Ethics, morality and other metaphysical statements without theism.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Ethics, morality and other metaphysical statements without theism.

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

I am a theist. I believe in an absolute eternal being. It appears to me impossible to believe in any type of ontological thruths without also a belief in an absolute being. I hold that absolute truths, such as the principle of non-contradiction, are absolute being. Eternally existing truth is God. The same is true for aesthetics. Beauty is an objective thing not a mere opinion. Beauty is God.

However, were I not a theist, I would probably ascribe to the views of Logical Positivism.

quote:

The logical positivists' initial stance was that a statement is "cognitively meaningful" only if some finite procedure conclusively determines its truth. By this verifiability principle, only statements verifiable either by their analyticity or by empiricism were cognitively meaningful. Metaphysics, ontology, as well as much of ethics failed this criterion, and so were found cognitively meaningless. Moritz Schlick, however, did not view ethical or aesthetic statements as cognitively meaningless. Cognitive meaningfulness was variously defined: having a truth value; corresponding to a possible state of affairs; naming a proposition; intelligible or understandable as are scientific statements.

Ethics and aesthetics were subjective preferences, while theology and other metaphysics contained "pseudostatements", neither true nor false. This meaningfulness was cognitive, although other types of meaningfulness�for instance, emotive, expressive, or figurative�occurred in metaphysical discourse, dismissed from further review. Thus, logical positivism indirectly asserted Hume's law, the principle that is statements cannot justify ought statements, but are separated by an unbridgeable gap. A J Ayer's 1936 book asserted an extreme variant�the boo/hooray doctrine�whereby all evaluative judgments are but emotional reactions.

A.J Ayer famously compared the statement "You should not steal." as being the equivalent of stating "Yay for not stealing!" He contended that all moral statements were nothing more that Emotivism, the belief that ethical sentences do not express propositions but mere emotional attitudes.

I know there are many non-theists who hold deep ethical and moral beliefs. I'm wondering how you respond to the positivists. Where is the verifiability for your moral and ethical claims? You can't prove with science that it's "wrong" to do anything can you? So why do you believe it?

AARO fucked around with this message at 05:38 on May 19, 2016

# ¿ May 19, 2016 05:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 12:19

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

Ghost of Reagan Past posted:

The verificationist criteria of meaning is itself not verifiable, and so by its own lights meaningless. This is the most common criticism of logical positivism and is usually considered the knock-down argument.

The same could be said about the principle of non-contradiction or the principle of identify. One could just respond that such principles cannot be proven but can be known. These basic principles are different than "You should not steal." in that they can be seen as true by reason alone. That's what I'd say as a positivist anyway.

Shbobdb posted:

But that also applies to your abstracted definition of God. Let's go with Master Esai's ontology: "I know nothing of Buddhas past, present or future, but I know cows exist." Under this ontological framework, this would make cows God to you. Are cows God?

Edit: I misspoke before. Matter is not eternal but only potentially so. It had a cause and can into being at some point and therefore is not God.

AARO fucked around with this message at 15:09 on May 19, 2016

# ¿ May 19, 2016 06:20

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

Juffo-Wup posted:

What do you mean by 'ontological truth,' and why do you think our epistemic relationship with such things is dependent on theism?

One simple way to read 'ontological truths' is just 'facts about what things exist' in which case it looks like you're saying that we can't know that there is an external world unless there is a God to vouchsafe that belief for us. Which is just Descartes all over again. Not that that's a problem, it's just that Descartes wasn't the last word in that debate.

I'm saying that eternally existing truths, or you could just say truth, are/is God. I do not mean that as an equivocation. God is the collection of all eternally existent being.

quote:

Even if we accept your rather dubious foundation, how do we derive moral truths from your ontology?

If electrons are god, is it holy (morally good) to run across the carpet? Increasing my static charge should make me more godly. Would touching a doorknob be bad? God is literally leaving my body. If we associate god with the good and god is electrons that would make me less good.

I misspoke before. Electrons are not God as they are not actually infinite but only potentially infinite. They had a cause, which means they began at some point, which means they are not actually infinite but only potentially.

I believe that a moral law is infused into us at creation by God. I have provided no evidence for my belief that morals come from God. I also believe Him to be an uncaused, personal, creator of the universe, who sans the universe, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful. But I haven't explained why. I wasn't really looking for a debate about the existence of God. I just wanted to know how people arrived at morals without eternally existing being.

If you'd like to we can talk about that. I like the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. If we're going to talk about that it'd be better if you read the argument first if you are unfamiliar with it. I'd rather not type out the whole argument here as it is explained well many places online

AARO fucked around with this message at 15:02 on May 19, 2016

# ¿ May 19, 2016 14:47

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

Who What Now posted:

How is that useful? Do you believe that God has an active will, an intelligence? Or is it just things that are "eternal"? What value does your definition of God hold?

Is the KSA what actually convinced you that God is real? If not, what actually did convince you?

Your first question is explained by the second part of what you quoted me saying. I believe that truth is God and God is truth but that's not the only thing I believe about God.

Why are you asking the second question?

# ¿ May 19, 2016 15:06

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

Who What Now posted:

Because if Kalam didn't actually convince you about God then why would you assume it would convince anyone else? I want to know what ultimately convinced you because that's where a meaningful discussion will lie, if there's one to be had at all.

I was born into a very Catholic family. To this day my mother still goes to mass every single day. Around 12 years old I stopped believing and called myself agnostic but at 18 or so arguments like the KCA along with personal experiences made me believe again. It was actually Dr. Fritz Wenisch's Finiteness of the Past paper* that made me believe a creator of the universe was a reasonable assertion. But it was personal experiences involving Christian prayer and small miracles that really made me believe in Christianity again.

I have a lot of doubts about Christianity these days (anti-homosexuality, strange happenings in the bible like God killing children, etc) but I'd still call myself a Christian and I don't doubt the existence of a creator. I may sometime in the very near future stop calling myself a Christian, or perhaps I will get very strongly into it again. I'm doing a lot of reading about it right now trying to find out if Christianity is actually true or not. That's partly what inspired this thread.

*That argument is simple. This present moment depends on for it's existence the completion of the entire past. As it would have taken an eternal amount of time to arrive at this present moment were past time infinite, the past must be finite. Therefore a beginning--> A creator.

AARO fucked around with this message at 15:35 on May 19, 2016

# ¿ May 19, 2016 15:29

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

Who What Now posted:

There are infinite numbers, does this mean it is impossible to count to 7? Is it impossible to count to 7 quadrillion (setting aside the limits of mortality)? If not, why is it then impossible to get to a finite point in an infinite timeline?

W.L. Craig posted:

�a Realist might say that there is an actually infinite number of mathematical objects, and because mathematical objects really exist, this disproves premise that an actual infinite cannot exist. But to do this, the Realist is going to have to rebut the arguments for Anti-Realism coming from Conventionalists, Deductivists, Fictionalists, Structuralists, Constructibilists, and Figuralists.

# ¿ May 19, 2016 15:39

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

Zas posted:

I'm not joking about kantian deontological ethics btw

Kant has just never personally blown the wind up my skirt. I also wonder couldn't all categorical imperatives be turned into hypothetical imperatives by asking "why should I follow X categorical imperative." That idea might have some kind of serious flaw as I read the bare minimum of Kant in college and don't know anything of his defenses. Kant just always bored me for some reason.

# ¿ May 19, 2016 15:57

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

Juffo-Wup posted:

It is very strange to call that relationship 'God,' but I guess strangeness alone isn't necessarily a reason to reject a view. More importantly, how do you expect this to give you firmer ground for moral knowledge than the person who does not see divinity in that relation? What extra metaphysical/epistemic work is the divinity doing?

I explained this above. I believe in a personal, changeless, unbelievably powerful absolute being who was the creator of the universe. Admittedly, I probably miswrote the OP and shouldn't have been intentionally vague. My obfuscation has just provided confusion. It just that I was not trying to start a "does God exist?" DD thread as we all know how well receive that poo poo is on this forum.

I wanted to know about non-theistic morality as I've never seen such a system like that that I found particularly persuasive.

I should add that the notion of God as truth and truth as God is very old and very well respected amoung theists.

St. Thomas Aquinas posted:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1016.htm#article5

As said above (Article 1), truth is found in the intellect according as it apprehends a thing as it is; and in things according as they have being conformable to an intellect. This is to the greatest degree found in God. For His being is not only conformed to His intellect, but it is the very act of His intellect; and His act of understanding is the measure and cause of every other being and of every other intellect, and He Himself is His own existence and act of understanding. Whence it follows not only that truth is in Him, but that He is truth itself, and the sovereign and first truth.

AARO fucked around with this message at 16:19 on May 19, 2016

# ¿ May 19, 2016 16:03

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

I find the lack of objectivity in non-theistic moral systems to make them unfeasible. To murder a random person is wrong. That is not merely an opinion but a fact. I couldn't ascribe to an ethical system that just says "Well, I don't want to murder a person because it would make me feel bad therefore I don't do it."

# ¿ May 19, 2016 16:24

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

A very close friend of mine is an atheist and doesn't believe objective "right or wrong". I asked him what about if he could steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from his parents in an untraceable way and absolutely get away with it with no suspicion would he do it? I asked wouldn't that be objectively wrong. He said nothing is objectively wrong. He said that no he wouldn't do it because he loves his family and wouldn't want to hurt them. Then I asked if he would steal the money from a large corporation under the same circumstances with total assurance of never getting caught. He said "gently caress yea he would. They have insurance so I'm not really hurting anyone except some minor lose at an insurance bureau."

That type of ethics bothers me although he is being totally logically consistent.

# ¿ May 19, 2016 16:38

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

Who What Now posted:

But you don't have any objectivity either. You claim to, but you can't demonstrate it.

Perhaps with morality we have a phenomenological epistemic justification for the knowledge of right and wrong through Husserlian eidetic intuition.

# ¿ May 19, 2016 16:46

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

doverhog posted:

Murdering a random person is wrong because it has negative utility to society as a whole.

In utilitarianism wouldn't you be obligated to torture an innocent child to death if your doing so would save 10,000 other lives?

# ¿ May 19, 2016 16:50

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

Anos posted:

Would it be moral if God asked you to torture a child?

Taking my definition of God, all goodness, love and truth, your question reads "What if God was not God." It's nonsensical.

# ¿ May 19, 2016 16:56

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

Tuxedo Catfish posted:

Any real-world application of utilitarianism has to take both uncertainty/ignorance and the utility of the rule established when answering a question like this.

So, in an absurd situation where you know 100% for sure that torturing a child would save 10,000 lives and your decision will never ever no matter what influence others to treat torturing children as not such a bad thing, maybe. But in the world we actually live in, neither of those premises are true, and both are important when evaluating the utility of an act.

Hypothetical questions are used to draw out the underlining principles. They are not meant to describe actually existing situations. And also you just admitted that under certain circumstances it is morally correct to torture an innocent child to death. Your ethical system is bankrupt.

# ¿ May 19, 2016 17:01

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

Anos posted:

But how did you determine that its not "goodness, love and truth" or Gods nature to torture children? How did you arrive at your definition of good. Is it a biblical claim or do you "just know".

Read Husserl. There are things we can know through an insight he calls eidetic intuition. Or at least I'm open to that idea. It's one possible explanation.

The fact of the matter is, everyone reading this thread knows it is wrong to torture an innocent child. That we all know this is evidence of something.

# ¿ May 19, 2016 17:04

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

Tuxedo Catfish posted:

Even if my ethical system were strictly utilitarian (which is something I continue to actively consider, and I haven't come to a definite conclusion), a hypothetical situation that cannot occur in real life illustrates nothing. There are literally no circumstances where I would be called on to make a moral decision without uncertainty, so my moral system must take uncertainty into account, and the existence of uncertainty stops me from ever sanctioning the torture of a child.

Rejecting hypotheticals and thought experiments because "they can't happen in real life" is antithetical to doing philosophy.One of the reasons that people today score about 30 points higher on IQ tests then 100 years ago is that people are more able to answer questions with hypothetical premises. Also, lets say ISIS captured you and a bunch of other prisoners. The terms of release for all the prisoners were for you to kill the child prisoner. Otherwise they would behead you all in one week.

Is that real world enough for you?

AARO fucked around with this message at 17:13 on May 19, 2016

# ¿ May 19, 2016 17:10

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

Who What Now posted:

What if the child volunteers to allow himself to be killed in return for the release of everyone else?

That would be a great act of self sacrifice on that childs part.

What if you were able to answer hypothetical questions in a philosophy thread?

# ¿ May 19, 2016 17:14

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

Juffo-Wup posted:

A refutation of utilitarianism, even if you had one, is not the same thing as an argument that non-theistic moral systems are even usually non-objective. That is the crucial claim that you've made about theism and moral philosophy, and so far the only support you've given for this position is a story about a friend of yours.

Edit: You have two argumentative routes available to you: either you can argue as a sociological fact that non-theistic moral philosophers are anti-realists about moral facts, or you can make the metaethical claim that non-theistic moral realists are committed to a contradiction, or that they have insufficient justification for their positions. I have demonstrated that the former claim is false as a matter of fact. So far you have not attempted to produce an argument towards the latter route.

I do suppose that I assumed his total rejection of absolute morality was quite a bit more common among atheists.

Juffo-Wup posted:

Edit: You have two argumentative routes available to you: either you can argue as a sociological fact that non-theistic moral philosophers are anti-realists about moral facts, or you can make the metaethical claim that non-theistic moral realists are committed to a contradiction, or that they have insufficient justification for their positions. I have demonstrated that the former claim is false as a matter of fact. So far you have not attempted to produce an argument towards the latter route.

I agree, I have some research to do.

AARO fucked around with this message at 17:20 on May 19, 2016

# ¿ May 19, 2016 17:18

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

Who What Now posted:

But would it then be moral to kill the child?

Make better hypotheticals if you don't want people asking questions to clarify them.

No. If I jump in front of a bullet, just before the killer fires at Mary, I have done a heroic act in sacrificing my life for Mary

If some 2nd party pushes me in front of the bullet in order to save Mary, he has participated in my murder.

It's a very simple distinction between voluntarily offering oneself vs actually playing an active role in the unjust murder.

# ¿ May 19, 2016 17:25

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

Juffo-Wup posted:

I think this is right. Most proofs of God's existence, even if they establish the existence of some entity, fail to establish that that thing possesses all of the properties it would take for a reasonable person to call it divine.

He pretty convincingly argues that If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who is changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful. Those qualities would meet most definitions of divinity.

# ¿ May 19, 2016 17:35

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

Who What Now posted:

To put it another way, would it be moral to stop you from jumping in front of a bullet to sacrifice yourself for Mary? I will have saved your life by allowing Mary to die. If I don't stop you, am I complicit in your murder for not saving you?

That's an interesting question.

[derail]
I was at a friends apartment many years ago when I was 17 and the guys in the apartment next door sold drugs. They were really nice guys, we'd smoke with them occasionally. One night, we heard 4 masked men burst into the apartment, beat them, and steal all their money and drugs. After a few minutes of listening to the neighbors scream I grabbed a butcher knife and tried to go help them. My friends physically restrained me from going over. Then they called the police.

Found out later that the four masked men all had guns. Had my friends let me go over with the butcher knife I'd probably have gotten shot/be dead now.

[/derail]

# ¿ May 19, 2016 17:41

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

I guess it would be moral for you to stop me from jumping in front of Mary, but i'm really not sure.

It certainly wouldn't be a seriously immoral act.

edit: Your question does point out the reasonableness of thinking utilitarianistically at some points. For example if Mary had 4 children totally dependent on her and I'm just a bachelor slob, I think you shouldn't stop me from jumping in front of the bullet.

But if Mary is single and has no responsibilities while I have 4 children dependent on me, I think you should stop me.

AARO fucked around with this message at 17:51 on May 19, 2016

# ¿ May 19, 2016 17:45

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

Juffo-Wup posted:

Here is Craig's argument (Call it argument A) that the cause of the universe must be a person:

1.) The universe has a beginning (from the first part of the KCA).
2.) The cause of the universe must be eternal (again, from the first part of the KCA).
3.) Anything that has a beginning is not eternal.
4.) If a cause is sufficient for an effect, and the cause is eternal, then the effect is eternal.
_4a.) (Premise for reductio) The universe has a material cause.
_4b.) A material cause is sufficient for its effect.
_4c.) The universe is eternal (This is a contradiction with 1 and 3)
5.) The universe does not have a material cause (from 4a-4c)
6.) All causes are either material or personal.
7.) The universe has a personal cause. (From disjunctive syllogism of 5 and 6)

The problem with this argument is that 'sufficiency' goes both ways. Here's another argument (argument B):

1.) An eternal sufficient cause must have an eternal effect.
2.) God's will to create "a world with a beginning" is sufficient to produce it (Denying this would probably get you into trouble)
3.) God's will to create "a world with a beginning" is eternal (Or else God changed his mind, a bad result).
4.) "A world with a beginning" is eternal (from 1,2,3)
5.) (4) contradicts (3) from Argument A. So one of the premises 1, 2, or 3 from Argument B must be false.

Edit: I should say that this reply is not mine; I got it from a Philosophy of Religion professor that I was a TA for some number of years ago.

Presumably, a utilitarian will want to identify 'happiness' by ostension. Either by pointing at a bundle of behaviors or pointing at a neural correlate would be sufficient. "This is the thing I'm interested in, maiximize this!" is what I imagine them saying.

That is not a good representation of his argument. From an Atheist site I got this:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.
5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

I don't agree with the beinglessness part though. 4 is explained in detail. You can download a more extensive map of the argument here. http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/KCA_mapped_11_20_2010_.pdf

AARO fucked around with this message at 18:13 on May 19, 2016

# ¿ May 19, 2016 18:10

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

Juffo-Wup posted:

I was trying to be charitable. The argument as you've presented it is obviously invalid; what is (4) supposed to follow from?

Edit: I don't want to read from your atheist site. I read Craig's book. I'm happy to look at any argument you care to reproduce here, though.

quote:

4. If the universe has a cause, then an
uncaused, personal Creator of the universe
exists, who sans the universe is
beginningless, changeless, immaterial,
timeless, spaceless, and enormously
powerful.

- Timelessness may be mysterious, but it is not incoherent. [Craig & Sinclair, 2009]
+ The basic case: The cause of the universe must be uncaused, for an infinite regress of
causes is impossible. Occam's razor suggests the cause is singular rather than plural. The
cause must be beginningless, because the first premise entails that whatever is uncaused
does not begin to exist.

The first cause must be changeless because an infinite temporal
regress of causes cannot exist. The immateriality of the first cause follows from its
changelessness, for whatever is material involves incessant change at least at the atomic
level. The first cause must be timeless and spaceless without the universe, because it
created time and space. It must also, of course, be enormously powerful. [Craig & Sinclair,
2009]

+ This first cause must also be personal because there are only two accepted types of
explanations, personal and scientific, and this can't be a scientific explanation. Also, the only
things that might be immaterial, timeless, and spaceless are abstract objects or
disembodied minds, but abstract objects cannot cause things, so it must be a disembodied
mind. Finally, only personal agency can explain how a temporal effect could come from a
changeless cause. [Craig & Sinclair, 2009]

AARO fucked around with this message at 18:20 on May 19, 2016

# ¿ May 19, 2016 18:17

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

Who What Now posted:

How do you know that the universe was caused, though?

quote:

2.11. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12. An inﬁnite temporal regress of events is an actual inﬁnite.
2.13. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

Actual vs. potential infinite
Craig & Sinclair argue that an actual infinite can�t exist:

The only legitimate sense in which one can speak of the inﬁnite is in terms of potentiality: something may be inﬁnitely divisible or susceptible to inﬁnite addition, but this type of inﬁnity is potential only and can never be fully actualized.

For example, the number of positive integers is potentially infinite, but you could never actually achieve infinity because you can always add one more.
Of course, the actual infinites �exist� in mathematical theory. They are given symbols like \infty and א 0. But Craig & Sinclair aren�t arguing that the actual infinite has no �mathematical existence.� They are arguing that the actual infinite is not �instantiated in the mind-independent world.� That is, the actual infinite doesn�t exist as anything more than a concept. Many mathematicians, like David Hilbert, have thought that the actual infinite has mathematical existence (mathematical legitimacy), but is not instantiated anywhere in the world.

Hilbert wrote:
The inﬁnite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought� The role that remains for the inﬁnite to play is solely that of an idea.1

The point is that the actual infinite does not exist in the same sense as �Fish exist in the sea.�

So even if �transfinite� mathematics is logically consistent, that doesn�t mean the actual infinite exists anywhere in the world. So Craig & Sinclair do not argue that the actual infinite is logically impossible, but rather that it is metaphysically impossible: the actual infinite can�t exist in the real world. But this means the authors must use modal logic, not simple Aristotelean logic, to show that the actual infinite is metaphysically impossible. Craig & Sinclair explain the problem this raises:

Arguments for metaphysical possibility or impossibility typically rely upon intuitions and conceivability arguments, which are obviously much less certain guides than strict logical consistency or inconsistency. The poorly defined nature of metaphysical modality cuts both ways dialectically: on the one hand, arguments for the metaphysical impossibility of some state of affairs will be much more subjective than arguments concerning strict logical impossibility; on the other hand, such arguments cannot be refuted by facile observations to the effect that such states of affairs have not been demonstrated to be strictly logically inconsistent.

# ¿ May 19, 2016 18:27

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

Who What Now posted:

This disproves an infinite God right from the get-go. So if your god isn't infinite, what caused it?

Edit:

And, again, I'm only interested in speaking to you, not to people you can quote. If you can't phrase something in your own words then say so.

An actual infinite cannot exist here in the universe. The creator is not material or existing inside the physical universe. He can be eternal.

# ¿ May 19, 2016 18:37

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

Juffo-Wup posted:

Well, the sort of infinity that Craig thinks is impossible is one where a thing or a group of things has infinitely many temporal parts, while he thinks that God created time along with the universe, at which point he began to exist within it.

I think. I have a hard time following it. Admittedly, he does need to go through quite a bit of mental gymnastics to prevent God from being subject to the same anti-infinity argument as the Universe. You might be right that there's a problem here, but it's at least one that Craig is aware of and takes himself to have responded to sufficiently.

The hotel argument points out the absurdity of infinite material things. If the hotel has infinite rooms and they are all occupied and then a new customer comes the manger can still except new guests. He has infinite rooms. Everytime a new customer comes and can give them a room and move tenet in room 1 to room 2 an room 2 to room 3 etc. Even though every room is occupied he can always except new customers. And even though new customers are checking in he always has the same number of customers. Infinite. 1000 more check in, still the same number of customers. Even if an infinite amount of new customers can he could still accommodate all of them. and he would still have the same number of customers.

Now everyone in rooms with even numbers checks out. Guess what he still has the same exact number of customers; infinite.

The argument goes on and on but you get the point. An actually existing infinite material thing is full of absurdities. It cannot exist.

These absurdities with the infinite do not exist with spiritual beings.

AARO fucked around with this message at 19:00 on May 19, 2016

# ¿ May 19, 2016 18:56

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

opps

# ¿ May 19, 2016 18:58

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

Who What Now posted:

Ok, then how to do go from this to the Christian God specifically?

Thats what I'm trying to research now.

# ¿ May 19, 2016 19:00

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

spoon0042 posted:

Is this one of those things we're supposed to just accept as true by definition like that "everything good is God" bit?

Demonstrate an example like the hotel argument about eternal spiritual being.

# ¿ May 19, 2016 19:02

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

Kit Walker posted:

OP: What if there IS a creator but its morality is completely foreign to us and doesn't align with generally accepted ideas like "killing is wrong"? Like, what if there is an all-powerful, eternal creator but it actually doesn't give a gently caress if we all murder and rape each other, but also it definitely doesn't approve of anime or anyone watching it?

I don't believe that to be the case. If that were true then people may as well do whatever they want whenever they want to whomever they want except watch anime I guess. I kind of like that God; could you please sign me up? I believe in an objective moral law but I'm not sure about the arguments which try to prove such a thing philosophically. We're at least dipping our toe in the pool of Theology once you start exploring that subject.

However, the phenomenologists would say we can derive an epistemic justification for belief in moral law through eidetic intuition, which actually seems to mean something like our "knowledge from an inward experience". i'm not sure if this is really related to what the phenomonologists teach, but perhaps eidetic intuition about moral laws could be akin to our absolutely reliable knowledge on first principles, like the prin. of identity, which can not be proven but just has to be "seen" as true.

I don't know if I buy any of the arguments for objective morality that don't also employ some type of theological teaching.

AARO fucked around with this message at 14:52 on May 22, 2016

# ¿ May 22, 2016 14:42

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

The Belgian posted:

Why can't the universe be weird? There's nothing inconsistent here.

Looking things up, I found that Craig also uses the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem as an argument for the finiteness of the universe. Which shows he doesn't understand the theorem as it implies no such thing and makes me worry about his understanding of such arguments in general.

The theorem shows it's most likely that the universe is finite doesn't it? It doesn't state that is definitely finite. Perhaps Craig hasn't pointed out that distinction.

But we certainly except scientific probabilities, rather than absolute certainties, quite often.

# ¿ May 22, 2016 14:57

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

ShadowCatboy posted:

The core critique that Craig gets with the Kalam Cosmological Argument is where does he derive point #1 from? As I understand it he claims it's "self-evident" but I don't see how he pulled it out from anywhere other than his rear end to get around the internal contradiction inherent in the traditional First Cause Argument.

And what exactly does he mean by "begin to exist"? If I made a sandwich from its constituent materials does this mean the sandwich "began to exist" at that point? If so, how exactly does KCA differ fromt he traditional FCA and all its flaws?

Or does "begin to exist" mean "begin to exist ex nihlo?" DID the universe truly begin ex nihlo? And even if so, how can Craig make the generalization that "everything that begins to exist has a cause" based on this one instance?

Honestly, the KCA is grossly unconvincing to me on an elementary level. It's only an improvement on the traditional FCA in that it has a couple more hoops to jump through in breaking it down.

The Hilbert Hotel argument is used to demonstrate the absurdity of an actual infinite.

Then, because of the absurdities inherent in an actual infinite, Craig says they cannot exist. I think the argument is just as strong if you say it proves that an actual material infinite cannot exist. If you leave out the material part, people will object because of actual infinites in math. However, the Intuitionalist believe an actual infinite cannot exist in mathematics. The mathematician Gauss also didn't believe in actual infinities. "I protest against the use of infinite magnitude as something completed, which is never permissible in mathematics. Infinity is merely a way of speaking, the true meaning being a limit which certain ratios approach indefinitely close, while others are permitted to increase without restriction"

But it appears there is an agreement that an actual material infinite cannot exist, I suppose because of it's absurdities. I'd like to here more arguments for and against this. Do intrinsic absurdities of a thing prove the impossibility of existence of a thing? This is the only part of the Kalam argument I'm not 100% convinced by.

Here is a simpler explanation of the hotel argument.

AARO fucked around with this message at 22:14 on May 24, 2016

# ¿ May 24, 2016 21:47

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

The Belgian posted:

Your argument is also irrelevant to the post you're responding to, which didn't object to beginning but objected to beginning impying a cause.

It does seem to be self evident that all things which begin have a cause. Can you name one thing that began that did not have a cause?

# ¿ May 25, 2016 03:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 12:19

AARO: Mar 9, 2005; by Lowtax

OwlFancier posted:

Presumably, everything. There is no rule that says the universe can't be infinitely cyclical.

Also even if the universe did have a cause there is no reason why it has to be personified.

Yeah, except for of course if you read the argument.

# ¿ May 25, 2016 05:46

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Ethics, morality and other metaphysical statements without theism.