(March 8, 2012 at 2:49 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Every effect has a cause, can be said to be properly basic. At any rate, even if we don't know have intuitive knowledge of this, when it comes to explaining our universe, we should hold this principle all times. It doesn't make sense that the orginal constitutes of the universe didn't follow this principle and all of sudden the principle applies to it and it became a property of it. That's illogical.

You are still making the argument that a being exists that doesn't follow this principle of every effect being caused. I can certainly agree thats illogical.
While science certainly has not provided all the answers and maybe never will, this idea that "every effect has a cause" and should "hold this principle all times" is not a true statement. If it were completely true, with no exception, your own argument is broken. I sympathise however, its tough to have an opinion which if True, breaks the argument, and if False, breaks your argument. Catch 22 for the cosmological.
I'll refer you to quantum vacuum fluctuations and the casimir effect. Particles appear from nothing on a regular basis and in a vacuum ALL the time.

We do not observe things coming into existence in our day to day existence which is why you will reify this law of "everything has a cause". However this reification of the law is based upon our incredibly limited observational powers in context of "universal laws" and it is simply a desperate leap to hold something which says "this is why" in the empty void of our lack of understanding.

Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. - JBS Haldane

The point being, is that the cosmological argument makes little sense on many levels, and is based upon a major presupposition that an intelligent being came from nothing or was eternal in a metaphysical realm which can cause effects in the material realm.
The simple and bludgeoning impolite reality is that this is superfluous to requirements adding a layer and a being whom requires no cause. If quantum particles can create matter, they can create God, but the likelihood they created complex matter is far greater than the likelihood they created complex intelligent sentient power.
In this it is remarkably similar to abiogenesis in that we know that it happened, and God is an unnecessary complexity to the problem.

Quote:Well I do wish it to be true. But the same can be asked about morality. How do we know morality is not a delusion, and should be followed. How do we know it has authority over us? If it's properly basic knowledge, at the end, you don't need to justify it.

Morality is a delusion. Delusion is not a naughty word, and is the standard state for most humans in every aspect of their existence. However, society exists to propagate and survive, to subsist. Which is why morality is malleable to the zeitgeist of an age, and why religious morality follows suit through interpretation.

It is not pleasant to imagine that there is no morality, however I hold moral ideals because I love my existence, and my happiness is dependent on the shared moral consensus which allows society to subsist.

Without shared moral consensus (or the general close approximation), society cannot survive, and human endeavours are meaningless, including your own without it.

Quote:Well I think morality speaks of an authority to the infinite degree, the nature of moral authority is such that it's height of authority is ultimately high, what can that authority be but God.
This is not the only argument for morality. I have basically three arguments from morality, that make it seem to me it's obvious God exists.

You may think that it does, but as it remains an opinion, the rest of the conclusions are invalid.
I think morality speaks of social consensus between sentient beings to ensure the propagation of their society, as there is no height of authority in this idea, this by default states there is no God.
This is equally invalid as an argument. It simply highlights the fruitlessness of that line of reasoning. Although like yourself it is a statement of opinion.

Quote:Well I don't know for sure, but I would imagine we all have the ability to see God so to speak. It's just some are not looking, and although his light shines upon them, and they can realize the Sun from the sunlight, they don't.

This can because they are looking for rational proof instead of spiritual truth.

Yet you are trying to use rational proof and philosophy to prove your opinions. Why not just come out and say it; "I want it to be true, I do I do I do".
I refer to my signature for this argument;
Self Authenticating Private Evidence is useless, as it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it.

God certainly seems to be going out of his way to make sure nobody can prove him.. which makes me very suspicious.. what on earth is he up to. The sneaky bastard.

Quote:But God is obviously Spiritual and knowledge of him will not be in the realms of cold hard dry logic, but rather metaphysical intuition.

Anyone else read "metaphysical intuition" as interchangeable with imagination?

Quote:I don't think you would know by trusting me or another person or mystics, it's rather should be self-realization.

Hmm, sad end to a good discussion.
You don't see the truth because you don't believe hard enough. If you believe enough to convince yourself that its true, then it is true. This can be said of any figment of your imagination.

So, I for one, am going to continue with my delusion which is based in supporting evidence and materialism, and you are free to continue your delusion which is based in imagination.

Either way, the universe is almost certainly queerer than we can suppose. It'd be nice if this was proven to be not true thou.

Quote:They fail to understand that there wasn’t any time or space before the big bang.

Time didn't exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in.
Also before one can claim that some god created the universe, one must first demonstrate that this being exists.

Scientific principles do a good job of keeping bullshit out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L7VTdzuY7Y

Hmmm, a moral authority with the ability to speak to us (and we to listen). Magical eyes allowing us to see it's magical existence. This is playing fast and loose with the term deism. You may have some clingers from your days as a theist.

So the three arguments from morality

1) Morality points to Ultimate High Authority by virtue of commanding to ultimate high authority
2) Morality nature manifests as being eternal
3) There needs to be an absolute correct morality which we either are correct with reference to or are wrong with reference to.

As for the 1, I think no matter how small or big of the moral issue is, at the end, the morality telling us 'we should do the right thing' has infinite ultimate authority. There is no limit on it's authority. When it condemns something as wrong, the commanding "should not do it" is so ultimate, it's at the degree of highest possible authority. But can this be simply our evolutionary emotional feeling..surely if that was true, it would not be to the ultimate authority which to me seems obvious morality is of. This ultimate authority can only be God. It can't be some non-living metaphysical thing. That simply doesn't make logical sense. Therefore when we think of morality, it seems to be pointing to an ultimate authority. Now people might want to refute this with Euthyphro dilemma, but I argue that the either that ultimate morality is God or is part of God, and that is an authority in itself.

As for the 2, I think we can argue this case, by saying what if morality didn't exist at all, not even with God, and then God can simply make it up. To me, this shown to be impossible, because it would be arbitrary. The nature of morality is such that it can't just be made up by God, but rather must be eternal. But what can be eternal morality but God? Aside from this thought process, I contend that the nature of morality itself points to being of eternal basis and that it's manifest simply as a property, much like free-will is necessary for morality to be valid.

As for 3, it seems that for morality to be true there must be a correct view to regards to everything. But when we are wrong or have a twisted view, what are we twisting from if morality is simple what we think to be true. I have my own dilemma:

Is what we think to be moral, moral because we think it to be moral, or we do think something is moral because it is moral?

There is problems with either of these. Because our thoughts of what is moral of often wrong. But there seems to be a need of a reality that we are twisted from. It's not only that, but with regards to what makes one greater due to morality and the many possible stages, there seems to be a need of a correct view to all these things. We also need a connection to that view if we are to be right on something and condemned when we are of a twisted view.

If there isn't correctness to everything, it seems that it then calls to doubt morality as a whole, while morality is not really doubtable.

If it's all left to how we think and we have no connection to a correct absolute view, morality as we understand breaks down and become all relative.

Since morality is not all relative, it seems there needs to be an objective reality that has correct view and we some how connected to it, and can either be praised for holding the view that is in line with it or have wrong views that are twisted from it. What can this reality be but God. At the end, it has to include correct view of all stages of moral greatness, and be basis to it, including ultimate morality. What can that be but ultimate morality itself?

This is basically the three things of morality that manifest to me there is a God.

I know some people will see morality just as practical useful thing, but to me it's nature speaks of a metaphysical reality.

1: How, evidence? Can you pin down a single moral absolute which you are willing to demonstrate?
2: How, evidence? Renaming morality (and assuming that it is ultimate, timeless, and unchanging without demonstrating that it is so) leads to the god you wish to exist exactly how?
3: Why is there such a need? Who feels this need? Evidence? When are we "wrong", when have we twisted our morality, twisted from what, you're going to have to demonstrate 1, before 2 or 3 have any merit whatsoever.

These aren't arguments, they're just assumptions with no evidence or justification to back them.

"I assume therefore morality exists as described, and I hereby rename this god" Well, I assume that cheerios exist, I hereby rename cheerios god. I can demonstrate that cheerios exist, ergo my cheerio god exists in ways that yours does not. IOW, in every way.

A Christian once told me god is everywhere so I checked inside my refrigerator and there was no god. Since I made that observation, I collapsed the wave function and now it is a reality that there is no god. There, scientific proof for all the christoholics (that means you chiapet and undeceived) reading this.

---

(March 7, 2012 at 6:51 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Modern science teaches us that the universe began in a “big bang.” Most theists would point to this and say, “See! Something had to be before the big bang.” They fail to understand that there wasn’t any time or space before the big bang.

Before the big bang was the big dinner and big movie.

---

(March 7, 2012 at 8:07 pm)Chuck Wrote: Also, our notion of time and causality is not truly well fleshed out in physics. So extrapolating on what may be at and beyond its origin seems a poor foundation upon which to build a world view.

No it isn't and for a quite interesting read pick up a copy of Sean M. Carroll's book From Eternity To Here.

---

(March 7, 2012 at 8:49 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: The first cause argument is only there to established an uncaused cause.

That is an unsupported premise though. Tell me, what is the cause of Beta decay or is it uncaused?

Silly idea really...

"I don't know. Therefore... god?"

Then science answers some of the questions people attributed to that entity, and for some reason having no answers is better than having most of them.

And I don't understand how the idea that matter has always existed is such a hard thing to wrap ones head around. Surely that's easier to accept that accept that than to accept that "nothing" once existed. Existence being a characteristic that would immediately define it as not nothing.

(March 8, 2012 at 12:57 pm)picto90 Wrote: And I don't understand how the idea that matter has always existed is such a hard thing to wrap ones head around. Surely that's easier to accept that accept that than to accept that "nothing" once existed. Existence being a characteristic that would immediately define it as not nothing.

Want a fun thought? Somewhere in the neighborhood of 1095 years there will be no matter in the universe. There will be no light. There will be nothing except quantum fields. Pretty much the "nothing" people claim was before the big bang.

(March 8, 2012 at 1:03 pm)Phil Wrote:

(March 8, 2012 at 12:57 pm)picto90 Wrote: And I don't understand how the idea that matter has always existed is such a hard thing to wrap ones head around. Surely that's easier to accept that accept that than to accept that "nothing" once existed. Existence being a characteristic that would immediately define it as not nothing.

Want a fun thought? Somewhere in the neighborhood of 1095 years there will be no matter in the universe. There will be no light. There will be nothing except quantum fields. Pretty much the "nothing" people claim was before the big bang.

There's something beautifully symmetrical to that...

(March 8, 2012 at 11:54 am)MysticKnight Wrote: 1) Morality points to Ultimate High Authority by virtue of commanding to ultimate high authority

Classic circular argument going on here. I'm responding to your notes on each item as well thou.

This argument confuses me utterly. Your explanation is nothing but assertion that morality has infinite ultimate authority, however no point of your argument supports this. You just assert that it "just makes sense to you" for it to have an ultimate origin, but no substance.

I do enjoy reading your posts, but assertions with no logical substance bore me a little. You keep stating its not logic and neglect to point out HOW. Without a how, the argument is like God, unprovable, unknowable, and ultimately, surplus to requirement.

Quote:2) Morality nature manifests as being eternal

How. In what fashion does it manifest as eternal. Especially regarding the changes in what is considered moral over the aeons.
To me, morality is much more simple than morality being God or an aspect to him... God is not required, and you have not shown that he is, nor have you even tried to.

In return, let me offer you this. Shared moral values promote the growth and subsistence of society. Different moral values which are detrimental to the growth and subsistence of society lead to the degeneration of the society and its failure to succeed. These independent eternal moral truths you imagine are nothing more than the continually developed baseline for societies to maintain their existence.
You need only look at modern news and history to see that where basic rules for the success of society are broken, causes a less efficient, less successful society which cannot compete with societies (interchange with countries in many cases) whom share a social consensus. The application of a anthropomorphic supernatural being to this process is superfluous and unnecessary. God is simply the whip that society uses to ensure it will subsist where they are given to anarchic tendencies due to lack of education and knowledge.

Increase knowledge and education, and the whip becomes less necessary.
Increase knowledge and education, and God becomes less necessary.
The correlation to me, is not coincidence.

The contention that it is an eternal concept embodied by God however, has no basis of rationale behind it.
I don't claim my own personal views are perfectly accurate, but I'm at least willing to explain why I hold them, which is more comforting than the ultimate GodDidIt view of morality which lacks the flexibility to guide society to greater heights, instead of chaining it to cliff which will erode over time and collapse upon itself.

Quote:3) There needs to be an absolute correct morality which we either are correct with reference to or are wrong with reference to.

Once again, WHY. The post still has not substance as to why this is so, or logical reason why it should be.
On the contrary, I contend above, that absolute correct morality requires flexibility to wield itself with the zeitgeist of modern views, especially where impacted by technology and global circumstance (global is a bad word, but I'm tired, I simply mean overbearing requirement on a whole society rather than in reference to the whole world).
A good example is climate change. The effects of climate change has an overbearing requirement on the whole of society (in this case, indeed global society) and requires an adjustment to moral views, especially in regards to capitalism. We are becoming more aware of capitalist "evils" which not so long ago were capitalist "good". The treatment of the climate change issue and financial crisis displays why those "moral goods" could possibly require a bit of tweaking.

The point I am getting to, is that you speak of Moral Absolutes, moral imperatives that are innate and eternal, without backing the statement up with anything close to support it, when the indication(I am wary of stating evidence, as I am happy to state this is my view, rather than a provable theory) that morality is an ever-shifting code of social consensus to ensure its survival, or in some cases a means to promote the status quo of a society which appears to be successful.
For instance, the subjugation of women is a good example of non survival "moral" requirement which did nothing but promote a status quo of a functioning society. The subjugation of women was not seen as evil, and in fact seen as necessary. It was seen as "moral". That has now changed, primarily due to changes in how society operates and the requirement for a greater workforce to address this immoral inequality that persisted from antediluvian mode of thinking.

You state that morality cannot be allowed to be relative. History shows us that is has always been relative.