Searching for GOD...

[SteveH]

There is no sound evidence to explain how the incredible fine tuned parameters needed to enable the formation of stars and planets came unintended.

However finely-tuned the universe had to be to allow the universe as it is now to emerge, if the condition had been any different, we wouldn't be here discussing it. Suppose someone shuffled a pack of cards and then laid them out in a row, and an observer said "Wow! The chance of that particular sequence coming out must be tiny! That's amazing!", you'd think he was an idiot, but that's essentially what you're doing with this argument. If the card dealer had predicted in advance what the sequence would be, you'd have some justification for being amazed.
Some of your other arguments may have more going for them, in particular the one about the impossibility of rational thought arising from unguided chemical and electrical reactions in the brain. As CS Lewis said, any argument for strict materialism turns out to be an argument against the possibility of valid arguments, and is thus self-defeating.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Anybody?

Which part of the difference between subjective and objective is confusing you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu5dEXZ7DOY

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside on the other hand seems to be saying though that taste and morality are nothing more than aesthetic/s.

"Nothing more than" is pejorative but pretty much, yes. Why don't you? 

[SteveH]

Whether morality is objective or subjective depends on which ethical theory you hold. I'm a rule-utilitarian, and utilitarianism treats morality as objectively true, a position supported by the fact that, very broadly speaking, all societies have had the same moral code: they all regard theft, random violence etc. as wrong, and fairness, kindness etc. as right.

[ProfessorDavey]

However finely-tuned the universe had to be to allow the universe as it is now to emerge, if the condition had been any different, we wouldn't be here discussing it. Suppose someone shuffled a pack of cards and then laid them out in a row, and an observer said "Wow! The chance of that particular sequence coming out must be tiny! That's amazing!", you'd think he was an idiot, but that's essentially what you're doing with this argument. If the card dealer had predicted in advance what the sequence would be, you'd have some justification for being amazed.

Actually there is no 'fine tuning' so to speak to support the formation of stars and solar systems etc. Basic physics indicates that these will arise spontaneously as the velocity of matter in the universe slows.

There might bean argument on the conditions for life to evolve, however, as you explain we are looking at this from the perspective of a situation where life did evolve - hence looking through the wrong end of the telescope, so to speak. Now there are nigh on countless solar systems out there and of course the vast, vast majority do not have the correct conditions for life to evolve. And also for most of the time our solar system has been in existence it also did not have the right conditions. So there is no fine tuning, merely rare conditions that given billions of opportunities for them to arise, will very occasionally.

And there is nothing 'special' about these conditions - we seem them as 'special' and therefore some will claim 'god' or 'fine tuning' because the consequences are notable to us. Bit like the patterns will might think remarkable, but are merely have the same probability as any other. So if we have a fully shuffled set of cards, we might consider it to be astonishing if they were dealt in perfect suit and numerical order. Yet of course this is no less likely than any other individual sequence - the point is we see the pattern, but in the former but not in the latter.

[Alan Burns]

…which brings us back to the bankruptcy of your justifying arguments for your beliefs. They’re wrong. All of them. I can tell you again why they’re all wrong if you’d like me to, but yet again I see you’ve just ignored this problem.   

Just to reiterate the point I was making:
From a purely materialist perspective, we have one set of physical reactions (you) entirely determined by the laws of physics and chemistry somehow claiming that another set of physical reactions (me) also entirely determined by the laws of physics and chemistry is wrong.  Can you see the dilemma in this?  How can the the unavoidable consequences of one set of physical reactions be determined right or wrong by the unavoidable consequences of another set of physical reactions?  Which reaction can be deemed to be guilty and why?  Which reaction casts the judgement and how?

What does your behaviour here say about you do you think?       

I continue to witness to the truth
The truth of our God given gift of free will - which gives us freedom to think, freedom to choose, freedom to judge, freedom to discern, freedom to worship and to pray, freedom to love ....

A freedom which nature alone can never give.

The truth really does set us free.

[Nearly Sane]

Whether morality is objective or subjective depends on which ethical theory you hold. I'm a rule-utilitarian, and utilitarianism treats morality as objectively true, a position supported by the fact that, very broadly speaking, all societies have had the same moral code: they all regard theft, random violence etc. as wrong, and fairness, kindness etc. as right.

If something depends on your view then it is subjective.

[ProfessorDavey]

Whether morality is objective or subjective depends on which ethical theory you hold. I'm a rule-utilitarian, and utilitarianism treats morality as objectively true, a position supported by the fact that, very broadly speaking, all societies have had the same moral code: they all regard theft, random violence etc. as wrong, and fairness, kindness etc. as right.

But even if you argue this - we aren't really talking about universal objectivity, merely something in the context of human societies. Rule utilitarianism has no objectivity without the existence of human society. For something to be truly objective it would need to be just as relevant in the seconds after the big bang, when there was no life, let alone human life and society. Rule utilitarianism has simply no meaning in that context.

[ProfessorDavey]

The truth really does set us free.

Which is why I have spent my life as a research scientist, uncovering evidence that leads us to the truth.

Faith or belief is pound-shop truth. If you want the real thing you need to rely on evidence not faith or belief.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

Whether morality is objective or subjective depends on which ethical theory you hold. I'm a rule-utilitarian, and utilitarianism treats morality as objectively true, a position supported by the fact that, very broadly speaking, all societies have had the same moral code: they all regard theft, random violence etc. as wrong, and fairness, kindness etc. as right.

Nope. Generally societies cohere around common moral positions (not killing their children for example) for evolutionary reasons. That’s not to say though that the morality of, say, ancient Roman society wasn’t very different from ours on all sorts of topics. Thus slaughtering Christians in the arena was considered fine and dandy according to their moral precepts.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

However finely-tuned the universe had to be to allow the universe as it is now to emerge, if the condition had been any different, we wouldn't be here discussing it. Suppose someone shuffled a pack of cards and then laid them out in a row, and an observer said "Wow! The chance of that particular sequence coming out must be tiny! That's amazing!", you'd think he was an idiot, but that's essentially what you're doing with this argument. If the card dealer had predicted in advance what the sequence would be, you'd have some justification for being amazed.

Yes. I’ve explained the anthropic principle, the lottery winner’s fallacy etc to AB multiple times but he just ignores the explanations and repeats the same wrong argument about this over and over again.

Some of your other arguments may have more going for them,…

They haven’t.

…in particular the one about the impossibility of rational thought arising from unguided chemical and electrical reactions in the brain.

He has no grounds for demonstrating such supposed impossibility.

As CS Lewis said, any argument for strict materialism turns out to be an argument against the possibility of valid arguments, and is thus self-defeating.

Lewis is not a good reference point for arguments of this type for reasons that have been dealt with here before now at some length. 

[Enki]

Alan,

Your post 49880:

What is in question here is the role of conscious awareness.

Not really. What is in question is what is meant by 'I' in this scenario. Because I consider myself to be basically the result of the functioning of my brain(I have no reason to think otherwise), hence I control my own thoughts.

The materialist view is that conscious awareness somehow emerges from material reactions in your brain - in which case you can only be aware of what has already been predetermined by those reactions.  This would apparently rule out the concept of having conscious control of your own thought processes - because you cannot exert control over what has already been determined.

I have no problem with that at all. One idea is that consciousness produces feedback allowing the mind to make constant modifications and adjustments on how it sees the world.

One wonders how any form of rational thinking can take place in such a scenario.

Why?

Your post 49884:

Well at least I have got you to agree that we do interact rather than just react with what we perceive.

I know that this was directed at Blue, but I have always said that the brain interacts both with its parts and with the outside world.
E.G.
"As the processes of the brain are a result of physical reactions and interactions, possibly as a result of the brain's EM field generating neuron firing whilst being generated by neuron firing(a self referencing loop), I see no reason to think that the 'I' isn't basically a product of the brain." From my post 51 from the 'Causes and mechanisms' thread 28th June 2020.

"I would have thought that the overwhelming evidence suggests that thoughts are the result of organised reactions and interactions happening within the brain according to physical laws." From my post 49263 on this thread Jan 8th 2024

Your post 49886:

So in your materialistic scenario where everything which enters your conscious awareness has already been determined -
What precisely is it that determines what is right or wrong, and how can this judgement be verified?

My reaction to that is that morality has a strong evolutionary basis. It aids survival. For me, this is probably driven by such traits as empathy, sympathy, and natural feelings of co-operation and responsibility towards others. Culture, environment, experience, upbringing, and a rational approach superimpose upon those feelings, I suggest. One thing seems clear to me. There is no evidence of some sort of absolute morality stemming from some supernatural source.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

"Nothing more than" is pejorative but pretty much, yes. Why don't you?

Because I equate a taste in morality "Do you know, Today I fancy a bit of genocide" to be sociopathic. I don't believe it's just a question of taste and I suspect you don't really either.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just to reiterate the point I was making:…

Why double down on that instead of addressing your mistakes in your justifying reasoning?

From a purely materialist perspective, we have one set of physical reactions (you) entirely determined by the laws of physics and chemistry somehow claiming that another set of physical reactions (me) also entirely determined by the laws of physics and chemistry is wrong.  Can you see the dilemma in this?

No.

How can the the unavoidable consequences of one set of physical reactions be determined right or wrong by the unavoidable consequences of another set of physical reactions?  Which reaction can be deemed to be guilty and why?  Which reaction casts the judgement and how?

For the reasons that have been explained to you countless times here and that you routinely ignore in favour of further expressions of your personal incredulity – as here.

I continue to witness to the truth

No you don’t. You actually continue to ignore the arguments that explain why the reasons you think justify your beliefs about “the” truth are wrong. Its evasive and dishonest behaviour.

The truth of our God given gift of free will - which gives us freedom to think, freedom to choose, freedom to judge, freedom to discern, freedom to worship and to pray, freedom to love ....

Blind faith claim.

A freedom which nature alone can never give.

Another blind faith claim.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Because I equate a taste in morality "Do you know, Today I fancy a bit of genocide" to be sociopathic. I don't believe it's just a question of taste and I suspect you don't really either.

You’ve made this mistake before and been corrected on it before too. The importance or significance of an issue and its fundamental character are different matters that you’ve attempted to conflate here. The significance of what you put on your toast and of committing genocide are indeed very different, but that has no relevance to the common character of both – ie, subjectivity. You can’t in other words just claim “but genocide really matters, therefore it’s objectively wrong”.       

[ProfessorDavey]

Nope. Generally societies cohere around common moral positions (not killing their children for example) for evolutionary reasons. That’s not to say though that the morality of, say, ancient Roman society wasn’t very different to ours on all sorts of topics. Thus slaughtering Christians in the arena was considered fine and dandy according to their moral precepts.

And actually most human societies have created a clear line in the sand between those who should not be killed and those that it is fine to kill.

In many tribal cultures that dividing line was between members of their tribe and of other tribes - and we see this play out throughout history down to the present day, where there still remains a kind of hierarchy of opposition to killing people largely based on how 'other' they may be seen to be to us.

But that's merely thinking about humans - why should this be restricted to one species? While many human cultures have taken a (albeit caveated) moral opposition to killing other humans, most of those societies have had no such qualms about killing other species.

[Alan Burns]

For the reasons that have been explained to you countless times .......

Sorry but I can't recall any one of your "countless" explanations being able to explain this in purely materialistic terms, so I put it to you again to give you another chance:

How can the the unavoidable consequences of one set of physical reactions be determined right or wrong by the unavoidable consequences of another set of physical reactions?  Which reactions can be deemed to be guilty and why?  Which reactions cast the judgement and how?

[Gordon]

Sorry but I can't recall any one of your "countless" explanations being able to explain this in purely materialistic terms, so I put it to you again to give you another chance:

How can the the unavoidable consequences of one set of physical reactions be determined right or wrong by the unavoidable consequences of another set of physical reactions?  Which reactions can be deemed to be guilty and why?  Which reactions cast the judgement and how?

Have you tried just thinking about it, Alan, using the blob of biology inside your skull? Notions of 'right' and 'wrong' rather depends on your subjective opinion, which brings us back to said blob of biology.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 

You’ve made this mistake before and been corrected on it before too. The importance or significance of an issue and its fundamental character are different matters that you’ve attempted to conflate here. The significance of what you put on your toast and of committing genocide are indeed very different, but that has no relevance to the common character of both – ie, subjectivity. You can’t in other words just claim “but genocide really matters, therefore it’s objectively wrong”.       

I only stand corrected though , if you actually have established the fundamental nature of morality, in your case an aesthetic.

I'm sure we would have heard by now and packed up and gone home...we haven't.

I believe there is a debate between Alex O'connor(larval horseman) and Sam Harris(grown assedhorseman and objective morality proponent) on the matter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

SteveH,

Nope. Generally societies cohere around common moral positions (not killing their children for example) for evolutionary reasons. That’s not to say though that the morality of, say, ancient Roman society wasn’t very different from ours on all sorts of topics. Thus slaughtering Christians in the arena was considered fine and dandy according to their moral precepts.

Not being of an eliminating materialist or a material illusionist I'm not committed to morality being a redundant term for mere genetic imperative...I'm fine with something that can't be adequately described by components evolving.

So it comes down to you thinking you've established once and for all your definition of emergence.

You would be deluded in that.

[SteveH]

If morality is subjective, one person's preference for kindness and honesty is no more valid than another person's taste for violence and theft. The fact that morality was a meaningless concept until humans arrived is neither here nor there. Just after the big bang, life was a meaningless concept, but life is objective.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Have you tried just thinking about it, Alan, using the blob of biology inside your skull? Notions of 'right' and 'wrong' rather depends on your subjective opinion, which brings us back to said blob of biology.

Oh no!....Mere Blobianity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Sorry but I can't recall any one of your "countless" explanations being able to explain this in purely materialistic terms, so I put it to you again to give you another chance:

How can the the unavoidable consequences of one set of physical reactions be determined right or wrong by the unavoidable consequences of another set of physical reactions?  Which reactions can be deemed to be guilty and why?  Which reactions cast the judgement and how?

So to be clear, you duck and dive and run away from every explanation of why your justifying reasons for your beliefs are all wrong and instead you offer me “another chance” to engage with one of those mistakes?

Seriously though?

Yet again:

1. Emergence is a well-observed and well-understood phenomenon. I see no particular reason therefore to exempt arbitrarily consciousness from that explanatory model, and nor have you proposed one. 

2. “Unavoidable reactions” as you put it from which consciousness emerges would be every bit as capable in principle of reaching opinions about what’s morally right and wrong as they’d be capable of reaching opinions about anything else. Why wouldn’t they be?

3. You’re the one claiming that such a phenomenon is “impossible” but you never justify that claim with an argument. Instead you shift the burden of proof by demanding that others explain to you how it works “precisely”, and when you’re dissatisfied with or incredulous about the answer you make the mistake of leaping straight from that to “therefore impossible” with no logical path at all to get you there. Lots of phenomena that once weren’t understood in materialistic terms are now understood in materialistic terms. That doesn’t mean that before they were understood your assertion now about consciousness of “therefore magic” was correct – it just meant that the only honest answer at the time was a “don’t know”. This shouldn’t be difficulty to understand, even for you.

4. Yet again, you’ve just ignored your basic a priori problem that all your reasons for believing what you believe are wrong, and you continue to refuse steadfastly to engage with why that’s the case. If you won’t engage with that problem and try at least to rebut the falsifications your given you continue to have no sound reasons to justify your beliefs.

Once more with feeling: the incompleteness or absence of a materialistic explanation for an observed phenomenon is NOT a justification for a claim of materialistic impossibility.

Now write that down until it sinks in. Have it tattooed across your forehead in reverse like an ambulance sign so you see it every time you look in a mirror of that helps. Will you finally though indicate that you at least understand in principle why this is unarguably the case.

Thank you.                   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I only stand corrected though , if you actually have established the fundamental nature of morality, in your case an aesthetic.

I'm sure we would have heard by now and packed up and gone home...we haven't.

I believe there is a debate between Alex O'connor(larval horseman) and Sam Harris(grown assedhorseman and objective morality proponent) on the matter.

No, you stand corrected because your position of “ok, what I put on my toast doesn’t matter much so I’m happy for that to be a subjective choice, but genocide really matters so it must be objectively wrong” has no supporting reasoning to justify it.   

[Alan Burns]

AB,

And?

Lennox reaffirms the case that Christian faith is evidence based - not blind faith.