tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post3226829251444752840..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: Explaining Our Moral IntuitionsMatt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-36499847995790189072008-10-03T20:30:00.000-07:002008-10-03T20:30:00.000-07:00Science,You ask, "Do you tully ask a human that he...Science,<BR/><BR/>You ask, "Do you tully ask a human that he is inconsistent when he acts counter from one moment to the next?"<BR/><BR/>Simple answers to simple questions. If the circumstances dictate he shouldn't, then yes, yes I do.<BR/><BR/>And when I look for an evidential based answer to that question, evolved moral emotions fit the evidence. Emotions that evolved in small hunter-gather groups that are challenged in a modern industrial society.<BR/><BR/>If there were an omnigod, by definition, it would have known modern, complex societies would develop.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-88790912302970709642008-10-01T10:49:00.000-07:002008-10-01T10:49:00.000-07:00Ok tully , what is it about morality or its spectr...Ok tully , what is it about morality or its spectrum that you find inconsistent with god? <BR/><BR/>cannot god be both merciful and just at the same time?<BR/><BR/>A humans sure can if in the morning are a judge in small crimes court being soft on sentencing and then after lunch sit in on the felony court to impose just sentences.<BR/><BR/>if a human can do it than so can an omi god...<BR/><BR/>BUT<BR/><BR/>isnt it the fact that humans, which are small parts of god, proof that god is doing it?<BR/><BR/>Do you tully ask a human that he is inconsistent when he acts counter from one moment to the next? My left hand can do things counter to my right yet we do not count such actions as the person contradicting themselves...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-48110307423405582152008-09-30T19:29:00.000-07:002008-09-30T19:29:00.000-07:00automaton,I don’t think your grasping my argument....automaton,<BR/><BR/>I don’t think your grasping my argument. <BR/><BR/>You wrote, “God does not fine tune our emtional faculty but he can fune tune the moral spectrum…”<BR/><BR/>Whether it is faculty or spectrum, should it not be at least internally consistent? As I stated, I’m referring to the omni god. I’ll grant that a fallible god could be inconsistent.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-59306950742521281902008-09-29T13:52:00.000-07:002008-09-29T13:52:00.000-07:00RE: tulleyI dont think you are grasping the concep...RE: tulley<BR/><BR/>I dont think you are grasping the concept of morality and autonomous agents. Moral conduct involves a free agent and not one that is compelled by some preprogrammed moral condition - nobody makes this claim. God does not fine tune our emtional faculty but he can fune tune the moral spectrum...you can build a great baseball stadium but it will not necessarily lead to a great team. your presumptions beg serious implications of free agency....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-29386984670934661942008-09-28T21:39:00.000-07:002008-09-28T21:39:00.000-07:00Morality: Divine or Evolved? The Trolley Dilemma ...Morality: Divine or Evolved? The Trolley Dilemma and the Evidence.<BR/><BR/>First a couple of comments. The divine intervention I will posit here is of the monotheistic Omnigod type. Other concepts of the divine could be posited that this comment does not address (e.g. a malevolent god, a well-intentioned but fallible deity, etc.) Secondly, I am an empiricist both in profession and world-view. I think philosophy is a powerful tool in determining what questions to ask, but after that you must follow where the data lead. If the data were to show that a long held rule of logic fell apart, I’d dump that rule in a heart beat and feel no emotional loss. <BR/><BR/>Having said that, let’s look at the evidence. There is an ethical thought experiment involving a trolley on a course to kill 5 workers on the tracks. In the first instance the subject is given the choice of switching the track the trolley is on so it only kills one worker and spares the original 5. In the second instance the subject is given the option of throwing a person off a bridge onto the path of the trolley that will kill the person thrown off the bridge but save the workers.<BR/><BR/>Overwhelmingly, people decide it is right to switch the tracks the train is on but wrong to throw a person off the bridge. Obviously the results are the same in both cases. So how can people come nearly universally to opposite decisions?<BR/><BR/>The Omnigod hypothesis. If an Omnigod programmed morality into humans (whether through special creation, guided evolution or setting up natural laws to achieve a result is unimportant) what would we predict? That humanity would have a consistent answer to the dilemma. Not that the “right” answer would be chosen in a real world situation, but that we must be able to know what is or is not “right or wrong.” It fails the evidence test.<BR/><BR/>The natural selection hypothesis. If human moral emotions evolved due to natural selection, what would we predict? In a social hunter-gather society direct action to harm another member of group would have resulted in condemnation and retaliation and/or expulsion from the group making one’s survival and reproductive success probability significantly lower. Remote (via technological advancement) would not have played a role. When relying on naturally selected moral emotions, there are no inconsistencies between the hypothesis and the evidence. In fact, the hypothesis predicts the evidence. For further reading web search for Joshua Greene or Jonathan Haidt.<BR/><BR/>The other question I would like answered by the Omnigod supporters who believe in divine judgment, is why would an Omnigod allow damage to the material brain affect moral decisions if the stakes were so incredibly high?M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-40808021877867535852008-09-28T20:17:00.000-07:002008-09-28T20:17:00.000-07:00bryan the contrapositve is not equal to the arg. a...bryan the contrapositve is not equal to the arg. and yes you did give us the contrapositive which is what I have been saying. You cant MT the arg unless you are going to deny god his necessity...<BR/>but you wouldnt dney santa claus his red suit...the nature of the claim of god presumes that he is a necessary being by conventionAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-51079527631522722902008-09-27T14:50:00.000-07:002008-09-27T14:50:00.000-07:00To comment on the post topic for once, I am sure i...To comment on the post topic for once, I am sure it has already been stated, but even if we have a biological account of morality, say, that does not rule out that "God did it" still applies, for if the system of morality is a natural one based on evolution, God could have manufactured that system, our evolution. Of course, that is not the argument some theists would take. They seem to see things absolutely contrasted that science is not correct, morality derives from some obscure place, through a whole impossible to describe system that all we can really say is "my intuition is.." or "God tells me..." etc. But then what are those kind of arguments positing? It certainly isn't that morality is a real thing in the world in the sense of everything else. It is like saying morality exists in a Platonic realm, the realm of the spirit world or something, and it is through some further obscured faculty that we "touch" this morality that God gives us through our spirit or soul. It is as obscure as the dualist position about the mind coming through some obscure faculty of our brain but still distinct and separate from it in some "mind realm." <BR/><BR/>If that is the case, if that is the kind of morality from God view the theist wants to paint, then they've basically painted themselves into a corner since they've built up their own fantasy world that isn't the one we all can share and call objective. They would have to deny there is objective morality because what they mean by objective is wholly different!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-7492109277628466432008-09-27T08:42:00.000-07:002008-09-27T08:42:00.000-07:00The argument wasn't wrong at all. What was said wa...The argument wasn't wrong at all. What was said was:<BR/><BR/>(1) A exists → A is not necessary<BR/>or<BR/>A is necessary → A does not exist (contrapositive)<BR/>(2) God is necessary<BR/>(3) God does not exist. (MP or MT depending on which form of 1 is used)<BR/><BR/>What we are trying to <I>prove</I> in the argument is the stand on (3). From premises (1) and (2) we get (3). You want to throw in<BR/><BR/>(4) God is necessary → God exists<BR/><BR/>but (4) contradicts (1), and there's absolutely no reason to choose one over the other without any justification. At least (1) lends some support to the fact <I>we know of no universals</I>! If you want to assert (4) you need to justify why (1) should not be accepted. I would say justify (4) but that is <I>precisely what is trying to be answered</I>. It is called a conditional proof. Once you have that theorem, then you can construct (4), but you just assumed it as a premise. No one is questioning whether the argument is valid (conclusion follows from premises), but what basis is there for accepting the premises? So until you can show the problem with (1), even a counter example would work to help you out, then you really have nothing to say.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-69724129974803354922008-09-26T22:47:00.000-07:002008-09-26T22:47:00.000-07:00Yes I digress...Moral order (Kant)The summum bonum...Yes I digress...<BR/><BR/>Moral order (Kant)<BR/><BR/>The summum bonum is where moral virtue and happiness coincide. <BR/>We are rationally obliged to attain the summum bonum. <BR/>What we are obliged to attain, it must be possible for us to attain. <BR/>If there is no god or afterlife, it is not possible to attain the summum bonum. <BR/>God (or the afterlife) must exist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-56025462371257429852008-09-26T22:33:00.000-07:002008-09-26T22:33:00.000-07:00RE: jondoe drink too much What you got against the...RE: jondoe drink too much <BR/><BR/>What you got against the mopping?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-17213284831018694472008-09-26T22:31:00.000-07:002008-09-26T22:31:00.000-07:00RE: hey brianYOU GOT THE ARG WRONG SO YOUR MT NO G...RE: hey brian<BR/><BR/>YOU GOT THE ARG WRONG SO YOUR MT NO GOOD<BR/><BR/>if god is necessary then he exists<BR/><BR/>BUT AT LEAST YOU UNDERSTAND LOGIC...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-30669178701389501932008-09-26T22:28:00.000-07:002008-09-26T22:28:00.000-07:00RE: erick stiff neckYou are foolish. try reading m...RE: erick stiff neck<BR/><BR/>You are foolish. try reading my post before responding.<BR/><BR/>SEE my previous post<BR/><BR/>AND<BR/><BR/>http://www.people.umass.edu/jaklocks/Phil383/POA.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-91829969358182814332008-09-26T22:26:00.000-07:002008-09-26T22:26:00.000-07:00"It also looks like Axiom 5 assumes the very concl..."It also looks like Axiom 5 assumes the very conclusion the argument alleges to prove. We'd need independent arguments for the axioms"<BR/><BR/>Ya a circular axiom...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-4549600765027245662008-09-26T22:22:00.000-07:002008-09-26T22:22:00.000-07:00RE: Matt mcormickYOU SAID:"In traditional logic, a...RE: Matt mcormick<BR/><BR/>YOU SAID:<BR/><BR/>"In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths"<BR/><BR/>UH sorry my friend but #5 is an axiom. You would know what that was if you werent to busy attacking me or my brethen. How ab out brushing up on your phil of math before you refer to an axiom as circular...LOL!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-11326146517216621072008-09-26T21:56:00.000-07:002008-09-26T21:56:00.000-07:00atheist liberals banning free speech...atheist liberals banning free speech...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-13380787253067650552008-09-26T14:44:00.000-07:002008-09-26T14:44:00.000-07:00Excuse me Eric I meant "anything is necessary" to ...Excuse me Eric I meant "anything is necessary" to switch into my other post. - Damn, I need to chill on the weekend drink!Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02877962468047811190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-71450698003198685602008-09-26T14:37:00.000-07:002008-09-26T14:37:00.000-07:00By Janitor I mean "Good Will Hunting"By Janitor I mean "Good Will Hunting"Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02877962468047811190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-55567830771876572362008-09-26T14:36:00.000-07:002008-09-26T14:36:00.000-07:00To thetheist, Bryan plus Carlo-I mean anon. OK: th...To thetheist, Bryan plus Carlo-I mean anon. <BR/><BR/>OK: thetheist, the first cause of evolution may be natural from natural matter. Hence inanimate matter bounced to animate matter. But, at the same time we do not know what matter/energy really is (to make things I don't know "different". <BR/><BR/>Bryan: thanks for the point/thought on "nothing is necessary", that point causes good exercise of thought about how that works or/and can work both logically, metaphysically, or physically. <BR/><BR/>Carlo-excuse me I mean anon. Don't trip. Please don't use the "Janitor" like a psuedo-epithet, which admittedly were not your intentions. It just doesn't go right by way of honesty, however you have added greatly to the discussion by having our more intellectually experienced folk (MM+Sotnak) give interesting arguments via their passion of the subject matter. Ah it's all in good project. No ad-hominem meant, just some thoughts after a Friday morning drink. <BR/><BR/> Thanks all - CheersJonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02877962468047811190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-40458359461765648692008-09-26T11:58:00.000-07:002008-09-26T11:58:00.000-07:00Wow. This seems to have gone of course a little bi...Wow. This seems to have gone of course a little bit. I say we get back to the original discussion. The argument that moral intuitions come from God is, in my opinion, true on one hand but usually represented in a completely erroneous way, hence giving it a reeking air of falsity. <BR/><BR/>The problem arises when traditional theists attempt to invoke that “ethereal” morality in which some ghostly sense of right and wrong guides us to the truth. It is hard to ignore however the naturalistic account of morality; a much more plausible case in which a sort of historical learning process over a vast evolutionary timescale has cultivated our moral sense. <BR/><BR/>This argument however should be of little concern to the modern theist. The goal of ideal religion is to explain the unknown, the mysterious. Yes, science and philosophy will continue to take these mysteries and give them a concrete existence apparently outside the necessity of God’s. Despite this, there will always be room for more religious discussion. God creating life (despite your dismissal of it MM) still seems to have a case. MM, you ask: “What reasons do we have to accept that that [God created evolution] is true?” Well, what reasons don’t we? As I understand it there is no case where we have seen life “created from scratch”. That is, evolution works great for everything after the first case of life but has nothing in the way of explaining this first case. <BR/><BR/>Invoking the fact that physical effects have always been shown to have a physical cause is irrelevant in that science is always speaking of higher order causes i.e. secondary, tertiary, and so on. First causes are different in that by virtue of being first they must have an “extraneous” explanation outside of cause and effect. I have yet to see a convincing scientific or philosophic account of a first cause that does not provoke the need for another cause. I imagine however I will now be presented with such supposed cases and am much obliged for anything anyone has to offer. <BR/><BR/>In summary then, I have no problem attributing my “intuitive” morality to God while simultaneously accepting a naturalistic means of acquiring it. Unfortunately many theists are just plain uninformed, usually as a result of static religious belief, and hence deny this vital link between God and Man.TheTheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15375969018271552206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-61339870652735695542008-09-25T02:15:00.000-07:002008-09-25T02:15:00.000-07:00Thanks for the amusing discussion people... but yo...Thanks for the amusing discussion people... but you have kept me from my studies in the late hour, blast!Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02877962468047811190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-37221454612615051792008-09-24T20:24:00.000-07:002008-09-24T20:24:00.000-07:00EricBy denying, for example, that ANYTHING can exi...Eric<BR/><BR/><B>By denying, for example, that ANYTHING can exist necessarily.</B><BR/><BR/>haha, you must have been reading my mind when I was typing up my last comment just now!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-55640839104497850442008-09-24T20:21:00.000-07:002008-09-24T20:21:00.000-07:00Anon, How Matt, or anyone, feels about religion is...Anon, <BR/><BR/>How Matt, or anyone, feels about religion is absolutely irrelevant to me, nor a personal matter to me, so bringing up his supposed insecurities is beside the point. As for calling bright people crazy, there is nothing problematic with that. You say your proof for God was by Godel. He was very bright. He was also one crazy SOB considering he starved himself to death in a hospital because his wife wasn't able to be there to tell him no one was trying to poison him. Being bright is also beside the point on the matter of proof.<BR/><BR/>Now, you say something being logically valid provides something ontological, how? What kind of ontology does it have? Some kind of Platonic realism? And you are mistaken to say 2+2=4 because I am not underestimating your understanding of the subject. You make a serious mistake many naive people on the subject do. <BR/><BR/>The first thing you learn in any logic text is that <I>truth comes under an interpretation</I>. This is the basis of model theory, and mathematics/logic searches for logical possibilities given the parameters and constraints of the language or system considered. Take your 2+2=4 is universal garbage. Really? There's nothing inherently semantical about that statement because I could just as "meaningfully" (or lack thereof) say $^$&#. Does that say anything universal? No! <BR/><BR/>You've assumed the entire algebraic number system in use for that statement to make sense. It could just as well be a modulo group of Z_4 in which case 2+2=0, but then that isn't even a 0 as it is an equivalence class being denoted by 0. You can just as well define + as the least value between the two considered, so 2+9=2, or give it predominance to order so that for any x and y, x+y=x. Whether these operations are interesting is irrelevant. The point is that 2+2=4 is a meaningless list of symbols without semantics to back them up, in which case you can only provide truth under the interpretation of the system considered, e.g., the element 2+2 in (Z,+) which happens to be 4 as standardly defined. <BR/><BR/>But since this is rather beside the point of this blog, if you wish to discuss these matters you can go to my <A HREF="http://www.xanga.com/bryangoodrich" REL="nofollow">Xanga Blog</A> and discuss logic and truth there. I should have a post up for one of my readers about Platonism in the near future; maybe I will throw some jabs at Descartes then if you're interested. At the very least, maybe it will distract you from trolling Matt's blog for a little while? ;)<BR/><BR/>There's a fundamental flaw in Godel's argument, that having to do with the fact it doesn't apply to reality at all. Godel was a mathematical realist, at least later in life, so if God is one of these deduced "objects" then there is no necessary relation between God as a concept (like elves having pointy ears whether or not they <I>actually</I> exist) and God as a creator involved in the world. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, he assumes, right off the bat, that it is purely a bivalent system we are dealing with. If God is so infinitely everything, then I would think he'd be expressed through something other than a boolean algebra, e.g., a continuum value, presented as truth on a fuzzy logical scale. At least it would lend itself to being more representable of the world. One might value that if they were trying to make this BS actually speak about things in the world.<BR/><BR/>As for the falsity in your premise: Necessary things don't exist. Let me make it a bit more clearer:<BR/><BR/>For all A, If A exists, then A is not necessary. [A→B]<BR/>God is necessary.[¬B]<BR/>Therefore God does not exist. [¬A] (MT)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-33213253123275573492008-09-24T20:10:00.000-07:002008-09-24T20:10:00.000-07:00Oh, I know I'm wasting my time with this, but...an...Oh, I know I'm wasting my time with this, but...<BR/><BR/>anonymous wrote:<BR/><BR/>"Since you want to appeal to authority then i appeal to plantinga. he is much smarter then you and your group of philosophical rejects.<BR/><BR/>God is necessary = T<BR/>======================<BR/>God exists = T"<BR/><BR/>I'm quite familiar with Plantinga's work, in fact. He is a very fine philosopher. It is a shame you have not taken him seriously enough to understand the arguments he does present, since what you've given here is not an argument he gives. If you are going to appeal to theistic philosophers as your sources, please do them the courtesy of reading them, at least.<BR/><BR/>Everyone (even dim bulbs such as I) would agree that from<BR/><BR/>(1) Necessarily God exists<BR/><BR/>one can infer <BR/><BR/>(2) God exists <BR/><BR/>It is true that Plantinga would accept (1). But he does not BEGIN with (1) as a basic premise. To suggest that this is all there is to Plantinga's argument is unfair to him. It is clear that you have no respect for any of us who post here, but perhaps you might be induced to have enough repect for thinkers whom you do admire that you might do them the courtesy of not attributing to them facile caricatures of the views and arguments they have spent much labor advancing.<BR/><BR/>To your credit, you do get the following right:<BR/><BR/>"Your only hope is to deny that god has the attribute of being necessary."<BR/><BR/>Quite. And this is exactly wht atheists do. To be sure, they accept that it is possible to define God as a necessarily existant being, but they deny that anything exists that fits the definition.<BR/><BR/>Not only that, but, since they recognize that if it is even possible that God exists necessarily then he does exist necessarily (since whatever is possibly necessary is actually necessary), atheists will deny that it is even possible that God exists necessarily. How can they do this? By denying, for example, that ANYTHING can exist necessarily. They might hold, as some (for example Quine) have, that necessity is not a property that can be attributed to the existence of things at all.<BR/><BR/>Note, by the way, that even most theists don't believe God's existence can be shown by tinkering with modal logic (even Plantinga, if you were to read him carefully).Eric Sotnakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162425851889399481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-81502889318951017712008-09-24T16:10:00.000-07:002008-09-24T16:10:00.000-07:00How is it plagiarized? I never said it was mine no...How is it plagiarized? I never said it was mine nor am I claiming to be anyone...<BR/><BR/>You mention that when I assume that god is necessary I get that he exists. You then must be agreeing that it is valid to conclude:<BR/><BR/>1) God exists from being a necessary being (yes redundant but necessary)<BR/><BR/>So, now you are denying the antecedent Matt i.e. If god is necessary - that is a fallacy<BR/><BR/>A: God is necessary<BR/>B: god exists<BR/><BR/>A -> B<BR/>A<BR/><BR/>Your only hope is to deny that god has the attribute of being necessary. That is, We cant know whether such a being possess the said property. But then you are going against conventional intuition. Oops there’s that dirty word…<BR/><BR/>Would you deny that Elves have pointy ears or Santa has a red suit? Forget whether they exist or not their alleged disposition carries an intuitive convention.<BR/><BR/><BR/>ALSO<BR/><BR/>the proof in my previous post is by Kurt Gödel. essentially, he is saying that if god is possible that he then must necessary exists i.e. there is some world that has a necessary thing then all do. just like when some say that 2+2 = 4 cannot be absent in any worlds because it is a necessary truth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-10405197495583786512008-09-24T15:44:00.000-07:002008-09-24T15:44:00.000-07:00I don't know if it is stupid, but it is certainly ...I don't know if it is stupid, but it is certainly plagiarized. (Pickover) <BR/><BR/>It also looks like Axiom 5 assumes the very conclusion the argument alleges to prove. We'd need independent arguments for the axioms, of course. No one doubts that if you assume the existence of a necessary being as part of your logical system, then you get the conclusion that a necessary being exists. <BR/><BR/>MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.com