(July 3, 2013 at 8:30 pm)BrotherNeto Wrote: For the last time Inigo, there is no evidence pointing to the fact that morality is a 'thing'. However, there is evidence it does exist as a concept.

There IS evidence, I keep presenting it. Morality instructs and its instructions have inescapable rational authority. Those are CONCEPTUAL CLAIMS. So our concept of morality is of something that has those features (a concept we have formed on the basis of our moral sense reports - reports that give us the impression of external instructions that possess inescapable rational authority).

Now, for there to be something answering to the concept there would (by definition) need to be some external instructions with which we have inescapable reason to comply.

The only way those sorts of things could exist is if a god exists who is issuing them.

Hence, our concept of morality is of something that can only be a god.
You might prefer that this was not the case. YOu might prefer that morality not turn out to be a god (or the instructions of a god if one prefers). Fine. But unfortunately that's the only way there would be something answering to our concept.

(July 3, 2013 at 8:31 pm)Inigo Wrote: Well, that instruction lacks inescapable rational authority.

So...? There is no inescapable rational authority. There is a relative morality based on the whole.

Quote:You only have reason to comply with that instruction if you happen to want to. if you stop caring, then you lack any real reason to comply.

Yep...

Quote:This is an enormous difference between your instructions and the instructions of morality. They are not one and the same.

That's because the latter doesn't exist.

Quote:IF atheism is true, then the only instructions that really exist are yours and those of other people. But none of those instructions have inescapable rational authority. None of them, then, can be one and the same as the instructions of morality. Consequently, if atheism is true moral instructions do not really exist. They appear to exist, but appearing to exist and existing are different.

Yes. They can't and there is no absolute moral authority, because absolutes by definition are not relatively moral.

---

(July 3, 2013 at 8:36 pm)Inigo Wrote: Hence, our concept of morality is of something that can only be a god.
You might prefer that this was not the case. YOu might prefer that morality not turn out to be a god (or the instructions of a god if one prefers). Fine. But unfortunately that's the only way there would be something answering to our concept.

There is nothing in my mind that gives me the sense of an absolute morality. All of my senses together and their outputs form my morality. I get a feeling from the hard-wiring in my brain or some other input, intelligent or not. I am 'free' to either act on it consciously or no. The whole free thing here is maybe not really free but that is irrelevant. You have given no such proof, just the continuous statement that our senses are from an absolute morality, which is not true, because there is evidence otherwise.

(July 3, 2013 at 8:36 pm)Inigo Wrote:

(July 3, 2013 at 8:30 pm)BrotherNeto Wrote: For the last time Inigo, there is no evidence pointing to the fact that morality is a 'thing'. However, there is evidence it does exist as a concept.

There IS evidence, I keep presenting it. Morality instructs and its instructions have inescapable rational authority. Those are CONCEPTUAL CLAIMS. So our concept of morality is of something that has those features (a concept we have formed on the basis of our moral sense reports - reports that give us the impression of external instructions that possess inescapable rational authority).

Now, for there to be something answering to the concept there would (by definition) need to be some external instructions with which we have inescapable reason to comply.

The only way those sorts of things could exist is if a god exists who is issuing them.

Hence, our concept of morality is of something that can only be a god.
You might prefer that this was not the case. YOu might prefer that morality not turn out to be a god (or the instructions of a god if one prefers). Fine. But unfortunately that's the only way there would be something answering to our concept.

The concept of which morals are good instructions to follow and which ones are bad are different and many contradict each other, so then your claim must be that there are many gods and not just one?

(July 3, 2013 at 8:45 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(July 3, 2013 at 8:36 pm)Inigo Wrote: There IS evidence, I keep presenting it. Morality instructs and its instructions have inescapable rational authority. Those are CONCEPTUAL CLAIMS. So our concept of morality is of something that has those features (a concept we have formed on the basis of our moral sense reports - reports that give us the impression of external instructions that possess inescapable rational authority).

Now, for there to be something answering to the concept there would (by definition) need to be some external instructions with which we have inescapable reason to comply.

The only way those sorts of things could exist is if a god exists who is issuing them.

Hence, our concept of morality is of something that can only be a god.
You might prefer that this was not the case. YOu might prefer that morality not turn out to be a god (or the instructions of a god if one prefers). Fine. But unfortunately that's the only way there would be something answering to our concept.

The concept of which morals are good instructions to follow and which ones are bad are different and many contradict each other, so then your claim must be that there are many gods and not just one?

No, the reverse is true. My belief that Xing is wrong contradicts your belief that Xing is right if and only if we are talking about the same morality. So, my belief that Xing is wrong is the belief that morality instructs us not to X. Your belief that Xing is right is the belief that morality instructs us to X. These beliefs contradict. But they are beliefs about one morality.
If my belief was that morality1 instructs us not to X, and your belief was that morality2 instructs us to X then our beliefs do not contradict.

(July 3, 2013 at 9:05 pm)Inigo Wrote:

(July 3, 2013 at 8:45 pm)paulpablo Wrote: The concept of which morals are good instructions to follow and which ones are bad are different and many contradict each other, so then your claim must be that there are many gods and not just one?

No, the reverse is true. My belief that Xing is wrong contradicts your belief that Xing is right if and only if we are talking about the same morality. So, my belief that Xing is wrong is the belief that morality instructs us not to X. Your belief that Xing is right is the belief that morality instructs us to X. These beliefs contradict. But they are beliefs about one morality.
If my belief was that morality1 instructs us not to X, and your belief was that morality2 instructs us to X then our beliefs do not contradict.

So the one god gives different instructions to different people?

(July 3, 2013 at 8:36 pm)Inigo Wrote: There IS evidence, I keep presenting it.

Evidence does not mean what you think it means, because you keep presenting word salad wrapped in squat.

(July 3, 2013 at 8:36 pm)Inigo Wrote:

(July 3, 2013 at 8:30 pm)BrotherNeto Wrote: For the last time Inigo, there is no evidence pointing to the fact that morality is a 'thing'. However, there is evidence it does exist as a concept.

Now, for there to be something answering to the concept there would (by definition) need to be some external instructions with which we have inescapable reason to comply.

The problem is we are the only things answering to the concept. You have no evidence to say otherwise. The concept is of our own making. The phenomena, evolution, and sensory inputs and outputs from our mind led us to the concept. Without us it would not exist. Who said there is an inescapable reason to comply? You? Oh, wow! Amazing argument. Our senses are not always reasonable and different people have different reactions to different events.

Then we label these reactions as moral based on what is relatively reasonable to the group at the time. There is no absolute there.

---

(July 3, 2013 at 9:17 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:

(July 3, 2013 at 8:36 pm)Inigo Wrote: There IS evidence, I keep presenting it.

Evidence does not mean what you think it means, because you keep presenting word salad wrapped in squat.

I agree and it's making me very tired.

(July 3, 2013 at 9:08 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(July 3, 2013 at 9:05 pm)Inigo Wrote: No, the reverse is true. My belief that Xing is wrong contradicts your belief that Xing is right if and only if we are talking about the same morality. So, my belief that Xing is wrong is the belief that morality instructs us not to X. Your belief that Xing is right is the belief that morality instructs us to X. These beliefs contradict. But they are beliefs about one morality.
If my belief was that morality1 instructs us not to X, and your belief was that morality2 instructs us to X then our beliefs do not contradict.

So the one god gives different instructions to different people?

That is possible. But when we have a moral disagreement this is not how things seem. It seems to me - I sense- that Xing is wrong, not just for me but for you too. So, I think hurting someone for fun is wrong. I think it is wrong for me to do that, I think it is wrong for you to do that. Perhaps you think it is right. Well, if you think it is right for you to do it, then you and I disagree, don't we? We are disagreeing about what 'morality' (not moralities) wishes us to do. I think morality wishes you (and me) not to hurt others for fun. YOu think morality wishes you to hurt others for fun.

So, there is morality, not moralities. Morality presupposes a god, not gods.

---

(July 3, 2013 at 9:18 pm)BrotherNeto Wrote:

(July 3, 2013 at 8:36 pm)Inigo Wrote: Now, for there to be something answering to the concept there would (by definition) need to be some external instructions with which we have inescapable reason to comply.

The problem is we are the only things answering to the concept. You have no evidence to say otherwise. The concept is of our own making. The phenomena, evolution, and sensory inputs and outputs from our mind led us to the concept. Without us it would not exist. Who said there is an inescapable reason to comply? You? Oh, wow! Amazing argument. Our senses are not always reasonable and different people have different reactions to different events.

Then we label these reactions as moral based on what is relatively reasonable to the group at the time. There is no absolute there.

---

(July 3, 2013 at 9:17 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: Evidence does not mean what you think it means, because you keep presenting word salad wrapped in squat.

I agree and it's making me very tired.

If I am correct in my analysis of morality then the deliverances of our moral sense - our moral sense data if you will - constitutes defeasible evidence for the existence of a god just as your sense of sight constitutes defeasible evidence of an external world.

(July 3, 2013 at 9:50 pm)Inigo Wrote: If I am correct in my analysis of morality then the deliverances of our moral sense - our moral sense data if you will - constitutes defeasible evidence for the existence of a god just as your sense of sight constitutes defeasible evidence of an external world.

You are not correct in your analysis of morality.

Our subjective morality - our reasoning behind labeling something moral(having to do with what should be done in a society of other beings, which is a word we made up), only constitutes evidence that our mind processes inputs and derives outputs from the external world. And maybe that we have an awareness of self and others(which itself could be an illusion), this being why we find that things which cause ourselves and others suffering actually cause us pain. This is a basic reason to label something immoral, because it causes pain and suffering, and we are wired to not want that. And everything else follows.

There are many moralities, as many as there are people, and the fact that they are very similar is how we are able to form a working society. What is good for you is good for me. And so on.

(July 3, 2013 at 9:50 pm)Inigo Wrote: If I am correct in my analysis of morality...

It is a good thing you used the word if, because you are not correct.