Is this a good argument against atheists?

[TheCuriousCat]

No, that’s not the way it works. That’s an argument from credulity, and it is a fallacy. The way to find the truth of a premise is to determine the conditions that would cause it to succeed or fail and whether your argument would meet those conditions.

What would make your argument fail? What would a convincing argument for morality in a deterministic world look like?

 

[Cabeelibob]

Our universe at this point is not purely determinsistic. Light will behave differently depending on what you are looking for, for example. You cannot know the velocity and position of en electron either. At least as I understand. Those experiments on light are so cool!

Edit: Especially in subatomic stuff, you can’t know, you can only guess using probabilities. At least as I understand. Might be wrong though.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Hypotetical imperative: moral imperatives that you should follow only if you want to achieve an end (ex.: the law forbids murder and theft because they would threaten public order )
Categorical imperative: moral imperatives that are valid in themselves (ex.: the law forbids murder and theft because human life is sacred and private property is a human right )

 

[TheCuriousCat]

And? Why do you think categorical imperatives are necessary? No one really believes in or follows categorical imperatives.

 

[Pattylt]

moral imperatives that are valid in themselves (ex.: the law forbids murder and theft because human life is sacred and private property is a human right )

Then what about the exceptions to such broad statements? Murder is sometimes justified as in war. Theft is sometimes justified in a starving family feeding their child? We, the subject, often have to nuance these objective moral statements, don’t we?

 

[IWantGod]

human life is sacred

Why is human life sacred? Just because we say it is?

private property is a human right

Why? Just because we say it is?

Hypotetical imperative: moral imperatives that you should follow only if you want to achieve an end

But wanting to achieve an end does not mean that an end ought to be achieved. There is a difference between practical imperatives and moral truth.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Why do you think categorical imperatives are necessary?

Because, for an hypotetical imperative to be a basis for an objective moral rule, it should be demonstrated that the end wich it wants to achieve has value in itself.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Why is human life sacred? Just because we say it is?

Why? Just because we say it is?

In a Christian theistic worldview, that’s because God, the creator of the universe, has established it as a rule.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

But wanting to achieve an end does not mean that an end ought to be achieved. There is a difference between practical imperatives and moral truth.

That’s my point.

 

[IWantGod]

justified

Justice has no physical reality or physical state-of-being, It is not a physical consequence. If only physical things exist, and therefore only physical things can be true, it follows necessarily that the idea of justice is meaningless and is therefore not a statement of truth regarding any physical act or physical state of being

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Then what about the exceptions to such broad statements? Murder is sometimes justified as in war. Theft is sometimes justified in a starving family feeding their child? We, the subject, often have to nuance these objective moral statements, don’t we?

Killing someone in a just war (because Christian moral theology makes a distinction between a just and an unjust war ) wouldn’t count as murder, it’s more like killing for defense (just wars are always defensive )

 

[IWantGod]

In a Christian theistic worldview, that’s because God, the creator of the universe, has established it as a rule.

So, might makes right. This is wrong and is not a Catholic idea. Moral truths are not true just because God decides them to be. Moral truth is not created. It is always true.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

What would make your argument fail? What would a convincing argument for morality in a deterministic world look like?

It should be demonstrated that moral responsibility can be attributed even to beings incapable of free choices.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

In Catholic theology, God’s attributes are not distinct from His essence. If moral perfection is an attribute of God, being morally perfect is in His very essence. So every command that God gives is right because it must be consistent with His essence, not just because He gives it.

 

[IWantGod]

In Catholic theology, God’s attributes are not distinct from His essence. If moral perfection is an attribute of God, being morally perfect is in His very essence. So every command that God gives is right because it must be consistent with His essence, not just because He gives it.

Correct…

 

[TheCuriousCat]

Why? You keep saying the same thing different ways without giving any reason for it.

You basically just it needs to be because it has to be. Not an argument.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

No, that’s not the way it works. That’s an argument from credulity, and it is a fallacy. The way to find the truth of a premise is to determine the conditions that would cause it to succeed or fail and whether your argument would meet those conditions.

I think I wasn’t clear about what I mean by finding an argument convincing. I would find an argument convincing if I found it logically valid and true.

 

[Pattylt]

This is just quibbling. It didn’t answer the question.

 

[STT]

• if atheism is true, there’s no spiritual/supernatural reality;

That doesn’t hold. There could exist a supernatural reality without God.

• if there’s no spiritual/supernatural reality, naturalism is true;

That doesn’t follow either.

• if naturalism is true, determinism is true (because natural laws are deterministic );

We don’t have yet the final theory of everything. The standard model still has problems. We also don’t have a quantum theory for gravity.

• if determinism is true, no one can really choose what to think or what to do;

I think that thoughts are determined by another thoughts. Moreover, you need to provide an argument in favor of free will. Where your choices and thoughts are come from?

• if no one can really choose what to think or what to do, no one can be reasonably blamed for his beliefs and actions;

So what? We might be all wrong.

• if no one can be reasonably blamed for his beliefs and actions, no one has any logical basis at all for morally judging anyone.

So what?

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

That doesn’t hold. There could exist a supernatural reality without God.

Can you tell me a supernatural being that is neither a god or god-like (spirit )?

That doesn’t follow either.

If there’s no supernatural reality, you are only left with nature, wich is naturalism.

I think that thoughts are determined by another thoughts. Moreover, you need to provide an argument in favor of free will. Where your choices and thoughts are come from?

What was the cause of your first thought ever? I’m not sure if the reality of free will can be directly proven logically or scientifically, but it’s a necessary precondition of moral responsibility.