Atheism, Regimes and belief systems

Let's see, maybe it was handed down by Zeus or Odin. Perhaps aliens created the universe and established these rules.In any case there is no such thing as objective absolute morality. EVERYONE uses aituational morals and to claim there is such thing as objective absolute morality is pretty silly.However, this is all off-topic.The only point of relevance here would be that atheism says nothing about morality accept that it is not derived from a god or gods. Heck, an atheist could still follow the morality of the bible just because he/she thought it was a good system.

It's a logical point, SNC, but I gather that logic isn't too popular around here. The logical point is that if there is an omniscient omnipotent omnipresent Creator God who spelled out His moral rules for the universe and its creatures that He made, then such rules would be absolute, objective and binding on the inhabitants of the universe. If any of your posited "creators" (Zeus, Odin or aliens) fit the description I just gave, then his/their rules would be absolute, objective and binding on the inhabitants of the universe.About atheism and morality, this particular subtopic began with someone's assertion that an atheist's morality could be objective, absolute and binding. I claim it could not be, because for that to be the case there would have to be a Creator describable in the above terms. OR conceivably some moral principles could be found to be shared by all humanity in all times and places and if so, perhaps that would constitute a claim to objective, absolute morality. Perhaps: Robinrohan thinks it wouldn't; Pink Sasquatch thinks it would.Just to bring you up to speed.Cheers.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-18-2006 12:41 AM

I dont see it that way. By definition, Gods authority is recognized by default much as the law of gravity is recognized by default.One can choose to not believe in gravity, yet we are still bound by the reality. Its the same with God. One can freely dismiss His influence, yet when we are talking about an absolute universal power, our decision to recognize such a power becomes a non-decision.

So you're saying that an omnipotent god couldn't come up with a rule-set that's relative? Technically could be, but the universe would have to be calling all the shots. If it didn't, in order for the numeric values to have any meaning, someone would have to interpret them and assign them one. If it's binding, any expression of the rule-set would likely be meaningless to us. If it's impossible for a certain act to occur within the universe, you can't observe it occurring; and if you don't observe it occurring, you don't need to invent a word to signify it.

Let's test your recognition:
How does gravity work on a quantum level? Who's infuluence?
Could you please point out the person you're referring to?This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 04-18-2006 06:34 AM

yes I know we can play these games of definitions till the Sacred Cows come home!I concede that absolutes cannot be proven, but we cannot prove that they (He) does not exist.Some folk use a-priori perspectives as opposed to empirical tests.

That is correct. His moral law is part of his own character, perfect and complete in Himself. There is always only one right answer to any question whether we can arrive at it or not. Sorry, I'm not following you. Can you make this clearer?

Not really.Gravity is a manifest presence in this universe, an effect caused by curvature in time/space (or some such.). It is in short an unavoidable part of existence.However. If a deity such as the Christian God existed then as he ”created’ this closed system we call the universe, surly he would be on the outside of it? Else he would have had to create himself at the same time, neat trick if you can do it.Being on the outside of a closed system means he can have no physical influence on what’s inside that system. In other words while you cant avoid the influence of gravity, there is no influence (physically) that god can assert to avoid or deny in the first place.If he can’t assert any physical influence on this universe then as far as the universe is concerned he might as well not exist. If his existence is immaterial then any notion we can dream up in regard to his divine morality is equally immaterial, we might as well choose to believe in the Holiness of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And while I respect the right to believe in his noodley appendages I for one are prepared to forego that honour, as indeed I do with all proposed deities.

I have to disagree with you here Ohnhai. Given that God could have created a system such as the universe, ther is no reason that he wouldn't have been able to leave a loophole though which he could infuence stuff on the inside of the system. We have no way of even knowing for sure that the system is actually closed wrt Gods influence.Take a computer simulation as an example. The programmer can create a self contained system that is essentially closed but he also builds himself an editor by means of which he can drop new lifeforms wherever and whenever he likes. He can also set of earthquakes or all manner of stuff. he can pick up and move his creatures. Basically do whatever he likes while remaining entirely outside of the system.

If he has a way to physically interact with the universe in any way, he includes him self in the system ( such is the nature of closed systems). If included within in the system then he is bound by it's laws .In that case being bound as much as we are, he becomes just another sentient being in this big old universe. If he is just another sentient entity of this universe then you and I are no more bound by his will than ours binds others. IF he is truly outside (i.e. no physical influence) then the actuality of his existence or not matters not one jot. You can't have it both ways.As there is no confirmable empirical data to confirm God’s actual direct physical interaction of this universe then it’s fairly safe to say that what evidence there is (ie utter lack of) indicates that if he does exist then the universe is, to him at least, a closed system. To those within that system his existence is actually meaningless.This however doesn’t mean that religion is wrong in it’s belief that God created the universe. We have thus far been able to determine the state of the universe up until fractions of a second before the big-bang, we are hampered in going further because even our mot advanced math stops working at that point. So If we cant calculate exactly what caused the big bang. Then all bets are still on, including the full on GDI (God Did It). All I’m saying is if he did create the universe then, considering the evidence, the universe is likely to be a closed system and ”if’ he exists he is outside that system and thus his existence is, to us, immaterial.

If there is an absolute and objective set of morals, why don't people agree on what that set of morals is?

All good points and logically sound. But you aren't allowing for the possibility of a "user interface" which could easily have been built into a closed system as part of its nature.(I like to use computer simulations as examples so please let me know if this bugs you too much. I see it as a pretty good similarity)For several years now, I have been working on a life sim program called Darwinbots. It too is a system where we can control the energy levels and loads of other things while a group of "robots" live, hunt, reproduce and evolve over time.
For all intents and purposes, the user of this simulation is their God. We sit outside their universe and watch them. However, the simulation also has built in controls, forever invisible and undetectable to the inhabitants of the computer universe. With these controls, I can add new robots, edit the DNA of the robots, change the laws of physics and any number of other things. All without stopping the simulation.
Does that make the system any less closed?
I would say No it doesn't. The editing controls are part of the system in the first place and therefore any changes made from outside via the interface are included automatically as part of the set. After each "edit" event, the total energy in the closed system may have changed but that doesn't make it any less closed between events. Am I included in the Darwinbots system?
Only in so much as the interface is a fixed set of code that cannot be changed during a given simulation. Within the framework of those controls I can do anything to them. If he had no physical influence then he would be utterly irrelevent. But I have just showed you a way that he could (in theory) have an influence while remaining outside. Granted. I am not arguing that point. Based on the evidence (or lack thereof) I don't think he is there at all. I am just pointing out that a God could (if he wanted to) design a closed system but still leave a portal through which he could manipulate it. It would remain closed as far as it's inhabitants could tell but to him it really wouldn't be. he could even design it such that when he reaches in and makes a new planet or star out of nothing, the inhabitants of the universe would believe that it had always been there. How would they ever know he had done it?[Link corrected by edit]This message has been edited by PurpleYouko, 04-26-2006 09:22 AM

Computer sims do not irk me. If they did the games industry would be the wrong place for me to have spent the last 15 years . True, it does not make the system any less closed. but surely if the total energy of the closed system changes then it can’t be closed system. It must get that energy from elsewhere, yes? It must get it from the user or the system the user inhabits. By the logic above the absolutely yes you are. You arbitrarily add and remove energy from the system. Which means you, and the system that encompasses you; have to be a part of the overall set of the closed system. If this were not the case then you would not be able to make the changes.In truth if we follow quantum mechanics to it’s fullest then a closed system would have to be un-observable from the outside, as to even observe an event is to affect that event. If you can affect anything in a closed system then you must be a part of that system. Thought you said the parameters could all be edited on the fly (see above) You have just contradicted your self by saying the parameters can not be changed while the system is running. Which is it? And hopefully you will see that even in observing a closed system you alter it, (either adding or removing energy), so that in making deliberate changes to the way it works there is no way you can avoid being part of the system you are observing or changing: even simulated. But it doesn’t matter if we can’t tell if a planet or sun wasn’t there a second ago. If he has the ability to observe what is going on in this universe and add or remove energy on the scale of a sun or two then he HAS to be a part of the entire system. If he inst part of the system then he cant even know what going on inside it. Hell it’s odds on ( as it cant be observed, he isn’t aware of it’s existence at all, making us just as irrelevant to him as he is to us.If he does exist within the system then that kind of power almost demands acquiescence, but it doesn’t earn it by default, no matter how much it demands.

The one thing I wonder about is if the constructs within the program would be aware of the entity that made the changes? If you are saying that the programmer is part of the system, and that programmer creates a universe with critters operating indipendantly within the limits of the programming, and the programmer changes the rules or inserts a new factor or removes some constraint would the critters be aware of either the programmer or the change?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Not necessarily.