a) You’re wrong, and b) humans are animals.
Moral behaviour is present in all animals that have evolved to live in societal groups.
Even if it were not, there is no objective evidence that any deiy exists or is even possible.
So it is not a choice between morality being a natural evolved phenomenon, or a deity.
Perhaps you are referring to the “lower level of amplitude” I mentioned. Morality can only be as nuanced and sophisticated as an animal’s ability to comprehend and contextualize it and I’d say it’s arguably so that humans are, for all their moral failings, best at this (or at least have the most potential to be good at it).
However, fundamentally, regardless of the animal in question (homo sapiens or otherwise; no special pleading for humanity here), empathy is the foundation for morality and empathy, and therefore morality is an emergent property of sentience for any animal that lives in any sort of society or symbiosis with other animals (even those not of its kind), and which possess sufficient mirror neurons to enable empathy. I would hypothesize that all higher animals have evolved mirror neurons, although specific individuals might be deficient (in humans, we refer to those as “sociopaths”).
A false dichotomy is when two (often extreme) possibilities are presented as absolutes, incorrectly discarding the possibility of other options.
For example, if I had fallaciously claimed that either a god exists and created morality or no god exists and morality therefore could not exist; this would have been a false dichotomy as I would have presented two options as a dichotomy, falsely, ignoring the possibilities of morality existing without a god, etc.
I did not present a false dichotomy, I was asking a question in the context of a defined position (godless existence)
As to why would we consider any other kind of existence? Aside from the fact we’re talking in a group specifically pertaining to atheism, and more specifically engaged in a discussion on a post about morality and a hypothetical omnipotent entity, it is reasonable to consider different possibilities for existence for which there is no certainty.
My question acknowledged the process of natural evolution - I was not asking how morality entered into the mix, I asked at what point would it have occurred.
How is it not? My comment was literally in relation to the post. Please clarify why you consider it isn’t.
My arguments are predicated on the hypothetical existence of a deity because the initial post was predicated on the hypothetical existence of a deity.
As per the word hypothetical, I did not make a claim as to the existence of a deity, I specifically made it conditional - within a hypothesis in order to discuss factors pertaining to an entity if one considers such an entity purely for the purposes of the discussion.
You asked for objective evidence. It is reasonable to infer that for evidence to be measured as objective, it is tantamount to proof. Either way, this is a matter of semantics.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I took it to mean you wanted evidence that you would accept as evidence - i.e., meeting a certain standard, and as there is no objective standard, it would be a subjective view on whether a subjective standard has been met, which is pretty much the definition of proof.
It was not fallacious - I explained the reasoning. If you have a rebuttal, please clarify it.
Incorrect. One can posit the tactile feedback of a fictional mermaid, based on the acknowledged qualities of the mermaid, despite it being fictional. Given that a mermaid is recognised as having fish-like scales, and is located in water like fish are, it can be inferred that the tactile feedback of a mermaid would be equivalent to that of a fish.
No requirement for a mermaid to be demonstrated possible or evidenced, etc.
There are countless demonstrations of this occurring across society. People discuss fictional characters and worlds frequently and debate qualities and aspects pertaining to those. Would you enter a discussion about whether the Hulk could beat Superman and complain that neither character has been evidenced so a person’s argument is a bare assertion fallacy?
The word “hypothetically” is there for a reason. We are talking about qualities and concepts. If one considers the concept of omnipotence and the concept of a creator of all existence, we can consider what necessary aspects/qualities exist within those concepts.
So, a statement that “in the context of a hypothetically existing creator entity nothing can exist except as a result of an action, either direct or indirect, of that creator entity” is valid, just as a statement, “a hypothetically existing unicorn is necessarily an animal that appears like a horse and has a single horn on its head” is valid.
We don’t need to evidence the possibility of a unicorn to accept or debate the necessary parameters of that hypothetical entity. To the contrary, I would argue that it is a pre-requisite requirement before evidencing the possibility of such an entity.
Consider the question, “does a unicorn exist?” - before that question can be answered, one must first define what a unicorn is, otherwise you may as well ask “does an xyzzy exist?” - it’s impossible to answer without knowing what it is.
If someone said, “a unicorn is an animal with a single horn on its head”, someone else could reasonably say, “yes a unicorn exists” and point to a rhinoceros.
The thread OP is a hypothetical, and the very first words in my comment acknowledged this - I specifically conditioned my response as being hypothetical. I don’t know why you are specifically targeting my comment as being excluded from this?
I have specifically stated and clarified I am not making any claims as to the existence of any such entities. I have simply discussed qualities pertaining to concepts that define such an entity from a hypothetical standpoint.
A unicorn is necessarily a horse-like animal with a single horn on its head. A mermaid is necessarily a being that is half human, half aquatic/fish-like. A centaur is necessarily a being that is half human, half horse. “Necessary” does not magically break a hypothetical context.
Yes, I can.
And I demonstrated it exists. In a hypothetical situation where an entity has either acted or not acted by will, there must be a motivator for the action or inaction. That motivator is data that we do not have.
A person enters a building. This is a willed action. Therefore there must be a motivator for this action. It is demonstrated there is data based on the action that is not known.
I didn’t claim to present facts. I have made an argument. You’re misunderstanding or twisting my words - as per the quote of my previous comment, “the facts of the case have to be considered” - that is not me claiming to present facts, it is my argument that one cannot make a judgement without the full facts of the case.
If you claim my arguments are irrational, you will need to clarify your views in this regard.
No, this is false equivalence. I never said anything about bare unevidenced claims. I simply stated a court hearing where the defence has not had an opportunity to present their case.
As per the problem of evil, the “prosecution” has evidenced their case, but a judgement cannot be passed without the full facts - the defence must present their case too.
No, we don’t have all the data. If a claim is made “X did Y”, such as a passage in a religious text, all we have is the claim. We don’t have the reasoning, “X did Y because Z, and it was considered acceptable because of A, B and C.”
The claim has not been made in the context of explaining morality. The claim has been made as an account of events. If a question of morality is raised after the claim, then additional data is required to address that question.
You have asked me to produce objective evidence - same as my explanation above.
You quote my saying “and no, not inactions.” but miss the bit where I clarified my position by saying the actions are the negative events that do not have any intervention, and that action/inaction in my comment was framed as responsibility (inaction) and accountability (action)
How so? You said “Completely the wrong way around” and I said, “there is no wrong or right way round” - that’s literally addressing your point. I also went into further detail explaining the reasoning for that position.
That’s literally what I had said - no morality without free will, no free will without morality.
Okay, I should clarify on this point, when I am referring to morality here, I am talking about morality as we know it, not a system of morality as understood by a specific entity.
Humans have an understanding of morality. On the basis of that understanding of morality, we can ascribe morality to other entities (human or otherwise) based on their free will.
For example, if we see an animal helping another animal, we can view that as a moral action. If we see an animal deliberately harming another animal (for play, not survival related), we can view that as an immoral action.
If an entity has free will, it is subject to the human understanding of morality, even if the entity itself does not have an understanding of morality.
In the context of my argument, given the human understanding of morality, I am arguing that we cannot remove the concept of morality and retain the concept of free will; just as we cannot remove the concept of free will and retain the concept of morality. They are entwined - symbiotic.
How is morality being a motivator for choice wrong, and how does it not make sense? I need you to elaborate on your dismissal of this point so I can address it.
I said needs, not necessity. That was your word. I have explained and clarified how my point about needs is a matter of every choice being reducible to need/desire.
Thank you for the clarification. We both seem to be agreeing that pain is a survival trait. If we didn’t experience pain, our survival odds would be greatly reduced.
If pain is beneficial to survival, why would it be illogical for an omnipotent deity to have included it?
We’re back to the judgement problem again here - you’re passing a judgement of it being logically absurd, but you lack the data to make such a judgement.
Let’s expand on this point: You are making the claim that “an omnipotent deity need not have included pain”
In order to evidence this claim, you would need to prove the alternative - which would require you to hypothetically set out an existence where pain does not exist, how the world would function, how various entities would function in such a world, and how this would be a moral improvement on the world we know.
You would need to consider when it comes to the absence of pain, does this also mean the absence of death due to a non-registering of pain? Are you considering a signal that does not cause discomfort in the manner pain does, but still signals something needs to be fixed or stopped?
For example, a child puts their hand into an open flame. The child doesn’t experience pain, but their brain registers a signal “don’t do that.” - the signal cannot in any way cause discomfort, and the resulting consequences also cannot in any way cause discomfort. The child is aware of the signal, but there is no motivator to associate the signal with a need/desire to discontinue the behaviour.
After the fact, however the event concludes, the hand signals that it requires fixing. It may not function as well as it used to, or may not function at all, so a lesson may be learnt from that, but it’s after the event so possibly not. At a young age, the mind may not associate a cause and later effect without the immediacy of the consequence.
But now the hand has serious burns and despite the signal that it needs fixing, there is no pain. The child is unaware of how to fix the hand, so the signal is largely meaningless. Perhaps it then gets infected, because it hasn’t been treated. That infection spreads, more signals, still no pain. Then the child dies from the infection. A painless end, but also a pointless one.
Or let’s consider there is no death, so the burning doesn’t affect the hand, no signal is needed. The child doesn’t have parents looking after it because, what is the need? The concept of parents is redundant - there can be no pain, no death, so what would be their purpose? How does the child eat/drink without parents? Doesn’t need to - no pain/discomfort from hunger/thirst, and no death. No hypothermia, no being run over or eaten by wild animals or any threat… the very concept of social cohesion doesn’t apply because without pain and death, what would the motivators be? Why would children even exist? There’s no death so no purpose to continue the species.
I would say it is a logical absurdity to be able to hypothesise an alternative reality to such a degree that it could be evidenced that a world without a particular trait/concept could be an improvement on the current world. We lack the means to contemplate all the variables that would factor into such a change on a global scale across human (or life) history. Anything short of this would be a bare assertion based on an arbitrary and biased opinion.
It is the butterfly effect on a grand scale - even the smallest of changes can have wide-reaching and unforeseen implications. Changing something as fundamental as pain existing and asserting the world would be a better place is a blind assertion.
b) You’re arguing semantics here. It is clear from the wording that I am distinguishing animals in this context. Challenging this seems somewhat pedantic.
as for a) and the rebuttal you provided, I think the following quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Animal Social Cognition (section 5.6) explains my position succinctly:
“Whereas animals have for hundreds of years been thought by philosophers and scientists to exhibit certain precursors of morality like moral emotions (such as kindness, patience, anger, shame, or disgust, but perhaps also more advanced and proto-moral emotions like empathetic concern), it was almost universally denied that they possessed anything like moral or normative cognition. Full normative cognition, it was thought, would require something like an ability to explicitly formulate abstract normative rules, evaluate those rules, and determine whether behavior accorded with them.”
I know what the fallacy is thanks, hence my pointing out that you offered two choices, when we were not limited to those two choices.
Skipping past the part where you assigned it to a perfectly moral deity, without even the pretence of evidence. Also ignoring that the deity depicted in the bible is appallingly immoral by most human standards, which of course is all we have to judge with.
It wasn’t a purely hypothetical argument you offered, since it made multiple claims about a deity and it’s nature, for example that it has data we don’t (how exactly would you know this?) that is perfectly moral, whereas we are not, again offering a bare claim is simply risible.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
No it isn’t, it’s woefully inaccurate. Proofs are for mathematics and logic, I never use the word in this context.
Pure gibberish, and semantic sophistry, you either have or do not have some evidence for a deity goes beyond a purely subjective claim. From this display I think it is reasonable to infer you do not, or you’d have offered it.
Already explained, a new explanation will add nothing, it was fallacious. You have responded with a bare denial.
Oh dear, arbitrary assertions about the characteristics of fictional ideas are not “acknowledged qualities” by definition. I don’t think you understand the difference between a purely subjective claim, and something approaching objective evidence.
What’s worse is the arbitrary claims about the deity in the bible, are at odds with your own, so I can only suggest you Google the definition of omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.
Why are you repeating my assertions back to me?
And then went on to make unevidenced unevidenced assumptions in your arguments, for this hypothetical deity (see question begging and circular reason fallacies you used above). Your arguments also didn’t stand up to scrutiny, as explained above.
As I explained if it does not exist then assigning it characteristics arbitrarily is meaningless, again this amounts to question begging, and again you do believe it exists, it is in your profile. So it is dishonest to pretend this is a purely hypothetical argument on your part, as it is on the part of the OP.
No it isn’t, it is an imaginary concept. Are you claiming deities only exist in the human imagination? Only I don’t believe this is the case.
You can offer ludicrously poor arguments of course, I merely meant to point out what this would mean for such arguments.
Dear oh dear…
Once again then, present a fact, otherwise there are none to consider.
Yes it was, and I explained why, and you clipped that from the quote.
You have presented no additional data, just bare unevidenced claims. The hypothetical we are examining as atheists is the deity of the bible, though it is a garbled and contradictory depictions of course.
And not not mentioned proof or proving, not once.
Nothing in that addresses that quote?
Which word is tripping you up?
You have not offered the full quote, so all context is lost. I have also explained that morality is not possible without some level of autonomy or choice, whereas some autonomy need not involve morality at all. Hence you got it the wrong way around, not sure how can simplify this anymore than that.
Other species exhibit moral behaviour, they have evolved this in order to live in societal groups, no one is suggesting all species have identical morals, that is not relevant to the point, or the point that the addition of an unevidenced deity is unnecessary, and violates Occam’s razor.
Free will is a misnomer, so better to start with an objectively verifiable fact, humans and other sentient animals have, or at least perceive, some autonomy of choice, and they exhibit the ability to differentiate between actions that are and are not acceptable to the group, when they have evolved to live in societal groups.
No deity is required to explain this, and the addition of one adds no explanatory powers to the objective facts.
There are species that possess some autonomy of choice, that live solitary lives, they exhibit no concept of moral behaviour.
As I explained above more than once, autonomy or choice comes first then we evolve to learn what behaviours are acceptable. For humans we also evolved problem solving brains, that can analyse complex scenarios and decisions and their consequences. Our choices are affected by the moral standard we set ourselves, but we have to have those choices first.
needs
adverb
You have omitted the word omnibenevolent, If a deity were both omnipotent and omnibenevolent (my original assertion) the is is logically absurd to imagine it would cause unnecessary suffering, like pain, when it could do literally anything.
The data is in the definitions of the words omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
Nope, all I need to is point to the word omnipotence. Would you like me to offer a definition.
Yes and you were wrong, for that reason, as it is an arbitrary distinction.
That’s a philosophical publication not a scientific one, and that last claim is simply hilarious, care to offer a citation for this “universal” agreement, and among whom I wonder?
Your position was, and is, wrong, according to a mass of current scientific research, many species exhibit moral behaviour, and not just towards their own kind. Hell we teach dogs to learn the difference between what is and is not acceptable behaviour. As of course their own kind do, when they live in feral packs.
I never got an answer to this?
Morality can be explained by the scientific theory of evolution, an entirely natural phenomenon, no deity is evidenced or needed. So why would we consider any other kind of existence?
“A new study provides the first evidence that chimpanzees, like humans, are sensitive to the appropriateness of behaviors, especially those directed toward infants.”
Morality
noun
Similar studies exist that evidence morality in many other species of course.
I did not offer two choices though. What two choices are you trying to claim I offered?
I made the argument that a creator entity is necessarily the pinnacle of morality. Not sure why you’re challenging this on this particular quote that was a question about when humans gained morality if one considers a godless existence.
As for events in the bible, I would say that is something addressed later in the comments when we have debated about data, so there’s no point repeating that up here.
Within the context of a hypothetical argument, one can debate necessary qualities pertaining to a hypothetical entity. As for data, if one considers a hypothetical entity exists, then it is logical to infer that such an entity would have motives for its actions, would have knowledge (especially given the quality of omniscience - more knowledge than we have), etc. that is data we do not have.
Fine, it doesn’t matter - I clarified and explained why I used the word proof. You said objective evidence - it doesn’t matter. I was not attempting to infer anything beyond what you asked for, and the matter has been clarified. It’s objective evidence.
So you claim, but now you’re making a repeat bare assertion. I have pointed out I require clarity. If you are unwilling or unable to provide clarity, there is nothing for me to respond to.
Fictional entities have defined qualities. Superman is fictional but he has the acknowledged qualities of arriving on earth from the planet Krypton, assuming the human identity of Clark Kent, having numerous superhuman physical qualities including flight, etc. A mermaid has defined qualities - being part fish-like and part humanoid.
It doesn’t matter that the entities are fictional - if you change or remove a key acknowledged quality, it no longer fits the entity described.
If you say “this unicorn doesn’t have a horn on its head, but instead it has two large wings”, you’re no longer describing a unicorn, you’re describing a pegasus.
It’s strange how one of your later responses states that I’ve not included the full quote, so it’s no longer in context - here, you’ve literally quoted just the first 6 words up to a comma, so the rest of the sentence is missing - losing all context.
But then you go on to quote the rest of the sentence separately, as though I randomly quoted your assertion - the comma indicates a break within a sentence, not the end of a sentence.
If you want to address the arguments I made, do so. But your view on my arguments does not break it being a hypothetical.
Again, and as I explained in my comment, whether or not something exists, qualities can be assigned to that thing, and in fact it is necessary to assign qualities in order to address the question of existence.
As I exemplified - if someone asks if an xyzzy exists, it is impossible to answer without knowing what an xyzzy is.
As for my profile, yes I have indicated I am a theist. However, I have not made any claims in this discussion regarding the existence of any theological entity. I am simply discussing the question of morality in relation to a hypothetical omnipotent creator entity.
It is not dishonest. I am engaging in a purely hypothetical argument as per the OP to discuss something in relation to a hypothetical entity without needing to address whether or not that entity exists.
There is no pretence. It is reasonable to keep something hypothetical to allow a focus on a particular point without needing to prove the necessary pre-requisite. It doesn’t matter what individual views are on that pre-requisite. If I discuss a hypothetical godless existence, it works the same way - it just means we’re all on the same level for the discussion.
False dichotomy. A unicorn can be an imaginary concept and also necessarily be a horse-like animal with a single horn on its head. Those are necessary qualities - you change the number of horns, 0 or 2+, it’s not a unicorn. You change it from being a horse-like animal, it’s not a unicorn. The fictional status has no bearing on this.
Saying “the facts of the case have to be considered” is demonstrably different to claiming to present facts. It is an acknowledgement of how fair judgements should occur.
“Dear oh dear…”
No, it wasn’t. I was saying your claim of false equivalence was false equivalence because you referenced bare unevidenced claims would not represent evidence, and I had made no reference to bare unevidenced claims, I was talking about a court case where the defence is not allowed to present their side.
We seem to be having an issue of repetition here.
Here’s the distinction. There is an obvious difference between:
If someone says “it’s going to rain at exactly 3pm next Sunday”, and someone else says, “we can’t say that. We don’t have all the data”, it doesn’t mean that the person pointing out they don’t have all the data is then required to provide the data, or that their failure to provide the data means their claim is bare or unevidenced.
To the contrary, the claim that there is missing data is pointing out that the judgement is lacking evidence.
When someone claims that data is missing, there is no requirement to provide the data to satisfy burden of proof. There is only a requirement to evidence that data is missing. I have done so by explaining how an entity would have motives and knowledge, and we don’t know the full details of those motives or that knowledge, hence there is missing data.
as to “as atheists” - you’ve already acknowledged my profile says theist. Whether or not someone in this discussion is theist or atheist is irrelevant - it’s a hypothetical so the potential existence of any gods is not part of the discussion for that reason.
already addressed that, and I have once again addressed it as above. Objective evidence, as I said and you quoted me as saying.
Your “Of course it would be” is in relation to your quoting my saying “and no, not inactions” - so yes, it does address that quote.
None of the words are tripping me up.
You said it doesn’t address your point at all, and I asked “how so?” which word is tripping you up?
And I have explained that if there is autonomy then morality applies to that autonomy. With choice comes responsibility and accountability for those choices.
It’s not a matter of simplifying, you just need to acknowledge the two different views being argued. You’re acting as though I’m not understanding you, but you’re arguing a point of it being one way, and I’m arguing a point of it not being one way or another.
On the claim of other species exhibiting moral behaviour, I would quote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Animal Social Cognition, section 5.6 that states:
“Whereas animals have for hundreds of years been thought by philosophers and scientists to exhibit certain precursors of morality like moral emotions (such as kindness, patience, anger, shame, or disgust, but perhaps also more advanced and proto-moral emotions like empathetic concern), it was almost universally denied that they possessed anything like moral or normative cognition. Full normative cognition, it was thought, would require something like an ability to explicitly formulate abstract normative rules, evaluate those rules, and determine whether behavior accorded with them.”
So while some species have moral emotions and even proto-moral emotions, it is universally denied that they have moral or normative cognition.
As for your comment about an unevidenced deity being unnecessary - I think it has been discussed at great length in our comments that this is a discussion about morality in a hypothetical context, so the existence of any deities is not relevant.
As to it violating Occam’s razor,
“Occam’s Razor is a heuristic, not a rule of truth. A simpler explanation isn’t necessarily more correct—just preferred provisionally until further evidence comes in.”
I think that quoted explanation covers my response to the reference, but again, it’s not relevant to the discussion - we’re in a hypothetical discussing morality, so I won’t detract further from this to respond to challenges regarding the existence. If you want to talk about that, make a new post.
Free will is a well-established philosophical term.
If we were having a debate about free will, I could understand some manner of disagreement on free will, but in a discussion about morality, I see it as semantics.
If you prefer to call it some autonomy of choice, that works too. I don’t see the point in quibbling over word and phrase choice unless it becomes a specific relevant issue to disagree on specifically
Why are you making this point? We’re still in the hypothetical as above, above and above. I haven’t made any claim pertaining to this. At no point in this discussion have I stated in any sense that a deity is necessary for anything. I have made statements about certain qualities being necessary to a hypothetical deity, but that would understandably be contingent on the hypothetical deity existing “If X exists, then it necessarily has Y qualities”, just like I have stated if a unicorn exists, it necessarily is a horse-like animal and has a single horn on its head.
As per the quote of my prior comment, I contextualised it in the human understanding of morality. I have already explained elsewhere in my response that I am not saying that a species must have its own concept of morality, I am saying that a human understanding of morality can be applied to its actions under “autonomy of choice”.
As per above, I have made the distinction between a species having an understanding of morality, and morality as understood by humans being applied.
The capacity for morality as a concept exists, therefore it must have always existed. The capacity for a concept doesn’t begin from nowhere.
For example, humour - the concept of humour did not begin with humans or other species finding something funny - it must have always existed, and then with the advent of life, life has at some point manifested the ability to demonstrate this concept.
Therefore, morality can be applied by another species, and/or retrospectively to any act of “autonomy of choice”, even if the entity itself doesn’t have an understanding of the concept at that time.
Needs can be needs as an adverb, but it can also be needs as a plural of needs. When I have referenced “needs” it has been in the plural, such as:
Note how I switch to the singular when I say “need/want/desire” to elaborate on my point.
I have used “needs” as an adverb also, but in specific contexts - such as when I said that pain is a signal that something needs to be fixed or stopped, in which case the body is indicating something that it considers necessary for its survival.
Yes, I didn’t use the word omnibenevolent. That was a word you chose. I used the word omnipotent.
I was not and I am not going to detract from the discussion as is, to address the quality of omnibenevolence. Given your prior complaints over necessary qualities being ascribed to hypothetical and/or fictional beings, broadening the discussion to include the question of whether omnibenevolence is a necessary quality or not sounds like a minefield to me, and doesn’t seem necessary to the discussion, unless you’re saying that your points are contingent on such an entity being specifically acknowledged as omnibenevolent?
And as for:
You’re begging the question by stating that suffering like pain is being caused by an entity and that it is unecessary.
Also “it could do literally anything” - no, omnipotence is restricted to logical possibilities. Or to further explain, omnipotence means that nothing should be impossible specifically due to a limit of power/authority. If something can be accomplished by having sufficient power, then it is possible.
No. That is not sufficient.
I have the power to make something that doesn’t experience suffering - doesn’t take omnipotence. I pick up a lump of clay, shape it into something, chuck it in a kiln, and hey presto, I’ve made something that doesn’t experience suffering.
But what is the purpose of the thing I’ve made?
If I was omnipotent, I could literally form the clay out of absolutely nothing - creating the very atoms, etc., and the end result is the same - a clay based item that does not experience suffering.
However, this is an inanimate object. What purpose does it serve?
The universe exists, life exists, humans exist. There is suffering, there is pain - this is part of nature.
It is not sufficient to say that an omnipotent entity could create something without suffering - our hypothetical clay-based item is sitting there indifferent and not suffering and without purpose. We exist, and suffering exists, so the question is “what is the purpose for existence?”
In the hypothetical situation that our existence is the act of an omnipotent creator being, there must needs be a purpose (that’s the necessity adverb version) if our existence is an act of will (autonomy of choice). We do not have knowledge of that purpose, therefore it cannot be claimed that this unknown purpose could be achieved without the inclusion of pain/suffering - that risks violating the “logically possible” necessity.
No, I was not. As I said, it was clear. The distinction is not arbitrary.
“In everyday language, saying “humans and animals” is shorthand for “humans and non-human animals.””
the phrasing is culturally ubiquitous and linguistically functional. in appropriate contexts, it is not misleading.
You risk being seen as pedantic to keep pushing this point. I have made my position clear that I was distinguishing other animals from humans, and that it was already self-evident.
And? It still references scientists and philosophers.
I already provided the citation. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the article titled “Animal Social Cognition”, section 5.6.
Care to provide a source to support this claim?
Acceptable behaviour is not necessarily morality. People teach dogs to offer their paw, to roll over, play dead, etc. - there’s no moral basis for these lessons. People teach dogs not to bark at other dogs passing by, etc. - the dog isn’t learning morality, it’s learning what the pack leader (the human owner) wants/doesn’t want it to do.
We don’t consider employement morality, yet we are given duties to carry out, and instructions on what to do/not do.
We’re dealing in hypotheticals. The consideration is to avoid having to first address the question of a hypothetical deity, etc. The hypothetical works both ways. You’ve acknowledged the OP is a hypothetical, I’ve stated numerous times that from the outset, I was dealing with a hypothetical, and on that particular quote, I was dealing with a hypothetical in the reverse, instead of a hypothetical deity, a hypothetical existence without a deity.
It sounds like you keep trying to push for a discussion on the existence of a deity, and I keep pushing back saying the discussion is about morality, and the existence or non-existence of a deity is part of the hypothetical to enable the focus on morality without needing to first debate the deity.
This is an equivocation fallacy. You can’t take the words describing a study, and then say “oh, the description said behaviour” then look up the dictionary term for morality and say, “the definition for morality also says behaviour” and declare a link.
All cats are animals.
All elephants are animals.
Cats are not elephants.
proto-moral behaviours or normative sensitivities are not morality as understood by humans.
Yes you did…
Though this is not the limit of the poor reasoning here of course, since we have objective empirical evidence that animals (other than humans animals) have morality, but we have no objective evidence a deity exists, or is even possible.
You made the bare claim, hence my point it was a) not purely a hypothetical, and b) was entirely unevidenced.
Necessary to what? I don’t think the word necessary means what you think it does.
I remain dubious, but by all means present a syllogism to represent this logical argument, lets say you argue that unicorns must be white, give it a go, and this time without using a begging the question fallacy.
It does matter, and the point you’re missing is that I never used it, and you assigned it to me.
So not proof then, now do you have any objective evidence for any deity, or that a deity is even possible?
That’s a lie. scroll back and read my original response, it was not a bare assertion, I just find it pointless to repeat explanations that meet bare denials.
Nope, they have imaginary arbitrarily defined qualities. Do you really not understand the difference? This explains your trouble understanding what the word objective means.
You’re missing the point, is it deliberate?
I have no problem with anyone using brevity when quoting, as long as they don’t clip quotes in such a way as to lose context or misrepresent.
I already did, your claims were not purely hypothetical. You believe a deity exists for a start, that’s a rather large clue.
If they are assigned arbitrarily, as part of an argument, then this is begging the question, and you have failed to address all questions of why anyone should consider a deity exists, or can exist, pointedly so.
That is precisely the dishonesty I am speaking of. Are you saying the deity you believe exists is not perfectly moral, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent? You see the OP was honest, they are an atheist, and the concept discussed was the biblical deity.
Are you discussing that deity? If so are you saying it only exists in the imagination as an hypothetical?
Except we are not, since atheism is not a claim, or a belief. Whereas theism is both.
How can a question be a false dichotomy, I presented no argument? Nor did I offer two mutually exclusive choices?
No, it can obviously only be imagined to be that. It’s bizarre you don’t see this error.
No, they are margined qualities.
It’s imaginary, altering the characteristics of an imaginary concept has no objective value.
Of course it does, unless you’re saying the deity you assigned those attributes to exists only in the imagination. Is that what you’re saying?
Obviously, hence my pointing out that “you have presented no facts”. How can one examine what has not been presented?
That is not a fact, it’s not even an original thought.
I invite anyone who still cares, to go back and read your original claim.
Indeed, because you made a claim that data exists that is exclusive to a deity, and then asserted we must “examine all the data”. That you see no problem in your reasoning there, is ironic, as is presenting an unfalsifiable claim, that is no more than a deepity.
It is of course relevant if the theist claims to be arguing for a hypothetical deity, and refuses to answer when asked if this concept of deity they are arguing for exists only in the imagination?
Dishonestly, but hey ho, you misrepresented what I’d said, again if anyone still cares they can read it for themselves.
Nope, you’ve focused in one one small part and missed the point again.
Then the question is meaningless on it’s own.
That was not your original claim, you asserted that free will comes from morality. When it is the other way around, one cannot weigh choices if one does not have them.
Exactly, the perception of choice must be present before morality has any meaning, yet animals that have some or appear to have some autonomy don’t appear to exhibit morality, this trait seems only to have evolved in animals that have evolved to live in societal groups.
Either way, as a natural phenomenon it neither needs nor evidences a deity.
As I explained this is a philosophical publication, it’s in the title, and the claim that it was “universally accepted” that other animals are not moral is risible nonsense.
No it’s not, and I linked empirical research that contradicts this, you seem to think repeating this hubristic nonsense lends it come gravitas, who knows why.
Thanks, but I understand how the razor is applied, and it applied in that instance.
My imaginary mermaid says your wrong. check mate then…
So what?
It’s mot a preference it is a more accurate observation, can you will yourself to fly, be taller, or shorter. As I said free will is something of a misnomer.
You were never making a purely hypothetical point, and of course this indicates why the hypotheca is liekly violating Occam’s razor.
Our morals come from a magic unicorn, is a hypothetical. Except the origins of morality is explained by evolution, and this is objectively evidenced, whereas magic unicorns are not, I am not sure I can make the point any more clearly.
My understanding of morality, and the OED’s that I quoted, and the empirical research I linked, demonstrate that other animals have morality. All you have offered is a bare claim, followed by a quote from a single philosophical tome.
WTAF are you talking about? Needs and necessity are synonymous.
I thought you were addressing the thread OP, when did that change? Never mind, are you saying the deity of the bible is not omnibenevolent? I’d agree of course, as a hypothetical, it is barbarically cruel and sadistic, amoral if not utterly immoral. Though it is claimed to be so of course.
Fine then, if you’re claiming the deity depicted in the bible is an omnipotent but barbarically cruel immoral monster, I guess we have something we can agree on.
I made neither claim, do you not know what imagine means?
Ah, omnipotence lite, never stops being funny. I have seen apologists on here argue again and again that their deity “Transends logic”, take it up with them, I am an atheist.
It is for me, if you want to delve into sophistry and semantics crack on, but I already don’t believe such a deity exists, so you’re pushing an open door, and this would be rather futile, like arguing about whether mermaids lay eggs.
Straw man.
a) it’s your story, b) you will need to demonstrate that life has some overarching purpose, a bare claim won’t do it.
Sigh, again anyone who still cares can go back and decide for themselves I guess.
There is objective empirical evidence that animals exhibit morality.
Great, except you quoted none that supported that quote, but if you’d skip to evidencing the claim it makes, that it’s claim was “universally accepted”, and by whom? Only I cited empirical scientific research that contradicted the claim, so it’s not universally accepted among scientists, and you have cited how many scientists, oh let me see…none…so o the one side we have zero, and the other universal acceptance, hmmm…
Your quoted a claim from a book, and are offering the book as a citation for the claim it makes? 
You’ll be quoting the bible next…
I did so in the post you are responding to?
The ability to differentiate between what is acceptable and what is not, is the ability to exhibit moral behaviour.
I am , you’re not, clearly.
No it’s a scientific study, empirical evidence, and a dictionary definition of morality. I mean it’s not the bare hubristic claim that allegedly comes form a single book, that you offered, but hey ho.
Yeah who to believe, science, and the Oxford English Dictionary, or some Billy no name in a chat room, it’s a puzzler alright, I shall sleep on it.
I don’t think any atheist has ever claimed that God would be scared of them.
What I have heard is from Christians, which is usually something along the lines of “God loves you! He wants to save/guide you!”
But seriously, what atheists have you met that claimed God should fear them?
That’s not two choices.
It’s a question of “if X, do you consider Y?”
I was contextualising the question because as has been pointed out, we’re currently in a hypothetical discussion about morality and a deity, so by saying, “if we were to consider a godless existence”, I am signalling that we are stepping out of the deity hypothetical to consider a question in the non-deity hypothetical - otherwise, it may have been interpreted that I was asking if animals have morality in the deity hypothetical.
The hypothetical is the deity part - a hypothetical deity existing. On that basis, it doesn’t need to be evidenced that a deity exists as it is being considered hypothetically. Any claims made remain in the context of that hypothetical, unless a claim was specifically made to the existence of the deity, which I have not done. (i.e. X entity exists)
as for the argument about such a hypothetical entity being the pinnacle of morality, if we accept that the hypothetical entity has the qualities of being omnipotent and the creator of all existence, then all things in existence - including concepts, potentials, etc. must be as a result or creation of that entity.
In the hypothetical of a creator entity, reality is a product of the entity. “before” creation, there is only the entity. Nothing more, and nothing distinctly independent of that entity. So if morality exists as a necessary feature of reality, that just fits in accordance with morality being a necessary feature of the entity.
So in that case, morality must exist as a result of that entity, and be a capacity in humans as part of creation. As reality itself is defined by the entity, there cannot be a concept independent of that definition. The standards must be viewed in the context of reality.
accordingly, morality for such a hypothetical entity must be objective - the entity being the entirety of existence from the outset makes it objective.
(Objective here means a fact of reality, which as established, is defined entirely by the nature of the entity. The concept of “good” is also defined by reality, and is the nature of the entity by definition)
Any emergence of morality within the creations of that entity are viewed relative to that original, objective morality, and as the original objective morality, it must be the pinnacle.
(Pinnacle meaning perfect, not improvable, the highest, strictest standard.)
This avoids arbitrariness: “good” is the nature of the entity, which is eternal and therefore unchanging. The entity cannot will something to be good that was not good prior to that will. There is no independent standard, but there is constancy — it is unchanging. There is no independence from reality, but before creation, the entity exists eternally as the entirety of reality.
necessary qualities are qualities that an entity must have, in accordance with the definition or function of that entity.
I would say there are key qualities (definitional) and non-key (functional) qualities.
For example, a unicorn has the key qualities of being a horse-like animal, and a single horn on its head. Remove or change either of these key qualities and it no longer meets the definition.
In another example, animals capable of sustained flight require wings (non-key, functionally necessary quality). In hypothetical contexts, one could debate whether sustained flight could emerge without wings, such as the fictional case with superman.
1 All agents who act do so with motives.
2 A hypothetical deity is considered an agent who acts (e.g., creates).
3 Therefore, the hypothetical deity acts with motives.
But let’s consider your opposition to this argument - if you wish to dispute that the hypothetical entity has motive for their actions, consider the rammifications of this: without motive - if the actions of the entity are without motive/intent, then the entity also cannot be held morally accountable.
If you consider again the hypothetical godless universe - the nature of the universe is motiveless and without intent - by swapping a hypothetical deity for a hypothetical unthinking, non-motived universe, the universe cannot be judged on morality because it just is - any actions caused by the universe cannot be judged. A rock falls on someone, the rock did not act intentionally or with motive, therefore it cannot be immoral.
So this is the dichotomy (not a false one) - either a hypothetical entity has motives for their actions - in which case they are subject to morality, but also it means that a judgement of morality risks not being fair if it is missing data (the motive of the entity); or the entity has no motives/intent, in which case they are not subject to morality in the first place.
We’re back to the “this is a hypothetical entity” part of the discussion.
I’ve explained my position. I’ve supported it with evidence. Your bare denials are just arguments from repetition without any support.
You’re failing to explain yourself, is it deliberate?
My belief has not factored into this discussion. This is a genetic fallacy. If you have an issue with my claims, they will stand or fall on their own logical merit, regardless of my personal beliefs.
Again, hypothetical entity. I won’t keep responding to your points about this.
My theological belief hasn’t factored into this discussion. I am presenting an objective, logical argument that I expect to be judged on the merits of the argument, not on my own belief or stance. Whether or not either of us is atheist or theist shouldn’t have any bearing on the arguments.
I have made my position clear from the outset. I have repeatedly referred to a hypothetical omnipotent creator entity. Nothing more specific than that.
As per the quote, your question is preceded by a claim “No it isn’t, it is an imaginary concept”
The false dichotomy is your claim that either entities exist and have necessary qualities, or they don’t exist and don’t have necessary qualities.
My argument is that entities can be fictional and have necessary qualities. The unicorn example is proof of this. You haven’t provided any evidence for your counter-argument, just repeated bare assertions.
You can’t, that’s the point. If you can’t examine what hasn’t been presented, you can’t make a fair judgement because you’re missing data - which again is the point.
You keep clipping words from what I wrote. That “No, it wasn’t.” was followed by a further explanation that you have ignored.
If you don’t address the point that follows, I’m not going to keep scrolling back up to see how I already answered your point so I can repeat it again.
the ‘we must “examine all the data”.’ is in relation to passing judgement on said deity.
The question of whether “this concept of deity they are arguing for exists only in the imagination” is begging the question and irrelevant - we’re dealing with a hypothetical entity. Therefore the theistic/atheistic position of any participant is irrelevant.
I am not arguing for a hypothetical deity - the deity is hypothetical so no argument is being made for them. I am arguing in relation to morality and a hypothetical deity. I have not made any claims regarding the real-world existence of any such entity.
yet again, another bare denial, absent of the point you claim I missed.
I asserted they were tied together. Initially I stated if you lose morality/immorality, you lose free will, and I later elaborated on them being symbiotic, that if you lose one, you lose the other.
At no point did I assert that free will comes from morality. You claimed that I was assigning a one-way direction, and I clarified it was neither one way or another - it was symbiotic.
Again, I haven’t made any argument as to it evidencing a deity, not sure why you keep trying to make this point?
Another genetic fallacy - if you have evidence to support your counter-claim, provide the evidence. Attacking the source for being philosophical doesn’t make logical sense. Why would it being philosophical discredit it in any way?
Which research did you link? I haven’t seen any links aside from a google link for the definition of needs.
Good for you?
So my use of it is reasoned. Your challenge of its use doesn’t make sense.
That would be a misrepresentation of the definition of free will.
So you keep saying. Argument from repetition.
I am not seeking to justify the existence of a deity. I am discussing morality in the context of a hypothetical entity existing. Occams razor does not apply because we’re not discussing the most likely origin of morality in order to justify the existence of a deity, we are discussing from a hypothetical position of the entity existing, and how morality relates to that entity.
In accordance with the hypothetical, morality would have originated from the entity as per the “creator” quality of the hypothetical omnipotent creator entity.
As to any argument you may have outside this discussion in relation to the source of morality in the real world, that is irrelevant. If a creator entity exists, everything comes from that entity. If a creator entity doesn’t exist, everything has a natural, non-created origin.
Again, I haven’t seen the link you mention, just a link to the google sourced definition of needs.
“Needs” is also the plural of need.
From the outset, I stated my position/hypothetical as:
You are engaging in a strawman fallacy (among others) by trying to put words in my mouth. I have simply declined to use the word omnibenevolent in my arguments. My choice to not use that word in my arguments does not create a false dichotomy where the only alternative is that I am denying this quality or ascribing the traits you mentioned.
I am choosing to focus on the points I have made and responding to the relevant points you have made.
You claimed it was logically absurd, the word “imagine” in this context is presenting a hypothetical.
I’m not arguing for any religious deity, as stated multiple times. I’m discussing omnipotence as it is commonly defined in philosophy: the ability to do all logically possible things.
If you have a different definition of omnipotence you’d like to use, feel free to propose it.
On what basis?
I’m not claiming life has some overarching purpose. I am claiming that if a hypothetical creator entity made life, they did so for a purpose.
Again, not seen the link.
You seem to be misunderstanding how citations work.
" Citing a source means referencing a work to support a claim" - this is what I did. I cited a reputable academic source that supports the claim I made.
Dismissing the source I cited again. Misrepresenting the argument in doing so. And you call me dishonest?
C’mon guys…this is my third lot of popcorn!!!
Only one of those is hypothetical, and you believe a deity exists, so neither of them is hypothetical to you.
Again not a hypothetical, as we have that existence, without any objective evidence any deity exists or is even possible.
Again then, there is objective empirical evidence that animals exhibit moral behaviour. No deity is needed or evidenced for this. Adding an unevidenced deities to complicate an explanation we already have from evolution, obviously violated Occam’s razor.
Except the hypothetical deity is uneccessary, it adds no explanatory powers, and is unevidenced. Slaaaaaash, Occam’s razor…it fails even as a hypothetical
I don’t accept that, it is unevidenced conjecture, and produces a raft of logical contradictions.
Even a hypothetical has to be logically consistent. Well, for me to accept it anyway. Otherscan believe the moon is made of cheese if it makes them happy.
I dont think must means what you think it does, but if you make a raft of unevidenced assumptions, then I guess one more doesn’t make the conculsion any less compelling, since it was discarded at the first one.
I think you need to look up the word reality. I’m pretty sure it’s not a hypothetical.
I didn’t ask what the word means, i asked “necessary to what”
Making up charater traits is not a necessary condition.
I can insist we define mermaids so that they smell of the sea, this doesnt make that trait necessary.
A unicorn has no qualities, since they don’t exist. An imaginary deity doesn’t affect objective reality, including the subjective morality of humans.
Superman punishes the wicked. It’s in his description, now what does that mean, nothing in any real or objective sense.
Imagining something as an agency or an entity that acts is meaningless in any objective or real sense.
If you think that’s a sound sylogism, then this explains a great deal.
Please objectively evidence a hypothetical agent acting, ever, whether motivated or not.
Lets try this and see if it sinks in.
I’ve imagined a hypotgetical agency that doesn’t act and is devoid of morals.
What do I win?
Of course, as you are attributing agency and a raft of characteristics to an imaginary hypothetical, as if this means something in reality.
The claims are unevidenced, and in some cases fallacious.
Arbitrarily viewed, like two comic book fans arguing who would win a fight between Superman and Batman, but this tells me nothing about morality and mothing about reality.
Except you assigned good to this deity arbitrarily, and good is a subjective concept, and the deity is make believe, or hypothetical if you prefer.
You mean like a unicorn must have 4 legs, because that is the way humans have always imagined them? Again then, as this point seems to escape you, since this is a hypothetical deity you’re imagining, we can imagine it anyway way we want, like the Aztec deity of gluttony for example, so it is meaningless to talk of necessity, when we are arbitrarily assigning characteristics to something we imagine. I can easily imagine a deity that has no morals in any sense I understand them, a deity for example, that would torture a new born baby to death, or cause a global genocide, or endorse slavery, of course I don’t have to tax my imagination too hard, as the bible depicts one ready to go…
Not if we imagine them, Superman has no wings. We can simply invoke magic, as I have seen many religious apologists do.
It can’t anyway, as it is imaginary, and FWIW any deity that possessed omniscience would know exactly what it was going to do beforehand, it would lose all autonomy, and would therefore be amoral, but there is no evidence any such deity, or indeed any deity exists, or is possible, or that omniscience is possible.
That’s not how hypotheticals work. Just because someone happens to believe or know a particular thing doesn’t mean they are unable to engage in a hypothetical discussion where a position is taken either for or against that thing.
Again, still not how hypotheticals work.
See, now that you’ve rejected the hypothetical and made a claim, you have the burden of proof. You can’t prove that we have that existence.
The default position is uncertainty - not proven for or against - unknown. Any claim made is a detraction from that default. When I made it a hypothetical, it was to address something without needing to prove a pre-requisite either way.
If you’re going to make a claim and not accept the hypothetical, then you’re doing what you accused me of, and what I hadn’t done - I have consistently stayed within the hypotheticals I raised, but as you haven’t - please provide proof for your claim.
Moral behaviours are not the same as morality. Having behaviours that have an evolutionary advantage that are acted out instinctively or socially is very different from having an understanding of such actions being reflected on as right or wrong.
You seem to be misunderstanding how hypotheticals work - stop asking for evidence for a hypothetical. And you already claimed you understood what Occam’s razor is yet you keep trying to use it as a weapon. Occam’s razor doesn’t determine the truth, it’s a heuristic. A “violation” doesn’t prove anything.
Except the hypothetical deity is uneccessary, it adds no explanatory powers, and is unevidenced. Slaaaaaash, Occam’s razor…it fails even as a hypothetical
Further proof that you’re not understanding how hypotheticals work.
Then why are you arguing in this thread? The very argument in this thread - essentially a form of the problem of evil, are contingent on a hypothetical omnipotent creator being.
If you remove the creator aspect, then any judgement of morality is misplaced - why should an entity that just happens to exist be judged for something it had no hand in creating?
If you remove the omnipotent aspect, then how can you assign the being any responsibility?
Your position here is illogical. You’ve already stated in a previous comment that you accepted the hypothetical of the original post, and now you’re rejecting it, yet still expecting to have a debate about it?
That’s like getting halfway through a chess game and rejecting the rules of the game - if you take this stance, you’re essentially “disqualifying” yourself because you’re choosing not to abide by the hypothetical. Up to you.
The hypothetical is literally that there is an omnipotent creator entity - what is the inconsistency or contradiction in that hypothetical?
Bare assertion - you haven’t evidenced why you are rejecting the points I made. Just dismissing them out of hand doesn’t support your position.
And why would I need to look up the word reality? When did I say reality is a hypothetical? What would that even mean?
You said you didn’t think the word necessary means what I think it does, so yes you were essentially questioning its meaning, and my response explaining the meaning was justified.
Correct. It wouldn’t be a necessary trait. Because it’s something you would have made up, as opposed to something that is part of the established mermaid mythos and specifically something core to the mythos. That’s the difference.
Except they do exist, as fictional entities. You can ask someone what a unicorn is, and they can tell you. That requires existence.
You can read a comic or watch a film and see who superman is. Fiction means the entity doesn’t exist in the real world as an actual living entity, but it doesn’t mean they don’t exist in any form. Unicorns exist in the form of a mythical creature. Superman exists as a trademarked character to DC comics featured in a variety of media. That is a form of existence, and in that existence they have necessary qualities that define what they are.
Look up “Alexius Meinong’s Theory of Objects” - it’s a complex resource, but it addresses the point.
In short though, I think you would have difficulty supporting the argument that a unicorn doesn’t necessarily have one horn, simply because no unicorns don’t exist in the real world.
Not just because if you deny a unicorn has a horn because it doesn’t exist, that would make it a horse, in which case it does exist.
It means a lot to the people who partake in media involving Superman - that is a real world value from a cultural fictional icon. If someone wanted a hypothetical debate about whether Superman would fight the Hulk, because Superman punishes the wicked, and someone else argues that the Hulk isn’t necessarily wicked, etc. - if you contributed to the discussion by rejecting Superman’s quality of punishing the wicked because Superman doesn’t exist, it wouldn’t be conducive to the discussion, it wouldn’t be “correct” because the existence of either Superman or Hulk was not being raised to begin with (it being a hypothetical debate), and it’s dismissive of the context.
And yes, I do think it’s a sound syllogism. You’re the one who has proven you haven’t read it correctly. Your rebuttal is a non-sequitur - you have attacked a claim that wasn’t made.
Further proof you aren’t understanding how hypotheticals work.
if your imagined hypothetical agency (or entity) doesn’t act, then there are no actions for it to have motives for, and nothing on which to question morality.
It’s a hypothetical - whether or not you think it’s imaginary is not up for discussion because we’re in a hypothetical.
If you’re not going to engage with the discussion because you don’t accept the hypothetical, there’s nothing for me to answer on such points.
Same goes for every subsequent response you have made where you’re just re-stating the same argument about imaginary/hypothetical/make believe/etc.
Now that’s just dishonest. Once again you’ve ignored part of my comment and quoted out of context. Look at the full quote:
So don’t act like you’re raising a counter-point by referencing superman when it’s literally in my comment.
I made a clear distinction between a real-world example (animals capable of sustained flight) and hypothetical contexts (fiction including Superman).
If we consider within the hypothetical, that as the creator of all things, an omnipotent creator entity is eternal and created space-time (which aligns with the scientific view that space-time in the universe had a beginning), and logically existence must be eternal because the alternative is a beginning to existence, and for there to be a beginning to existence, you would have to start with absolute nothingness and you can’t get existence from absolute nothingness, and absolute nothingness itself wouldn’t be possible because the fact of existence means that there must have been a capacity for existence (a potential) which would contradict the absolute nothingness …
so if one considers space-time was created, and outside that creation was/is/will be eternity, “beforehand” would be contingent on a linear eternity.
The problem with a linear-eternity is that if there is a linear eternity prior to the creation of the universe/space-time, then one would never reach the point where the universe was created.
Whether or not a linear eternity can emerge from a timeless eternity is up for debate, but I would argue that the eternity preceding the universe (irrespective of the hypothetical) must be timeless or you have the problem of infinite regress.
However that’s a whole different substantial discussion that detracts somewhat from the question of morality in the hypothetical.
Very different? In what way precisely?
What is right and wrong other than a judgment of benefit vs harm? A moral action is one that minimizes or eliminates harm, vs other options, to another being (or to your future self, which is a special case of “another being”). If a group of turtles sees one of its kind capsized, which means it will eventually die, then that group assisting the turtle in being righted eliminates that harm and also that is a group advantage because any other member of the group may benefit from the behavior at some point (and the rescued turtle may also contribute to the group’s needs).
I don’t see anything different between that and, say, a group of firefighters rescuing someone from the window of a burning building. A rescue turtle can’t reflect as deeply or reflect as fully on what it’s doing as a firefighter, but it is still helping someone for no immediate concrete benefit.
Searching for some je ne sais quoi quality to human empathy and morality is just exceptionalism about humans vs other animals. It’s like saying that a cat isn’t intelligent just because its intelligence is specialized differently … in some ways it’s smarter and more capable than a human, in many ways it’s less smart and capable, but so what? It still has intelligence … just not human intelligence.
It’s the same with morality. Different amplitudes is the way I described it. But I see no reason to see a mother sacrificing its life for the sake of a child as less altruistic because the mother is, say, a chimpanzee or a wolf. In any case, in modern times we are constantly discovering that animals experience, think, feel and even communicate far more than we once gave them credit for.
Or turn it around. Is there any reason that a mother sacrificing her life for her child is more remarkable because the mother happens to be human?
Not unless you are, perhaps, oh I don’t know … influenced by some particular belief about human exceptionalism / specialness that makes us “Animal Plus ™” so to speak.
To clarify, when I say different, it is a matter of degree and/or kind.
The essay “Morals of human and animal: difference of degree or kind?” addresses the key points, citing two dissenting views on the difference between (Human) morality and (animal) moral behaviours/emotions, etc.
Essentially, the arguments in both cases are that human morality is different from behaviours observed in animals, and there is a synthesis of views amongst the dissent, that a number of aspects at least pertaining to moral behaviour and emotions are differences in degree, and at least one aspect (that of behaviour toward an “out-group”) is a difference in kind.
To summarise, the view presented, and the view I am accepting in this discussion, is that from an evolutionary perspective, moral emotions (shame, guilt, etc.) and moral behaviours are present in some (non-human) animals and in the human species.
Morality is different in terms of degree - it is more advanced in terms of degrees, and it also shows aspects, such as behaviour toward out-groups, that are not observed to any degree in non-human animals.
(to clarify if needed: an out-group would be a group or individual(s) from a group of the same species that are not considered members of a particular social group - for humans, this would be a person outside the family group/community group/social group/etc., and for animals, it would be a member of the species outside the social group such as a pack/herd/etc.)
You highlight a key point here - human morality is not different in the sense that it is removed from animal moral behaviours - we still share these moral behaviours and moral emotions, but human morality has advanced beyond this, while still maintaining the more basic elements. We have not discarded them.
Agreed. Intelligence is a matter of scale. Neurological patterns are not unique in humans - we share patterns with primates and other animals, and even with some insects. We have developed certain aspects regarding abstract thought, etc., but there is no reason to promote an exceptionalism view in terms of human intelligence or morality.
No, the behaviours are equivalent, but I would put them on the level of moral behaviours. A parent’s sacrifice for their child is a survival trait and to a measure, instinctive.
But consider a sacrifice made for another purpose - such as one’s values. That is one example of where morality stands apart. Consider Socrates’ refusal to escape even when offered the opportunity, while facing a death sentence for corruption of youths and disrespecting the gods. In this example, he took a moral stance for an abstract principle, not to commit injustice, even in the face of injustice. This highlights how human morality allows for reflection and principles, not just evolutionary or social benefits.
I don’t see human exceptionalism / specialness from a biological/physiological/neurological sense (i.e. nature) as necessary for a theistic position. A spiritual sense, yes - if hypothetically, one considers the theistic view that humans have a soul, this would be a spiritual exception, but I don’t see that impacting on natural traits shared between humans and other animals.
If, for example, (and please pardon the necessary reference to a religious text for this point) one considers the biblical reference to “morality” - it is not a physical change that is described as occurring - mankind isn’t made different from other animals in terms of morality through any natural alteration - it is knowledge alone that is described as distinguishing humans.
I hope that clarifies my position.
Straw man, the existence of a deity is not a hypothetical to you, was my assertion. Since humans have imagined countless deities, varying wildly, of course you can examine hypothetical ones, but I already asked if you believed the deity you are arbitrarily defining is real, and got no answer.
The claim the universe exists is not a hypothetical, the observation that no deity is objectively evidenced, or needed to explain any aspect of that universe that we so far understand, is also not a hypothetical.
“Again not a hypothetical, as we have that existence, without any objective evidence any deity exists or is even possible.”
I already asked you if you could demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, and you admitted you can’t. So the claim is accurate, I can’t say such evidence doesn’t or can’t exist, only that thus far no one can demonstrate any.
I never made any claim for certainty. Nor it is necessary to know a claim is false in order to withhold belief, disbelief is our default position, we start there, and add beliefs, for me that threshold is met when sufficient and sufficiently objective evidence justifies belief. In the absence of any, disbelief is the only position.
The claim is evidenced above, you already admitted you have no objective evidence, (This has been true of every apologists asked, and every apologist I’ve ever read) but do please demonstrate some if you have any? I always keep an open mind.
So you don’t believe the deities you described exist? Perhaps it would be useful if you accurately defined which deity you do believe exists and why.
You want me to prove that the universe exists, and that no objective evidence has been demonstrated for any deity? That’s already been done.
In what sense?
That’s not what the research describes or concludes.
Nothing in that quote asks for evidence, it is statement? I also said not “entirely” a hypothetical, as even prima facie you believe a deity exists, if you don’t explain which deity, define it accurately, then I can’t know how much is hypothetical.
Straw man, I never claimed it did. try addressing what I actually said, and not this straw man.
Hypothetical
adjective
based on or serving as a hypothesis.
noun
a hypothetical proposition or statement.
You were the one who talked of necessary attributes, that you assigned a deity arbitrarily, without clarifying if you believe such a deity is extant. As I have said repeatedly, if you’re saying such a deity exists only in the imagination then fine, otherwise it is not purely hypothetical.
It fails as an hypothesis anyway.
My arguments are dealing with a purely hypothetical concept, obviously, as I am an atheist, so obviously I won’t accept unevidenced arbitrary claims as argument.
I give up, why? Do you imagine I have made such a claim? You do undertand what atheism means right?
Please explain which principle of logic i have violated, and why? Only those are straw men you’ve assigned me, ironically.
I did? I am dubious, but perhaps you could quote where you think I did this.
That is not a complete definition. However Omnipotence as an extant quality can have innate contradictions. As does omniscience, the claim a deity exists with both and has autonomy still more, and the claim it also is omnibenevolent, and created a world with ubiquitous suffering still more. Theodicy has been trying to respond to the contradictions for millennia. Epicurus summed the contradictions up pretty well.
I’ve underlined it for you.
Dismissing unevidenced claims is not a position, it is the rejection of one.
Emboldened for you. You claimed a) to arguing a hypothetical, then b) made an assertion that reality itself is defined by that deity.
I ask again, necessary to what?
Again then necessary must mean something different to you than it does me, as anything I make up need not be necessary. I can decide a mermaid is white horse like creature, with a horn on its head. This does not make those attributes necessary in any real sense.
exist
verb
1.
have objective reality or being.
Nope, it requires imagination, which differs from objective reality.
Missing the point again, is it deliberate?
Did you have anything beyond ad hominem? You seem to think you can hide unevidenced assumptions behind the word hypothetical. Then talk of necessary traits it has, and that it defines reality, and then when challenged ignore those challenges and direct comments directly at me.
When I challenged your understanding of words above, I added explanations, and questions, and you ignored these. The irony is palpable.
That’s exactly the point now if I claim these are “necessary” characteristic for a deity. How much credence would you attach such a claim? The same as i did you unevidenced assumptions I imagine.
You have removed all context from the quote?
Well you’re avoiding answer the point, that’s not the same though.
Nope, it’s a hypothetical, not having wings is a necessary characteristic of Superman, apparently. Sauce for the goose etc…
Hallelujah, you finally see there is a distinction between what we imagine, and what is necessary.
Begging the question fallacy. the rest doesn’t seem to address my point about the innate contradictions in characteristics like omnipotence and omniscience as extant qualities. They also fail as hypotheticals of course.
An arbitrary way would be my guess, using a no true Scotsman fallacy probably.
None the wiser as to how you’re claiming they differ, though it is a bare claim of course, so it clearly stand again objective scientific research. try claiming that it is universally accepted again, that was pretty funny.
Indeed, we evolved problem solving brains yes, that can analyse very compex scenarios. No deity needed or evidenced though, still.
You were doing just that, it’s what both I and Mordant were challenging you to explain.
Anyway, places to see, and people to do, so I’m out for now.
That is just what you would expect in an animal capable of abstract reasoning. The difference is the mental capacity to reason abstractly. It is a further application of morality, but it is still morality and not some “higher”, better or otherwise different morality. Simply the ability to apply it to abstractions (which we assume – wrongly for all I know – that non-humans never contemplate to any degree whatsoever). That does not justify what – unless I misunderstand your intent – you are doing, which is to elevate it to a category error. But your wording is not clear here. Earlier you said, “the behaviors [in non-humans vs humans] are equivalent but I would put them on the level of moral behaviors.” Which seems to be saying what I am, that it is moral behavior regardless of who / what is doing the behaving or at what level of abstraction.
If you meant to say “but I would NOT put them on the level of moral behaviors”, then we are in disagreement – possibly in terms of definitions. To me, any empathy-driven behavior (which requires nothing more than mirror neurons to enable) is moral behavior. Whether the behavior involves a stand on an abstract principle or not is beside the point, and if in fact it is invariably true the this happens only in humans it is of no more significance than that meowing only happens in cats.
For the purposes of this discussion, a hypothetical has been raised and I am discussing within that hypothetical. I am not arbitrarily defining any deity, and my belief has no bearing on the hypothetical discussion. My argument stands or falls on its own. Don’t bring me and my belief into this.
I didn’t say the universe existing was hypothetical, I was specifically stating a godless existence was hypothetical.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and just because what you understand can be understood without a hypothetical deity doesn’t mean that what isn’t understood also doesn’t need a hypothetical deity.
It is circular logic, you’re basically saying, “we don’t need X to explain what we can already explain.”
Think about the discovery of (the need for) quantum physics - prior to that point, someone could just as easily say, "we don’t need quantum physics to explain any aspect of the universe that we so far understand.
Go back far enough and people didn’t know atoms could be split - they thought they were the smallest possible unit.
We can’t know what is needed to explain everything that we don’t know.
A godless universe is not proved just as a created universe isn’t proved. That is why a hypothetical was raised.
Shifting the burden of proof fallacy. You made the claim, you have the burden of proof. The default position is uncertainty.
You did when you said:
That is a claim, “we have that existence”.
Strawman. Stop trying to claim things on my behalf that I haven’t said.
You’re claiming that the research doesn’t describe non-human animals as having behaviours that have an evolutionary advantage that are acted out instinctively?
From the outset, this discussion has been about a hypothetical deity and the question of morality. I clarified the hypothetical in my first comment as:
Your statement is challenging the absence of evidence and the inclusion of unevidenced deities, in the context of a hypothetical about the question of morality in respect of a deity. If “adding an unevidenced deities” complicates a discussion about the morality of a deity, I don’t know how else you expect to discuss it.
I never claimed you claimed it did. I was addressing your claim that Occam’s razor had been violated. My counter-point was on the basis that it doesn’t determine truth and is a heuristic, a violation doesn’t prove anything.
They were not arbitrarily assigned - if you have issue with the attributes, provide a response to them instead of attacking the hypothetical. If you keep misdirecting your arguments, we’re just going round in circles.
It’s like my putting something in a box, and you disagree with that thing, so you challenge the box.
then focus your counter-points on the specific claims you are opposed to, not the hypothetical.
My quote has been clipped again - the full context is as follows:
So I had stated: “if we accept that the hypothetical entity has the qualities of being omnipotent and the creator of all existence” and you signalled a rejection to this hypothetical when you said, “I don’t accept that”
So I naturally queried which part(s) you were not accepting, because you didn’t specify what you disagreed with, in the hypothetical.
My query pointed out how dropping either “omnipotent” and/or “creator” would render the whole discussion impotent.
Sure:
“can have” - do you mean possibly or definitely? If there are “unavoidable” contradictions in any intepretation/definition of omnipotence that render it an impossible quality, please state what they are.
“omniscience” - hasn’t been raised in the discussion, not relevant to the morality question we’ve been discussing for the past several days, not sure why it would be a sticking point now?
“omnibenevolent” - as before, that was your word choice - if you raised the word and now have issues with it, that’s a strange approach?
As for Epicurus, yes, the problem of evil - that’s pretty much the point of this thread and what we have been trying to discuss. The Epicurus problem also needs a hypothetical omnipotent creator entity to fit into the problem. If you deny the hypothetical because of Epicurus, that’s just circular logic.
Underlining the words “unevidenced assumptions” doesn’t somehow magically evidence what you are rejecting.
You could just as well underline “things” and it would be no clearer. State the actual alleged assumptions and the evidence supporting them being unevidenced assumptions, not just the words unevidenced assumptions.
Just because you call something unevidenced doesn’t make it so. I provided evidence. If you disagree with it being evidence, it is on you to challenge it, not just dismiss it being evidence out of hand.
the hypothetical is the omnipotent creator entity. within the context of that hypothetical, reality itself would be defined by the entity.
Are you following this correctly? I ask because you literally said:
“as anything I make up need not be necessary”
and I said:
“It wouldn’t be a necessary trait. Because it’s something you would have made up”
so we both agreed that something that you made up wouldn’t be a necessary trait, but you seem to be claiming “then necessary must mean something different to you than it does me” because we agreed on that specific point?
fictional entities have objective reality as fictional entities. You can ask a reasonable spread of the population who superman is and you will get a reasonable number of responses confirming an understanding of the fictional character. By comparison if you asked the same people who xyzzy is, no one would know. One exists in objective reality as a fictional character, the other does not.
No it doesn’t. If it required imagination then every person answering would come up with their own traits. If you ask people what xyzzy is, and did not accept “I don’t know” as an answer, you would get all manner of descriptions from their imagination. You ask what a unicorn is and you will get common traits from their knowledge of unicorns - a horse-like creature with a single horn on its head. That doesn’t require imagination as they’re not inventing new traits, they’re telling you traits they are familiar with.
Same with Superman. Krypton, man of steel, flight, eye lasers, etc. - I don’t need to imagine these traits, I already know them.
What point are you claiming I’m missing? Is it deliberate that you keep making ambiguous rebuttals like this without explaining yourself?
“2. Well it’s clearly not if it agency that acts and has will, and an argument for a hypothetical can beg the question, as yours did.” - not sure what you’re even trying to say here.
“3. Either is is hypothetical, or it is has agency and can act, you can’t claim both simultaneously.” - I thought you were indicating you understood what hypotheticals were? A hypothetical can entertain something having agency and acting.
That’s the point of hypotheticals. For example, consider the hypothetical if aliens landed today, how would the current world leaders respond?
Aliens existing is an unevidenced assumption behind the word hypothetical - is that not clear?
If someone wants to run a thought experiment on how world leaders would react, they don’t want to fail at the first hurdle because someone keeps complaining that these aliens are unevidenced, or that they can’t have agency and act and also be hypothetical, etc.
I didn’t just make a bare declaration, I explained the reasoning for them. If you want to claim a necessary characteristic, you can do so, but I would reserve the right to challenge you to provide reasoning for that characteristic in the same way I did.
And by all means, push back on the reasoning further if you have reason to - but at least focus on the characteristics and not the overall hypothetical.
The full quote is:
moving on…
You cut my quote again and misrepresented me again. I know it’s a hypothetical, that’s the point I made and you cut it out of the quote to make the same point and now you’ve cut out my objection to this to reinforce the same point again.
No, it’s not between what we imagine and what is necessary, it is between real-world examples and hypothetical contexts including fiction.
It’s not begging the question fallacy - quoting out of context doesn’t even help your incorrect claim here. I stated two possibilities. Either existence (in some form or another) is eternal, or it would have to start from absolute nothingness.
It is a binary option - either there has always been something, or at some point there was absolutely nothing. There’s no third option.
