On whether the idiocy of atheism speaks for itself

[hakutaku]

4 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

There is a massive void between the physical world and one of imagination.

Are you still doing the "pretend to be an atheist caricature" bit?  If you are, you'd probably phrase that differently because you wouldn't want to imply dualism.

4 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

You cannot prove morals objectively exist. That's why I stopped our previous discussion. 

You're right.  There is a sense in which no one can prove morals exist.  Just like there is a sense in which no one can prove there is actually an external world instead of it being all in our heads.

That is an epistemic problem, and no one has a solution.   Not even theists, as evidenced by your failure to address my question earlier:

On 8/18/2021 at 4:55 PM, hakutaku said:

So what is it actually about God that makes "we should do as God says" not an opinion?  You've listed unchanging, infinite, and eternal.  But you haven't crossed the is-ought gap.  Show why those properties imply that we should do as he says.

Now this suggests a bit of a misunderstanding of terms:

4 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

I never thought I'd see an atheist argue in favor of the objective fact-of-matter existance of the metaphysical.

We observe natural processes like gravity.  We describe those processes via physics. 

Metaphysics goes one step farther and says things like

• There is actually an external world out there described by the laws of physics we've derived from observation.

or

• Our mind is the only thing that actually exists, the observations and physics we derive are purely mental processes.

Now there is an objective fact of the matter about what the ultimate metaphysical reality is.  I think most people including atheists would agree.

However we have no epistemic handle on the problem.  We don't know what that reality is, and we have no means to tell what propositions are right and which are wrong.  We might eliminate self-contradictory metaphysics, but we can't prove which of the conflicting systems are right.

That realization is why some readers of Nietzsche interpret "God is dead" as "Metaphysics is dead."  It is the realization that the whole exercise of trying to decide what undergirds the reality we describe by physics hasn't lead to any new knowledge; we've made so little progress the ancient Greeks are still relevant.

When you say "existance of the metaphysical" in this context, it seems to me that you are saying that metaphysics is simply "ideas in general."  This is not true.

[KnightofChrist]

45 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

Are you still doing the "pretend to be an atheist caricature" bit? 

Yes.

45 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

If you are, you'd probably phrase that differently because you wouldn't want to imply dualism.

No. One exist, the other doesn't. 

45 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

You're right.  There is a sense in which no one can prove morals exist.  Just like there is a sense in which no one can prove there is actually an external world instead of it being all in our heads.

Just like? Constructions in the material universe can be measured, observed by empirical science. Opinions of right and wrong cannot. We cannot observe good or evil under a microscope.

45 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

That is an epistemic problem, and no one has a solution.   Not even theists, as evidenced by your failure to address my question earlier:

Are you or are you not able to objectively prove morals exist? This debate isn't about proving morals exist from a theists point of view. But from a atheist point of view. Where is the objective evidence? Who or what are your sources?

45 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

Now this suggests a bit of a misunderstanding of terms:

We observe natural processes like gravity.  We describe those processes via physics. 

Metaphysics goes one step farther and says things like

• There is actually an external world out there described by the laws of physics we've derived from observation.

or

• Our mind is the only thing that actually exists, the observations and physics we derive are purely mental processes.

Now there is an objective fact of the matter about what the ultimate metaphysical reality is.  I think most people including atheists would agree.

However we have no epistemic handle on the problem.  We don't know what that reality is, and we have no means to tell what propositions are right and which are wrong.  We might eliminate self-contradictory metaphysics, but we can't prove which of the conflicting systems are right.

That realization is why some readers of Nietzsche interpret "God is dead" as "Metaphysics is dead."  It is the realization that the whole exercise of trying to decide what undergirds the reality we describe by physics hasn't lead to any new knowledge; we've made so little progress the ancient Greeks are still relevant.

When you say "existance of the metaphysical" in this context, it seems to me that you are saying that metaphysics is simply "ideas in general."  This is not true.

You don't know what reality is, have no means to tell which beliefs of right and wrong are correct, which conflicting systems are right, yet can prove objectively as a matter of fact morals exist. How is this accomplished? If at the end of it all reality is unknowable? 

Edited November 17, 2021 by KnightofChrist

[Anomaly]

Knight,

Tell me what is the objective morality?   How do you know it?  Can you do answer sincerely, as if I’m of average to low intelligence?

[hakutaku]

9 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

This debate isn't about proving morals exist from a theists point of view.

This thread is called "On whether the idiocy of atheism speaks for itself."

If your charge is that atheism is idiotic because it can't prove morals exist, you'd better be prepared to say there is a system where it is actually possible to prove morals exist.  I've just asserted there is no such system and that therefore atheism must not be idiotic on those grounds (at least no more idiotic than any other system).  You've said nothing to address this point.

9 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

yet can prove objectively as a matter of fact morals exist.

You're jumping the gun.  I asserted there was an objective fact.  I did not assert provability.

Edited November 17, 2021 by hakutaku

[hakutaku]

9 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Constructions in the material universe can be measured, observed by empirical science. Opinions of right and wrong cannot.

You can measure opinions e.g. by asking people, but also by scanning brains.

9 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

No. One exist, the other doesn't. 

Ideas don't exist?  Then how did you decide what to type in your response?

If you were really an "atheist," you wouldn't assert ideas don't exist, you would draw the distinctions I already did here:

On 8/20/2021 at 12:00 AM, hakutaku said:

You're conflating the term "objective" (which means that there are facts-of-the-matter that don't depend on opinions) with "corresponding to external reality" which means that your ideas actually map to some real external thing.

[KnightofChrist]

On 11/17/2021 at 7:53 AM, Anomaly said:

Knight,

Tell me what is the objective morality?   How do you know it?  Can you do answer sincerely, as if I’m of average to low intelligence?

Why are you asking me? I'm waiting on Haku to answer that question. 

[KnightofChrist]

On 11/17/2021 at 8:51 AM, hakutaku said:

You're jumping the gun.  I asserted there was an objective fact.  I did not assert provability.

You can assert a fact, yet not assert provability of a fact?

Edited November 22, 2021 by KnightofChrist

[hakutaku]

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

You can assert a fact, yet not assert provability of a fact?

You seem confused.  What was it about my analogy to "external world/mind only" metaphysical divide did you not understand?

There is an objective fact of the matter about whether or not there is an external world.  I don't know for 100% certain what that fact is, we can't prove it one way or the other.  Ultimately, it doesn't matter, because we can't do anything with the information; it wouldn't change our physics at all

Your metaphysical claims about morality are exactly the same.  No one can prove morality has the kind of metaphysical reality you demand, and it wouldn't change our moral-physics even if you could.

 

 

[KnightofChrist]

25 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

You seem confused.  What was it about my analogy to "external world/mind only" metaphysical divide did you not understand?

There is an objective fact of the matter about whether or not there is an external world.  I don't know for 100% certain what that fact is, we can't prove it one way or the other.  Ultimately, it doesn't matter, because we can't do anything with the information; it wouldn't change our physics at all

Your metaphysical claims about morality are exactly the same.  No one can prove morality has the kind of metaphysical reality you demand, and it wouldn't change our moral-physics even if you could.

 

 

As a devil's advocate atheistic position I argued morals as human constructs are subjective, opinions, imagery. As God (and the gods) also would be a subjective human construct, opinions, imagery. Thoughts on morals and gods are subjective depending upon the believer.

You objected, please provide your evidence that morals can be proved objectively. 

[Anomaly]

2 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Why are you asking me? I'm waiting on Haku to answer that question. 

I thought that it was you that claimed object morality is real and is from God and negates atheism as ignorant. 

[KnightofChrist]

On 8/18/2021 at 9:30 AM, KnightofChrist said:

Morals can 'exist' without God, yes, but such morals would be subjective, human constructs, mere opinions, and as make believe as the atheist claims God to be.

 

56 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

I thought that it was you that claimed object morality is real and is from God and negates atheism as ignorant. 

In the first post of the thread the claim is first made that morals exist without God, but provides no evidence, save for briefly mentioning philosophers.

In my first post of the thread I agreed that morals could exist but only as subjective human constructs. 

Still given no evidence that morals exist without God, I was asked questions, I guess it was a mistake to answer. Being that I was still given no evidence, no answers to how morals exist without God, but more questions.

Now many months later, still no evidence that morals objectively exists without God. Haku made the original claim that morals exist without God. He went as far as stating this is a matter of fact that can be objectively proven. 

Where's the evidence?

[Anomaly]

Well that seems like proving a negative.   Maybe I just misunderstand.  What is an example of an objective moral behavior?

[Credo in Deum]

3.5

A. God is a Trinity of Persons; no other universe would have given us a greater testament of Love than one that Has Christs Sacrifice. Within this Sacrifice the totality of Love (God) is demonstrated by the Lover (The Father), the Beloved (The Son), and the Relationship between them (The Holy Spirit).

[Anomaly]

Still no evidence that morality needs God.   All morality is a construct of philosophical reasoning.  There is no objective evidence. 
 

Many, many religions and philosophies have morals without agreement on what a God is.

[KnightofChrist]

3 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Still no evidence that morality needs God.   All morality is a construct of philosophical reasoning.  There is no objective evidence. 
 

Many, many religions and philosophies have morals without agreement on what a God is.

Rather no evidence morals objectively exist without God. Which the op claimed to be able to prove. He did not. He could only argue against Christianity, or theism, rather than defending his position.

 

And morality doesn't need God, without God morals exist as subjective, imaginary, human constructs. 

So, not an actual or objective existance. But as mere opinions.