(August 11, 2019 at 11:51 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 11, 2019 at 11:46 am)Grandizer Wrote: The Holocaust is wrong because it took the lives of a huge number of people for reasons that did not warrant it, it was a violation of human rights, etc. No reference to emotional states here (though my emotional state of disgust or anger may supplement how I view the Holocaust when I think about it).

Exactly, when you’re recognize wrong here, your not saying something about your emotional state, but about a reality external to it.

Right and wrong/good and bad when it comes to morality, at least in some cases are objective truths, about a reality external to your emotional state.

You recognize/see that good and bad in regards to morality aren’t the same as when you speak of good and bad when it comes to your taste in food, or movies. They are not expressions of your biological state.

And they aren't the same as when you speak of the sun existing, lol. Morality is exclusive to the human species; we observe certain acts, and based on how we've evolved, generally view certain aspects of these acts as right or wrong. Again, X is wrong because of something about X, not because of something "out there in the divine realm". And we come to realize X is wrong not in the sense that we see something divinely transcendent about morality, but rather in the sense that our human intuition (thanks to evolution and social conditioning) "tells" us that X is wrong (again, in accordance with something observable about X).

Evolution is mainly the reason for your moral intuition, not the Good itself.

(August 11, 2019 at 5:12 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(August 10, 2019 at 11:58 pm)snowtracks Wrote: Abductive reasoning is reasoning that attempts to arrive at the best explanation for an event or series of facts. Diagnosticians use this form of reasoning to move from facts or data or events to a coherent, plausible explanation. Examples:
Detectives - evidence to theory;
Scientists - data to hypothesis;
Physicians - symptoms to diagnosis

An example of applying abductive reasoning to the first 2 verses of the Bible to modern science.
Genesis 1:1 - Universe began. 
Genesis 1:2* - Earth started covered with water. ref: Liquid Water At Earth's Surface 4.3 Billion Years Ago, Scientists Discover
*And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

Since the Bible stated these scientific facts some 4000 years before modern science, the abductive reasoning conclusion (best explanation) is that these first 2 verses originate from a supernatural source.


All the subsequent verses of the first chapter of Genesis can likewise be validated to agree with modern science when applicable to that category.

Can you see the problem with the bible?

Can you see how light on detail it is the universe began it says, it doesn't say how does it! it does nothing but say there is a universe the same for the rest.

And as nothing has ever been shown to be supernatural you have to show the supernatural is even a thing BEFORE you can show that a god is even a possibility and then you'd have tp show that the particular god you believe in is the culprit. So you aren't even at step 1 of "proving god".

Everyone believes in God's existence just by observing creation (clearly seen)* itself so there isn't any reason to prove his existence. Additionally, beyond creation:  1. In Christ, all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form. 2. Biblical revelation of God**. 
-------------------------------------
"Can you see how light on detail it is the universe began" - Genesis 1 is a summary. A flawless overview of 13B.years of natural history in just one page written some 3tya that miraculous describes the sequential steps (which perfectly align with the scientific record) by which Earth became ready for human habitation. Genesis 2 like all other references adds details to the summary. Gen2, in particular, gives a spiritual perspective on creation; thus, it begins to elaborate on ‘purpose’ of creation.
-------------------------------------

*For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has
 been made, so that people are without excuse.

**So then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

(August 11, 2019 at 1:06 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(August 11, 2019 at 11:51 am)Acrobat Wrote: Exactly, when you’re recognize wrong here, your not saying something about your emotional state, but about a reality external to it.

Right and wrong/good and bad when it comes to morality, at least in some cases are objective truths, about a reality external to your emotional state.

You recognize/see that good and bad in regards to morality aren’t the same as when you speak of good and bad when it comes to your taste in food, or movies. They are not expressions of your biological state.

And they aren't the same as when you speak of the sun existing, lol. Morality is exclusive to the human species; we observe certain acts, and based on how we've evolved, generally view certain aspects of these acts as right or wrong. Again, X is wrong because of something about X, not because of something "out there in the divine realm". And we come to realize X is wrong not in the sense that we see something divinely transcendent about morality, but rather in the sense that our human intuition (thanks to evolution and social conditioning) "tells" us that X is wrong (again, in accordance with something observable about X).

Evolution is mainly the reason for your moral intuition, not the Good itself.

No one said divine.

The question is whether whatever good and bad refer to, is ultimately something about our emotional/biological state, like good and bad when it comes to our taste in pizza, or something external to our biological state.

You seem to agree with me that it’s something external to our biological state.

If good and bad are not describing something about our internal biological state, like our likes and dislikes, then the referent is something external to us, or in other words a reality outside of our biological state.

Or in other words, you and I both recognize that good and bad are out there, not in here, as we might say of the yellow of a ball, or the size of a room, and not how we say this drink is “good”, or that’s a really “pretty”dress.

Notice the question here revolves around the nature of what is being perceived and recognized, not in the beliefs built of whatever moral theory you subscribe to.

I know often folks like yourself want to have it both ways, but you can’t without contradicting yourself or resorting to incoherence.

(August 11, 2019 at 3:09 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 11, 2019 at 1:06 pm)Grandizer Wrote: And they aren't the same as when you speak of the sun existing, lol. Morality is exclusive to the human species; we observe certain acts, and based on how we've evolved, generally view certain aspects of these acts as right or wrong. Again, X is wrong because of something about X, not because of something "out there in the divine realm". And we come to realize X is wrong not in the sense that we see something divinely transcendent about morality, but rather in the sense that our human intuition (thanks to evolution and social conditioning) "tells" us that X is wrong (again, in accordance with something observable about X).

Evolution is mainly the reason for your moral intuition, not the Good itself.

No one said divine.

The question is whether whatever good and bad refer to, is ultimately something about our emotional/biological state, like good and bad when it comes to our taste in pizza, or something external to our biological state.

You seem to agree with me that it’s something external to our biological state.

If good and bad are not describing something about our internal biological state, like our likes and dislikes, then the referent is something external to us, or in other words a reality outside of our biological state.

Or in other words, you and I both recognize that good and bad are out there, not in here, as we might say of the yellow of a ball, or the size of a room, and not how we say this drink is “good”, or that’s a really “pretty”dress.

Notice the question here revolves around the nature of what is being perceived and recognized, not in the beliefs built of whatever moral theory you subscribe to.

I know often folks like yourself want to have it both ways, but you can’t without contradicting yourself or resorting to incoherence.

Sure I'm the one having his cake and eating it lol. Not you, nuh uh. Me all along.

Somehow you say you accept objective morality, and yet you're forced to implicate a God that arbitrarily standardises morality.

(August 11, 2019 at 6:01 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(August 11, 2019 at 3:09 pm)Acrobat Wrote: No one said divine.

The question is whether whatever good and bad refer to, is ultimately something about our emotional/biological state, like good and bad when it comes to our taste in pizza, or something external to our biological state.

You seem to agree with me that it’s something external to our biological state.

If good and bad are not describing something about our internal biological state, like our likes and dislikes, then the referent is something external to us, or in other words a reality outside of our biological state.

Or in other words, you and I both recognize that good and bad are out there, not in here, as we might say of the yellow of a ball, or the size of a room, and not how we say this drink is “good”, or that’s a really “pretty”dress.

Notice the question here revolves around the nature of what is being perceived and recognized, not in the beliefs built of whatever moral theory you subscribe to.

I know often folks like yourself want to have it both ways, but you can’t without contradicting yourself or resorting to incoherence.

Sure I'm the one having his cake and eating it lol. Not you, nuh uh. Me all along.

Somehow you say you accept objective morality, and yet you're forced to implicate a God that arbitrarily standardises morality.

I indicated that Good existent external to us, like we might say of the sun, or the yellow of my wife’s dress, etc, and not as description of our biological state.

You said prove it, and now you acknowledge that good does exist in such a way.

(August 11, 2019 at 6:36 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 11, 2019 at 6:01 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Sure I'm the one having his cake and eating it lol. Not you, nuh uh. Me all along.

Somehow you say you accept objective morality, and yet you're forced to implicate a God that arbitrarily standardises morality.

I indicated that Good existent external to us, like we might say of the sun, or the yellow of my wife’s dress, etc, and not as description of our biological state.

You said prove it, and now you acknowledge that good does exist in such a way.

I do not believe in the platonic Good. Good is a label, nothing more. There is no such thing as the Good beyond the abstract sense. There are acts that we can observe of which we say "good" or "bad". That is it. Abstract things come from us, those who have the capacity to bring forth abstract thoughts.

(August 11, 2019 at 6:01 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Somehow you say you accept objective morality, and yet you're forced to implicate a God that arbitrarily standardises morality.

Not to speak for Acrobat, here. But if he's following standard Christian theology, he would never say that God "arbitrarily standardizes morality." 

It's not arbitrary to say that health, for example, is good for human flourishing while sickness isn't. This is in the nature of what people are. 

The Christian view is that God is the final cause of this goodness. Health, for example, isn't good because God arbitrarily decreed it. Health is good because it is good for you, and God is the end point where all the goodness points. 

Now, I understand that getting from objective good to God as the final cause requires a number of additional arguments. But this is just to show that nothing is arbitrary about God's goodness. 

I think it was best argued on this old thread by the poster called Ignorant. If you care to get the argument, scroll down for his posts and then follow the dialogue:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-31721-page-2.html

(August 11, 2019 at 10:44 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 11, 2019 at 9:45 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Why is it morally wrong to torture a baby for fun, Acrobat?

Because it’s hateful.

“Hateful” makes an assumption about what the person committing the act is feeling. It doesn’t tell me anything objective about the act itself, morally or otherwise. Some people have tortured babies because they’re mentally ill, or because it’s a sexual compulsion, or because they lack any kind of emotions at all. By your description above, it would only be bad to torture babies if the person torturing the baby also hated the baby, or did it because of hate.

Do you want to try again? Why is it objectively immoral to torture babies, Acro?

(August 11, 2019 at 7:05 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Why is it objectively immoral to torture babies

Because it's bad for the babies.

Bad in the sense that it has unnecessary, probably lasting, detriment to their flourishing and fulfilling their potential.

(August 11, 2019 at 6:53 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(August 11, 2019 at 6:01 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Somehow you say you accept objective morality, and yet you're forced to implicate a God that arbitrarily standardises morality.

Not to speak for Acrobat, here. But if he's following standard Christian theology, he would never say that God "arbitrarily standardizes morality." 

It's not arbitrary to say that health, for example, is good for human flourishing while sickness isn't. This is in the nature of what people are. 

The Christian view is that God is the final cause of this goodness. Health, for example, isn't good because God arbitrarily decreed it. Health is good because it is good for you, and God is the end point where all the goodness points.

It all depends on whether it is possible for the Holocaust to be morally right in accordance with the Good. If it is, then it's arbitrary. If it isn't, then it has nothing to do with the Good/God, but something about the Holocaust act itself.

The first part of your last sentence seems to indicate the latter, but then there is no need for it point to any God (or Platonic Good) as an end. It is sufficiently true on its own.

Quote:Now, I understand that getting from objective good to God as the final cause requires a number of additional arguments. But this is just to show that nothing is arbitrary about God's goodness.

I think it was best argued on this old thread by the poster called Ignorant. If you care to get the argument, scroll down for his posts and then follow the dialogue:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-31721-page-2.html

I'll have a look later, thanks.