Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Problem of Evil and the existence of God

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2013 7:05:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would like an Atheist who adheres to this argument to answer a few questions for me. To say that God would prevent 'x' because God is defined as objectively good, is to imply 'x' is objectively bad (lets say 'x' is a tornado that wiped most of a family and injured others). What I don't understand, is how can 'x' be objectively bad if God doesn't exist? The theist has a reason to argue that 'x' is objectively bad, and that is because God's exists. What is the reason for the Atheist to thing that 'x' is objectively bad?
Pwner
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 12:45:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
As I'm sure you know, moral realism is the position that moral judgments--such as rape is wrong or charity is good--are able to be true or false and that at least some of them are true. I think this is what most people are talking about when they mention 'objective morality'. In moral philosophy the standard justification for moral realism--available regardless of your theism or atheism--is something like Swinburne's celebrated principle of credulity: it's reasonable to believe things are as they appear to be until you have good reason not to. If it appears that some moral propositions are true or false to an atheist, she's justified in believing they are until she has good reason not to. But, I don't think that requesting an ontology of moral values or duties from her would constitute good reason for her to doubt moral realism, since we hardly have similar accounts for things we're uncontroversially justified in believing--such as that our brains work. I don't have a clue about neurophysiology :P So, I don't think there's anything irrational about the conjunction of atheism and moral realism without being able to account for 'objective morality'.

That said, the atheist has every moral ontology available to her that doesn't entail a god's existence, which is practically every moral ontology that's ever been proposed in moral philosophy. If you're interested in reading an atheistic account of moral realism, check out this article:

http://commonsenseatheism.com...

Wielenberg has also written a fantastic book on this: http://www.amazon.com...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 1:31:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/20/2013 7:05:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I would like an Atheist who adheres to this argument to answer a few questions for me. To say that God would prevent 'x' because God is defined as objectively good, is to imply 'x' is objectively bad (lets say 'x' is a tornado that wiped most of a family and injured others). What I don't understand, is how can 'x' be objectively bad if God doesn't exist? The theist has a reason to argue that 'x' is objectively bad, and that is because God's exists. What is the reason for the Atheist to thing that 'x' is objectively bad?

There are a few different issues contained in this post.

"What I don't understand, is how can 'x' be objectively bad if God doesn't exist?

Why can't something be objectively bad even if God does not exist ? because of the mere assertion that it can't ?

"What is the reason for the Atheist to thing that 'x' is objectively bad?

Probably the same reason most theists see rape as bad, they see the harm that rape does, and thus view it as a bad or evil thing.

On a side note, consider how people make the argument that there is a "God" who allows a child to be raped then have their eyes poked out, then if you pray to "God", God doesn't restore the child's eyes, then we are told, hey without this "God" objective morality can't exist.

Some people just ain't buying that. Ya know, they kinda just don't accept the standard apologetic answers, people can be difficult like that.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 3:02:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 12:45:11 AM, Pwner wrote:
As I'm sure you know, moral realism is the position that moral judgments--such as rape is wrong or charity is good--are able to be true or false and that at least some of them are true. I think this is what most people are talking about when they mention 'objective morality'. In moral philosophy the standard justification for moral realism--available regardless of your theism or atheism--is something like Swinburne's celebrated principle of credulity: it's reasonable to believe things are as they appear to be until you have good reason not to. If it appears that some moral propositions are true or false to an atheist, she's justified in believing they are until she has good reason not to. But, I don't think that requesting an ontology of moral values or duties from her would constitute good reason for her to doubt moral realism, since we hardly have similar accounts for things we're uncontroversially justified in believing--such as that our brains work. I don't have a clue about neurophysiology :P So, I don't think there's anything irrational about the conjunction of atheism and moral realism without being able to account for 'objective morality'.

That said, the atheist has every moral ontology available to her that doesn't entail a god's existence, which is practically every moral ontology that's ever been proposed in moral philosophy. If you're interested in reading an atheistic account of moral realism, check out this article:

http://commonsenseatheism.com...

Wielenberg has also written a fantastic book on this: http://www.amazon.com...

Interesting response, I'll check that link out.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 3:09:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 1:31:48 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/20/2013 7:05:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I would like an Atheist who adheres to this argument to answer a few questions for me. To say that God would prevent 'x' because God is defined as objectively good, is to imply 'x' is objectively bad (lets say 'x' is a tornado that wiped most of a family and injured others). What I don't understand, is how can 'x' be objectively bad if God doesn't exist? The theist has a reason to argue that 'x' is objectively bad, and that is because God's exists. What is the reason for the Atheist to thing that 'x' is objectively bad?

There are a few different issues contained in this post.

"What I don't understand, is how can 'x' be objectively bad if God doesn't exist?

Why can't something be objectively bad even if God does not exist ? because of the mere assertion that it can't ?

Switching the burden of proof. The Atheist must prove that something can be objectively bad if God doesn't exist, in order to make the claim that God would stop 'x' if he existed. If this was the moral argument we were discussing, then yes I would have the burden you mentioned. However, we are discussing the problem of evil, meaning that one must show that 'x' is actually evil, if we are to take the notion seriously that God would prevent it if God existing was the case.


"What is the reason for the Atheist to thing that 'x' is objectively bad?

Probably the same reason most theists see rape as bad, they see the harm that rape does, and thus view it as a bad or evil thing.

Theists see rape as objectively bad because God exists. Not because it causes harm. If that's all it took for morality to be objective, then they really wouldn't be pushing the moral argument that only God could make something actually immoral, would they?


On a side note, consider how people make the argument that there is a "God" who allows a child to be raped then have their eyes poked out, then if you pray to "God", God doesn't restore the child's eyes, then we are told, hey without this "God" objective morality can't exist.

What makes those things bad if God doesn't exist though? What are you grounding your objective standard in? This is the problem for the Atheist. If there is no God, why are babies getting raped objectively bad?


Some people just ain't buying that. Ya know, they kinda just don't accept the standard apologetic answers, people can be difficult like that.

I'm not saying I fully agree with the theist (hence why I'm an agnostic). I'm just saying, that if theism is true, it's not hard to see how objective morality could be grounded. If Atheism is true though, then it's hard to see how this is possible.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 3:10:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/20/2013 7:05:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I would like an Atheist who adheres to this argument to answer a few questions for me. To say that God would prevent 'x' because God is defined as objectively good, is to imply 'x' is objectively bad (lets say 'x' is a tornado that wiped most of a family and injured others). What I don't understand, is how can 'x' be objectively bad if God doesn't exist? The theist has a reason to argue that 'x' is objectively bad, and that is because God's exists. What is the reason for the Atheist to thing that 'x' is objectively bad?

It seems to me that you are asking how objective morality can exist without a God or gods. Do realize that divine command theory is only one subset of objective morality. I would suggest reading up on the full range of secular ethics that have been proposed.

I would start with Utilitarianism, and Emanuel Kant's categorical imperative.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 3:38:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Okay, here are your mistakes:

1. Evil doesn't need to be objective for god to want to prevent it. I can hold some desire for ice-cream without believing that eating ice-cream is objectively good. God can desire the elimination of suffering without suffering being objectively bad. So bringing objective morality into this is unnecessary.

2. Say suffering is objectively bad if and only if god exists. Then, the consequence of god existing * would be the elimination of gratuitous suffering. Any gratuitous suffering in reality would disprove the existence of the hypothesised god. This holds true whether or not suffering is objectively bad should no god exist.

*if god is hypothesised as a morally good being.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 3:48:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I usually provide in my utilitarianism debates an account of going from nothingness into a moral system and the principle of utility. I did one recently with FourTrouble which can be read.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 4:01:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 3:48:51 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I usually provide in my utilitarianism debates an account of going from nothingness into a moral system and the principle of utility. I did one recently with FourTrouble which can be read.

Subtle bro.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 4:14:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm trying to think of a good analogy.

Suppose trees emit an undetectable radiation if and only if a rockfairy exists. Futhermore, suppose this radiation, if it exists, is almost certainly lethal to rockfairies whenever and whereever it is emitted. So, the existence of rockfairies is very unlikely if this radiation exists.

If these propositions are accepted, the existence of trees is evidence against the existence of rockfairies. Do you see why?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 5:08:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 3:10:29 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/20/2013 7:05:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I would like an Atheist who adheres to this argument to answer a few questions for me. To say that God would prevent 'x' because God is defined as objectively good, is to imply 'x' is objectively bad (lets say 'x' is a tornado that wiped most of a family and injured others). What I don't understand, is how can 'x' be objectively bad if God doesn't exist? The theist has a reason to argue that 'x' is objectively bad, and that is because God's exists. What is the reason for the Atheist to thing that 'x' is objectively bad?

It seems to me that you are asking how objective morality can exist without a God or gods. Do realize that divine command theory is only one subset of objective morality. I would suggest reading up on the full range of secular ethics that have been proposed.

I would start with Utilitarianism, and Emanuel Kant's categorical imperative.

I'm aware of non-theistic moral theories, however they fail to answer how morality could actually be objective. Utilitarianism is actually only a theory in favor of a moral system which is actually collectively subjective. It can be compared to a system where we based how good movies were on how they made most of us feel, we would overall deem The Godfather a good movie. However, The Godfather being is a good movie isn't objectively true like 5 + 5 = 10 is objectively true.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 5:18:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 5:08:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/21/2013 3:10:29 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/20/2013 7:05:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I would like an Atheist who adheres to this argument to answer a few questions for me. To say that God would prevent 'x' because God is defined as objectively good, is to imply 'x' is objectively bad (lets say 'x' is a tornado that wiped most of a family and injured others). What I don't understand, is how can 'x' be objectively bad if God doesn't exist? The theist has a reason to argue that 'x' is objectively bad, and that is because God's exists. What is the reason for the Atheist to thing that 'x' is objectively bad?

It seems to me that you are asking how objective morality can exist without a God or gods. Do realize that divine command theory is only one subset of objective morality. I would suggest reading up on the full range of secular ethics that have been proposed.

I would start with Utilitarianism, and Emanuel Kant's categorical imperative.

I'm aware of non-theistic moral theories, however they fail to answer how morality could actually be objective. Utilitarianism is actually only a theory in favor of a moral system which is actually collectively subjective. It can be compared to a system where we based how good movies were on how they made most of us feel, we would overall deem The Godfather a good movie. However, The Godfather being is a good movie isn't objectively true like 5 + 5 = 10 is objectively true.

I think perhaps you have a misconception of what objectivity morality is. It appears you are confusing it with moral absolutism, which is something closer to what you are describing.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 6:21:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/20/2013 7:05:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
What I don't understand, is how can 'x' be objectively bad if God doesn't exist?

This is a common misconception on both sides of the fence. Things can be morally objectively good and/or morally objectively bad sans God. It's just a matter of what criterion we use to gauge morality (ie, the avoidance of misery and pain/the production of an environment that will likely sustain longtime happiness for its citizens).

I think what you mean to say is that things can't be absolutely (not objectively) good or bad without God.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 6:29:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 5:08:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/21/2013 3:10:29 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/20/2013 7:05:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I would like an Atheist who adheres to this argument to answer a few questions for me. To say that God would prevent 'x' because God is defined as objectively good, is to imply 'x' is objectively bad (lets say 'x' is a tornado that wiped most of a family and injured others). What I don't understand, is how can 'x' be objectively bad if God doesn't exist? The theist has a reason to argue that 'x' is objectively bad, and that is because God's exists. What is the reason for the Atheist to thing that 'x' is objectively bad?

It seems to me that you are asking how objective morality can exist without a God or gods. Do realize that divine command theory is only one subset of objective morality. I would suggest reading up on the full range of secular ethics that have been proposed.

I would start with Utilitarianism, and Emanuel Kant's categorical imperative.

I'm aware of non-theistic moral theories, however they fail to answer how morality could actually be objective. Utilitarianism is actually only a theory in favor of a moral system which is actually collectively subjective. It can be compared to a system where we based how good movies were on how they made most of us feel, we would overall deem The Godfather a good movie. However, The Godfather being is a good movie isn't objectively true like 5 + 5 = 10 is objectively true.

(1) The Godfather can be determined to be an objectively good movie if we agree on certain criterion that movies must follow as closely as possible to be ranked near the "good" end of some rating scale (not that I would ever advocate such a thing).

(2) Mathematical truths such as 5+5=10 are objective and absolute. You should recognize the distinction between the two.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 1:04:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/20/2013 7:05:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I would like an Atheist who adheres to this argument to answer a few questions for me. To say that God would prevent 'x' because God is defined as objectively good, is to imply 'x' is objectively bad (lets say 'x' is a tornado that wiped most of a family and injured others). What I don't understand, is how can 'x' be objectively bad if God doesn't exist? The theist has a reason to argue that 'x' is objectively bad, and that is because God's exists. What is the reason for the Atheist to thing that 'x' is objectively bad?

Simple. Most atheists don't subscribe to the idea that morals are objective. We believe that the idea of God sending a tornado to Earth is subjectively bad and assume most people would agree.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 1:34:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 1:04:26 AM, rogue wrote:
At 2/20/2013 7:05:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I would like an Atheist who adheres to this argument to answer a few questions for me. To say that God would prevent 'x' because God is defined as objectively good, is to imply 'x' is objectively bad (lets say 'x' is a tornado that wiped most of a family and injured others). What I don't understand, is how can 'x' be objectively bad if God doesn't exist? The theist has a reason to argue that 'x' is objectively bad, and that is because God's exists. What is the reason for the Atheist to thing that 'x' is objectively bad?

Simple. Most atheists don't subscribe to the idea that morals are objective. We believe that the idea of God sending a tornado to Earth is subjectively bad and assume most people would agree.

For my own curiosity, how can you assume a subjectivity?
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 1:54:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 6:29:54 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:

(1) The Godfather can be determined to be an objectively good movie if we agree on certain criterion that movies must follow as closely as possible to be ranked near the "good" end of some rating scale (not that I would ever advocate such a thing).


That would mean you had to come to an agreement on what the meaning of "good" is and what criteria would be - and if such a thing exists all together. And even when this is established, you are still judging the movie based on standards selected by a certain number of people - which is, you guessed it, subjective.

(2) Mathematical truths such as 5+5=10 are objective and absolute. You should recognize the distinction between the two.

Heheh, Someone hasn't read Wittgenstein. The only genuine propositions that we can use to make assertions about reality are contingent ("empirical") propositions. "Mathematical truth" is essentially non-referential and purely syntactical in nature.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 1:58:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 1:04:26 AM, rogue wrote:
At 2/20/2013 7:05:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I would like an Atheist who adheres to this argument to answer a few questions for me. To say that God would prevent 'x' because God is defined as objectively good, is to imply 'x' is objectively bad (lets say 'x' is a tornado that wiped most of a family and injured others). What I don't understand, is how can 'x' be objectively bad if God doesn't exist? The theist has a reason to argue that 'x' is objectively bad, and that is because God's exists. What is the reason for the Atheist to thing that 'x' is objectively bad?

Simple. Most atheists don't subscribe to the idea that morals are objective. We believe that the idea of God sending a tornado to Earth is subjectively bad and assume most people would agree.

What do you mean?
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 2:06:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 1:58:28 AM, rogue wrote:
At 2/22/2013 1:04:26 AM, rogue wrote:
At 2/20/2013 7:05:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I would like an Atheist who adheres to this argument to answer a few questions for me. To say that God would prevent 'x' because God is defined as objectively good, is to imply 'x' is objectively bad (lets say 'x' is a tornado that wiped most of a family and injured others). What I don't understand, is how can 'x' be objectively bad if God doesn't exist? The theist has a reason to argue that 'x' is objectively bad, and that is because God's exists. What is the reason for the Atheist to thing that 'x' is objectively bad?

Simple. Most atheists don't subscribe to the idea that morals are objective. We believe that the idea of God sending a tornado to Earth is subjectively bad and assume most people would agree.

What do you mean?

I'm assuming this was meant for me?

Here's my sincere curiosity: How can you assume that most atheists have the same subjective experience of something? How can you assume any subjective experience onto someone with any large degree of certainty?
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 2:15:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I really don't understand why you would give an act a label like "bad," which you have stated doesn't actually mean anything in objective reality - then after rating this act "bad" "subjectively," you assume that everyone has the same subjective experience of a subjective idea of what the subjective experience of "bad" is? I'm not sure why people clump other people into groups with them and don't just state "This is how I feel about this experience." I think that would be more honest and closer to whatever the truth may be (to the best degree of your ability to command language to describe your experience), no?
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Pwner
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 2:34:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't know about atheists in general, but professional atheist philosophers are mostly moral realists. You won't find any contemporary moral philosophers saying stuff like atheism poses problems for 'objective morality '.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 2:54:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 3:09:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/21/2013 1:31:48 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/20/2013 7:05:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I would like an Atheist who adheres to this argument to answer a few questions for me. To say that God would prevent 'x' because God is defined as objectively good, is to imply 'x' is objectively bad (lets say 'x' is a tornado that wiped most of a family and injured others). What I don't understand, is how can 'x' be objectively bad if God doesn't exist? The theist has a reason to argue that 'x' is objectively bad, and that is because God's exists. What is the reason for the Atheist to thing that 'x' is objectively bad?

There are a few different issues contained in this post.

"What I don't understand, is how can 'x' be objectively bad if God doesn't exist?

Why can't something be objectively bad even if God does not exist ? because of the mere assertion that it can't ?

Switching the burden of proof. The Atheist must prove that something can be objectively bad if God doesn't exist, in order to make the claim that God would stop 'x' if he existed. If this was the moral argument we were discussing, then yes I would have the burden you mentioned. However, we are discussing the problem of evil, meaning that one must show that 'x' is actually evil, if we are to take the notion seriously that God would prevent it if God existing was the case.

Sure against the logical problem of evil the theist can respond you can't prove that God would stop X if God existed, but there are other POE arguments.


"What is the reason for the Atheist to thing that 'x' is objectively bad?

Probably the same reason most theists see rape as bad, they see the harm that rape does, and thus view it as a bad or evil thing.

Theists see rape as objectively bad because God exists. Not because it causes harm. If that's all it took for morality to be objective, then they really wouldn't be pushing the moral argument that only God could make something actually immoral, would they?

Its a complete non sequitur, God exists therefore rape is objectively bad.



On a side note, consider how people make the argument that there is a "God" who allows a child to be raped then have their eyes poked out, then if you pray to "God", God doesn't restore the child's eyes, then we are told, hey without this "God" objective morality can't exist.

What makes those things bad if God doesn't exist though? What are you grounding your objective standard in? This is the problem for the Atheist. If there is no God, why are babies getting raped objectively bad?

What makes the rape of babies wrong even if God exists ? Just because God exists doesn't mean God would have the same concern over baby rape as we would. I would suggest that we are the ones with the concern, and this gets projected unto God as if something God wants to avoid, it probably ain't God, it's us, or most of us.



Some people just ain't buying that. Ya know, they kinda just don't accept the standard apologetic answers, people can be difficult like that.

I'm not saying I fully agree with the theist (hence why I'm an agnostic). I'm just saying, that if theism is true, it's not hard to see how objective morality could be grounded. If Atheism is true though, then it's hard to see how this is possible.

Either you have a morality that is tied in to suffering or you don't. If some one is arguing a morality that doesn't take suffering as a relevant factor, then how many screaming raped babies will you show that person to prove that suffering is relevant to morality ?

You say its not clear how objective morality can be grounded without the existence of God, I counter its not clear how objective morality can only exist if there is a God who allows a baby to be raped, have its eyes poked out, then responds in utter silence to the prayer of having the raped babies eyes restored........yet without the existence of such a being, objective morality just can't exist, nigga please.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 4:42:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 1:54:23 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Heheh, Someone hasn't read Wittgenstein. The only genuine propositions that we can use to make assertions about reality are contingent ("empirical") propositions.

I get the feeling this is incoherent. Is this proposition itself empirical? If so, on the basis of what experience can it be verified?

"Mathematical truth" is essentially non-referential and purely syntactical in nature.

I get really muddled when I think about what numbers really are so you could well be right, but this seems problematic. I'm not saying anything about reality when I say I own eight textbooks, or have $200 in my bank account? The numbers in those sentences are an integral part of the information about reality that I'm conveying. So they can't be mere syntax.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 9:50:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Moral Objectivism is merely the position that Morality rests upon some universal precept outside of personal acceptance or social customs; whether that is happiness, social order, societal benefit, survival, cooperation, or some other principle.

Moral Absolutism is the position that some actions are absolutely right or wrong, to all people, in all places, in all times, in all contexts, and in all situations - irrespective to outcome or motive.

The key distinction here is that moral absolutism precludes ambiguity and moral objectivism does not.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 5:04:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 2:54:14 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/21/2013 3:09:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/21/2013 1:31:48 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/20/2013 7:05:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I would like an Atheist who adheres to this argument to answer a few questions for me. To say that God would prevent 'x' because God is defined as objectively good, is to imply 'x' is objectively bad (lets say 'x' is a tornado that wiped most of a family and injured others). What I don't understand, is how can 'x' be objectively bad if God doesn't exist? The theist has a reason to argue that 'x' is objectively bad, and that is because God's exists. What is the reason for the Atheist to thing that 'x' is objectively bad?

There are a few different issues contained in this post.

"What I don't understand, is how can 'x' be objectively bad if God doesn't exist?

Why can't something be objectively bad even if God does not exist ? because of the mere assertion that it can't ?

Switching the burden of proof. The Atheist must prove that something can be objectively bad if God doesn't exist, in order to make the claim that God would stop 'x' if he existed. If this was the moral argument we were discussing, then yes I would have the burden you mentioned. However, we are discussing the problem of evil, meaning that one must show that 'x' is actually evil, if we are to take the notion seriously that God would prevent it if God existing was the case.

Sure against the logical problem of evil the theist can respond you can't prove that God would stop X if God existed, but there are other POE arguments.


"What is the reason for the Atheist to thing that 'x' is objectively bad?

Probably the same reason most theists see rape as bad, they see the harm that rape does, and thus view it as a bad or evil thing.

Theists see rape as objectively bad because God exists. Not because it causes harm. If that's all it took for morality to be objective, then they really wouldn't be pushing the moral argument that only God could make something actually immoral, would they?

Its a complete non sequitur, God exists therefore rape is objectively bad.



On a side note, consider how people make the argument that there is a "God" who allows a child to be raped then have their eyes poked out, then if you pray to "God", God doesn't restore the child's eyes, then we are told, hey without this "God" objective morality can't exist.

What makes those things bad if God doesn't exist though? What are you grounding your objective standard in? This is the problem for the Atheist. If there is no God, why are babies getting raped objectively bad?

What makes the rape of babies wrong even if God exists ? Just because God exists doesn't mean God would have the same concern over baby rape as we would. I would suggest that we are the ones with the concern, and this gets projected unto God as if something God wants to avoid, it probably ain't God, it's us, or most of us.



Some people just ain't buying that. Ya know, they kinda just don't accept the standard apologetic answers, people can be difficult like that.

I'm not saying I fully agree with the theist (hence why I'm an agnostic). I'm just saying, that if theism is true, it's not hard to see how objective morality could be grounded. If Atheism is true though, then it's hard to see how this is possible.

Either you have a morality that is tied in to suffering or you don't. If some one is arguing a morality that doesn't take suffering as a relevant factor, then how many screaming raped babies will you show that person to prove that suffering is relevant to morality ?

You say its not clear how objective morality can be grounded without the existence of God, I counter its not clear how objective morality can only exist if there is a God who allows a baby to be raped, have its eyes poked out, then responds in utter silence to the prayer of having the raped babies eyes restored........yet without the existence of such a being, objective morality just can't exist, nigga please.

Straw man. I didn't say morality could only be objective if God exists, I claimed that's what theists think. If you actually read the above, I claimed that it's easier to see how morality could be objective under theism, than atheism. I didn't say it was the only way possible.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 6:29:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 1:54:23 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 2/21/2013 6:29:54 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:

(1) The Godfather can be determined to be an objectively good movie if we agree on certain criterion that movies must follow as closely as possible to be ranked near the "good" end of some rating scale (not that I would ever advocate such a thing).


That would mean you had to come to an agreement on what the meaning of "good" is and what criteria would be - and if such a thing exists all together.

No one would necessarily have to agree on the criterion; the movie's rank would still be objectively placed even if the criterion itself was accepted by only one person, or no one at all. Again, I'm talking about objectivity, not absolutism, so your "if such a thing exists all together" is misguided.

And even when this is established, you are still judging the movie based on standards selected by a certain number of people - which is, you guessed it, subjective.

That's true, but I fail see how that is meant to be counter any part of my argument.

(2) Mathematical truths such as 5+5=10 are objective and absolute. You should recognize the distinction between the two.

Heheh, Someone hasn't read Wittgenstein.

Because it is impossible to read the works of someone and withhold agreement, or, at the very least, parroting.

The only genuine propositions that we can use to make assertions about reality are contingent ("empirical") propositions. "Mathematical truth" is essentially non-referential and purely syntactical in nature.

Even if this were the case, that doesn't contradict my statement about them being objective and absolute.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 6:47:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 2:34:40 AM, Pwner wrote:
I don't know about atheists in general, but professional atheist philosophers are mostly moral realists. You won't find any contemporary moral philosophers saying stuff like atheism poses problems for 'objective morality '.

Pretty sure that's false. Most atheist philosophers are moral realists but there are some atheist philosophers who say that atheism poses a problem for moral realism.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 11:45:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/20/2013 7:05:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I would like an Atheist who adheres to this argument

I'm a strong atheist: I believe that no gods exist.

The PoE (problem of evil) is a bulletproof argument, compelling.

to answer a few questions for me.

Sure.

To say that God would prevent 'x' because God is defined as objectively good,

In the phrase, "Objectively good," I don't know what the word "objectively" contributes. In my experience---at least in informal discussions like this---it is usually a weasel word, used with one meaning one minute and another meaning the next. It is a vehicle for equivocation.

I would never say that atheists don't equivocate, but it is my perception that this particular vehicle of equivocation is almost always driven by theists. So the notion that atheists define god as objectively good is a startling one. I simply don't believe it.

is to imply 'x' is objectively bad (lets say 'x' is a tornado that wiped most of a family and injured others). What I don't understand, is how can 'x' be objectively bad if God doesn't exist?

What do gods have to do with it?

The theist has a reason to argue that 'x' is objectively bad, and that is because God's exists.

I don't understand. What is the connection between gods and goodness, or between gods and objectivity?

What is the reason for the Atheist to thing that 'x' is objectively bad?

Again, I don't know what "objectively" means in this context. If your question is just "Why do atheists think that some things are bad?" the question seems improbably naive. Don't you think some things are bad? Didn't you think some things were bad before you believed in gods?

In any case, the PoE doesn't depend on any particular definition of "good" or "bad." It works for any one you want to use.
Pwner
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2013 1:22:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 6:47:02 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/22/2013 2:34:40 AM, Pwner wrote:
I don't know about atheists in general, but professional atheist philosophers are mostly moral realists. You won't find any contemporary moral philosophers saying stuff like atheism poses problems for 'objective morality '.

Pretty sure that's false. Most atheist philosophers are moral realists but there are some atheist philosophers who say that atheism poses a problem for moral realism.

I think you're saying the claim that you won't find any contemporary philosophers saying stuff like atheism poses problems for moral realism is false. That's why you bring up atheist philosophers. But, I never made that claim. I said moral philosophers don't think atheism poses any problems for moral realism. Do you know of any that do?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2013 8:59:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 11:45:11 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 2/20/2013 7:05:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I would like an Atheist who adheres to this argument

I'm a strong atheist: I believe that no gods exist.

The PoE (problem of evil) is a bulletproof argument, compelling.

I agree that it's bulletproof, but I think the PoE proves God's existence. How does the atheist even define evil, objectively and absolutely, without showing the need for a moral lawgiver?? How do you show that evil exists, absolutely or objectively, without postulating the existence of an objective, absolute moral lawgiver??

to answer a few questions for me.

Sure.

To say that God would prevent 'x' because God is defined as objectively good,

In the phrase, "Objectively good," I don't know what the word "objectively" contributes. In my experience---at least in informal discussions like this---it is usually a weasel word, used with one meaning one minute and another meaning the next. It is a vehicle for equivocation.

I would never say that atheists don't equivocate, but it is my perception that this particular vehicle of equivocation is almost always driven by theists. So the notion that atheists define god as objectively good is a startling one. I simply don't believe it.


is to imply 'x' is objectively bad (lets say 'x' is a tornado that wiped most of a family and injured others). What I don't understand, is how can 'x' be objectively bad if God doesn't exist?

What do gods have to do with it?

The theist has a reason to argue that 'x' is objectively bad, and that is because God's exists.

I don't understand. What is the connection between gods and goodness, or between gods and objectivity?

What is the reason for the Atheist to thing that 'x' is objectively bad?

Again, I don't know what "objectively" means in this context. If your question is just "Why do atheists think that some things are bad?" the question seems improbably naive. Don't you think some things are bad? Didn't you think some things were bad before you believed in gods?

In any case, the PoE doesn't depend on any particular definition of "good" or "bad." It works for any one you want to use.

The PoE attempts to show that the existence of evil disproves the idea of a benevolent God. If you can just pick something subjective, and call it evil, rather than defining what evil is then you've set up an argument that nothing can defeat, and is thus worthless in it's attempt to disprove anything. That's akin to having a scientific theory that is unfalsifiable.