Total Posts:75|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Deism vs theism

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
For the sake of argument, how would anyone prove that God intervenes in reality as opposed to one that doesn't?

Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 10:57:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
For the sake of argument, how would anyone prove that God intervenes in reality as opposed to one that doesn't?

Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

Now all you have to do is prove objective morality exists.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 10:58:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
For the sake of argument, how would anyone prove that God intervenes in reality as opposed to one that doesn't?

Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

Is deism a belief in a god that specifically does not intervene, or just a belief in a god, whether that god without assumption about whether a god intervenes or not? Just curious.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 10:59:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 10:57:54 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
For the sake of argument, how would anyone prove that God intervenes in reality as opposed to one that doesn't?

Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

Now all you have to do is prove objective morality exists.

I think he would also have to show that the source of objective morality is supernatural being how also created the universe. He has much more work to do than just proving objective morality exists.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 11:02:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 10:59:55 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:57:54 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
For the sake of argument, how would anyone prove that God intervenes in reality as opposed to one that doesn't?

Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

Now all you have to do is prove objective morality exists.

I think he would also have to show that the source of objective morality is supernatural being how also created the universe. He has much more work to do than just proving objective morality exists.

Is there a contradiction in 'polydeism' as well? Can that be a thing? Multiple Gods that contributed to creation, but just don't care how it goes? Wouldn't that make morality Objectively subjective amongst the deific group?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 11:04:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

How do you distinguish between a universe with objective morality and a universe with no objective morality?
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 11:07:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 11:02:23 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:59:55 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:57:54 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
For the sake of argument, how would anyone prove that God intervenes in reality as opposed to one that doesn't?

Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

Now all you have to do is prove objective morality exists.

I think he would also have to show that the source of objective morality is supernatural being how also created the universe. He has much more work to do than just proving objective morality exists.

Is there a contradiction in 'polydeism' as well? Can that be a thing? Multiple Gods that contributed to creation, but just don't care how it goes? Wouldn't that make morality Objectively subjective amongst the deific group?

Only if more than one god contributed to morality, or had a sense of morality at all. One hypothetical possibility is one dispassionate god who created the world and one god who governs it (and is the sole definer of morality). There are several other possibilities too, including objective morality in a completely secular sense (which may be precluded if we define things such that increase in happiness for living beings is not objectively better than decrease in happiness for living beings, for example).
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 11:08:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 11:04:15 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

How do you distinguish between a universe with objective morality and a universe with no objective morality?

Pretend you didn't ask the question and attempt to dehumanize you =)

Before I get mobbed by theists, that was a joke.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 11:10:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 11:07:18 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:02:23 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:59:55 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:57:54 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
For the sake of argument, how would anyone prove that God intervenes in reality as opposed to one that doesn't?

Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

Now all you have to do is prove objective morality exists.

I think he would also have to show that the source of objective morality is supernatural being how also created the universe. He has much more work to do than just proving objective morality exists.

Is there a contradiction in 'polydeism' as well? Can that be a thing? Multiple Gods that contributed to creation, but just don't care how it goes? Wouldn't that make morality Objectively subjective amongst the deific group?

Only if more than one god contributed to morality, or had a sense of morality at all. One hypothetical possibility is one dispassionate god who created the world and one god who governs it (and is the sole definer of morality). There are several other possibilities too, including objective morality in a completely secular sense (which may be precluded if we define things such that increase in happiness for living beings is not objectively better than decrease in happiness for living beings, for example).

"Only if more than one god contributed to morality, or had a sense of morality at all. One hypothetical possibility is one dispassionate god who created the world and one god who governs it (and is the sole definer of morality). " - --- this sounds astoundingly accurate if one were to look at the world, and how it functions. Personal observation, of course, but its like mom barging in after the flour and sugar is tossed all over the kitchen wondering aloud how to clean it all up. The creation God goes to His bedroom and sulks for eternity while Moral Mom God tries to put everything in creation on rails.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 11:11:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 11:10:10 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:07:18 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:02:23 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:59:55 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:57:54 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
For the sake of argument, how would anyone prove that God intervenes in reality as opposed to one that doesn't?

Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

Now all you have to do is prove objective morality exists.

I think he would also have to show that the source of objective morality is supernatural being how also created the universe. He has much more work to do than just proving objective morality exists.

Is there a contradiction in 'polydeism' as well? Can that be a thing? Multiple Gods that contributed to creation, but just don't care how it goes? Wouldn't that make morality Objectively subjective amongst the deific group?

Only if more than one god contributed to morality, or had a sense of morality at all. One hypothetical possibility is one dispassionate god who created the world and one god who governs it (and is the sole definer of morality). There are several other possibilities too, including objective morality in a completely secular sense (which may be precluded if we define things such that increase in happiness for living beings is not objectively better than decrease in happiness for living beings, for example).

"Only if more than one god contributed to morality, or had a sense of morality at all. One hypothetical possibility is one dispassionate god who created the world and one god who governs it (and is the sole definer of morality). " - --- this sounds astoundingly accurate if one were to look at the world, and how it functions. Personal observation, of course, but its like mom barging in after the flour and sugar is tossed all over the kitchen wondering aloud how to clean it all up. The creation God goes to His bedroom and sulks for eternity while Moral Mom God tries to put everything in creation on rails.

Lol, I didn't think of that. Thanks.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 11:19:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 10:57:54 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
For the sake of argument, how would anyone prove that God intervenes in reality as opposed to one that doesn't?

Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

Now all you have to do is prove objective morality exists.

So you accept that if objective morality exists theism must be true over deism?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 11:20:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 10:58:38 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
For the sake of argument, how would anyone prove that God intervenes in reality as opposed to one that doesn't?

Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

Is deism a belief in a god that specifically does not intervene, or just a belief in a god, whether that god without assumption about whether a god intervenes or not? Just curious.

Deism is specifically a God that doesn't intervene.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 11:21:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 11:20:16 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:58:38 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
For the sake of argument, how would anyone prove that God intervenes in reality as opposed to one that doesn't?

Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

Is deism a belief in a god that specifically does not intervene, or just a belief in a god, whether that god without assumption about whether a god intervenes or not? Just curious.

Deism is specifically a God that doesn't intervene.

I see. Is there a word for someone who just believes in a god (read: creator) but assumes little to no properties about that god?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 11:26:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 11:19:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:57:54 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
For the sake of argument, how would anyone prove that God intervenes in reality as opposed to one that doesn't?

Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

Now all you have to do is prove objective morality exists.

So you accept that if objective morality exists theism must be true over deism?

Sure, though its rather complicated.
IF objective morality exists, theism would be true over deism, assuming of course that particular God in the theistic sense was the creator of said objective morality. And that It's morality is uncontested, unchanging, etc etc. That would make that particular God concept not very Godlike.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 11:27:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 11:04:15 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

How do you distinguish between a universe with objective morality and a universe with no objective morality?

No uniformity amongst justice systems across every known society for the punishment and severity of murder, rape, theft, etc. accordingly. No awareness or concept of moral obligations. No understanding of degrees of immoral or moral behavior. Good and bad are dynamic (lack of human rights and the return of slavery is just as likely to become commonplace again in 1st world countries.) Jail systems would be under constant flush since any kind of newly elected political power with different views determines what is good and bad for that society.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 11:38:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 11:27:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:04:15 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

How do you distinguish between a universe with objective morality and a universe with no objective morality?

No uniformity amongst justice systems across every known society for the punishment and severity of murder, rape, theft, etc. accordingly. No awareness or concept of moral obligations. No understanding of degrees of immoral or moral behavior. Good and bad are dynamic (lack of human rights and the return of slavery is just as likely to become commonplace again in 1st world countries.) Jail systems would be under constant flush since any kind of newly elected political power with different views determines what is good and bad for that society.

It seems to me that it could be equally well explained by a sense of morality that is common to all/most humans, which does not require a god.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 11:40:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
For the sake of argument, how would anyone prove that God intervenes in reality as opposed to one that doesn't?

We'd have to find a moral basis for physical causality to be routinely interrupted, Ben. Either reliable, surprising and relevant information leaking into our existence that we couldn't get some other way, or consequences changing -- and in each case, favouring some moral outcome. And you'd want to see the big moral outcomes being favoured by significant interventions -- and it would have to be a morality we could infer, even if it weren't exactly our own.

That wouldn't prove the god of Abraham were intervening, but would support the intervention of some moral agency with paranormal abilities.

The problem is, some claims about the god of Abraham are very hard to prove. Among the tough ones are uniqueness (hard to prove about anything, but especially about anything paranormal), creation (that the universe was created is more credible if it routinely has paranormal interventions, but that one nominated being did create it is contestable), omniscience (sounds good, but hard to define), omnipotence (ditto), moral supremacy (great power and even great affection do not imply great morality) and creation specifically for man (a lot of fancy explaining required there.)

I think it would be more credible that such a being, were it found, did not substantiate being the god of Abraham, but rather a being who had intervened, possibly in the Bronze Age Levant, and possibly in ways misreported.

I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

I think objective morality is the wrong term, since even nontheists like me can identify morality objectively using simple observation.

I think you mean ultimate moral authority, Ben, and to claim that you first have to define it in terms that make sense to people. The biggest problem is that in Bronze Age autocracies the power to enforce morality was moral authority. But in democracies tyranny is not morality, so you have to first work out whether you believe ultimate tyranny is ultimate morality, or whether in the end, morality must be assessed by people -- and then, because morality is at best emergent among people (as we learn more, we can produce better morality), you have to work out whether 'ultimate' really means 'can never be surpassed' (and how you'd ever possibly know that) or simply 'far wiser, kinder and more knowledgable than we humans can manage.'

I hope that may help.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 1:04:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 11:27:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:04:15 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

How do you distinguish between a universe with objective morality and a universe with no objective morality?

No uniformity amongst justice systems across every known society for the punishment and severity of murder, rape, theft, etc. accordingly. No awareness or concept of moral obligations. No understanding of degrees of immoral or moral behavior. Good and bad are dynamic (lack of human rights and the return of slavery is just as likely to become commonplace again in 1st world countries.) Jail systems would be under constant flush since any kind of newly elected political power with different views determines what is good and bad for that society.

It sounds as though you advocate objective morality because our societies are not as morally dynamic as you believe an alternative should be.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 1:32:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 11:07:18 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:02:23 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:59:55 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:57:54 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
For the sake of argument, how would anyone prove that God intervenes in reality as opposed to one that doesn't?

Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

Now all you have to do is prove objective morality exists.

I think he would also have to show that the source of objective morality is supernatural being how also created the universe. He has much more work to do than just proving objective morality exists.

Is there a contradiction in 'polydeism' as well? Can that be a thing? Multiple Gods that contributed to creation, but just don't care how it goes? Wouldn't that make morality Objectively subjective amongst the deific group?

Only if more than one god contributed to morality, or had a sense of morality at all. One hypothetical possibility is one dispassionate god who created the world and one god who governs it (and is the sole definer of morality). There are several other possibilities too, including objective morality in a completely secular sense (which may be precluded if we define things such that increase in happiness for living beings is not objectively better than decrease in happiness for living beings, for example).

This sounds similar to Gnosticism/Paulicianism/Catharism.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 1:36:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 1:32:18 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:07:18 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:02:23 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:59:55 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:57:54 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
For the sake of argument, how would anyone prove that God intervenes in reality as opposed to one that doesn't?

Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

Now all you have to do is prove objective morality exists.

I think he would also have to show that the source of objective morality is supernatural being how also created the universe. He has much more work to do than just proving objective morality exists.

Is there a contradiction in 'polydeism' as well? Can that be a thing? Multiple Gods that contributed to creation, but just don't care how it goes? Wouldn't that make morality Objectively subjective amongst the deific group?

Only if more than one god contributed to morality, or had a sense of morality at all. One hypothetical possibility is one dispassionate god who created the world and one god who governs it (and is the sole definer of morality). There are several other possibilities too, including objective morality in a completely secular sense (which may be precluded if we define things such that increase in happiness for living beings is not objectively better than decrease in happiness for living beings, for example).

This sounds similar to Gnosticism/Paulicianism/Catharism.

Maybe. I don't know what those things are (more to look up). I just meant to say that the existence of objective morality did not necessarily lead to only one remaining hypothesis. All sorts of hypothetical possibilities allow for objective morals.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 1:44:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 1:36:24 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/21/2015 1:32:18 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:07:18 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:02:23 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:59:55 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:57:54 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
For the sake of argument, how would anyone prove that God intervenes in reality as opposed to one that doesn't?

Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

Now all you have to do is prove objective morality exists.

I think he would also have to show that the source of objective morality is supernatural being how also created the universe. He has much more work to do than just proving objective morality exists.

Is there a contradiction in 'polydeism' as well? Can that be a thing? Multiple Gods that contributed to creation, but just don't care how it goes? Wouldn't that make morality Objectively subjective amongst the deific group?

Only if more than one god contributed to morality, or had a sense of morality at all. One hypothetical possibility is one dispassionate god who created the world and one god who governs it (and is the sole definer of morality). There are several other possibilities too, including objective morality in a completely secular sense (which may be precluded if we define things such that increase in happiness for living beings is not objectively better than decrease in happiness for living beings, for example).

This sounds similar to Gnosticism/Paulicianism/Catharism.

Maybe. I don't know what those things are (more to look up). I just meant to say that the existence of objective morality did not necessarily lead to only one remaining hypothesis. All sorts of hypothetical possibilities allow for objective morals.

A neat dualistic belief system. The god who created the physical world is malevolent or uninterested, while the god who created the spiritual world is good and loves men. Life is basically a struggle to escape from one world to another, and some associate the 'bad' god with the God of the Old Testament, and the 'good' one with the God of the New Testament. The Church Fathers suppressed Gnosticism as a rule, and the Byzantines persecuted the Paulicians because of their Adoptionist, Gnostic, and Manichean leanings. The Cathars survived and settled in south France, in the areas surrounding Beziers and Carcassonne. They were strict pacifists, and the Catholics didn't like them very much, so they killed them and burnt a lot of their writings during the intensely bloody Albigensian Crusade and the following Inquisitions.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 10:43:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 11:27:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:04:15 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

How do you distinguish between a universe with objective morality and a universe with no objective morality?

No uniformity amongst justice systems across every known society for the punishment and severity of murder, rape, theft, etc. accordingly. No awareness or concept of moral obligations. No understanding of degrees of immoral or moral behavior.

Do you believe it is wrong to kill someone?

Do you believe it is wrong to kill someone... in war?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 11:24:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 10:43:09 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:27:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:04:15 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

How do you distinguish between a universe with objective morality and a universe with no objective morality?

No uniformity amongst justice systems across every known society for the punishment and severity of murder, rape, theft, etc. accordingly. No awareness or concept of moral obligations. No understanding of degrees of immoral or moral behavior.

Do you believe it is wrong to kill someone?

Do you believe it is wrong to kill someone... in war?

It's not definitively wrong to kill another person. It depends on the circumstance. Having objective moral duties doesn't mean that these duties are always right or always wrong regardless of the circumstances. Only a moral absolutist would make that claim.

I'll answer your questions at face value as they were asked. It's wrong to kill somebody unless otherwise justified. It's not wrong to kill someone during war unless it's otherwise unjustified.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 11:51:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 11:24:04 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/21/2015 10:43:09 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:27:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:04:15 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

How do you distinguish between a universe with objective morality and a universe with no objective morality?

No uniformity amongst justice systems across every known society for the punishment and severity of murder, rape, theft, etc. accordingly. No awareness or concept of moral obligations. No understanding of degrees of immoral or moral behavior.

Do you believe it is wrong to kill someone?

Do you believe it is wrong to kill someone... in war?

It's not definitively wrong to kill another person. It depends on the circumstance. Having objective moral duties doesn't mean that these duties are always right or always wrong regardless of the circumstances. Only a moral absolutist would make that claim.

I'll answer your questions at face value as they were asked. It's wrong to kill somebody unless otherwise justified. It's not wrong to kill someone during war unless it's otherwise unjustified.

I assumed you would agree for the most part that the answer to the first question is mostly yes, and for the second is mostly no, but I am more interested in the why. Why does the answer change?
PGA
Posts: 4,038
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 1:17:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 10:57:54 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
For the sake of argument, how would anyone prove that God intervenes in reality as opposed to one that doesn't?

Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

Now all you have to do is prove objective morality exists.

If you can't recognize it then let me take you down the back alley and shoot you when no one is watching! I don't even have to prove it to you since with you anything is possible, right? There is no objectivity here, right? You can't say it is most definitely wrong because that would be showing your bias towards objective morality, wouldn't it?

The point is that you can think as though there is nothing objective, but what you think and how you live contradict what you believe. You probably do care when someone cuts in a long line in front of you because you do feel that certain things are most definitely wrong.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,038
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 1:24:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 11:38:16 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:27:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:04:15 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

How do you distinguish between a universe with objective morality and a universe with no objective morality?

No uniformity amongst justice systems across every known society for the punishment and severity of murder, rape, theft, etc. accordingly. No awareness or concept of moral obligations. No understanding of degrees of immoral or moral behavior. Good and bad are dynamic (lack of human rights and the return of slavery is just as likely to become commonplace again in 1st world countries.) Jail systems would be under constant flush since any kind of newly elected political power with different views determines what is good and bad for that society.

It seems to me that it could be equally well explained by a sense of morality that is common to all/most humans, which does not require a god.

What makes that just? Because there is common agreement does not necessitate something is just. Hitler's Germany was not a just society.

Peter
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 1:56:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 11:51:43 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/21/2015 11:24:04 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/21/2015 10:43:09 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:27:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:04:15 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

How do you distinguish between a universe with objective morality and a universe with no objective morality?

No uniformity amongst justice systems across every known society for the punishment and severity of murder, rape, theft, etc. accordingly. No awareness or concept of moral obligations. No understanding of degrees of immoral or moral behavior.

Do you believe it is wrong to kill someone?

Do you believe it is wrong to kill someone... in war?

It's not definitively wrong to kill another person. It depends on the circumstance. Having objective moral duties doesn't mean that these duties are always right or always wrong regardless of the circumstances. Only a moral absolutist would make that claim.

I'll answer your questions at face value as they were asked. It's wrong to kill somebody unless otherwise justified. It's not wrong to kill someone during war unless it's otherwise unjustified.

I assumed you would agree for the most part that the answer to the first question is mostly yes, and for the second is mostly no, but I am more interested in the why. Why does the answer change?

Isn't it interesting though? Before explaining myself you had intuitively supposed my answers. How? Did you have the same idea as I did as to what constitutes "'moral" and "immoral" in a war setting vs. any setting in general? If so, doesn't that strike you as odd if we don't share the same moral standards?

Objective morality deals in fundamentals. "Killing an innocent is wrong" is absolute and binding. Different circumstances will denote the meaning of "innocent". Making a blanket statement of "killing is wrong" is true unless otherwise justified because it's wrong to kill an innocent person. Generally, in a war situation, killing is agreed upon by both parties before going to war. This no longer makes either party "innocent" and killing is justified.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 2:00:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I do not agree because I still have not seen any argument that shows that objective morality requires a god.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 2:24:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 1:56:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/21/2015 11:51:43 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/21/2015 11:24:04 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/21/2015 10:43:09 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:27:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/20/2015 11:04:15 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

How do you distinguish between a universe with objective morality and a universe with no objective morality?

No uniformity amongst justice systems across every known society for the punishment and severity of murder, rape, theft, etc. accordingly. No awareness or concept of moral obligations. No understanding of degrees of immoral or moral behavior.

Do you believe it is wrong to kill someone?

Do you believe it is wrong to kill someone... in war?

It's not definitively wrong to kill another person. It depends on the circumstance. Having objective moral duties doesn't mean that these duties are always right or always wrong regardless of the circumstances. Only a moral absolutist would make that claim.

I'll answer your questions at face value as they were asked. It's wrong to kill somebody unless otherwise justified. It's not wrong to kill someone during war unless it's otherwise unjustified.

I assumed you would agree for the most part that the answer to the first question is mostly yes, and for the second is mostly no, but I am more interested in the why. Why does the answer change?

Isn't it interesting though? Before explaining myself you had intuitively supposed my answers. How? Did you have the same idea as I did as to what constitutes "'moral" and "immoral" in a war setting vs. any setting in general? If so, doesn't that strike you as odd if we don't share the same moral standards?

Not at all. Keep this very discussion going and you might find out why...

Objective morality deals in fundamentals. "Killing an innocent is wrong" is absolute and binding. Different circumstances will denote the meaning of "innocent". Making a blanket statement of "killing is wrong" is true unless otherwise justified because it's wrong to kill an innocent person. Generally, in a war situation, killing is agreed upon by both parties before going to war. This no longer makes either party "innocent" and killing is justified.

Ah, so wait a minute... Are you suggesting that agreement is fundamental factor in morality?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 2:46:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 1:17:50 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:57:54 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:55:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
For the sake of argument, how would anyone prove that God intervenes in reality as opposed to one that doesn't?

Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

I believe that if objective morality is true, this would show that theism is correct over deism. Do you think so?

Now all you have to do is prove objective morality exists.

If you can't recognize it then let me take you down the back alley and shoot you when no one is watching! I don't even have to prove it to you since with you anything is possible, right? There is no objectivity here, right? You can't say it is most definitely wrong because that would be showing your bias towards objective morality, wouldn't it?

The point is that you can think as though there is nothing objective, but what you think and how you live contradict what you believe. You probably do care when someone cuts in a long line in front of you because you do feel that certain things are most definitely wrong.

Peter

You know that morality encompasses more than just 'murder', right? Having points that people agree on doesn't make something objective, it just makes it subjectively agreed too.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...