Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

You might say that God brought the universe into existence, but what, exactly, is God, and how, exactly, did God bring it into existence?

Good questions...but not the first question.

Well it's my first question, and I am formally inviting you to answer it, please.

So I'd like to see if we can solve the first question first: and that's a very modest question, namely, whether whatever created the universe was intelligent or not. Once we've settled that, we can -- and should -- ask more questions.

I've just given you my first question, and it isn't that one. But regarding your first question: What do you mean by intelligence? Do you mean something like human intelligence in quality, but in much more quantity?

But all I've said so far is that we can know for certain that there IS a First Cause.

You might have said it, but that doesn't mean it's true.

We know it is. It's one of the only questions we can answer with absolute certainty, because mathematics conclusively proves it.

I don't know that it's true, and I'm not foolish enough to take your word for it, so I'm going to approach it in the same way you approach the multiple universe hypothesis.

To say there are only two alternatives implies you know something that no one else alive knows.

Not at all. I'm not claiming anything for myself here: I'm just pointing out that in the matter of intelligence, there are two kinds of things in the universe: those that have some, and those that do not. Dogs and rocks. Fish and skyscrapers. Quantity surveyors and ice cubes. Take any two things, and they'll fall into one category or the other...unless you can propose a third category I haven't thought of. Go ahead.

There are a number of posters in this forum that fall into a third category, and I find it hard to believe that you are not aware of that.

When you speak of complexity and sophistication, you are speaking in terms of what appears to be complex and sophisticated to a human brain, and in some other context the universe may well be quite simple and crude.

Not really. Complexity is an objective measurement. Something composed of only one element is, by definition, not complex. Something made up of two is more complex. Something made up of billions is very complex. That's all objective.

It isn't objective at all, it is completely relative. What might be a complex equation to me could be very simple to a mathematician. Something made up of billions is relatively complex in relation to something made up of two, but something made up of billions is relatively simple in relation to something made up of gazillions,

And likewise, things that are mostly unrelated are in simple relationship. Things that are in relationships like interconnectedness, interdependence, symbiosis, and so forth are manifestly in more complex relationships.

Yes, and "more" is a relative term.

Fake crisis.

Are you still masking? Social distancing?

I only wore a face mask when it was unavoidable, and the day when I wasn't required to wear one at all could not have come soon enough.
I completely ignored the social distancing instructions, but that wasn't very difficult.

Did you get all seven vaccines?

I had three before I decided I'd done my bit. And the reason for that is more relevant to the actual thread topic than to what caused the universe. It was a sort of test of my sense of social responsibility -and believe me I am not overflowing with that- against my abject terror of hypodermic needles. Honestly, the thought of an injection put me in a cold sweat. The point is; my sense of morality, although only subjective, was still able to motivate me to do something I very much did not want to do. They say that virtue is its own reward, and I agree with that, and would have happily settled for it, but I was also rewarded with having my fear of needles substantially reduced. Now if that was anything to do with God, I still don't believe in him, but I thank him, nevertheless.

I suspect not. And if you did, that would be a massive overreaction.

Maybe it's because my lifestyle is such that the rules and restrictions of the lockdown had very little impact on me that I don't look upon it as a big deal, but even so, I can't help feeling that the people with your attitude were making a big fuss over next to nothing.

As you say, it is unprovable, and may ever remain so,

Then it's not science. It's speculation.

I'll settle for a speculation based on science, but your description is spot on regarding belief in God.

[Immanuel Can]

You might say that God brought the universe into existence, but what, exactly, is God, and how, exactly, did God bring it into existence?

Good questions...but not the first question.

Well it's my first question, and I am formally inviting you to answer it, please.

Happy to. Soon. But until we settle the first issue, we have no way of even cogently posing those questions.

But regarding your first question: What do you mean by intelligence? Do you mean something like human intelligence in quality, but in much more quantity?

I would put it the opposite way: something of such intelligence that human intelligence is, at best, its pale reflection. But we can simplify this: does the universe look accidental, or designed? And part of the data into that answer is going to be the unbelievable level of complexity we observe; for complexity does not come easily by accident.

You might have said it, but that doesn't mean it's true.

We know it is. It's one of the only questions we can answer with absolute certainty, because mathematics conclusively proves it.

I don't know that it's true,

Do the maths, and you will.

Start counting backward from "0" by negative integers. Let me know when you get to the number "infinity." I think you can see what would happen...or rather, what would NEVER happen; if there were no first number, there would be no forward sequence; for it would never get started.

That models causality. Each number is an "effect," and each prior integer a "cause." Unless the chain starts somewhere, with some first number (or First Cause), the sequence has absolutely no possibility of going forward.

To say there are only two alternatives implies you know something that no one else alive knows.

Not at all. I'm not claiming anything for myself here: I'm just pointing out that in the matter of intelligence, there are two kinds of things in the universe: those that have some, and those that do not. Dogs and rocks. Fish and skyscrapers. Quantity surveyors and ice cubes. Take any two things, and they'll fall into one category or the other...unless you can propose a third category I haven't thought of. Go ahead.

There are a number of posters in this forum that fall into a third category, and I find it hard to believe that you are not aware of that.

Alive, but not intelligent, you mean? Ow. Cruel. But yeah, there's a few I'm wondering about...

When you speak of complexity and sophistication, you are speaking in terms of what appears to be complex and sophisticated to a human brain, and in some other context the universe may well be quite simple and crude.

Not really. Complexity is an objective measurement. Something composed of only one element is, by definition, not complex. Something made up of two is more complex. Something made up of billions is very complex. That's all objective.

It isn't objective at all, it is completely relative.

The level of complexity might be relative; the fact of complexity is absolute. Something singular is, by definition, not complex.

Maybe it's because my lifestyle is such that the rules and restrictions of the lockdown had very little impact on me that I don't look upon it as a big deal, but even so, I can't help feeling that the people with your attitude were making a big fuss over next to nothing.

I agree. They were. And we now know that, because all the restrictions are gone. Even their most ardent proponents admit, by their lack of masks, needles and distancing now, that they were wrong.

Yet it was called "the science." It was called that loudly, repeatedly, and in the public press. But it was not "science." We can see now that all it was, was panic, overreaction, and ultimately, futility. But we were sold it as "science."

That should prove to you that being skeptical of people who claim to be following "the science" is not at all the same thing as being skeptical of real science.

[Alexis Jacobi]

There are a number of posters in this forum that fall into a third category, and I find it hard to believe that you are not aware of that.

May he with ears hear …..

[Harbal]

Good questions...but not the first question.

Well it's my first question, and I am formally inviting you to answer it, please.

Happy to. Soon. But until we settle the first issue, we have no way of even cogently posing those questions.

But we all know very well that you will keep whittling away, steering this way and that, pretending to consider this option and then another, and eventually drop us on God's doorstep, so why not just just save us all the bother of that rigmarole? Tell me honestly, are you not completely closed to the possibility of conceding that anything other than God could have brought the universe into existence?

I'm going to try to set an example here by making the concession that it might have been God, but I won't pretend that I think the chances of it are more than microscopic. Now that didn't hurt half as much as I would have expected; in fact, it almost feels like a barely perceptible weight has almost been nearly lifted from me. Now you try it, go on, just say, "well I suppose it could have been something else", even if only to yourself, and even though you won't mean it. If that doesn't feel as good as I feel sure it will, then just go back to your previous intransigence, and you will have gained nothing. How does that sound?

But we can simplify this: does the universe look accidental, or designed?

Well the universe just looks how it looks. I admit that when I see photographs of space, I don't don't tend to think this galaxy would have looked better a few million light years to the left, or who the Hell put that black hole there, but I can't say it actually looks like the result of careful planning. As for the Earth, our world, it's all I've ever known; by what am I supposed to compare it? If our planet seemed to be fulfilling an identifiable purpose, maybe I could judge how well it was achieving it, and thus deduce whether it had been designed for the job, but I see no purpose. I mean, what am I supposed to be looking for?

And part of the data into that answer is going to be the unbelievable level of complexity we observe; for complexity does not come easily by accident.

When we were talking about order, you suggested I blow up a car and then see how much order I could find in what resulted from it. Your point being that explosions only result in order when God blows things up. Well I suggest that you fill a balloon with paint and hurl it at your living room wall as hard as you can, and then take a careful look around the rest of of the room and tell me the pattern you see isn't complex. Did you make that incredibly complex pattern by design, or accident?

I don't know that it's true,

Do the maths, and you will.

Start counting backward from "0" by negative integers. Let me know when you get to the number "infinity." I think you can see what would happen...or rather, what would NEVER happen; if there were no first number, there would be no forward sequence; for it would never get started.

They say the universe is about 14 billion years old, but how long has God existed, and did anything exist before then?

It isn't objective at all, it is completely relative.

The level of complexity might be relative; the fact of complexity is absolute. Something singular is, by definition, not complex.

Complexity is a human concept; a human perception, there is nothing absolute about it.

Maybe it's because my lifestyle is such that the rules and restrictions of the lockdown had very little impact on me that I don't look upon it as a big deal, but even so, I can't help feeling that the people with your attitude were making a big fuss over next to nothing.

I agree. They were. And we now know that, because all the restrictions are gone. Even their most ardent proponents admit, by their lack of masks, needles and distancing now, that they were wrong.

Yet it was called "the science." It was called that loudly, repeatedly, and in the public press. But it was not "science." We can see now that all it was, was panic, overreaction, and ultimately, futility. But we were sold it as "science."

That should prove to you that being skeptical of people who claim to be following "the science" is not at all the same thing as being skeptical of real science.

What exactly are you saying was sold to us as science but wasn't science?

I admit that I couldn't really see the value of the face masks, because -according to science - only special, high grade face masks present a barrier to the virus.

I don't really see how anyone can dispute the sense in distancing, and vaccination is a well established and proven practice.

But regardless of what measures were or were not genuinely useful, the government needed to look as though it was in charge of the situation, and doing what was necessary, even if none of what it did was any use at all. And any government would do that before tell the public that there was nothing much they could do about it. What else would you expect?

[Immanuel Can]

Well it's my first question, and I am formally inviting you to answer it, please.

Happy to. Soon. But until we settle the first issue, we have no way of even cogently posing those questions.

But we all know very well that you will keep whittling away, steering this way and that, pretending to consider this option and then another, and eventually drop us on God's doorstep, so why not just just save us all the bother of that rigmarole?

Well, if we're going to get to God's doorstep, I'd rather the people I'm talking to knew exactly how to get there. It's no good giving them an address they don't know how to find for themselves.

Tell me honestly, are you not completely closed to the possibility of conceding that anything other than God could have brought the universe into existence?

That's like the question, "Are you completely closed to anything other than your father's brother being your uncle?" Who else would it be?

But we can simplify this: does the universe look accidental, or designed?

Well the universe just looks how it looks. I admit that when I see photographs of space, I don't don't tend to think this galaxy would have looked better a few million light years to the left, or who the Hell put that black hole there, but I can't say it actually looks like the result of careful planning. As for the Earth, our world, it's all I've ever known; by what am I supposed to compare it? If our planet seemed to be fulfilling an identifiable purpose, maybe I could judge how well it was achieving it, and thus deduce whether it had been designed for the job, but I see no purpose. I mean, what am I supposed to be looking for?

Good question. I think one thing we should be looking for is complexity. If things are more complex, especially in an interactive way, they're far less likely to be accidental. Another thing is teleology: if we find things that look "purpose built," they're far less likely to be the products of accident. Another would be morality: if there is actually such a thing as moral value, then that's not something that's going to be a product of mere physical accident either. And that's just a start. We should look for sophistication, interdependency, functionality, irreducibility...

But you get the idea. Look for order. We don't get order from accidents. Does this world look like something that has an order, or something that fell out of a shaken tin can?

Your point being that explosions only result in order when God blows things up.

God doesn't "blow things up." God creates. Explosions "blow things up."

I don't know that it's true,

Do the maths, and you will.

Start counting backward from "0" by negative integers. Let me know when you get to the number "infinity." I think you can see what would happen...or rather, what would NEVER happen; if there were no first number, there would be no forward sequence; for it would never get started.

They say the universe is about 14 billion years old, but how long has God existed, and did anything exist before then?

I'm not sure I see the point of the question. It looks like you just ignored the mathematical evidence. Did you consider it?

It isn't objective at all, it is completely relative.

The level of complexity might be relative; the fact of complexity is absolute. Something singular is, by definition, not complex.

Complexity is a human concept; a human perception, there is nothing absolute about it.

No, it's factual, alright. We do perceive it, but what we perceive in that case is really there.

Maybe it's because my lifestyle is such that the rules and restrictions of the lockdown had very little impact on me that I don't look upon it as a big deal, but even so, I can't help feeling that the people with your attitude were making a big fuss over next to nothing.

I agree. They were. And we now know that, because all the restrictions are gone. Even their most ardent proponents admit, by their lack of masks, needles and distancing now, that they were wrong.

Yet it was called "the science." It was called that loudly, repeatedly, and in the public press. But it was not "science." We can see now that all it was, was panic, overreaction, and ultimately, futility. But we were sold it as "science."

That should prove to you that being skeptical of people who claim to be following "the science" is not at all the same thing as being skeptical of real science.

What exactly are you saying was sold to us as science but wasn't science?

The COVID panic. It turned out to be a slightly more unpleasant kind of flu, not a "global pandemic" that would doom millions, as we were told to fear. And you know that right now, because you aren't doing any of their "emergency measures" anymore. Even they have stopped demanding them.

Somebody lied. Or at least, we can say that somebody was very, very wrong, and created a lot more misery than there needed to be by their overreaction. That's perfectly obvious.

And that was sold as "the science."

[Harbal]

Well the universe just looks how it looks. I admit that when I see photographs of space, I don't don't tend to think this galaxy would have looked better a few million light years to the left, or who the Hell put that black hole there, but I can't say it actually looks like the result of careful planning. As for the Earth, our world, it's all I've ever known; by what am I supposed to compare it? If our planet seemed to be fulfilling an identifiable purpose, maybe I could judge how well it was achieving it, and thus deduce whether it had been designed for the job, but I see no purpose. I mean, what am I supposed to be looking for?

Good question. I think one thing we should be looking for is complexity. If things are more complex, especially in an interactive way, they're far less likely to be accidental.

What sort of interactive "complex" things are you thinking of?

Another thing is teleology: if we find things that look "purpose built," they're far less likely to be the products of accident.

Another thing is teleology: if we find things that look "purpose built," they're far less likely to be the products of accident.

Like mountains, you mean? God knew some of us would want to climb them, so he created them for that purpose.

Another would be morality: if there is actually such a thing as moral value, then that's not something that's going to be a product of mere physical accident either.

You know my views on morality, so you must know that I'm not going to go along with that nonsense.

We should look for sophistication, interdependency, functionality, irreducibility...

But you get the idea. Look for order. We don't get order from accidents. Does this world look like something that has an order, or something that fell out of a shaken tin can?

Perhaps you could get back to me when you find something with "Made by God" stamped on it.

They say the universe is about 14 billion years old, but how long has God existed, and did anything exist before then?

I'm not sure I see the point of the question. It looks like you just ignored the mathematical evidence. Did you consider it?

I took your meaning to be that infinite regress doesn't make logical sense, but neither does the idea of first cause, unless you have mathematical evidence to show how there can be a state of affairs without one that preceded it. I asked how long God has existed to try and get some sort of handle on the situation.

How sophisticated and functional would you say God is? More, or less, so than the universe? If you think it feasible for God to exist without a cause, why is it not feasible for the universe to exist without one? Or maybe the singularity that bahman speaks of was the first cause.

Complexity is a human concept; a human perception, there is nothing absolute about it.

No, it's factual, alright. We do perceive it, but what we perceive in that case is really there.

If I perceive something as complex, but you perceive it as simple, is the thing complex, or is it simple?

The COVID panic. It turned out to be a slightly more unpleasant kind of flu, not a "global pandemic" that would doom millions, as we were told to fear. And you know that right now, because you aren't doing any of their "emergency measures" anymore. Even they have stopped demanding them.

Somebody lied. Or at least, we can say that somebody was very, very wrong, and created a lot more misery than there needed to be by their overreaction. That's perfectly obvious.

And that was sold as "the science."

I don't really see it like that.

[bahman]

Two problems: one, we're describing the origins of matter itself; but two, matter does not do that. Hydrogen atoms don't spontaneously "decide" to become fish or human beings. Plasma doesn't spontaneously migrate into beings and become "life." Ecosystems don't spring from mere elements. We have no instances of any such.

So to you, the act of creation was not perfect as God has to intervene to have the final result.

God created the universe as good. Then man fell, and of course, his world with him, since it was a place made for him and under his authority. God intervened to prevent the worst results of that.

The fault's not with God or His Creation, but with man, who had the freedom to fall, and made a bad choice.

Could we put the story of the fall of man aside? I mean there is nothing to discuss if you want to say that God created Heaven and Earth in the first place!

[Alexis Jacobi]

God created the universe as good. Then man fell, and of course, his world with him, since it was a place made for him and under his authority. God intervened to prevent the worst results of that.

The fault's not with God or His Creation, but with man, who had the freedom to fall, and made a bad choice.

Some may not understand the full metaphysical theory of The Fall. It is that the disobedience of that famous Pair is the cause of a universal degeneration in the world (kosmos) itself.

Not only did man fall on an inner plane, but his fall dragged everything down with him. The world is a cruel, mutable, tortured place because of Original Sin. The theory also implies, and prophesies, the literal restoration of the World to that original pristine condition.

So if someone complains “Why did you [God] create this world of woe?” the Christian answers that every negative aspect is your fault, not God’s.

This idea is expressed with metaphysical clarity by Hamlet:

The time is out of joint — O cursèd spite,
That ever I was born to set it right!

[Alexis Jacobi]

I mean, what am I supposed to be looking for?

Charged metaphors that when seen and confronted explode, raining down meaning like a fine, enveloping mist.

Take as an example:

Seagull

Shriek

Cabbage

[Will Bouwman]

...Atheism is actually a dogma, whereas agnosticism is not dogmatic, inherently. Atheism claims to know there's no God, and agnosticism has no firm position on the issue.

What is an atheist without a capital A?

...the message is literally global. And there is one better way for God to share His message, and that is, personally...which the Bible claims He has also done.

I still don't think that's true.

Very good evidence, actually.

Consider Abraham. He lived at a time in which there was no Bible available, and not even the Torah. Yet Torah says he was, par excellence, a man blessed by God, and one who was spoken to by God. But if one had to have the whole Bible in order to be a man blessed by God, how was Abraham blessed by God? And similar things can be said for many other OT figures, as well. So it's far from unusual for God to have specific dealings with specific people.

The evidence you have offered for what it says in a book, is that says so in the book it says it in. Other than characters in the Torah or Bible, do you know any cases of God sharing his message personally with people who have no knowledge of either book? Who without Judaism or Christianity has come to either in a way that suggests a personal message from God?

[Immanuel Can]

...there is nothing to discuss if you want to say that God created Heaven and Earth in the first place!

Well, then, we would be uninterested in discussing the origin of the universe. There is nothing like a real case for some impersonal 'force' creating things; nobody can even explain how that theory would go. What kind of 'force' do we know that is eternal, vastly powerful, and capable of generating irreducible complexity in immensely complex systems? To suppose that, in this one case, something happened that we have never ever seen happen since and cannot reproduce in any form would surely be less than scientific.

So the live option that's left is some sort of intelligence, and that's the hypothesis I would say is worthy of discussion. If we just arbitrarily rule that one out without thought, then we'd be out of options entirely.

[Immanuel Can]

This idea is expressed with metaphysical clarity by Hamlet:

The time is out of joint — O cursèd spite,
That ever I was born to set it right!

That's a somewhat different idea. Hamlet's idea is determinism. He thinks that by nature of his birth as Prince of Denmark, he's been fated to purge the country of its evil, and that he can't get out of that role, no matter what he does. Hence it's an expression of "cursed spite."

[bahman]

...there is nothing to discuss if you want to say that God created Heaven and Earth in the first place!

Well, then, we would be uninterested in discussing the origin of the universe. There is nothing like a real case for some impersonal 'force' creating things; nobody can even explain how that theory would go. What kind of 'force' do we know that is eternal, vastly powerful, and capable of generating irreducible complexity in immensely complex systems? To suppose that, in this one case, something happened that we have never ever seen happen since and cannot reproduce in any form would surely be less than scientific.

So the live option that's left is some sort of intelligence, and that's the hypothesis I would say is worthy of discussion. If we just arbitrarily rule that one out without thought, then we'd be out of options entirely.

There is a huge amount of literature about cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution. Scientists are trying hard to find out what really happened in the past. We cannot simply ignore them. For example from cosmology, we know that Earth is 4.5 billion years whereas the universe is 13.7 billion years. So we know that Earth was not created first.

[Immanuel Can]

...Atheism is actually a dogma, whereas agnosticism is not dogmatic, inherently. Atheism claims to know there's no God, and agnosticism has no firm position on the issue.

What is an atheist without a capital A?

I think there really isn't such a thing. But Atheists often want to deny that they have any dogma at all, so they get all het up over the capital letter. But even they, if they will face facts, should realize that Atheism is a dogma with at least one non-negotiable precept (plus a ton of corollary ones implied, of course), and that one precept is, "No gods." It's an arbitrary refusal to consider any hypothesis that contains reference to a God or gods. And naturally that has huge consequences for what it is possible for them to believe about origins, teleology, morality, meaning and personhood. But they like to think of themselves as a kind of neutral skeptic, and to support that pretext, they prefer the small "a" be used.

...the message is literally global. And there is one better way for God to share His message, and that is, personally...which the Bible claims He has also done.

I still don't think that's true.

Very good evidence, actually.

Consider Abraham. He lived at a time in which there was no Bible available, and not even the Torah. Yet Torah says he was, par excellence, a man blessed by God, and one who was spoken to by God. But if one had to have the whole Bible in order to be a man blessed by God, how was Abraham blessed by God? And similar things can be said for many other OT figures, as well. So it's far from unusual for God to have specific dealings with specific people.

The evidence you have offered for what it says in a book, is that says so in the book it says it in.

Well, if one asks a question about what Christians believe, what would you suppose the right source of an authoritative answer would be?

Other than characters in the Torah or Bible, do you know any cases of God sharing his message personally with people who have no knowledge of either book? Who without Judaism or Christianity has come to either in a way that suggests a personal message from God?

Well, there are reports of such. I don't know how much to credit them, since they are personal experiences that we have no external way to test. But they're not unique, apparently. Either there are quite a number of coordinated frauds, or something of the kind is going on. A recent example would be accounts of visions being given to Muslims. https://lausanneworldpulse.com/perspect ... 95/01-2007 https://news.ag.org/en/article-reposito ... -to-christ https://www.israeltoday.co.il/read/musl ... -darkness/. And this is a balanced Christian perspective on such claims, I would say: https://www.gotquestions.org/Muslims-dr ... Jesus.html.

[Gary Childress]

...Atheism is actually a dogma, whereas agnosticism is not dogmatic, inherently. Atheism claims to know there's no God, and agnosticism has no firm position on the issue.

What is an atheist without a capital A?

I think there really isn't such a thing. But Atheists often want to deny that they have any dogma at all, so they get all het up over the capital letter. But even they, if they will face facts, should realize that Atheism is a dogma with at least one non-negotiable precept (plus a ton of corollary ones implied, of course), and that one precept is, "No gods." It's an arbitrary refusal to consider any hypothesis that contains reference to a God or gods.

Is Theism also "dogmatic"? Do theists "refuse to consider any hypothesis that [lacks a concept of] a God or gods?"