Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

So, just checking in, did Dawn Bertot come up with a theistic justification of morals?

God can be as immoral as She wants.

As far as I can understand it, he(?) thinks he can do it by knowing stuff instinctively, thinking hard about it and telling us about something important in a book that god wrote for him.

Where did it say Hitler was infinte in knowledge. So logically he could not be more moral than God. God's morality is not and cannot be subjective, because of his infinte nature, no more information could be added to his knowledge to make it more correct. See how it works JarIf there are different sets of morality, based on a subjective approach, then logically the Nazis could not be held responsible for thier actions. Do you see the silliness of your doctrine. You still have not demonstrate IT, to be anything more than another biological process. You have no hope of doing that actually If the universe has no meaning, then it follows logically you cannot either. But I'll take a look at the argument you might set to demonstrate your assertion. Your confusing your imaginations with reality. Here's an example.How would a subset of reality or the universe,, namely humans imagining things, be capable of knowing whether the universe had a meaning or not? It would follow logically therefore, that if you are incapable of knowing whether the universe has a meaning, that you could equally , have no chance of demonstrating, that your imaginations are meanings. Just can't escape that logic, Jar. Keep trying though I'm enjoying itDawn Bertot

Well actually I have set out several arguments. I don't remember you actually setting out an rebuttal against the FACT, that if the universe in purely physical or biological in reality and it doesn't have meaning, why do you think your biological imaginations are more than the total itself. What possible meaning could your imagined morals have on the universe itself. You would have to have a greater meaning than that which created you for your imagined meaning to have meaning.That being the case, we can see, how conscience does exist, but for it to have meaning or relevance, there would need to be something greater than that which created it. And i believe that could only be God. Do you see how the existence of a conscience, morality, a sense of ought, are actually a proof for the existence of God. Oh I'm sorry, one of the many proofs for the existence of GodThen there is the problem of subjective meaning anything but subjective. It's another word you made up to describe things happening, in a meaningless universe
Then there's the problem of you not being able to charge the Nazis with any real guilt, right or wrong
Then there's the problem of you and the animals. YOU REALLY BLEW THAT ONE.So yes I did set out some arguments, you just kept throwing things at them like synergy and memes, instead of grabbing my actual argumentsDawn Bertot

Well, absolutely no, no pun intended. The word subjective is given a relative meaning by humans, which in reality has no meaning."'based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions."his views are highly subjective"synonymsersonal,individual,emotional,instinctive,intuitive"a subjective analysis"If my feelings or opinions are different than the Nazis, then it follows logically that no one could say they were guilty of anything. They were just doing other biological things, different than I would do. Throwing a made up word at them like, moral or immoral, doesn't help you doctrine. Subjective means nothingNow if there exists a being outside the universe that is all knowing and absolute in its morality, then the words start to make sense. In your universe and doctrine they mean nothing So now have you expanded your definitions to include nonsense as well? Why does that not surprise me. It's a logical conclusion of relative or subjective, correctSo if what worked for the Nazis worked for them, it's good to go?. If what works for a child molester, works for them, it's ok. Remember we can't let what they think get in the way of what works, for us correct "Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite." Psalms 147:5"Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth Does not become weary or tired His understanding is inscrutable." Isa 40:28"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!. Romans 11:33I believe inscrutable means non contestable, due to his being infinte in wisdomDawn Bertot

[qs]The word, itself (that is A-P-P-L-E), is a real thing. It's a word. Words are real.I think you are talking about theconcept. Concepts, too, exist as real things they just are not objective. That is, they do not exist outside of our minds. But they still exist.Are you just using the word "real" to mean "objective"? If so, you're begging the premise... Subjective things are also real.Well, no, wrong again. Pay very close attention to what I'm about to say. It will help you understand what you are missing. Before you existed, what you describe as an APPLE already existed in reality, even if it didn't have your imagined designation, correct. So using your concepts which are not real things, doesn't give it it's meaning. It already had its existence and meaning, if you wish to call it thatBefore you existed, animals, we're going through the very same motions your are now. They were taking eachother lives and doing thins you now describe as moral and immoral. So, just like the apple, these things don't get thier meaning from terms you throw at them. Hence no real morality in a purposeless universe. Imagining morality is not the same as actually having it in realityThat's why if we use THIER system of so called morality, the Nazis were just doing stuff, biological stuff I never NOT said that reality defines things for us. That just what I'm saying. In a purely naturalistic existence, words and concepts are just that, made up terms, things that can't really exist.
Since, as I have demonstrated above, morality is a made up term for things happening, that concept cannot exist, because all these things would have existed before my defining them as morality, that's assuming the Atheist postion. Well that is nice to know, I did not know that. Thank you for letting me know. NCE, understand that I am not representing my argument only in these premises, I'm representing thier position to show its logical consequences and implicationsIn reality conscience and morality that Cleary exists in humans is proof for the existence of God. If however, he did not exist, it would make no logical sense and could not be explained or rationalized, other than biological processessIf indeed you are a Christian and you believe Jesus words,, you would know he said Truth is actually knowable. "FOR this reason I was born and for this cause I came into the world to testify to the truth" If that's not true WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE HIM AS CHRISTIANS, about truth. If Jesus truth is not absolute or objective, why should I trust anything he said, correct?"YOU WILL KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE'. Now if he only meant this in some relativistic subjective way, It would mean anyone's alleged truth could be valid. Just pick one, correct. Now in a very real way he is claiming truth is objectiveIf Jesus came into the world to testify to the truth and save people from thier sins, there must be an objective knowable truth, for me to accept and know to know that I am saved. Verses believing everyother religionAs in the verses I quoted to Ringo, one can easily see that truth is knowable and objective, due to his omniscience. For truth to be knowable it has to be more than a belief. Self assessment is not necessary where, where reality does that for us. I'm not worried about pats on the back, I'm satisfied none of the arguments I presented have been overturned. But these same arguments have been around for hundreds of years and have stood the test of time and reality Reality gives us the allowances and limits of reason and logic. Those things don't define reality. It's the other way aroundDawn Bertot

So may I assume that these societies, that do this are moral or immoral in your view. Not notice I'm not asking anyone in general, I'm asking you? I think we are actually getting closer and closer to showing you how the term subjective is meaningless and worthless. But I'll await your answer.Why do you think I sidestepped your answer. Without even ME trying you just told me in your statement about socities, that there is actually nothing wrong with Fred's behavior with or without a tumor. But I'll wait for your specific answer as to why the societies child sex and Fred's tendencies are moral or immoral. Give us an answer why you think thier behavior is moral or immoral. Is your indirect implication that sex with children is actually morally ok, because you nearly defended thier right to have that rightYou see Tangle I did answer your question. You just didn't like the answer, because you are not sure whether Fred's behavior is wrong in the first place. Damage to the brain will also cause people to see things that are not actually there, is that moral or immoral.. you see tangle, morality has to be from a source outside human perspective to actually be morality, otherwise we have you doing exactly what your doing now, affirming and denying the morality of child sex at the same time, with the same argument. That's called nonsense Thank you for your answer. But now notice, looking strictly at your and the others doctrine here, that being that morality is subjective, there is in reality, no way to define any of the examples you gave as right, wrong, correct incorrect, moral or immoral. Even you in your description are bouncing back and forth, flip flopping around. Now you may call this subjective, but remember you defined Hitler's actions as Wrong. Not slightly wrong, maybe wrong or possibly wrong, but Wrong. So how could he be ACTUALLY wrong. Of course given your position he's neither or any of these things.Relative subjective morality can't even exist muchless be explainedIt's relative, easy, no pun intended, to show you the absolute,truth about the edict, thou shalt not kill. If I had made that decree, it would be meaningless. If an infinte God made that decree, then he knows absolutely my intentions when I take a life. The obligation is on God, not me to define whether I murdered or killed in self defense. So, if I'm showing you simply by my standards what moral or immoral are, it would be meaningless.We dont have to be all knowing ourselves to determine glaring distinctions, in moral concepts. But even if we don't get all the specifics right, it doesn't mean there's no standard. Obviously there isSo Hitler was objectively wrong and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were absolutely Moral, ie Romans 13 Of course part of it is due to the fall and depravity of man's nature. The whole of creation was corrupted. So to answer your question that's not how it was originally created. But to be honest, I dont know all the reasons. I had another fellow tell me that if had created man, he wouldn't have created him as he is now, with the same physical features and physical make up. So I asked him to give me a picture and description of how he would make him. I never got that description.On the other hand I don't know why the same God would tell me to love my enemies or let Satan put Job through what he went through, or why he would sacrifice his own son. This is why, even if subjective morality were actually a real thing in reality, would not work. If you pay close attention to your answer, you will see that you described nothing more than imaginations and perceptions, that really make no sense and have no meaning. Given your description, any thinking person can easily see that morality cannot and does not actually exist in a purely Naturalistic societyDawn Bertot

If I was disposed to believe that the Nazis were correct, aside from my emotions, would that make them moral. Or would we need a bunch of people that agree with me, to decide that it was moral.So nastiness and niceness are brought about by evolution, which in turn develope morals. But emotions don't make up morals, even though nastiness and niceness, by any real definition, would come from emotions. Hmmmmm? I think your falling apart Mod. But if your are saying that animals can't really be nasty or nice, and that morals are of the same substance, I'll agree that you agree, morals don't really exist. So my point is proven. Well that is a perfect redescription of what we are debating. Since you only again described what you believe and not necessarily what is true, I'll consider your statement as a loose observation or assertion. If you'd like to actually present an argument in connection with that observation I'll consider it Of course you disagree with him, you've made morals something undefinable and nonexistent, except in some relativistic imaginations of your mind But you did do otherwise. You described nastiness and niceness as the things that brought about morals from an evolutionary standpoint. So are these descriptions real or unreal. If they are not actually proceeding from emotions, I'll assume that the morality they created, is as un real as they are. You'll let me know But not in any real sense do you mean nasty and unforgiving, because that they would come from an emotion like hatred. So your alleged morals are just as unreal , correct. Your just describing things that don't actually exist, correct

Sorry Dawn but the Bible says God's morality is not just subjective but often changing and even at times God needs to be lectured on morality by humans.That you return to that nonsense is simply another example that you simply have never honestly read the Bible.Hell most anyone is more moral than the God in the Bible. Certainly Hitler and Stalin and Mao were far more moral than the God character found in Exodus or Genesis 6&7. They would go about to by describing the meaning they assign to the universe.It really is that simple Dawn. Things don't have innate meaning. Living things assign meanings. You keep making these truly stupid comments Dawn. Really. Think. Were there trials at Nuremberg after WWII. Were people held responsible for their acts?If those trial happened and if there were people that were held responsible for their acts then the fact is that Nazis were held responsible for their actions.Have there been other trials all over the world where people have been held responsible for their actions?Are there trials even today where people are held responsible for their actions?

Yes. And yours too I assume. You'll find those views common amongst people born and raised in the same cultures at the same time. But the fact that they are seen differently by other cultures at other times tells you that morals are not absolute doesn't it?

quote:

---

I think we are actually getting closer and closer to showing you how the term subjective is meaningless and worthless. But I'll await your answer.

---

You've had my answer several times. Your normal response is to declare victory whilst leaving everyone baffled by your answers.

quote:

---

Why do you think I sidestepped your answer.

---

Because you can't answer it? Just a thought.

quote:

---

Without even ME trying you just told me in your statement about socities, that there is actually nothing wrong with Fred's behavior with or without a tumor.

---

Here's a little job for you, go back and find where I say that there's nothing wrong with Fred's behaviour. If you prefer, I can save you time by saying that there is everything wrong with it.

quote:

---

But I'll wait for your specific answer as to why the societies child sex and Fred's tendencies are moral or immoral. Give us an answer why you think thier behavior is moral or immoral. Is your indirect implication that sex with children is actually morally ok, because you nearly defended thier right to have that right

---

Well here we go again. Fred's behaviour is not moral. FMG is not moral. Child sex is not moral. According to me and the society I live in. But in other societies some of those practices are considered moral.

quote:

---

You see Tangle I did answer your question.

---

As you didn't even touch on answering my question, I'll ask it again. Here you go THAT is what you have to explain. Try to stick to answering that single point. How can morality be absolute if it changes?

quote:

---

You just didn't like the answer, because you are not sure whether Fred's behavior is wrong in the first place.

---

Let me help you with that - Fred's behaviour is out and out wrong. Got it?

quote:

---

you see tangle, morality has to be from a source outside human perspective to actually be morality,

---

I guess we got lucky, not only have we actually got this thing called morality - we all here pretty much agree that murder is wrong for example - but we can do it without a fictional god.

quote:

---

But now notice, looking strictly at your and the others doctrine here, that being that morality is subjective, there is in reality, no way to define any of the examples you gave as right, wrong, correct incorrect, moral or immoral.

---

Yes there is we do it all the time, every day, several times a day.

quote:

---

Even you in your description are bouncing back and forth, flip flopping around. Now you may call this subjective, but remember you defined Hitler's actions as Wrong. Not slightly wrong, maybe wrong or possibly wrong, but Wrong. So how could he be ACTUALLY wrong. Of course given your position he's neither or any of these things.

---

Nope he's still wrong. Yep, just checked again and genocide is still definately wrong.

quote:

---

Relative subjective morality can't even exist muchless be explained

---

Hmmmm. The difficulty with that is that it does exist and can be shown to exist so we're in a bit of a bind here.

quote:

---

It's relative, easy, no pun intended, to show you the absolute,truth about the edict, thou shalt not kill. If I had made that decree, it would be meaningless. If an infinte God made that decree, then he knows absolutely my intentions when I take a life. The obligation is on God, not me to define whether I murdered or killed in self defense. So, if I'm showing you simply by my standards what moral or immoral are, it would be meaningless.

---

Well jolly good for you. I agree that we shouldn't kill but I don't need a work of fiction to know that. Also people who believe in different works of fiction think that we shouldn't kill either. How does that work?

quote:

---

We dont have to be all knowing ourselves to determine glaring distinctions, in moral concepts. But even if we don't get all the specifics right, it doesn't mean there's no standard. Obviously there is

---

Of course there is, we set the standard.

quote:

---

So Hitler was objectively wrong and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were absolutely Moral, ie Romans 13

---

Now that is the biggest non sequitur I've seen for a while. Why was Hitler objectively wrong and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were absolutely right? Please explain.

quote:

---

Of course part of it is due to the fall and depravity of man's nature. The whole of creation was corrupted. So to answer your question that's not how it was originally created. But to be honest, I dont know all the reasons.

---

Yeh, tricky for religion to explain isn't it? Easy for evolution though.

quote:

---

On the other hand I don't know why the same God would tell me to love my enemies or let Satan put Job through what he went through, or why he would sacrifice his own son.

---

It's easy, it's just fiction. You can do that when stuff is just made up.

quote:

---

This is why, even if subjective morality were actually a real thing in reality, would not work. If you pay close attention to your answer, you will see that you described nothing more than imaginations and perceptions, that really make no sense and have no meaning. Given your description, any thinking person can easily see that morality cannot and does not actually exist in a purely Naturalistic society

---

Oh I agree absolute morality does not exist in our society. That's sort of what we're all saying. It's a mash-up.

Drop the condescension or I'll just stop replying. Of course, but that is totally beside the point.Before I existed, there was no way for the thing "an imagined apple in my mind" to exist. After I exist and imagine it, then there is a thing that exists that is "an imagined apple in my mind". There are corresponding brain states to that imagination that have associated states of the physical universe, and that is existing.That thing does not exist objectively, but it does exist subjectively. As a thing, it exists, it is real. Of course they don't. I'm not sure how you think I'm saying otherwise. That doesn't logically follow from the premises you wrote, you need more of an argument.Again you're just assuming that moralities must be objective in order to be a "real morality". You haven't established that yet. Our imaginations are in reality, but yes, they are not objective. That doesn't make them not a morality. That doesn't even make sense. You wrongly assume that for something to exist it must be objective.Subjective things also have an existence. Wrong. Those things start existing as a morality when people start imagining them, because, a morality is a subjective things that a person imagines rather than an objective thing that we can point to. It shouldn't matter, just make your arguments against the positions I take regardless of what I am. No offense, but you're failing miserably. Other than? Is that a tacit admission that there is actually a rationalization?Biological processes, as explanations, can rationalize subjective moralities. You've been presented an explanation of moralities evolving via biological processes.You have yet to address that other than repeating: "Nuh-uh, that's not real morality in reality." Reality, itself, does not assess. But regardless of any necessity, you did assess yourself... poorly. No, reason and logic are not bound by reality.According to reason and logic, adamantium is strong enough that it could cut a unicorn's horn. Neither of those things are real, but the statement is still reasoned and logical (assuming the hidden premises).

No, geez, that is just terrible theology. All-or-nothing is patently stupid.Take the statement: "The sky is green and 2+2=4".That the first half is wrong does not mean that the second half is too.The Golden Rule is a good one even if Jesus wasn't perfect and there's no reason to throw it out if Jesus was wrong about something.

Plus Jesus truth was always subjective. From what is recorded he was always pragmatic when it came to morality.Let he who without sin cast the first stone. (other stones can be tossed by anyone)If you ass falls in a crack on the Sabbath go ahead and pull it out.Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, heal the sick, protect the weak. No mention of whether any were deserving or not.Yes, he spent the groups money to buy oils for himself instead of using it for the poor because he would not always be among them.He caused a riot and vandalized all the stores just because they were open on a day of worship at his church.Even the rules outlined by the God character in the Bible are subjective and not absolute.

That go off on wild tangents trying to make the whole universe meaningless in order to say that my arguments are meaningless. That is not refuting the arguments as rationally derived morals. And this is a perfect example of this rabbit-hole deflection ... all of that babble does not change the FACT that we have thoughts and that by sharing them (memes) we share similar views of "life, the universe and everything" ...... this FACT does not refute the existence of subjective morals. It doesn't address them. Indeed the "physical or biological in reality" explains how we have thoughts and ideas and how we share them, glad you agree.It explains how we can have subjective morals derived from self-interest -- to survive and breed in a social group. Nor is this an actual problem in reality, as has been explained:

quote:

---

Synergy is the creation of a whole that is greater than the simple sum of its parts. The term synergy comes from the Attic Greek word συνεργία synergia[1] from synergos, συνεργός, meaning "working together".

​

The term synergy was refined by R. Buckminster Fuller, who analyzed some of its implications more fully[11] and coined the term Synergetics.[12]

​

• A dynamic state in which combined action is favored over the difference of individual component actions.
• Behavior of whole systems unpredicted by the behavior of their parts taken separately, known as emergent behavior.
• The cooperative action of two or more stimuli (or drugs), resulting in a different or greater response than that of the individual stimuli.

​

Biological sciences

​

Synergy of various kinds has been advanced by Peter Corning as a causal agency that can explain the progressive evolution of complexity in living systems over the course of time. According to the Synergism Hypothesis, synergistic effects have been the drivers of cooperative relationships of all kinds and at all levels in living systems. The thesis, in a nutshell, is that synergistic effects have often provided functional advantages (economic benefits) in relation to survival and reproduction that have been favored by natural selection. The cooperating parts, elements, or individuals become, in effect, functional units of selection in evolutionary change.[13] Similarly, environmental systems may react in a non-linear way to perturbations, such as climate change, so that the outcome may be greater than the sum of the individual component alterations. Synergistic responses are a complicating factor in environmental modeling.[14]

---

Instances where the "whole that is greater than the simple sum of its parts" have been observed and thus it is a FACT that synergies exist, for example the brain and cognition are an emergent property that is greater than the sum of the parts. Self-consciousness is an emergent property that is greater than the sum of the parts. That's your opinion for which you have no objective empirical evidence, it is purely subjective speculations.And, no I don't see how assuming the conclusion in your premises proves anything ... other than a weakish mind that grasps at logical fallacies to bolster a weakish opinion.Nor do I see any need to leap from observations of biology, especially when including observed synergies, in the history of developments in various species to explain how mind and thought occur or to explain how knowledge is passed from generation to generation by memes. And why should it? Curiously, I don't need subjective meanings to be anything but subjective, that is kind of a tautology by definition. This is not a problem. Demonstrating again that you don't understand (whether by choice or by cognitive dissonance is immaterial). We observe and test objective empirical (objective) happenings, catalogue them, make (subjective). When we agree that a chair is a chair because we all see and experience the chair, that is an objective observation. Our knowledge of the universe and how it works is made up of many many many such objective observations.This attempt to make the whole universe meaningless doesn't counter the observed fact of subjective morals derived from self-interest -- to survive and breed in a social group -- existing in all cultures. This is not a counter argument but a non-sequitur distraction. Another non-existent problem that does not counter the observed fact of subjective morals derived from self-interest -- to survive and breed in a social group -- existing in all cultures.Within the Nazi culture their behaviors were considered moral by fellow Nazis, that is the cultural group they operated within. That actually explains their compliance and acceptance of that behavior.That does not mean that everyone in the world thought their behavior was moral, that is why the Nuremberg Court found them guilty of war-crimes -- crimes counter to the moral codes of the larger population. And I am at a loss to see how you came to that conclusion. What I said was that it wasn't necessary that animals be included. Obviously some people do (PETA) and others don't. That's what subjective is all about.Because it is subjective there is a spectrum of opinions on what is moral and what is not moral, and as there are many many many issues involved it is a multidimensional spectrum.Some people think hurting any animal is wrong, some think eating dogs is okay, some think that keeping pets is immoral because it deprives the animals of a natural existence.South Pacific Islanders thought it was moral to kill and eat their enemies -- that they were honoring their foes by eating them, taking their essence into their own bodies. Same for any of their tribe that died.This multidimensional spectrum of moral beliefs has many extremes, but there is also overlapping consensus on many issues, so those spectra would also show normalish bell-like curves.And once more we see that this particular argument does not counter the observed fact of subjective morals derived from self-interest -- to survive and breed in a social group -- existing in all cultures.

---

Nor does this whole little diatribe counter the observed fact of subjective morals derived from self-interest -- to survive and breed within a social groups. It doesn't address it at all.

​

So you see, not one of your several specious rambling arguments actually addresses the observed fact of subjective morals derived from self-interest -- to survive and breed within a social groups -- being a social construct to improve the chances of the social group surviving and thriving through mutually beneficial behavior.Secular Morals Have been rationally explained. Done. Finished.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .