What I ask is....if there can be no objecive morality without God....

1. First of all - evidence for that please.

2. If it is so - then so what? Why does morality have to be objective? Or why should it?

3. Personally - With or without God I know of no evidence for objective morality etiher way. So I certaintly do not believe it exists. And I don't see why I should care?

EvF

(August 5, 2009 at 9:04 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: 1. First of all - evidence for that please.

Evidence is the wrong word. But I have provided the reasons why it cannot be so. Simply put, because there will be no (objective) mind which transcends the subjectivity of subjective minds (human minds).

(August 5, 2009 at 9:04 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: 2. If it is so - then so what? Why does morality have to be objective? Or why should it?

It, exactly, does not have to be objective. Unless you want to make moral judgements, which presuppose an objective standard which applies to everyone and which therefore you can make valid judgements about others.

However, what you have completely ignored is that this is only the part about moral truth being founded in an objective foundation in the epistemic structure of Christianity. You have left out the part about logical truth, to which the same thing applies, for the same reasons. So you cannot make logical judgements or moral judgements in an atheistic epistemic structure. You can so in a Christian epistemic structure.

(August 5, 2009 at 9:04 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: 3. Personally - With or without God I know of no evidence for objective morality etiher way. So I certaintly do not believe it exists. And I don't see why I should care?

The "evidence" is the only word you know. But this argument is not about evidence, because it is not an evidential argument. It's merely an analytical argument, which analyses already existing worldviews. It's an agnostic argument. If you start bringing evidence into it, it's no longer an agnostic argument, and then it becomes incompetent in analysing worldviews, which is it's only function.

(August 5, 2009 at 9:17 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: Evidence is the wrong word. But I have provided the reasons why it cannot be so. Simply put, because there will be no (objective) mind which transcends the subjectivity of subjective minds (human minds).

If you, or I - or anyone else for that matter - can't think of another way, that doesn't mean you've shown that objective morality can't exist without God. You still lack evidence for that. It's a mere assumption.

Besides, I personally see it as totally and utterly pointless untill there's any evidence of a God.

Quote:It, exactly, does not have to be objective. Unless you want to make moral judgements, which presuppose an objective standard which applies to everyone and which therefore you can make valid judgements about others.

So it doesn't have to be objective...unless you want to make valid judgements? But there's no evdience for objective morality so validity itself is subjective!

Quote:However, what you have completely ignored is that this is only the part about moral truth being founded in an objective foundation in the epistemic structure of Christianity.

I don't see how Christianity has anything to offer on the matter. Or how on earth you've shown that? What's special about it? There are plenty of philosophies out there, and there's Christianity. They all come with values, etc. And there's no evidence that any of these values are objective ones, with or without Christianity.

So I'm missing something there then? Please clarify!

Quote:So you cannot make logical judgements or moral judgements in an atheistic epistemic structure. You can so in a Christian epistemic structure.

Show me the evidence for objective morality. Then show me that Christainity has a hold on it. Then you may say that Christainity has any more bearing whatsoever over what's moral than anyone else does, atheist or otherwise.

Quote:The "evidence" is the only word you know.

Incorrect. See?

Quote: But this argument is not about evidence, because it is not an evidential argument.

Untill there's any evidence for objective morality. I don't see what we are discussing that has any substance or point to it? Who cares about there being no objective morality without God if there's no evidence for gode or objective morality? So what - I live with that. I deal with it because there's no evidence for either. So for me at least - I think it is an evidential matter, otherwise the matter is just gratuitious. It's just like - You: "Without God there is no objective morality!" Me: "So? Who cares because neither exist!"

Quote: It's an agnostic argument. If you start bringing evidence into it, it's no longer an agnostic argument, and then it becomes incompetent in analysing worldviews, which is it's only function.

Evidence is an agnostic matter. Absolute proof is gnostic. And I know of no evidence for that, but that doesn't mean I absolutely believe that there's no absolute proof for anything, because the absence of such evidence is an agnostic matter not a gnostic one. And what there is evidence of, like evolution for example - I'm not gnostic about. I'm agnostic about it, because the evidence is not absolute proof, otherwise it wouldn't be evidence it would be absolute proof, which would be gnostic. The evidence just gives a very strong indication. A strong certainty, but not absolute - it's agnostic!

EvF

(August 5, 2009 at 5:18 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 5, 2009 at 12:23 pm)chatpilot Wrote: I judge god by our terrestrial laws and moral codes not so called divine mandates.And I don't believe that without god there would be no morality or the ability to discern right from wrong.

But those "terrestrial laws and moral codes" have no objective or transcendental authority over a non-existing God or anyone else. They are merely subjective arbitrary conventions, a product of human minds.

Yes they are ... but just because you don't like that idea doesn't mean there has to be a moral arbiter. There are NO fixed morals.

(August 5, 2009 at 5:18 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 5, 2009 at 12:23 pm)chatpilot Wrote: Morality in my opinion is a societal and cultural phenomenon just like religion.

Surprise! Well, that's weird, because that's exactly what I've been saying from the beginning that atheism reduces morality to: subjective arbitrary convention with no transcendent bearing or objective authority. "Good" and "evil" become meaningless terms.. subjective and arbitrary abstractions, that's all.

No, atheism does not REDUCE morality ... it simply means that morality is a cultural phenomenon. IN many ways that actually strengthens it, makes it more understandable.

Kyu

(August 5, 2009 at 6:47 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 5, 2009 at 6:21 pm)amw79 Wrote: Utter nonsense. I fully understand your argument, and have tried to point out to you that's its based on a woeful premise.

What you have pointed to doesn't address my argument, so I can only conclude then that you don't understand my argument. I could also conclude that you are intentionally diverting attention from what I am saying and setting up a false strawman or a non sequitur. But it makes no sense to speculate to such lengths.

(August 5, 2009 at 6:21 pm)amw79 Wrote: You're continually repeating youself, and to quote you "telling me what I already know"

You don't understand the transcendental argument, so I'm not telling you what you already know.

Luckily, there are other atheists who do understand it, and have tried to refute it by actually addressing it. The attempts I have seen have failed. But you have not even attempted, because you have not understood it.

Don't fucking patronise me. I understand your transcendent argument, and dismiss it as unfounded. Your problem is that you're defining "subjective" to equal 'meaningless' and 'merely', and therefore claiming that any subjective judgements about morality or logic is invalid. I think this is nonsense, and therefore since your argument is based on god being the source of objective truth, have asked you on several occasions to provide evidence for this premise. Which you still haven't, and can't do.

"But those "terrestrial laws and moral codes" have no objective or transcendental authority over a non-existing God or anyone else. They are merely subjective arbitrary conventions, a product of human minds."

Jon Paul I hate to be the bearer of bad news but all religion including Christianity are a product of the human mind.In fact the concept of god or gods are products of the human mind thus taking away the so called transcendental source of your belief system.Man created God in his image,not the other way around.Gods are derived from myths and legends and are a product of the ignorance of man on how things worked in nature and the origins of our species.

---

"The "evidence" is the only word you know. But this argument is not about evidence, because it is not an evidential argument. It's merely an analytical argument, which analyses already existing worldviews. It's an agnostic argument. If you start bringing evidence into it, it's no longer an agnostic argument, and then it becomes incompetent in analysing worldviews, which is it's only function."

Jon I disagree with you completely,your entire argument falls apart without the existence of a God.And therefore although you claim that this is an "analytical argument" like it or not it still starts from the premise of the existence of God and if that can't be proven then this entire discussion is pointless.As an atheist I believe that god does not exist and is not necessary for me to make a judgement on whether something is right or wrong morally.I do agree with you that my type of morality is subjective and a creation of the human mind as is your god and your religious beliefs.Without evidence for the existence of God there is no transcendental or objective morality as you like to call it.

(August 5, 2009 at 9:35 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: If you, or I - or anyone else for that matter - can't think of another way, that doesn't mean you've shown that objective morality can't exist without God. You still lack evidence for that. It's a mere assumption.

I didn't say it because I "can't think of any other way". I said it as an affirmation of the nature of the case in question. The nature of the question necessitates that for there to be moral or logical truth, which transcends subjective minds, it has not transcended the realm of subjective mind if there is not an objective mind.

(August 5, 2009 at 9:35 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Besides, I personally see it as totally and utterly pointless untill there's any evidence of a God.

Because you don't understand the importance of coherence. There is evidence/a foundation for monotheism, anyway, but that has nothing to do with this argument.

(August 5, 2009 at 9:35 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: So it doesn't have to be objective...unless you want to make valid judgements? But there's no evdience for objective morality so validity itself is subjective!

It is subjective so long as there is no objective mind which transcends subjective minds. If there is, it is not.

(August 5, 2009 at 9:35 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:However, what you have completely ignored is that this is only the part about moral truth being founded in an objective foundation in the epistemic structure of Christianity.

I don't see how Christianity has anything to offer on the matter. Or how on earth you've shown that? What's special about it? There are plenty of philosophies out there, and there's Christianity. They all come with values, etc. And there's no evidence that any of these values are objective ones, with or without Christianity.

I haven't even said theres anything "special" about Christianity. There isn't anything "special" about it, it's a common and very universal religion, present in the entire world.

All I've done is analyse an atheistic worldview and epistemic structure, and a Christian one, because that's relevant for this debate.

(August 5, 2009 at 9:35 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: It's just like - You: "Without God there is no objective morality!" Me: "So? Who cares because neither exist!"

If that is the case, what are you complaining about?

(August 5, 2009 at 9:35 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Evidence is an agnostic matter.

It's not an agnostic matter when you bring it into an argument which is entirely epistemologically analytic and therefore precedes any notion of truth or evidence to analyse the very conceptions of truth and evidence in various epistemic structures.

(August 6, 2009 at 3:00 am)amw79 Wrote: Your problem is that you're defining "subjective" to equal 'meaningless' and 'merely', and therefore claiming that any subjective judgements about morality or logic is invalid.

I am not defining "subjective" as "meaningless". I am defining it in it's proper sense: pertaining to the (individual) subject. As soon as logical and moral truth becomes subjective (because there is no God - no objective mind), it is therefore no more authoritative than a persons favourite colour. One day 1+1 might equal 2, another day it might equal 5. And one day or age killing babies for fun might be alright; in another age it is not.

(August 6, 2009 at 3:00 am)amw79 Wrote: I think this is nonsense, and therefore since your argument is based on god being the source of objective truth, have asked you on several occasions to provide evidence for this premise. Which you still haven't, and can't do.

I can do it, and have done it in this very thread. I presented two arguments, the epistemological one and the aposteriotic argument for Gods existence. But that is not the matter I am dealing with in the analytic one.

---

(August 6, 2009 at 3:36 am)chatpilot Wrote: Jon Paul I hate to be the bearer of bad news but all religion including Christianity are a product of the human mind.In fact the concept of god or gods are products of the human mind thus taking away the so called transcendental source of your belief system.Man created God in his image,not the other way around.Gods are derived from myths and legends and are a product of the ignorance of man on how things worked in nature and the origins of our species.

---

This is your view of things, which is neccessary for you as an atheist. And my epistemological argument only clarifies exactly that. It doesn't take a stance on whether God exists or not: it says that in atheism, all notions of "truth" and religion and morality is the product of human subjective minds.

(August 6, 2009 at 3:36 am)chatpilot Wrote: Jon I disagree with you completely,your entire argument falls apart without the existence of a God.

I have an argument for the existence of God, the aposterioritic argument. But this is the epistemological argument you are addressing, which takes no stance on whether God exists; which takes no side; which simply analyses the epistemic structure of the Christian worldview and the atheist worldview.

(August 6, 2009 at 3:36 am)chatpilot Wrote: And therefore although you claim that this is an "analytical argument" like it or not it still starts from the premise of the existence of God and if that can't be proven then this entire discussion is pointless.

It exactly DOES NOT. It does not claim that God exists. It does not claim that he doesn't. My aposterioritic argument does that; my epistemological argument takes no stance.

(August 6, 2009 at 3:36 am)chatpilot Wrote: I do agree with you that my type of morality is subjective and a creation of the human mind as is your god and your religious beliefs.

EXACTLY. You as an atheist, believe exactly the viewpoint that the argument predicts of atheism. So what is your problem? Just stop complaining when you agree with it.

The problem only arises when you ignore the part about logical truth, which is no different from moral truth. Because obviously, you don't care about moral "truth", it's an alien concept. But logical truth you probably won't sacrifice.

The problem is that for there to be objective morality there has to be a source or object that supplies that morality in your case God so his existence is relevant to this discussion.

(August 6, 2009 at 12:25 pm)chatpilot Wrote: The problem is that for there to be objective morality there has to be a source or object that supplies that morality in your case God so his existence is relevant to this discussion.

Of course there has to be. God's existence is relevant to the epistemological and analytic argument only insofar as it is affirmed and integral in the epistemic structure of the Christian worldview, and unaffirmed and therefore nonintegrate in the epistemic structure of any atheistic worldview. It is not relevant in the sense of, the reasons for the worldview (which affirms Gods existence) coming about - or in other words, the evidence. All that is relevant is that the worldview really exists and that Gods existence is properly basic and integrate in the Christians worldview and epistemic structure; and not so in the atheists.

As to the purely logical and evidential debate of whether God exists or not, that debate already assumes a such thing as objective logical truth and demonstration to be possible. The epistemological argument shows that such objective logical truth necessitates the existence of God; otherwise it is futile and groundless and no debate can be had.

As soon as logical and moral truth becomes subjective (because there is no God - no objective mind), it is therefore no more authoritative than a persons favourite colour. One day 1+1 might equal 2, another day it might equal 5.

This is where we differ, and I say that developed cultural consensus provides authority to morality from which truths are developed. You can apply exactly the same to logic, which is an evolved, developed, human cultural phenomenon, not a transcendent phenomenon. Cultural, moral and scientific consensus are how truths are arrived at.

Aside from the above clarification, I have no problem with your epistemological argument, as it's pretty much stating the obvious.

Your aposterioritic argument is just a theologically wordier version of "there must be a 'first cause'", but simply positing that "Goddditit" may solve the 'first cause' problem for you, but is not evidence in itself, and MUST be backed up, as it's entirely unsatisfactory for non-theists.