If God does not exist, then everything is permissible

[James_S_Saint]

Can we clear up the differences in the use of the word permissible? Things can be relatively permissible (everything is in fact! - we can no more prescribe morality to human matter than plants, dirt, or rocks). That’s not to say that things are socially-permissible (people that kill or rape or steal are pretty much punished in every culture). So what’s the point of appeal for the believer? There is none.

Is something “permissible” if it causes your death?

If you cannot decide upon a foundation for “permissible”, then anything is permissible.

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

You complain about propensity being a weak argument for morality, but it depends what you’re driving at. If you’re asking why our morality is what it is, it’s a great explanation. If you’re asking why we have morality, you’re only going to get descriptions of how it has developed [See below for parallel].

Is it begging the question to ask where human beings came from?

Not to start an unrelated debate, but yes, if the question is phrased as such: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” It just is; we can describe it, we can add our own arbitrary prescriptions, but to ask further is like asking why left is not right.

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

Is something “permissible” if it causes your death?

If you cannot decide upon a foundation for “permissible”, then anything is permissible.

You got it. Like a plant drinking up the rain; like a shark eating fish - we don’t prescribe morality, nor can we. We tend to prescribe morality as it appeals to harmoneous human interactions (something that benefits the whole species), but in the real strict sense, we can’t say “this conglomerate of atoms ought’to’ve done otherwise!”

 

[tonyrey]

You complain about propensity being a weak argument for morality, but it depends what you’re driving at. If you’re asking why our morality is what it is, it’s a great explanation. If you’re asking why we have morality, you’re only going to get descriptions of how it has developed [See below for parallel].

Why one propensity rather than another? Pedophiles and serial killers have a propensity…

Asking about morality in a material world is like asking whether 'tis right for a star to collapse. Just because we prescribe ‘ought’ from an arbitrary position neither implies that we must imagine an objective source for that position, nor does it imply that we can’t still be accountable to one another.

Try telling that to a criminal! You are presupposing a material world is all there is…

Not to start an unrelated debate, but yes, if the question is phrased as such: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” It just is; we can describe it, we can add our own arbitrary prescriptions, but to ask further is like asking why left is not right.

In other words you prefer to take refuge in obscurity…

 

[tonyrey]

Can we clear up the differences in the use of the word permissible? Things can be relatively permissible (everything is in fact! - we can no more prescribe morality to human matter than plants, dirt, or rocks). That’s not to say that things are socially-permissible (people that kill or rape or steal are pretty much punished in every culture). So what’s the point of appeal for the believer? There is none.

The point is that if God does not exist everything is permissible for the individual. Many people get away with murder, rape and robbery but in your scheme of things there is no reason why they shouldn’t - apart from fear of the possible consequences…

 

[hatsoff]

The point is that if God does not exist everything is permissible for the individual. Many people get away with murder, rape and robbery but in your scheme of things there is no reason why they shouldn’t - apart from fear of the possible consequences…

Are you kidding? How about empathy and social conformity? How about the fact that most people are not so disconnected from their own emotions that they don’t realize such abusive actions would likely lead them to feel just horrible?

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

Why one propensity rather than another? Pedophiles and serial killers have a propensity…

I should have been clearer; I’m refering, of course, to the collective human propensity towards civility (with a number of outliers). It’s a “for the most part” kind of deal. But don’t get wrapped up in it - even if this explanation is complete hogwash, adding entities still complicates matters.

Try telling that to a criminal!

It would be a hard fact for the criminal, to be sure; there are many hard facts, you’ll find.

You are presupposing a material world is all there is…

Well we can observe the material world. Shall I pile on presuppositions then, if you’re so against them, by the addition of a creator?

In other words you prefer to take refuge in obscurity…

I prefer to remain silent or reserved on issues that have no definitive answers, yes. Better (and necessarily) obscurity (if that’s what you’ll call it) than blatent falsehood - that’s what I always say!

 

[Ender]

I should have been clearer; I’m refering, of course, to the collective human propensity towards civility (with a number of outliers).

A “propensity towards civility” seems to be culturally based in that different cultures have very different conceptions of what behavior is or is not acceptable. If different cultures have different values, is there any basis on which to claim that culture A is morally superior to culture B?

Ender

 

[James_S_Saint]

Are you kidding? How about empathy and social conformity? How about the fact that most people are not so disconnected from their own emotions that they don’t realize such abusive actions would likely lead them to feel just horrible?

Are you kidding??

Throughout history, people have demonstrated that they quite willingly lose all empathy and effort for social conformity with only a moderate emotional urge to do so. If they didn’t, humans would be rational creatures (Hitler, Stalin, Domer, Obama… all come to mind)

 

[tonyrey]

Why one propensity rather than another? Pedophiles and serial killers have a propensity…

Very convenient! You can always choose to opt out when it suits you. BTW The propensity for civility does not rule out rape or murder - provided you do it civilly, of course, after inviting your victim to a spiked drink.

But don’t get wrapped up in it - even if this explanation is complete hogwash, adding entities still complicates matters.

I’m glad you admit it’s hogwash!
As for adding entities how do you account for rationality, reason, truth and love in your materialist scheme of things?

It would be a hard fact for the criminal, to be sure; there are many hard facts, you’ll find.

But not harder for the victim? The point is that your “explanation” would not convince anyone…

You are presupposing a material world is all there is…

Well we can observe the material world. Shall I pile on presuppositions then, if you’re so against them, by the addition of a creator?

I’m not against presuppositions, only inconsistency and inadequate explanations…

I other words you prefer to take refuge in obscurity…

I prefer to remain silent or reserved on issues that have no definitive answers, yes.
Better (and necessarily) obscurity (if that’s what you’ll call it) than blatant falsehood - that’s what I always say!

That’s a very easy way out! Any question you can’t answer you define as having no definitive answer. It makes you invulnerable… What in fact do you regard as blatantly false?

 

[AntiTheist]

How do you distinguish them ? How do you know you are one of the privileged few? Reason and evidence. Minds that know truth can demonstrate that their thoughts are in accord with reality.

It doesn’t instruct anyone or necessitate but it permits people to do anything they choose and are capable of…

 

[James_S_Saint]

Reason and evidence. Minds that know truth can demonstrate that their thoughts are in accord with reality.

Emmm… to whom can they demonstrate?

If such demonstration was so easy, would we have such arguing going on? If such demonstration isn’t so easy, then by what means does the reasoning man know that he has even demonstrated accurately to himself?

Don’t get me wrong. I am all in favor of more reasoning and I also know how to know (with or without Scriptures). but do you?

 

[AntiTheist]

Emmm… to whom can they demonstrate?

To any rational person.

If such demonstration was so easy, would we have such arguing going on?

Sure, because plenty of people don’t argue based on evidence or reason – they argue based on emotions, what they feel is true, the weight of their “personal experiences,” and the fact that it disturbs them that there’s not a magic code of conduct to keep everyone in line (i.e. acting the way they want everyone to act).

Here, I’ll show you how this whole evidence stuff works:

Throughout history, people have demonstrated that they quite willingly lose all empathy and effort for social conformity with only a moderate emotional urge to do so. If they didn’t, humans would be rational creatures (Hitler, Stalin, Domer, Obama… all come to mind)

See? Any rational person can look at the evidence of what you’ve written and conclude that the disparity in that parenthetical list indicates that one of two things must be true: either you’re a nutjob, or your sense of humor needs much more subtlety. Simple.

EDIT: Reading that over, I really must apologize for the false dichotomy. Obviously, the two options I offered are not mutually exclusive, and it is possible that both are true.

 

[tonyrey]

How do you distinguish them ? How do you know you are one of the privileged few?

Sure, outside of a human value judgment, everything is permissible. Anything that a person is capable of doing is something that a person can and might do.
So you agree that if God does not exist everything is permissible…

Some people, I think, are bothered by that fact and need to invent a Big Brother with a magic list of rules to keep people in line. It’s probably going too far to suggest that many of them are bothered by it because they themselves harbor antisocial urges – but that is a distinct possibility.

One can say with equal facility that many are bothered by the thought of God because they harbour antisocial urges and wish to be absolutely free to do what they choose…

If there is no objective morality everything is permissible…

Sure, everything’s permissible. Everything that you could potentially do is something that you could potentially do. That’s so obvious that it doesn’t even pay to mention it. So what’s your point? That fact makes you uncomfortable? Too bad.
You will feel very uncomfortable indeed if you become a victim of some one who thinks everything’s permissible. Too bad… .

[/QUOTE]

 

[Ender]

Reason and evidence. Minds that know truth can demonstrate that their thoughts are in accord with reality.

Is morality merely subjective? Is saying “behavior X is wrong” any different than saying “I disapprove of behavior X”? That is, is morality merely an arbitrary social construct?

Ender

 

[hatsoff]

Is morality merely subjective? Is saying “behavior X is wrong” any different than saying “I disapprove of behavior X”? That is, is morality merely an arbitrary social construct?

Ultimately yes, it will come down to someone saying “I disapprove.” This is true even if God exists, except in that case there may be a divine construct in addition to all the social constructs.

 

[tonyrey]

Are you kidding? How about empathy and social conformity? How about the fact that most people are not so disconnected from their own emotions that they don’t realize such abusive actions would likely lead them to feel just horrible?

Judging by the amount of competition, enmity, conflict, violence and bloodshed in the world your view of the power of empathy is unrealistic. The irrational element in human nature is bound to be dominant if we are no more than biological freaks of nature which have developed simply in order to survive… On that view might is right!

 

[James_S_Saint]

To any rational person.

If you found one of those, how would YOU know it?

Prove it to me and I might agree, but guess what…

 

[Equites_Christi]

Haven’t you played Assassin’s Creed 2? “Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.”

The original argument seems sort of a stretch. If things are ‘wrong’, then it necessitates that there is some determiner or authority on right and wrong. From there you could argue that that authority is God, but not before.

 

[hatsoff]

Judging by the amount of competition, enmity, conflict, violence and bloodshed in the world your view of the power of empathy is unrealistic. The irrational element in human nature is bound to be dominant if we are no more than biological freaks of nature which have developed simply in order to survive… On that view might is right!

Your comments here make me suspect you think I have a view other than I actually do. All I am pointing out is that, even for people who disbelieve in divine retribution and/or justice, empathy, conformity and many other factors are quite enough for them to behave honestly and responsibly. As Paul has said, everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial.

Now, perhaps a divine moral law would do an even better job than purely physical influences, but that’s another matter.