Does language also need to exist objectively for logical statements to have grounding? Or is that only the case with morality? What about mathematics? What about relations?

I don't see how my personal view is relevant to the discussion. My argument can be pro God or it could be pro moral nihilism. I just want all atheists to stop lying to everyone about what their beliefs entail. However I do believe objective morality does exist so take from that what you will.

How is abstract reasoning translatable to language if it doesn't objectively exist? How can I understand your abstract reasoning if language is simply a construct? It would seem to me language is contingent upon reasoning and not the other way around.

Well mathematics in the abstract probably follows the same as above. But mathematics is also a language.

Well in that case my work here is done.

You seem to be conflating "understanding" with "abstract reasoning."

Very young children (say, < 1 year old) "understand" a lot of things about the universe. But it's far from clear that they use "abstract reason" in a way that reflects what you seem to mean by it. And it seems quite plain that there's communication happening, even at a very young age.

Similarly, we find behaviors in the animal world in which we see forms of "communication" but without anything that appears to be "abstract reasoning." Communication between insects (for example) happens in way in which they clearly "understand" each other (which is why ants exhibit complex behaviors as a unit) but probably do not use "abstract reasoning" as a part of process of deciding how to behave.

DoOrDoNot

if god arrives at moral laws by his own decree, how is this any different to any other subjective set of moral laws, and why should we follow these as opposed to any other?

He's been tactically and successfully dodging this question for a while now, and it's been put to him in a few different ways.

He now seems to think that abstract reasoning exists objectively. The plot thickens.

I really don't want to get sidetracked here, but why does God have to arrive at moral laws by decree? If there really was a being that knew exponentially more than you did, where would your debate be about his awareness of what was the best way for you to live?

It doesn't have to be God either if you're uncomfortable with the subject. If there was an incredibly powerful supercomputer that had access to limitless information about every subject imaginable, and it gave you a list of things to do to become the best human you could be, what more than ignorant pride could hold you back from following it?

Why do you suspect that a superintelligent computer or God would have any reason to desire people to follow it's way?

Maybe it just wants us to have a good time? How do you determine what it's intentions are (if any) with regard to our moral pathways?

I guess youd have to have faith in it.


Faith: 1.

complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Now we're getting somewhere. We have 1 quality or intention to describe your God with: intends for us to follow in its moral pathway. Are there any other qualities or intentions that your God possesses? Is it a moral God, immoral God or amoral God?

None of that is really relevant to the discussion. I answered your questions. I've never stated any specific God or even that I have a conception of everything it must be. I've also never made a statement of faith so don't call it my God. I do however grant the theist credibility for his view in my elucidation.

Care to answer mine?

Why do you think compatibilist are cowards? This strikes me as you being a moral antirealist; am I correct? Are you a nihilist?

To accept a softer version of determinism, in some weak attempt to salvage whatever hope out of an ultimately hopeless viewpoint, is a cowardly act. Embrace it fully or dont embrace it at all. To admit to not knowing what consciousness is and to admit that there's more to subjective experience, no matter how unreliable it can be, takes balls.
I'm not familiar enough with these categories to classify myself, nor could i say that I'd belong in one single category. I believe that, quite obviously, you can't have the good without the bad or the bad without the good. The rest of my views on morality flow from that.

Thanks

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IgA...ryTNJbJ_5/view

Lawrence’s response, some of you, including a moderator here probably won’t read it since you’ve made up your mind based on an article from such a clearly legitimate news agency like buzzfeed.

Does no one have a bull**** detector or is it just this particular subforum

Thanks for sharing the thing that was already shared on the first page and not long after the initial reporting.

And how is it that you're so sure that your detector isn't the one that's broken? Or maybe it's your entry into the thread with this golden line that diminished your own credibility.

Either way, you're free to assume whatever you want about others and make whatever accusations you choose. But if you're disappointed that nobody is taking you seriously, you kind of have yourself to blame for that.

And here's another article, just because more information is better. I've not bothered relinking the articles in the text I copied over.

https://medium.com/@philosophytorres...s-e4c444b2d715

From Dictionary.com:

theism
[thee-iz-uh m]

noun
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).

So, Antony Flew was not a theist by definition #1, but was a theist by definition by #2.

Ergo, we're both right.

+1

because there are 2 possibilities, as far as I understand it.

1) morality is objective, ie it exists outside of a mind. If god comes to moral rules by logic and reasoning, its possible to do the same, without god.

2) morality is subjective, and god chooses the moral laws. In which case, my question as to why we should follow his chosen laws rather than anyone elses applies.

Needs more love.

Cristina Rad (popular atheist a few years back) weighs in on what she considers to be "so much BS" in LK's response.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I read the story and also read up on the debate and the people in it. The accusers seemed like reliable people and the number of accusers and supporting statements made the story even more credible.

This isn't a court of law, we have no obligation nor really a very compelling reason to hold "innocent until guilty" as the applicable standard. The story seems legit by any reasonable standard of news, and it also holds up to further digging.

Sure, if we use some misguided form of skepticism as the gold-standard it could all be some giant conspiracy to bring the mighty Krauss down, but that's increasingly looking like the "god of the gaps" he used to be so keen to deride.

Ya he really zinged me. He zinged me so well all the other stuff I said doesn't even need to be addressed! Arguing on the internet is so easy!

Well, you've written some 20 odd posts in this thread addressing and attacking an argument that nobody here has actually made. So apparently arguing on the internet is very difficult.

Because you know, perhaps there exists a universe where some people have actually thought of these very basic objections you raise, and even take them into account.

Just a thought.