Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[carpedm9587]

Well yes, you would need to believe that such a God would know better than you. That He has the right to define the limits of human sexuality. One more reason why this is, at bottom, a moral question.

It is not a question of "knowing," Seer. The most knowledgeable person in the universe is not necessarily the most moral. I am the final arbiter of my morality. I cannot abandon that. Even a decision to align my moral code to that of a supposed god is a moral decision that I make, and I remain responsible for my moral choices. Before I would even think to do such a thing, I would have to know/believe that this being is indeed an agent for moral good. When this agent tells me something that runs countter to my moral framework, I MUST question it. If I am not getting satisfactory answers, I must defer to my own moral code.

But be honest Carp, you really do believe that nature did it, or at least you lean that way.

First, it is not clear to me why you feel a need to encourage me to be honest. Do you think I am posting disengenously? Second, I do NOT know what gave rise to the universe, so I am fine with "I don't know." If you ask me what I suspect, I will tell you that I suspect it will turn out like everything else we have discovered this far: that it arises naturalistically. There is a vast difference between what I know and what I suspect.

The way things work? So in the end an intelligible, ordered, precise universe where consciousness exists makes more sense having been created by non-rational, non-conscious force than by a conscious, rational being? OK, have it your way.

I don't think it makes more OR less sense. I think either are possible. Consciousness and intelligence are examples of what have come to be known as "emergent properties," which are a function of complexity. How these properties emerge is still not know, but the association is clearly there. Why would I jump to "god did it" without knowing, or having a reason, for doing so?

Sill subjective. Now what?

Seer, the definition of words is always subjective. You're not saying anything.

Because I may be wrong, and I do not want to take that chance, after all I want you in heaven with us... Better to repent in this life.

Or better for each person to honstly follow the dictates of their conscience and live the best life they can. If your god does not see value in that, then I am not sure it is a god I would worship even if it WERE real.

That does not follow Carp, animals who have no concept of meaning still attempt to survive and care for their young. A man does not have to find meaning to do the same.

They do - but they have no consciousness and intelligence by which to evaluate meaning. So, unless you want to argue that human beings are acting on nothing other than "instinct," you still have the problem of inconsistency.

No, they can understand my words but until they humble themselves they will forever dismiss God. Their blindness is self induced, often around moral questions - they suppress the truth (Rom.1:18-22)...

Then you are not being consistent. They do not lack the capacity to understand, as per what you just wrote. They are choosing not to understand - that is not the same thing as lacking the capacity.

[Charles]

Sill subjective. Now what?

That question goes right back to you, seer. You believe god is a source of moral values, but it is all based on your personal faith and you cannot prove any of it, not even that god exists. Absolutely subjective. Now what?

[seer]

It is not a question of "knowing," Seer. The most knowledgeable person in the universe is not necessarily the most moral. I am the final arbiter of my morality. I cannot abandon that. Even a decision to align my moral code to that of a supposed god is a moral decision that I make, and I remain responsible for my moral choices. Before I would even think to do such a thing, I would have to know/believe that this being is indeed an agent for moral good. When this agent tells me something that runs countter to my moral framework, I MUST question it. If I am not getting satisfactory answers, I must defer to my own moral code.

Right, like I said - it is a moral question. Yet you agreed that if you were born at a different time (say 1930s Germany) you probably would have very different ethical views on a number of important issues. So why you see your culturally relative beliefs as a certain standard of moral good is beyond me.

First, it is not clear to me why you feel a need to encourage me to be honest. Do you think I am posting disengenously? Second, I do NOT know what gave rise to the universe, so I am fine with "I don't know." If you ask me what I suspect, I will tell you that I suspect it will turn out like everything else we have discovered this far: that it arises naturalistically. There is a vast difference between what I know and what I suspect.

But you are again you begging the question, why do you believe that anything we have discovered is natural?

I don't think it makes more OR less sense. I think either are possible. Consciousness and intelligence are examples of what have come to be known as "emergent properties," which are a function of complexity. How these properties emerge is still not know, but the association is clearly there. Why would I jump to "god did it" without knowing, or having a reason, for doing so?

So you would have to think that non-conscious forces created something completely opposite - consciousness, something completely foreign to their nature.

Seer, the definition of words is always subjective. You're not saying anything.

So why are you putting some much stock in your culturally relative understanding?

Or better for each person to honstly follow the dictates of their conscience and live the best life they can. If your god does not see value in that, then I am not sure it is a god I would worship even if it WERE real.

Just remember, my mostive here Carp is to see you and others, saved and to find everlasting life.

They do - but they have no consciousness and intelligence by which to evaluate meaning. So, unless you want to argue that human beings are acting on nothing other than "instinct," you still have the problem of inconsistency.

Or they just don't see how anything they do really makes any difference...

Then you are not being consistent. They do not lack the capacity to understand, as per what you just wrote. They are choosing not to understand - that is not the same thing as lacking the capacity.

No, I said they were blind I did not say where this blindness came from. In your case you claimed to have been a Christian in the past - which puts you in a much more perilous position: As Christ said, "to whom much is given much is required." The point is Carp, the more one rejects God the more blind or recalcitrant one becomes.

[carpedm9587]

Right, like I said - it is a moral question. Yet you agreed that if you were born at a different time (say 1930s Germany) you probably would have very different ethical views on a number of important issues. So why you see your culturally relative beliefs as a certain standard of moral good is beyond me.

I guess I must be missing something. You seem to ping back and forth between the existence of god and the existence of a universal/eternal/absolute moral code. Are you, perhaps, making reference to the moral argument for the existence of god?

But you are again you begging the question, why do you believe that anything we have discovered is natural?

I'm not sure what you are asking. I use "natural" to refer to things that function according to discovered, repeatable principles. The laws of physics. Biological principles, etc. I use "supernatural" to refer to things that do not operate according to such principles. The "supernatural," usually, implies a conscous force acting without the constraint of "natural law." In my experience, we eventually discover the "natural" principles that govern how the universe operates, and things attributed to the "supernatural" continually give way to naturalistic explanations.

I think I have been clear that the origin of things is not a settled question, so it is in the "don't know" bucket. My use of "natural" is not intended to imply origins.

So you would have to think that non-conscious forces created something completely opposite - consciousness, something completely foreign to their nature.

While "conscious" and "not conscious" are meanings that are opposite to one another, there is no reason why they are "opposed" in terms of existence. A fetilized egg has no consciousness, but as it develops, consciousness develops. Life and non-life are opposites, but all of the elements in a living thing are non-living elements that abound in nature. "Life" is merely a term we use to describe it when these same elements are combined in a particular way that has particular characteristics (self-replication, consumption of energy, growth, etc.).

So why are you putting some much stock in your culturally relative understanding?

Seer, this is another disconnect. You seem to object when I put stock in things like "words" and "definitions," but then you turn arounf and put stock in the exact same things. Can you tell me how your use of words is any more or less subjective than mine?

Just remember, my mostive here Carp is to see you and others, saved and to find everlasting life.

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I posted, but I assumed as much.

Or they just don't see how anything they do really makes any difference...

Then why not just lie down and die? Or kill oneself? Why bother doing ANYTHING if none of it has meaning/value/purpose?

No, I said they were blind I did not say where this blindness came from. In your case you claimed to have been a Christian in the past - which puts you in a much more perilous position: As Christ said, "to whom much is given much is required." The point is Carp, the more one rejects God the more blind or recalcitrant one becomes.

If a blindness of reasoning is self-induced, Seer, and a person can potentially reverse that blindness, than one cannot say that they lack the capacity to understand. They have the capacity. It is simply not realized. Presumably, conversation can change that. If it cannot, then you are wasting your time, and behaving inconsistently, IMO. You are also adopting a position that is amazingly arrogant, and defending it by resorting to "it's what my faith requires." If that is what your faith requires, so be it. But then act consistently and drop the conversation. And I suggest you not assume that others will be all that willing to engage with you, given the basic arrogance of the stance you are taking.

I will note that not all Christians I encounter hold this belief of yours. Clearly, there is disagreement on what people are and are not capable of.

[seer]

I guess I must be missing something. You seem to ping back and forth between the existence of god and the existence of a universal/eternal/absolute moral code. Are you, perhaps, making reference to the moral argument for the existence of god?

I like Kant's moral argument for the existence of God - if that what you mean. But that is not it - you seem so certain about your moral views, if something doesn't align with them you tend to reject them. But those views are culturally relative - why put so much weight on ethics that are in fact relative"

I'm not sure what you are asking. I use "natural" to refer to things that function according to discovered, repeatable principles. The laws of physics. Biological principles, etc. I use "supernatural" to refer to things that do not operate according to such principles. The "supernatural," usually, implies a conscous force acting without the constraint of "natural law." In my experience, we eventually discover the "natural" principles that govern how the universe operates, and things attributed to the "supernatural" continually give way to naturalistic explanations.

That is why I say these definition are arbitrary. Why aren't repeatable principles just as supernatural as Christ come back from the grave? If a rational God created the universe, the universe, as well as its laws, would also be supernatural.

While "conscious" and "not conscious" are meanings that are opposite to one another, there is no reason why they are "opposed" in terms of existence. A fetilized egg has no consciousness, but as it develops, consciousness develops. Life and non-life are opposites, but all of the elements in a living thing are non-living elements that abound in nature. "Life" is merely a term we use to describe it when these same elements are combined in a particular way that has particular characteristics (self-replication, consumption of energy, growth, etc.).

But the egg has the inherent ability to grown into a conscious creature. Not so for matter and energy, there is nothing inherent in their being that necessarily leads to self-awareness.

Then why not just lie down and die? Or kill oneself? Why bother doing ANYTHING if none of it has meaning/value/purpose?

Because like animals we have an instinctual drive to exist and pass on our genes. It does not men that we necessarily ascribe meaning to it.

If a blindness of reasoning is self-induced, Seer, and a person can potentially reverse that blindness, than one cannot say that they lack the capacity to understand. They have the capacity. It is simply not realized. Presumably, conversation can change that. If it cannot, then you are wasting your time, and behaving inconsistently, IMO. You are also adopting a position that is amazingly arrogant, and defending it by resorting to "it's what my faith requires." If that is what your faith requires, so be it. But then act consistently and drop the conversation. And I suggest you not assume that others will be all that willing to engage with you, given the basic arrogance of the stance you are taking.

There is a spiritual blindness to greater and lesser degrees. Remember that all came about when you asked for evidence for God, I gave you clear evidence. You rejected it, so I can only assume that you are blinded to this fact.

I will note that not all Christians I encounter hold this belief of yours. Clearly, there is disagreement on what people are and are not capable of.

Which Bible are they reading?

[carpedm9587]

I like Kant's moral argument for the existence of God - if that what you mean. But that is not it - you seem so certain about your moral views, if something doesn't align with them you tend to reject them. But those views are culturally relative - why put so much weight on ethics that are in fact relative"

I'm not certain what the bolded sentence means. Naturally, if someone makes a moral proposition I find unacceptable, I am going to reject it until someone makes a reasoned case why I should adopt it. "God says so" is not a reasoned case, IMO. As you well know, ALL moral frameworks are relative/subjective in my worldview. That does not mean we do not put weight on our moral framework. After all, we moralize specifically to distinguish between actions wwe "ought" and "ought not" do.

That is why I say these definition are arbitrary. Why aren't repeatable principles just as supernatural as Christ come back from the grave? If a rational God created the universe, the universe, as well as its laws, would also be supernatural.

The universe appears to operate according to repeatable and predictable principles. We call these principles "natural laws." If it can be shown that everything, including these principles, was "created" by a god, then, indeed, all of the universe has a supernatural source. That has not been shown to be true and I do not leap to the conclusion that it is. Even if it WERE shown to be true, we would probably still distinguish between the repeatable/predictable laws the universe operates under (so called "natural" laws) and instances when events happen that ar enot governed by these principles. In that distinction, "natural" vs. "supernatural" seems as good a terminology as any. If you have a preferred set of terms you would like to use, let me know what they are and, for the purposes of our discussion, I will try to use them.

But the egg has the inherent ability to grown into a conscious creature. Not so for matter and energy, there is nothing inherent in their being that necessarily leads to self-awareness.

Apparently the matter in the universe DOES have the inherent ability to become conscious, because there is not a single element in the human body that is not found elsewhere in nature in a non-conscious state. It is merely the combination as it is found in our bodies that results in "life" and 'consciousness." Unless you know of an element I don't know about that is unique to the human body and not present anywhere else?

Because like animals we have an instinctual drive to exist and pass on our genes. It does not men that we necessarily ascribe meaning to it.

Surviving to pass on our genes does not require going to movies, decorating our homes, celebrating a birthday, helping an elderly parent, donating to a charity, working beyond what is needed to "survive" so we can retire comfortably, etc. There is much the human person does, even the nihilist and the Christian who thinks only "absolute/universal/eternal" things have meaning, that the two treat as if they were meaningful - despite their being subjective and relative. The behaviour is not consistent with the belief.

There is a spiritual blindness to greater and lesser degrees. Remember that all came about when you asked for evidence for God, I gave you clear evidence. You rejected it, so I can only assume that you are blinded to this fact.

No - you did not give me "clear evidence." You labeled all of existence "creation" and then said "see - a creator!" That is not evidence - that is begging the question. As I have noted multiple times, I am indeed in awe of the universe - but I do not confuse "awe" with "evidence for god."

Which Bible are they reading?

Presumably the same one you are, Seer. There are many sects that use the same bible and disagree on what it means. That is the core problem with basing beliefs on a single book, or (more accurately), a small collection of books.

[seer]

I'm not certain what the bolded sentence means. Naturally, if someone makes a moral proposition I find unacceptable, I am going to reject it until someone makes a reasoned case why I should adopt it. "God says so" is not a reasoned case, IMO. As you well know, ALL moral frameworks are relative/subjective in my worldview. That does not mean we do not put weight on our moral framework. After all, we moralize specifically to distinguish between actions wwe "ought" and "ought not" do.

That is the point; what you find reasonable is also relative. I just do get why one would put so much stock is such culturally relative opinions.

The universe appears to operate according to repeatable and predictable principles. We call these principles "natural laws." If it can be shown that everything, including these principles, was "created" by a god, then, indeed, all of the universe has a supernatural source. That has not been shown to be true and I do not leap to the conclusion that it is. Even if it WERE shown to be true, we would probably still distinguish between the repeatable/predictable laws the universe operates under (so called "natural" laws) and instances when events happen that ar enot governed by these principles. In that distinction, "natural" vs. "supernatural" seems as good a terminology as any. If you have a preferred set of terms you would like to use, let me know what they are and, for the purposes of our discussion, I will try to use them.

But since you made clear that you don't know if God or natural forces created this universe once can not then call this cosmos, or its laws, naturalistic with any certainty. You can use the language, but keep in mind that it is arbitrary.

Apparently the matter in the universe DOES have the inherent ability to become conscious, because there is not a single element in the human body that is not found elsewhere in nature in a non-conscious state. It is merely the combination as it is found in our bodies that results in "life" and 'consciousness." Unless you know of an element I don't know about that is unique to the human body and not present anywhere else?

But you are assuming the conclusion. We have consciousness therefore there must be a natural explanation.

Surviving to pass on our genes does not require going to movies, decorating our homes, celebrating a birthday, helping an elderly parent, donating to a charity, working beyond what is needed to "survive" so we can retire comfortably, etc. There is much the human person does, even the nihilist and the Christian who thinks only "absolute/universal/eternal" things have meaning, that the two treat as if they were meaningful - despite their being subjective and relative. The behaviour is not consistent with the belief.

So our nihilist lives in a cave without TV. I doubt our ancient ancestors had any real concept of meaning even if they did decorate their caves.

No - you did not give me "clear evidence." You labeled all of existence "creation" and then said "see - a creator!" That is not evidence - that is begging the question. As I have noted multiple times, I am indeed in awe of the universe - but I do not confuse "awe" with "evidence for god."

Of course it is clear evidence. The fact that you reject it, just makes my point...

Presumably the same one you are, Seer. There are many sects that use the same bible and disagree on what it means. That is the core problem with basing beliefs on a single book, or (more accurately), a small collection of books.

Well since you were a Christian I would be happy to debate the various texts surrounding these issues.

[carpedm9587]

That is the point; what you find reasonable is also relative. I just do get why one would put so much stock is such culturally relative opinions.

Becuase it is what we have to work with, Seer. Remember my worldview - atheist. I do not share your belief that there is a universal/absolute/eternal framework, nor do I share you view that this framework, even if it existed, would be bind on me. As you yourself noted in the OP, morality is subjective.

But since you made clear that you don't know if God or natural forces created this universe once can not then call this cosmos, or its laws, naturalistic with any certainty. You can use the language, but keep in mind that it is arbitrary.

It's not arbitrary in the least. It is precise. In the universe, things operate accorrding to predictable, repeatable principles. I don't care what you call them - they exist. Call them "furdlingers" if you wish. The claim that there are things in the universe (or out of it) not bound by repeatable principles or "laws" is simply not shown to be true, unless you want to talk about the randomness we find at quantum levels.

But you are assuming the conclusion. We have consciousness therefore there must be a natural explanation.

I said nothing of the kind. You appear to be assuming that consciousness can only arise from consciousness - but you have not made that case. I am observing that beibngs with consciousness are made of the same stuff as objects without it. Ergo, it appears to be perfectly possible that consciousness is nothing more than a characteristic that "pops out" when matter reaches sufficient levels of complexity. I am not assuming, as you do, that it has to be from a conscious source. We do not know what causes "emergent properties" to emerge. It's in the bucket of "don't know."

So our nihilist lives in a cave without TV. I doubt our ancient ancestors had any real concept of meaning even if they did decorate their caves.

The point is, Seer, that if the nihilist (and you) are going to be consistent about "meaning," we should see very different behavior. Both are saying one thing, and doing another.

Of course it is clear evidence. The fact that you reject it, just makes my point...

It actually doesn't. Perhaps you can see this if you try to answer this question: what, specifically, is it about the universe that makes it "evidence for a god?" How do you go from "the universe is" to "god is?"

Well since you were a Christian I would be happy to debate the various texts surrounding these issues.

That is not my cup of tea, Seer. As you noted, language is subjective. Meaning changes. Language is subject to interpretation. We are talking about 2000-3500 year old texts, none of which we have originals for, all of which have been translated to produce the book you are reading. In that context, "debate" becomes more or less one person's interpretation against anothers, and it is largely pointless, IMO. We don't even start at the same starting place. I do not read ANY of these books as an accurate historical text (with a few exceptions in the OT), but rather as a text that reflects the religious beliefs of the communities that wrote them.

Like I said, my answer to "how was Jesus was so successful" is probably not one you would like.

[Tassman]

I like Kant's moral argument for the existence of God - if that what you mean. But that is not it - you seem so certain about your moral views, if something doesn't align with them you tend to reject them. But those views are culturally relative - why put so much weight on ethics that are in fact relative"

ALL

[seer]

Becuase it is what we have to work with, Seer. Remember my worldview - atheist. I do not share your belief that there is a universal/absolute/eternal framework, nor do I share you view that this framework, even if it existed, would be bind on me. As you yourself noted in the OP, morality is subjective.

Right, but that does not explain why you put so much stock in a relative moral opinion, especially in light of the fact that on many issues your view could have been very different if you were born in a different time and place.

It's not arbitrary in the least. It is precise. In the universe, things operate accorrding to predictable, repeatable principles. I don't care what you call them - they exist. Call them "furdlingers" if you wish. The claim that there are things in the universe (or out of it) not bound by repeatable principles or "laws" is simply not shown to be true, unless you want to talk about the randomness we find at quantum levels.

You are missing my point - why aren't predictable, repeatable principles themselves supernatural?

I said nothing of the kind. You appear to be assuming that consciousness can only arise from consciousness - but you have not made that case. I am observing that beibngs with consciousness are made of the same stuff as objects without it. Ergo, it appears to be perfectly possible that consciousness is nothing more than a characteristic that "pops out" when matter reaches sufficient levels of complexity. I am not assuming, as you do, that it has to be from a conscious source. We do not know what causes "emergent properties" to emerge. It's in the bucket of "don't know."

But that too is an assumption. There is nothing in the laws of nature, complex or not, that suggests consciousness. You are asserting that because consciousness exist that it must have a natural explanation. That it magically popped into being.

The point is, Seer, that if the nihilist (and you) are going to be consistent about "meaning," we should see very different behavior. Both are saying one thing, and doing another.

Again it doesn't follow, you don't need an abstract understanding of meaning to put one foot in front of the other. I doubt that cavemen did, and we doubt that animals do.

It actually doesn't. Perhaps you can see this if you try to answer this question: what, specifically, is it about the universe that makes it "evidence for a god?" How do you go from "the universe is" to "god is?"

What I'm saying that men should intuitively know their Creator, if they don't, according to my beliefs, sin is affecting their reasoning powers. Again: "No gods no masters.."

[carpedm9587]

Right, but that does not explain why you put so much stock in a relative moral opinion, especially in light of the fact that on many issues your view could have been very different if you were born in a different time and place.

If you don't understand my response, Seer, I'm not sure how to help you. I think I've been fairly clear throughout this thread how subjective morality works individually and culturally, why we use it, and how it helps us make decisions. I am reasonably sure that you have just gone back to "but it's not universal/eternal/absolute," which I have shown multiple times to be a tautology at best, an objection from incredulity/outrage/ridicule at worst. It's still not an argument.

You are missing my point - why aren't predictable, repeatable principles themselves supernatural?

No, I am not missing your point, but you are apparently missing mine. My position on origins is "I don't know." I am not making an assumption about it. I use the word "natural law" because that is what we generally call the principles on which the universe operates which are repeatable and predictable (e.g., gravitation, atomic theory, evolution, physics laws, mathematical laws, etc.). If the word "natural" is confusing you into thinking I am making a statement about origins, I have invited you to propose an alternate word/phrase that is more neutral for you. I even proposed one (facetiously). You are incorrectly assuming that my use of "natural law" means I am making the statement "they arise naturally." If you prefer, call them POWTUO (principles on which the universe operates).

But that too is an assumption. There is nothing in the laws of nature, complex or not, that suggests consciousness. You are asserting that because consciousness exist that it must have a natural explanation. That it magically popped into being.

Read what I said carefully, Seer, because you seem predisposed to argue against positions I have not taken. Perhaps that is because you are used to atheists who make definitive statements about things for which we currently do not have adequate proof/evidence. The one making assumptions here appears to be you; you seem to assume that consciousness can only arise from consciousness. I am saying that this claim is unsubstantiated. I have noted that "conscious beings" are comprised of the same basic elements we see in unconscious objects. Ergo, it is at least possible that the potentiality for consciousness exists in these elements. We also know that complexity gives rise to emergent properties that transcend the underlying matter/items. We see this in a variety of venues. Ergo, it remains possible that consciousness is simply one of these emergent properties. There is some confirmation of this from nature, in that we see consciousness as a continuum that becomes more evident as the complexity of the organism increases. And we also see a parallel in "life" itself. Again, the same matter that is "inert" in many part of nature, shows the characteristics we call "life" when a certain kind of organization is achieved. So, in a nutshell, I am showing your claim that consciousness must raise from consciousness has been shown to be an unsubstantiated assumption. That means the statement "consciousness must rise from consciousness" has not been shown to be true. Making that statement is not the same as claiming that I have proven that consciousness arises from non-consciousness. I am merely noting that there is evidence that this is possible.

Again it doesn't follow, you don't need an abstract understanding of meaning to put one foot in front of the other. I doubt that cavemen did, and we doubt that animals do.

If I were talking about walking, you would be making a decent argument. I have been clear that I am not talking about activity related to survival, but all of the other superflous "meaningless" things we do. That is inconsistent for the nihilist, because none of these tasks are necessary and the nihilist believes it is all meaningless. It is an inconsistency for "true meaning" is only found in the absolute/universal/eternal, because these other things are all subjective and temporal, but they are being treated as if they have "real meaning." You are (again) making an argument against a position I have not put forward, and ignored the position I actually DID put forward.

What I'm saying that men should intuitively know their Creator, if they don't, according to my beliefs, sin is affecting their reasoning powers. Again: "No gods no masters.."

I have no idea what "no gods no masters" means, so continually repeating it is not helping you. And your argument is basically, "I have said this must be so, Q.E.D." Unfortunately, that is not how it works. I also noticed you ignored my challenge. I'll repeat it: what, specifically, is it about the universe that makes it "evidence for a god?" How, specifically, do you go from "the universe is" to "god is?"

I think, in trying to answer that question, you'll come to the core of the problem with your position.

[seer]

If you don't understand my response, Seer, I'm not sure how to help you. I think I've been fairly clear throughout this thread how subjective morality works individually and culturally, why we use it, and how it helps us make decisions. I am reasonably sure that you have just gone back to "but it's not universal/eternal/absolute," which I have shown multiple times to be a tautology at best, an objection from incredulity/outrage/ridicule at worst. It's still not an argument.

No, I'm just wondering why you find your moral views compelling and even worth defending given their relative basis. I mean really Carp, you do defend your ethical views to the hilt, even though there are merely the result of cultural conditioning. Like your claim that justice was out of "balance." A really strange claim for a moral relativist. Like you secretly believe that there is an objective standard for justice.

No, I am not missing your point, but you are apparently missing mine. My position on origins is "I don't know." I am not making an assumption about it. I use the word "natural law" because that is what we generally call the principles on which the universe operates which are repeatable and predictable (e.g., gravitation, atomic theory, evolution, physics laws, mathematical laws, etc.). If the word "natural" is confusing you into thinking I am making a statement about origins, I have invited you to propose an alternate word/phrase that is more neutral for you. I even proposed one (facetiously). You are incorrectly assuming that my use of "natural law" means I am making the statement "they arise naturally." If you prefer, call them POWTUO (principles on which the universe operates).

Right and my point was that these designations are arbitrary.

Read what I said carefully, Seer, because you seem predisposed to argue against positions I have not taken. Perhaps that is because you are used to atheists who make definitive statements about things for which we currently do not have adequate proof/evidence. The one making assumptions here appears to be you; you seem to assume that consciousness can only arise from consciousness. I am saying that this claim is unsubstantiated. I have noted that "conscious beings" are comprised of the same basic elements we see in unconscious objects. Ergo, it is at least possible that the potentiality for consciousness exists in these elements. We also know that complexity gives rise to emergent properties that transcend the underlying matter/items. We see this in a variety of venues. Ergo, it remains possible that consciousness is simply one of these emergent properties. There is some confirmation of this from nature, in that we see consciousness as a continuum that becomes more evident as the complexity of the organism increases. And we also see a parallel in "life" itself. Again, the same matter that is "inert" in many part of nature, shows the characteristics we call "life" when a certain kind of organization is achieved. So, in a nutshell, I am showing your claim that consciousness must raise from consciousness has been shown to be an unsubstantiated assumption. That means the statement "consciousness must rise from consciousness" has not been shown to be true. Making that statement is not the same as claiming that I have proven that consciousness arises from non-consciousness. I am merely noting that there is evidence that this is possible.

No I'm saying that, at least to me, consciousness rising from consciousness makes much more sense, just as an intelligible universe makes more sense coming from a rational Mind than from non-rational forces.

If I were talking about walking, you would be making a decent argument. I have been clear that I am not talking about activity related to survival, but all of the other superflous "meaningless" things we do. That is inconsistent for the nihilist, because none of these tasks are necessary and the nihilist believes it is all meaningless. It is an inconsistency for "true meaning" is only found in the absolute/universal/eternal, because these other things are all subjective and temporal, but they are being treated as if they have "real meaning." You are (again) making an argument against a position I have not put forward, and ignored the position I actually DID put forward.

OK, I disagree for the reason I stated.

I have no idea what "no gods no masters" means, so continually repeating it is not helping you. And your argument is basically, "I have said this must be so, Q.E.D." Unfortunately, that is not how it works. I also noticed you ignored my challenge. I'll repeat it: what, specifically, is it about the universe that makes it "evidence for a god?" How, specifically, do you go from "the universe is" to "god is?"

If there are no gods you get to define your own mortal life, right and wrong and purpose, and you don't have to humble yourself or worship said being. And this was my point, you are blind to the fact that the universe proves a Creator, just as I could not prove the color read to a man born completely color blind. And your moral recalcitrance does not change that fact.

[carpedm9587]

No, I'm just wondering why you find your moral views compelling and even worth defending given their relative basis. I mean really Carp, you do defend your ethical views to the hilt, even though there are merely the result of cultural conditioning. Like your claim that justice was out of "balance." A really strange claim for a moral relativist. Like you secretly believe that there is an objective standard for justice.

Because they are my moral standards, Seer. And "merely" is another argument from incredulity/outrage/ridicule. My moral standards arise from a combination of family, social/cultural, national, global influences as well as applied reasoning. There is nothing "merely" about it, except your continued attempt to paint them as "lesser" because they are not universal/eternal/absolute.

And no, I don't believe there is an objective (I thought you avoided that word? ) standard. As I have noted multiple times, we all judge our actions as well as the actions of others against our own moral framework.

Right and my point was that these designations are arbitrary.

So it is an arbitrary designation to note that the universe appears to operate according to describeable, repeatable, predictable principles? I am definitely not following you. Are you suggesting that every aspect of the universe is arbitrary and principles like the laws of mathematics, gravitation, atomic theory, etc. are also "arbitary?" So scientists are not dicovering principles that are real, they're just making things up? I am truly not following this line of reasoning you are using.

No I'm saying that, at least to me, consciousness rising from consciousness makes much more sense, just as an intelligible universe makes more sense coming from a rational Mind than from non-rational forces.

It may "make more sense" to you, Seer, but I would not consider that a very compelling argument. Someone looking at a butterfly without much close inspection might reason that it "makes more sense" that it arises from an egg as is, rather than it comes from a caterpillar. People used to think it "made more sense" that the sun revolved around the earth. Sure looks like it from my window. There are many things that "appear to make more sense" when considered one way that, upon inspection, it became clear that something else was going on. You claim that consciousness arising from consciousness "makes more sense," but you cannot escape the reality that this "conscious" being comprises a collection of "unconscious" elements - all of which are found in nature in unconscious forms. There is nothing unique about me excpt the complixty of how these elements are combined. You cannot escape the observed reality that consciousness/reasoning/thought show every sign of being linked to physical complexity. The evidence of that occurs throughout nature. So I don't see any reason for assuming that your belief actually "makes more sense." The same goes for the "intelligible universe" concept.

I frankly don't think I am the one making assumptions here, Seer. You appear to be doing it right and left.

OK, I disagree for the reason I stated.

To be honest, I have not actually seen a reason. I have seen multiple attempts to craft my argument as something I did not say (that has been a pattern for the last few posts), and then attempting to refute it.

If there are no gods you get to define your own mortal life, right and wrong and purpose, and you don't have to humble yourself or worship said being. And this was my point, you are blind to the fact that the universe proves a Creator, just as I could not prove the color read to a man born completely color blind. And your moral recalcitrance does not change that fact.

So you think my beliefs are based in a desire to be free of a need to worship/humble myself? Seer, you have a very poor impression of people who do not believe as you do. And I can assure you, there is significant humility in recognizing myself as a "small, universally inconsequential being on a backwater planet." I think that was your quote, right? In fact, one might suggest there is a good degree more humility there than there is in the belief that the cosmic/universal/absolute god of all the universe is so caught up with each human person that he sacrified his own son to save them from their evilness. I actually enjoyed feeling I was such a focus of this god and so loved by him. It was (and is) one sense that I often regret leaving, because there is no counterpart in atheism. Christianity is an odd sort of humility.

And, I notice that you have again asserted that the universe proves a creator, that I am blind and cannot understand (but you continue to converse with me...oddly enough), and you STILL have not responded to the challenge. So I'll repeat it (again): what, specifically, is it about the universe that makes it "evidence for a god?" How, specifically, do you go from "the universe is" to "god is?"

Why are you ignoring this question? Have you seen where it will take you...?

[seer]

Because they are my moral standards, Seer. And "merely" is another argument from incredulity/outrage/ridicule. My moral standards arise from a combination of family, social/cultural, national, global influences as well as applied reasoning. There is nothing "merely" about it, except your continued attempt to paint them as "lesser" because they are not universal/eternal/absolute.

And no, I don't believe there is an objective (I thought you avoided that word? ) standard. As I have noted multiple times, we all judge our actions as well as the actions of others against our own moral framework.

Ok, I still find your defense of relative ethics strange.

So it is an arbitrary designation to note that the universe appears to operate according to describeable, repeatable, predictable principles? I am definitely not following you. Are you suggesting that every aspect of the universe is arbitrary and principles like the laws of mathematics, gravitation, atomic theory, etc. are also "arbitary?" So scientists are not dicovering principles that are real, they're just making things up? I am truly not following this line of reasoning you are using.

No, I'm saying calling these repeatable, predictable principles "natural" is arbitrary.

It may "make more sense" to you, Seer, but I would not consider that a very compelling argument. Someone looking at a butterfly without much close inspection might reason that it "makes more sense" that it arises from an egg as is, rather than it comes from a caterpillar. People used to think it "made more sense" that the sun revolved around the earth. Sure looks like it from my window. There are many things that "appear to make more sense" when considered one way that, upon inspection, it became clear that something else was going on. You claim that consciousness arising from consciousness "makes more sense," but you cannot escape the reality that this "conscious" being comprises a collection of "unconscious" elements - all of which are found in nature in unconscious forms. There is nothing unique about me excpt the complixty of how these elements are combined. You cannot escape the observed reality that consciousness/reasoning/thought show every sign of being linked to physical complexity. The evidence of that occurs throughout nature. So I don't see any reason for assuming that your belief actually "makes more sense." The same goes for the "intelligible universe" concept.

I frankly don't think I am the one making assumptions here, Seer. You appear to be doing it right and left.

Oh no, there are real questions, read Sam Harris, a good card carrying atheist, this is not as black and white as you suggest: https://samharris.org/the-mystery-of-consciousness.

Never mind the hard problem of consciousness, by another good card carrying atheist, Chalmers: https://blog.ted.com/the-hard-proble...rs-at-ted2014/

So you think my beliefs are based in a desire to be free of a need to worship/humble myself? Seer, you have a very poor impression of people who do not believe as you do. And I can assure you, there is significant humility in recognizing myself as a "small, universally inconsequential being on a backwater planet." I think that was your quote, right? In fact, one might suggest there is a good degree more humility there than there is in the belief that the cosmic/universal/absolute god of all the universe is so caught up with each human person that he sacrified his own son to save them from their evilness. I actually enjoyed feeling I was such a focus of this god and so loved by him. It was (and is) one sense that I often regret leaving, because there is no counterpart in atheism. Christianity is an odd sort of humility.

Have it your way...

And, I notice that you have again asserted that the universe proves a creator, that I am blind and cannot understand (but you continue to converse with me...oddly enough), and you STILL have not responded to the challenge. So I'll repeat it (again): what, specifically, is it about the universe that makes it "evidence for a god?" How, specifically, do you go from "the universe is" to "god is?"

Really, how could I possibly demonstrate the color red to a man born color blind? In essence that is what you are asking me to do, I will not be able to break through your presuppositions or your rebellion. And since you already admitted that you don't know why/how the universe exists you can not dismiss God as the originator, but you will.

[carpedm9587]

Ok, I still find your defense of relative ethics strange.

I'm not surprised, but you still have not made a case for why it doesn't work, beyond "it's not absolute/eternal/universal" (which is a tautology - that is the meaning of subjective), or arguments from incredulity (like this statement)/outrage/ridicule (e.g., using words like "merely," etc.).

No, I'm saying calling these repeatable, predictable principles "natural" is arbitrary.

And I have said several times, if you don't like the word "natural," tell me what word you would like me to use and I will use it.

Oh no, there are real questions, read Sam Harris, a good card carrying atheist, this is not as black and white as you suggest: https://samharris.org/the-mystery-of-consciousness.

Never mind the hard problem of consciousness, by another good card carrying atheist, Chalmers: https://blog.ted.com/the-hard-proble...rs-at-ted2014/

I don't think I said there were no questions. As I noted, we do not know what consciousness arises from. Two things we DO know is a) conscious beings are not different in constitution from the rest of "unconscious" nature. (i.e., there is no element in our body that is unique to conscious beings), and b) consciousness is clearly linked to complexity (i.e., we see greater degrees of consciousness in more complex organizisms, and a lesser degree of consciousness is less complex organizisms. Likewise, if we compromise the integrity of the hman mind, consciousness/reason are impacted). That does not mean we KNOW definitively how consciousness arises or what causes it. It merely provides us with some evidence that the claim "consciousness must arise from consciousness" is not necessarily true. Proving that your claim may be false does not provie it false, nor does it prove the opposite to be true. It leaves us with "we don't know." It measn your statement is an assumption you cannot substantiate.

Have it your way...

Well, until someone can show me the flaw in that reasoning,

Really, how could I possibly demonstrate the color red to a man born color blind? In essence that is what you are asking me to do, I will not be able to break through your presuppositions or your rebellion. And since you already admitted that you don't know why/how the universe exists you can not dismiss God as the originator, but you will.

You do love to go back to that "safe place," don't you, Seer. I remember how often I had to do so as well, until I finally came to the realization that, if I could not explain my views and why I had them to someone, then perhaps I needed to more closely question those views. That process led me to where I am now.

Seer, you are entitled to have whatever beliefs/position you wish. But you cannot truly expect to make a claim like, "all of creation/universe proves that God is," then be completely unable to explain how you go from "the universe is" to "god is," and expect it to be very compelling to anyone else. It certainly is not to me. And constant retreat into "you can't understand" and "you are in rebellion" says more about you and your beliefs than it does about me and mine. I look for evidence on which I can base beliefs. If someone can make a case, I will look at it. If they can't...

I have to admit that I am a bit surprised by this turn in our discussion. You are not a stupid man by any measure. You are very articulate, and you appear to be fairly well versed in many areas. How you can find this approach you have taken intellectually satisfying is beyond me. Meanwhile, I come back to what I have said before: if I am so blind - why do you keep talking to me?

As for the last statement, you are close to correct. I have concluded that there is no god, for reasons I have shared (I think). As a consequence, I do not believe the universe arises from one. I can hold that position and the "I don't know" about the origins of the universe without tension. I do not believe "god did not create the universe" because that view is impossible and proven false. I beleive "god did not create the universe" because I have come to the conclusion that the idea of gods is a human construct which does not have an independent reality. Ergo, if god is a human construct, it follows that god is not the source of the universe. That does not mean I know what the cause of the universe actually is.