what is real?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Odd since I've shoved one under your nose twice now.
----------shark----------

Did you ? What was it? I can't remember. Is it a "moral-o-force" that is believed to be present at some sub-atomic level?

Can you be more specific what it actually is that you have shoved under my nose.

I was under the impression that the materialistic/scientif ...[text shortened]... y neutral. Therefore , I see no scientific basis for any OMFs.

Where am I going astray?

Did you ? What was it? I can't remember.

here, for the third and FINAL time:
Suppose an atheist says to you that the universe is so structured that 2 + 2 = 4, or that pi x D = C are objective facts. These are not like trees. The latter would be true even if the universe in fact contained no circles. They are mind-independent, since they would be true if there were no observers in the universe.

The atheist can then say that ethical facts are like this. The universe is so structured that KPFF is wrong. Just as pi x D = C appeals to abstract entities like circles that need not be instantiated, so OMFs appeal to abstract ethical entities.

Is it a "moral-o-force" that is believed to be present at some sub-atomic level?
See above.

I was under the impression that the materialistic/scientific/atheistic world view posited that the Universe was morally neutral. Therefore , I see no scientific basis for any OMFs.
You are conflating three things here, materialism, science and atheism. Atheists need not be materialists and some atheists don't think that the universe is morally neutral.

Where am I going astray?
See above.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
[b]Did you? I don't remember you doing so.

Here it is again:

"What I'll do is offer one of the possible atheist candidates for OMFs.

Suppose an atheist says to you that the universe is so structured that 2 + 2 = 4, or that pi x D = C are objective facts. These are not like trees. The latter would be true even if the universe in fact containe ...[text shortened]... n such a Universe.[/b]
That's correct. Atheists who hold this view don't believe in OMFs.[/b]

Suppose an atheist says to you that the universe is so structured that 2 + 2 = 4, or that pi x D = C are objective facts. These are not like trees. The latter would be true even if the universe in fact contained no circles. They are mind-independent, since they would be true if there were no observers in the universe.
---------------------shark------------------------

I did miss this one. Apologies.

This is good stuff because now we are getting closer to the nub of it.

Looking at it now though this argument does create problems for many atheists , surely. One can have a belief that pi x D = C and that's fine. Men believe this is Objectively true because they believe that mathematical/logical principles underlie the Universe and are fundamental to it.

So far no problem.

However, if one also says that KKPFF = wrong is also true in the same way (ie independent of men's minds) then it must also be somehow woven into the logical fabric of the Universe like some logical principle.

Here's the problem.

The problem is that comparing KKPFF=Wrong with mathematical /physical/logical/ scientific truths like the speed of light or E=mc2 or pi is to make a defintive statement about the nature of reality and the universe. Yes?

I don't see how one can make such a defintive statement about the Universe is possible whilst still holding on to the idea that the Universe is amoral or neutral. It logically implies that the Universe "cares" on some level about human actions.

This to me seems a million miles away from the classic atheistic world view. I'm sure many proper atheists would reject this idea.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
[b]Did you ? What was it? I can't remember.

here, for the third and FINAL time:
Suppose an atheist says to you that the universe is so structured that 2 + 2 = 4, or that pi x D = C are objective facts. These are not like trees. The latter would be true even if the universe in fact contained no circles. They are mind-independent, since they would b ...[text shortened]... t think that the universe is morally neutral.

Where am I going astray?
See above.[/b]

some atheists don't think that the universe is morally neutral.

------------shark----------------

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

THIS is where we have been at cross purposes. I don't see atheists who believe this as proper atheists. I think they are kop out merchants who haven't really thought through what it is they say they believe.

My contention is that as soon as one opens the door to a Universe not being morally neutral one is on an iexhorable path to Theism. I simply don't understand atheists who do this. It seems like having your cake and eating it. It's bizarre.

Actually I do get it. I think they are atheists who are not as mentally tough as Dawkins , Satre , Nietzche et al .

How mentally tough are you?

Originally posted by knightmeister
some atheists don't think that the universe is morally neutral.

------------shark----------------

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

THIS is where we have been at cross purposes. I don't see atheists who believe this as proper atheists. I think they are kop out merchants who haven't really thought through what it is they say they believe.

My contentio ...[text shortened]... ot as mentally tough as Dawkins , Satre , Nietzche et al .

How mentally tough are you?

THIS is where we have been at cross purposes. I don't see atheists who believe this as proper atheists. I think they are kop out merchants who haven't really thought through what it is they say they believe.
I think you are wrong, the atheist who believes in OMFs is in no worse a position than the theist in terms of giving any detail about OMFs. That's because relying on the brute fact of god's nature has done no explanatory work whatsoever.


How mentally tough are you?
Tough enough to tell you that although you can say that as soon as one opens the door to a universe not being morally neutral, one is on an inexorable path to Theism, you don't seem to be able to back it up.

And also to remind you that I already said I don't personally believe in OMFs.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
[b]THIS is where we have been at cross purposes. I don't see atheists who believe this as proper atheists. I think they are kop out merchants who haven't really thought through what it is they say they believe.
I think you are wrong, the atheist who believes in OMFs is in no worse a position than the theist in terms of giving any detail about OMFs. ...[text shortened]... it up.

And also to remind you that I already said I don't personally believe in OMFs.[/b]

I think you are wrong, the atheist who believes in OMFs is in no worse a position than the theist in terms of giving any detail about OMFs. That's because relying on the brute fact of god's nature has done no explanatory work whatsoever.
-------shark------------------------

On the contrary. Theism gives a detailled account of God's nature , who/what God is and his relationship with the Universe and also the process by which men will be held to account to the OMF of God's nature. It also describes how the OMFs are communicated to men and what the consequences are of going against them.

Atheist OMFs do nothing of this kind , unless you can fill me in.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
[b]THIS is where we have been at cross purposes. I don't see atheists who believe this as proper atheists. I think they are kop out merchants who haven't really thought through what it is they say they believe.
I think you are wrong, the atheist who believes in OMFs is in no worse a position than the theist in terms of giving any detail about OMFs. ...[text shortened]... it up.

And also to remind you that I already said I don't personally believe in OMFs.[/b]

And also to remind you that I already said I don't personally believe in OMFs
----------shark---------------------

Porbably because you recognise , as I do , the contradiction I am describing.

That's fine. I'm not sure then what we have been debating.

I think KPPFF is right and there's nothing you can objectively say that can prove me logically wrong. You can say you disagree or you can say that you are repulsed by the idea. You can also say that my idea is deeply unpopular.

However , you cannot say I am objectively wrong because there is nothing in this Universe or the next that objectively exists against which my actions can be measured. Morality is just a matter of subjective opinions.

Agreed?

Originally posted by knightmeister
"By 'objective' I am basically referring to independence from observer attitudes; by 'fact' I mean something that is the case; by 'moral' we are talking about things like how we ought to act, or what sorts of person we should try to be, or what sorts of things are valuable, etc. So, by "objective moral fact" I am here referring to something that would ...[text shortened]... e of those OMFs and that they are based in the fundamental truths of existence.

I'm not interested in theoretical descriptions , I want to know in what SUBSTANTIVE REALITY these OMFs are BASED in the Atheist belief system.

Then you're obviously just not getting it. If OMFs exist, then they are, in and of themselves, part of reality. After all, they would be entities, they would be extant. And if (as you yourself maintain) they are brute, then they need not be "based" on anything. Now, you can continue to keep saying over and over that you have "done more" than this atheist because you have grounded or "based" moral facts in the entity God. But, this further step of yours is in context completely unnecessary and has many, many complications: it's quite vague and you haven't really even explained what it even means for moral facts to be constitutively grounded in some agent; it's explanatorily useless (after all, under your position, moral facts are still at the end of the day brute); it introduces a further dubious metaphysical category, which says nothing for your view in terms of parsimony; and it's not clear at all that you actually retain any philosophical objectivity in your account of morals (after all, how would objective morality in any way depend constitutively on some agent?). So, the atheist can simply agree with you insofar as that human-independent moral facts exist and they are, at the end of the day, brute; but they don't have to adopt all your further explanatorily useless and evidentially challenged metaphysics.

It's one thing to have a belief in OMFs but it's another to also believe that external reality is supportive of those OMFs and that they are based in the fundamental truths of existence.

See above. You are simply drawing on a notional mistake. If OMFs exist, then they simply are part of "external reality".

Originally posted by knightmeister
than the hypothetical atheist who holds that OMFs exist and that they are, at the end of the day, brute.
------lemon--------------------

I knew before I started this thread that this was the case.

The difference is that the Theistic belief system describes what this OMF is (ie God) - the Atheist simply says that OMFs exist but there's no descrip ...[text shortened]... have with the Universe / or with humanity? Are they one of the lost laws of physics? etc etc

The difference is that the Theistic belief system describes what this OMF is (ie God) - the Atheist simply says that OMFs exist but there's no description of what on earth he is talking about.

No, you are wrong on both accounts. First, it's not the case under your view that God is the OMF. Under your view, God is an agent; whereas an OMF is, of course, a fact. Agents aren't facts. So, no, under your view God is not the OMF. Rather, under your view, OMFs are somehow supposedly "based" on God. (Remember? And you should really be more careful with sorting out all these notional distinctions.) As I have already mentioned, this view of yours has major problems (see previous post). Second, I have already explained "what on earth [the atheist] is talking about" regarding the subject of OMFs. Are you still having trouble understanding my description (you know, the one I have already posted twice)?

I'm still waiting for you to provide a coherent structure and framework for Atheist OMFs rather than just saying they "exist". Where are these OMFs? What relationship do they have with the Universe / or with humanity? Are they one of the lost laws of physics? etc etc

Why don't you just start paying attention to my posts? Or, better yet, why don't you just do your homework on secular ethics BEFORE declaiming on the possibilities of objectivity within secular ethics. That way, we wouldn't have to address all your ignorance on the fly.

Originally posted by knightmeister
And also to remind you that I already said I don't personally believe in OMFs
----------shark---------------------

Porbably because you recognise , as I do , the contradiction I am describing.

That's fine. I'm not sure then what we have been debating.

I think KPPFF is right and there's nothing you can objectively say that can prove me logic ...[text shortened]... ch my actions can be measured. Morality is just a matter of subjective opinions.

Agreed?

Porbably because you recognise , as I do , the contradiction I am describing.

That's fine. I'm not sure then what we have been debating.

Again and again, you demonstrate that logic just really isn't your forte. From that he is an atheist and doesn't believe in OMFs, it's not warranted for you to infer that he agrees with your contention that it would be somehow contradictory for an atheist to believe in OMFs. That's very sloppy reasoning on your part.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Maybe , maybe not. But it's consistent that if you believe he is an objective fact then you can also say that OMFs exist as well.

If defined in terms of God, sure. But you can define OMFs in terms of any number of things.

Originally posted by knightmeister
than the hypothetical atheist who holds that OMFs exist and that they are, at the end of the day, brute.
------lemon--------------------

I knew before I started this thread that this was the case.

The difference is that the Theistic belief system describes what this OMF is (ie God) - the Atheist simply says that OMFs exist but there's no descrip ...[text shortened]... have with the Universe / or with humanity? Are they one of the lost laws of physics? etc etc

knightmeister, you seem to be having some major trouble processing the idea of OMFs. Let's try from another angle. The atheist can hold that moral claim and statements (and moral categories, such as rightness or goodness, etc) purport to pick out extant properties in the world; and he can hold that these properties are objective in the sense we are considering here (of mind-independence). So, he believes in a moral external reality that is basically just part of the fabric of the universe; and, of course, he believes God does not exist. Now, if your contention is correct that this position is somehow logically contradictory, then you ought to be able to demonstrate how it entails a contradiction of the form (P and not-P). If you cannot provide the demonstration, then you probably want to retract your contention. Or, if your contention is just that you don't really see how this view is consistent, then that's already clear enough -- but it is also not interesting.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think you are wrong, the atheist who believes in OMFs is in no worse a position than the theist in terms of giving any detail about OMFs. That's because relying on the brute fact of god's nature has done no explanatory work whatsoever.
-------shark------------------------

On the contrary. Theism gives a detailled account of God's nature , who/wh ...[text shortened]... of going against them.

Atheist OMFs do nothing of this kind , unless you can fill me in.

On the contrary. Theism gives a detailled account of God's nature , who/what God is and his relationship with the Universe and also the process by which men will be held to account to the OMF of God's nature. It also describes how the OMFs are communicated to men and what the consequences are of going against them.
In what way is it detailed? precisely how are moral facts grounded in god's nature? What is the precise structure of god's nature? What are its elements and how do they interact so as to ground OMFs? How does an agent facilitate the instantiation of an OMF? What is it that means only god can do this?

Or could it be that you have no detailed account of what god is really like, because god surpasseth all understanding? Face it, what you have is a narrative which includes a poorly described and anthropomorphised supernatural agent.

Atheist OMFs do nothing of this kind , unless you can fill me in.
If by 'this kind' you mean waffle and hand wave, you're absolutely right. 🙂

Originally posted by knightmeister
And also to remind you that I already said I don't personally believe in OMFs
----------shark---------------------

Porbably because you recognise , as I do , the contradiction I am describing.

That's fine. I'm not sure then what we have been debating.

I think KPPFF is right and there's nothing you can objectively say that can prove me logic ...[text shortened]... ch my actions can be measured. Morality is just a matter of subjective opinions.

Agreed?

Porbably because you recognise , as I do , the contradiction I am describing.
No, because you haven't described one. You might think you have, but you haven't.

That's fine. I'm not sure then what we have been debating.
I'll remind you what it was. It was whether or not god is the only coherent basis for OMFs. I can tell you the result too, god isn't.

I think KPPFF is right and there's nothing you can objectively say that can prove me logically wrong.
I agree with you, but some atheists, those that believe in OMFs might disagree with us. I'm calling the cops if it looks like you'll act on it though. 🙂

You can say you disagree or you can say that you are repulsed by the idea. You can also say that my idea is deeply unpopular.
I can, but I wouldn't. I'd just say that KPPFF is morally wrong.

However , you cannot say I am objectively wrong because there is nothing in this Universe or the next that objectively exists against which my actions can be measured. Morality is just a matter of subjective opinions.
No it isn't. That's the same false dichotomy you posted ages ago!

Agreed?
No, sorry I agree with LemonJello, you could use some secular ethics study time.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]I'm not interested in theoretical descriptions , I want to know in what SUBSTANTIVE REALITY these OMFs are BASED in the Atheist belief system.

Then you're obviously just not getting it. If OMFs exist, then they are, in and of themselves, part of reality. After all, they would be entities, they would be extant. And if (as you yourself maintai ...[text shortened]... ional mistake. If OMFs exist, then they simply are part of "external reality".[/b]

KM SAID-- It's one thing to have a belief in OMFs but it's another to also believe that external reality is supportive of those OMFs and that they are based in the fundamental truths of existence.

LEMON SAID - See above. You are simply drawing on a notional mistake. If OMFs exist, then they simply are part of "external reality".

KM RESPONDS---- > But WHAT external reality? This is the whole point. Most if not all atheists I have known or know of subscribe to the idea that the Universe is neutral and amoral and all humanity is the product of blind chance and physical laws which don't give a jot about human values and morality.

I have never heard a coherent atheist alternative to this world view , which leads me to feel that any notions of OMFs cannot be rooted in any external reality.

I keep asking you this. What external reality are atheist OMFs supposed to be rooted in? As far as I can see neither you or sharky actually know.

The Theist model for OMFs may be incomplete and complex but at is it IS a model that can be debated.

So far you have given me no model to debate other than something you call "external reality " , whatever this may be.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
[b]Porbably because you recognise , as I do , the contradiction I am describing.
No, because you haven't described one. You might think you have, but you haven't.

That's fine. I'm not sure then what we have been debating.
I'll remind you what it was. It was whether or not god is the only coherent basis for OMFs. I can tell you the result ...[text shortened]... ]
No, sorry I agree with LemonJello, you could use some secular ethics study time.[/b]

Originally posted by Lord Shark
[b]KM- Probably because you recognise , as I do , the contradiction I am describing.
SHARK- No, because you haven't described one. You might think you have, but you haven't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KM- Say what? I thought you had conceded that believing in OMFs and also believing that we live in an amoral universe was contradictory? (see below)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KM SAID- Surely , there is also an implication to believing we live in an entirely amoral universe.
SHARK SAID - Not all atheists think that. I have pointed this out to you more than once. Atheists who believe in OMFs cannot believe that we live in an amoral universe without contradiction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My experience is that most full on atheists believe that we live in an amoral universe.