If there were no God

[Vonsalza]

You say something different every time…

Not at all. Your emotional attachment your pseudo-religion keeps you from seeing the obvious nuance.

The actors must be free to act. If your theoretical psycho-god were to interrupt what you perceive as negative outcomes 100% of the time, then you’ve encumbered their ability.

Just because you refuse to see it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. This is a common problem for zealots of all stripes.

“Seems”???

As you admitted yourself, it’s a subjective topic. The side from which I view the obelisk is obviously different from yours. Does it not bug you that you think you’re trying to have a rational conversation yet virtually all of your objections are emotional? Do you really not see that? -serious question.

That is merely your opinion. Nope. The greatest good is to let everyone be free to do whatever they want - UNLESS they try to prevent others from doing the same.

And that is merely your opinion. Mine seems to allow for reality in a way yours doesn’t. To some, this makes it a better opinion. But think as you wish.

“What is your problem? …The freedom of the psychopath to rape you is much more valuable than you desire to escape.”

No, as it pertains to moral agency, they’re equally valuable as the actors must be able to act. Conflicts of wills are a natural consequence of it.

You’re just trying to appeal to grand-standing emotion against my defense of the necessity of our lesser behaviors. This, by rule, irrational defense which is exactly that same in (lack of) quality as the objection to evolution levied by the fundamentalist when they’re finally exposed to an education. “My gawd made the world in 7 literal days, I don’t care what you satanic science-people say!”

You’re either physically incapable of understanding it or (what’s more likely) you don’t like the explanation because it allows the existence of a god that is both a) attributable as “benevolent” and b) permissive of the evil that exists in the world.

Your objection isn’t primarily rational - it’s emotional. We know this because in your defense you’ve invoked Nazis, gang-rape and name calling. These are hallmarks in the defenses levied by the blindly-ideological and sophomoric.

Nonsense, but that does not matter.

I’ll take that as your very best effort at concession to what is a proven fact. Thank you for it.

What DOES matter is that ALL those good people - both religious or not - prefer to prevent or limit the “freedom” of the psychopaths by incarcerating them. So that those psychopaths can “wish” to torture some victim, but they cannot act on it.

Oh, and they can still go on trying to enact evil to the greatest degree while they’re behind bars. Their free moral agency is still preserved.

Again, I’m a little in-the-air about whether you either don’t want to see that, or actually can’t.

 

[Cyril]

Not at all. Your emotional attachment your pseudo-religion keeps you from seeing the obvious nuance.

The actors must be free to act. If your theoretical psycho-god were to interrupt what you perceive as negative outcomes 100% of the time, then you’ve encumbered their ability.

Just because you refuse to see it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. This is a common problem for zealots of all stripes.

I think the term you are looking for here is “the illusion of choice”. A non choice by definition of free will is not a choice.

 

[Vonsalza]

OK, badly worded on my part. The null hypothesis is the default. But the point remains: If God (on the assumption He exists) had decided not to make His presence known for another few hundred years, then we’d still be pretty much where we are now (notwithstanding a few historical twists and turns) Morality would be as it is now. Our understanding of the world would be pretty much as it is now.

I understand the basis on which you assert that, but there’s absolutely no way to know if it would be true. I think by virtue of the Butterfly Effect, that major change would likely alter the face of the planet itself.

The vast chunk of the world that isn’t and has never been Christian has, as far as you would presumably believe, based their morality on the wrong assumptions.

No, different assumptions. I’m first a theist, Christian second.

And a lot of places have different religious beliefs and.come to pretty much the same standards of morality.

Pretty much, sure.

So if you have one part of the equation that seems not to be required, then we can remove it and the answer will remain as it always was.

Sure. It seems that “ought” the world over and across time requires a god of some sort.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Not at all. Your emotional attachment your pseudo-religion keeps you from seeing the obvious nuance.

The actors must be free to act. If your theoretical psycho-god were to interrupt what you perceive as negative outcomes 100% of the time, then you’ve encumbered their ability.

Just because you refuse to see it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. This is a common problem for zealots of all stripes.

I think the term you are looking for here is “the illusion of choice”. A non choice by definition of free will is not a choice.

Read a few books that mentioned the topic back in the aughts when Hitchens and the other Four Horsemen were making their hay.

It’s a great concept until you actually try to do something with it. There isn’t even remotely sufficient evidence to support the determinism it implies and it has all sorts of philosophical problems.

But we’re all looking to either affirm the god we love or replace the god we killed, right?

 

[Cyril]

I’d like to think there is a God but religion is so illogical and creation is too fantastic to just be a stopping point.

Maybe science killed God and its just a really long slow death. IDK, what I do know is my belief to try to live as long as I can and contribute as much as I can to make this world better is the lest I can do.

If nothing else so that my replacement doesnt have to question why this world is so cruel.

 

[Bradskii]

If Person A states that we got where we are now because God made His presence known a few millenia back then Person B who believes that his or her deity was responsible is obviously wrong according to Person A.

So person B got where he is with no actual guidance at all. He just believed he was being pointed in the right direction. But there he is standing next to Person A and they are both in exactly the same pace.

Person C rolls up, and whether he believes he has received some explicit instruction or not, he can claim that A and B simply believed they had the same instructions but they are both wrong.

We needn’t go through the alphabet to see where this gets us. Everyone seems to have received the same intructions as to how to form a civilised society based on agreed moral norms. And they didn’t need an actual deity to formulate them. It’s just that everyone claims that their guy is THE guy. Because hey, ‘my deity is bigger than your deity’.

They’re arguing with each other that only they have the right directions. And I’m thinking that either one of them is right or they are all wrong. But I’m following along and I motice that we’re ALL on the same path. So there is only one conclusion I can draw.

So this is the path that they think that they AUGHT to follow. And they think that because they are under the impression that they are the only ones to have received the true directions and everyone else is deluded at best. So to make sure that they all stay on the path (which everyone is pretty much going to do anyway) each of them has to emphasise the fact.

‘My god will grant you eternal life if you stick to this path’
‘My God will punish you if you stray from this path’
‘My god will make you take the trip as many times as necessary before you get to the correct destination’.
‘My god will bring you back as something unpleasant if you don’t follow the path’

Etcetera.

 

[Gorgias]

Establish what? You have no idea what meta-mathematics is (Metamathematics - Wikipedia) if you think that your reference to the empty sets is a meta-mathematical proposition.

sigh.

My whole point is that the proposition we’ve been discussing reduces to the mathematical claim that I offered… and that, contrary to your claim, it’s not a meta-mathematical assertion (just as the original proposition, contrary to your claim, is not a meta-ethical assertion).

The exact wording was “there really is no absolute ethical system”. Which is the same AND it is also not an ethical proposition.

You need to re-read what you wrote, then.

You made two logical errors. In attempting to refute the claim that “there does not exist an absolute moral system”, you made two claims that were non sequiturs:

Are you aware of the plethora of ethical systems “out there”?

The claim that “the set of proposed ethical systems has cardinality > 1” does not address the claim that “none of these proposed systems are absolute”. The question is not “what has been proposed?”, but rather, “does one of the systems that has been proposed meet this criterion?”.

there is NO universal ethical system acceptable by everyone

The claim that “it is not true that all people accept a single ethical system” does not address the claim that “there are no absolute ethical systems.” The first claim talks about the illative sense question of whether folks accept a given proposition (whether that proposition is true or not). The second claim deals with reality, not perception.

Argue apples to apples, or argue oranges to oranges. When you argue apples against oranges, however, I’ll be sure to call you on it.

 

[Sophia]

just as the original proposition, contrary to your claim, is not a meta-ethical assertion

That means that you simply don’t understand the difference between an ethical proposition, and a meta-ethical proposition. I am tired of this tug-of-war. It is your turn to give a definition of these two concepts, and then show that “there is no absolute morality” is an ethical proposition. If you can do it, fine, if you cannot, that is also fine - as long as you explicitly admit that you cannot.

 

[Vonsalza]

If Person A states that we got where we are now because God made His presence known a few millenia back then Person B who believes that his or her deity was responsible is obviously wrong according to Person A.

I genuinely think your paradigm on religion is a little outdated.

The rise of non-denominational mega-churches stems from the very idea that there is a limited amount of doctrine that one can be reasonably sure of - laying waste to many of the old gripes of Free-Will Baptists vs Methodists vs ect.

That Catholic Church itself holds that salvation might be possible outside itself because while man is bound to the sacraments, God is not. Catholic Sister Marge would delight in explaining to you how salvation could even be possible for an atheist, if you’re ever in my town.

We needn’t go through the alphabet to see where this gets us. Everyone seems to have received the same intructions as to how to form a civilised society based on agreed moral norms. And they didn’t need an actual deity to formulate them. (bold added)

Oh yes they did. At least, they needed to think they did so the agreed moral norms had some sort of transcending authority that was necessary to get you to follow them. “Murder is wrong, thus saith the LORD” is a little easier to get behind than “Murder is wrong, thus saith ALL THE GUYS OVER ON 5TH STREET”.

But I’m following along and I motice that we’re ALL on the same path. So there is only one conclusion I can draw.

Not really. I think this is just a rationalist becoming vague because it suits their argument. Plenty of societies had differing moral norms complete with plenty of zealous young men willing to kill you if you spat upon them. Certainly not just western tradition.

So this is the path that they think that they AUGHT to follow. And they think that because they are under the impression that they are the only ones to have received the true directions and everyone else is deluded at best.

I certainly don’t think that applies to anything approaching all the religious folks - like myself. Especially in this modern age.

‘My god will grant you eternal life if you stick to this path’
‘My God will punish you if you stray from this path’
‘My god will make you take the trip as many times as necessary before you get to the correct destination’.
‘My god will bring you back as something unpleasant if you don’t follow the path’

Etcetera.

Hell of a lot more compliance-inducing than “so saith all the guys on 5th street”, right?

 

[Sophia]

If you don’t see the contradiction between of these two of your posts, then you are in real sorry shape.

The actors must be free to act. If your theoretical psycho-god were to interrupt what you perceive as negative outcomes 100% of the time, then you’ve encumbered their ability.

Oh, and they can still go on trying to enact evil to the greatest degree while they’re behind bars. Their free moral agency is still preserved.

The contradiction is glaring.

However, this solution is fine by me. Now let’s extend it, and allow them to “TRY” to perform their evil act, but prevent them from performing it. I already offered this solution and you did not wish to accept it.

If you disagree with the proposition that “the right of your fist stops where my nose begins”, then we can do the experiment, and prove that you will wish to invoke this principle as soon as you are on the receiving end of exercising that “free will”. This proposition is just another way to express the Golden Rule.

 

[Vonsalza]

If you don’t see the contradiction between of these two of your posts, then you are in real sorry shape.

The contradiction is glaring.

No it isn’t. I think you’re just unable to separate “Free moral agency” from “free will”.

We always exercise our agency in light of the environment we’re in. And in conflicts with others, the one with the greatest ability to affect their agency will be the victor. But if it’s ontologically restrained, as you seem to want, then it’s not “free” as it must be, being among the greatest of goods.

However, this solution is fine by me.

Uhhh… What?

Now let’s extend it, and allow them to “TRY” to perform their evil act, but prevent them from performing it. I already offered this solution and you did not wish to accept it.

Because you want it restrained at an existential level. No bueno.
But its actualization being frustrated by the prevailing of mightier, contrary agencies? Bueno.

The actors must be free to act. The ref won’t stop them. This is reality as we see it.

If you disagree with the proposition that “the right of your fist stops where my nose begins”,

As an absolute? Of course I disagree. If a man were to walk by and grope my wife’s buttock, I’d very much like to unify his nose and my fist

 

[Gab123]

if there were no God

What a stupid thing to ponder

 

[Sophia]

No it isn’t. I think you’re just unable to separate “Free moral agency” from “free will”.

There is no difference.

If it is OK to prevent any specific instance of performing evil, that is the same as preventing any evil.

The ref won’t stop them.

The ref WILL stop them. That is desirable reality.

As an absolute? Of course I disagree. If a man were to walk by and grope my wife’s buttock, I’d very much like to unify his nose and my fist

You just don’t see it. I am not talking about self-defense or defending others. The principle talks about an unprovoked use of force. Unfortunately you either don’t see the difference (in which case you would be dumb) or refuse the admit the difference (in which case you are a hypocrite).

 

[Bradskii]

Except we are not talking salvation but the basis for morality. Connected but different.

 

[Vonsalza]

Except we are not talking salvation but the basis for morality. Connected but different.

Not historically for westerners, it isn’t.

Of course, I guess it’s different if you’re an atheist.

 

[Vonsalza]

There is no difference.

Yeah there is. First thing google spat back;

"Moral agency is an individual’s ability to make moral judgments based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions. A moral agent is “a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong.”

Free Will - “the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.”

Glad to clear that up.

If it is OK to prevent…

Only by other people - other free moral agents. They’re subject to the same rules you are.

The ref WILL stop them. That is desirable reality.

I do not and will not care about what you consider desirable. If free moral agency is among the greatest of goods, then a benevolent god will not suspend it.

You just don’t see it. I am not talking about self-defense or defending others. The principle talks about an unprovoked use of force.

No. It doesn’t. It deals simply with the question of “when is it appropriate to use force on someone?”

Yet another example where you either don’t know entirely what you’re talking about -or- you’re trying to modify what it means to better suit your ideology like any other zealot.

 

[Sophia]

Only by other people - other free moral agents. They’re subject to the same rules you are.

That is the same nonsense you keep repeating.

If free moral agency is among the greatest of goods, then a benevolent god will not suspend it.

You keep using that IF and it makes your argument ridiculous. Benevolence does not look at ONLY one of the parties involved and does not choose to allow the rapist to go on, due to do some “higher degree of desirability”.

No. It doesn’t. It deals simply with the question of “when is it appropriate to use force on someone?”

That is the whole point. The only allowable usage of force is the one in self-defense and the defense of others. Killing and raping and torturing are NOT “appropriate” usage of force. And if it is not appropriate, then the proper behavior is to prevent it - by any benevolent human or robot or “god”.

One can only hope that you finally comprehended. I don’t hold my breath…

 

[Vonsalza]

That is the same nonsense you keep repeating.

Why yes. Yes it is.

If it’s a contradiction, care to show how?
I’ve some academic experience with modals using boolean operators, so if you prefer that way, suit yourself. It might be better.
To quote Dr. H, “if you can’t do it that way, then there’s probably something wrong with your claim”.

You keep using that IF and it makes your argument ridiculous.

No, it doesn’t make my argument “ridiculous”. It makes my argument contingent as it’s concerning something that we can’t know for sure. I posit an “if” that allows a god to be both “good” and permissive of the evil that goes on in the world.

“Greater good” would be the basic assumption - that there is one that is more valuable than the sum of all the bad it generates. Covered in freshman philosophy.

Benevolence does not look at ONLY one of the parties involved and does not choose to allow the rapist to go on, due to do some “higher degree of desirability”.

If impairing free moral agency in order to prevent evil acts generates more evil (or the loss of good) than the acts themselves, benevolence not only permits free moral agency - it seems to demand it.

That is the whole point. The only allowable usage of force is the one in self-defense and the defense of others.

Oh? The execution of justice isn’t a permissible use of force on a person? How about causing pain (like administering a painful vaccine panel) in order to limit future ills? Removing the limb to stop the incurable infection? I’m sure there are a zillion others…
Moreover, wouldn’t someone have to violate your principle in the first place in order to necessitate your sole exemptions?

You’ll need to get to work back-pedaling here, too.

Killing and raping and torturing are NOT “appropriate” usage of force. And if it is not appropriate, then the proper behavior is to prevent it - by any benevolent human or robot or “god”.

Unless by preventing it at the agency-level you create something that is even less “appropriate”. Which may very well be the case. As I’ve said… I dunno… 105 times now?

One can only hope that you finally comprehended. I don’t hold my breath…

I understand perfectly, but maybe not in the way you like. Reminds me of Calvinists who love their system so much that they sometimes don’t understand why others don’t seem to share their appreciation for it. Same goes for any expression of zealotry across history.

 

[Sophia]

Oh? The execution of justice isn’t a permissible use of force on a person?

That would belong to the protection the victims. You are getting really desperate to make such ridiculous statements. “Initiating violent actions” is what needs to be protecting against, and the “desire” of the psychopath is irrelevant.

How about causing pain (like administering a painful vaccine panel) in order to limit future ills? Removing the limb to stop the incurable infection? I’m sure there are a zillion others…

I was hoping that equating a rape with administering a life saving vaccine is beyond your level of irrationality, but I was mistaken. Sheesh!

The funny thing is that you (finally) realized that it is fine to use force against a violent act, but only if the protection is performed by another “moral agent”. And that is your nonsense. If we could build a “robotic system”, which could detect an impending violent act (like a rape) and the system could “zap” the perpetrator-to-be with a directed stun-gun, that would be the proper way to do. Even though the robot is NOT a moral agent. If a “benevolent god” could do the same, that would be the proper way to go.

If we could perform a simple operation to re-program the psychopath and make him to become a benevolent person, that would be the proper way to go. You have this ridiculous fixation that being able to perform some gratuitous sociopathic act is “intrinsically valuable”. That to deprive the “psychopath-to-be” of this ability somehow creates “more evil”. Get real.

 

[Gorgias]

That means that you simply don’t understand the difference between an ethical proposition, and a meta-ethical proposition.

No. It just means that I disagree that you do.

I am tired of this tug-of-war.

As well you should be.

It is your turn to give a definition of these two concepts

Piece of cake:

• ethics is concerned with what is moral
• meta-ethics is concerned with what ethics itself is

, and then show that “there is no absolute morality” is an ethical proposition.

“the system X is an absolute moral system” is a statement about ethics (in particular, one system of ethics).
“there is no system X such that X is an absolute moral system”, then, is likewise a statement about ethics (namely, that such a system does not exist).

Neither of these discuss what ‘ethics’ is, but rather, describe the existence (or non-existence) of a particular system.

Glad I could help clear that up for you.