The Moral Argument for God's Existence

[Tassman]

We have a fellow up here in the Northeast who refuses to sell home heating propane to any one who supported Trump. He is discriminating. Is he violating The Civil Rights Acts?

http://www.pressherald.com/2016/12/1...-trump-voters/

I would have thought so, tell it to the judge.

First, of all there is no incremental self-awareness, you either are self aware or you are not.

There are degrees of self-awareness among various creatures, just as there are degrees of intelligence.

Second, you are still begging the question - you are just asserting that "nature did it."

Nope! Unlike your god-did-it scenario (which is

You are not telling us why or how non-conscious forces could suddenly become self-aware.

appear...nothing ever does in nature. Natural selection occurs via incremental changes.

Especially in light of the fact that self-awareness is not even necessary for survival.

The man is just daft, that is why I have him on ignore.

Unsurprising given your long history of denial!

[seer]

I would have thought so, tell it to the judge.

Well it isn't because it does not violate the categories of the Civil Rights Act any more than discriminating on the basis of sexual behavior does.

There are degrees of self-awareness among various creatures, just as there are degrees of intelligence.

You could have degrees of awareness, of your surroundings for instance, but not self awareness, you either are self aware or you are not.

Nope! Unlike your god-did-it scenario (which is

Then tell us, when where and how did the forces of nature go from non-consciousness to consciousness?

appear...nothing ever does in nature. Natural selection occurs via incremental changes.

Self-awareness can not be incremental - you either are self aware or you are not. What does a "little" self-awareness look like?


Really, prove it. Even most primates are not self-aware, and they survive just fine.

http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.c...awareness.html

[shunyadragon]

Do you consider bacteria to be self-aware?

Your stretching the meaning here of the many factors that are necessary for survival in evolution to the simplistic ridiculous dripping with sarcasm. There are different traits of species that are necessary for survival at different levels of complexity or species to meet the needs of adaptation to the environment and effectively reproduce. For level bacteria it is simply the basic survival to successfully reproduce.

In the higher intelligent mammals like some primates, pacaderms, and sea mammals self-awareness is a property of consciousness, and is a factor of survival and for nurturing future generations. The mirror test is an interesting example of a self-recognition test that indicates self awareness in some higher mammals.

[Tassman]

Well it isn't because it does not violate the categories of the Civil Rights Act any more than discriminating on the basis of sexual behavior does.

This is not what several courts have ruled regarding discrimination against homosexuals.

You could have degrees of awareness, of your surroundings for instance, but not self awareness, you either are self aware or you are not.

Nonsense! There are degrees of self-awareness, in terms of a growing understanding of who you are in relation to other people and loved ones, developing personal values, beliefs, preferences and tendencies etc.

Then tell us, when where and how did the forces of nature go from non-consciousness to consciousness?

Already dealt with numerous times...via natural selection! Tell us when where and how god-did-it.

Self-awareness can not be incremental - you either are self aware or you are not. What does a "little" self-awareness look like?

Really, prove it. Even most primates are not self-aware, and they survive just fine.

Yes they survive but, as with increased intelligence, self-awareness provides an evolutionary advantage.

[shunyadragon]

You could have degrees of awareness, of your surroundings for instance, but not self awareness, you either are self aware or you are not.

Then tell us, when where and how did the forces of nature go from non-consciousness to consciousness?

Self-awareness can not be incremental - you either are self aware or you are not. What does a "little" self-awareness look like?

Really, prove it. Even most primates are not self-aware, and they survive just fine.

http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.c...awareness.html

Your own source disproves your assertion. Your source indicates that there are incremental degrees of self-awareness among higher intelligent mammal species. Many, but not all primates, show degrees of self-awareness as do other higher animals. Similar patterns of age related self-awareness have been demonstrated in primates as with humans.

[JimL]

Do you consider bacteria to be self-aware?

I believe if you don't cherrypick his words you'd recognize that shunya is talking about self aware beings themselves for whom self awareness is a necessary factor for the prolonging of their survival, not bacteria. Anything that lives, conscious or unconscious, obviously survives, until it doesn't.

[guacamole]

Shoot down from the git go.

There are in reality many moral values that do not apply to all people in all places at all times.

A lot of people here are using some loosey-goosey terms here. What exactly do you mean by "moral values" here. There are certainly moral values that apply in the vast majority of circumstances.

fwiw,
guacamole

[guacamole]

Denying that there is no universal, objective moral value leads to absurd conclusions. Suppose that there is a certain culture that thinks that racism is a virtue. If there are no universal, objective moral values then someone outside of that culture could legitimately criticize that culture for being morally wrong. To say that certain cultures are morally wrong for believing certain things implies that there is some standard that transcends cultures.

This is where moral objectivists put the lie to the absurdities of the relativists and moral nihilists. There is literally no point to decrying something wrong unless the universe bears an objective morality--otherwise declarations of rightness and wrongness are simply explanations of opinion, with the same level of dignity and a value as a preference statement about flavor of ice cream. You're spot on.

fwiw,
guacamole

[JimL]

This is where moral objectivists put the lie to the absurdities of the relativists and moral nihilists. There is literally no point to decrying something wrong unless the universe bears an objective morality--otherwise declarations of rightness and wrongness are simply explanations of opinion, with the same level of dignity and a value as a preference statement about flavor of ice cream. You're spot on.

fwiw,
guacamole

I don't think so, morals are those laws that are either in the best interests of human beings in general and society as a whole, or they are not in the best interests of human beings and human society. Our subjective opinions on that can differ, but in the end there is only one objective truth in the matter whether we subjectively agree or not.

[guacamole]

I don't think so, morals are those laws that are either in the best interests of human beings in general and society as a whole, or they are not in the best interests of human beings and human society. Our subjective opinions on that can differ, but in the end there is only one objective truth in the matter whether we subjectively agree or not.

That all may be true or not. But the point I was making was that without some sort of Moral Realism, there's no *actual* point to moral critique. It's simply an expression of preference. Hence to call someone evil, bad, wrong, or corrupt is simply tantamount to saying, "I don't like what that person is doing," and nothing more. It is the bleating of sheep. Only Moral Nihilists are consistent on this, imo. Relativists and subjectivists are simply self-deluding that their morality is anything more than preference.

The fact that we behave as if it is *more* than preference is telling, imo. If nothing else, people *want* morality to be unambiguous--unless of course they're trying to justify their own immorality.

fwiw,
guacamole

[JimL]

That all may be true or not. But the point I was making was that without some sort of Moral Realism, there's no *actual* point to moral critique. It's simply an expression of preference. Hence to call someone evil, bad, wrong, or corrupt is simply tantamount to saying, "I don't like what that person is doing," and nothing more. It is the bleating of sheep. Only Moral Nihilists are consistent on this, imo. Relativists and subjectivists are simply self-deluding that their morality is anything more than preference.

The fact that we behave as if it is *more* than preference is telling, imo. If nothing else, people *want* morality to be unambiguous--unless of course they're trying to justify their own immorality.

fwiw,
guacamole

Not sure what you mean by moral realism. Do you mean to argue that unless the obedience to, or transgression of morals, are objectively authoritative and ultimately punishable or rewarded by that objective authority that they aren't real or truisms in and of themselves? If they are ultimately in societies best interests, and therefore ultimately in your own personal best interests, then they are not simply subjective preference.

[Tassman]

This is where moral objectivists put the lie to the absurdities of the relativists and moral nihilists. There is literally no point to decrying something wrong unless the universe bears an objective morality--otherwise declarations of rightness and wrongness are simply explanations of opinion, with the same level of dignity and a value as a preference statement about flavor of ice cream. You're spot on.

They are an expression of community values, which are based upon the best interests of the community. We are genetically predisposed, as a social species, to live in groups and adhere to the values of the group.

[guacamole]

Not sure what you mean by moral realism. Do you mean to argue that unless the obedience to, or transgression of morals, are objectively authoritative and ultimately punishable or rewarded by that objective authority that they aren't real or truisms in and of themselves?

Moral Realism (or Moral Objectivism) is the meta-ethical view (see the section on Ethics) that there exist such things as moral facts and moral values, and that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them.

from here.

If they are ultimately in societies best interests, and therefore ultimately in your own personal best interests, then they are not simply subjective preference.

I don't think your "therefore" is warranted. It is possible for a person's own best interests to be in conflict with society's best interests. In any case, this appeal to "best interest" seems like a back door objective moral standard.

fwiw,
guacamole

[guacamole]

They are an expression of community values, which are based upon the best interests of the community. We are genetically predisposed, as a social species, to live in groups and adhere to the values of the group.

That doesn't contradict anything I said. An "expression of community values" to be nothing more than a popular opinion without an objective baseline. But you and JimL both appeal to "community values" or "society's best interest." If we propose that one ought to abide by the general mores of "community values" or "society's best interests," we're giving an ethical summary statement that is, presumably, always opperative and this neither subjective nor relative. The out-working of it might be different from place to place, but the standard is still the same.

fwiw,
guacamole

[Tassman]

That doesn't contradict anything I said. An "expression of community values" to be nothing more than a popular opinion without an objective baseline. But you and JimL both appeal to "community values" or "society's best interest." If we propose that one ought to abide by the general mores of "community values" or "society's best interests," we're giving an ethical summary statement that is, presumably, always opperative and this neither subjective nor relative. The out-working of it might be different from place to place, but the standard is still the same.