If beauty doesn't require God, why should morality? (Bite me Dr. Craig.)

[bennyboy]

I'm saying that personal consciousness is only possible if the framework accomodates it. You couldn't have a purely mechanical universe which also had consciousness-- unless the capacity for consciousness is already intrinsic to the framework.

But couldn't consciousness arise from purely mechanical processes?

Only if consciousness is already intrinsic, at least as a potential outcome, of the mechanical framework. If you're doing math, a rainbow doesn't magically pop out of your paper, because the math framework and the physical framework of your paper don't have that capacity.

Before you say I'm claiming God, keep in mind that ALL properties exist only because our framework has the capacity for them.

---

If so, the natural/mechanical framework certainly supports consciousness.

Yes, but here's my problem: the mechanical framework is DEFINED by us as acting deterministically and having certain inaliable properties: conservation of energy, the balance of the 4 basic forces, etc. Consciousness isn't included in this definition, so we are trying to force consciousness INTO that definition by redefining it AS a mechanical framework.

Nature obviously includes consciousness. But I don't think our definition of the natural universe as a mechanical system sufficiently encapsulates or explains the capacity for consciousness. (by which I mean the existence of qualia, not the ability of complex systems to interact with their environment)

The only existence of which we are aware contains both subjective realities and objective realities. I don't see why they can't overlap as they certainly seem to.

Absolutely.

---

I think morality primarily is based on value (worth), fairness and empathy. All these can be explained by evolution to being here, but the problem is, would the reason of value and worth be true or false, if God is not there. Would our feelings of right and wrong be true if God is not there. It's not a matter if whether having these feelings can be accounted for by evolution without God, it's having them while knowing they are genuinely correct, without God, that is the problem I have.

I disagree. First, subjective feelings can be taken as intrinsically right, without God. If most people think murder is great, then murder is great. It happens that due to evolution, most people do NOT think murder is great. No objective moral source is required.

To me, the best place to look for God is the entry point of consciousness. Why does the universe have the capacity for experience to exist at all? I'd argue that consciousness is INTRINSIC to the universe, and that if it arose out of something, that source is likely to be at least partly conscious, as well. To frame it in a moral sense-- while our specific mores are evolved, the capacity for people to experience mores cannot ultimately be evolved unless the framework of the universe has the capacity for a system to have a moral sense.