I need to watch this video like 3 more times. I get the concepts, but I really want to understand them and be able to articulate them for myself. Thankfully (almost said thank god, lol) I can pause this and focus on particular sections. Thank you, QualiaSoup, for your videos.
Brilliant video. The chances of evolving a reflectively consistent morality increases with education and natural skepticism and decreases with the propagation of the notion of dictatorial entities that are intrinsically beyond access and conversation. William Craig is an immoral agent who urges submission to interpretable dogma under numerous, intellectually bankrupt fallacies. Thank you for the astute analysis needed to face these incendiary, pathological standpoints.
Good video. If I had a serious objection why not calmly say why and note the objectionable points/times in the vid for the benefit of discussion? Seriously. Why not?
For me all this explanation is really great but the problem is that is only understandable for some people who for me have a minimum amount of mindsight ( a brain capacity see Dan Siegels work) if you expose this to a fanatic religious person he just wont be able to follow, for me many people who is fanatic religious in our modern society has a very low degree of mindsight, I beleave that if we start to see in this perspective we will be able to resolve the problem of religion and its danger.
Thank you for all this, I wonder if you know Dr.Dan Siegels work about mindsight and the activity of the pre_frontal cortex, there I found a lot of great information about the physiological mechanism of compassion, empathy and morality; and also an answer to why some people get out of religion logics and some not?, it has to do with the development of mindsight=prefrontal cortex in each person, brain or mind. sorry for my English
Thank you for your work in Part 3, Qualia! I've been looking for some strong rebuttals to Dr. Craig's viewpoint ever having watched his debate vs. Dr. Sam Harris where I felt Craig was getting away with too much (as much as I respect Harris.) Your visual diagrams are excellent and this is a choice presentation! Bravo!
Why the Hell are these Christian Bible study (see what I did there?) advertisements up on the right? Every single one of Qualia's videos I've seen has them no matter how much I re-watch them!
It's actually quite a simple matter to form an objective moral code, because there is an objective logical moral default: the imposition of wills. One being imposing its will on another is "wrong"; all other actions are not (there are of course exceptions to this, but the basic framework is valid).
This leads naturally to a moral code based on harm, or, technically more accurately, consent.
@Cilence13 "Here's where we are: You are a moral nihilist" - no, i'm a moral relativist. "and I believe in a moral standard which comes from God." - yes, which you have failed to provide any evidence for. "The vast majority of humankind from all of history has held something like my theory" - ad populum fallacy, consensus != truth. "There IS an absolute standard" - where is your evidence? "You say there is no absolute standard" - im dismissing it because it has no evidence
This video never fails to piss me off. There isn't enough time to go over the problems. Here are some:
1) When has Craig used Anselm's argument for God's existence in conjunction with arguments on morality? I've never seen it. He simply claims that a God with a necessary nature COULD ground objective morality if this God existed... You should have taken Anselm's advice to read charitably. If you had, you would appear as less of a fool to those that know Craig's arguments.
@Cilence13 2) I dislike being in pain. You then say that an obligation to avoid causing OTHERS pain arises "in order to avoid hypocrisy ." WHAT!? if this some God given command that you pulled out of your butt? Why ought I avoid hypocrisy? This is not merely a theoretical question. Apply it to the real world: why ought any dictator NOT treat his people horribly if he can get away with it and live in luxury because of it??
@Cilence13 I would be able to agree with your reasoning if you can explain that last question. We all think oppression by one over many is evil. We believe he should not do it. Not that we would LIKE HIM NOT TO (though that is true), but that he actually OUGHT NOT do it.
Choose: either a) it is not really true that he "Ought Not." and we merely wish that he wouldn't or b) explain how our feelings of disapproval give rise to this "ought not"
so frustrating. Follow a logical line just one time.
- true? hahaha nice try, true in terms of what? it might be true in terms of one standard or another but we dont believe it's a statement that is even addressed by absolute truth.
"b) explain how our feelings of disapproval give rise to this 'ought not'"
- why wouldnt it?
'i wouldnt do action x to another people, therefore i dont think personA ought do x to other people'
@types10000 Sweet. It sounds like you're trying to be intellectually honest. You slipped in some places and made some whacky logical connections, but let's follow this line of thought, and let's do it carefully..
Try to give me one solid reason.. Why should I NOT enslave most of the world and live in luxury because of it... What good reason do I have not to?
"Try to give me one solid reason.. Why should I NOT enslave most of the world and live in luxury because of it... What good reason do I have not to?"
- well your genetics should make you predisposed to 'want to be nice' to fellow humans but failing that there are policemen and the military that will actively stop you.
@types10000 so let's extend the question a bit.. Suppose I can get the military and police on my side. Also, suppose (like most dictators) I value my own power and comfort over the well being of others.... What good reason do I have to NOT take over and enslave?
"What good reason do I have to NOT take over and enslave?"
i suppose you wouldnt have a good reason; which is probably why we observe situations like this to arise in real life.
so yeh if you could ignore your genetic predispositions and the logic behind reciprocation and had all opposing forces on your side there wouldnt really be allot to stop you.
;"See, here is where we disagree. I think there IS good reason NOT to take over and enslave."
- ok cool, what's your reason?
"The reason is this: it is morally wrong to enslave and oppress in order to promote my power and comfort."
- that's not a reason (there is no logic or rational behind it) your simply espousing the way you'd like things to be (as opposed to how they actually are). if it is morally wrong (in terms of some magic absolute book of rules then demonstrate it.
Me: it's wrong in terms of my subjective standard, it's wrong in terms of the rules of nation x .etc
You: it can be wrong in terms of all them AND It's wrong simply because it's wrong.
Errr ok, how can you demonstrate that and more importantly what functional difference is there between your claim and my claim (which has less axioms is thus favoured by occams razer)
You: Action X violates my preferences, so I label it "morally wrong."
Me: Action X violates God's preferences, so it is labeled "morally Wrong."
Here's the functional differences
1) I can say a rapists conscience is not working as it should be when it is not properly dividing right from wrong. So, I can say that someones soul/mind/whatever you want to call it is corrupted. You can not. You can only say it is different from yours.
@Cilence13 I can put it a different way.. I have ground for claiming "It is morally wrong to value Jews as Hitler did.".. AND if he thought it was morally permissible, he was wrong.
THIS view of morality meshes with our intuitive conception of it better than YOUR view of morality does. My theory better captures our intuition.
incorrect, even if an entire sample space agrees on something that is no indication it's absolute eg. we also have a predisposition to like chocolate ice-cream over vanilla, does that make that absolute as well???
@types10000 You'd have to explain what yo mean by "BETTER".. I mean, if it were better in some way, that would be a reason to prefer it, no?... Maybe we should just drop this analogy. It's too off topic.
- no more so than you need to explain what you mean by 'morally wrong'
Morality refers to principles to distinguish right from wrong.
Wrong refers to something that is not correct.
What principles are you using? and if you can assert a magical absolute principle for what is 'moral' then why cant i do the same for what is 'better'
"I dislike being in pain. You then say that an obligation to avoid causing OTHERS pain arises"
- obligation? no, it's basic reciprocation, that is can be explained using either logic or genetics.
"Why ought I avoid hypocrisy"
- because you wouldnt like it to happen to you; everything in the end is based on reciprocation, if this reciprocation is beneficial then it can become engrained in our genetics, if it does so then we are predisposed to do it by default.
"Apply it to the real world: why ought any dictator NOT treat his people horribly"
- as a human he should be predisposed not to treat his people horribly, if he does then we judge his actions as immoral in terms of our own personal moral standard or laws and use this as a basis for saying what he ought to do.
the fact you want there to be a magical rulebook that says his actions are incorrect, doesnt mean there is :)
@malayhax Couldn't agree more. Whether you like what QualiaSoup has to say or not, he definitely puts a great deal of though and effort into his quality productions. They are always well-organized and thought-provoking.
DT, it seems that you are probably a proponent of the Divine Command Theory.
Do you side with William Lane Craig by stating that objective moral values exist and are grounded (or flow forth from) God's wholly good character/nature?
If that's the case, then a discussion of the acts that God has commanded/allowed/threatened/committed (as depicted in the Bible, the Book he inspired) appears to be relevant.
I think there is some confusion here as to what is involved in the doctrine of Creation. To create something means, in part, to give it an independent, objective mode of existence. If God were to create something and then say He hadn't when He actually had, then God would be wrong. The Creation has an objective existence from God in that sense.
Remember me?... A lot of this video was unclear and logically confused. Luckily for you your accent makes you seem smart. Correct me if I'm wrong, but (simply put) you are saying:
There are many facts (including facts about what we are subjectively feeling). These facts give rise to impressions about what one should or should not do. Some of these impressions we call moral duties.
However, is there any fact which obligates us to obey moral duties? If not, are we really obligated not to rape?
@Cilence13 Is there any fact that obligates us to be moral? Yes: the fact that *we can appreciate reasons* to be moral (for example, we feel good when we are moral, we may get more out of it in the long run even if we can't see that far, being moral for it's own sake, etc.). What more is needed?
@Hektor88 The "reasons we can appreciate" that you point out may lead us to WANT to be moral, but they don't OBLIGATE us to be moral.. This can be easily seen when we apply your reasoning to ice-cream eating.
We feel good when we eat it. We will feel better in the long run if we take breaks to enjoy tasty treats every once in a while. Eating it for it's own sake... However, these facts don't OBLIGATE us to eat it. I don't think we've found the source of obligation yet (if it exists).
@Cilence13 If you're talking about any sort of moral approach, then I think I see where you're coming from. Yes, you can always ask "but what makes that WRONG?" or "but why should I care about THAT reason?" Sooner or later, one has to say either "I don't know" or "This is self-evident."
Recall that this video DOES say that all moral judgements are, on some level, subjective. I happen to agree; that doesn't mean they are opinions or merely arbitrary though.
@Hektor88 I agree. On a naturalistic worldview, subjective facts play a major role in determining moral obligations. And yes, the judgments are not completely arbitrary: only allow certain types of facts to give rise to "moral obligations."
however, the fact that moral "obligations" is not completely arbitrary, does not give them authority. They still boil down to what is better called a "preference" than an "obligation.'
@Cilence13 incidentally, I do think that "appreciating" reasons DOES obligate us to follow them, as long as the reasons are for behavior that affects other people (that's what sets "why be good to others" apart from "why do something that only affects me?"). Obviously it gets more complex than that, but to my understanding, morality is about reasons for behavior. Reasons can be grounded in fact, and as the video points out, we can have factual reasons to be good.
I can appreciate reasons not to rape. How does that obligate me not to rape?
Also, another ice-cream style counterexample: I can appreciate reasons to share my ice-cream. It will make others happy. However, I am obviously not obligated to share my ice-cream... This is an example of an appreciation for reasons to do things which effect others, yet the appreciation does not obligate me to help others.
@Cilence13 pt 1: Allow me to try and argue to my conclusion backwards. Even on Divine Command Theory, morals still come down to subjective preferences. If God commands me to do something, why am i obligated to follow his commands? I have heard two particular responses to this: 1) Because "God's commands" are the definition of "moral obligation" (which i see no reason to accept) and 2) because it would be prudent to do so, since God will reward us for good and punish us for bad deeds.
@Hektor88 pt 2: However, I can then ask "Why should I care about being punished?" or "Why should I prefer heaven over hell?" If the DC theorist's reasons for being moral ultimately come down to "do it because otherwise God will harm you," then DCT is also based on subjective preferences: I prefer not to be harmed. Someone without those preferences would not be daunted by the threat of divine (or any) punishment.
@Hektor88 pt 3: Now, even though my preference to avoid harm is subjective, it is one that is shared by most people, and it's not arbitrary. in short the reason to be moral is because I don't want to be harmed. I am capable of appreciating reasons not to harm others, namely, that they dislike being harmed as much as I do, and they are capable of harming me back. I can place myself in their shoes, and through my own empathy, i desire to do good to them rather than bad.
@Hektor88 pt 4 So, I can give to reasons not to harm others that do not appeal to God, but simply to my own nature as a person who dislikes being harmed, and who can relate to others who don't want to be harmed as well.
Now you can always ask "but what makes that WRONG?" But that's just like asking "Why?" constantly. I have sketched out a reason not to behave badly towards others that does not appeal to divine authority, but only to our own subjective experiences.
@Hektor88 FYI: I don't think our obligation is grounded in God's punishment. I don't think any serious DCT would think that either.
If I were a naturalist I would agree completely with your picture of morality... However, it still seems that all you have shown is that it is prudent to act morally. Now if you want obligation, you need a step which says (X is prudent --> I am obligated to do X).
The connection is not automatic. There many things which are prudent but not obligatory.
@Cilence13 re DCT: Fair enough, although I have heard WLC make those claims.
I can see where your coming from, and I think I can concede that there are still problems to work out for all kinds of ethical theories. I am not a philosopher by trade, (although I take great joy in philosophy) so a "real" philosopher could probably give you better answers than I could.
Good discussion though. Happy new year, and good luck on further philosophical investigations.
@Cilence13 Btw, the exchange between you two is excellent. I'd add that "prudent to act" might well be thought of in other terms. By prudent, we mean "wise" or "judicious." It is wise to act morally (though people don't always do what is wise).
The practical nature of behaving in a morally judicious way does nothing to detract from "doing the right thing." I think the preservation of self-interest involved with propagating moral behavior in a society is a beautiful thing.
@llkeith77 I agree with you. Moral action is beautiful, preferable, wise, etc.. I just go one further and say that we behave contrary to the way we should behave when we act immorally.. The naturalist can't claim this last one. There is no "way" that the universe SHOULD be. There is only the way it is.
My main concern in this whole thing is that naturalists have an accurate picture of the worldview they claim to hold.
@Cilence13 Certainly some states are preferable to others. I like to suffer as little as possible. That's a statement of a preference of mine. Why can't I say that I SHOULD suffer less rather than more? Why can't I say that I SHOULD work cooperatively with others to see to it that we all suffer less rather than more?
We don't know if a god or gods exist, but we know that humans do. Let's discuss morality in terms human beings.
@llkeith77 The absurdity of saying SHOULD can be seen in the following questions:
Should an asteroid hit the moon?
Should a Lion kill a zebra?
Should gravity continue to have the strength it does?
Should time continue to flow forward?
when dealing with nature, things happen or they don't happen according to how nature unfolds. To accuse anything in nature of not behaving as it should requires that there be some model (which you happen to have in your head) that nature out to conform to. Absurd
@Cilence13 we are talking about desired states of affairs. If a lion desires to live than it SHOULD kill a zebra. Gravity is merely a force, so it has no desires. Time also has no desires. lets stick to sentient beings.
I have a desire not to be killed and not to have my stuff stolen, so I SHOULD work with others to create a society in which we work together to help ensure that we aren't killed and don't have our stuff stolen. Not absurd at all.
@llkeith77 What you're describing is prudence. And it's not good enough. Why not work for a society where some people are not killed and some people don't have their stuff stolen (and ensuring you're in this group), while others are killed and have their stuff stolen, e.g. slavery? This should be even MORE advantageous for you.
@damntull What I'm describing is reality. sure, some people can work together to exploit others. the world isn't perfect.
People can own others as property and beat them (which Yahweh specifically endorses in the Bible).
I'm saying that I think that's wrong. I can look at slavery and see the suffering of the slaves and empathize with their desire to not be beaten. If someone else can't see it, he is immoral.
@llkeith77 You've changed the subject. This video is about morality - but what you're talking about is prudence. You've given no answer as to why someone is morally obligated to take or not to take a particular action, or to regard something as good or evil.
I'll fit in a short answer on slavery. Commandments regarding slavery in the OT do not reflect God's perfect will. Slavery was a necessary evil in the absence of bankruptcy courts and other social institutions we have today.
@damntull A necessary evil? Really? When Yahweh was able to get into detail about how a woman needs to leave the camp when she is menstruating because she was "unclean", but couldn't be bothered to mention a better social system to avoid slavery?
@mosoi148 The two have nothing to do with one another. Slavery is already off topic, and laws regarding menstruation are even farther off topic. Don't cause confusion.
If you have an argument to make, state it. Don't just sit there with your arms folded saying, "Not buying it," like a stubborn child.
@damntull And then the conversation just devolves. One said points out some instance of an action or command from the Bible. The other side presents a justification or rationalization. It never goes anywhere.
The atheist can never present a single act, no matter what it is, that will cause the theist to question the DCT.
The theist, no matter what justification or rationale he provides, ever causes the atheist to feel that the behaviors in question are moral.
@llkeith77 Now we've changed the subject again - You've still given no answer as to a basis for moral values. You haven't responded to my explanation on slavery. Do you accept it?
You have reservations about DCT because you think the Bible says God commanded evil. But an uninformed, literalist interpretation of the Old Testament doesn't show that! You're approaching the problem backwards!
DCT is the only plausible basis for the objective moral values and duties we all recognize ...
@damntull That fact, together with an understanding of what it means to say that God "inspired" the scriptures (hint: it doesn't mean dictation), together with an understanding of the historical and cultural context of the events, must illuminate our interpretation of the scriptures.
@damntull But placing things in a historical context, aren't you being subjective about morality? That seems tantamount to moral relativism (in this case relative to the time period).
But DCT proponents are also stating that morality is objective and independent of the judgments of any human. What is wrong now should have been wrong 2,000 years ago, right?
DCT states that morality is based in God's nature, which is unchanging - so historical context shouldn't matter.
@damntull These are some Bible verses that are relevant:
Malachi 3:6 "I the LORD do not change."
James 1: 17 "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."
1 Samuel 15 :29 "He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
It's clear that God doesn't change. If morals are rooted in him, then morals shouldn't change either.
Particular moral commands can be universal, or they can be restricted.
So, e.g., God's prohibition against bestiality in Leviticus 18:23 applies to all people at all times and in all places, whereas a command dealing with ritual purity, such as Lev 19:19 regarding cloth mixtures, never did. There is no contradiction. When the command expires, it does not constitute a change in God.
@damntull How do you know when a command expires? For example, God specifically condones owning humans as property and beating them.
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21)
The endorsement of slavery continues in the NT. (cont.)
@llkeith77 Do we then agree in principle that your initial objection has no force? That moral commands can change without a change in God? I'll respond to the slavery issue if we can agree on this point.
@damntull We don't agree, man. I'm pointing out same major issues in the scriptures, and you're just rationalizing it all. It's just like I figured it would happen.
You are saying that some commands are temporary, as if this somehow makes them right. You are still being relativistic about morality by making a distinction between the command about bestiality and the commands about "ritual purity."
What kind of relativistic category do all the verses condoning slavery fall into?
@llkeith77 I'll not go on with you until we come to an understanding of what objective and subjective mean. Objective means belonging to the object rather than to the thinking subject. Human beings are the thinking subjects, and God, as the standard of goodness, is the object.
Even if God merely decided on a whim what "good" was (and he doesn't), it would still be objective - though it would be ARBITRARY.
@damntull “Objective means belonging to the object [of thought] rather than to the thinking subject.” Remember that subjective values exist within the mind, whereas objective values exist independent of the mind. God is the object of your thought, but providing the trait to God, as a standard of goodness, is merely an assertion based off of your subjective opinion of God; it is not an objective quality. God is good because you think God is good, not because God is intrinsically good.
@damntull “God IS good, and I correctly perceive it.” No, you don’t. That is still your subjective opinion of God. There is no evidence to support that God exists let alone that the nature of God is intrinsically good. In fact, if we’re to consider the biblical depictions of God as a form of testimonial evidence (although it is nothing more than hearsay) then it is most likely the contrary, in which God is bad according to most modern day standards of morality.
@HotblackDesiat042 Your pronouncement "There is no evidence ..." is a statement of profound willful ignorance. There are many facts about the world that make it more probable than not that God exists.
@damntull “There are many facts about the world that make it more probable than not that God exists.”
And which god is that these supposed facts prove exists? Actually, there is more evidence supporting man creating god(s) versus any god creating man. Perhaps you should read some of the papers by Dr. Andy Thompson, or listen to some of his lectures on “Why we believe in gods”.
@HotblackDesiat042 No doubt that people make up stuff and attribute it to God. llkeith77 is a perfect example. He makes up crap like, "God is unjust," and "God is unfair." Hindus, Muslims, followers of other religions, and sometimes even Christians (though less often so) ascribe things to God that are not true. So what? It's not evidence against the existence of God at all.
@damntull making stuff up? I think the Genesis account itself is made up. I'm willing to examine it so we can have a discussion about your theology. I didn't just assert that your particular deity is unjust - I analyzed the text and drew my conclusions. I provided many direct quotes from the Bible, along with my interpretation.
@damntull From what I can tell, the major difference is one of perspective, not lack of "knowledge of the text." I've read the Bible quite a lot, actually. I use the New English Translation, which is complete with a robust concordance.
It's an excellent online Bible, which I'd recommend to anyone who finds these topics interesting.
Any way, I don't just read the verses, I examine the attached accordance as well. I just bring a different a priori belief to the table. (cont.)
@damntull (cont.) and that different a priori belief is what results in the different take-away from the verses. We're both reading the same story, we simply interpret each verses differently.
I don't believe in the existence of any particular god or gods, including the Christian one. This starting point of disbelief means that I will absorb each verse in a different manner than someone who already holds the belief that God exists and possesses all the "omin" qualities.
@damntull It doesn't mean that I'm "uninformed." I've looked at the material directly and read the attached concordance to get a feel for the nuances of the Hebrew worlds being employed. I've read the verses repeatedly and I've come to my conclusions. The whole story is open to a fair degree of interpretation, is it not?
There are literally thousands of different sects of Christianity. People have been arguing about exegesis for millenia. It's really no surprise that we disagree.
@llkeith77 Imagine you wrote a book with a certain theme in mind. Then I come and tell you that your book doesn't say what you say it does. What would you say to me?
There may be many sects of Christianity, but none of them, when interpreting Genesis 3, come to the absurd conclusion that God is unfair.
@damntull “No doubt that people make up stuff and attribute it to God.” You mean like the bible, or you? I haven’t attributed anything to this god figure as I don’t believe it exists. At most I’ve only restated what others have attributed, such as your holy book.
@damntull “Original sin is not punishment, it is a condition that we ALL find ourselves in” I did not instill this hypothetical condition. It was not brought about by any of my actions, yet this is what you implied by your previous post when you stated that “we screwed it up”. Also, I don’t interpret it as a condition, but more as a punishment. (cont.)
@HotblackDesiat042 No, you did not instill it - you inherited it from your parents. If you think it's a punishment, you don't understand the doctrine of original sin.
@HotblackDesiat042 I certainly agree with this take on it. I'm not sure how "punishment" isn't an important component of Original Sin.
It was God who chose to taint all of A&E's progeny, i.e., all of human kind for all time, with the Original Sin. It was a punishment leading to a state. There is a connection there.
Rom 5:12 "So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned "
To me it, it seems important to ask ourselves who was in actually in control of the situation? Who ultimately decided what all the various elements of the environment would be in which this scenario (The Temptation, The Fall, and the subsequent "state" in which humans would be tainted by the "Original Sin."
This supposed condition did not have to be. God had a limitless variety of responses available to him.
@llkeith77 You assume that there is a possible state of affairs where every single imperfect free creature only does the right thing. Experience tells us otherwise.
BTW, we've changed the subject again and are now on the problem of evil.
@llkeith77 Original sin is inherited, it is not a punishment, it is not an act of God. The sin was Adam's, not God's. The punishment was mortality, banishment from the garden, etc.
@damntull God decided that they would be kicked out of the Garden. He decided man would toil in order to produced food, and that women would be in pain during childbirth. These are punishments. When you take things away from people and make their lives harder, you are punishing them.
Why didn't God just talk to Adam and explain things to him? Why the bizarre decision to taint all humans forever? That's the best response this deity could come up with?
@llkeith77 OK. You know, I don't fault you for rejecting a God and a faith about which you have so many misconceptions. I would fault you for refusing to even be told what is the faith and who is the God we profess. But all is not lost. Life is long (hopefully), and we all have a lot of learning to do. It has been educational talking to you, and I also wish you the best. Blessings.
@damntull Romans 5:12 is pretty clear about stating that death came after the Fall. Why would Adam and Eve have a good grasp of what death was when it hadn't entered creation yet? How could they then truly understand God's warning that they would die if they ate of the fruit?
You can even say it was a spiritual death, but it doesn't matter. How could they understand the death of anything before death entered the world?
@damntull I haven't yet. I am familiar with his name. I know he wrote the book, "Is God a Moral Monster?"
I went onto ITunes and downloaded a lot of his interviews just now though. I also went onto Liberty and Gutenberg College's ITunes U sites for entire lectures.
I listen to ITunes U lectures a lot.
I also love the podcast debates featuring Ehrman, Licona, Lane-Craig, Habbermas, Alvaros, Bob Price, etc.
I check it all out, man. I continue to search and learn as much as I can.
@llkeith77 What you're displaying here is a much more moderate position. I just want you to understand is that you can't point out flaws in Christianity by misrepresenting its core doctrines through unorthodox interpretations of its scriptures.
@damntull I'm just trying to move toward a more civil discourse. I can can definitely point out problems with your theological system. You will no doubt label that as a "misconception.". Why wouldn't, you? You are a Ronan Carholic. you approach the story with an a priori belief that a god exists, he is all-good, he cares about humanity and is sovereign, and so on.
@damntull Im basically saying, lets assume this deity exists so we can examine the theological claims. I ask myself, what do these verses tell me about this god's character? Of course my view is unorthodox - I'm not a catholic. I don't presuppose he possesses all the omni qualities before reading the stories. I'm letting the verses paint the picture.
@llkeith77 Again, my example. If you wrote a book intending to get a certain point across, and I come along and offer a contradictory interpretation, what would you say to me? You'd say, No! That's not what I'm saying!
Again - you have to challenge the orthodox belief and interpretation - otherwise, you're attacking a straw man.
The Jews wrote the OT. The originals are in Hebrew after all. The Catholic Church came around much, much later.
Why does the Catholic Church get to say that certain OT passages are prophecies indicating Jesus was the messiah?
The Jews don't believe that. It's originally their book, is it not? What right do Catholics and other Christians have to come along with their "misinterpretation" of the Jew's book?
@llkeith77 Christians are Jews who believe Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus was a Jew. His disciples were Jews. And the message was spread to the rest of the world. Will you acknowledge this and withdraw your charge that it isn't our book?
Catholicism didn't exist when the Torah was written. To this day, millions of Jewish people continue to study their books, which Christians have labeled the "Old Testament." Do you think Jewish people call it the "Old Testament"?
Jesus was certainly an ethnic Jew; however, his disciples asserted that he was the Messiah.
Do you think Jewish people accept Jesus as the Messiah?
The "OT" is their book. Catholics came along WAY later and tried to co-opt it.
The OT, which we were specifically discussing vis-a-vis "Original Sin", is NOT a collection of texts under the exclusive purview of your particular branch of Catholicism.
You don't have exclusive rights to analyze these words. The Bible is open to interpretation by all (atheists, Protestants, Muslims, etc.) I quoted verses and provided my analysis. If it doesn't fit in with your sect's dogma, so be it. My arguments stand on their own merits.
@damntull Jewish people were reading the Hebrew Bible for hundreds and hundreds of years before Catholicism was even though of. That is an undeniable fact.
I realize that Roman Catholic tradition claims that the Church was founded by Jesus himself, but this is debatable. Especially when you consider all the other Jesus-worshiping sects on offer.
Lutherans, Protestants, Baptists, Methodists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., all have major doctrinal issues with Roman Catholics.
@HotblackDesiat042 Romans 5:18-19 "Consequently, just as condemnation for all people came through one transgression, so too through the one righteous act came righteousness leading to life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man, many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of one man many will be made righteous."
This is the heart of Christianity. "We are all tainted due to Original Sin and in need of salvation through Christ."
I don't see Rom 5:18-19 the way a Christian does. My skeptical mind immediately starts generating questions.
WHO set up this entire system? WHO decided that the bizarre crucifixion and torture leading to a human sacrifice would somehow take away the "taint of Original Sin?" A taint, by the way, that he himself decided upon as a punishment.
When does the all-powerful creator of EVERYTHING (see Col 1:16) get any blame for the system he chose to create?
@damntull (cont.) If we are to assume the biblical accounts as a true history, as well as the omniscient trait of god, then it is nothing more than a catch-22, and an entrapment scheme devised by god. The reason is because if god were all-knowing, then the entire consequences of the A&E story had to be foreknown to god. So god knew the choices they would make plus he had to ensure the fall of mankind via the talking snake. (cont.)
@damntull (cont.) Therefore god never intended for A&E to live eternally in a paradise. To give something and then take it away is a punishment in my book, not a condition. It can also be interpreted as a lure to serfdom, as it can viewed as dangling a prize before the subject that you wish to enslave.
@HotblackDesiat042 This is the perfect example of the BS that you buy into. You have no idea what the story of the fall is about. I'm not going over it again, since I've discussed it in detail with llkeith77.
@damntull I now this is tiresome, but you claimed that A&E knew they were naked PRIOR to eating the fruit. This is an important point, because it helps us to establish the level of naivety/ innocenense of A&E before eating the fruit. Check out this passage that occurs shortly AFTER they eat the fruit
Gen 3:10"...I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.” 3:11 And the Lord God said, “Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”
@llkeith77 The obviously knew they were naked before, because they weren't BLIND, but it was not a source of shame. After their sin, they could not look upon their nakedness without blushing, and sin being what had produced this sensation, they were afraid to appear before God, against whom they had sinned.
@HotblackDesiat042 Reading these verses, I just not sure how you don't come to the conclusion that before eating the fruit, they were more naive and innocent than they were after eating the fruit.
If they were naive and innocent (indeed, they had zero knowledge of death - a fair assumption considering it did not even exist yet), then the punishment of God is disproportionate and immoral.
His punishment is also immoral because it is extended to A&E's children (for all time).
@HotblackDesiat042 (cont.) The nature of a sentient being does not seem to be an object to me. Temperment, attitudes, and disposition are tied to the thoughts of a sentient being.
If morality is rooted in God's nature, then it is grounded in his thoughts, not upon an object.
His mind is not supposed to change, either. If that is the case, his commandments and actions should be unchanging as well. Otherwise they are not dependant upon him, but upon (cont.)
@llkeith77 “The nature of a sentient being does not seem to be an object to me. Temperament, attitudes, and disposition are tied to the thoughts of a sentient being.” I agree. All traits attributed to any such deity result from the minds of thinking subjects.They are not intrinsic beyond one’s subjective opinion.The existence of a god is not provable therefore neither can the intrinsic nature of god be provable. So any assertion of traits is based purely on subjective speculation.
I need to watch this video like 3 more times. I get the concepts, but I really want to understand them and be able to articulate them for myself. Thankfully (almost said thank god, lol) I can pause this and focus on particular sections. Thank you, QualiaSoup, for your videos.
cloud1788 2 days ago
Brilliant video. The chances of evolving a reflectively consistent morality increases with education and natural skepticism and decreases with the propagation of the notion of dictatorial entities that are intrinsically beyond access and conversation. William Craig is an immoral agent who urges submission to interpretable dogma under numerous, intellectually bankrupt fallacies. Thank you for the astute analysis needed to face these incendiary, pathological standpoints.
LeySun 4 days ago
Any idea when part 4 will be out?
LeonhardEuler1 5 days ago
them squares
Driscotus 5 days ago
Good video. If I had a serious objection why not calmly say why and note the objectionable points/times in the vid for the benefit of discussion? Seriously. Why not?
BlanketTruth22 5 days ago
Good video.
I disagree with you, but good none the less.
linuxisbetter0 1 week ago
42! :D
fraglimat 1 week ago
Fucking brilliant!
hinduxyz 1 week ago
For me all this explanation is really great but the problem is that is only understandable for some people who for me have a minimum amount of mindsight ( a brain capacity see Dan Siegels work) if you expose this to a fanatic religious person he just wont be able to follow, for me many people who is fanatic religious in our modern society has a very low degree of mindsight, I beleave that if we start to see in this perspective we will be able to resolve the problem of religion and its danger.
YuHarr 1 week ago
@YuHarr zsorry for my English
YuHarr 1 week ago
Thank you for all this, I wonder if you know Dr.Dan Siegels work about mindsight and the activity of the pre_frontal cortex, there I found a lot of great information about the physiological mechanism of compassion, empathy and morality; and also an answer to why some people get out of religion logics and some not?, it has to do with the development of mindsight=prefrontal cortex in each person, brain or mind. sorry for my English
YuHarr 1 week ago
Thank you for your work in Part 3, Qualia! I've been looking for some strong rebuttals to Dr. Craig's viewpoint ever having watched his debate vs. Dr. Sam Harris where I felt Craig was getting away with too much (as much as I respect Harris.) Your visual diagrams are excellent and this is a choice presentation! Bravo!
nexkyrouac 1 week ago
I want part 4! Pleeease
xlmeay 1 week ago
Nyan cat 63,000,000 views.
Amazing videos on morality - 44,330 views.
7% of people on the internet are potentially intelligent.
FNHot 1 week ago 7
@FNHot Hey! I love nyan cat and amazing videos on morality!
IKillBabyKittensLOL 1 week ago
Dat squares effect....
thechaosstrain88 1 week ago
Cartoon Liz Hurley puts forth a good counterargument.
nofrig 1 week ago
Why the Hell are these Christian Bible study (see what I did there?) advertisements up on the right? Every single one of Qualia's videos I've seen has them no matter how much I re-watch them!
animefreak5855 2 weeks ago
It's actually quite a simple matter to form an objective moral code, because there is an objective logical moral default: the imposition of wills. One being imposing its will on another is "wrong"; all other actions are not (there are of course exceptions to this, but the basic framework is valid).
This leads naturally to a moral code based on harm, or, technically more accurately, consent.
AlexisBrookeM 2 weeks ago
I'm crying, everyone around me needs to know real morality.
DJTriesHard 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I think it's safe to say that the majority of humans agree with me "
- again, ad populum fallacy.
"because my view lines up better with what we feel is the truth"
- just because they really really believe it doesnt make it true.
"So what good reason is there to think that all our intuitions are mistaken?"
- because you have no evidence and intuition isnt based on logic
types10000 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
types10000 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
types10000 3 weeks ago
Now I know why Craig looks so worried - his favorite argument 'morality is objective therefore god exists' is deeply flawed and he knows it
shumble32 3 weeks ago
This vid is popular on Afghanistan
lanemays513 3 weeks ago
This video never fails to piss me off. There isn't enough time to go over the problems. Here are some:
1) When has Craig used Anselm's argument for God's existence in conjunction with arguments on morality? I've never seen it. He simply claims that a God with a necessary nature COULD ground objective morality if this God existed... You should have taken Anselm's advice to read charitably. If you had, you would appear as less of a fool to those that know Craig's arguments.
Cilence13 4 weeks ago
@Cilence13 2) I dislike being in pain. You then say that an obligation to avoid causing OTHERS pain arises "in order to avoid hypocrisy ." WHAT!? if this some God given command that you pulled out of your butt? Why ought I avoid hypocrisy? This is not merely a theoretical question. Apply it to the real world: why ought any dictator NOT treat his people horribly if he can get away with it and live in luxury because of it??
Cilence13 4 weeks ago
@Cilence13 I would be able to agree with your reasoning if you can explain that last question. We all think oppression by one over many is evil. We believe he should not do it. Not that we would LIKE HIM NOT TO (though that is true), but that he actually OUGHT NOT do it.
Choose: either a) it is not really true that he "Ought Not." and we merely wish that he wouldn't or b) explain how our feelings of disapproval give rise to this "ought not"
so frustrating. Follow a logical line just one time.
Cilence13 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Cilence13
"We all think oppression by one over many is evil"
- evil simply refers to things we dont like.
"We believe he should not do it"
- sure, and we have western values to thank for that; In the middle ages people thought that Monarchs were marked to rule by god.
" Not that we would LIKE HIM NOT TO (though that is true), but that he actually OUGHT NOT do it."
- why do we need anymore basis than 'we dont like it' inorder to say he shouldnt do it?
types10000 4 weeks ago
@Cilence13
"a) it is not really true that he "Ought Not."
- true? hahaha nice try, true in terms of what? it might be true in terms of one standard or another but we dont believe it's a statement that is even addressed by absolute truth.
"b) explain how our feelings of disapproval give rise to this 'ought not'"
- why wouldnt it?
'i wouldnt do action x to another people, therefore i dont think personA ought do x to other people'
types10000 4 weeks ago
@types10000 Sweet. It sounds like you're trying to be intellectually honest. You slipped in some places and made some whacky logical connections, but let's follow this line of thought, and let's do it carefully..
Try to give me one solid reason.. Why should I NOT enslave most of the world and live in luxury because of it... What good reason do I have not to?
Cilence13 4 weeks ago
@Cilence13
"Try to give me one solid reason.. Why should I NOT enslave most of the world and live in luxury because of it... What good reason do I have not to?"
- well your genetics should make you predisposed to 'want to be nice' to fellow humans but failing that there are policemen and the military that will actively stop you.
types10000 4 weeks ago
@types10000 so let's extend the question a bit.. Suppose I can get the military and police on my side. Also, suppose (like most dictators) I value my own power and comfort over the well being of others.... What good reason do I have to NOT take over and enslave?
Cilence13 3 weeks ago
@Cilence13
"What good reason do I have to NOT take over and enslave?"
i suppose you wouldnt have a good reason; which is probably why we observe situations like this to arise in real life.
so yeh if you could ignore your genetic predispositions and the logic behind reciprocation and had all opposing forces on your side there wouldnt really be allot to stop you.
types10000 3 weeks ago
@types10000 See, here is where we disagree. I think there IS good reason NOT to take over and enslave.
The reason is this: it is morally wrong to enslave and oppress in order to promote my power and comfort.
Cilence13 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Cilence13
;
;"See, here is where we disagree. I think there IS good reason NOT to take over and enslave."
- ok cool, what's your reason?
"The reason is this: it is morally wrong to enslave and oppress in order to promote my power and comfort."
- that's not a reason (there is no logic or rational behind it) your simply espousing the way you'd like things to be (as opposed to how they actually are). if it is morally wrong (in terms of some magic absolute book of rules then demonstrate it.
types10000 3 weeks ago
@Cilence13
Me: it's wrong in terms of my subjective standard, it's wrong in terms of the rules of nation x .etc
You: it can be wrong in terms of all them AND It's wrong simply because it's wrong.
Errr ok, how can you demonstrate that and more importantly what functional difference is there between your claim and my claim (which has less axioms is thus favoured by occams razer)
types10000 3 weeks ago
@types10000 Here's a better way of putting it:
You: Action X violates my preferences, so I label it "morally wrong."
Me: Action X violates God's preferences, so it is labeled "morally Wrong."
Here's the functional differences
1) I can say a rapists conscience is not working as it should be when it is not properly dividing right from wrong. So, I can say that someones soul/mind/whatever you want to call it is corrupted. You can not. You can only say it is different from yours.
Cilence13 3 weeks ago
@Cilence13 I can put it a different way.. I have ground for claiming "It is morally wrong to value Jews as Hitler did.".. AND if he thought it was morally permissible, he was wrong.
THIS view of morality meshes with our intuitive conception of it better than YOUR view of morality does. My theory better captures our intuition.
Cilence13 3 weeks ago
@Cilence13 So, looking at occams razor, your theory is simpler, but it is incomplete. My theory is the one that is both simple and complete.
Cilence13 3 weeks ago
@Cilence13
" So, looking at occams razor, your theory is simpler, but it is incomplete."
- incorrect, we have an explanation for intuition ie. evolution
Hence you've failed to provide anything that absolutism explains better.
types10000 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Cilence13
"I can put it a different way.. I have ground for claiming 'It is morally wrong to value Jews as Hitler did'"
- sure and hitler can claim the exact opposite by the same absolute standard.
The fact you would like Hitlers actions to be wrong in terms of a magical book of rules does not provide evidence the magic book exists.
types10000 3 weeks ago 2
@Cilence13
"My theory better captures our intuition"
incorrect, even if an entire sample space agrees on something that is no indication it's absolute eg. we also have a predisposition to like chocolate ice-cream over vanilla, does that make that absolute as well???
types10000 3 weeks ago
@Cilence13
"Me: Action X violates God's preferences, so it is labeled 'morally Wrong'"
- what evidence is there for your god?
- what evidence is there that he thinks the thing in question is right/good?
- wouldnt that simply be his opinion of right/wrong?
"can say a rapists conscience is not working as it should be when it is not properly dividing right from wrong..."
- incorrect, you havnt listed any functional difference, your statement relates to classification.
types10000 3 weeks ago
@Cilence13
What good reason do you have NOT to like vanilla icecream over chocolate?
- Well i dont like the taste.
So lets extend the question a bit. Suppose you didnt have tastebuds, what good reason would you have?
- well i guess i wouldnt have a reason.
See here is where we disagree, i think there IS a good reason to like vanilla over chocolate. The reason is it is BETTER than chocolate.
Now doesnt that sound silly?
types10000 3 weeks ago
@types10000 You'd have to explain what yo mean by "BETTER".. I mean, if it were better in some way, that would be a reason to prefer it, no?... Maybe we should just drop this analogy. It's too off topic.
Cilence13 3 weeks ago
@Cilence13
" You'd have to explain what yo mean by 'BETTER'"
- no more so than you need to explain what you mean by 'morally wrong'
Morality refers to principles to distinguish right from wrong.
Wrong refers to something that is not correct.
What principles are you using? and if you can assert a magical absolute principle for what is 'moral' then why cant i do the same for what is 'better'
Yay logic :)
types10000 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Cilence13
"I dislike being in pain. You then say that an obligation to avoid causing OTHERS pain arises"
- obligation? no, it's basic reciprocation, that is can be explained using either logic or genetics.
"Why ought I avoid hypocrisy"
- because you wouldnt like it to happen to you; everything in the end is based on reciprocation, if this reciprocation is beneficial then it can become engrained in our genetics, if it does so then we are predisposed to do it by default.
types10000 4 weeks ago
@Cilence13
"Apply it to the real world: why ought any dictator NOT treat his people horribly"
- as a human he should be predisposed not to treat his people horribly, if he does then we judge his actions as immoral in terms of our own personal moral standard or laws and use this as a basis for saying what he ought to do.
the fact you want there to be a magical rulebook that says his actions are incorrect, doesnt mean there is :)
types10000 4 weeks ago
Absolutely fantastic.Your morality vids are by far your best ones yet. Have you made much headway on morality 4?
rheojuice 4 weeks ago
I'm gonna need to watch this again....several times.
ginkner 4 weeks ago in playlist More videos from QualiaSoup
"Rooting morality in a being beyond our comprehension only pushes morality beyond our comprehension"
I'm so gonna use that.
TomFynn 1 month ago 24
Absolutely solid, once again and like usual. Please don't go away again. I love your videos and I always have.
malayhax 1 month ago 2
@malayhax Couldn't agree more. Whether you like what QualiaSoup has to say or not, he definitely puts a great deal of though and effort into his quality productions. They are always well-organized and thought-provoking.
Keep up the great work, Qualia!
llkeith77 1 month ago 13
DT, it seems that you are probably a proponent of the Divine Command Theory.
Do you side with William Lane Craig by stating that objective moral values exist and are grounded (or flow forth from) God's wholly good character/nature?
If that's the case, then a discussion of the acts that God has commanded/allowed/threatened/committed (as depicted in the Bible, the Book he inspired) appears to be relevant.
llkeith77 1 month ago
@llkeith77 We can discuss the acts if you like. I expect you'll be pulling them from QS's Morality 2?
damntull 1 month ago
Q is the most morally evil subject in existence. Anyone who does Q, or thinks Q is good, is morally evil.
danny899 1 month ago
I think there is some confusion here as to what is involved in the doctrine of Creation. To create something means, in part, to give it an independent, objective mode of existence. If God were to create something and then say He hadn't when He actually had, then God would be wrong. The Creation has an objective existence from God in that sense.
ExaminedFaith 1 month ago
@ExaminedFaith What point are you trying to refute, exactly?
riahmatic 1 month ago
@riahmatic I'm trying to answer the Euthyphro dilemma on the side of Socrates the Theist.
ExaminedFaith 1 month ago
@theegyptianrose im not him, but im going to guess he would love if you did that. i know i would.
unfunperson 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
Remember me?... A lot of this video was unclear and logically confused. Luckily for you your accent makes you seem smart. Correct me if I'm wrong, but (simply put) you are saying:
There are many facts (including facts about what we are subjectively feeling). These facts give rise to impressions about what one should or should not do. Some of these impressions we call moral duties.
However, is there any fact which obligates us to obey moral duties? If not, are we really obligated not to rape?
Cilence13 1 month ago
@Cilence13 Is there any fact that obligates us to be moral? Yes: the fact that *we can appreciate reasons* to be moral (for example, we feel good when we are moral, we may get more out of it in the long run even if we can't see that far, being moral for it's own sake, etc.). What more is needed?
Hektor88 1 month ago
@Hektor88 *its, sorry.
Hektor88 1 month ago
@Hektor88 The "reasons we can appreciate" that you point out may lead us to WANT to be moral, but they don't OBLIGATE us to be moral.. This can be easily seen when we apply your reasoning to ice-cream eating.
We feel good when we eat it. We will feel better in the long run if we take breaks to enjoy tasty treats every once in a while. Eating it for it's own sake... However, these facts don't OBLIGATE us to eat it. I don't think we've found the source of obligation yet (if it exists).
Cilence13 1 month ago
@Cilence13 If you're talking about any sort of moral approach, then I think I see where you're coming from. Yes, you can always ask "but what makes that WRONG?" or "but why should I care about THAT reason?" Sooner or later, one has to say either "I don't know" or "This is self-evident."
Recall that this video DOES say that all moral judgements are, on some level, subjective. I happen to agree; that doesn't mean they are opinions or merely arbitrary though.
Hektor88 1 month ago
@Hektor88 I agree. On a naturalistic worldview, subjective facts play a major role in determining moral obligations. And yes, the judgments are not completely arbitrary: only allow certain types of facts to give rise to "moral obligations."
however, the fact that moral "obligations" is not completely arbitrary, does not give them authority. They still boil down to what is better called a "preference" than an "obligation.'
Cilence13 1 month ago
@Cilence13 incidentally, I do think that "appreciating" reasons DOES obligate us to follow them, as long as the reasons are for behavior that affects other people (that's what sets "why be good to others" apart from "why do something that only affects me?"). Obviously it gets more complex than that, but to my understanding, morality is about reasons for behavior. Reasons can be grounded in fact, and as the video points out, we can have factual reasons to be good.
Hektor88 1 month ago
@Hektor88 Oh you do?.. Show me how it works.
I can appreciate reasons not to rape. How does that obligate me not to rape?
Also, another ice-cream style counterexample: I can appreciate reasons to share my ice-cream. It will make others happy. However, I am obviously not obligated to share my ice-cream... This is an example of an appreciation for reasons to do things which effect others, yet the appreciation does not obligate me to help others.
Cilence13 1 month ago
@Cilence13 pt 1: Allow me to try and argue to my conclusion backwards. Even on Divine Command Theory, morals still come down to subjective preferences. If God commands me to do something, why am i obligated to follow his commands? I have heard two particular responses to this: 1) Because "God's commands" are the definition of "moral obligation" (which i see no reason to accept) and 2) because it would be prudent to do so, since God will reward us for good and punish us for bad deeds.
Hektor88 1 month ago
@Hektor88 pt 2: However, I can then ask "Why should I care about being punished?" or "Why should I prefer heaven over hell?" If the DC theorist's reasons for being moral ultimately come down to "do it because otherwise God will harm you," then DCT is also based on subjective preferences: I prefer not to be harmed. Someone without those preferences would not be daunted by the threat of divine (or any) punishment.
Hektor88 1 month ago
@Hektor88 pt 3: Now, even though my preference to avoid harm is subjective, it is one that is shared by most people, and it's not arbitrary. in short the reason to be moral is because I don't want to be harmed. I am capable of appreciating reasons not to harm others, namely, that they dislike being harmed as much as I do, and they are capable of harming me back. I can place myself in their shoes, and through my own empathy, i desire to do good to them rather than bad.
Hektor88 1 month ago
@Hektor88 pt 4 So, I can give to reasons not to harm others that do not appeal to God, but simply to my own nature as a person who dislikes being harmed, and who can relate to others who don't want to be harmed as well.
Now you can always ask "but what makes that WRONG?" But that's just like asking "Why?" constantly. I have sketched out a reason not to behave badly towards others that does not appeal to divine authority, but only to our own subjective experiences.
Hektor88 1 month ago
@Hektor88 FYI: I don't think our obligation is grounded in God's punishment. I don't think any serious DCT would think that either.
If I were a naturalist I would agree completely with your picture of morality... However, it still seems that all you have shown is that it is prudent to act morally. Now if you want obligation, you need a step which says (X is prudent --> I am obligated to do X).
The connection is not automatic. There many things which are prudent but not obligatory.
Cilence13 1 month ago
@Cilence13 re DCT: Fair enough, although I have heard WLC make those claims.
I can see where your coming from, and I think I can concede that there are still problems to work out for all kinds of ethical theories. I am not a philosopher by trade, (although I take great joy in philosophy) so a "real" philosopher could probably give you better answers than I could.
Good discussion though. Happy new year, and good luck on further philosophical investigations.
Hektor88 1 month ago
@Cilence13 Btw, the exchange between you two is excellent. I'd add that "prudent to act" might well be thought of in other terms. By prudent, we mean "wise" or "judicious." It is wise to act morally (though people don't always do what is wise).
The practical nature of behaving in a morally judicious way does nothing to detract from "doing the right thing." I think the preservation of self-interest involved with propagating moral behavior in a society is a beautiful thing.
llkeith77 1 month ago
@llkeith77 I agree with you. Moral action is beautiful, preferable, wise, etc.. I just go one further and say that we behave contrary to the way we should behave when we act immorally.. The naturalist can't claim this last one. There is no "way" that the universe SHOULD be. There is only the way it is.
My main concern in this whole thing is that naturalists have an accurate picture of the worldview they claim to hold.
Cilence13 1 month ago
@Cilence13 Certainly some states are preferable to others. I like to suffer as little as possible. That's a statement of a preference of mine. Why can't I say that I SHOULD suffer less rather than more? Why can't I say that I SHOULD work cooperatively with others to see to it that we all suffer less rather than more?
We don't know if a god or gods exist, but we know that humans do. Let's discuss morality in terms human beings.
llkeith77 1 month ago
@llkeith77 The absurdity of saying SHOULD can be seen in the following questions:
Should an asteroid hit the moon?
Should a Lion kill a zebra?
Should gravity continue to have the strength it does?
Should time continue to flow forward?
when dealing with nature, things happen or they don't happen according to how nature unfolds. To accuse anything in nature of not behaving as it should requires that there be some model (which you happen to have in your head) that nature out to conform to. Absurd
Cilence13 1 month ago
@Cilence13 we are talking about desired states of affairs. If a lion desires to live than it SHOULD kill a zebra. Gravity is merely a force, so it has no desires. Time also has no desires. lets stick to sentient beings.
I have a desire not to be killed and not to have my stuff stolen, so I SHOULD work with others to create a society in which we work together to help ensure that we aren't killed and don't have our stuff stolen. Not absurd at all.
llkeith77 1 month ago
@llkeith77 What you're describing is prudence. And it's not good enough. Why not work for a society where some people are not killed and some people don't have their stuff stolen (and ensuring you're in this group), while others are killed and have their stuff stolen, e.g. slavery? This should be even MORE advantageous for you.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull What I'm describing is reality. sure, some people can work together to exploit others. the world isn't perfect.
People can own others as property and beat them (which Yahweh specifically endorses in the Bible).
I'm saying that I think that's wrong. I can look at slavery and see the suffering of the slaves and empathize with their desire to not be beaten. If someone else can't see it, he is immoral.
llkeith77 1 month ago
@llkeith77 You've changed the subject. This video is about morality - but what you're talking about is prudence. You've given no answer as to why someone is morally obligated to take or not to take a particular action, or to regard something as good or evil.
I'll fit in a short answer on slavery. Commandments regarding slavery in the OT do not reflect God's perfect will. Slavery was a necessary evil in the absence of bankruptcy courts and other social institutions we have today.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull A necessary evil? Really? When Yahweh was able to get into detail about how a woman needs to leave the camp when she is menstruating because she was "unclean", but couldn't be bothered to mention a better social system to avoid slavery?
Not buying it.
mosoi148 1 month ago
@mosoi148 The two have nothing to do with one another. Slavery is already off topic, and laws regarding menstruation are even farther off topic. Don't cause confusion.
If you have an argument to make, state it. Don't just sit there with your arms folded saying, "Not buying it," like a stubborn child.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull The major problem I have with the DCT is that it says that whatever God commands, endorses, or does is moral.
We are told that he could not possibly do anything evil because of his holy nature.
Yet when we examine his actual deeds and commandments, many instances of immoral behavior present themselves.
Then we are told that we are taking things out of context, or that God had some greater purpose, or that God gave life so he can take it away.
llkeith77 1 month ago
@damntull And then the conversation just devolves. One said points out some instance of an action or command from the Bible. The other side presents a justification or rationalization. It never goes anywhere.
The atheist can never present a single act, no matter what it is, that will cause the theist to question the DCT.
The theist, no matter what justification or rationale he provides, ever causes the atheist to feel that the behaviors in question are moral.
llkeith77 1 month ago
@llkeith77 Now we've changed the subject again - You've still given no answer as to a basis for moral values. You haven't responded to my explanation on slavery. Do you accept it?
You have reservations about DCT because you think the Bible says God commanded evil. But an uninformed, literalist interpretation of the Old Testament doesn't show that! You're approaching the problem backwards!
DCT is the only plausible basis for the objective moral values and duties we all recognize ...
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull That fact, together with an understanding of what it means to say that God "inspired" the scriptures (hint: it doesn't mean dictation), together with an understanding of the historical and cultural context of the events, must illuminate our interpretation of the scriptures.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull But placing things in a historical context, aren't you being subjective about morality? That seems tantamount to moral relativism (in this case relative to the time period).
But DCT proponents are also stating that morality is objective and independent of the judgments of any human. What is wrong now should have been wrong 2,000 years ago, right?
DCT states that morality is based in God's nature, which is unchanging - so historical context shouldn't matter.
llkeith77 1 month ago
@damntull These are some Bible verses that are relevant:
Malachi 3:6 "I the LORD do not change."
James 1: 17 "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."
1 Samuel 15 :29 "He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
It's clear that God doesn't change. If morals are rooted in him, then morals shouldn't change either.
llkeith77 1 month ago
@llkeith77 This will be a test of your honesty.
True, God IS the Good, so He does not change.
Particular moral commands can be universal, or they can be restricted.
So, e.g., God's prohibition against bestiality in Leviticus 18:23 applies to all people at all times and in all places, whereas a command dealing with ritual purity, such as Lev 19:19 regarding cloth mixtures, never did. There is no contradiction. When the command expires, it does not constitute a change in God.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull How do you know when a command expires? For example, God specifically condones owning humans as property and beating them.
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21)
The endorsement of slavery continues in the NT. (cont.)
llkeith77 1 month ago
@llkeith77 Do we then agree in principle that your initial objection has no force? That moral commands can change without a change in God? I'll respond to the slavery issue if we can agree on this point.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull We don't agree, man. I'm pointing out same major issues in the scriptures, and you're just rationalizing it all. It's just like I figured it would happen.
You are saying that some commands are temporary, as if this somehow makes them right. You are still being relativistic about morality by making a distinction between the command about bestiality and the commands about "ritual purity."
What kind of relativistic category do all the verses condoning slavery fall into?
llkeith77 1 month ago
@llkeith77 I'll not go on with you until we come to an understanding of what objective and subjective mean. Objective means belonging to the object rather than to the thinking subject. Human beings are the thinking subjects, and God, as the standard of goodness, is the object.
Even if God merely decided on a whim what "good" was (and he doesn't), it would still be objective - though it would be ARBITRARY.
Are we on the same page?
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull “Objective means belonging to the object [of thought] rather than to the thinking subject.” Remember that subjective values exist within the mind, whereas objective values exist independent of the mind. God is the object of your thought, but providing the trait to God, as a standard of goodness, is merely an assertion based off of your subjective opinion of God; it is not an objective quality. God is good because you think God is good, not because God is intrinsically good.
HotblackDesiat042 1 month ago
@HotblackDesiat042 You are 100% incorrect. My thinking God is good does not make him good. God IS good, and I correctly perceive it.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull “God IS good, and I correctly perceive it.” No, you don’t. That is still your subjective opinion of God. There is no evidence to support that God exists let alone that the nature of God is intrinsically good. In fact, if we’re to consider the biblical depictions of God as a form of testimonial evidence (although it is nothing more than hearsay) then it is most likely the contrary, in which God is bad according to most modern day standards of morality.
HotblackDesiat042 1 month ago
@HotblackDesiat042 Your pronouncement "There is no evidence ..." is a statement of profound willful ignorance. There are many facts about the world that make it more probable than not that God exists.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull “There are many facts about the world that make it more probable than not that God exists.”
And which god is that these supposed facts prove exists? Actually, there is more evidence supporting man creating god(s) versus any god creating man. Perhaps you should read some of the papers by Dr. Andy Thompson, or listen to some of his lectures on “Why we believe in gods”.
HotblackDesiat042 1 month ago
@HotblackDesiat042 No doubt that people make up stuff and attribute it to God. llkeith77 is a perfect example. He makes up crap like, "God is unjust," and "God is unfair." Hindus, Muslims, followers of other religions, and sometimes even Christians (though less often so) ascribe things to God that are not true. So what? It's not evidence against the existence of God at all.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull making stuff up? I think the Genesis account itself is made up. I'm willing to examine it so we can have a discussion about your theology. I didn't just assert that your particular deity is unjust - I analyzed the text and drew my conclusions. I provided many direct quotes from the Bible, along with my interpretation.
We just don't agree, man.
llkeith77 1 month ago
@llkeith77 Of course I don't agree with your unorthodox and uninformed interpretation of a book you know nothing about.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull From what I can tell, the major difference is one of perspective, not lack of "knowledge of the text." I've read the Bible quite a lot, actually. I use the New English Translation, which is complete with a robust concordance.
It's an excellent online Bible, which I'd recommend to anyone who finds these topics interesting.
Any way, I don't just read the verses, I examine the attached accordance as well. I just bring a different a priori belief to the table. (cont.)
llkeith77 1 month ago
@damntull (cont.) and that different a priori belief is what results in the different take-away from the verses. We're both reading the same story, we simply interpret each verses differently.
I don't believe in the existence of any particular god or gods, including the Christian one. This starting point of disbelief means that I will absorb each verse in a different manner than someone who already holds the belief that God exists and possesses all the "omin" qualities.
llkeith77 1 month ago
@damntull It doesn't mean that I'm "uninformed." I've looked at the material directly and read the attached concordance to get a feel for the nuances of the Hebrew worlds being employed. I've read the verses repeatedly and I've come to my conclusions. The whole story is open to a fair degree of interpretation, is it not?
There are literally thousands of different sects of Christianity. People have been arguing about exegesis for millenia. It's really no surprise that we disagree.
llkeith77 1 month ago
@llkeith77 Imagine you wrote a book with a certain theme in mind. Then I come and tell you that your book doesn't say what you say it does. What would you say to me?
There may be many sects of Christianity, but none of them, when interpreting Genesis 3, come to the absurd conclusion that God is unfair.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull “No doubt that people make up stuff and attribute it to God.” You mean like the bible, or you? I haven’t attributed anything to this god figure as I don’t believe it exists. At most I’ve only restated what others have attributed, such as your holy book.
HotblackDesiat042 1 month ago
@HotblackDesiat042 No, the bible is filled with correct stuff about God.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull “Original sin is not punishment, it is a condition that we ALL find ourselves in” I did not instill this hypothetical condition. It was not brought about by any of my actions, yet this is what you implied by your previous post when you stated that “we screwed it up”. Also, I don’t interpret it as a condition, but more as a punishment. (cont.)
HotblackDesiat042 1 month ago
@HotblackDesiat042 No, you did not instill it - you inherited it from your parents. If you think it's a punishment, you don't understand the doctrine of original sin.
damntull 1 month ago
@HotblackDesiat042 I certainly agree with this take on it. I'm not sure how "punishment" isn't an important component of Original Sin.
It was God who chose to taint all of A&E's progeny, i.e., all of human kind for all time, with the Original Sin. It was a punishment leading to a state. There is a connection there.
Rom 5:12 "So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned "
llkeith77 1 month ago
@HotblackDesiat042 Rom 5:12 says that "sin entered through one man."
To me it, it seems important to ask ourselves who was in actually in control of the situation? Who ultimately decided what all the various elements of the environment would be in which this scenario (The Temptation, The Fall, and the subsequent "state" in which humans would be tainted by the "Original Sin."
This supposed condition did not have to be. God had a limitless variety of responses available to him.
llkeith77 1 month ago
@llkeith77 You assume that there is a possible state of affairs where every single imperfect free creature only does the right thing. Experience tells us otherwise.
BTW, we've changed the subject again and are now on the problem of evil.
damntull 1 month ago
@llkeith77 Original sin is inherited, it is not a punishment, it is not an act of God. The sin was Adam's, not God's. The punishment was mortality, banishment from the garden, etc.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull God decided that they would be kicked out of the Garden. He decided man would toil in order to produced food, and that women would be in pain during childbirth. These are punishments. When you take things away from people and make their lives harder, you are punishing them.
Why didn't God just talk to Adam and explain things to him? Why the bizarre decision to taint all humans forever? That's the best response this deity could come up with?
llkeith77 1 month ago
@damntull I'm tired of arguing about what is quite possible a fairy tale, DT. I've said my piece. I wish you the best in all you do.
Have a good one.
llkeith77 1 month ago
@llkeith77 OK. You know, I don't fault you for rejecting a God and a faith about which you have so many misconceptions. I would fault you for refusing to even be told what is the faith and who is the God we profess. But all is not lost. Life is long (hopefully), and we all have a lot of learning to do. It has been educational talking to you, and I also wish you the best. Blessings.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull Good. Just ignore my last question. I don't want to keep going down this path anymore. Again, best of luck to you, DT.
llkeith77 1 month ago
@llkeith77 No insult was intended. Take care.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull Misconceptions? You had to take a parting shot, huh?
I'll say it again, how could they really grasp death when it had not yet been introduced into the world?
Didn't death come AFTER the Fall, not before?
Romans 5:12 I
llkeith77 1 month ago
@damntull Romans 5:12 is pretty clear about stating that death came after the Fall. Why would Adam and Eve have a good grasp of what death was when it hadn't entered creation yet? How could they then truly understand God's warning that they would die if they ate of the fruit?
You can even say it was a spiritual death, but it doesn't matter. How could they understand the death of anything before death entered the world?
They didn't know shit, DT.
llkeith77 1 month ago
@damntull I can fault you, DT. Fault you for believing in a fairy tale from an ancient book.
When did you first start to be exposed to Christianity? At what age did you begin to listen to these Bible stories?
llkeith77 1 month ago
@llkeith77 I thought we were done. I am a lifelong Roman Catholic.
damntull 1 month ago
@llkeith77 Did you watch the Paul Copan video?
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull I haven't yet. I am familiar with his name. I know he wrote the book, "Is God a Moral Monster?"
I went onto ITunes and downloaded a lot of his interviews just now though. I also went onto Liberty and Gutenberg College's ITunes U sites for entire lectures.
I listen to ITunes U lectures a lot.
I also love the podcast debates featuring Ehrman, Licona, Lane-Craig, Habbermas, Alvaros, Bob Price, etc.
I check it all out, man. I continue to search and learn as much as I can.
llkeith77 1 month ago
@llkeith77 As I said before, I don't see that it's a "lack of knowledge."
I"ve spent hours and hours listening to guys like Craig and Licona. I've listened to P. Hernandez, Plantinga, and Habbermas.
I was raised Protestant and even went to church camp every summer until I was about 16.
I feel as though I understand WHAT you believe, DT, just not why you accept the claims.
For me, the reasons for accepting the claims are pretty lacking.
Again, we just don't agree.
llkeith77 1 month ago
@llkeith77 What you're displaying here is a much more moderate position. I just want you to understand is that you can't point out flaws in Christianity by misrepresenting its core doctrines through unorthodox interpretations of its scriptures.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull I'm just trying to move toward a more civil discourse. I can can definitely point out problems with your theological system. You will no doubt label that as a "misconception.". Why wouldn't, you? You are a Ronan Carholic. you approach the story with an a priori belief that a god exists, he is all-good, he cares about humanity and is sovereign, and so on.
I don't bring those beliefs to the table (cont.)
llkeith77 1 month ago
@damntull Im basically saying, lets assume this deity exists so we can examine the theological claims. I ask myself, what do these verses tell me about this god's character? Of course my view is unorthodox - I'm not a catholic. I don't presuppose he possesses all the omni qualities before reading the stories. I'm letting the verses paint the picture.
llkeith77 1 month ago
@llkeith77 Again, my example. If you wrote a book intending to get a certain point across, and I come along and offer a contradictory interpretation, what would you say to me? You'd say, No! That's not what I'm saying!
Again - you have to challenge the orthodox belief and interpretation - otherwise, you're attacking a straw man.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull Roman Catholics certainly didn't write the Pentateuch, DT. I don't really care if my interpretation doesn't sit well with Catholics.
The Catholic Church itself experienced the East-West Schism of the 11th century. Are all the Eastern Orthodox Christians now "unorthodox" as well?
What about the Protestants who broke with the Catholic Church? Are they "misinterpreting" the Bible, too?
You (and your particular religion) don't own the Bible, DT.
llkeith77 1 month ago
The Jews wrote the OT. The originals are in Hebrew after all. The Catholic Church came around much, much later.
Why does the Catholic Church get to say that certain OT passages are prophecies indicating Jesus was the messiah?
The Jews don't believe that. It's originally their book, is it not? What right do Catholics and other Christians have to come along with their "misinterpretation" of the Jew's book?
llkeith77 1 month ago
@llkeith77 Christians are Jews who believe Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus was a Jew. His disciples were Jews. And the message was spread to the rest of the world. Will you acknowledge this and withdraw your charge that it isn't our book?
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull No.
Catholicism didn't exist when the Torah was written. To this day, millions of Jewish people continue to study their books, which Christians have labeled the "Old Testament." Do you think Jewish people call it the "Old Testament"?
Jesus was certainly an ethnic Jew; however, his disciples asserted that he was the Messiah.
Do you think Jewish people accept Jesus as the Messiah?
The "OT" is their book. Catholics came along WAY later and tried to co-opt it.
llkeith77 1 month ago
@llkeith77 Proof positive that you are unreasonable and not interested in a real exchange of ideas. Bye now.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull >Proof positive you won't take my claims at face value and agree that I'm correct.
Fixed that for you.
TheGeneralCritic 1 month ago
@damntull
The OT, which we were specifically discussing vis-a-vis "Original Sin", is NOT a collection of texts under the exclusive purview of your particular branch of Catholicism.
You don't have exclusive rights to analyze these words. The Bible is open to interpretation by all (atheists, Protestants, Muslims, etc.) I quoted verses and provided my analysis. If it doesn't fit in with your sect's dogma, so be it. My arguments stand on their own merits.
llkeith77 1 month ago
@damntull Jewish people were reading the Hebrew Bible for hundreds and hundreds of years before Catholicism was even though of. That is an undeniable fact.
I realize that Roman Catholic tradition claims that the Church was founded by Jesus himself, but this is debatable. Especially when you consider all the other Jesus-worshiping sects on offer.
Lutherans, Protestants, Baptists, Methodists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., all have major doctrinal issues with Roman Catholics.
llkeith77 1 month ago
@llkeith77 actually the old testament was placed into written form only 300 years after the new testament was put into writing
tylerjsax 1 month ago
@tylerjsax We have Dead Sea scrolls that show at least some of the extant Hebrew manuscripts pre-date Jesus by at least about 150 years.
I've read that the OT was written in Hebrew around 700 or 600 BCE, with the Greek translation (Septuagint) being completed by about 130 BCE.
llkeith77 1 month ago
@llkeith77 Right on, man.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull Who decided what the punishment would be?
llkeith77 1 month ago
@HotblackDesiat042 Romans 5:18-19 "Consequently, just as condemnation for all people came through one transgression, so too through the one righteous act came righteousness leading to life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man, many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of one man many will be made righteous."
This is the heart of Christianity. "We are all tainted due to Original Sin and in need of salvation through Christ."
llkeith77 1 month ago
@llkeith77 Finally, a true statement.
damntull 1 month ago
@HotblackDesiat042
I don't see Rom 5:18-19 the way a Christian does. My skeptical mind immediately starts generating questions.
WHO set up this entire system? WHO decided that the bizarre crucifixion and torture leading to a human sacrifice would somehow take away the "taint of Original Sin?" A taint, by the way, that he himself decided upon as a punishment.
When does the all-powerful creator of EVERYTHING (see Col 1:16) get any blame for the system he chose to create?
llkeith77 1 month ago
@llkeith77 The taint of original sin is not a punishment, it is an inherited condition. We all experience it by inheriting a fallen nature.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull (cont.) If we are to assume the biblical accounts as a true history, as well as the omniscient trait of god, then it is nothing more than a catch-22, and an entrapment scheme devised by god. The reason is because if god were all-knowing, then the entire consequences of the A&E story had to be foreknown to god. So god knew the choices they would make plus he had to ensure the fall of mankind via the talking snake. (cont.)
HotblackDesiat042 1 month ago
@damntull (cont.) Therefore god never intended for A&E to live eternally in a paradise. To give something and then take it away is a punishment in my book, not a condition. It can also be interpreted as a lure to serfdom, as it can viewed as dangling a prize before the subject that you wish to enslave.
HotblackDesiat042 1 month ago
@HotblackDesiat042 This is the perfect example of the BS that you buy into. You have no idea what the story of the fall is about. I'm not going over it again, since I've discussed it in detail with llkeith77.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull I now this is tiresome, but you claimed that A&E knew they were naked PRIOR to eating the fruit. This is an important point, because it helps us to establish the level of naivety/ innocenense of A&E before eating the fruit. Check out this passage that occurs shortly AFTER they eat the fruit
Gen 3:10"...I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.” 3:11 And the Lord God said, “Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”
llkeith77 1 month ago
@llkeith77 The obviously knew they were naked before, because they weren't BLIND, but it was not a source of shame. After their sin, they could not look upon their nakedness without blushing, and sin being what had produced this sensation, they were afraid to appear before God, against whom they had sinned.
damntull 1 month ago
@HotblackDesiat042 Reading these verses, I just not sure how you don't come to the conclusion that before eating the fruit, they were more naive and innocent than they were after eating the fruit.
If they were naive and innocent (indeed, they had zero knowledge of death - a fair assumption considering it did not even exist yet), then the punishment of God is disproportionate and immoral.
His punishment is also immoral because it is extended to A&E's children (for all time).
llkeith77 1 month ago
@llkeith77 They were innocent before, and much less innocent after, I'll give you that.
Your objection to the punishment contains an assumption (that they didn't know what death was), and the conclusion does not follow fromt he premise.
As for the children - sure, flawed persons who have rebelled against God are going to produce naturally perfect, immortal children. See the illogic?
damntull 1 month ago
@HotblackDesiat042 (cont.) The nature of a sentient being does not seem to be an object to me. Temperment, attitudes, and disposition are tied to the thoughts of a sentient being.
If morality is rooted in God's nature, then it is grounded in his thoughts, not upon an object.
His mind is not supposed to change, either. If that is the case, his commandments and actions should be unchanging as well. Otherwise they are not dependant upon him, but upon (cont.)
llkeith77 1 month ago
@llkeith77 Confused again about the meaning of the words "object" and "nature."
damntull 1 month ago
@llkeith77 “The nature of a sentient being does not seem to be an object to me. Temperament, attitudes, and disposition are tied to the thoughts of a sentient being.” I agree. All traits attributed to any such deity result from the minds of thinking subjects.They are not intrinsic beyond one’s subjective opinion.The existence of a god is not provable therefore neither can the intrinsic nature of god be provable. So any assertion of traits is based purely on subjective speculation.
HotblackDesiat042 1 month ago
@HotblackDesiat042 Pure skepticism, arbitrarily applied to the God question.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull “Pure skepticism.” Damn straight. Skeptical is the only way to be. It keeps one from buying into someone else’s BS.
HotblackDesiat042 1 month ago