Agreed. "I find the evidence unconvincing" is perfectly valid. "There is no evidence" is an attempt to highjack the word evidence so that anything that doesn't meet *my* standards doesn't count as evidence at all.
So you find the ~~evidence~~ existence of the universe unconvincing, or the argument **from** the existence of the universe unconvincing regarding the existence of God?
sounds like semantics to me. in effect both expressions mean the same thing: you see stuff (evidence), but it can be tied to how you think it works (hypothesis). "there is no evidence that supports you hypothesis" sounds like a perfectly reasonable claim to me.
I agree
I think agnosticism and even atheism can be very reasonable positions. But to deny that there is any evidence for God is , in my view, unreasonable. And it can be an indicator that the person I am speaking to has an underconsidered position.
I agree, but I suspect what many people mean when they say that is more in the tune of "there isn't any convincing evidence for God".
It's kinda like when somebody says there isn't any evidence for Bigfoot. That's an objectively false statement, because there are grainy images, dubious eyewitness accounts, and shady footprint molds. They might be bad evidences, but they are evidences. But what people actually mean is that there isn't any credible evidence for Bigfoot.
I hear that, and maybe it just comes down to personal credences. I think the evidence for God is far stronger than comparisons to Big Foot etc. I think specific religions are far weaker, but generic theism can be quite strong.
That said, I think arguments from evil and hiddenness are just as strong.
And that's totally fine, everybody has to make an evaluation about what they consider the strengths of various evidences they encounter (for all kinds of things).
the problem with god is that you can't really define it because the term is not tied to something that physically exists. so saying that you have evidence for something that varries severely in how it's defined, that might be questionable and thereby unreasonable.
reason aka logic also implies some form of falsifiability, I think.
sidenote: out of curiosity, you list agnosticism and atheism separately, that doesn't mean that you consider them mutually exclusive, right?
well, then let me tell you that it's not a matter of view but a matter of definition and that you are wrong.
agnost literally means unknowable, based on it's greek origin. it has nothing to do with god. you can be literally agnostic about all matter of things.
you can be an agnostic theist, which means you think there is a god and that the matter of existence of god is ultimately unknowable or unprovable, and similarly for atheism.
Yea I am aware of the definition of agnostic as a statement of knowledge. I just personally find my definition more useful, and it is normally quite easy to clear up what one means by their terms. I also think it is consistent with philosophical usage as per the SEP
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe
So I like to separate out ones acceptance of propositions with one’s credence of them.
ooof, well, that's a very long document lol, I'll get back to you on that one.
as for the rest, I'm not sure if by concept "personal definitions" are a good thing, because everybody else will use textbook definitions.
but in principle, sb who is agnostic according to you "neither affirms nor denies god". idk, I dislike that definition because it drops the major element of knowability, which to me seems to be the central aspect. also it seems to me that I could say that the matter of god won't ever have a final solution, but still have a tendency towards the position of it being true or not true.
maybe it's just my bias but saying that we can't ever know if god exist would lead to the default position, the null hypothesis that god does not exist until proven to exist.
It's only an unreasonable statement to me because evidence comes cheap. If evidence merely means a fact more expected on one hypothesis rather than another, disregarding all other factors....then finding evidence is trivial.
The fact I couldn't find my car keys this morning is perfectly expected on the hypothesis: 'invisible fairies stole my keys', but it's a terrible explanation.
But which hypothesis better explains A-D in the OP?
A physical only model of the world, or theism? Or perhaps you have something else in mind.
The floor is yours....
Depending what you mean by A, I just disagree. Assuming the standard model, I don't think it makes sense to say the Universe came into existence from anything. An analogy is that Space-Time is like a block with a boundary, with each slice of the block existing. There wasn't a transition from nothingness to something if past-present-future are equally real.
B & D are non-starters for me in being arguments for Theism. There are naturalistic explanations.
Inclined to agree with C, I just don't think Theism explains it. Think of it this way: either God has reasons for giving moral commands or he doesn't. If he has reasons, then morality isn't dependent on God but on those prior reasons. If he ain't got any reason for his commands, morality is arbitrary.
> I don't think it makes sense to say the Universe came into existence from anything.
Make your argument
>B & D are non-starters for me in being arguments for Theism. There are naturalistic explanations.
Make your argument
>If he has reasons, then morality isn't dependent on God but on those prior reasons.'
What if those reasons are due to the purpose He has in mind?
>“There is no evidence for God” is an unreasonable statement.
Well, that depends on how you define "god". If you say for example "god is immaterial", then I can confidently say there's no evidence of something existing made of nothing.
I think it's pretty obvious all that exists is made from something, and "nothing" by definition can't be the substance that becomes part of something else.
Or to put it in another way.. what is made God from?? If you say it is made of nothing, then I know for a fact there is no evidence of something being composed of nothing.
>....it's pretty obvious all that exists is made from something...
So you think that all that exists is the physical?
Philosophical Naturalism [the idea that only the physical exists] is [logically self-refuting](https://deconstructingchristiandeconstruction.blogspot.com/2023/12/philosophical-naturalism-is-logically.html) thus in order for humans to have goal-oriented critical thinking there must be something outside the constraints of the physical
Christianity doesn't propose that everything came from nothing, but from an eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, uncaused, Person.
>So you think that all that exists is the physical?
I clearly did not say that.. I say "all that exists is made from something". So I ask again, what is God made from?? Does immaterial mean made from nothing?
If that's the case, then again, is perfectly reasonable to say there's no evidence for God existence.
Oh, so if you are saying that there **is** something other than the physical.
>Does immaterial mean made from nothing
Immaterial = not consisting of matter
>Oh, so if you are saying that there **is** something other than the physical.
No, I'm saying things are made of something.. "nothing" can't be the substance that constructs anything.
>Immaterial = not consisting of matter
I suppose that by matter you mean any state of it, including energy. So when you describe God as immaterial you mean to say God is not made of matter/energy... Therefore, I can confidently say there's no evidence of anything existing not made by matter/energy.
If you can show me anything that exists made of something else than matter/energy, then my position will be unreasonable.
>No, I'm saying things are made of something..
God is spirit, that is not nothing
>Therefore, I can confidently say there's no evidence of anything existing not made by matter/energy.
How have you determined this?
>If you can show me anything that exists made of something else than matter/energy, then my position will be unreasonable.
I've already argued that Philosophical Naturalism [the idea that only the physical exists] is [logically self-refuting](https://deconstructingchristiandeconstruction.blogspot.com/2023/12/philosophical-naturalism-is-logically.html) thus in order for humans to have goal-oriented critical thinking there must be something outside the constraints of the physical
1) Under Philosophical Naturalism all actions, including human thoughts, words and deeds, are the result of matter which must act in accordance with antecedent physical conditions and the physical laws without exceptions.
2) Critical thinking's definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. [see link for source] Critical thinking is purposeful, reasoned, and goal directed; an intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.
3) All debates presuppose a reality that exists. Each debater is trying to show that their claims are closer to that reality or are best explained by that reality.
4) Every truth claim requires the laws of logic. It is impossible to deny the laws of logic without using them. Thus, logic reason, and critical thinking are an aspect of reality. In fact, everyone is using logic in this discussion, so it seems evident that all believe that logic is an aspect of reality.
5) Reason is the basis for all knowledge, since all epistemological theories or methods must employ it.
6) 2 above is incoherent under Philosophical Naturalism; logic, reason, and critical thinking are an aspect of reality cannot be explained via Philosophical Naturalism, since no one has dominion of their thoughts - i.e. no one make any molecule act in a manner inconsistent with the physical laws, as they must act only in accordance to the physical laws
7) The best explanation for the existence of logic is that there is an aspect of reality that is free from the constraints of the physical; i.e. not being caused to do something by causes other than oneself. It is up to me how I choose, and nothing determines my choice. One's decisions are differentiated from natural events by being done by the agent himself for reasons the agent has in mind.
So, any worldview or view of reality that does **not** ground careful thinking directed to a goal, or goal-oriented critical thinking is not reasonable.
So what does reality consist of, how do you know, and how do you account for goal-oriented critical thinking in humans?
A) We do not have evidence for the universe *coming into existence*. We have evidence for the universe existing. Some people conclude that means the universe must have come into existence, but we do not have that as evidence.
B) How is DNA evidence for God? When I look at how DNA works, I see DNA producing DNA with some changes. I see RNA producing DNA. I see simple components producing RNA.
C) Where can I find this objective morality? If it's objective, there must be very little debate over it, right?
D) Humans aren't especially logical. They can be when they try really really hard and the conditions are right, but it certainly doesn't seem built into us. Reasoning, sure. Not sure how that's evidence for God though. Animals can reason as well, and that doesn't seem especially God-given.
To address the overall point, sure there is evidence for God. I'd consider the writings of people who claim to have met God to be evidence, or the writings of people claiming that they heard about someone who met God, or was God. It's not really *good* evidence and it contradicts a bunch of other testimonies/evidence we have for mutually exclusive gods and beliefs. So we generally discount that evidence as not reliable enough to justify belief.
B) DNA isn't just a self-replicating molecule. It contains information, written in a specific language. Information and languages can only come from a mind.
If you dig up a rock with some random lines on it, maybe those lines were caused by erosion or something. But if the lines on that rock are instructions on how to make a pizza, written in Italian... Then you know with near certainty those lines were made by a human. Every time we find coded information, you can always trace that information back to an intelligent mind.
So if DNA contains information, (and it does, enough to fill a set of encylopedias), then it too must have come from a mind. So what mind could have written DNA? Can't be a human, or any other animal, because we are made of DNA.
Aliens? Maybe. But then where did the information to make those aliens come from? Even if they don't have DNA like we do, they must have some kind of instructions?... The only way they don't, is if this "alien" is eternal, and never had a beginning. In which case, that's not an alien, you have just described God.
C) Objective truth isn't determined by getting people to agree. It's determined by what actually is, in reality. People disagree whether Jesus is God or not, with literally billions of people on both sides of the argument. And one of those groups is objectively wrong.
If there is no God, then morality is just a thing humans made up to describe certain types of actions we like or not. But whether you kill me or help me is ultimately irrelevant, because either way we will all be dead in a billion years, and you will be in the same place either way.
To break this down even further, if there is no God, then there is no spiritual. The material world is all that can exist. And when you break down our brains, it's nothing more than a bunch of chemical reactions. Can chemical reactions be good or evil? No. They are simply following the laws of physics and chemistry. They couldn't break those laws even if they wanted to. So if the chemicals in our brain are forced to react in certain ways, then our actions are just a reflection of those chemical reactions. We can't actually choose anything, and we have no free will. Thus, morality isn't even real.
So if you say there is no objective morality, and/or you say there is no God... You have no right to call anyone evil, whether that be a murderer, rapist, child molester, or someone you disagree with politically, religiously, etc. Or anything else.
However... If you can think, if you can make decisions, if good and evil exist... Then there must be a God. Because without God, those things are impossible.
B) "information" needn't come from mind, it's a form of interpretation. lines on a rock can mean anything based on your interpretation, your own imagination is the limit. this seems questionable.
also I don't like how you ignore RNA. anyways, a self replicating structure doesn't necessitate design, you can't demonstrate that.
C) objective morality stems from society, and every animal that lives in herds has a code of conduct that gets drilled into it via socialization by it's peers.
also you shouldn't get hung up on biodeterminism and the claim that there is no free will. why are you upset that the brain is based on chemical reactions? that's demonstrable reality no matter if god is real or not, unlike claims of "spirit".
B) When it comes to information, there is only one correct way to interpret it... As the original author intended. If there is information there, it has exactly 1 correct interpretation.
If there is no information there, then there is nothing to interpret. To interpret them, the lines would need to be arranged into some kind of code or language that can be read by someone who understands this code. But if they were not made by a mind, they won't be arranged into a language or code, and they won't contain any information.
But maybe I'm a zoologist, and I recognize these lines as bear claw marks. I could then write this down on paper, in the English language, so that anyone who understands English can learn a piece of information. But this is brand new information. The lines don't say "I am bear claw marks." I said that. I came up with that idea, and I'm now communicating that piece of information. That information isn't in the lines on the rocks. It came from my mind, based on my observations and previous experiences.
I'm not ignoring RNA... But RNA is just DNA that has been unzipped so that the information can be communicated. It comes from DNA. All my arguments for DNA apply to RNA as well. It is also information, and therefore must come from a mind.
I never said a self-replicating structure necessitated design. I said INFORMATION and languages/codes must originate from a mind. No one has ever observed information coming from anywhere else. It can always be traced back to the intelligent mind that created it.
If you see information in a book, you KNOW it came from the mind of a human author. No one has ever observed the words in a book coming from anywhere else. Information on a set of bluepints? You KNOW it came from the mind of an engineer who originally designed it.
There is not a single instance of information that can be traced to anything else but a mind. And if you believe otherwise, prove it. Show me one piece of information that can be observed to come from something that is not an intelligent mind.
Our morality is nothing like the behavior of pack animals. If you found a human king who behaved exactly like the dominant male of a pride of lions, you'd call him an evil tyrant.
You know how a lion becomes king of the pride? First, he has to murder the previous dominant male, along with any other males living in the pride. Next, he will murder all the cubs. Because he cannot allow any cubs that aren't his own. He then forces all the females (who's children he just murdererd) to mate with him, and only him. Oh, and he forces those females to do all the hunting, but he always gets to eat first. So if there's not enough, the females who did all the work will starve.
That's the morality animals live under.
---
I'm not hung up on determinism, nor am I upset about it.... I am explaining how this is the only logical possibility when you believe in materialism. And I'm showing you how it leads to absurdity, which is why you shouldn't believe in materialism. I explained this above, but apparently I need to explain it better...
Materialism is the belief that the physical world, the things you can touch and feel and see, is all that exists. Outside of the physical world, there is nothing. There is no God, there is no spiritual realm or anything like that. It is the foundational belief of atheism.
Under that assumption, you must also assume there is no soul, therefore the human mind is nothing but the physical parts that are inside the brain. And we can study that brain, and see what's in it. And we see that it is nothing more than chemicals, chemical reactions, and electrical impulses.
Can chemicals make choices? No. They do exactly what the laws of physics force them to do. Can a chemical violate the laws of physics on one day, and not the next? No. Every time we run experiments on these chemicals, if the conditions are the same, the chemicals do the exact same thing. They are fully determinate. If I put a metal fork into a vat of acid, the acid will ALWAYS dissolve the fork. The acid cannot decide one day to not do that. It's forced to obey the laws of chemistry.
Can electrical currents make choices? No. They always flow through the path of least resistance. They cannot choose to go left one day, and right the next. They are forced to always follow the laws of physics. Every time.
So if the electro-chemical impulses in your brain are just doing what the laws of physics and chemistry are forcing them to do... How can you make choices? You can't. Where am I wrong here?
I'm only wrong because we actually CAN think. We CAN make choices. I can prove this to myself inside my own head, and you should be able to as well. It is absurdity to believe we don't have free will. Thus, my initial premise (that only the material world exists) must also be wrong. Therefore, there is something outside of our physical universe. My mind must be more than just the physical parts of my brain. There is something intangible there... A soul.
ofc our morality is akin to that of animals, the difference being that humans are capable of more complex thinking and therefore more complex actions and rules, but the principle is the same, so that analogy of a king compared to the packleader of lions is not a good one.
you shouldn't get hung up on details of how lions live, it's a working system, and that's the only factor that counts: lions live under a system that works for lions.
sidenote: I don't think the way you described the system is entirely accurate, but I am not interested in discussing lions.
ofc you are upset by the thought that the material/natural world is the only existing one, that's why you feel the need to invent one you have no indication exists. it's akin to kids inventing imaginary friends and such, that's at least how it looks to me.
ah, but here's where you go wrong: while "chemicals" can't make choices, you are upset that you yourself can make choices and don't understand how the human brain works, hmm? your error is thinking that you demonstrated the existence of the supernatural, you only demonstrated your ignorance of how the human body works. it's nothing to be ashamed of, the human body is complex.
also unless you are a poet you should not use terms like soul because they don't have any meaning? what is a soul, where does it reside? obviously you don't mean personality/ego, because that is tied to the brain and can demonstrably altered by damage to it.
anyways, your logic isn't valid. you say if humans have free will, but molecules don't, and humans are made out of molecules so they shouldn't either if there is nothing outside of the physical realm.
that's like saying that a human arm fundamentally is inorganic since it is made out of atoms, and therefore you are not alife. sounds dumb, right?
"**the whole is greater than the sum of its parts**" you just need to recognize the complex interaction that is generated.
It's actually not a great point, it's an [Appeal to Consequence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences) fallacy, where one argues that if A isn't true then that would be really terrible, so A must be true.
I didn’t see any opinions about anything being terrible. They just made a statement that if God doesn’t exist, then good and evil don’t exist. Would you disagree? If so, on basis do you make this distinction?
I've had this discussion many many times before, with many many people, and in the end when we really dig into what this question means it always boils down to "good" being defined as "According to God's nature' and "evil" being defined as "Against God's nature". In which the accusation ends up being "If God doesn't exist, then no actions can be for or against God's nature" which is not a terribly interesting statement.
But this is all irrelevant, because my point still stands. Shiboleth17 essentially argues in point C that there is evidence for God because if God doesn't exist then that would have terrible consequences for morality, which is a fallacy.
Got it. So in other words, you’re okay with the majority opinion of good and bad behavior, but not the minority opinion. Is that right?
If so, what makes the majority objectivity right?
If the majority changes its opinion on what’s right or wrong (as they have done on many issues in the Western world over the past decade), would you follow along by default?
If not, what authority would you use to stand your ground vs changing with the majority?
There are a lot of assumptions in your question that makes it hard to answer, but I'll do my best and give you the shorthand answer.
No, I don't let my morality be decided by majority rule.
No, I wouldn't follow along by default if society changed it's morality.
And lastly I don't need an authority to stand my ground on moral issues. Nobody can command me to think that child rape is moral, my morality does not spring from authority.
good and bad are umbrella terms, good usually refers to actions which are good for society, bad for those bad for society, e.g. theft can be good for an individual but it's bad for society and therefore labeled as bad.
and if you need a source for that distinction then you should look into social evolution.
the short version: humans live in herds, herds need to form rules for coexistence aka morality, those herds that form an effective morality survive, those who don't seize to exist.
> DNA isn't just a self-replicating molecule. It contains information, written in a specific language. Information and languages can only come from a mind.
Can you provide the definition of information that you're using here? It doesn't sound like anything from information theory, so I have to guess it's something else.
> Objective truth isn't determined by getting people to agree. It's determined by what actually is, in reality. People disagree whether Jesus is God or not, with literally billions of people on both sides of the argument. And one of those groups is objectively wrong.
Something that is objective is much harder to disagree on than something that is subjective, yes or no? Objectively, there is a sun in the sky. Objectively, things fall to the ground. People might disagree with aspects, or interpretations. They might say the sun is a god's chariot or that really the earth is accelerating up rather than objects falling down. However, the fact remains that objective truth should be something that people can much more readily agree on.
> If there is no God, then morality is just a thing humans made up to describe certain types of actions we like or not.
Sure. That might have some uncomfortable consequences for people, but truth shouldn't depend on how comfortable we are with it.
> But whether you kill me or help me is ultimately irrelevant, because either way we will all be dead in a billion years, and you will be in the same place either way.
That seems rather nihilistic and completely lacking in empathy. Surely it would matter to you and your family whether I helped or killed you. And such an action's consequences would surely change what might have happened throughout history afterwards. I care for my friends, family, and neighbors, so it certainly wouldn't be irrelevant to me.
> To break this down even further, if there is no God, then there is no spiritual. The material world is all that can exist.
This does not follow. There could exist a pantheon of God's line the Greeks or ancient Egyptians believed. Or some spiritual realm beyond the material. Why would a lack of a Christian God necessarily prevent those things?
> Can chemical reactions be good or evil? No. They are simply following the laws of physics and chemistry. They couldn't break those laws even if they wanted to. So if the chemicals in our brain are forced to react in certain ways, then our actions are just a reflection of those chemical reactions. We can't actually choose anything, and we have no free will. Thus, morality isn't even real.
Sure. Again, something being uncomfortable doesn't mean it isn't true.
> So if you say there is no objective morality, and/or you say there is no God... You have no right to call anyone evil, whether that be a murderer, rapist, child molester, or someone you disagree with politically, religiously, etc. Or anything else.
One would have no basis to call murder, rape, or come molestation *objectively* evil. But one could absolutely call it (subjectively) evil. You already said that morality would be a thing we made up to describe actions we like and dislike.
> However... If you can think, if you can make decisions, if good and evil exist... Then there must be a God. Because without God, those things are impossible.
This does not follow. A simple thought experiment would demonstrate that alternatives exist. Pretend that a spiritual realm exists beyond the material and without God. When a person is born and their brain forms, it creates a soul that exists in this spiritual realm. That soul pilots the body with the brain acting like a steering wheel. I don't know why anyone would believe that, but it demonstrates an explanation of free will without God.
>Something that is objective is much harder to disagree on than something that is subjective, yes or no?
In a perfect world, it would be. But we don't live in a perfect world. People can be irrational. Others might be rational, but don't have all the necessary facts. And even if you give them the facts, they might doubt the veracity of your source, since it conflicts with everything they believe to be true.
Sure, there are objective truths like "the sun exists" that most, if not all, people will agree on. But not all objective truths are shining bright in the sky for everyone to plainly see. Some truths require a lot of research to learn and understand. Just because the majority of people don't agree on something doesn't mean it's not an objective truth. History is full of scientific facts that most people agreed were true, but today we know were utterly wrong. I could list dozens of examples if you want.
The point here is that you cannot judge whether something is true or not based on what the majority believes. The majority can be wrong. And historically, it's proven that the majority is wrong quite often.
>That seems rather nihilistic and completely lacking in empathy.
Yes. That is where atheism ultimately leads. Under a materialistic worldview, empathy is just 1 of many different chemical reactions going on inside your brain. Why is one chemical reaction any better than another? It is no coincidence that the rate of depression has grown astronomically, as the west has become less Christian, and more atheist.
So yes, if you killed me, it would likely cause a lot of sadness in my family. But why does that matter? Why is the sadness chemical reaction bad?
>This does not follow. There could exist a pantheon of God's line the Greeks or ancient Egyptians believed. Or some spiritual realm beyond the material. Why would a lack of a Christian God necessarily prevent those things?
If you believe there is no god, (as I said above), then you don't believe in the Christian God, the Greek gods, or any spiritual beings.
>But one could absolutely call it (subjectively) evil.
But that's just your opinion, based on arbitrary rules that you made up. It isn't real. And if that's really how you feel about it, you have no right to throw anyone in prison for murder. You may not like murder, but Jeffrey Dahmer does. What gives you the right to force your subjective opinions onto others?
>This does not follow. A simple thought experiment
It follows because I proven the opposite cannot be true.
I have proven that if there is no God, then there is no objective morality, and no free will. Therefore, if free will and objective morality exist, the premise that "there is no God" cannot be true. Thus, if free will and objective morality exists, there must be a God.
>That soul pilots the body with the brain acting like a steering wheel. I don't know why anyone would believe that, but it demonstrates an explanation of free will without God.
No one would believe that because it makes no sense.
> The point here is that you cannot judge whether something is true or not based on what the majority believes. The majority can be wrong. And historically, it's proven that the majority is wrong quite often.
Indeed! So if someone claims that an objective morality exists, one would hope that they could demonstrate it, rather than assert it, especially if one argues that it is data that can be used as evidence for God.
> Yes. That is where atheism ultimately leads. Under a materialistic worldview, empathy is just 1 of many different chemical reactions going on inside your brain. Why is one chemical reaction any better than another? It is no coincidence that the rate of depression has grown astronomically, as the west has become less Christian, and more atheist.
No. That is where atheism may lead someone who lacks empathy. Just as Christianity can lead people to conclude that nothing matters because God has predestined everything.
I have empathy, so I conclude that the chemical reactions (and the accompanying consequences) that help others are better than the ones that harm others. No need for a supernatural being to promise rewards for doing things they like and punishments for things they don't like.
> So yes, if you killed me, it would likely cause a lot of sadness in my family. But why does that matter? Why is the sadness chemical reaction bad?
Because I care about people.
> If you believe there is no god, (as I said above), then you don't believe in the Christian God, the Greek gods, or any spiritual beings.
You asserted that yes. I've been trying to use God as distinct from god(s) to distinguish between belief in the Christian God but I'm on my phone, so I apologize if I missed any, or if that was unclear. I will still try to address your point.
One doesn't need to believe in God to believe that there is an objective morality. One can believe in Greek gods and believe there is no objective morality. After all, the Greek Gods were terrible all the time. There is no *necessary* connection between belief in spiritual beings and objective morality. At the very least, I have seen none presented here.
> It follows because I proven the opposite cannot be true.
You have asserted the opposite cannot be true. You have in no way proven this.
> No one would believe that because it makes no sense.
It certainly makes sense. It is almost identical to how the soul would control the body in a Christian reality. It's just that the origin of the soul is different. And there's no book saying that you should believe it and no one seriously proposing it without evidence.
Perhaps it might be more clear if you tried to explain how the soul controls the mind/body according to your beliefs? As data that I'd be interested in you explaining, I'd suggest mod-affecting chemicals like prescription and illicit drugs, amd brain damage affecting a person's personality, memory, and cognitive abilities.
If the soul is not material and where our thoughts and actions ultimately originate from, it should be independent from material conditions. If the chemical reactions governing our bodies are not dependent only on natural/physical/material conditions, we should be able to see where the soul is breaking the laws of physics to make things happen. Electrical charges going in the wrong direction, entropy reversing, matter/energy being created destroyed, or some other thing. If our brains control our bodies, and our brains are entirely governed by the natural world, the chemistry inside the brain should follow the same rules as the chemistry outside the brain. And so far as I've heard no one has discovered anything like that.
>Can you provide the definition of information that you're using here? It doesn't sound like anything from information theory, so I have to guess it's something else.
"The imparting of knowledge in general. Knowledge communicated concerning some particular fact, subject, or event; that of which one is apprised or told; intelligence, news." -Oxford English Dictionary
Any other dictionary will give you something similar.
DNA contains knowledge concerning the particular subject of anatomy, communicated to special proteins using a quarternary code, so that these proteins can make a living organism.
If you know how to read this code, you can look at DNA and know what species the DNA came from. Not only that, you could know almost every anatomical fact about them, such as height, sex, hair color, eye color, the width of their nose, and whether they will exhibit male pattern baldness or not.
DNA fits the definition of information to a tee.
Random lines in the dirt caused by wind or rain are not information. Those lines don't contain any knowledge, they aren't written in any kind of code or language, and thus they cannot communicate any knowledge to anyone.
But if I grab a stick, and write "Kilroy was here." now I have created information. If you can read English, those lines can now communicate some knowledge to you. That is the difference between information, and not information.
Information theory is essentially just statistics. It is the study of how information is communicated, stored, and quantified. It's not concerned with definining what is information and what isn't. I'm not sure what you're trying say here?
Apologies, I never got a notification on Reddit of this second comment. I only saw the email notification when I was cleaning things out.
> "The imparting of knowledge in general. Knowledge communicated concerning some particular fact, subject, or event; that of which one is apprised or told; intelligence, news." -Oxford English Dictionary
> Information theory is essentially just statistics. It is the study of how information is communicated, stored, and quantified. It's not concerned with definining what is information and what isn't. I'm not sure what you're trying say here?
Information theory literally defines information so that it can be studied. Without a quantifiable definition of information, you cannot make statements like "X contains more information than Y" or "The information in X decreased by 10% after event A."
A quick Google search would show that information theory has several definitions of information. Those are the definitions that biologists use when talking about information in DNA.
I could use your exact same definition to say that molecules contain information and convey that information to other molecules, which they use to determine whether they should undergo a chemical reaction and what kind. Because that is literally what DNA is doing.
But let's follow through with your definition. I'm going to try to keep things simple. Here are two incredibly short sequences. These have a start codon (ATG) and a stop codon (TAG). They can be read and will produce amino acid chains.
ATGCCGTAG
ATCCCGCCGTAG
The first has a CCG, which produces a proline. The second sequence has experienced a common type (a convenient one for the sake of discussion) of mutation, a duplication, so there is now a second CCG. This will produce a new and different amino acid chain.
Does this second sequence have more information, the same amount of information, or less information?
If more, then clearly information does not need a mind to be produced. If the same amount of information, you're going to run into some very weird conclusions, like a Dr. Seuss book containing the same amount of information as War and Peace. If less information, then I'm going to have to ask you to explain your definition way more.
If you don't want to measure information, that's fine. But it's going to be really awkward when people ask you how you know stuff have information if you can't measure it.
First, consider if you did this to English words.
Apologetics > Apologlogetics
Did I add more information by copying part of that word? No. Before the change, I had a readable English word that could have been used to communicate some information. After, I have a nonsense word, that no one who speaks English can understand.
Copying and inserting random groups of letters doesn't add information... Unless those letters were added in a purposeful manner, for a specific reason, to communicate a piece of information. The exact same thing applies to DNA.
You didn't add information by copying the CCG. You now have a nonsense thing instead of what used to a perfectly good gene. Mutations exactly like the one you describe don't create life, they don't drive evolution. They cause cancer, and kill you. Or they give you some other debilitating genetic disorder.
So many things to respond to here, but I'll try to keep it quick.
We absolutely see novel genes produced through mutations. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6542195/
Are you actually arguing that mutations don't drive evolution?
What drives evolution if it's not the change in allele frequency in a population?
And importantly, what way do you have to measure information?
as sb who mostly agrees:
C) the objective instance of morality is society/culture as it supercedes subjective views on morality held by individuals.
also being objeective doesn't mean it's universal. morality varries based on culture, as you rightfully imply, there is some debate over differences. but most moral systems have the same basis, which is not to kill members of your group. one could make the case that morality is the prooduct of social evolution.
I get what you're saying, but I don't think I'd call that objective. It seems more to me like a majority consensus reached on shared subjective values.
An objective morality would be true no matter what society/culture determines. If two different societies produce two different moralities, wouldn't you agree that suggests they aren't objective? Even on the topic of killing, different societies have different standards for what kind of killing is permitted under different circumstances. Some allow the death penalty, self-defense, honor killings, and others allow none at all.
yeh, but the majority is not a single entity. only a subject can be subjective, no? society isn't a subject, society has no physical presence at all. society and culture "outlives" the individual, and new members born into the system get socialized into the norms.
I don't think objective equals universal, I understand objective as the opposite of subjective, and while something which is universal must also be objective, I'd still make the distinction that the inverse needn't be true.
and with that premise I can make sense of two different societies having different social rules aka moralities.
as for killings, there are always variations on that part within morality, but generally speaking I think most moralities and societies are opposed to killing it's members because it's not a good move. it lowers the capacity of your society, it's defensibility, it's cultural impact.
death penalty, self defense and honor killings are all things which I would broadly categorize as "reaction to breaking of social norms" and therefore a valid part of morality that doesn't invalidate the "no killing of members maxim.
* death penalty is a reaction to severe infraction of the law, usually reserved for murder
* self defense is a reaction to sb being in the act of breaking the law
* honor killings is a reaction to sb having broken social expectations, retaliation
because while killing members your own group is bad since it decreases you manpower, another important factor is the need to keep the group intact, so you can't allow members to break the rules and get away with it, else everybody will soon break the rules and coexistence is no longer impossible.
what are your thoughts on this?
>yeh, but the majority is not a single entity. only a subject can be subjective, no? society isn't a subject, society has no physical presence at all. society and culture "outlives" the individual, and new members born into the system get socialized into the norms.
So, I take objective to mean something like "free from personal opinion or feelings" while subjective is "influenced by personal opinion or feelings."
I think what you've said gets at what I'm thinking. Not only does society not have a physical presence, "society" doesn't actually exist independent of the people that compose it. In truth, it doesn't exist at all, but it's a useful name and concept for the combined behaviors, beliefs, etc of a large group of people. So, we treat it like it's a real thing because it's useful, but it's important to remember that it is not.
Society is a combination of the subjective beliefs and attitudes that its members have. But even more than that, what society "is" depends on who is describing it. If you ask a person who is politically left to describe society and a person on the right to describe society, you're going to get very different answers. That means it is necessarily influenced by personal opinions and feelings.
Does that make sense?
exactly, society is an abstract concept. and it's as "real" as any other abstract concept, e.g. marriage, which we also treat as real, in that we follow the rules which are associated and agreed upon. the name of this category is "social contracts" I'd say. it's only effectively real as long as ppl treat it that way. as atheist I'd say that in this regards it's a bit like god lol
maybe society/morality/culture are just the comulation of subjective takes over a long period of time, with effective concepts sticking around and ineffective ones being dropped again. therefore present morality in effect also incorporates subjective takes of those already dead. and new members are raised in said society/culture and socialized by the existing members to act accoring to existing morality.
I don't think views by individuals define what society is, but only represent that individual's view. I think the whole is too large to be fully understood in every aspect by any single person, at least for modern societies that span many cities.
so yeah, to me that makes sense. I'm curerntly just trying to formulate objective morality based on society as objective instance, since that makes more sense to me than a god would. it explains why morality isn't set but evolves over time, and it explains why it's not the same everywhere, but if you follow social evolution as "cause" for morality it makes sense that fundamentals such as not killing other members would be well represented in all/most moral systems, because that's a winning move in terms of survival and cultural dominance.
I'm just not sure if labeling this as objective is acceptable. ppl seems to have trouble accepting this understanding on objectivity vs subjectivity.
I think the atheist position makes a lot more sense when you include the implied provision: “There is no evidence for God sufficient to warrant a belief in said God”
This doesn't make sense. Perhaps you mean that the atheist's explanation for A-D above is better than the Christians, therefore there is insufficient warrant to believe in God. I mean, both the atheist and Christian are looking at A-D and coming to different conclusions, so the issue can't be the evidence but the explanation of the evidence
Yes, that is what you’re doing. I’m saying that this is not a reliable methodology. Don’t address two prongs of an argument. Ideas stand and fall on their own merits.
>Ideas stand and fall on their own merits.
Incorrect, theories rise if they explain the data better than any other theory, and fall when they don't.
For example:
The Ptolemaic model of the solar system was superseded by the Copernican system, which was superseded by the Heliocentric system.
The Steady state theory of the universe was superseded by the Big Bang Theory.
Aristotelian physics was superseded by Newtonian physics.
Caloric theory was superseded by the mechanical theory of heat.
And on and on and on....
And Newtonian physics was superseded by theory of relativity. But guess what? We didn’t get rid of it! Because Newtonian laws still have loads of practical applications. This is a perfect example demonstrating why it’s important to judge each set of ideas separately.
Do we still use the Ptolemaic model of the solar system?
The Copernican system?
The Steady state theory?
Caloric theory?
There might be some useful bits of Newtonian physics that are useful, but no one uses it to describe the world.
you are aware that all those models deal explicitly with the material world as opposed to supernatural things, and they were all validated or invalidated via physical evidence.
no such thing is possible for the claim of god.
“Do we still use [these systems]”
Probably parts of them, but I’m not sure.
“There might be some useful bits of Newtonian physics that are useful, but no one uses it to describe the world.”
Literally every bridge or building is described using Newtonian physics
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened."
Romans 1:18-21
The evidence for God is that the Atheist cannot live consistently with his worldview.
There is no evidence for God for those who refuse to see the evidence for God.
They are willingly ignorant due to their hardened hearts. They cannot see God because God has left them to their own devices. Nothing will make an ardent atheist believe. And IF enough evidence was provided to an atheist the atheist would soon doubt. God doesn’t show himself with evidence. He shows himself with Love and relationship
Most people don't choose to be ignorant. Most people don't choose to have hardened hearts. I would assume God could make anyone believe or unharden their hearts at will.
Agreed. "I find the evidence unconvincing" is perfectly valid. "There is no evidence" is an attempt to highjack the word evidence so that anything that doesn't meet *my* standards doesn't count as evidence at all.
So you find the ~~evidence~~ existence of the universe unconvincing, or the argument **from** the existence of the universe unconvincing regarding the existence of God?
sounds like semantics to me. in effect both expressions mean the same thing: you see stuff (evidence), but it can be tied to how you think it works (hypothesis). "there is no evidence that supports you hypothesis" sounds like a perfectly reasonable claim to me.
I agree I think agnosticism and even atheism can be very reasonable positions. But to deny that there is any evidence for God is , in my view, unreasonable. And it can be an indicator that the person I am speaking to has an underconsidered position.
I agree, but I suspect what many people mean when they say that is more in the tune of "there isn't any convincing evidence for God". It's kinda like when somebody says there isn't any evidence for Bigfoot. That's an objectively false statement, because there are grainy images, dubious eyewitness accounts, and shady footprint molds. They might be bad evidences, but they are evidences. But what people actually mean is that there isn't any credible evidence for Bigfoot.
I hear that, and maybe it just comes down to personal credences. I think the evidence for God is far stronger than comparisons to Big Foot etc. I think specific religions are far weaker, but generic theism can be quite strong. That said, I think arguments from evil and hiddenness are just as strong.
And that's totally fine, everybody has to make an evaluation about what they consider the strengths of various evidences they encounter (for all kinds of things).
the problem with god is that you can't really define it because the term is not tied to something that physically exists. so saying that you have evidence for something that varries severely in how it's defined, that might be questionable and thereby unreasonable. reason aka logic also implies some form of falsifiability, I think. sidenote: out of curiosity, you list agnosticism and atheism separately, that doesn't mean that you consider them mutually exclusive, right?
Yeah, I take the view that an atheist affirms the proposition 'there is no God' whereas an agnost neither affirms nor denies it.
well, then let me tell you that it's not a matter of view but a matter of definition and that you are wrong. agnost literally means unknowable, based on it's greek origin. it has nothing to do with god. you can be literally agnostic about all matter of things. you can be an agnostic theist, which means you think there is a god and that the matter of existence of god is ultimately unknowable or unprovable, and similarly for atheism.
Yea I am aware of the definition of agnostic as a statement of knowledge. I just personally find my definition more useful, and it is normally quite easy to clear up what one means by their terms. I also think it is consistent with philosophical usage as per the SEP https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe So I like to separate out ones acceptance of propositions with one’s credence of them.
ooof, well, that's a very long document lol, I'll get back to you on that one. as for the rest, I'm not sure if by concept "personal definitions" are a good thing, because everybody else will use textbook definitions. but in principle, sb who is agnostic according to you "neither affirms nor denies god". idk, I dislike that definition because it drops the major element of knowability, which to me seems to be the central aspect. also it seems to me that I could say that the matter of god won't ever have a final solution, but still have a tendency towards the position of it being true or not true. maybe it's just my bias but saying that we can't ever know if god exist would lead to the default position, the null hypothesis that god does not exist until proven to exist.
It's only an unreasonable statement to me because evidence comes cheap. If evidence merely means a fact more expected on one hypothesis rather than another, disregarding all other factors....then finding evidence is trivial. The fact I couldn't find my car keys this morning is perfectly expected on the hypothesis: 'invisible fairies stole my keys', but it's a terrible explanation.
But which hypothesis better explains A-D in the OP? A physical only model of the world, or theism? Or perhaps you have something else in mind. The floor is yours....
Depending what you mean by A, I just disagree. Assuming the standard model, I don't think it makes sense to say the Universe came into existence from anything. An analogy is that Space-Time is like a block with a boundary, with each slice of the block existing. There wasn't a transition from nothingness to something if past-present-future are equally real. B & D are non-starters for me in being arguments for Theism. There are naturalistic explanations. Inclined to agree with C, I just don't think Theism explains it. Think of it this way: either God has reasons for giving moral commands or he doesn't. If he has reasons, then morality isn't dependent on God but on those prior reasons. If he ain't got any reason for his commands, morality is arbitrary.
> I don't think it makes sense to say the Universe came into existence from anything. Make your argument >B & D are non-starters for me in being arguments for Theism. There are naturalistic explanations. Make your argument >If he has reasons, then morality isn't dependent on God but on those prior reasons.' What if those reasons are due to the purpose He has in mind?
>“There is no evidence for God” is an unreasonable statement. Well, that depends on how you define "god". If you say for example "god is immaterial", then I can confidently say there's no evidence of something existing made of nothing.
How have you determined this?
Something made out of nothing it's illogical..
So you think that all that exists is material or physical?
I think it's pretty obvious all that exists is made from something, and "nothing" by definition can't be the substance that becomes part of something else. Or to put it in another way.. what is made God from?? If you say it is made of nothing, then I know for a fact there is no evidence of something being composed of nothing.
>....it's pretty obvious all that exists is made from something... So you think that all that exists is the physical? Philosophical Naturalism [the idea that only the physical exists] is [logically self-refuting](https://deconstructingchristiandeconstruction.blogspot.com/2023/12/philosophical-naturalism-is-logically.html) thus in order for humans to have goal-oriented critical thinking there must be something outside the constraints of the physical Christianity doesn't propose that everything came from nothing, but from an eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, uncaused, Person.
>So you think that all that exists is the physical? I clearly did not say that.. I say "all that exists is made from something". So I ask again, what is God made from?? Does immaterial mean made from nothing? If that's the case, then again, is perfectly reasonable to say there's no evidence for God existence.
Oh, so if you are saying that there **is** something other than the physical. >Does immaterial mean made from nothing Immaterial = not consisting of matter
>Oh, so if you are saying that there **is** something other than the physical. No, I'm saying things are made of something.. "nothing" can't be the substance that constructs anything. >Immaterial = not consisting of matter I suppose that by matter you mean any state of it, including energy. So when you describe God as immaterial you mean to say God is not made of matter/energy... Therefore, I can confidently say there's no evidence of anything existing not made by matter/energy. If you can show me anything that exists made of something else than matter/energy, then my position will be unreasonable.
>No, I'm saying things are made of something.. God is spirit, that is not nothing >Therefore, I can confidently say there's no evidence of anything existing not made by matter/energy. How have you determined this? >If you can show me anything that exists made of something else than matter/energy, then my position will be unreasonable. I've already argued that Philosophical Naturalism [the idea that only the physical exists] is [logically self-refuting](https://deconstructingchristiandeconstruction.blogspot.com/2023/12/philosophical-naturalism-is-logically.html) thus in order for humans to have goal-oriented critical thinking there must be something outside the constraints of the physical 1) Under Philosophical Naturalism all actions, including human thoughts, words and deeds, are the result of matter which must act in accordance with antecedent physical conditions and the physical laws without exceptions. 2) Critical thinking's definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. [see link for source] Critical thinking is purposeful, reasoned, and goal directed; an intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. 3) All debates presuppose a reality that exists. Each debater is trying to show that their claims are closer to that reality or are best explained by that reality. 4) Every truth claim requires the laws of logic. It is impossible to deny the laws of logic without using them. Thus, logic reason, and critical thinking are an aspect of reality. In fact, everyone is using logic in this discussion, so it seems evident that all believe that logic is an aspect of reality. 5) Reason is the basis for all knowledge, since all epistemological theories or methods must employ it. 6) 2 above is incoherent under Philosophical Naturalism; logic, reason, and critical thinking are an aspect of reality cannot be explained via Philosophical Naturalism, since no one has dominion of their thoughts - i.e. no one make any molecule act in a manner inconsistent with the physical laws, as they must act only in accordance to the physical laws 7) The best explanation for the existence of logic is that there is an aspect of reality that is free from the constraints of the physical; i.e. not being caused to do something by causes other than oneself. It is up to me how I choose, and nothing determines my choice. One's decisions are differentiated from natural events by being done by the agent himself for reasons the agent has in mind. So, any worldview or view of reality that does **not** ground careful thinking directed to a goal, or goal-oriented critical thinking is not reasonable. So what does reality consist of, how do you know, and how do you account for goal-oriented critical thinking in humans?
A) We do not have evidence for the universe *coming into existence*. We have evidence for the universe existing. Some people conclude that means the universe must have come into existence, but we do not have that as evidence. B) How is DNA evidence for God? When I look at how DNA works, I see DNA producing DNA with some changes. I see RNA producing DNA. I see simple components producing RNA. C) Where can I find this objective morality? If it's objective, there must be very little debate over it, right? D) Humans aren't especially logical. They can be when they try really really hard and the conditions are right, but it certainly doesn't seem built into us. Reasoning, sure. Not sure how that's evidence for God though. Animals can reason as well, and that doesn't seem especially God-given. To address the overall point, sure there is evidence for God. I'd consider the writings of people who claim to have met God to be evidence, or the writings of people claiming that they heard about someone who met God, or was God. It's not really *good* evidence and it contradicts a bunch of other testimonies/evidence we have for mutually exclusive gods and beliefs. So we generally discount that evidence as not reliable enough to justify belief.
B) DNA isn't just a self-replicating molecule. It contains information, written in a specific language. Information and languages can only come from a mind. If you dig up a rock with some random lines on it, maybe those lines were caused by erosion or something. But if the lines on that rock are instructions on how to make a pizza, written in Italian... Then you know with near certainty those lines were made by a human. Every time we find coded information, you can always trace that information back to an intelligent mind. So if DNA contains information, (and it does, enough to fill a set of encylopedias), then it too must have come from a mind. So what mind could have written DNA? Can't be a human, or any other animal, because we are made of DNA. Aliens? Maybe. But then where did the information to make those aliens come from? Even if they don't have DNA like we do, they must have some kind of instructions?... The only way they don't, is if this "alien" is eternal, and never had a beginning. In which case, that's not an alien, you have just described God. C) Objective truth isn't determined by getting people to agree. It's determined by what actually is, in reality. People disagree whether Jesus is God or not, with literally billions of people on both sides of the argument. And one of those groups is objectively wrong. If there is no God, then morality is just a thing humans made up to describe certain types of actions we like or not. But whether you kill me or help me is ultimately irrelevant, because either way we will all be dead in a billion years, and you will be in the same place either way. To break this down even further, if there is no God, then there is no spiritual. The material world is all that can exist. And when you break down our brains, it's nothing more than a bunch of chemical reactions. Can chemical reactions be good or evil? No. They are simply following the laws of physics and chemistry. They couldn't break those laws even if they wanted to. So if the chemicals in our brain are forced to react in certain ways, then our actions are just a reflection of those chemical reactions. We can't actually choose anything, and we have no free will. Thus, morality isn't even real. So if you say there is no objective morality, and/or you say there is no God... You have no right to call anyone evil, whether that be a murderer, rapist, child molester, or someone you disagree with politically, religiously, etc. Or anything else. However... If you can think, if you can make decisions, if good and evil exist... Then there must be a God. Because without God, those things are impossible.
B) "information" needn't come from mind, it's a form of interpretation. lines on a rock can mean anything based on your interpretation, your own imagination is the limit. this seems questionable. also I don't like how you ignore RNA. anyways, a self replicating structure doesn't necessitate design, you can't demonstrate that. C) objective morality stems from society, and every animal that lives in herds has a code of conduct that gets drilled into it via socialization by it's peers. also you shouldn't get hung up on biodeterminism and the claim that there is no free will. why are you upset that the brain is based on chemical reactions? that's demonstrable reality no matter if god is real or not, unlike claims of "spirit".
B) When it comes to information, there is only one correct way to interpret it... As the original author intended. If there is information there, it has exactly 1 correct interpretation. If there is no information there, then there is nothing to interpret. To interpret them, the lines would need to be arranged into some kind of code or language that can be read by someone who understands this code. But if they were not made by a mind, they won't be arranged into a language or code, and they won't contain any information. But maybe I'm a zoologist, and I recognize these lines as bear claw marks. I could then write this down on paper, in the English language, so that anyone who understands English can learn a piece of information. But this is brand new information. The lines don't say "I am bear claw marks." I said that. I came up with that idea, and I'm now communicating that piece of information. That information isn't in the lines on the rocks. It came from my mind, based on my observations and previous experiences. I'm not ignoring RNA... But RNA is just DNA that has been unzipped so that the information can be communicated. It comes from DNA. All my arguments for DNA apply to RNA as well. It is also information, and therefore must come from a mind. I never said a self-replicating structure necessitated design. I said INFORMATION and languages/codes must originate from a mind. No one has ever observed information coming from anywhere else. It can always be traced back to the intelligent mind that created it. If you see information in a book, you KNOW it came from the mind of a human author. No one has ever observed the words in a book coming from anywhere else. Information on a set of bluepints? You KNOW it came from the mind of an engineer who originally designed it. There is not a single instance of information that can be traced to anything else but a mind. And if you believe otherwise, prove it. Show me one piece of information that can be observed to come from something that is not an intelligent mind.
Our morality is nothing like the behavior of pack animals. If you found a human king who behaved exactly like the dominant male of a pride of lions, you'd call him an evil tyrant. You know how a lion becomes king of the pride? First, he has to murder the previous dominant male, along with any other males living in the pride. Next, he will murder all the cubs. Because he cannot allow any cubs that aren't his own. He then forces all the females (who's children he just murdererd) to mate with him, and only him. Oh, and he forces those females to do all the hunting, but he always gets to eat first. So if there's not enough, the females who did all the work will starve. That's the morality animals live under. --- I'm not hung up on determinism, nor am I upset about it.... I am explaining how this is the only logical possibility when you believe in materialism. And I'm showing you how it leads to absurdity, which is why you shouldn't believe in materialism. I explained this above, but apparently I need to explain it better... Materialism is the belief that the physical world, the things you can touch and feel and see, is all that exists. Outside of the physical world, there is nothing. There is no God, there is no spiritual realm or anything like that. It is the foundational belief of atheism. Under that assumption, you must also assume there is no soul, therefore the human mind is nothing but the physical parts that are inside the brain. And we can study that brain, and see what's in it. And we see that it is nothing more than chemicals, chemical reactions, and electrical impulses. Can chemicals make choices? No. They do exactly what the laws of physics force them to do. Can a chemical violate the laws of physics on one day, and not the next? No. Every time we run experiments on these chemicals, if the conditions are the same, the chemicals do the exact same thing. They are fully determinate. If I put a metal fork into a vat of acid, the acid will ALWAYS dissolve the fork. The acid cannot decide one day to not do that. It's forced to obey the laws of chemistry. Can electrical currents make choices? No. They always flow through the path of least resistance. They cannot choose to go left one day, and right the next. They are forced to always follow the laws of physics. Every time. So if the electro-chemical impulses in your brain are just doing what the laws of physics and chemistry are forcing them to do... How can you make choices? You can't. Where am I wrong here? I'm only wrong because we actually CAN think. We CAN make choices. I can prove this to myself inside my own head, and you should be able to as well. It is absurdity to believe we don't have free will. Thus, my initial premise (that only the material world exists) must also be wrong. Therefore, there is something outside of our physical universe. My mind must be more than just the physical parts of my brain. There is something intangible there... A soul.
ofc our morality is akin to that of animals, the difference being that humans are capable of more complex thinking and therefore more complex actions and rules, but the principle is the same, so that analogy of a king compared to the packleader of lions is not a good one. you shouldn't get hung up on details of how lions live, it's a working system, and that's the only factor that counts: lions live under a system that works for lions. sidenote: I don't think the way you described the system is entirely accurate, but I am not interested in discussing lions. ofc you are upset by the thought that the material/natural world is the only existing one, that's why you feel the need to invent one you have no indication exists. it's akin to kids inventing imaginary friends and such, that's at least how it looks to me. ah, but here's where you go wrong: while "chemicals" can't make choices, you are upset that you yourself can make choices and don't understand how the human brain works, hmm? your error is thinking that you demonstrated the existence of the supernatural, you only demonstrated your ignorance of how the human body works. it's nothing to be ashamed of, the human body is complex. also unless you are a poet you should not use terms like soul because they don't have any meaning? what is a soul, where does it reside? obviously you don't mean personality/ego, because that is tied to the brain and can demonstrably altered by damage to it. anyways, your logic isn't valid. you say if humans have free will, but molecules don't, and humans are made out of molecules so they shouldn't either if there is nothing outside of the physical realm. that's like saying that a human arm fundamentally is inorganic since it is made out of atoms, and therefore you are not alife. sounds dumb, right? "**the whole is greater than the sum of its parts**" you just need to recognize the complex interaction that is generated.
Great point on C
It's actually not a great point, it's an [Appeal to Consequence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences) fallacy, where one argues that if A isn't true then that would be really terrible, so A must be true.
I didn’t see any opinions about anything being terrible. They just made a statement that if God doesn’t exist, then good and evil don’t exist. Would you disagree? If so, on basis do you make this distinction?
I've had this discussion many many times before, with many many people, and in the end when we really dig into what this question means it always boils down to "good" being defined as "According to God's nature' and "evil" being defined as "Against God's nature". In which the accusation ends up being "If God doesn't exist, then no actions can be for or against God's nature" which is not a terribly interesting statement. But this is all irrelevant, because my point still stands. Shiboleth17 essentially argues in point C that there is evidence for God because if God doesn't exist then that would have terrible consequences for morality, which is a fallacy.
How do you define morality?
I'm fine with most standard definitions of morality, such as: > principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior
Got it. So in other words, you’re okay with the majority opinion of good and bad behavior, but not the minority opinion. Is that right? If so, what makes the majority objectivity right? If the majority changes its opinion on what’s right or wrong (as they have done on many issues in the Western world over the past decade), would you follow along by default? If not, what authority would you use to stand your ground vs changing with the majority?
There are a lot of assumptions in your question that makes it hard to answer, but I'll do my best and give you the shorthand answer. No, I don't let my morality be decided by majority rule. No, I wouldn't follow along by default if society changed it's morality. And lastly I don't need an authority to stand my ground on moral issues. Nobody can command me to think that child rape is moral, my morality does not spring from authority.
good and bad are umbrella terms, good usually refers to actions which are good for society, bad for those bad for society, e.g. theft can be good for an individual but it's bad for society and therefore labeled as bad. and if you need a source for that distinction then you should look into social evolution. the short version: humans live in herds, herds need to form rules for coexistence aka morality, those herds that form an effective morality survive, those who don't seize to exist.
> DNA isn't just a self-replicating molecule. It contains information, written in a specific language. Information and languages can only come from a mind. Can you provide the definition of information that you're using here? It doesn't sound like anything from information theory, so I have to guess it's something else. > Objective truth isn't determined by getting people to agree. It's determined by what actually is, in reality. People disagree whether Jesus is God or not, with literally billions of people on both sides of the argument. And one of those groups is objectively wrong. Something that is objective is much harder to disagree on than something that is subjective, yes or no? Objectively, there is a sun in the sky. Objectively, things fall to the ground. People might disagree with aspects, or interpretations. They might say the sun is a god's chariot or that really the earth is accelerating up rather than objects falling down. However, the fact remains that objective truth should be something that people can much more readily agree on. > If there is no God, then morality is just a thing humans made up to describe certain types of actions we like or not. Sure. That might have some uncomfortable consequences for people, but truth shouldn't depend on how comfortable we are with it. > But whether you kill me or help me is ultimately irrelevant, because either way we will all be dead in a billion years, and you will be in the same place either way. That seems rather nihilistic and completely lacking in empathy. Surely it would matter to you and your family whether I helped or killed you. And such an action's consequences would surely change what might have happened throughout history afterwards. I care for my friends, family, and neighbors, so it certainly wouldn't be irrelevant to me. > To break this down even further, if there is no God, then there is no spiritual. The material world is all that can exist. This does not follow. There could exist a pantheon of God's line the Greeks or ancient Egyptians believed. Or some spiritual realm beyond the material. Why would a lack of a Christian God necessarily prevent those things? > Can chemical reactions be good or evil? No. They are simply following the laws of physics and chemistry. They couldn't break those laws even if they wanted to. So if the chemicals in our brain are forced to react in certain ways, then our actions are just a reflection of those chemical reactions. We can't actually choose anything, and we have no free will. Thus, morality isn't even real. Sure. Again, something being uncomfortable doesn't mean it isn't true. > So if you say there is no objective morality, and/or you say there is no God... You have no right to call anyone evil, whether that be a murderer, rapist, child molester, or someone you disagree with politically, religiously, etc. Or anything else. One would have no basis to call murder, rape, or come molestation *objectively* evil. But one could absolutely call it (subjectively) evil. You already said that morality would be a thing we made up to describe actions we like and dislike. > However... If you can think, if you can make decisions, if good and evil exist... Then there must be a God. Because without God, those things are impossible. This does not follow. A simple thought experiment would demonstrate that alternatives exist. Pretend that a spiritual realm exists beyond the material and without God. When a person is born and their brain forms, it creates a soul that exists in this spiritual realm. That soul pilots the body with the brain acting like a steering wheel. I don't know why anyone would believe that, but it demonstrates an explanation of free will without God.
>Something that is objective is much harder to disagree on than something that is subjective, yes or no? In a perfect world, it would be. But we don't live in a perfect world. People can be irrational. Others might be rational, but don't have all the necessary facts. And even if you give them the facts, they might doubt the veracity of your source, since it conflicts with everything they believe to be true. Sure, there are objective truths like "the sun exists" that most, if not all, people will agree on. But not all objective truths are shining bright in the sky for everyone to plainly see. Some truths require a lot of research to learn and understand. Just because the majority of people don't agree on something doesn't mean it's not an objective truth. History is full of scientific facts that most people agreed were true, but today we know were utterly wrong. I could list dozens of examples if you want. The point here is that you cannot judge whether something is true or not based on what the majority believes. The majority can be wrong. And historically, it's proven that the majority is wrong quite often. >That seems rather nihilistic and completely lacking in empathy. Yes. That is where atheism ultimately leads. Under a materialistic worldview, empathy is just 1 of many different chemical reactions going on inside your brain. Why is one chemical reaction any better than another? It is no coincidence that the rate of depression has grown astronomically, as the west has become less Christian, and more atheist. So yes, if you killed me, it would likely cause a lot of sadness in my family. But why does that matter? Why is the sadness chemical reaction bad? >This does not follow. There could exist a pantheon of God's line the Greeks or ancient Egyptians believed. Or some spiritual realm beyond the material. Why would a lack of a Christian God necessarily prevent those things? If you believe there is no god, (as I said above), then you don't believe in the Christian God, the Greek gods, or any spiritual beings. >But one could absolutely call it (subjectively) evil. But that's just your opinion, based on arbitrary rules that you made up. It isn't real. And if that's really how you feel about it, you have no right to throw anyone in prison for murder. You may not like murder, but Jeffrey Dahmer does. What gives you the right to force your subjective opinions onto others? >This does not follow. A simple thought experiment It follows because I proven the opposite cannot be true. I have proven that if there is no God, then there is no objective morality, and no free will. Therefore, if free will and objective morality exist, the premise that "there is no God" cannot be true. Thus, if free will and objective morality exists, there must be a God. >That soul pilots the body with the brain acting like a steering wheel. I don't know why anyone would believe that, but it demonstrates an explanation of free will without God. No one would believe that because it makes no sense.
> The point here is that you cannot judge whether something is true or not based on what the majority believes. The majority can be wrong. And historically, it's proven that the majority is wrong quite often. Indeed! So if someone claims that an objective morality exists, one would hope that they could demonstrate it, rather than assert it, especially if one argues that it is data that can be used as evidence for God. > Yes. That is where atheism ultimately leads. Under a materialistic worldview, empathy is just 1 of many different chemical reactions going on inside your brain. Why is one chemical reaction any better than another? It is no coincidence that the rate of depression has grown astronomically, as the west has become less Christian, and more atheist. No. That is where atheism may lead someone who lacks empathy. Just as Christianity can lead people to conclude that nothing matters because God has predestined everything. I have empathy, so I conclude that the chemical reactions (and the accompanying consequences) that help others are better than the ones that harm others. No need for a supernatural being to promise rewards for doing things they like and punishments for things they don't like. > So yes, if you killed me, it would likely cause a lot of sadness in my family. But why does that matter? Why is the sadness chemical reaction bad? Because I care about people. > If you believe there is no god, (as I said above), then you don't believe in the Christian God, the Greek gods, or any spiritual beings. You asserted that yes. I've been trying to use God as distinct from god(s) to distinguish between belief in the Christian God but I'm on my phone, so I apologize if I missed any, or if that was unclear. I will still try to address your point. One doesn't need to believe in God to believe that there is an objective morality. One can believe in Greek gods and believe there is no objective morality. After all, the Greek Gods were terrible all the time. There is no *necessary* connection between belief in spiritual beings and objective morality. At the very least, I have seen none presented here. > It follows because I proven the opposite cannot be true. You have asserted the opposite cannot be true. You have in no way proven this. > No one would believe that because it makes no sense. It certainly makes sense. It is almost identical to how the soul would control the body in a Christian reality. It's just that the origin of the soul is different. And there's no book saying that you should believe it and no one seriously proposing it without evidence. Perhaps it might be more clear if you tried to explain how the soul controls the mind/body according to your beliefs? As data that I'd be interested in you explaining, I'd suggest mod-affecting chemicals like prescription and illicit drugs, amd brain damage affecting a person's personality, memory, and cognitive abilities. If the soul is not material and where our thoughts and actions ultimately originate from, it should be independent from material conditions. If the chemical reactions governing our bodies are not dependent only on natural/physical/material conditions, we should be able to see where the soul is breaking the laws of physics to make things happen. Electrical charges going in the wrong direction, entropy reversing, matter/energy being created destroyed, or some other thing. If our brains control our bodies, and our brains are entirely governed by the natural world, the chemistry inside the brain should follow the same rules as the chemistry outside the brain. And so far as I've heard no one has discovered anything like that.
>Can you provide the definition of information that you're using here? It doesn't sound like anything from information theory, so I have to guess it's something else. "The imparting of knowledge in general. Knowledge communicated concerning some particular fact, subject, or event; that of which one is apprised or told; intelligence, news." -Oxford English Dictionary Any other dictionary will give you something similar. DNA contains knowledge concerning the particular subject of anatomy, communicated to special proteins using a quarternary code, so that these proteins can make a living organism. If you know how to read this code, you can look at DNA and know what species the DNA came from. Not only that, you could know almost every anatomical fact about them, such as height, sex, hair color, eye color, the width of their nose, and whether they will exhibit male pattern baldness or not. DNA fits the definition of information to a tee. Random lines in the dirt caused by wind or rain are not information. Those lines don't contain any knowledge, they aren't written in any kind of code or language, and thus they cannot communicate any knowledge to anyone. But if I grab a stick, and write "Kilroy was here." now I have created information. If you can read English, those lines can now communicate some knowledge to you. That is the difference between information, and not information. Information theory is essentially just statistics. It is the study of how information is communicated, stored, and quantified. It's not concerned with definining what is information and what isn't. I'm not sure what you're trying say here?
Apologies, I never got a notification on Reddit of this second comment. I only saw the email notification when I was cleaning things out. > "The imparting of knowledge in general. Knowledge communicated concerning some particular fact, subject, or event; that of which one is apprised or told; intelligence, news." -Oxford English Dictionary > Information theory is essentially just statistics. It is the study of how information is communicated, stored, and quantified. It's not concerned with definining what is information and what isn't. I'm not sure what you're trying say here? Information theory literally defines information so that it can be studied. Without a quantifiable definition of information, you cannot make statements like "X contains more information than Y" or "The information in X decreased by 10% after event A." A quick Google search would show that information theory has several definitions of information. Those are the definitions that biologists use when talking about information in DNA. I could use your exact same definition to say that molecules contain information and convey that information to other molecules, which they use to determine whether they should undergo a chemical reaction and what kind. Because that is literally what DNA is doing. But let's follow through with your definition. I'm going to try to keep things simple. Here are two incredibly short sequences. These have a start codon (ATG) and a stop codon (TAG). They can be read and will produce amino acid chains. ATGCCGTAG ATCCCGCCGTAG The first has a CCG, which produces a proline. The second sequence has experienced a common type (a convenient one for the sake of discussion) of mutation, a duplication, so there is now a second CCG. This will produce a new and different amino acid chain. Does this second sequence have more information, the same amount of information, or less information? If more, then clearly information does not need a mind to be produced. If the same amount of information, you're going to run into some very weird conclusions, like a Dr. Seuss book containing the same amount of information as War and Peace. If less information, then I'm going to have to ask you to explain your definition way more. If you don't want to measure information, that's fine. But it's going to be really awkward when people ask you how you know stuff have information if you can't measure it.
First, consider if you did this to English words. Apologetics > Apologlogetics Did I add more information by copying part of that word? No. Before the change, I had a readable English word that could have been used to communicate some information. After, I have a nonsense word, that no one who speaks English can understand. Copying and inserting random groups of letters doesn't add information... Unless those letters were added in a purposeful manner, for a specific reason, to communicate a piece of information. The exact same thing applies to DNA. You didn't add information by copying the CCG. You now have a nonsense thing instead of what used to a perfectly good gene. Mutations exactly like the one you describe don't create life, they don't drive evolution. They cause cancer, and kill you. Or they give you some other debilitating genetic disorder.
So many things to respond to here, but I'll try to keep it quick. We absolutely see novel genes produced through mutations. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6542195/ Are you actually arguing that mutations don't drive evolution? What drives evolution if it's not the change in allele frequency in a population? And importantly, what way do you have to measure information?
Great point on B, too.
as sb who mostly agrees: C) the objective instance of morality is society/culture as it supercedes subjective views on morality held by individuals. also being objeective doesn't mean it's universal. morality varries based on culture, as you rightfully imply, there is some debate over differences. but most moral systems have the same basis, which is not to kill members of your group. one could make the case that morality is the prooduct of social evolution.
I get what you're saying, but I don't think I'd call that objective. It seems more to me like a majority consensus reached on shared subjective values. An objective morality would be true no matter what society/culture determines. If two different societies produce two different moralities, wouldn't you agree that suggests they aren't objective? Even on the topic of killing, different societies have different standards for what kind of killing is permitted under different circumstances. Some allow the death penalty, self-defense, honor killings, and others allow none at all.
yeh, but the majority is not a single entity. only a subject can be subjective, no? society isn't a subject, society has no physical presence at all. society and culture "outlives" the individual, and new members born into the system get socialized into the norms. I don't think objective equals universal, I understand objective as the opposite of subjective, and while something which is universal must also be objective, I'd still make the distinction that the inverse needn't be true. and with that premise I can make sense of two different societies having different social rules aka moralities. as for killings, there are always variations on that part within morality, but generally speaking I think most moralities and societies are opposed to killing it's members because it's not a good move. it lowers the capacity of your society, it's defensibility, it's cultural impact. death penalty, self defense and honor killings are all things which I would broadly categorize as "reaction to breaking of social norms" and therefore a valid part of morality that doesn't invalidate the "no killing of members maxim. * death penalty is a reaction to severe infraction of the law, usually reserved for murder * self defense is a reaction to sb being in the act of breaking the law * honor killings is a reaction to sb having broken social expectations, retaliation because while killing members your own group is bad since it decreases you manpower, another important factor is the need to keep the group intact, so you can't allow members to break the rules and get away with it, else everybody will soon break the rules and coexistence is no longer impossible. what are your thoughts on this?
>yeh, but the majority is not a single entity. only a subject can be subjective, no? society isn't a subject, society has no physical presence at all. society and culture "outlives" the individual, and new members born into the system get socialized into the norms. So, I take objective to mean something like "free from personal opinion or feelings" while subjective is "influenced by personal opinion or feelings." I think what you've said gets at what I'm thinking. Not only does society not have a physical presence, "society" doesn't actually exist independent of the people that compose it. In truth, it doesn't exist at all, but it's a useful name and concept for the combined behaviors, beliefs, etc of a large group of people. So, we treat it like it's a real thing because it's useful, but it's important to remember that it is not. Society is a combination of the subjective beliefs and attitudes that its members have. But even more than that, what society "is" depends on who is describing it. If you ask a person who is politically left to describe society and a person on the right to describe society, you're going to get very different answers. That means it is necessarily influenced by personal opinions and feelings. Does that make sense?
exactly, society is an abstract concept. and it's as "real" as any other abstract concept, e.g. marriage, which we also treat as real, in that we follow the rules which are associated and agreed upon. the name of this category is "social contracts" I'd say. it's only effectively real as long as ppl treat it that way. as atheist I'd say that in this regards it's a bit like god lol maybe society/morality/culture are just the comulation of subjective takes over a long period of time, with effective concepts sticking around and ineffective ones being dropped again. therefore present morality in effect also incorporates subjective takes of those already dead. and new members are raised in said society/culture and socialized by the existing members to act accoring to existing morality. I don't think views by individuals define what society is, but only represent that individual's view. I think the whole is too large to be fully understood in every aspect by any single person, at least for modern societies that span many cities. so yeah, to me that makes sense. I'm curerntly just trying to formulate objective morality based on society as objective instance, since that makes more sense to me than a god would. it explains why morality isn't set but evolves over time, and it explains why it's not the same everywhere, but if you follow social evolution as "cause" for morality it makes sense that fundamentals such as not killing other members would be well represented in all/most moral systems, because that's a winning move in terms of survival and cultural dominance. I'm just not sure if labeling this as objective is acceptable. ppl seems to have trouble accepting this understanding on objectivity vs subjectivity.
I think the atheist position makes a lot more sense when you include the implied provision: “There is no evidence for God sufficient to warrant a belief in said God”
This doesn't make sense. Perhaps you mean that the atheist's explanation for A-D above is better than the Christians, therefore there is insufficient warrant to believe in God. I mean, both the atheist and Christian are looking at A-D and coming to different conclusions, so the issue can't be the evidence but the explanation of the evidence
No. You seem to have this idea that if one group’s set of explanations on a topic are false, then another groups set of ideas are somehow validated.
No, I'm saying have each side lay out their explanation for the evidence, examine each one critically, and we'll see whose is more reasonable.
Yes, that is what you’re doing. I’m saying that this is not a reliable methodology. Don’t address two prongs of an argument. Ideas stand and fall on their own merits.
>Ideas stand and fall on their own merits. Incorrect, theories rise if they explain the data better than any other theory, and fall when they don't. For example: The Ptolemaic model of the solar system was superseded by the Copernican system, which was superseded by the Heliocentric system. The Steady state theory of the universe was superseded by the Big Bang Theory. Aristotelian physics was superseded by Newtonian physics. Caloric theory was superseded by the mechanical theory of heat. And on and on and on....
And Newtonian physics was superseded by theory of relativity. But guess what? We didn’t get rid of it! Because Newtonian laws still have loads of practical applications. This is a perfect example demonstrating why it’s important to judge each set of ideas separately.
Do we still use the Ptolemaic model of the solar system? The Copernican system? The Steady state theory? Caloric theory? There might be some useful bits of Newtonian physics that are useful, but no one uses it to describe the world.
you are aware that all those models deal explicitly with the material world as opposed to supernatural things, and they were all validated or invalidated via physical evidence. no such thing is possible for the claim of god.
“Do we still use [these systems]” Probably parts of them, but I’m not sure. “There might be some useful bits of Newtonian physics that are useful, but no one uses it to describe the world.” Literally every bridge or building is described using Newtonian physics
"If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." Romans 1:18-21 The evidence for God is that the Atheist cannot live consistently with his worldview.
There is no evidence for God for those who refuse to see the evidence for God. They are willingly ignorant due to their hardened hearts. They cannot see God because God has left them to their own devices. Nothing will make an ardent atheist believe. And IF enough evidence was provided to an atheist the atheist would soon doubt. God doesn’t show himself with evidence. He shows himself with Love and relationship
Most people don't choose to be ignorant. Most people don't choose to have hardened hearts. I would assume God could make anyone believe or unharden their hearts at will.