Of course it is. To begin with, no one can demonstrate what this morality consists of and everyone interprets their god's morality differently. In the end, humans cannot avoid morality as an expression of personal preference. — Tom Storm

That wasn't my point.I said if a God created us he or she could know what's best for us like we know how a computer best functions because we created it. I am not saying this god exists or has revealed anything to us.

We have discovered how some of the human body works and that is is how medicine cures us. We can only discover a moral basis if one preexists for us to uncover in my opinion. Like how we uncover how the body functions.
But you didn't respond to the issue of the lack of arbitrariness. The arbitrariness would arise if a god made rules like "you must wear pink on a Fridays" which would seem to have no bearing on anything.
I was responding to this point

even if God exists and has handed down moral guidelines (via divine revelation/inspiration -> scripture, presumably), one could still ask whether these guidelines are right or correct. So even theism doesn't solve this issue, — busycuttingcrap

If you create a serious notion of a creator deity with super intelligence it wouldn't struggle to justify its actions in my opinion. Our problem is we have limited powers to make morality stick.
But with something highly sophisticated we created in its entirety like the computer we are the master of it.
But as I say I am referring to the concepts involved not any currently religiously followed deity.

Besides, Andrew, why must reality as whole "make sense" to us when, in fact, we can make sense of tiny parts of reality, proximately, in order to survive and thrive in our daily lives? — 180 Proof

I think the break down of causality is a serious problem. Humans have survived through varying states of ignorance from having basic knowledge of our environment to the the high levels available now.
I wouldn't celebrate living in a primitive state personally. Our ability to ask questions challenges us. Once we have asked a question we can't unask it for peace of mind unfortunately.

I would question who is thriving. Some people consider themselves to be and other don't. Surviving is temporary until out inevitable death.

Some people don't want to just make do with what the current state of life and knowledge throws at them but do further investigations and their values and explorations lead to completely different and sometimes incompatible opinions and to than other people.

I think there are a lot of unanswered questions that challenge societies current trajectory that science can't resolve and sometimes the answer might be purely subjective such as what are my values and preferences.

Sorry. None of what you've written makes sense to me or addresses the gist of the question of mine you've quoted.

Can one of you explain what this means? I don't believe I fully understand and I'd like to. :smile:

Can one of you explain what this means? I don't believe I fully understand and I'd like to. — David Lee Lemmert II

I am honored to have your first Philosophy Forum post. Welcome.

I was agreeing with a post from @Andrew4Handel.

Atheists appear to be trying to make us just another senseless causal determined mechanism of brute nature in my opinion.
— Andrew4Handel

I think you're right. — T Clark

It's probably best if he responds.

Is God something we know and understand, such that saying "God did X" adds to our understanding of how/why X occurs? Or is it simply kicking the explanatory can down the road? — busycuttingcrap

God is conceived as being that to which all roads lead, and at which all roads end, so unlike other.less absolute, explanations, such as aliens, or computer simulations, it is not "kicking the explanatory can further down the road".Of course if one doesn't accept such a God then it won't be seen as any kind of explanation.

The "Big Bang" hypothesis shares some characteristics with the theistic explanation for the existence of the Cosmos. It may not be that to which all roads lead, but is that in which they terminate, if looking backwards for explanation. It is certainly seen as being where all roads begin, and like God, is not in need of, nor does it lend itself to, further explanation.

It is certainly seen as being where all roads begin, and like God, is not in need of, or lend itself to, further explanation. — Janus

It seems any explanation for a fundamental statement on which everything relies would fail to be complete. If one uses God or the Big Bang or any other hypothesis, it is always possible to ask why that is the case.
"Why does God or the Big Bang exist, why is it fundamental to our ultimate understanding, why does it explain everything?"
It just brings us further down the never-ending rabbit hole. We can continue with our theories, venturing further into the darkness, or admit that we cannot fully understand the universe (because we are part of it?).
As for God being an all-encompassing truth that explains itself, you cannot use the existence of God to prove its existence, causes, or necessity. It just begs the question.

Sure, you can still ask why, but that would be to either fail to understand, or fail to accept, what is offered as an ultimate explanation. The very idea of an ultimate explanation necessarily precludes that it should require, or that it would even be possible, to itself be explained.

Here's the simple story. An underlying assumption, what Collingwood calls "absolute presupposition," of science is that what we call "objective reality" exists. The existence of objective reality is a metaphysical, not a factual question. Many philosophers have cast doubt on whether it is always a useful way of understanding the universe. Certainly some eastern philosophies look at reality from a different perspective and, five years ago, I started a thread to discuss the question:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1560/deathmatch-objective-reality-vs-the-tao

But I don't expect you to take my word for it, or even Lao Tzu's. Instead we'll look at that most western of western philosophers, Immanuel Kant. This from "Critique of Pure Reason."

In order to prevent any misunderstanding, it will be requisite, in the first place, to recapitulate, as clearly as possible, what our opinion is with respect to the fundamental nature of our sensuous cognition in general. We have intended, then, to say that all our intuition is nothing but the representation of phenomena; that the things which we intuite, are not in themselves the same as our representations of them in intuition, nor are their relations in themselves so constituted as they appear to us; and that if we take away the subject, or even only the subjective constitution of our senses in general, then not only the nature and relations of objects in space and time, but even space and time themselves disappear; and that these, as phenomena, cannot exist in themselves, but only in us. What may be the nature of objects considered as things in themselves and without reference to the receptivity of our sensibility is quite unknown to us. We know nothing more than our mode of perceiving them, which is peculiar to us, and which, though not of necessity pertaining to every animated being, is so to the whole human race. With this alone we have to do. Space and time are the pure forms thereof; sensation the matter. The former alone can we cognize a priori , that is, antecedent to all actual perception; and for this reason such cognition is called pure intuition. The latter is that in our cognition which is called cognition a posteriori, that is, empirical intuition. The former appertain absolutely and necessarily to our sensibility, of whatsoever kind our sensations may be; the latter may be of very diversified character. — Kant - Critique of Pure Reason

But I don't even expect you to agree with Kant, only to acknowledge that seeing reality as contingent on human subjectivity is a reasonable philosophical position. I certainly see it that way and I find it very useful.

So, what does that mean if we accept it? To me it means that all of what we call reality is a hybrid between the matter and energy of science and the mind of human beings. To simplify - the universe is half-human. It has a personality, a living quality. What religion can do, and what science never can, is to recognize that. How any particular religion does that is a different question which I don't intend to address.

They say gods are made in mans image. — Andrew4Handel

"Norse gods" aren't depicted looking like "Yoruba gods" or "Aztec gods". "Egypyian gods" aren't depicted as looking like "Roman or Celtic gods". "Aboriginal gods" aren't depicted as looking like "Chinese gods". European "Christ" isn't depicted as looking like Judean "Yeshua" ... Just what you'd reasonably expect of man-made gods. (Read Feuerbach, the Greek Pre-Socratics, Mosaic prohibition on "graven images", etc.)

I think you can defend gods and the esoteric as explaining these types of things ...

Questions are only begged by mysteries not answered. "Godidit" begs the question, "godsaidit" begs the question. Mysteries neither explain nor justify. "Gods" are mysteries, no? Thus, not even their adherents agree on them (e.g. schisms, heretics, heterodoxies, etc). "Faith in god" – self-abnegating worship – often amounts to little more than believing in the unbelievable in order to defend the indefensible; otherwise just superstitious conformity to a cultic tradition.

... purely materialist atoms banging together doesn't explain, like meaning in language, concepts, desires and so on.

False dichotomy & category error fallacies, Andrew. :roll: Besides, Epicureanism (e.g.) "explains" far more about "meaning in language, concepts, desires and so on" than purely im-material "gods and esoterica" (i.e. magical thinking) which conspicuously do not explain anything at all.

Atheists appear to be trying to make us just another senseless causal determined mechanism of brute nature in my opinion.

"Appear" to whom? Which "atheists" are "appearing" so? Clearly, Andrew, you haven't the slightest comprehension of atheism (or, for that matter, that atomists such as Epicurus were not atheists because atomism does not entail the absence of gods.)

Atheists appear to be trying to make us just another senseless causal determined mechanism of brute nature in my opinion.
"Appear" to whom? Which "atheists" are "appearing" so? Clearly, Andrew, you haven't the slightest comprehension of atheism — 180 Proof

I quoted Richard Dawkins earlier:

"Now they swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world, communicating with it by tortuous indirect routes, manipulating it by remote control.

They are in you and in me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence. They have come a long way, those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines."

:up:

Julien Offray de La Mettrie was an atheist Philsopher and Physician in 1749 he Published the book "Man a Machine"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_a_Machine

There is eliminative materialism largely founded and supported by atheists that has gone to the absurd point of denying mental states in order to shore up a mechanistic view of humans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism

Key Proponents The Churchland's had this conversation:

"Paul says, he was home making dinner when Pat burst in the door, having come straight from a frustrating faculty meeting. “She said, ‘Paul, don’t speak to me, my serotonin levels have hit bottom, my brain is awash in glucocorticoids, my blood vessels are full of adrenaline, and if it weren’t for my endogenous opiates I’d have driven the car into a tree on the way home. My dopamine levels need lifting."

and

"Already Paul feels pain differently than he used to: when he cuts himself shaving now he feels not “pain” but something more complicated—first the sharp, superficial A-delta-fibre pain, and then, a couple of seconds later, the sickening, deeper feeling of C-fibre pain that lingers. "

Richard Dawkins is a biologist by profession and education who also happens to be a very vocal atheist (without much philosophical credibility). Is he all you've got? :sweat:

update:

Oh I see you've added Le Mettrie and Paul Churchland. The latter is polemicizing against 'folk psychology' and the former against 'occult spiritual forces'. 'Mechanistic reductionism' is not entailed by atomism or atheism (though that sin belongs to the 'vulgar materialism' of Marxist-Leninists, logical positivists, instrumentalists, moral nihilists et al).

Just as atomism / materialism does not entail atheism (e.g. Epicurus), atheism does not entail materialism (e.g. Schopenhauer).

I once had a Corgi named Jake. Although I tried teaching Jake elementary algebra, I don't think he ever got it. Nevertheless, he led an exemplary life and amused us all with his doggy wit.

The universe, that vast assemblage of every thing that exists, presents only matter and motion: the whole offers to our contemplation, nothing but an immense, an uninterrupted succession of causes and effects.
Baron d'Holbach

also

All religions are ancient monuments to superstition, ignorance and ferocity.
Baron d'Holbach

1770's

Quite astute of Baron d'Holbach considering the state of physics, astronomy, religious / cultural anthropology, etc in the late 18th century. Again, he expressed anti-clerical polemics during the Counter-Enlightenment as part of the freethought, emancipationist movement of the day. In any regard, his example doesn't make your point either.

I'm not sure "arbitrary" is the right word- what I said was that the same question you raised with regard to naturalistic morality applies to theistic morality as well; that is, questioning whether this particular set of moral norms/judgments are really true or right. So, susceptible to something like Moore's Open Question argument, I suppose.

God is conceived as being that to which all roads lead, and at which all roads end, so unlike other.less absolute, explanations, such as aliens, or computer simulations, it is not "kicking the explanatory can further down the road".Of course if one doesn't accept such a God then it won't be seen as any kind of explanation. — Janus

Its not even a question of whether one accepts that God exists or not; even supposing we do accept that God exists, if only purely for the sake of argument, theism is still not explanatory in at least one important sense i.e. analyzing something we don't understand in terms that we do understand. Which is a pretty important part of what explanations are supposed to do.

And so "God did X" absolutely is kicking the explanatory can down the road since God doing something isn't explanatory, and is merely substituting one unknown for another. Just like positing wizards or advanced aliens with inscrutable motives. This isn't to say that theism could never be explanatory, but for theism to be explanatory then we need to be able to claim to understand God and the precise means by which he accomplishes the things he's purported to have accomplished.

Its not even a question of whether one accepts that God exists or not; even supposing we do accept that God exists, if only purely for the sake of argument, theism is still not explanatory in at least one important sense i.e. analyzing something we don't understand in terms that we do understand. Which is a pretty important part of what explanations are supposed to do. — busycuttingcrap

By the same criterion, the Big Bang hypothesis is not explanatory either. Both it and the God hypothesis posit creation ex nihilo, and we cannot understand how something could come from nothing. It would seem that any explanation has to terminate in the unexplained, in something that is merely accepted as "brute" fact or presupposition.

Yes, and a known brute fact (e.g. "BB") is far more informative than an unknowable brute fact (e.g. "God"), so by abduction we drop the "Goddidit" story.

They are in you and in me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence. They have come a long way, those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines." — Andrew4Handel

Nice, anthropomorphize DNA, I think I heard this story before

By the same criterion, the Big Bang hypothesis is not explanatory either. Both it and the God hypothesis posit creation ex nihilo, and we cannot understand how something could come from nothing. — Janus

I don't see how that follows- in fact the Big Bang model offers a good contrast here, because unlike theism, the Big Bang model is actually explanatory, in that it analyzes something we don't understand- the CMBR, the distribution and velocity of galaxies/galaxy clusters, the relative abundances of elements, etc- in terms of a very simple mechanism: a universe that is expanding and cooling, from a hot dense prior state.

And as it happens, the part of the Big Bang model that has been observationally corroborated and is widely accepted doesn't contain any creation ex nihilo, no absolute beginning or origin of the universe- only a hot dense prior state some 13.8 billion years ago. Extending the model further back than that takes us into energy densities we cannot test empirically, and into a regime where we fully expect classical models (like GR and the BBT) to break down and cease to be good or accurate models of reality. Talking about the BBT positing a beginning or origin of the universe is a bit of sloppiness on the part of science journalists and communicators that has greatly mislead the public and harmed scientific literacy in general.

The Big Bang is understood to be the origin of this universe at least, it is also causa sui, meaning that we must take it as such since, it it were caused, we have no way of knowing what the cause could have been. Even if we did know, it would only move the problem one step back, because then we would need to explain what caused the cause of the BB.

Of course, theists will say, if they accept the BB, that God caused it. At least that introduces a conscious intention into the story.(not that I personally buy it). It remains the case that if you posit a chain of causes, you either must accept that the chain had no beginning or else posit a first cause that itself is uncaused.

Neither is a satisfactory explanation, but we should not expect anything more. So, it's not really a case of "kicking the explanatory can further down the road" at all, but of acknowledging that whatever traditional explanations we might accept, or novel explanations we might come up with we are going to hit a wall beyond which our explanations cannot penetrate.

The Big Bang is understood to be the origin of this universe at least, it is also causa sui, meaning that we must take it as such since, it it were caused, we have no way of knowing what the cause could have been. Even if we did know, it would only move the problem one step back, because then we would need to explain what caused the cause of the BB. — Janus

This isn't accurate; the part of the Big Bang model that is empirically corroborated and widely accepted posits an expanding and cooling universe from a hot dense prior state. That's it. What, if anything, preceded this remains an open question: past-eternal extensions to Big Bang cosmology are perfectly consistent with observation. They may even be preferred to past-finite cosmological models; our most promising candidate theories of quantum gravity (loop quantum gravity/cosmology and string/M-theory) posit a past-eternal or cyclical universe, as does Penrose's conformal cyclical model (for which Penrose has claimed observational corroboration in the CMB data), and many varieties of inflation (which most cosmologists accept, despite the lack of testable predictions).

And in any case, I never said that theism fails to be explanatory because it posits a brute fact or posits an absolute beginning to causal chains- I said that it fails to be explanatory because God is not a well-understood mechanism or entity, but rather an unknown that is as much in need of explanation as whatever God is being invoked to explain (if not more). It cannot credibly be claimed that this is also true of the BBT, because whereas theism posits an unknown, the BBT posits a simple and understandable mechanism: an expanding and cooling universe. So, theism is kicking the explanatory can down the road, BB cosmology is not. As I said already, the BBT is a useful contrast to theism in this respect, since it is explanatory in precisely the manner theism is not.

This isn't accurate; the part of the Big Bang model that is empirically corroborated and widely accepted posits an expanding and cooling universe from a hot dense prior state. — busycuttingcrap

That's right; the furthest we can think back towards an origin is this "hot dense prior state" which was a dimensionless point.

This is really no more a well-understood "entity" than God is. There is physical theory and there is theology; nether of which are exhaustive or definitive.

God is different, though, because if you ask for a physical explanation of God, you show that you do not understand the concept.

It's not the "expanding and cooling universe" that God explains; He doesn't explain the physical theory even if He might be believed to have been its origin. Our physical theories break down at the BB, so we are no better off when it comes to explaining in physical terms the origin without the idea of God than we are with It. In other words all the physical theory is consistent with God or without God; it makes no difference.

I think we might agree on one thing, though; and that is that "God did it" is not any better. from the point of view of advancing physical theory than "it just happened"; but I don't think many would claim that 'God did it' is a physical theory.

I think we might agree on one thing, though; and that is that "God did it" is not any better. from the point of view of advancing physical theory than "it just happened"; but I don't think many would claim that 'God did it' is a physical theory. — Janus

As an atheist I generally proffer 'I don't know' when people ask about consciousness or abiogenesis or the origin of the universe. Atheism doesn't hinge on explanations, just on whether theism convinces or not. I think our tentative scientific accounts of such matters offer better inferences but neither science or god are done explaining the tough questions. God seems a particularly fragile and tendentious explanation primarily because theism itself remains obscure, and as far as I can tell, incoherent.

God seems a particularly fragile and tendentious explanation primarily because theism itself remains obscure, and as far as I can tell, incoherent. — Tom Storm

I have to admit it seems somewhat incoherent to me too, but the theologians would have something else to say, I imagine. As always it all depends on your founding presuppositions.

As always it all depends on your founding presuppositions. — Janus

Yes. Same as serial killing. Some of us think it's a bad thing. :razz:

No, our ability to reliably roll the cosmic clock backwards stops before we get to the "Big Bang singularity": our models hold up well until about 10^-30 seconds (I forget the exact number, but this is the ballpark we're talking about) after this, but earlier than that we lack both an appropriate theory or model, and are unable to observationally corroborate predictions since we cannot recreate those conditions in our best particle accelerators.

So the singularity falls outside the part of the theory that is empirically corroborated and widely accepted; most, if not all, cosmologists regard the singularity at the hypothetical t=0 as an artifact of classical physics breaking down (this was the moral of the story with Penrose's singularity theorems), not as representing anything physically real. From what I gather, the existence of this singularity just by itself would be sufficient to show that classical physics has ceased to be a good or appropriate model for these conditions (its essentially the physics equivalent of a reductio), but this is even more emphatic because the singularity appears in precisely the conditions where we would already expect classical physics to break down: i.e. once gravitation because significant on the quantum scale, and QM and GR come into serious conflict. So a theory of quantum gravity is probably what we need to adequately model what is happening in these earlier stages of the universe, which is why its significant (imo) that our most promising candidates suggest an eternal past.

But you are right that this (very probably artificial) breakdown in physics represented by the Big Bang singularity would seriously call into question the explanatory value of any proposal containing such an entity. But the BBT, the parts of it that are well corroborated and accepted at any rate, does not contain such a thing. It posits a simple, understandable mechanism for why we see what we see: the universe is expanding and cooling from a hot dense prior state some 13.8 billion years ago, which explains a large body of observations from the recession of galaxies to the CMBR, and more besides.

So the BBT is explanatory in precisely the way that theism is not. That's not even necessarily to say that theism (or divine creation) is untrue... it just isn't explanatory in at least one important sense.