The answer to that question hasn't been answered satisfactorily. Some have even gone as far as to call life absurd, lacking any meaning or purpose and that any search in that direction is eventually futile. — TheMadFool

Not sure if you are making a different point here or not. But what my understanding of the "Absurdists" ideas, was not that life was absurd. What was absurd was some inherent desire to search for meaning, where there is none. Is there a reason we a pushing the mythical rock back up the hill, just to have it roll back down.

Don't you think the search for purpose evolved in humans? There seems to be nothing about the world that speaks of purpose. It is only humans that look for meaning/purpose. If you agree then it is only right that we make our own purpose. — TheMadFool

I do not see the logic in - only humans look for meaning , therefor it is ONLY humans right that we make our own purpose. I think we are still free to explore meanings that can possible be outside out purpose.

I think it helps to distinguish general meaning from individual meaning. People find the latter - sports, science, philosophy, etc. Finding the former, a general universal meaning for human existence, is the difficult part. — TheMadFool

agree on the general part- I am not sure, need to think some, if one can consider activities "sports...." as meaning. Want to say no - but need to think some on that.

the meaning of life is to be found in the exercise, the enjoyment, the lived-through process, of self-perfection. — gurugeorge

Can't see how that works in general. But i think very close to what Camus would have identified as the Absurd Hero

For many, we find meaning in our theistic beliefs. Camus would call that Philosophic Suicide - but he could be wrong.

As long as those beliefs are not in conflict with fact or reason, there is no reason to discount a belief in a higher entity as a meaning for existence.

my bad, apologize.

https://speakingofresearch.com/2012/09/11/gish-gallop/

This what I was going for in P1.

All humans have an equal basic moral status. They possess the same fundamental rights, and the comparable interests of each person should count the same in calculations that determine social policy. Neither supposed racial differences, nor skin color, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, intelligence, nor any other differences among humans negate their fundamental equal worth and dignity.

Gish gallop

It isn't the border that would be immoral; it is the policy for permissions to cross the border that would be subject to moral judgement. — Bitter Crank

no issue with that. Agree. maybe a touch semantic - but agree.

Secure borders are part of the maintenance required to sustain the national life. Why? Because persons with immoral intent (spies, terrorists, illicit drug wholesalers, criminals fleeing prosecution, etc.) seek to cross borders. We may also block persons at the border who pose a health risk (are infectious with readily communicable and dangerous diseases, like Ebola, tuberculosis, multi-drug resistant STIs, etc.). — Bitter Crank

Agree - lump it into a basket called safety and security - in the main would be a moral reason for a border.

Limiting immigration (or emigration) may be necessary to protect the economy upon which a nation's people depend for their well-being. It may also be necessary to limit immigration of persons who have very limited ability to contribute productively to the economy of a nation (on which its people depend). For instance, persons who do not speak the language of the target nation or are illiterate, lack skills in modern technology, and so on may not be able to contribute to the economy in any significant way. There is a strong likelihood of a significant share becoming dependent on the people of the target nation. The same would apply to the seriously and chronically ill. — Bitter Crank

Not sure I agree with very much of this, and not sure how much of this conventional wisdom based on any kind of fact. To the contrary, I can't of any immigrant group that this was not said about, and in the fullness of time was not look on as an asset to the country. Not sure there is any basis to think the current wave is any different.

if you believe your survey, as a basis of assigning probability, the other 30 percent may be some other adjective, but what they can not be is nice.

So Israel, killing 100 Gazan protesters and maiming 14,000 with butterfly bullets is OK. — tom

not exactly sure how you got that, from this

as above, my support for the morality of any nations border is its purpose and use. If the purpose or use is moral, the border is moral. — Rank Amateur

if you are looking for some semi- scientific based argument for the God as creator, with a bunch of math and probabilities - The fine tuning argument by design works pretty well - See Dr. Hud Hudson's lecture attached.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6qWzxKVBko

It was established and maintained through the will of real people (citizens) who recognized common interests among themselves (the nation). "The people" have the right to establish and maintain national borders, through their sovereign national state. — Bitter Crank

the collective will of a people is no guarantee that the will is moral. That is a separate judgement.

It's a long way from Honduras to Texas. Before she arrived here, she imposed herself and her children upon Guatemala and Mexico. If she just wanted to get away from some local shit hole, she need not have traveled so far. She was aiming higher -- the Good Life in the United States. It is one thing to relieve abject suffering, another thing to fulfill high aspirations — Bitter Crank

That is just changing the hypothetical I proposed without making the moral judgement on the scenario I gave you.

They may arrive on this or that border disheveled, hungry, thirsty, chilled (or overheated), but their travel was not driven by the necessity of escaping persecution. — Bitter Crank

Ok, make it economic. Is it moral, for a people with great opportunities , to draw a line, and use force to prevent other human beings from having the same opportunities ? Does it matter if the latter took those opportunities by force ?

The question I asked was in the realm of science rather than faith: ‘was there a creator of the universe’- that is not a faith question - did I mention religion anywhere in my post? — Devans99

The question in the realm of science is "how was the universe created" - and we all await an answer. The lack of a scientific answer so far, is factual proof of nothing, other than the statement "we don't have a scientific answer for how the universe started"

You addition of a prime mover, is an argument based on reason, not science. And your use of probability analysis to quantify the likelihood of a "creator" is , using the wrong tool for the job.

So, you support open borders for Israel? — tom

as above, my support for the morality of any nations border is its purpose and use. If the purpose or use is moral, the border is moral.

Not sure I understand all the issues on the Israel border to have an opinion based on subtleties. But in some degree of if a border exists to protect its inhabitants from real harm, the purpose becomes self defense, which is a morally acceptable action. This becomes more cloudy if the the people you are defending yourself from - have a moral claim to the land you are protecting.

If I steal your car, can I claim self defense as a morally acceptable reason to stop you from trying to get it back. And can you use any means at all to get it back?

It seems to me you are trying to use a shovel to cut wood. Your tool does not fit the job.

There are 3 ways we can come to believe something to be true, and act accordingly.

Fact, Reason or Faith. Many arguments of this nature's core difference is that someone is arguing something is true from a basis of faith, and someone else is saying it is false from a basis of fact.

Fact is the realm of science, its truth is based on its observations being confirmed by reality. Its truth claims are verifiable, measurable, and conform to an observable reality. It can not make, or deny any truth claims outside this realm.

Reason is truth based on logic, its truth is based on a set of observations or believes that taken together point to a truth that is reasonable. This belief can not be in conflict with an observable fact. It can not make truth statements that are the in the realm of fact, however it can not make, or deny any truth claims based on faith.

Faith is truth outside of fact or reason. It is a truth one chooses to believe. It can not be in conflict either fact or reason. It is the realm of theology.

You are trying to answer a truth claim by reason with the tools of science.

What makes them equal morally? By nature, we establish certain people to be superior to each other via status in material terms, so what causes the moral law to be different? What causes us to be considered equal? — Lone Wolf

Trying to defend that all human being are morally equal is like trying to defend that 2 + 2 = 4. However, that does not mean they are naturally equal, that they are different. Different concept.

Supposing that we do indeed have freedom, what sets our boundaries? If a fellow human sets boundaries, does it count as an encroachment on the other's liberty? — Lone Wolf

Borders are arbitrary political lines, in the main acquired by and maintained by power. The issue I am asking is are these political lines moral, and my answer is, it is depended on their purpose and use.

for example:

A Honduran woman, with her 3 children are in real physical danger in their home, that they are innocent of the cause of. She packs up the kids, makes the trek through Mexico, crosses illegally into the US. They are captured and returned to the danger.

Questions are:
Who in the scenario has a higher moral purpose. A woman protecting her children, or a government protecting its border ?

Is there a lesser of evil argument? Could the government defend its action to prevent others to do likewise ?

It seems that on an individual basis, the actions of the government have lesser moral standing - can it be justified as a lesser evil than mass migration ?

Should someone be permitted to move into my house and sleep in my bed? — Hanover

Would it matter how you obtained the bed?

If you walked into some house with 15 of your favorite bikers and threw out the family that lived there, and then built a big fence around it, and made sure there were plenty of tough guys around in case anyone tried to enter. Is the bed morally yours now ?

Thanks - that is the point I was trying to cover with:

This freedom should only be limited by the inherent
conflicts of similar freedoms in others — Rank Amateur

When moral rights are in conflict a judgement needs to be made. To your point:

It seems we have to establish somewhere some set of rules of who gets what, which means we need to start drawing boundaries around things and rules that govern who can cross those boundaries. — Hanover

My point is that the rules themselves may or may not be moral depending on how justly or unjustly they resolve the conflict.

By what method do we "know" the universe was not created by a human (albeit one with, as yet, unrecognised powers), which would not also be applicable to any God? — Pseudonym

by the same logic as above, if there was a human being with the power to create the universe - we would recognize that power. We have known about a lot of human beings, none have had that power - it is reasonable to believe as true that no human being has the ability to create the universe. Further, it is exceedingly less likely to believe as true, and act accordingly that there is or was a human being that created the world.

You logic limits truth into only 3 categories, those that are verifiable facts in time and space, those things that are veritably false in time and space, and everything else that could possibly be true because we have not verified it yet to be false in time and space.

we know that the universe was not created by a human being.
— Metaphysician Undercover

Do we? How? — Pseudonym

In the exact same manner we find it a reasonable belief that unicorns do not exist on earth. Because we would know a unicorn if we saw one and recognize it as such. We have looked in many - many places for a very very long time, and no one has seen a unicorn. Therefor we believe unicorns do not exist and act accordingly.

It is not a fact that unicorns do not exist, but it is an artificial barrier to believe that things, concepts, ideas can only be true if they can be verified by our senses as a matter of physical fact.

We all have an anthropological understanding or explanation of God, because it is the only framework we have, it is the extent of our tools. It is important in these discussions to be aware our tools or intellect may be insufficient to understand God. We need to be equally aware that we don't interpret this cognitive distance as evidence of non existence.

The latter may not have been in conflict with "fact and reason" six thousand years ago. The same may be said of our present beliefs in 6000 years (if humanity manages the energy, resources, population, pollution and global warming crises sufficiently well to survive that long). — Janus

Absolutely possible. In the end it is either God, or a big black hole.

While a devout Roman Catholic — Wikipedia

Just FYI, Lemaître was a priest

I don't believe God caused the Big Bang, but it is certainly possible to believe such a thing, just as it is possible to believe that a god created the world in 6 days about 6,000 years ago. — Bitter Crank

While it is certainly possible to believe both, they are not equivalent beliefs. The former is not in conflict with fact or reason, the later is.

Thanks, will take the general agreement on the free will defense.

The argument on evil due to natural disaster is less direct. It is based on the congnative distance between God and man. You argument above has an implied premise that if there was a compensating good, we would see it, and recognize it as such. That may not be true. There is much good in the world, do we know the cause for all of it?

If you were watching 2 chess masters playing, and one lost a bishop early in the match, you may interpret that as a bad thing, yet it may have been a well planned loss in a strategy.

thanks. The way I defined it was using actions as evidence of beliefs. Something along the lines of:

P1. People generally act in accordance with what they believe to be true

P2. People generally act either theistic or atheistic

P3. People don’t in the short term vary between theism and atheism.

C. If people generally act as either theistic or atheistic, that is in accordance with what they believe to be true.

:grin: Oh no, not the ignostic too?! But I’ve found a comfy spot on the fence to watch the parade! — 0 thru 9

Yea, only marginally tongue in cheek there. I think agnosticism is the most difficult option to defend, if actions are a demonstration of beliefs. Most, all by some social definition act in one way or the other. Largely because the options are dichotomous. The agnostic acts in one way, showing a belief, but wants to hold an intellectual hedge on the other position. Which always sounds reasonable in the God debate, but quite silly in almost any other topic.

You never hear anyone agnostic over Santa or unicorns. Although the primary agnostic argument holds for both.

Maybe there is something in the inherent value of the choice that makes folks want to hold a hedged position

The public, amateur, "God is" argument is, has been, and sadly will be, characterized with a large degree of disrespect from both sides. From zealot evangelists on one side - claiming damnation on the non- believer - to zealots on the other side claiming it takes a feebleness of mind to believe in a fairy tale.

There are fair arguments for "God is" and "God is not" - and as such neither camp as of right now hold a superior position - so both camps deserve respect.

I will save my intolerance for the agnostic !!

Interested to see how this progresses. Ask a similar question awhile back - Can you use the scientific method to prove the scientific method ? You did a much better job of framing it here.

This is a very amateur question, so mea culpa up front, but I can't think of free will having any meaning at all outside of a theodicy ? It pre-supposes some supernatural being that either grants it, or denies it it with some level of predetermination.

So a question - is it the act, or can any act for that matter, without context or intention be judged as moral or immoral, and even after that - there is some range in the continuum from immoral to moral - where there is significant overlap in that judgement.

Example - is shooting some one immoral ?? It depends is the answer. Even after adding context and intent - there will be some reasoned disagreement.

So to the O/P my take is:

If, like me, you believe there is a tacit approval given during consensual sex by both parties to be responsible for the care of children that may result. Then, if you engage in any sexual activity that may result in children, and you are unwilling to accept this responsibility - than the act is immoral.

If, unlike me, you do not believe there is any tacit responsibility for children that may result - than it is not immoral.

And the crux of this, like most moral choices one makes, what does your true self really believe - what does your conscience say.

Instead of acknowledging your lack of education on the difference between belief and knowledge, you reply with "Never mind - whatever you say." - Really? — chatterbears

You appear more concerned with some type of victory, not in some type of truth - I have no interest in continuing such a discussion

Never mind - whatever you say

You're still not making sense. What did you mean by "If God made Himself unequivocally known, Pascal's wager becomes a sure thing". Please expand and explain this more in depth. — chatterbears

I can try - but not sure I can do better than the first time. If God came on TV on every TV in the world and said "I'm God - and now I am going to stop the world spinning on its axis" and it happened/ Than he said all that stuff about heaven if you do as I say, and hell if you don't - well that is all true. Than Pascal's wager becomes bet on God is and act accordingly with 100 % chance of eternal bliss - or bet of God is not - with 100% chance of eternal suffering -

My claim is, "I do not believe a God exists." AKA "I am not convinced that God exists." - If I told you I owned an invisible pet dragon, and you said you don't believe me, does the burden of proof suddenly rest with you? No. The same applies here with Atheism. I don't believe that a God exists, and anyone who does believe a God exists, should provide evidence to support their claim. I don't need to provide evidence for my lack of belief in your God, just as you don't need to provide evidence for your lack of belief in my invisible pet dragon. — chatterbears

seems you need to clarify if you are an atheist as below, or an agnostic as above

People think I am Christian, or a God believer. I am in fact an Atheist. My morality is based on secular principles, so I wouldn't adhere to a God, whether he exists or not. I need the clarification, if a God actually exists, for the people who believe in him. — chatterbears

I might know what you are saying here. But could you expand on it somewhat when you can? Thanks. — 0 thru 9

Sure - I can by faith alone believe something to be true and act accordingly. As an example - I believe Jesus is God. If there is some plain fact, such as 2 + 2 = 4 that says Jesus is not God, and I continue to believe anyway - than my belief is just foolish. If you can convince me that such a thing as God does not exist by reason, and I continue to believe Jesus is God, than that belief is foolish. But absent any conflict of fact or reason I am free to believe that as true and act accordingly.

C. Therefore, casual sex is good. — Michael

I agree with the conclusion - and have no need of the premises !!

I haven't taken any position on the O/P if that was directed at me.

Hmmm, it's not always immoral to deny that organism its future value. I would stipulate that without good reason it's immoral to deny that organism its future value. — Sam26

think i said that

P2 - It is immoral to deny people like us our future of value without cause. — Rank Amateur

Probably should be some qualifier such as "just" or "reasonable" etc in front of cause - went fast - hope that is implied.

I am pro choice, and I have considered that children under two can be executed on the parents’ choice. Some go as high as four.

Is that immoral? — Kamikaze Butter

Singer's argument - which logical includes infanticide - which many - including me choke on. Of course it has a big caveat that that child is not wanted at all by anyone - that no harm to anyone would be caused by the death of the child - seems a very high hurdle in practice

No, I haven't read Don Marquis argument. — Sam26

In a nutshell -

P1 - People like you and me have a future, it includes many things of value, relationships, experiences, etc
P2 - It is immoral to deny people like us our future of value without cause.
P3 - After the process of conception there exists a unique human organism
P4 - This organism is alive
P5 - This human organism has a future of value - much like ours

Conclusion - If it is immoral to deny a future of value, and after conception there is a human organism with a future of value, it is immoral to deny that organism its future of value. Abortion denies that future of value - abortion is immoral.

Ok, sure. That may indeed be. Personally, I would neither say that God is unknowable, nor would I say that God is knowable. Basically, any statement of others or mine that began “God is... ” is at best a provisional theory, at worst an bold assumption. Not necessarily a bad thing though. Leaps of faith are one’s soul’s choice. Leaps or lapses of logic are better not ignored. I would imagine that possibly makes for an even stronger faith, even though it is itself beyond mere rationality. — 0 thru 9

There is an apparent prejudiced in the above that beliefs held by faith to be true, have less value than beliefs held by reason. I am not sure why that is in any way true. The real tension comes when faith is in conflict with fact or reason. It which case it loses all value.