Ok, well first of all you are confusing atheists with cosmologist and theoretical physicists. This plus your use of “you lot” in reference to atheists makes me think you arent being totally honest about being an atheist. What would Jesus say?
Second, your argument relies on 2) very heavily, and I dont think it supports the weight.

2. The existence of something implies an innate potential for something to exist. If there is no innate potential for something to exist, nothing can exist. — Randy333

Something that exists cannot have an “innate” potential to exist, it already exists. A balloon doesnt have the “innate” potential to be a balloon, it IS a balloon.

Debate, or at least discussion (which *gasp* might include someone disagreeing with you) is what this forum is for.

Well come on, you’ve offered no good reasons to believe any if that is true. Do you have evidence, or at least a good argument as to why the universe even has a mind?
Im sorry, but what you have posted is a claim with no support, no argument. Its very close to the description offered in Starwars as a description of the force. You’ve just added a god-prefix, presumably to keep in housed in the familiar framework of religious terminology. What are you even offering for discussion here?

You’ve been watching too much Starwars. Your descriptor is completely unnecessary. Redundant. There is just the universe and the stuff in it. No magic needed.

Its hardly a “wild goose chase”. I referenced the last post I made, if you cannot follow the discussion one post past, I dont know what to tell you. You dont seem to be paying attention to what Im saying...i mean, you responded to a quote of mine and then asked me if that was the quote you didnt respond too. When I brought it up you completely ignored it and acted as though I had an unreasonable expectation in asking you to follow the discussion. Now you want me to quote myself for you, but Im sorry to say that I have no reason to expect you will do any better if I put in that effort.
Hard pass.

Is this the paragraph you demand I respond to? — god must be atheist

Well no, that is the paragraph you DID respond to. Lol
You just quoted the exact same paragraph you already did.

But no, I am not advocating ad hoc moral justification. — god must be atheist

Right, Im didnt suggest you were advocating it. You were the one that made the point about moral axioms “after the morals have been solidified” as “justification for the morals”, and I was saying thats true some of the time but not all of the time. I used the term “ad hoc”, which wasnt the best way to describe what you were saying so Ill take the blame for the confusion on this part.

In my opinion a behaviour is judged moral if it is acceptable to the society, and immoral, if it's not acceptable. Acceptability depends on practical usefulness. From acceptability and inacceptability grow out the principles, and the systems. — god must be atheist

Yes, this is where we disagree....although the wording has changed to “acceptable” to society instead of whats good for society.
Just so we are clear, which do you mean?

I think thats true some of the time, that moral axioms are just ad hoc rationalisations, but thats not true of all moral systems. Having an ad hoc justification is an error in logic, a fallacy. Thats not the only way people come to moral stances or adopt moral systems, and its not the basis for all morality.
Also, why did you only respond to the middle paragraph of my last post? That comes off as bad faith engagement so if there is another reason Id like to hear what it is.

You said this:

No, I don't agree that morality starts with axioms and definitions and categorical truths. Instead, I am convinced that the categorical truths follow the accepted moral behaviour, and that is based strictly on what is positive for society, or else for positive for segments of society. — god must be atheist

I read that as morality is “based strictly” on whats good for society. If thats wrong, please explain what else you mean by that.
Thats what law is for, whats good for the society. In the rest of your post you describe a distinction, which I accept, between law and morality but in your argument you are not making much distinction at all.
In my post that you quoted I offered a number of basis for morality, human suffering and based on doing onto others as you would have them do onto you. I offer another, based on what is good for society. Thats what you are going with, so my that point of mine stands.
So I think where we disagree is what the best basis for morality is. I dont think we should consider whats best for society as morality because there are so many examples of the law being wrong, ignorant and/or batshit crazy. I think when those of us that figured out slavery Is awful and immoral we weren't just changing whats accepted, we were getting it right. (Morally speaking).
You disagree, right?

I think you are conflating law and morality and culture together. Anyway, not much point in continuing if you cannot talk about these explanations you have, we will keep hitting a wall.

Morality doesnt have to be a arbitrary, transforming quagmire. It depends on what its based upon, what axioms you are operating from.
If morality is about human suffering, then slavery is clearly not moral. If morality is about doing unto others as you would have them do to you, then slavery again is wrong. It depends on what morality is based on, then you can operate from that to determine whats moral in a non-arbitrary, transforming way.
So now youre going to shift the burden of “transformability” of morality to those axioms, fair enough. But I dont think those are arbitrary (correct me on using that term if thats not what you meant by “complete transformability”) either, I think we determine the basis for morality the same way we do for everything else. What makes sense as a basis? What is effective as a basis? Those questions have answers that are not arbitrary, at least not in any sense that science or other things we don’t think of as arbitrary wouldnt also be.
So maybe a person doesnt have any basis or axioms for their morality, but I dont think its accurate to call that an arbitrary or completely transformable morality. I would describe that as not having morality, as what is moral/immoral has no meaning anymore. It would just be whatever the person feels like doing whether it makes sense or not. As soon as a person wants to make sense, they have rules to follow, a non-arbitrary basis.

Ok, gotchya.

Then you should pay more attention, a clear question (a few actually) was asked, in simple english. My second analogy was better than my first attempt I thought. Better illustrated the point Im making.

Lol, ok. So an answer to my question?

Nothing wrong with vanilla ice cream.
There is a question in there. Do you have an answer?
Also, Im not arguing for or against free will. We can discuss that if you want but its not what Im getting at.

Are you restricted to a one paragraph reading limit? Respond to the rest of what I said. At least show you understand the analogy. Thats literally the least you could do and have it still be considered a discussion.

Social customs. Societal needs — god must be atheist

Slavery is moral then? It fits both those categories.

You first lol
How about you address the rest of my post? The part you quoted is my claim, what follows is the reasoning for that claim. That reasoning is what you need to address.
My point is, knowledge of what someone is going to choose does not predetermine what they will choose. Its just knowledge of what they will choose.
Ill try another example.
If you come up to me and ask me for a cookie, and I know that you are sincere in your desire for me to give you a cookie, then I know you are going to take the cookie when I take it out of my cookie bag and offer it to you. I know you will take the cookie because you sincerely asked me for the cookie. You’ve still made the choice, i just knew what it was going to be.
The knowledge and the free will are not mutually exclusive, as you claimed.
Now, maybe you do not believe in free will in which case your initial statement makes no sense. Omniscience is mutually exclusive with something you dont think exists? That would be gibberish. (Im just covering the bases, im not saying you dont believe in free will but in case you dont’t...your statement is nonsense).

No they arent. Knowledge of what someone is going to choose to do doesnt effect whether or not they have a choice. If you think they have a choice to start with, someone else knowing what they will choose doesnt magically take that away.
For example, if offered vanilla or chocolate ice cream and I choose chocolate cuz I hate vanilla, thats my exercise of free will (if you believe we actually have it to start with). Foreknowledge doesnt change that, how would it (unless you share your foreknowledge with me and that effects my choice but then thats MY foreknowledge of my choice effecting things.)?

Id bet ya if there was some way to tell...unless YOURE the troll! :brow:

Alcontali

Youre being trolled dude.

.because if there is an all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful being, then the answer to every philosophical question becomes "Because God Says". — Banno

I dont think so, because even if god DID do everything and that the answer to philosophical questions like what is moral or immoral is according to what god says it is, we would still need to determine what that is using the tools we have. Since nobody has a direct line to god, we have to use the tools we do have. Philosophy is one of those tools.
You could make the same objection to a world without god, swapping god for the laws of physics for example.
Scientific discussion is misplaced in philosophy because if the universe follows the laws of physics then the answer to all philosophical questions becomes “because science says so”.
Could do the same thing with clearly philosophical categories, like ethics. Without getting into the weeds of where ethics actually come from: Ethical discussion is misplaced in philosophy because if X is the full description of ethics then the answer to all philosophical questions “X did it”.
In any of those examples, its still worth philosophical discussion because knowing the source of all things (or ethical things, or scientific things) only answers the question of source. There are so many answers and questions on the way to an ultimate source that having a clear answer of that source (“god did it”) alone wouldnt give us much of a framework at all, none Id say.
So I disagree.

Ok, I think I understand you now.

Im not treating them like they are the same thing, Im referencing one to gain information about the other. You dont think a persons past actions should be considered in moral judgements? Hitler is helping at a soup kitchen, you just have to conclude he’s a good person even if you know his history?

Ah, ok. In what way did I make a category error? Which categories?

You said:
“DingoJones This assumes a scalar metric of moral action that accumulates and follows the usual arithmetic rules. Why assume that?“

I didnt make that assumption. You are reframing what Im saying as a “scalar metric of moral action that accumulates and follows the usual arithmetic rules.” and then asking me why I went with a “scalar metric of moral action that accumulates and follows the normal arithmetic rules”. I didnt, you just said I did.
The reason why this is a sticking point for me is because your reframing explicitly imposes a set of rules (“arithmetic rules”) on the expression of my views, but thats just your reframing of it. I didnt assume that framing, you did.
If thats your only query, then I feel like its been answered now. Not much more for me to add so your welcome to the last word.

No problem. :)

...you realise my use of the word “debt” is metaphorical, right?

I dont know what to tell you. I disagree that any structures I used meets the minimum necessary requirements to be considered a mathematical model and therefore subject to any other mathematical parameters. Even you used the word “approximate”, which is hardly sufficient for you to then smuggle in the other mathematical parameters such as a scalar metric.

Thats what I would consider a principal based ethic (“dont do this”), which I addressed in the OP.
Ok, so unintentional consequences...where do we put them on ethical scales here? Thats a good question.
I think intention is a determinate factor in judging right and wrong, in the sense that a certain threshold of due diligence is being met. As long as the person has met that threshold (aren't being totally thoughtless or grossly ignorant of the consequences of their actions) then we dont need to put those unintended consequences on our ethical scale.

Oops, please delete.

Ok, gotchya :up:

I think I disagree with that, but you had mentioned that you would argue that the heat of passion would make it somewhat forgivable if traded for 100 million lives? Id like to hear your argument.

Well, I don’t conflate the law and morality, I think of the two as distinct from each other, so youre really asking a different question from my point of view.

None of what I said was intended to follow mathematical rules. The terms were meant in a broad sense, to illustrate my points.

↪DingoJones If the murder were in the heat of passion, then I would argue that saving 100 million lives somewhat forgives that. If saving 100 million lives is an excuse to kill someone, then that’s not okay. — Noah Te Stroete

Ok, lets hear the argument.

But would his saving of lives be considered in the balance of morality?

Exactly. Thats essentially what Im asking. Why couldnt he? It follows the same rationale. If the ball kicking was ok, why not the murder?

Yes, i agree an accidental act isnt really a moral one (unless someone was so careless it was immoral I suppose), but what if the person saved the lives to get girls? Its still saving 100 million people.

Sure, I get it, an enlightened, non-judging consideration. Im explicitly asking in the context of judging however, so that doesnt answer the OP.