26 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterQuit stalling, and simply explicitly list the logical implications of the proposition that OMFs exist that are problematic for the atheist.
with respect to moral realism or the existence of moral facts, etc, the atheist can simply offer views that are dialectically symmetric to any theistic view that you offer.
------lemon---------------------
But just because they can , doesn't mean it's coherent. At least the Theist has a model or framework on which to pin OMFs. At least the Theist ay that certain things are objectively true , its another to say why you think they are true.
26 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloNo list - only one I'm afraid.
Quit stalling, and simply explicitly list the logical implications of the proposition that OMFs exist that are problematic for the atheist.
The logical implication of an OMF is that a moral force or moral aspect to the universe must exist. This moral value , entity or quality has to be external to men's minds and subjectivity otherwise it is only a thought or opinion.
In order for an OMF to be indisputable and absolute and exist it has to be some part of the physical universe or actually exist substantially. The problem for the Atheist is that any such existing OMF starts to look a bit wierd if one only believes in a material , purely scientific Universe.
My ideas on OMFs are similar to those I have on beauty. I feel and am convinced that a golden sunset over the sea is objectively beautiful . I feel convinced that this is an objective fact. It is a fact for you as it is a fact for me. However , if you say that a golden sunset over the sea is ugly then I have no objective grounds on which to argue with you. I cannot say that my opinion of beauty is more objectively true than yours.
Why? Because there is no external reality (of beauty) to refer to . Now apply this principle to morality and you will see that the only way to get beyond this problem is to appeal to some external morality that exists in the universe.
Hence the problem for the Atheist. How can the Atheist appeal to an external reality that he believes does not exist?
( But at the same time hold that OMFs are OMFs and cannot be disputed. )
This is so simple - why are you not getting this?
26 Mar 10
Originally posted by LemonJelloHey, if you can claim that OMFs are at bottom simply brute, then so can the atheist. So if they offer no explanation for OMFs, what exactly is the problem? They have thereby done no more and no less than yourself.
Right, so you have no argument to back up anything you claim in this thread. You attack atheism and say it is somehow logically inconsistent with committment to objective moral facts, but you are not even willing to support this in any way. Well, then, why should anyone take you seriously?
And, I guess you just failed to see the problem to which I al ...[text shortened]... or OMFs, what exactly is the problem? They have thereby done no more and no less than yourself.
----------------------------lemon-----------------
This is where you miss the point. They have done less.
I am NOT claiming that OMFs are simply brute and then just leaving it there. I am telling WHY they are brute and WHAT they are rooted in. My belief system supports my assertion.
The Atheist belief system does not support such an assertion because there's nothing to root OMFs in.
For example , an Atheist might claim (off the top of my head) that there is a "morality particle" that exists at a subatomic level that creates a morality field similar to electromagnatism that is part of the physical laws of the universe and was present at the big bang etc etc.
This would at least be a basis for claiming an OMF. Instead, what we have is a belief system that claims that the Universe is a meaningless collection of random mass/energy that has organised itself together in an impersonal way to coinicidentally produce intelligence. Atheists seem to believe that the universe has no concern over morality and is ruled by physical and darwinian forces that are ruthless.
Now , does it really make much sense to talk about OMFs in such a universe?
26 Mar 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe logical implication of an OMF is that a moral force or moral aspect to the universe must exist. This moral value , entity or quality has to be external to men's minds and subjectivity otherwise it is only a thought or opinion.
No list - only one I'm afraid.
The logical implication of an OMF is that a moral force or moral aspect to the universe must exist. This moral value , entity or quality has to be external to men's minds and subjectivity otherwise it is only a thought or opinion.
In order for an OMF to be indisputable and absolute and exist it has to be some part ...[text shortened]... t OMFs are OMFs and cannot be disputed. )
This is so simple - why are you not getting this?
Yes, the proposition that OMFs exist does logically imply that there exist "moral...entity[ies]...external to...subjectivity...". In particular, these non-subjective moral entities are here, of course, objective moral facts. So, yes, the person who holds to objective moral facts is committed to the idea that there exists an "external" (read here: non-subjective) realm of moral entities (after all, such facts are entities). So what? How is this problematic for the atheist?
Hence the problem for the Atheist. How can the Atheist appeal to an external reality that he believes does not exist?
Yikes, you're confused. The atheist who believes in OMFs is not in any way "appeal[ing] to an external reality that he believes does not exist". He DOES believe an external moral reality exists and that it is constituted by entities such as objective moral facts.
Look, maybe you don't understand how this is supposed to work. You were supposed to list some logical implications and then basically explain how they amount to a consistency problem when conjoined with the proposition that God does not exist. So, the implication that you listed is "that a moral force or moral aspect to the universe must exist. This moral value , entity or quality has to be external to men's minds and subjectivity". Okay, so now your task is to explicitly show how this is inconsistent with the proposition that God does not exist. If you cannot do it, then don't expect me to take you seriously here.
26 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterI am NOT claiming that OMFs are simply brute and then just leaving it there. I am telling WHY they are brute and WHAT they are rooted in. My belief system supports my assertion.
Hey, if you can claim that OMFs are at bottom simply brute, then so can the atheist. So if they offer no explanation for OMFs, what exactly is the problem? They have thereby done no more and no less than yourself.
----------------------------lemon-----------------
This is where you miss the point. They have done less.
I am NOT claiming that OM are ruthless.
Now , does it really make much sense to talk about OMFs in such a universe?
You can keep telling yourself that you have "done more" than someone who simply just claims that objective moral facts exist "just because that is just the way it is" if it helps you sleep better at night or something. But the fact is, you have not done anything more than that. Your view actually entails that moral facts are, at bottom, brute. So your view actually entails that moral facts are, at bottom, without any explanation whatsoever.
Instead, what we have is a belief system that claims that the Universe is a meaningless collection of random mass/energy that has organised itself together in an impersonal way to coinicidentally produce intelligence.
Atheism doesn't entail that the universe is a "meaningless" anything, presuming that 'meaningless' here carries normative dimension. Perhaps this is your problem. Perhaps you read implications into atheism that aren't actually warranted and then these unwarranted implications are what, when conjoined with the proposition that OMFs exist, lead to problems. Perhaps that is why you are so confused in this thread?
Atheists seem to believe that the universe has no concern over morality and is ruled by physical and darwinian forces that are ruthless.
I don't understand what you mean. Atheists believe all sorts of things about morality. Many, for example, are moral realists and believe that objective moral facts exist. You have still not shown in any genuine way that these persons are being to that extent in any way noetically irresponsible.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
27 Mar 10
knightmeister
Of course not. Logic dictates that there must be some brute facts of existence upon which other facts are founded or justified. This works scientifically - why can't it work with God's nature?
I don't see how it discredits the idea. Why do you talk as if it does?
You have admitted that brute facts have a role. You have your flavour of brute fact. It is all wrapped up in a neat narrative bundle involving a supernatural agent that you label 'god'.
But I gave you a candidate for an atheist brute fact.
And it is as if you can't process it, maybe because it doesn't fulfil a narrative function for you, I don't know. If you are allowed brute facts then why aren't atheists?
Your best argument seems to amount to 'if atheists have OMFs as a brute fact, it is a bit wierd'. Well, I can assure you, your brute fact seems very wierd indeed to an atheist.
27 Mar 10
Originally posted by LemonJelloSo what? How is this problematic for the atheist?
[b]The logical implication of an OMF is that a moral force or moral aspect to the universe must exist. This moral value , entity or quality has to be external to men's minds and subjectivity otherwise it is only a thought or opinion.
Yes, the proposition that OMFs exist does logically imply that there exist "moral...entity[ies]...external to...sub ...[text shortened]... s not exist. If you cannot do it, then don't expect me to take you seriously here.[/b]
-----lemon------------
Right now it seems "problematic" for you to state what these entities/realm/force actually is. Once you start doing this you will see for yourself what the problem is -but until you do so we cannot proceed.
It's not my job to do your thinking for you - stop being lazy and just define in real terms what you think OMFs actually are . I have already done this - you have not.
27 Mar 10
Originally posted by Lord SharkBut I gave you a candidate for an atheist brute fact.
knightmeister
[b]Of course not. Logic dictates that there must be some brute facts of existence upon which other facts are founded or justified. This works scientifically - why can't it work with God's nature?
I don't see how it discredits the idea. Why do you talk as if it does?
You have admitted that brute facts have a role. You have your ...[text shortened]... ierd'. Well, I can assure you, your brute fact seems very wierd indeed to an atheist.[/b]
-------shark-----------
Did you? I don't remember you doing so.
Was it a brute fact connected to morality?
I think what we need to do here is talk in specifics. I am specifically linking Christian theology with OMFs.It is a direct logical implication of Theism that certain OMFs exist and are not open to debate.
Surely , there is also an implication to believing we live in an entirely amoral universe. What do you think these implications are ? For me it seems obvious that OMFs go out the window in such a Universe.
27 Mar 10
Originally posted by Lord SharkYour best argument seems to amount to 'if atheists have OMFs as a brute fact, it is a bit wierd'. Well, I can assure you, your brute fact seems very wierd indeed to an atheist.
knightmeister
[b]Of course not. Logic dictates that there must be some brute facts of existence upon which other facts are founded or justified. This works scientifically - why can't it work with God's nature?
I don't see how it discredits the idea. Why do you talk as if it does?
You have admitted that brute facts have a role. You have your ...[text shortened]... ierd'. Well, I can assure you, your brute fact seems very wierd indeed to an atheist.[/b]
-----shark------------------
We really are at cross purposes here aren't we.
It matters not whether God exists or not. Or even how dumb the idea might seem. What matters is the consistency of the system. If one believes that the ground of all reality is holy and righteous and eternal then talking about OMFs makes a lot of sense because there is an external reference point for the OMF .
I don't see the external reference point in Atheism.
It's a simple point - you are jumping too far ahead too quickly.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
27 Mar 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterDid you? I don't remember you doing so.
But I gave you a candidate for an atheist brute fact.
-------shark-----------
Did you? I don't remember you doing so.
Was it a brute fact connected to morality?
I think what we need to do here is talk in specifics. I am specifically linking Christian theology with OMFs.It is a direct logical implication of Theism that certain OMFs exist and ...[text shortened]... hese implications are ? For me it seems obvious that OMFs go out the window in such a Universe.
Here it is again:
"What I'll do is offer one of the possible atheist candidates for OMFs.
Suppose an atheist says to you that the universe is so structured that 2 + 2 = 4, or that pi x D = C are objective facts. These are not like trees. The latter would be true even if the universe in fact contained no circles. They are mind-independent, since they would be true if there were no observers in the universe.
The atheist can then say that ethical facts are like this. The universe is so structured that KPFF is wrong. Just as pi x D = C appeals to abstract entities like circles that need not be instantiated, so OMFs appeal to abstract ethical entities."
Surely , there is also an implication to believing we live in an entirely amoral universe.
Not all atheists think that. I have pointed this out to you more than once. Atheists who believe in OMFs cannot believe that we live in an amoral universe without contradiction.
What do you think these implications are ? For me it seems obvious that OMFs go out the window in such a Universe.
That's correct. Atheists who hold this view don't believe in OMFs.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
27 Mar 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterWe really are at cross purposes here aren't we.
Your best argument seems to amount to 'if atheists have OMFs as a brute fact, it is a bit wierd'. Well, I can assure you, your brute fact seems very wierd indeed to an atheist.
-----shark------------------
We really are at cross purposes here aren't we.
It matters not whether God exists or not. Or even how dumb the idea might seem. What matters ...[text shortened]... ence point in Atheism.
It's a simple point - you are jumping too far ahead too quickly.
It matters not whether God exists or not. Or even how dumb the idea might seem. What matters is the consistency of the system. If one believes that the ground of all reality is holy and righteous and eternal then talking about OMFs makes a lot of sense because there is an external reference point for the OMF .
If you believe in the existence of ethical abstract universals then talking about OMFs makes a lot of sense because there is an external reference point for the OMF. You don't need god.
I don't see the external reference point in Atheism.
Odd since I've shoved one under your nose twice now. By the way, there is no such thing as Atheism. Just atheism, which is not monolithic and hence has multifarious views of morality.
It's a simple point - you are jumping too far ahead too quickly.
Please don't make me spell it out a third time.
27 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterRight now it seems "problematic" for you to state what these entities/realm/force actually is....It's not my job to do your thinking for you - stop being lazy and just define in real terms what you think OMFs actually are . I have already done this - you have not.
So what? How is this problematic for the atheist?
-----lemon------------
Right now it seems "problematic" for you to state what these entities/realm/force actually is. Once you start doing this you will see for yourself what the problem is -but until you do so we cannot proceed.
It's not my job to do your thinking for you - stop being lazy and ...[text shortened]... ine in real terms what you think OMFs actually are . I have already done this - you have not.
Huh? I already clearly stated that "these entities" in question are objective moral facts. And I already basically explained what I mean here when I talk about an 'objective moral fact'. Here's what I stated about that, and please don't pretend you didn't already read this:
"By 'objective' I am basically referring to independence from observer attitudes; by 'fact' I mean something that is the case; by 'moral' we are talking about things like how we ought to act, or what sorts of person we should try to be, or what sorts of things are valuable, etc. So, by "objective moral fact" I am here referring to something that would be the case, independently of any observer attitudes, regarding such a normative realm."
You know, it's like you have some kind of mental barrier that disallows you from seeing the dialectic symmetry between your position and the atheistic position on which you keep declaiming. There's really no substantive difference between the two within context here, regardless of how often you keep reassuring yourself that you have "done more" than the hypothetical atheist who holds that OMFs exist and that they are, at the end of the day, brute.
28 Mar 10
Originally posted by Lord SharkOdd since I've shoved one under your nose twice now.
[b]We really are at cross purposes here aren't we.
It matters not whether God exists or not. Or even how dumb the idea might seem. What matters is the consistency of the system. If one believes that the ground of all reality is holy and righteous and eternal then talking about OMFs makes a lot of sense because there is an external reference point for ...[text shortened]... re jumping too far ahead too quickly.
Please don't make me spell it out a third time.[/b]
----------shark----------
Did you ? What was it? I can't remember. Is it a "moral-o-force" that is believed to be present at some sub-atomic level?
Can you be more specific what it actually is that you have shoved under my nose.
I was under the impression that the materialistic/scientific/atheistic world view posited that the Universe was morally neutral. Therefore , I see no scientific basis for any OMFs.
Where am I going astray?
28 Mar 10
3 edits
Originally posted by LemonJello"By 'objective' I am basically referring to independence from observer attitudes; by 'fact' I mean something that is the case; by 'moral' we are talking about things like how we ought to act, or what sorts of person we should try to be, or what sorts of things are valuable, etc. So, by "objective moral fact" I am here referring to something that would be the case, independently of any observer attitudes, regarding such a normative realm."
[b]Right now it seems "problematic" for you to state what these entities/realm/force actually is....It's not my job to do your thinking for you - stop being lazy and just define in real terms what you think OMFs actually are . I have already done this - you have not.
Huh? I already clearly stated that "these entities" in question are objective mor o holds that OMFs exist and that they are, at the end of the day, brute.[/b]
------------------lemon---------------------
Yes , yes, yes - but what you have given me is just a theoretical definition of what the concept of an OMF is. Your conception of what an OMF is in theory is pretty much the same as mine.
I'm not interested in theoretical descriptions , I want to know in what SUBSTANTIVE REALITY these OMFs are BASED in the Atheist belief system.
Let me put it another way. It's all very well saying men ought to do this or that - but it's quite another to say that there is a real moral law that EXISTS that backs up this assertion.
Let's use the analogy of gravity (not perfect but it will do for now)
If I say that........
a) I have a belief that should not jump off buildings - then this is my opinion unless it is backed up by the external universe.
b)If I then say that there is a real law (gravity) that will hold men to account if they do jump off buildings (they will be squashed) then this is quite another.
c) I might also say that this force (gravity) is built into existence so fundamentally that it is not subject to debate by men. Men cannot change gravity just by wishing it so.
Now , a) is only a subjective opinion or belief unless it is backed up by b) and maybe c) as well. If I have a belief in a) but have no belief in b) or c) then how do I claim that a) is an OGF (Objective Gravity Fact) if I don't follow through to b) and c) as well.
It's one thing to have a belief in OMFs but it's another to also believe that external reality is supportive of those OMFs and that they are based in the fundamental truths of existence.
28 Mar 10
Originally posted by LemonJellothan the hypothetical atheist who holds that OMFs exist and that they are, at the end of the day, brute.
[b]Right now it seems "problematic" for you to state what these entities/realm/force actually is....It's not my job to do your thinking for you - stop being lazy and just define in real terms what you think OMFs actually are . I have already done this - you have not.
Huh? I already clearly stated that "these entities" in question are objective mor ...[text shortened]... o holds that OMFs exist and that they are, at the end of the day, brute.[/b]
------lemon--------------------
I knew before I started this thread that this was the case.
The difference is that the Theistic belief system describes what this OMF is (ie God) - the Atheist simply says that OMFs exist but there's no description of what on earth he is talking about.
I'm still waiting for you to provide a coherent structure and framework for Atheist OMFs rather than just saying they "exist". Where are these OMFs? What relationship do they have with the Universe / or with humanity? Are they one of the lost laws of physics? etc etc