I could give a parallel against a objective physical reality. '
For the above two reasons, I think premise two is quite plausible.
You once argued that the God of the Bible is evil! You said that he was genocidal. But on your view these "evil acts" of God have as much relevance as my dislike in certain foods. You have no grounding for saying child abuse is really wrong.
Anyone who honestly reflects on premise two will realize that it very plausible.
But, if premise one and two are both true, it follows necessarily that God exists.
Sincerely,
Paul
I don't think the problem is religion per se. There are for example mystical aspects of all the great religions that emphasise direct experience and knowing over belief. And it's belief I think that is the real problem – the stories that people tell themselves and then often mistake for reality. For instance, morality based on theistic beliefs is incomplete, based on fear. It's the morality of someone who has not yet come into true spiritual maturity.
Hello again Paul!
Before you progress, please read my reply to your comment on my first intent-blog if you have not already done so: http://www.intent.com/blog/2009/04/29/leos-fight-…
I agree that we might aswell keep our discussion public. I think we have been having great discussions and we've come up with good questions which I believe anyone should ask themselves.
YOU SAID:
"1.If God does not exist then objective moral values, moral duties, and moral accountability do not exist."
MY RESPONSE:
If there really is such a thing like objective morals, why should God get default win? Why could objective morals not have come from evolution? We are after all a social specie. The most basic morals boils down to this: do unto others as they would do to you. Without this understanding we would not surive as a social specie, therefor it might as well be evolution that has equipped us with this basic understanding.
I do not believe there exist evil individuals, but I do however believe there exist evil acts. Any person who does something evil to another person is deluded in some way or another. Even Hitler did what he did because he learned from early childhood by his parents that jewish people are wicked, so you see above all he was delusional.
Religion is the largest advocate for delusions, therefor fighting against religion equals fighting for good.
By answering to your first argument I have answered most of your other arguments about morality.
YOU SAID:
"You once argued that the God of the Bible is evil! You said that he was genocidal. But on your view these "evil acts" of God have as much relevance as my dislike in certain foods. You have no grounding for saying child abuse is really wrong."
MY RESPONSE:
You are misunderstanding what I mean with evil. People are not evil, only acts are. Ofcourse I have grounding for saying that child abuse is really wrong. Child abuse or even pet abuse show that you have no or very little empathy for other living beings. Lacking empathy hurts our specie as we are a social specie. Empathy is an ingredient in our survival skills and therefor we know that evil is wrong as it hurts our chances for survival. We are after all a social specie because throughout evolution it has been beneficial for our survival. And don't forget that evolution is a proven fact and not just a theory, just like the proven fact that our computers work.
YOU SAID:
"Why would you, an agnostic, dare to take someone's faith away if you have no idea whether or not that being exists? If he exists, you don't know, then you could be taking away something genuine from people and damning them to hell. If you truly are an agnostic, then why would you take the chance?"
MY REPONSE:
Good questions! However if you believe I am about taking someones faith away you have misunderstood me and I even dedicated a lot of this exact blog entry to explain this. When I say I am an agnostic it means that my default position against anything is that I do not know. I can however believe to know certain things if I feel I have accumulated good enough evidence for it. I have never said that there exist no deties, but I believe there exist enough proof to say that there are no reasons to believe in any religion I know of. In other words: I am as sure as I can get that the biblical God is a wrong description of God, if hesheitthey exist. Atheism is relative to a certain theistic belief, so in a sense you are almost as atheistic as me, I just believe in one god less than you. I am however not saying that there definately exist no deties, and therefor I am an agnostic.
High Regards
-Leo
Zenmonk G:
I agree. However, religion to me is like a disease like cancer. Let's imagine that I survived cancer and that me surviving cancer makes me appreciate life more, does this mean that one should not try and find medicine against cancer? Maybe it does, maybe it does not, but I choose to believe that cancer is bad for us based on my experiences with it. I have the same experience with religion, the bad that comes with it far outweight the good, therefor I would rather find a way to beat it than just ignore it, it does after all affect my everyday life even if I do not want any part of it.
One might argue that we should not remove religion, but make it evolve into something less destructive. If you ask me, this really boils down to the exact same thing. When religion is not destructive any longer it has involved into something else and thus it is no longer religion, maybe it would become pure spirituality, not dependent on dogmas, rules and politics. That would surely be something…
Cheers
-Leo
Tai chi chuan began as a series of three moves: Three Old Cuts. Then a master expanded it to thirteen moves. Then masters over the centuries expanded it to 108 moves.
I see the same phenomen in religion. Jesus' message was radical, I believe in the way the Buddha's was. It takes everything. Then over the centuries, religions arose–because every "master' added his or her spin on the original message. Endless commentaries ensued. Myths were incorporated. Endless rituals. And so it becomes the opiate of the masses, promising everything for minimal effort.
Today, in America, sports are the opiate of the "masses." Far more people watch football on Sunday than attend church services. And all you have to do is watch. I see similarities.
Greg Kirk:
Thank you very much for your wisdom and kindness.
I do however not completely agree with you. I believe that religion, IF used in the best way possible, only points to one truth, namely your personal truth. Now, personal truths may be all good, but they often also have a dark side, especially if based in religion. Personal truth is the same as subjective truth and while it may be the correct truth for you as it helps you wanting to be a better person it often goes wrong when you try and apply your truths onto other people. Does not applying a certain truth to other people lay at the core of most religions? Are not children which are brought up in religious homes usually indoctrinated and often without a real choice in what to believe? Would religion be religion without preaching, indoctrination and politics?
Would it not be better to say that spirituality points to truth and not religion? Or do you not believe that one can have spirituality without certain codes that several people have agreed upon? Either way I am not sure if it is possible to define something as religion if it is purely personal.
Best Wishes.
-Leo
Paul:
I forgot to reply to one of your comments:
YOU SAID:
"Just a reiterate a previous comment, if life and morality have no ultimate significance, why do you care what people believe?"
MY RESPONSE:
I care what people believe when their beliefs start impacting my life. I also generally care about people and I just want what is best for all of us and I think that is to keep an open mind and not think that the world is definately like this or that. There exist no one specific way to happiness. There exist as many ways as there exist living beings.
I do not understand why the existence of a God suddenly should give a lot more meaning to life. To me, meaning of life is the very existence itself. Without existence we would be nothing, and nothing is a very sad thought I think.
The meaning of life is to die happy.
Respect!
-Leo
Dear Leo:
Thank you for your kind thoughtful reply.
"Would it not be better to say that spirituality points to truth and not religion?" – I think we are closer in agreement on many issues than it might appear, I would probably term it thus: religion points to truth, authentic spirituality is an "encounter" with Truth. I also agree that all religions have a dark side and that one can live the Spiritual life without the "certain codes" you mention.
Love, Greg
Hi Leo. I'm going to try my best to cover every point you made!
YOU SAID:If there really is such a thing like objective morals, why should God get default win? Why could objective morals not have come from evolution? We are after all a social specie. The most basic morals boils down to this: do unto others as they would do to you. Without this understanding we would not surive as a social specie, therefor it might as well be evolution that has equipped us with this basic understanding.
I do not believe there exist evil individuals, but I do however believe there exist evil acts. Any person who does something evil to another person is deluded in some way or another. Even Hitler did what he did because he learned from early childhood by his parents that jewish people are wicked, so you see above all he was delusional.
Religion is the largest advocate for delusions, therefor fighting against religion equals fighting for good.
By answering to your first argument I have answered most of your other arguments about morality.
My RESPONSE:First you asked "Why must God be necessary for morality?"
First of all, I'd like to point out that you definitely do agree with premise one.
Now, onto your question. Whatever the standard of morality is it must be able to fulfill all the requirements set out in in premise one.
First of all, the standard of objective moral values must be the highest metaphysical good. A being which is necessarily good. Such a being must exist transcendentally otherwise the values wouldn't be objective.
If it isn't the highest level of good then it is subject to the euthephro dillemma
1.Is it good because X will it?
or
2.Does X will it because it is good?
This source of morality must be the good itself.
Second requirement of premise one:
The source of morality must be able to account for moral obligations.
Whatever this being is, it must necessitate moral obligations in humans and must have a special connection with humans because humans have moral intrinsic worth.
Third requirement
The source of morality must be able to have the ability to make everyone accountable for his/her action.
So, whatever the source is, it must be transcendent, morally perfect, it must be a concrete being, its moral nature must necessitate moral commands that make up our moral obligation, and finally it must be able to make people morally accountable for their actions. This is the definition of God. In the absence of a being with the above attributes objective morality cannot exist. If God did exist, then objective moral values would exist.
You rightly can see objective moral values cannot exist without God.
This leads me to premise two.
Objective moral values exist.
You concede to the premise as well. You say and I quote
"…but I do however believe there exist evil acts."
"Any person who does something evil to another person is deluded in some way or another"
"Religion is the largest advocate for delusions, therefor fighting against religion equals fighting for good."
"…child abuse is really wrong."
You are making moral statements all the time! You rightly see that objective moral values are an experiential reality.
But then you go back and argue that
"Lacking empathy hurts our specie as we are a social species"
This isn't objective morality!
What makes humans so special on an atheistic worldview?
Dr.William Lane Craig has this to say
"I just don
I'm going to respond to you answer to my question
You responded to my challenge by saying
" care what people believe when their beliefs start impacting my life. I also generally care about people and I just want what is best for all of us and I think that is to keep an open mind and not think that the world is definately like this or that. There exist no one specific way to happiness. There exist as many ways as there exist living beings."
Is this really why you want to take away people's hope? Because it is impacting your meaningless life, on your view? Why keep an open mind? Life is meaningless and your stance on child abuse is as arbitrary as my dislike in certain foods. Man is ultimately doomed to destruction on your view. How can life have meaning if it is like that dream you had that you have already forgotten about? Who cares.
If each individual person passes out of existence when he dies, then what ultimate meaning can be given to his life? Does it really matter whether he ever existed at all? His life may be important relative to certain other events, but what is the ultimate significance of any of those events? If all the events are meaningless, then what can be the ultimate meaning of influencing any of them? Ultimately it makes no difference.
You have no moral perspective to judge the acts of the inquisition and the which trials as wrong.
"We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology, need not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn't decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me . . . . Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality."
But how does God make the difference?
Life isn't just a forgotten dream with eternity. Our actions have ultimate moral significance on my view. God makes a big difference.
sincerely,
Paul
Hi again my penpal Paul.
I think you are really misunderstanding me and Dawkins on the issue about morality and the origin of it, especially the part where I try to differenciate between evil people and evil acts. This is why you think I am being intellectually dishonest, but in reality it is you who do not fully understand what I am trying to say. I guess this is partly my fault as my english skills are not exactly the best, but let's try again.. =)
YOU SAID:
"First of all, the standard of objective moral values must be the highest metaphysical good. A being which is necessarily good. Such a being must exist transcendentally otherwise the values wouldn't be objective."
MY RESPONSE:
If this is the only way objective moral values can exist then I do not think we have any proof that they do exist. I do however think that if they exist, then there are more explanations for it. Unless you have evidence which rules out all other possibilities we cannot be sure.
Anyways, how can you be so sure that objective morals exist? How do you define objective morals and where do you draw the line for what is objective moral values? It is scientifically proven that certain animals have moral codes aswell, meaning they keep motivations from the notions of right and wrong. If you have ever had a dog; you know that even dogs have conscience, meaning they know that what they sometimes did was wrong. If objective moral values exist, then do they not have to exist for all spiecies? Why should we humans be special? We know for a fact that we have evolved from apes so technically we are animals. And we know that animals base their moral codes on what best support their survival.
Again, where do you draw the line for what is objective moral values? Is knowing that raping a child is wrong an example of objective moral values? What if you had a gun to your head and threatened to have your own family raped and killed if you did not do it, is it still objective? If it is objective then we should know in all circumstances what is wrong and what is right, yet in reality there are many situations where we can't be sure.
YOU SAID:
"This source of morality must be the good itself."
MY RESPONSE:
And what is good itself? We know that certain things are good because we can feel it, that is how we experience it and know that good is what it is. So the question is really not how we got morals, but how we got feelings. It is scientifically proven that feelings are the results of biochemistry, and biochemistry is a result of evolution. How do you explain that a brain damage can have an impact on your moral values if it is not decided by biochemistry?
YOU SAID
""Lacking empathy hurts our specie as we are a social specie""
This isn't objective morality!"
MY RESPONSE:
Ofcourse not, but it shows how we most likely got it through evolution.
YOU SAID:
"There is no more reason to deny the realm of objective moral values than it is to deny the existence of the external world."
MY RESPONSE:
There are no more proof of objective moral values than there are proof of any Gods existence. Your "proof" is based on speculation and assumptions.
YOU SAID:
"Why does it matter to you what people believe if meaning and morality do not exist?"
MY RESPONSE:
Morality exist in the form that it is a social agreement on what is right and wrong. This morality is again based on our feelings and as you probably know, how feelings work can be very different from person to person, and especially from specie to specie. It would be very hard for any social specie to survive without feelings.
You are saying that without God and objective morals then life is meaningless. You do understand that by saying this you jugde every living thing except the ones with your world view? I would never ever, under any circumstances tell a person or an animal that their life is without meaning if they do not believe this or that. I once had an atheist dog, who are you to say that its life was meaningless? We humans are special, but we are not any more special than any other living creature on this earth, I find saying otherwise very arrogant and unwise.
Anyone has the right to decide what the purpose of their lives is. How do you know that the purpose of your life has to be the same as everybody elses? There is more than one way to live a life and you have to find the one that fits you best, for all I know this might even be the real purpose of our lives.
My personal belief is that the meaning of life is existence itself, without existence we would be nothing. My philosophy is to live life the best I can in the quest to die in content, as a happy person.
I am open for the existence of deities, but as long as I do not have conclusive proof for it I will stay undecided. This does not automaticly mean that I do not believe in for instance life after death. We have never observed energy going out of existence, this mean that all the particles you and I consist of still exists after our deaths. Why am I not allowed to believe that because of this, reincarnation seems possible? Maybe my soul consist of a particle? Maybe my soul exist in a sister dimension? After all, mathematics seem to support the existence of other dimensions. The world is a marvelous place and there are an infinately large amount of existential explanations in it. Why should God always get default win when we lack an explanation? There is a reason why many call him the God of the gaps.
I believe in an eternal universe. I think the big bang was just one amongst an infinite number of bangs. I have just the same right to believe this as you have the right to believe in God. The problem starts when you try and make your beliefs and world view objective and this is the very reason why I think religion is going down the wrong path. There are as many ways to live your life as there are living beings; -And every living being is a subject.
Bob Ellal:
I totally agree. I also think that a lot of religious people have not really given any other existential explanations much thought since they were born into a religious life. Why ask questions when you think you already have got the right answers, right? Most religous individuals have not even read their own religions texts, I am sure that if they did many would have decided to rethink their position.
Cheers
-Leo
Leo,
I think you've hit it on the head. One religious leader who continuously asks questions, actually reads the texts and applies them, is Greg Kirk. I know that from his many posts. If all people ministering were like Greg, I never would've left the Catholic Chuch thirty years ago. This may seem like a shameless plug but when I encounter a man whose learning, discipline and experience is superior to my own, I listen.
Bob
Hola Leo. Before I begin I'd like to say that I never thought you were being intellectual dishonest. I meant to say that a public debate would make us be honest in our conclusions. A lot of the time people start becoming silly when they rtealize their arguments don't work. I don't want that to happen to either of us. I'm again going to try to answer each of your objections to the best of my ability.
Let me explain EXACTLY what I mean by objective moral values. An objective moral vlaue is a value that is true, whether or not people believed it. For example, what the Nazi's did was wrong, whether or not they convinced everyone that it was good.
YOU SAID:If this is the only way objective moral values can exist then I do not think we have any proof that they do exist. I do however think that if they exist, then there are more explanations for it. Unless you have evidence which rules out all other possibilities we cannot be sure.
MY RESPONSE: I told why I don't think they can exist without God. On atheism,. there is nothing special about human beings. Take rape for example, you might use your evolutionary ethics to say that through the course of human history it became taboo, but that says nothing about whether or not rape is actually wrong. It is very possible to imagine a race of beings that evolved with a different set of moral values. If moral values are grounded in humans then there is a possible world where our morals are turned upside down! However if there is a transcendent, metaphysically ultimate good, whose nature constitutes moral commands in forms of obligations than objective values are arbitrary and hence not objective. All of this confirms premise one of the moral argument.
YOU SAID:Anyways, how can you be so sure that objective morals exist? How do you define objective morals and where do you draw the line for what is objective moral values?
MY RESPONSE:Easy! Because we experience moral values just like we experience the external world. Any reason you would give to deny the objectivity of moral values I could run a parallel against the existence of the external world. Think about all the objections you might give. Now, substitute the phrase "Objective morality" with "Objective realm of physical objects." If you deny objective values then you deny the external world.
YOU SAID:Is knowing that raping a child is wrong an example of objective moral values? What if you had a gun to your head and threatened to have your own family raped and killed if you did not do it, is it still objective? If it is objective then we should know in all circumstances what is wrong and what is right, yet in reality there are many situations where we can't be sure.
MY RESPONSE:Again replace moral values with external world. Just like our fallible senses don't undercut the objectivity of the external world our fallible moral compass doesn't undercut objective moral values. I'm not even claiming that we can know 100% sure what those values are.
YOU SAID:And what is good itself? We know that certain things are good because we can feel it, that is how we experience it and know that good is what it is. So the question is really not how we got morals, but how we got feelings. It is scientifically proven that feelings are the results of biochemistry, and biochemistry is a result of evolution. How do you explain that a brain damage can have an impact on your moral values if it is not decided by biochemistry?
MY RESPONSE: Why doesn't hallucination udercut the objective external world? Same answer. Also, there must be being that is "the good" because in order for objective moral values to exist they must exist outside of us. There can't be some arbitrary "the good" because it is subject to the euthephro dilemma
I.E.
Is something good because X wills it
-then it is arbitrary and hence not objective
or
Does X will it because it is good?
-then it is beyond X and is not relevant to it.
There must be a stopping point. This being must BE the good because that is the only way that moral values are either arbitrary or lead to an infinite regress. So whatever the objective moral value source is, it must literally be the good.
I SAID:
"There is no more reason to deny the realm of objective moral values than it is to deny the existence of the external world."
YOU SAID:
There are no more proof of objective moral values than there are proof of any Gods existence. Your "proof" is based on speculation and assumptions.
MY RESPONSE: How is our experience of something an assumption? You didn't even respond to my argument you simply bare asserted that I had no grounds for it. It is true, if you attempt to disprove objective moral values I could use the same argument to disprove the objective external world.
I'll see how well you answered my question in your next post.
Sincerely,
Paul
I originally asked "Why care about peoples faith if meaning and morality do not exist?"
To this you answered
"Morality exist in the form that it is a social agreement on what is right and wrong. This morality is again based on our feelings and as you probably know, how feelings work can be very different from person to person, and especially from specie to specie. It would be very hard for any social specie to survive without feelings."
Your attempt at salvaging morality seems to be fruitless. You are offering a contract of behavior not morality. All your morality boils out to is "Be good to me, and I'll be good to you." Honestly reflect on this, Leo. Raping a little girl is not just behaving unsociably, it is a moral abomination. We both KNOW this to be true. On evolutionary ethics morality is just as arbitrary as my dislike in certain foods. You have no foundation to even argue morally against ignorance.
YOU SAID:You are saying that without God and objective morals then life is meaningless. You do understand that by saying this you jugde every living thing except the ones with your world view? I would never ever, under any circumstances tell a person or an animal that their life is without meaning if they do not believe this or that. I once had an atheist dog, who are you to say that its life was meaningless? We humans are special, but we are not any more special than any other living creature on this earth, I find saying otherwise very arrogant and unwise.
MY RESPONSE: I don't think these animals and your life is meaningless, Leo. I believe that every life is meaningful. However, this simply shows how ludicrous the Atheist position is! You didn't really respond to my argument, you made one huge bare assertion.
YOU SAID:My personal belief is that the meaning of life is existence itself, without existence we would be nothing. My philosophy is to live life the best I can in the quest to die in content, as a happy person.
MY RESPONSE: But why is your life objectively meaningful if it is just a forgotten cosmic dream? You have yet to provide a reason to why your life is meaningful. This is another bare assertion.
A guess that's it!
I Look forward to your response as always,
Paul
Bob…powerfully expressed. thank you from beachgirl
repeated for info…`Posted by Bob Ellal on Thursday, October 29th, 2009 Tai chi chuan began as a series of three moves: Three Old Cuts. Then a master expanded it to thirteen moves. Then masters over the centuries expanded it to 108 moves.
I see the same phenomen in religion. Jesus' message was radical, I believe in the way the Buddha's was. It takes everything. Then over the centuries, religions arose–because every "master' added his or her spin on the original message. Endless commentaries ensued. Myths were incorporated. Endless rituals. And so it becomes the opiate of the masses, promising everything for minimal effort.
Today, in America, sports are the opiate of the "masses." Far more people watch football on Sunday than attend church services. And all you have to do is watch. I see similarities.`
The historical gap between the early church and the apostolic church was only a few months. Any historian will tell you that you still have the core historical narrative of a document after two whole generations have passed. Together with the track record of historical reliability, constant confirmation of incidental details, eye witness accounts, Jewish oral tradition, and the fact that we have more manuscripts of the New Testament than any other text of antiquity. Literally over 4000 times the manuscripts of Plato, socrates, and Aristotle. Even if we didn't have all 24, 000 documented manuscripts, we could recreate the entire New Testament from early Church fathers quotes!!!There is much much more reasons to regard the New Testament as historically reliable. For these reasons and many others the modern historian is very confident that the beliefs of modern Christianity are the exact same as the original followers of Jesus. This idea that Jesus's image changed over time isn't even a rational position among contemporary New Testament historians. This is simply a popular myth popularized by religious pluralists and amateur historians.
sincerely,
Paul
Heya Paul!
Thank you for explaining the christian view on objective moral values in detail, I feel I understand better what you meant by it now, however, it seems like my arguments still stand.
YOU SAID:
"Because we experience moral values just like we experience the external world. Think about all the objections you might give. Now, substitute the phrase "Objective morality" with "Objective realm of physical objects."
MY RESPONSE:
Objective moral values is an idea, a concept, it is not a proven thing and therefor you do not know that it is what you experience. What you are experiencing are feelings and I do not believe they come from objective moral values, but from instincts and social adaptations. You cannot equivocate a concept with for instance a stone one can touch. I see this error amongst theists all the time, resulting in a lot of circular arguments which brings no new knowledge.
YOU SAID:
"On atheism,. there is nothing special about human beings. Take rape for example, you might use your evolutionary ethics to say that through the course of human history it became taboo, but that says nothing about whether or not rape is actually wrong."
MY RESPONSE:
Yes, this is a possibility. We have to look at the facts even if we like them or not. Morals are relative to a specie, sometimes just relative to the individuals. Most humans would agree that cannibalism is morally wrong, but in the spider kingdom cannibalism is a means for survival. After mating the female spider eats the male to gain extra energy for egg laying, making her able to lay far more eggs, strengthening the spiecies chance for survival. We humans find it immoral to eat animals alive, yet this is what most predators naturally do. According to your reasoning these animals are immoral. Humans are animals, why should we be bound to an objective moral code if other animals are not?
Also we know for a fact that morals have changed over time, they have evolved with our society. It was for instance socially accepted and not immoral to keep slaves in earlier times, even rape was accepted under certain circumstances. You are reasoning that we have just got better in touch with our Gods given "moral compass", but this is a statement which has no support in reality. Reality is that we socially evolved from experience and gained knowledge.
There are no more proof of objective moral values than there are of God. Objective moral values are even based on the presumption that God exist and therefor the Argument from Morality is a circular argument which is logically flawed. First you need to prove that God exist and know atleast some of his characteristics before you can know anything comming from this being.
This does not automaticly mean that our lives are meaningless, you just assume it is so. We still have morals which apply to our specie. Ofcourse our preference in morals is not like our preference in different cakes or what not, our preferences in cakes does not have much of an impact on our survival and therefor it will not trigger strong feelings and strong motives like with other, more important things.
YOU SAID:
"MY RESPONSE: But why is your life objectively meaningful if it is just a forgotten cosmic dream? You have yet to provide a reason to why your life is meaningful. This is another bare assertion."
MY RESPONSE:
You are missing the point, I do not have to explain to you what I think the meaning of life is because I did never say that life is objectively meaningful. We are all subjects and have the right to figure out what brings meaning to our individual lives. If there is an objective meaning to life; then I do not think we have any known means for discovering it. So as for now it has to be a subjective belief.
I try and base everything I believe to know on scientific facts, but I have yet to see you bring forth any good evidence for your God or Objective Moral Values, yet you say I am the one who base my beliefs on assumptions. This makes little sense to me.
Kind Regards
-Leo
My mate Paul,
About the historical correctness of the Bible: I agree that a lot of the things written in the Bible have been written by people who may or may not have believed what they wrote, but you can not look at something like this as evidence. It would be like me telling you that I am God and then just taking my word for it. I could write down "I, LEO
Hello my pen-pal Leo…
Fist on the historicity of the New Testament…
I wasn't using this as an argument against you, I was responding to the claim that Jesus' image and message changed over time. I'm not going to try to argue for Christianity until We Both Agree that God Exists
I will however very quickly respond to your attack on the historicity of the bible
YOU SAID:I agree that a lot of the things written in the Bible have been written by people who may or may not have believed what they wrote, but you can not look at something like this as evidence.
MY RESPONSE:The idea that the Bible was a conspiracy or that the believers were not 100% sincerer is a abandoned view of the 18th century. That view became equivalent to the flat earth theory as soon as good historical methods and criticism arose.
YOU SAID:Now let's imagine that some person finds this note in 2000 years from now, this person also find a lot of other notes of other people who believed I was God. The statement that I am God has not gotten any more true just because more time has passed.
MY RESPONSE:Again, New Testament scholars now realize that the New Testament is an extraordinarily reliable document and was based on many independent and multiply attested sources that go sometimes within months of the events themselves. Most historians believe they can actually prove actual historical sayings of the historical Jesus. This view to put it bluntly, is the flat Earth of New Testament criticism. The empty tomb is just one of these amazingly attested facts of history. In the words of one of the most prominant New Testament scholars alive, N.T. Right
The empty tomb and post-mortem appearances of Jesus have a historical probability so high as to be
Yo yo Paul ;D
YOU SAID:
"The idea that the Bible was a conspiracy or that the believers were not 100% sincerer is a abandoned view of the 18th century. That view became equivalent to the flat earth theory as soon as good historical methods and criticism arose. "
MY RESPONSE:
I did not mean to say that the Bible is a conspiracy, although there surely is a possibility that parts of it is, even if some theist historians disagree. ( Do you really think theist historians are not biased? ) I think however it is more likely that some of the authors of the Bible really thought that what they wrote was the truth. We've seen several crazy people in newer times really believing they are Jesus or some other godlike being, but that does not make their beliefs correct. I wish we could believe everything that's written in the Bible, but fact is that we can't be sure. Virgin birth, talking bush, splitting an ocean, living inside a big fish, ressurection, seeing unicorns etc etc, all these things are grand happenings and therefor require grand proof.
YOU SAID:
"I'll take it you definitely agree to premise one? I could equally say "your sense perception isn't experiencing something objective, but is just interpreting light data" or "You aren't touching something objective, it is simply your evolved sensory perception." I could again give a parallel argument to deny the external world."
MY RESPONSE:
I agree only that we experience some kind of moral code, but not that it necessarily is objective. And yes, you could say these things, but then it would require you to back your arguments up with proof or else they will just be pure statements, and that is exactly what Objective Moral Values are, it is a statement, nothing else. When I say our moral code is subjective and comes from evolution I can back that up with hard facts and thus it is not just a statement. "God exist" is a statement, not even a theory, since we know no way of proving his existence. Turning something from a statement to an argument requires proof. When you bring new information into the scene it is your job to back that up with proof, it is not my job to disprove your statement. If the world was like that then I could just go around saying the magical spaghetti monster exist, or that there is a toilet orbiting jupiter. If I said these things then it would be my job to back it up, not your job to disprove it. If you can not back it up with proper proof we have to take it as your subjective opinion, but that brings no common ground for advancing the discussion further. Just to be clear: Since you pretend to know that objective morals really exist you need to back the Argument From Morality up with hard facts or else it has to be regarded merely as a subjective opinion.
The last time I hit you with a similar argument you tried to attack my epistemology and tell me that you indeed can know certain things even without scientific proof. Well, you sort of can, but those truths will never be anything more than your subjective truths and will not neccessarily oblige to anyone else than yourself. Without scientific (objective) truths we have no common ground for agreeing on anything and we could just keep throwing statements at each other for the rest of our lives with no results.
And you have got properly basic beliefs all wrong. Presuming that what you experience is objective and then say you experience something objective because of your presumption does not equal a properly basic belief. A properly basic belief would be something like believing America exist because you have seen it and then be able to actually go there and confirm that it really does exist.
YOU SAID:
"I'm 100% all set with you researching counter arguments, but make sure you first study professional philosopher's remarks, not amateur's comments."
MY REPONSE:
You do not have to study or be any sort of professional to see that the Argument From Morality is an obsolete argument.
Let me quote the Argument From Morality to help me illustrate it's errors:
1.Some aspect of Morality (e.g., its objective force) is observed.
2.Belief in God provides a better explanation of this feature than various alternatives.
3.Therefore, to the extent that (1) is accepted, belief in God is preferable to these alternatives
To understand what this really says from a Christian perspective one could rephrase the argument like this:
Premise 1: If God does not exist objective moral values do not exist. ( Since objective moral values is one of the characteristics of God )
Premise 2: Objective values do exist. ( Since you experience it )
Conclusion: Therefor God exists.
There is lots of errors in this argument, not only is it based on presumptions, but it is also circular. It is therefor just a line of statements instead of a real argument. Let me create the Argument From Love as a equivalent argument to help show what I mean:
Premise 1: If the Magical Spaghetti Monster does not exist objective love does not exist. ( Since objective love is one of the characteristics of the Magical Spaghetti Monster. )
Premise 2: Objective love exist. ( since we experience it )
Conclusion: The Magical Spaghetti Monster exist.
As you see, premise 2 is based on presumptions in both arguments. We have no proof that morals or love is objective. The arguments are circular because if premise 1 is true then premise 2 presuposes the existence of God or the Spaghetti Monster. If objective moral values is bound to the existence of God then we need to know if God exist and know atleast one of his characteristics before we can say that objective moral values exist.
You will probably reply with something like: "well, you can't disprove God", which is true, but you can't disprove the Spaghetti Monster either, showing the absurdity in the Argument From Morality further.
YOU SAID:
"You Know That Rape Is Objectively Wrong, via experience."
MY RESPONSE:
I know it is wrong relative to our specie, I do not know if it is objectively wrong. Please bring evidence that it is objectively wrong, if you are unable to do so I have to regard your statement as your subjective opinion. We experience morality through feelings, but we do not know if what we experience is something objective in a cosmic sense or not. Certain animals rely on what we would regard as rape to survive. This is an example of suggestive proof against objective moral values, please provide proof that can be double checked in reality to support your case or else I see no reason for continuing our discussion.
If you think life is meaningless without objective moral values then that also is your subjective meaning as you will be unable to prove it.
YOU SAID:
"So you don't believe life is objectively meaningful? If it is not, then your life is objectively meaningless. I say again, who cares about our life it is just a forgotten cosmic dream?"
MY RESPONSE:
I do not know if life is objectively meaningful, and I do not believe that you know either. Even if life is not objectively meaningful it does not automaticly mean it is a forgotten cosmic dream, that would be yet another presumption.
YOU SAID:
"If you deny objective values, then you deny the external world. Simple as that."
MY RESPONSE:
I could reply with something like this then: If you deny the Spaghetti Monster, then you deny the external world. Simple as that.
Sincerely
-Leo
I SAID:
"I'll take it you definitely agree to premise one? I could equally say "your sense perception isn't experiencing something objective, but is just interpreting light data" or "You aren't touching something objective, it is simply your evolved sensory perception." I could again give a parallel argument to deny the external world."
YOU SAID:
I agree only that we experience some kind of moral code, but not that it necessarily is objective. And yes, you could say these things, but then it would require you to back your arguments up with proof or else they will just be pure statements, and that is exactly what Objective Moral Values are, it is a statement, nothing else. When I say our moral code is subjective and comes from evolution I can back that up with hard facts and thus it is not just a statement. "God exist" is a statement, not even a theory, since we know no way of proving his existence. Turning something from a statement to an argument requires proof. When you bring new information into the scene it is your job to back that up with proof, it is not my job to disprove your statement. If the world was like that then I could just go around saying the magical spaghetti monster exist, or that there is a toilet orbiting jupiter. If I said these things then it would be my job to back it up, not your job to disprove it. If you can not back it up with proper proof we have to take it as your subjective opinion, but that brings no common ground for advancing the discussion further. Just to be clear: Since you pretend to know that objective morals really exist you need to back the Argument From Morality up with hard facts or else it has to be regarded merely as a subjective opinion.
The last time I hit you with a similar argument you tried to attack my epistemology and tell me that you indeed can know certain things even without scientific proof. Well, you sort of can, but those truths will never be anything more than your subjective truths and will not neccessarily oblige to anyone else than yourself. Without scientific (objective) truths we have no common ground for agreeing on anything and we could just keep throwing statements at each other for the rest of our lives with no results.
And you have got properly basic beliefs all wrong. Presuming that what you experience is objective and then say you experience something objective because of your presumption does not equal a properly basic belief. A properly basic belief would be something like believing America exist because you have seen it and then be able to actually go there and confirm that it really does exist.
MY RESPONSE:What more justification do you need than our experience? Experience is enough for you to decide the external world is real, why not objective moral values? I could parallel argue and say "Objective external world is a statement, nothing more. You need to back this up with arguments not just experience.You could argue from experience, but without hard facts the objective external world is just a subjective opinion" Thus this argument also destroys the existence of the objective external world. In the same way that we are not skeptical of the external world, we shouldn't be skeptical of the existing objective realm of moral values.
On the circularity:
Seriously? Every argument starts from an IF, IF Objective moral values exist, then God exists. All arguments presuppose a potentiality. If you don't accept the principle of potentiality then you have successfully argued that every argument is circular. Such a theory is self contradicting because that argument itself is circular. Thus if your view cannot be true because it commits a logical fallacy of definition known as "Conflicting conditions". Again, a premise is only circular if it cannot be independently justified outside of the conclusion of the argument. Both premises can be established without the theist worldview. Again, if the argument was circular it would prove the existence of God because it is logically impossible to deny BOTH premises at the same time. Denying P1 forces you to accept P2, and vice-versa. Therefore whatever position you take you will have already assumed God exists. Therefore, it is logically impossible not to presuppose God exists in all of your counter arguments.
On the flying spaghetti monster:
When I say God I mean the metaphysically ultimate source of good. Whose commands become moral obligations and who will deliver ultimate justice. Is the flying spaghetti monster a metaphysically ultimate being? No. Does its command necessitate moral obligations? No. Will a flying spaghetti monster deliver ultimate justice? No. If a FSM can do these things, then what you are calling a flying spaghetti monster is just another name for God. Also, this argument is not trying to prove a specific deity.
On properly basic beliefs:
You misunderstand what properly basic means
A Properly basic belief is an accepted belief about reality in the absence of defeaters. I presuppose nothing. Your argument is a Textbook example of an appeal to fallacy. If your definition of properly basic is true, then we have no warrant for believing in the external world.
YOU SAID:s you see, premise 2 is based on presumptions in both arguments. We have no proof that morals or love is objective. The arguments are circular because if premise 1 is true then premise 2 presuposes the existence of God or the Spaghetti Monster. If objective moral values is bound to the existence of God then we need to know if God exist and know atleast one of his characteristics before we can say that objective moral values exist.
MY RESPONSE:Again, if a premise can be independently established apart from the conclusion then the argument isn't circular. Again, it is logically impossible to deny both premises….so you must already be a theist Leo
I SAID:
"You Know That Rape Is Objectively Wrong, via experience."
YOU SAID:
I know it is wrong relative to our specie, I do not know if it is objectively wrong. Please bring evidence that it is objectively wrong, if you are unable to do so I have to regard your statement as your subjective opinion. We experience morality through feelings, but we do not know if what we experience is something objective in a cosmic sense or not. Certain animals rely on what we would regard as rape to survive. This is an example of suggestive proof against objective moral values, please provide proof that can be double checked in reality to support your case or else I see no reason for continuing our discussion.
MY RESPONSE:
i do not need positive evidence for objective moral values apart from experience in the same way we don't need positive evidence to confirm the external world. I could say "Please provide evidence that my computer screen is in front of me, otherwise I shouldn't believe it is objectively there". Or "We experience the external world, but it is just a subjective opinion until we have positive evidence of it being of cosmic significance,"
YOU SAID:I could reply with something like this then: If you deny the Spaghetti Monster, then you deny the external world. Simple as that.
MY RESPONSE: Wrong, the FSM is not an experiential reality. Therefore, the FSM is not a properly basic belief.
Well, lets see what you have to say next
Sincerely,
Paul
Wooot Paul! ;D
YOU SAID:
"Wrong, the flying spaghetti monster is not an experiential reality. Therefore, the FSM is not a properly basic belief.
MY RESPONSE:
God is not any more of a properly basic belief than the flying spaghetti monster, its all in the eye of the beholder. You can add as many superlatives you want to your concept, but as long as you have not presented any proof for its existence there is no common ground for us to make agreements.
YOU SAID:
"What more justification do you need than our experience? Experience is enough for you to decide the external world is real, why not objective moral values?"
MY REPONSE:
The difference between the real world and objective moral values is proof. How do you not see this? The reason why we know the real world exist, or in other words: why existence exist is because we can sense it, but we are so far unable to sense where existence originated from or if it ever originated at all. It's similar with morals since we can also sense morals, but we can NOT sense any objectivety and therefor we have no proof that moral values are objective. Let me draw a comparison for objective moral values: You have just been presented an alien fruit. You do not know which planet this fruit comes from, but you experience it by seeing, touching, smelling, hearing ( by cracking it open ) and tasting it. This is proof that the fruit itself exist, just like with morals you can experience it, but you do not know which planet the fruit is comming from just by sensing it. For this you would have to investigate different planets until you find the one where this fruit is growing. Unless you have not found the exact same planet as the fruit is comming from there is no way to know if the planet you think it is comming from is the correct one or not. To be sure one always need evidence which rules out all other possibilities.
I see no reason for continuing the discussion on the objectiveness of morals until you have presented supporting proof for its objectiveness which then can be double checked by more people than just yourself…
Sincerely
-Leo
My man Leo
YOU SAID:The difference between the real world and objective moral values is proof. How do you not see this? The reason why we know the real world exist, or in other words: why existence exist is because we can sense it, but we are so far unable to sense where existence originated from or if it ever originated at all
MY RESPONSE:First of all, it is impossible to prove objective moral values exist just like it is impossible to prove the external world. Just as there is no way to get out of our subjective experience and prove the external wolr dis real, there is no way to get outside of our moral experience and prove that it is real. How is the origin of the external world relevant? I think I might be seeing where you are taking this, but I want a little more detail.
Anyway, those who deny the external world and objective moral vaLUES HAVE A misconception of the burden of proof. It is not my job to prove the external world or objective moral values(OMV), it your your burden to disprove them!
This is true of any properly basic belief. There are three conditions for a properly basic belief:
1.The belief must be experiential in nature
2.The experiencer must have functioning cognitive faculties
3.There can not be a defeater of experience
So the question is, is OMV a properly basic belief? If so, the burden of proof is on you not me.
Well, lets look at each condition
1.It must be experiential in nature-OMV are experiential in nature
2.The experiencer must have functioning cognitive faculties-I think my brain and yours is functioning
3.There must not be a defeater-I think our discussion is evident of this. You tried leveling one objection after another like evolutionary ethics, the claim "It is just a feeling", ect and I showed you that if you take these as defeaters you must also take them as defeaters of the external world.
So, do OMV pass the test for a properly basic belief? You bet. If so, OMV are just as evident as the external world. It is not my burden to prove they exist, it is your burden to disprove they exist. Otherwise they are presumed to be true just like the external world. Again, any attempt to disprove OMV I could use a parallel to disprove the objective external world.
YOU SAID:I see no reason for continuing the discussion on the objectiveness of morals until you have presented supporting proof for its objectiveness which then can be double checked by more people than just yourself…
MY RESPONSE:Again, you misunderstand the burden of proof. OMV are properly basic beliefs, just like the objective external world. Unless you can supply a defeater, OMV are presume true, just like the external world is presumed true in the absence of a defeater. By the way, you can double check it yourself. Put yourself in a moral situation. Is the brutal raping of a child a morally neutral act?
I want you to honestly reflect on this argument Leo.
Sincerely,
Paul
I missed something that you said that is very interesting! I'd like to respond to it now.
I SAID:
"Wrong, the flying spaghetti monster is not an experiential reality. Therefore, the FSM is not a properly basic belief.
YOU SAID:
God is not any more of a properly basic belief than the flying spaghetti monster, its all in the eye of the beholder. You can add as many superlatives you want to your concept, but as long as you have not presented any proof for its existence there is no common ground for us to make agreements.
MY RESPONSE: So, you concede that there is no parallel between the flying spaghetti monster and OMV? I could also bare assert that the external world is in the eye of the beholder. Unless you can offer a defeater of OMV then we can conclude that they exist.
God actually is a properly basic belief!
Let's go through the criteria
1.It must be experiential in nature-Yup! At least 50% of Christians have had religious experiences.
2.The experiencer must have functioning cognitive faculties-I think that our brains are working correctly
3.There cannot be any defeaters-Being an agnostic you think that there isn't any evidence either way. Therefore, there isn't a defeater!
Thus, God is a properly basic belief!
God meets the criteria of a properly basic belief! Therefore, God's existence is just as well established as the external world.
P.S. I don't think "Experiencer" is a word. But I think you get the point
Sincerely,
Paul
Yo Paul!
Oh my….
You up early today? =)
YOU SAID:
"it is impossible to prove objective moral values exist just like it is impossible to prove the external world"
MY RESPONSE:
I agree that nothing can be proven beyond any doubt, but things can be proven to be the best presumptions we have. I can prove that the presumption of the existence of the external world makes us able to do things like making computers work which proves that this presumption is at the very least partly true. Without the presumption that we can trust the real world; science would not be able to bring us all that it has and is continuing to do. You are on the other hand unable to prove that God is anything more than a concept, as he does not manifest himself in the real world. The same goes with the objectiveness of moral values, there exist no proof that moral values are objective other than your opinion and I think we can both agree that your opinion alone is proof of nothing else than your imagination andor subjective reality. It does not matter how good you are at doing linguistic tricks, you still need to present proof which manifests itself in the real world in order for it to be accepted by anyone with a different view than yourself.
I have no trouble with you believing this or that, we are all entitled to hold our seperate beliefs, the problem is when you try and present these beliefs as objective or scientific truths, the very sad thing religion is based upon.
YOU SAID:
"So the question is, is OMV a properly basic belief? If so, the burden of proof is on you not me."
MY RESPONSE:
No, no, no and no. If this was the case then I could just assert anything. I could say that there is a toilet orbiting the planet Pluto and unless you would be able to disprove it I could hold it as a properly basic belief. I could say that I experience this toilet in my dreams or meditation though my communion with the flying spaghetti monster. As you see this is clearly nonsense and we are fortunate that not the leading scientists and general population of this world hold this view as it would be impossible to base things like science, communication and objective knowledge on such beliefs or psuedo-epistemology.
YOU SAID:
"Unless you can offer a defeater of objective moral values then we can conclude that they exist."
MY RESPONSE:
I'm sorry to say this, but this is profound crazy talk. Let me draw a comparison: Unless you are unable to offer a defeater for the orbiting Jupiter toilet we can conclude that there indeed is a toilet orbiting Jupiter. The truth is we don't know! There might be a toilet orbiting Jupiter and moral values might be objective, but unless we find proof which rules out all other possibilities we have to regard it as unknown. Proving that 2+2 is not 5 does not make any other random number one can think of necessarily true.
YOU SAID:
"Let's go through the criteria for a properly basic belief:
1.It must be experiential in nature-Yup! At least 50% of Christians have had religious experiences….."
MY RESPONSE:
Well, then you have to prove that these religious experiences are not subjective. You are trying to pass off subjective beliefs as objective truths, again the main flaw of most religions and why it at its core is very dangerous.
Please provide objective evidence that these experiences are religious and deity caused.
Respect! ;D
-Leo
Oh Boy Leo! Me thinks you have a PROFOUND misunderstanding of my response!!!
Let me explain further
YOU SAID:I agree that nothing can be proven beyond any doubt, but things can be proven to be the best presumptions we have. I can prove that the presumption of the existence of the external world makes us able to do things like making computers work which proves that this presumption is at the very least partly true.
MY RESPONSE: This isn't the argument. The argument is there is ZERO proof for the external world and any properly basic belief. But, we would be irrational to deny the external world! Your attempt at proving it is a circular argument. Do you remember the criteria of a circular argument?
1.The premise cannot be justified independent of the conclusion.
You said that the existence of the external world allows us to invent things, ect. But this of course is only justified if the external world is real. So, you failed to provide an argument for the external world. And any argument you try to give would itself be a circular argument. Thus the point remains, a properly basic belief is justified in the absence of defeaters.
YOU SAID:The same goes with the objectiveness of moral values, there exist no proof that moral values are objective other than your opinion and I think we can both agree that your opinion alone is proof of nothing else than your imagination andor subjective reality.
MY RESPONSE:I agree, apart from being properly basic, and the burden of proof not being on me, there is no evidence for objective moral values. OMV aren't an opinion, you too experience moral values. You might say "Yes but people have different positions based on conditioning" but does a hallucinogenic person who perceives the external world differently have any effect on the objectivity of the external world? Of course not!
Same answer for both. Unless you can prove OMV are only opinion, then we are to presume they are true just like the external world.
YOU SAID:No, no, no and no. If this was the case then I could just assert anything. I could say that there is a toilet orbiting the planet Pluto and unless you would be able to disprove it I could hold it as a properly basic belief.
MY RESPONSE:LOL! This is where the massive misunderstanding is!
Is your toilet belief experiential-NO!
Can others experience it-NO!
Do your cognitive faculties function-this argument almost makes me say no
Is there any defeaters-YES!
Thus, your illustration fails. Anything that meets the above criteria is properly basic. However all of these bizarre "supposed parallels" fail miserably. I don't blame you for misunderstanding though for I didn't explain it enough apparently.
YOU SAID:I could say that I experience this toilet in my dreams or meditation though my communion with the flying spaghetti monster.
MY RESPONSE: lol…
all of these wacky examples fail to meet all the criteria of a properly basic belief. There are defeaters, I can't experience it, and your cognitive faculties probably aren't working
None of your parallels meet the conditions of a properly basic belief. It is probably my fault for not explaining this enough.
YOU SAID:Proving that 2+2 is not 5 does not make any other random number one can think of necessarily true.
MY RESPONSE: I fail to see the relevance…
YOU SAID:Well, then you have to prove that these religious experiences are not subjective. You are trying to pass off subjective beliefs as objective truths, again the main flaw of most religions and why it at its core is very dangerous.
MY RESPONSE: None of those religions meet the standard of properly basic beliefs. All of those religions have defeaters, thus they cannot make a claim to being properly basic.
Lastly, as long as a belief meets the criteria for a properly basic belief it follows by logical necessity I.E. in all possible worlds where the religion meets the necessary conditions for being properly basic, that religion is true. You would need to offer a defeater of Christianity to prove it is properly basic.
This response of yours is simply a blatant misunderstanding of epistemological terminology. Look again at my original post and put up another response.
Sincerely,
Paul
One more time on the burden of proof and properly basic beliefs:
1.There is no reason to deny objective moral values
-You attempted to disprove them, however each attempt was a bare assertion or also disproved the external world if seriously contended.
2.We all experience objective moral values
-Whatever you may say to explain it away, the fact is that both of us experience it. To argue for social conditioning or subjectivity can also be seen as a defeater of the external world. You agree with the external world, so you believe in OMV
3.The burden of proof is not on me to prove they exist
-If OMV are properly basic, then they are presumed to be true(Given the laws of epistemology)
-OMV fit all the criteria
1.They must be experiential-Check!
2.Others must be able to experience them-Check!
3.The individuals claiming to experience X, must have functioning cognitive faculties-Check!
4.There must not be any reasons to regard the beliefs to be false-Check!
-Any belief that matches this criteria by LOGICAL NECESSITY is a properly basic belief.
-Those weird parallels you attempted to give all fail on several accounts to be properly basic beliefs. If you can honestly suggest a belief that passes the test for a Properly basic belief (PBB), then such belief is a PBB.
-OMV fit the criteria of a PBB. Therefore, OMV are PBB, ergo, OMV are presumed true unless you can supply a defeater
On the above grounds we can say with as much certainty as the computer in front of you, that OMV exist.
You keep on pressing me to give you evidence, but such a demand is a misplaced burden of proof. You are committing a logical fallacy known as "Switching the burden of proof".
Let's go back to the moral argument
1.If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. (Premise to which you have already conceded)
2. Objective moral values and duties exist. (Properly basic belief)
3.Therefore, God exists.
Sincerely,
Paul
"How terrible to watch a man who has the Incomprehensible within his grasp, doesn
Heya Paul.
No matter what we discuss it seems like we keep getting back to epistemology. We have to agree on this subject in order to make progress on anything. To make it very clear to you that Christianity is not a basic belief I will invent my own religion, namely the religion of toilets. I do not name it that to mock other religions, but as a means to easier illustrate why it would be absurd to call it properly basic. I will follow your reasoning:
1. My toilet belief is experiential. I do not have to present any proof, because Christians do not need to present proof for their religous experiences. -CHECK!
2. Others can experience it if they are indoctrinated in their upbringing, attent the toilet (church) every sunday and listen to their spaghetti-preacher or just by accepting Toilet religion with their heart and mind because I say so. -CHECK
3. My cognitive faculties function. I got this confirmed by my toilet paper doctor. -CHECK
4. There are no defeaters, because the Toilet God is the most ultimate being so no matter what you say this is undeniable proof that he exist! Wowowow! -CHECK
You see? My toilet religion has to be a properly basic belief!
This brings me over to question. Why is Christiany a properly basic belief if Islam or any other religion is not?
Sincerely
-Leo
lol! Hello Leo! It seems you are misusing the criteria for a basic belief. Anyway, I'm going to respond point by point so you can see exactly where your error lies.
YOU SAID:No matter what we discuss it seems like we keep getting back to epistemology. We have to agree on this subject in order to make progress on anything.
MY RESPONSE:Well, given that theory of knowledge is a prerequisite to arguments, I can see why it always comes back to this. But before we begin I have to tell you what happens if my epistemic foundationalism fails.
What happens if my view fails. A couple of things happen Leo
1.The existence of the external world is falsified
-If experience and functioning cognitive faculties cannot establish a belief it means that you carry a burden of proof as well. If you cannot carry that burden of proof then you must be believe the external world does not exist! Only if a view can be established by the criteria laid out can we be rational in accepting the existence of the external world.
2.Reason becomes meaningless, a self-contradiction!
-All reason must be based on evidence to be considered reason. But if all evidence is based on reason, then we will have an infinite regress of reasons! But an infinite regress of reasons mean that we can never establish a "first reason". If there exists no first reason, or properly basic belief, then we can never justifiably infer anything! But that statement itself, invalidates itself! Therefore, there must be beliefs that cannot be based on further beliefs. So, without the existence of properly basic beliefs, truth literally becomes impossible to discover!
Now, we KNOW that what your proposing is wrong for the above two reasons, but I bet that isn't satisfying enough. Where did your reasoning go wrong?
Well lets see….
YOU SAID:1. My toilet belief is experiential. I do not have to present any proof, because Christians do not need to present proof for their religous experiences. -CHECK!
2. Others can experience it if they are indoctrinated in their upbringing, attent the toilet (church) every sunday and listen to their spaghetti-preacher or just by accepting Toilet religion with their heart and mind because I say so. -CHECK
3. My cognitive faculties function. I got this confirmed by my toilet paper doctor. -CHECK
4. There are no defeaters, because the Toilet God is the most ultimate being so no matter what you say this is undeniable proof that he exist! Wowowow! -CHECK
MY RESPONSE: Sorry Leo! Your "religion" Fails criteria #4. There is a defeater I.E. you made that up! So any of your strange parallels you try to use to disprove my views would literally be self-refuting because of the fact that you are deliberately trying to prove absudities. And if they are absudities, then that becomes the defeater! And no, if you were indoctrinated, I highly doubt your cognitive faculties were working if in fact your religion has a defeater!
YOU SAID:Why is Christiany a properly basic belief if Islam or any other religion is not?
MY RESPONSE:Simply because Christianity passes all of the criteria. Unfortunetely all other religions do not. How could I possible know this?
Easy. A few lines of evidence allow me to literally disprove ALL other religions
First argument
1.Every contingent beings have an explanatory cause.(From the definition of contingent)
2.The universe is contingent(Leibniz law of the indecernable identicals proves that the sum of the universes particles necessarily equals the totality of the universe. Because the sum of the particles by definition are contingent, it follows that the universe is contingent
3.Therefore, the universe has a causal explanation
NOTE:This argument is WAY different from the Kalam Cosmological argument presented earlier.
Anyway, since a explanatory cause must transcend is explanatory cause, it must be outside of the universe
Therefore, falsifying pantheism and panentheism
2.Robert Maydole provided an argument against polytheism
(U1) If there exists an A so that A is supreme and there exists a B so that B is supreme, then A is not greater than B and B is not greater than A. (definition of "x is supreme")
(U2) If there exists an A so that A is supreme and A is not greater then B and there exists a B so that B is supreme and B is not greater than A, then A is B. (definition of "x is supreme")
(U3) All supreme beings are the same being. (from U2)
Also, occam's razor says "Don't multiply causes beyond necessity". Therefore, we are only justified in infering a single agent.
3.There exists a supreme being with multiple centers of self-awarness I.E the trinity
(E1) There exists an x so that it's possible that x is supreme. (from P5 and Theorem 3, the Barcan Formula)
(E2) There exists an x so that it's possible that [it is not possible that (there exists a y such that y is Greater than x)] and [it is not possible that (there exists a y such that x is not y) and (x is not Greater than y)]. (from E1, definition of "x is supreme")
(E3) There exists an x so that it's possible that [it is not possible that (there exists a y such that y is Greater than x)] and it's possible that [it is not possible that (there exists a y such that x is not y) and (x is not Greater than y)]. (from Theorem 1)
(E4) There exists an x so that [it is not possible that (there exists a y such that y is Greater than x)] and [it is not possible that (there exists a y such that x is not y) and (x is not Greater than y)]. (from Theorem 2)
(E5) There exists an x so that x is supreme. (from E4, definition of supreme)
4.This supreme being must be have multiple centers of self-awareness
1.A perfect being cannot love himself (From the definition of perfect)
2.God must always love something(From the definition of all-loving)
3.God existed alone priori to creation. (The given)
4.Therefore, God loved himself.
5.God cannot love himself.(Premise 1)
6.Therefore, God does not exist.
The only way to posit that a single entity existed alone and had the properties of moral perfection is to posit a being with multiple "selves".
4.This being must be immaterial
1.A cause must always be transcendent of its effect(the given)
2.God is the cause of all matter.
3.Therefore, God transcends matter I.E. is immaterial.
The above four arguments falsify every conception of God except the Christian conception of God. Ergo, there is a defeater of every other religion, Ergo, all other religions cannot be properly basic.
That took a while to type
Well, I guess that's it for now!
Sincerely,
Paul
Paul!
I see you get most of your reasoning from Dr William Lane Craig, a man who has a black belt in nonsense and is nothing more than a psuedo-philosopher and a professional linguistical illusionist.
YOU SAID:
"What happens if my view fails. A couple of things happen Leo
1.The existence of the external world is falsified"
MY RESPONSE:
No, that will most likely not happen as your view is not evidence based, but statement based. An argument not backed up by evidence is just a statement.
The fact that you are unable to see the difference between a partly proven assumption ( existence ) and a non-proven assumption ( Gods existence ) is evidence that your faculties are not working properly and therefor all your arguments have to be looked at with great sceptisism.
Without the presumption that existence exist we would be unable to do anything, this is the very foundation of our reasoning and is therefor unlike any other presumption. We would not be able to do simple logics without the belief in the external world. Without the presumption that the external world is real you would not be able to come up with the concept of God. If I was to replace my belief in existence with a belief in God I would not be able to communicate with you and function normally. We would not have survived as a spiecie if this was true. All this is hard evidence, a scientific fact, an objective truth and proof that a belief in God is not as fundamental as a belief in existence and should therefor not be equivocated.
YOU SAID:
" Sorry Leo! Your "religion" Fails criteria #4. There is a defeater I.E. you made that up!"
MY RESPONSE:
So what? I can state that Christianity is also made up. Unless you can prove that Jesus really was Gods son there is a big chance that it is all just made up. If you do not have to prove that Christianity is not made up then I do not have to prove my religion either.
Thus, according to your standards, my toilet religion is a properly basic belief.
You're probably gonna hit me back with the historical correctness of the Bible so here is my reply to that:
There are many historical events in the Bible which are proven to have been fabricated, like for instance Caesar Augustus' proposed census which told the people of Nazareth to go to Bethlehem to get registered, so why should we regard anything in the Bible as facts? One should clearly not. Even if we had no evidence that parts of the Bible have been fabricated there is no way to figure out if Jesus really was Gods son without any external evidence.
In your description of the Christian God you forget the fact that something non-existing will always be less ultimate than something existing, so you have to prove Gods existence before anything else.
Looking forward to your reply as always!
High Regards
-Leo
yo yo mistah Leo
YOU SAID: see you get most of your reasoning from Dr William Lane Craig, a man who has a black belt in nonsense and is nothing more than a psuedo-philosopher and a professional linguistical illusionist.
MY RESPONSE:Okay…I have a few things to say
1.Dr. Craig has a Ph.d in Philosophy and Theology
2.He is the leading source for the Kalam Cosmological argument, the most talked about argument of the 21st century
3.He is one of the most prominent philosophers of religion today
4.He has written 100's of articles in popular peer-reviewed journals
He is a good debater, but you said nothing of his substance.
Anyway, I do admit that he is my primary source, only because his articles and lectures are so readily available, I only study his treatments of the historical resurrection and the Kalam cosmological argument.
My other main source is J.P. Moreland in general. I do obtain most of my quotes from Dr. Craig and Ravi Zacharias, especially the later when it comes to morality.
Also, I study Antony Flew for the scientific arguments, Thomas Aquinas in general, Fredrick Netizche as a source for proving subjective morality and meaninglessness on Atheism, Plantinga and Ayn Rand for epistemology, and Plantinga for the ontological argument. As of late, I've been using Plantinga a lot.
All is beside the point. Let's see what you said today!
YOU SAID:No, that will most likely not happen as your view is not evidence based, but statement based. An argument not backed up by evidence is just a statement.
MY RESPONSE:If someone cannot live up to his/her burden of proof then the very best one must remain an agnostic. But if one is agnostic on a foundational belief, then one must remain an agnostic on EVERYTHING, even if he/she is an agnostic. Such view cannot be lived. You cannot diliver a counter argument because you must then be agnostic on that and so Ad infinatum.
YOU SIAD:The fact that you are unable to see the difference between a partly proven assumption ( existence ) and a non-proven assumption ( Gods existence ) is evidence that your faculties are not working properly and therefor all your arguments have to be looked at with great sceptisism.
MY RESPONSE:Existence is not partly proven at all. A circular argument is logically invalid. Now, all we must do is apply our same skepticism anbout the external wolrd as we do to other beliefs. Hence, foundational beliefs were born!
You didn't respond to my argument that a non-foundationalist epistemology would lead to an infinite regress thus eliminating the possibility of justifiable infering anything.
YOU SAID:Without the presumption that existence exist we would be unable to do anything, this is the very foundation of our reasoning and is therefor unlike any other presumption. We would not be able to do simple logics without the belief in the external world. Without the presumption that the external world is real you would not be able to come up with the concept of God. If I was to replace my belief in existence with a belief in God I would not be able to communicate with you and function normally. We would not have survived as a spiecie if this was true. All this is hard evidence, a scientific fact, an objective truth and proof that a belief in God is not as fundamental as a belief in existence and should therefor not be equivocated.
MY RESPONSE:All of logic ect. is based on the external world. You rely on logic to prove the external world, therefore your argument beggs the question.
YOU SAID:So what? I can state that Christianity is also made up. Unless you can prove that Jesus really was Gods son there is a big chance that it is all just made up. If you do not have to prove that Christianity is not made up then I do not have to prove my religion either.
MY RESPONSE:Your absurdities fail criteria 4. Next you say that Christianity fails #4 for the same reason. Unfortunetely, scholars 100% unanimously agree that the disciples sincerely believed in the teachings. So such a parallel is not warranted. If you need me to tell you specifically why they unanimously reject that idea I can tell you.
YOU SAID:Thus, according to your standards, my toilet religion is a properly basic belief.
MY RESPONSE:Nope, fails criteria four, it has a defeater. Such a parallel to Christianity is unwarranted.
YOU SAID:There are many historical events in the Bible which are proven to have been fabricated, like for instance Caesar Augustus' proposed census which told the people of Nazareth to go to Bethlehem to get registered, so why should we regard anything in the Bible as facts?
MY RESPONSE:Do you remember the only views that a Christian is commited too?
1.God exists.
2.God exists in three persons
3.God revealed himself through Jesus Christ
4.We are saved through grace by Jesus.
You simply attacked the doctrine of innerency, not Christianity.
By the way, the attack doesn't succede because the Roman historian Tacitus in his annals wrote about how Ceasar had people register in his army around tha time. You arerepeating a common myth by the radical Jesus seminar scholars.
YOU SAID:In your description of the Christian God you forget the fact that something non-existing will always be less ultimate than something existing, so you have to prove Gods existence before anything else.
MY RESPONSE:Is this in referance to the ontological argument? If so, it is completely irrelevant. Such a ctritique is only relevant if used to attack Anselm's original formulation of the argument. Robert Maydole's argument is based on possible worlds and the nature of necessity, not the great making properties of perfection.
Well, that's it for now…I need to get ready for school!
Cheers!
Paul
I would like to bring us back on topic:
We are discussing the merrits of Objective moral values.
Do Objective moral values exist?
Do they fit the criteria?
Here is the argument:
1.If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.(You already admit to this)
2.Objective moral values exist.(meets the criteria of a PBB)
=>God exists.
Sincerely,
Paul