The Christian God would have had to falsify a great deal of scientific evidence if the creation story as believed by christians is the actual explanation for the existence of the world and our universe. If the Bible is true there are many inconsistencies that can only be attributed to human error or divine deception. This doesn't disallow a creator in a vague sense, but there is no way anyone actually knows anything about such a creator if one exists.
I am a Christian, but I fall into the category of theistic evoluitonist. So I believe in both the Christian God and evolution.
If God did exist, we would have ways of knowing things about Him. There are many philsophical arguments which reveal the character, nature, and properties of God. The moral argument shows his character, the kalam argument shows his ontology, the teleological argument shows His power etc.
Again though, those arguments are either disproven (morality is a result of natural selection, the appearance of design is also a result of natural selection) or unsound at best. Scientifically god can not be exempt from the first cause hypothesis.
You cannot disprove the moral argument by saying that our sense of morality came from natural selection. That objection would commit the genetic fallacy, and only lend support to premise 2 of the argument.
In defense of the teleological:
I don't argue for the appearance of design in life, but in the constants, like gravitation and strong/weak nuclear force.
It's my understanding that the 'moral argument' is there would be no morality without god, so my citing natural selection as the source of morality is not in error. The moral argument seems based on the circular/false premise if there is morality, there must be god; there is morality, thus there is god. I say we have a fully valid concept of how species evolve morals without god. The burden of proof is yours, making the claim for the need of God. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary -->
The teleological--there is no more evidence of design in the constants than there is in life...?
As for the Kalam: empirical source please? Again, extraordinary claims and all that. Has this Kalam argument empirically proved God? The first cause argument tends to be dismissed out of hand as best I can tell.
If all of the constants in the universe could be any way, and they happen to be withing a very small realm with is planet and life permitting, we can infer intent.
The kalam is based off of the idea that an infinite regress is impossible. The impossibility of an infinite regress is definitely provable.
Even if people did dismiss it out of hand, that is not a valid reason to dismiss it. You need to know their reasons, otherwise you are following them blindly.
There would be no "objective" morality without God. Objective is really the key word there. Unfortunately some Christians argue that atheists cannot be moral. I find that quite silly.
The moral argument is not circular. If it was, it would be quite easy to show and I can provide the premises for you if you would like to try and demonstrate it to be circular.
The burden of proof lies on the person claiming our innate knowledge of morality is an illusion. To trust your senses is the default.
Hmm maybe you're right...maybe Ptah *did* create the universe :) Seriously though, now you have to define 'objective morality.' No fair switching terms mid-stream and putting words in my mouth about what morality is, bad form sir. Teleology-we can hypothesize intent, yes. We can also hypothesize other natural causes, and so far as I know, that's the side that is coming up with testable results. Quantum physics isn't my best area. And even if there is proof, finite regression doesn't prove *God*.
I do not intend to put words in your mouth. The moral argument pertains only to "objective" morality. It would mean that moral obligations and duties exist and apply to all people. For example, "killing an innocent person for fun is wrong" would be a statement of fact, rather than a statement of opinion like "ice cream tastes good". Regardless of opinion, some actions would be right or wrong.
Yet you did. I did not claim our morality is an illusion at any time. I claim our objective morality is a biological imperative that proved to strengthen our frail little ape-like species and merited reproduction. Morality has no need of God (and I have read the entire Bible more than once, and really think we'd have been better off as a species without a lot of those particular standards of 'morality').
If morality is nothing more than a biological imperative, and biological imperatives fall victim to the naturalistic fallacy, then our moral sense is an illusion. Moral obligations would not actually exist.
Pragmatic obligations perhaps, but if being moral did not benefit us, there would be no real reason we should be moral.
Our intuitions tell us that we should be moral even if it does not benefit us. If this is true, objective morality exists. If it is not, objective morality is an illusion.
Absolutely wrong. The whole point of objective morality, such as parents sacrificing for their children to the extent of their lives, treating those we socially interact with as we would like to be treated even when it seems unrewarding, etc, are EXACTLY the kind of behavior that would reward a species. It DOES benefit us, and thus it is a very real evolutionary imperative. Call it an illusion if you like, but this is just the same old 'you can't be a good person without God' argument. False.
This is nothing even close to the "you can't be a good person without God argument".
This is the "there is no such thing as objective morality if God does not exist" argument.
Nature cannot account for moral obligations. The naturalistic fallacy makes this explicitly clear. If our intuitions are not an illusion, objective morality exists.
In your view, there is no difference between being pragmatic and being moral.
While being moral is often pragmatic, it is not always the case.
This is a semantic point and you are drawing false conclusions. How is there a difference between a mother dying for her offspring as a pragmatic evolutionary imperative or a god-given moral imperative? Your premise is false, there is no logical fallacy in finding answers for evolved social behavior in natural selection; it accounts perfectly well for moral obligations. We're a social species, we would have been eaten without relative selflessness evolved from having to live with small groups.
As I said earlier, morality and being pragmatic are often the same thing. However, when something is not in our best interest, it may still be moral. If this is not true, then you must claim our moral intuitions (which claim the opposite) are an illusion. If they are not an illusion then my point has been proven.
We agree that moral intuitions come from evolution. Now we must determine if they are geared for truth value or merely survivability.
Well, I don't have to claim any such thing. I'm not interested in semantic gymnastics either. And the pragmatic perspective from the species point of view is not always the same as the preagmatic perspective from the individual point of view, so carry on with what I expect are you hypotheticals to try and prove that objective morality is impossible without God. I can think of no evidence for it.
I agree that pragmatic for the individual is not the same as pragmatic for the species. Pragmatically speaking, we should only do actions to maximize the benefit to our own genes. Morally speaking we should help people even if it is to the detriment of our genes.
We have moral intuitions that tell us we should selflessly help others. It is rational to believe these moral intuitions inform us of reality.
We're coming closer to a point of agreement, but I think you're underestimating what natural selection finds as pragmatic. I don't see any of the social developments and being moral and not pragmatic, and you do because you believe God did it. It is not -always- the same, but it -tends- to be the same over long periods of time that evolution functions in. Can you give me an example of a moral, non-pragmatic development? What do moral people do that does not have a benefit to the species?
Giving time and energy to a dying man or not killing and stealing things from an old hermit might, in some instances, have more costs than benefits to the species.
In fact, nature cannot decree that we should value the species above our own genes. In many cases, removing the competition is often pragmatic.
The very moment that you say that we should value X or we have an obligation to do X, you are conceding the existence of objective morality.
Your first two examples are only true in the case of the victims in question NOT belonging to your group, and the competition example too. That sense of empathy and restraint from taking things is a positive social adaptation, since living in groups requires that for a successful society, which has been our primary evolutionary advantage in many ways. I disagree about nature making us put the species above our own genes. Our biological drive has likely killed millions of birthing women, yet...
...still we reproduce at biology's urging. That is not selfish unless it is selfish of the species. I do not deny there is a vague objective morality, I just deny it has anything to do with any god or gods. It is probably our most wonderful example of natural selection helping us evolve and eventually civilize.
Mothers cannot be used as an example of how we do not desire the promotion of "our genes" above the species.
"our genes" refers to our kin, basically anyone who is related to us and has "our genes" in them. The way you spread "your genes" is through childbirth and the protection of your siblings.
Childbirth, is therefore the most pragmatic thing you can do in regards to the survival of your genes (evolutionarily speaking).
what naturalistic fallacy are you referring to exactly? humans do not follow morality. in fact there is strong evidence that the types of decisions being made are pretty well wired into our genetics. studies on the brain activity of psycopaths vs. normal brains suggest that the specifications of the an individuals brain, ie. more use of the logical rather than the emotional part of the brain, wires in innately what type of moral path would be naturally followed. the fact that nature --->
the fact that natural selection is not a fine tuner is written all over in how our morals are followed. your entire moral argument suggests a type of free is present in human thought process. there is not sufficient evidence to point to that conclusion. in fact the evidence points more towards chemical reactions and how your brain reacts to them the type of thing that dictates decisions. as well as a sense of probability. but how such complex decision making exists is because how people's --->
slight biological differences that encourage different reactions between individuals to the environmental influences. our brain is so convolutedly complex that it is itself a signature of the frailities and slight inefficiencies of natural selection. by looking at the mathematical represenation of its output and process power there maybe more powerful and inefficient make up that would make more sense. poison for example essentially paralyzes your nervous system by effecting the --->
neurotransmitters. the more deadly poisons are more deadly because they negatively effect the neurotransmitter from sending information much more efficiently. the eye as well. admitting how amazing the eye works you can tell that it was not created in a way that each step of the evolutionary road had the eye in its design plans. it went and still goes for what works in that moment.
The naturalistic fallacy only applies when the conclusion is fallacious, btw. Just because one appeals to natural selection as a legitimate answer, you can't say 'oh, oh naturalistic fallacy.' So I reject your 'if.' Biological imperatives were real and explain a great deal of how the species has evolved.
What are some testable alternatives to intentional causes of universal constants?
How does a finite regression exist without God? More specifically, what objects have the properties necessary to escape an infinite regress and create time other than a mind?
Maybe I put my foot in my mouth on that one...you can't test the untestable. However what is known and the best supported evidence scientifically does not support intent. So what is the corroborated evidence of your claimed, untestable intent?
You know of a documented mind that has escaped an infinite regress and created time? I would like to read that journal. Just because science doesn't yet know something doesn't mean we can just accept any guess we like. Occam's Razor and all that.
It also requires evidence, which you do not have. By that reasoning, the best answer according to Occam's Razor for everything is I did it. It's not true, but it sure is simple. So where is your corroborated evidence of God, since you claim to have the answer? If Occam's Razor cuts in your favor, you better have the evidence to back it up. An observation and a hypothesis is not proof in any field of science, except maybe psychology.
What kind of deception do you think God would have to go through to create the world?
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
The Christian God would have had to falsify a great deal of scientific evidence if the creation story as believed by christians is the actual explanation for the existence of the world and our universe. If the Bible is true there are many inconsistencies that can only be attributed to human error or divine deception. This doesn't disallow a creator in a vague sense, but there is no way anyone actually knows anything about such a creator if one exists.
saucylad 2 years ago
I am a Christian, but I fall into the category of theistic evoluitonist. So I believe in both the Christian God and evolution.
If God did exist, we would have ways of knowing things about Him. There are many philsophical arguments which reveal the character, nature, and properties of God. The moral argument shows his character, the kalam argument shows his ontology, the teleological argument shows His power etc.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
Again though, those arguments are either disproven (morality is a result of natural selection, the appearance of design is also a result of natural selection) or unsound at best. Scientifically god can not be exempt from the first cause hypothesis.
saucylad 2 years ago
In defense of the moral argument:
You cannot disprove the moral argument by saying that our sense of morality came from natural selection. That objection would commit the genetic fallacy, and only lend support to premise 2 of the argument.
In defense of the teleological:
I don't argue for the appearance of design in life, but in the constants, like gravitation and strong/weak nuclear force.
In defense of Kalam:
Only that which begins to exist has a cause.
(the moral argument is my favorite)
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
It's my understanding that the 'moral argument' is there would be no morality without god, so my citing natural selection as the source of morality is not in error. The moral argument seems based on the circular/false premise if there is morality, there must be god; there is morality, thus there is god. I say we have a fully valid concept of how species evolve morals without god. The burden of proof is yours, making the claim for the need of God. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary -->
saucylad 2 years ago
evidence.
The teleological--there is no more evidence of design in the constants than there is in life...?
As for the Kalam: empirical source please? Again, extraordinary claims and all that. Has this Kalam argument empirically proved God? The first cause argument tends to be dismissed out of hand as best I can tell.
saucylad 2 years ago
The teleological:
If all of the constants in the universe could be any way, and they happen to be withing a very small realm with is planet and life permitting, we can infer intent.
The kalam is based off of the idea that an infinite regress is impossible. The impossibility of an infinite regress is definitely provable.
Even if people did dismiss it out of hand, that is not a valid reason to dismiss it. You need to know their reasons, otherwise you are following them blindly.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
There would be no "objective" morality without God. Objective is really the key word there. Unfortunately some Christians argue that atheists cannot be moral. I find that quite silly.
The moral argument is not circular. If it was, it would be quite easy to show and I can provide the premises for you if you would like to try and demonstrate it to be circular.
The burden of proof lies on the person claiming our innate knowledge of morality is an illusion. To trust your senses is the default.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
Hmm maybe you're right...maybe Ptah *did* create the universe :) Seriously though, now you have to define 'objective morality.' No fair switching terms mid-stream and putting words in my mouth about what morality is, bad form sir. Teleology-we can hypothesize intent, yes. We can also hypothesize other natural causes, and so far as I know, that's the side that is coming up with testable results. Quantum physics isn't my best area. And even if there is proof, finite regression doesn't prove *God*.
saucylad 2 years ago
I do not intend to put words in your mouth. The moral argument pertains only to "objective" morality. It would mean that moral obligations and duties exist and apply to all people. For example, "killing an innocent person for fun is wrong" would be a statement of fact, rather than a statement of opinion like "ice cream tastes good". Regardless of opinion, some actions would be right or wrong.
continued
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
Yet you did. I did not claim our morality is an illusion at any time. I claim our objective morality is a biological imperative that proved to strengthen our frail little ape-like species and merited reproduction. Morality has no need of God (and I have read the entire Bible more than once, and really think we'd have been better off as a species without a lot of those particular standards of 'morality').
saucylad 2 years ago
If morality is nothing more than a biological imperative, and biological imperatives fall victim to the naturalistic fallacy, then our moral sense is an illusion. Moral obligations would not actually exist.
Pragmatic obligations perhaps, but if being moral did not benefit us, there would be no real reason we should be moral.
Our intuitions tell us that we should be moral even if it does not benefit us. If this is true, objective morality exists. If it is not, objective morality is an illusion.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
Absolutely wrong. The whole point of objective morality, such as parents sacrificing for their children to the extent of their lives, treating those we socially interact with as we would like to be treated even when it seems unrewarding, etc, are EXACTLY the kind of behavior that would reward a species. It DOES benefit us, and thus it is a very real evolutionary imperative. Call it an illusion if you like, but this is just the same old 'you can't be a good person without God' argument. False.
saucylad 2 years ago
This is nothing even close to the "you can't be a good person without God argument".
This is the "there is no such thing as objective morality if God does not exist" argument.
Nature cannot account for moral obligations. The naturalistic fallacy makes this explicitly clear. If our intuitions are not an illusion, objective morality exists.
In your view, there is no difference between being pragmatic and being moral.
While being moral is often pragmatic, it is not always the case.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
This is a semantic point and you are drawing false conclusions. How is there a difference between a mother dying for her offspring as a pragmatic evolutionary imperative or a god-given moral imperative? Your premise is false, there is no logical fallacy in finding answers for evolved social behavior in natural selection; it accounts perfectly well for moral obligations. We're a social species, we would have been eaten without relative selflessness evolved from having to live with small groups.
saucylad 2 years ago
As I said earlier, morality and being pragmatic are often the same thing. However, when something is not in our best interest, it may still be moral. If this is not true, then you must claim our moral intuitions (which claim the opposite) are an illusion. If they are not an illusion then my point has been proven.
We agree that moral intuitions come from evolution. Now we must determine if they are geared for truth value or merely survivability.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
Well, I don't have to claim any such thing. I'm not interested in semantic gymnastics either. And the pragmatic perspective from the species point of view is not always the same as the preagmatic perspective from the individual point of view, so carry on with what I expect are you hypotheticals to try and prove that objective morality is impossible without God. I can think of no evidence for it.
saucylad 2 years ago
I agree that pragmatic for the individual is not the same as pragmatic for the species. Pragmatically speaking, we should only do actions to maximize the benefit to our own genes. Morally speaking we should help people even if it is to the detriment of our genes.
We have moral intuitions that tell us we should selflessly help others. It is rational to believe these moral intuitions inform us of reality.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
We're coming closer to a point of agreement, but I think you're underestimating what natural selection finds as pragmatic. I don't see any of the social developments and being moral and not pragmatic, and you do because you believe God did it. It is not -always- the same, but it -tends- to be the same over long periods of time that evolution functions in. Can you give me an example of a moral, non-pragmatic development? What do moral people do that does not have a benefit to the species?
saucylad 2 years ago
Giving time and energy to a dying man or not killing and stealing things from an old hermit might, in some instances, have more costs than benefits to the species.
In fact, nature cannot decree that we should value the species above our own genes. In many cases, removing the competition is often pragmatic.
The very moment that you say that we should value X or we have an obligation to do X, you are conceding the existence of objective morality.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
Your first two examples are only true in the case of the victims in question NOT belonging to your group, and the competition example too. That sense of empathy and restraint from taking things is a positive social adaptation, since living in groups requires that for a successful society, which has been our primary evolutionary advantage in many ways. I disagree about nature making us put the species above our own genes. Our biological drive has likely killed millions of birthing women, yet...
saucylad 2 years ago
...still we reproduce at biology's urging. That is not selfish unless it is selfish of the species. I do not deny there is a vague objective morality, I just deny it has anything to do with any god or gods. It is probably our most wonderful example of natural selection helping us evolve and eventually civilize.
saucylad 2 years ago
You should google an article about 'the monkeysphere.'
saucylad 2 years ago
Mothers cannot be used as an example of how we do not desire the promotion of "our genes" above the species.
"our genes" refers to our kin, basically anyone who is related to us and has "our genes" in them. The way you spread "your genes" is through childbirth and the protection of your siblings.
Childbirth, is therefore the most pragmatic thing you can do in regards to the survival of your genes (evolutionarily speaking).
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
what naturalistic fallacy are you referring to exactly? humans do not follow morality. in fact there is strong evidence that the types of decisions being made are pretty well wired into our genetics. studies on the brain activity of psycopaths vs. normal brains suggest that the specifications of the an individuals brain, ie. more use of the logical rather than the emotional part of the brain, wires in innately what type of moral path would be naturally followed. the fact that nature --->
garenth1988 1 year ago
the fact that natural selection is not a fine tuner is written all over in how our morals are followed. your entire moral argument suggests a type of free is present in human thought process. there is not sufficient evidence to point to that conclusion. in fact the evidence points more towards chemical reactions and how your brain reacts to them the type of thing that dictates decisions. as well as a sense of probability. but how such complex decision making exists is because how people's --->
garenth1988 1 year ago
slight biological differences that encourage different reactions between individuals to the environmental influences. our brain is so convolutedly complex that it is itself a signature of the frailities and slight inefficiencies of natural selection. by looking at the mathematical represenation of its output and process power there maybe more powerful and inefficient make up that would make more sense. poison for example essentially paralyzes your nervous system by effecting the --->
garenth1988 1 year ago
neurotransmitters. the more deadly poisons are more deadly because they negatively effect the neurotransmitter from sending information much more efficiently. the eye as well. admitting how amazing the eye works you can tell that it was not created in a way that each step of the evolutionary road had the eye in its design plans. it went and still goes for what works in that moment.
garenth1988 1 year ago
The naturalistic fallacy only applies when the conclusion is fallacious, btw. Just because one appeals to natural selection as a legitimate answer, you can't say 'oh, oh naturalistic fallacy.' So I reject your 'if.' Biological imperatives were real and explain a great deal of how the species has evolved.
saucylad 2 years ago
continued
What are some testable alternatives to intentional causes of universal constants?
How does a finite regression exist without God? More specifically, what objects have the properties necessary to escape an infinite regress and create time other than a mind?
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
Maybe I put my foot in my mouth on that one...you can't test the untestable. However what is known and the best supported evidence scientifically does not support intent. So what is the corroborated evidence of your claimed, untestable intent?
You know of a documented mind that has escaped an infinite regress and created time? I would like to read that journal. Just because science doesn't yet know something doesn't mean we can just accept any guess we like. Occam's Razor and all that.
saucylad 2 years ago
Occams razor requires us to accept the viewpoint with the least amount of assumptions which explains all of the necessary information.
My view explains all of the necessary information. If there is no opposing view which can explain the same stuff, Occam's Razor cuts in my favor.
Also, these arguments are not based on what we do not know, but what we do know, like the impossibility of an infinite regress.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
It also requires evidence, which you do not have. By that reasoning, the best answer according to Occam's Razor for everything is I did it. It's not true, but it sure is simple. So where is your corroborated evidence of God, since you claim to have the answer? If Occam's Razor cuts in your favor, you better have the evidence to back it up. An observation and a hypothesis is not proof in any field of science, except maybe psychology.
saucylad 2 years ago
Nice vid. Thanks for sharing.
jokidder 2 years ago
Thanks, jokidder.
saucylad 2 years ago