Atheism And Moral Progress

[carpedm9587]

I think Tass is simply asking what kind of evidence you have, seer. That you've had personal experiences is not evidence to anyone else but you, that you observed a levitating bush in the woods isn't evidence to anyone else but you, and if you wrote a book and claimed it's contents were revealed to you by god, that would not be evidence to anyone else but you. As far as science goes, there is no scientific evidence of a god.

I think there is a difference between "why do you believe as you do?" and "why should I believe as you do?" The former can be answered if the person with the belief shares the evidence that convinces them. The latter would benefit from knowing what kind of evidence the requester would find compelling so that time is not wasted on evidence that has no hope of convincing. I think Tass is asking the former, but Seer is responding as if he asked the latter.

However, only Tass and Seer can verify/refute that observation.

[seer]

I think Tass is simply asking what kind of evidence you have, seer. That you've had personal experiences is not evidence to anyone else but you, that you observed a levitating bush in the woods isn't evidence to anyone else but you, and if you wrote a book and claimed it's contents were revealed to you by god, that would not be evidence to anyone else but you. As far as science goes, there is no scientific evidence of a god.

First, even if it is only evidence to me it doesn't make any less factual. And why should anyone's skepticism even be a consideration? And why would there be scientific evidence for God? He is an immaterial Being (at least not material as we understand it). Which is what I suspect Tass is asking for.

[JimL]

I think there is a difference between "why do you believe as you do?" and "why should I believe as you do?" The former can be answered if the person with the belief shares the evidence that convinces them. The latter would benefit from knowing what kind of evidence the requester would find compelling so that time is not wasted on evidence that has no hope of convincing. I think Tass is asking the former, but Seer is responding as if he asked the latter.

However, only Tass and Seer can verify/refute that observation.

Actually I believe Tass is asking the latter since other than ones "say so" there is no evidence of a god. I think Tass is simply making the point that seer has no evidence other than the fantasies of mans imagination.

[JimL]

First, even if it is only evidence to me it doesn't make any less factual.

Doesn't make it any more factual either. Besides, things that go bump in the night are not evidence of ghosts, even if you believe in ghosts.

And why should anyone's skepticism even be a consideration?

It shouldn't necessarily be a consideration to you, but it still not evidence to anyone else, unless you take ones word alone of the extraordinary to be actual evidence of the extraordinary. I don't.

And why would there be scientific evidence for God? He is an immaterial Being (at least not material as we understand it).

How do you know that?

Which is what I suspect Tass is asking for.

Yep, you believe in an objective moral standard the source of which is god, so he's asking for evidence of the source. But you neither have evidence of the source nor of the objective nature of morals. It's simply an unsubstantiated belief passed on to you from ancient times.

[seer]

Doesn't make it any more factual either. Besides, things that go bump in the night are not evidence of ghosts, even if you believe in ghosts.

I'm not speaking of things that go bump in the night. And whether you believe my personal experience is factual makes no difference Jim.

It shouldn't necessarily be a consideration to you, but it still not evidence to anyone else, unless you take ones word alone of the extraordinary to be actual evidence of the extraordinary. I don't.

And that makes a difference to me how?

How do you know that?

Revelation i.e. the Bible.

Yep, you believe in an objective moral standard the source of which is god, so he's asking for evidence of the source. But you neither have evidence of the source nor of the objective nature of morals. It's simply an unsubstantiated belief passed on to you from ancient times.

What does ancient times have to do with it? Old doesn't mean untrue. And if I'm not correct you are left with relative morality.

[carpedm9587]

Actually I believe Tass is asking the latter since other than ones "say so" there is no evidence of a god. I think Tass is simply making the point that seer has no evidence other than the fantasies of mans imagination.

Certainly possible.

[carpedm9587]

Doesn't make it any more factual either. Besides, things that go bump in the night are not evidence of ghosts, even if you believe in ghosts.

It shouldn't necessarily be a consideration to you, but it still not evidence to anyone else, unless you take ones word alone of the extraordinary to be actual evidence of the extraordinary. I don't.

How do you know that?

Yep, you believe in an objective moral standard the source of which is god, so he's asking for evidence of the source. But you neither have evidence of the source nor of the objective nature of morals. It's simply an unsubstantiated belief passed on to you from ancient times.

I think, sometimes, people use "evidence" when they mean "proof." "Things that go bump in the night" can indeed be evidence in support of the statement "there are ghosts." If those "things" cannot be otherwise explained, and "ghosts did it" is a possible explanation, then it is evidence. It may not be great evidence. It may not be adequate evidence to prove the truth of the claim "there are ghosts." Evidence, however, is not proof. Evidence is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." Proof requires adequate evidence to establish that the claim is actually true.

[Tassman]

Right and what kind of evidence are you looking for? Scientific evidence? Historical evidence? Personal experience?

Just give us what you’ve got, seer. Presumably there is some reason why you ground your moral system in a deity.

[Charles]

Just give us what you’ve got, seer. Presumably there is some reason why you ground your moral system in a deity.

We have been around this again and again. Seer has not got evidence.

He seems to think that "God" solves the problem of the foundation of ethics. He seems to forget or ignore that even if that is true it does not prove that his God, or even any god exists.

Interestingly, any imaginitive god could be found to solve the problem on the foundation of ethics for those who already agree with the moral ideas of their imaginitave god and this is why some people think they are justified in all sorts of morally absurd actions.

Don't ask them the very simple question as to why God is right, or why he/she decides to take certain actions and not others unless you take particular interest in circular arguments.

[seer]

Don't ask them the very simple question as to why God is right, or why he/she decides to take certain actions and not others unless you take particular interest in circular arguments.

And what did you have Charles besides circular moral arguments? After all you are the moral realist who could not mount a coherent argument for your position.

[seer]

Just give us what you’ve got, seer. Presumably there is some reason why you ground your moral system in a deity.

I have been through this before with you Tass, there are good arguments for the existence of God, but they are not evidence in the scientific sense, and of course you will reject the following, but for those who are more open minded I will link these again:

Twenty Arguments God's Existence

The Argument from Change
The Argument from Efficient Causality
The Argument from Time and Contingency
The Argument from Degrees of Perfection
The Design Argument
The Kalam Argument
The Argument from Contingency
The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole
The Argument from Miracles
The Argument from Consciousness
The Argument from Truth
The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God
The Ontological Argument
The Moral Argument
The Argument from Conscience
The Argument from Desire
The Argument from Aesthetic Experience
The Argument from Religious Experience
The Common Consent Argument
Pascal's Wager

https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-m...-existence.htm

[Charles]

And what did you have Charles besides circular moral arguments? After all you are the moral realist who could not mount a coherent argument for your position.

Where did I make a circular argument? I don't remember making one. Feel free to show me exactly where.

And was I right about the other statements I made or was it just convenient to ignore them?

[seer]

Where did I make a circular argument? I don't remember making one. Feel free to show me exactly where.

And was I right about the other statements I made or was it just convenient to ignore them?

Are you kidding Charles, I'm not going to wade through all those pages. But hey, do it here and now - make a non circular argument for why, let's say, rape is wrong. Why it is an objective wrong.

We have been around this again and again. Seer has not got evidence.

Define evidence. And I just linked 20 arguments for God.

He seems to think that "God" solves the problem of the foundation of ethics. He seems to forget or ignore that even if that is true it does not prove that his God, or even any god exists.

But God does offer the only source I know of for universal moral truths, if you have something better please present it.

Interestingly, any imaginitive god could be found to solve the problem on the foundation of ethics for those who already agree with the moral ideas of their imaginitave god and this is why some people think they are justified in all sorts of morally absurd actions.

Who defines what is morally absurd in your morally relative world? Beg the question much?

[Charles]

Are you kidding Charles, I'm not going to wade through all those pages. But hey, do it here and now - make a non circular argument for why, let's say, rape is wrong. Why it is an objective wrong.

So, you have just made a statement you cannot support. Interesting. Where is the circular argument? Where exactly, seer? I don't believe in simplifications on moral topics and I have already given you lots on lessons on ethics that you now claim to be circular without any evidence.

Define evidence. And I just linked 20 arguments for God.

You have pointed to a list, yes. I can point to 25 arguments somewhere on the web to support atheism. Am I the winner if I do so?

But God does offer the only source I know of for universal moral truths, if you have something better please present it.

As I have pointed out, the very idea that God is the source for universal moral truths undermines his reason to do x instead of why. Thus there is no point in being thankful because anything God does would seemingly be good based on your ideas. I know the circular argument about "God's nature" but you are not seriously going along that line, are you?

Who defines what is morally absurd in your morally relative world? Beg the question much?

It seems you are the one who lives in a world in which moral truth is relative to what God might think or not.... But you agree that it follows from your theory that anything is good as long as God claims so? I hope you give some consideration to the possible consequences of your view, seer.

[seer]

So, you have just made a statement you cannot support. Interesting. Where is the circular argument? Where exactly, seer? I don't believe in simplifications on moral topics and I have already given you lots on lessons on ethics that you now claim to be circular without any evidence.

Charles, you can clear it all up right now, since I'm going by memory: make a non circular argument for why, let's say, rape is wrong. Why it is an objective wrong.

You have pointed to a list, yes. I can point to 25 arguments somewhere on the web to support atheism. Am I the winner if I do so?

Many of the listed arguments are classic arguments, and many we have used here on TWeb. You don't find them convincing, we do, and so what? Again please define what you mean by evidence, when you said we had none.

As I have pointed out, the very idea that God is the source for universal moral truths undermines his reason to do x instead of why. Thus there is no point in being thankful because anything God does would seemingly be good based on your ideas. I know the circular argument about "God's nature" but you are not seriously going along that line, are you?

Of course I am, let's see you define good in a non-circular way. I will be waiting.

It seems you are the one who lives in a world in which moral truth is relative to what God might think or not.... But you agree that it follows from your theory that anything is good as long as God claims so? I hope you give some consideration to the possible consequences of your view, seer.

Well since God's moral nature is immutable there is certainty, universality and of course His nature defines what is good. Do you have something better, universal and certain?