How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

[Compassionist]

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong? For example, I think it is wrong to be a herbivore or a carnivore or an omnivore, or a parasite. I think all living things should be autotrophs. I think only autotrophs are good and the rest are evil. However, I am not certain that my thoughts are right. Can herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, and parasites become autotrophs at will? If so, why don't they? If they can't become autotrophs at will, is it really their fault that they are not autotrophs?

[The Tanager]

1. If There is No God, and Objective Morals exist, then Objective Morals must be explained by Brute Fact.
2. There is no God and Objective Morals exist.
Therefore, Morals exist by Brute Fact.

There is your rational argument for it. You are free to disagree with Premise 2 - according to your feelings - but I can only say 'I don't know'.

So, your support for the truth of premise 2 is “I don’t know”. One should accept a premise is true if they don’t know it’s true?

The consensus is that they don't agree on a consensus. Where is your logical argument that you can rationally decide what is true based on your feelings?

And agreeing on a consensus is significant here why?

1. If Atheism is true, then how have you arrived at an Ought? If Atheism is true, why ought Atheists be consistent? You've just argued that Atheists would have no obligation to follow any moral code? You are being inconsistant.

No, I completely agree. If atheism is true, one shouldn’t even care about being logically consistent. But I thought atheists cared about being logically consistent.

2. I see no reason why people have to act consistently as a rule. I wouldn't want a person with a murderous rage to act consistently with their beliefs.

You are equivocating here. The context of my statement on acting consistently is to not say you believe something you don’t believe. In the context of this example that would mean a person shouldn’t think “I don’t want to go on a murderous rage” when they really do believe that they want to go on a murderous rage. When an atheist says their view is not just a taste, they are saying the complete opposite of what atheism says is true.

3. There are many arguments that show how Morals are real, and that we ought to follow them, even under Atheism.

Then provide them for us to analyze.

4. I've shown how Morality under Theism makes no sense, and doesn't help in any way. It's incoherent. How do we know God is moral? By definition? Well, then I can simply define the Universe this way and be done with God.

What arguments did you give that showed that? If I missed them, tell me the post or restate them.

1. descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people.

Do you disagree with this definition, because if you do - where is God, or "Objective" in this description. (BTW, "Objective Moral Values" is a Christian invention. They claim OBV's exist only through God then claim they exist. It's a trick. It's not philosophy.)

So, let's get our usage of the word "Moral" out of the way. I've presented mine.

I mean it in the second sense above: normative. This requires “all rational people” to be a very specific concept of what is strictly rational, not what people we would normally call rational say about this topic because they may be making unreasonable moves.

If I have done a trick, then please show it. If not, deal with what I say, not what other Christians you’ve come across have done or may do. For this discussion, you have assumed OBVs exist because the discussion is about, if they exist, whether theism and/or atheism could logically account for them.

Under my definition of morality, it's because you are harming another sentient creature for purposes that, on balance, are unequal to the good you receive. (I don't see how adding God to the mix helps).

I don't see why your default assumption is that we always need to work towards our own self interest. What rule is that?

That’s not my default assumption. I’m saying atheism doesn’t rule it out. On what basis do you judge harming another as bad here? How do you objectively know what you call “good” is that, versus just a taste of yours that is different than another taste?

You haven't shown that God exists, that God is moral, or that God doesn't want you to stab people. Quoting the Bible is quoting the writings of Men. Your feelings about where they got those ideas is irrelevant.

I haven’t done any of those things. So what? They are irrelevant to this discussion. This discussion is about assuming theism or atheism is true and seeing if they can lead to morality being objective.

So, even if there is no God, you could still choose to be moral according to your religion. You'd be wrong to attribute those morals to a God, but you'd act morally without a God.

Yes. I’d be acting morally (in a subjective sense, i.e., in the same sense as choosing which ice cream flavor to enjoy).

as for Nazis, and I've seen slavery used, your argument is that "If they won, we'd think killing Jews is OK".

Yep,

Then you agree that consensus isn’t necessarily a great reason to believe something, right? Maybe there are some situations where one shouldn’t wait on the consensus and then just side with that, right?

That's what's so bizarre. You feel that "If there is a God we'd have clear Moral values" (paraphrasing), but history has shown that we don't have clear moral values, or understanding.

I never said or implied that. Paraphrase what I say. I said that objective moral values could exist if God existed and that if atheism is true, then OMV’s wouldn’t exist.

The problem you have is you haven't shown that OMV's exist... or God, or that He's Moral, or that you know what he thinks is moral or immoral. You simply chose a religion and declare it true, and that we are all wrong for not coming to the same conclusion.

No, the problem is that you aren’t understanding the actual arguments I’m making. You think I’m making arguments I’m not (as noted by your paraphrase that isn’t paraphrasing anything I’ve said) and you think I need to do things that, if you understood my actual arguments, you wouldn’t say I needed to do. I don’t care whether it’s your fault or my lack of clarity. I’m telling you that some of your understanding of what I’m saying is way off. You are saying irrelevant things. So, let’s get back on track. Those questions you are asking are good in their own right, and I have engaged them before and will always continue to do so but not in ways that distract from what the discussion has been about and they aren’t relevant to what this discussion has been about.

[JoeyKnothead]

I’m not saying we can’t learn what is good or do good things without being a theist. We could certainly discover that depriving another of oxygen will lead them to die, but there’d be no basis to say “flourishing involves not depriving others of oxygen”. That this is part of what it means to “flourish” as a human, to be objective, would have to come from outside of our own subjective thoughts. But that alone isn’t enough. It would have to come from the one who designed us to flourish in that way. Atheistic evolution, for instance, asserts there is no design behind it all. Theism (whether one believes in evolution or not), provides a designer.

If we restrict the definition of "flourishing" to be something that can only happen in a theistic idyll, well there we go.

If we accept that "flourishing" is "pretty dang good, considering it all", then we lose the ability to tell others if they're actually doing them any flourishing.

It's a bit sad, but par for the course to say only good stuff happens with a god that can't be shown to exist, but such is the mindset of so many theists.

To that bunch, only their god is truly good, so anyone who doesn't believe in that god, well they can't possibly "flourish".

[boatsnguitars]

1. If There is No God, and Objective Morals exist, then Objective Morals must be explained by Brute Fact.
2. There is no God and Objective Morals exist.
Therefore, Morals exist by Brute Fact.

There is your rational argument for it. You are free to disagree with Premise 2 - according to your feelings - but I can only say 'I don't know'.

So, your support for the truth of premise 2 is “I don’t know”. One should accept a premise is true if they don’t know it’s true?

Is that really how you understood that? Be honest, God is watching and apparently, according to you, there are OMV's which may include lying as bad.

I really would like you to answer this because I don't see how, after all this, you think that's what I said. Again, I see this as a smarmy rhetorical trick Christain Apologists do when they are losing an argument.

The consensus is that they don't agree on a consensus. Where is your logical argument that you can rationally decide what is true based on your feelings?

And agreeing on a consensus is significant here why?

Really? Have you not been reading anything? They are experts. They talk and write about this for a living. If they were bad at it, they'd starve.
You and I don't, we are hobbyists, dabblers, and worse, you're a Religionist. You head is filled with very specific worldviews that are considered unimpeachable. You are taught to reject anything non-Biblical. If I'm being honest, you have no chance of understanding this, in reality.

1. If Atheism is true, then how have you arrived at an Ought? If Atheism is true, why ought Atheists be consistent? You've just argued that Atheists would have no obligation to follow any moral code? You are being inconsistant.

No, I completely agree. If atheism is true, one shouldn’t even care about being logically consistent. But I thought atheists cared about being logically consistent.

They do, and I've given you a reason why they can also be moral, so I'm not sure what your point is that "atheists ought to be consistent" with your view which is not what atheists believe.
What you can't seem to understand is that your view of Atheism is wrong, and you are trying to claim Atheists are being inconsistent because they don't conform to your beliefs of atheism. But, under your view, they are being consistent - they have no reason to be consistent - therefore, they exhibit moral behavior because in truth, they believe in moral values.

Do you see your problem? Re-read that a few times.
I'll repeat:
Atheists do have a reason to be moral, even though there is no God. They are being consistent.
You claim that by being moral they are being inconsistent because they shouldn't have moral values, but seem to act as if they do.
That's on you. You are simply wrong and woefully uneducated about moral values.
If you were educated about moral values, you'd understand the experts discussions about these things and understand what I mean when I say it's a discussion, and the lack of consensus leads to my rational conclusion that I shouldn't have a belief about the nature of moral values.
The fact is, morals seem to exist. Seem. They may not 'actually' exist in some platonic way. Moral values may disappear when the last more agent dies off.

2. I see no reason why people have to act consistently as a rule. I wouldn't want a person with a murderous rage to act consistently with their beliefs.

You are equivocating here. The context of my statement on acting consistently is to not say you believe something you don’t believe. In the context of this example that would mean a person shouldn’t think “I don’t want to go on a murderous rage” when they really do believe that they want to go on a murderous rage. When an atheist says their view is not just a taste, they are saying the complete opposite of what atheism says is true.

Maybe some don't believe it's "just" taste. (Classic reductionism on your part.)
again, if you'd read up on moral values you'll see that most atheists (all that I know) don't say it is "just" taste, but that it's tied into well-being, obligation, social contract, etc.
It's like saying "Religion is just ritual", when we all know it's more than that - but we also know it could, for some, just be ritual.

3. There are many arguments that show how Morals are real, and that we ought to follow them, even under Atheism.

Then provide them for us to analyze.

No, you can do the research. Notice I'm not asking you to show that Objective Morals exist - I am accepting that people argue this. You can do the same.

4. I've shown how Morality under Theism makes no sense, and doesn't help in any way. It's incoherent. How do we know God is moral? By definition? Well, then I can simply define the Universe this way and be done with God.

What arguments did you give that showed that? If I missed them, tell me the post or restate them.

If you arent reasding past posts, I'm not going to post again and have you ignore them.
Suffice to say, you should already be aware of the problems of morality under Theism. If you aren't, you really should heed the experts!

1. descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people.

Do you disagree with this definition, because if you do - where is God, or "Objective" in this description. (BTW, "Objective Moral Values" is a Christian invention. They claim OBV's exist only through God then claim they exist. It's a trick. It's not philosophy.)

So, let's get our usage of the word "Moral" out of the way. I've presented mine.

I mean it in the second sense above: normative. This requires “all rational people” to be a very specific concept of what is strictly rational, not what people we would normally call rational say about this topic because they may be making unreasonable moves.

Yes, if there are rational reasons to act a certain way, that is the reasoning behind it. Not whether God thinks it right or not. You are on your first step of understand way theistic morality is flawed.

If I have done a trick, then please show it. If not, deal with what I say, not what other Christians you’ve come across have done or may do. For this discussion, you have assumed OBVs exist because the discussion is about, if they exist, whether theism and/or atheism could logically account for them.

It's Christian Apoloists that have done the trick. They claim something exists that can only exist if there is a God, therefore, they conclude, God must exist.
For example:
1. Only God can Divinely forgive my sins
2. My sins are Divinely forgiven
Therefore, God exists.

It's a crock.

I can talk about OMV's, God, Unicorns, Sauron, Beowulf, etc. None of it means I accept they are real. Watch:
1. If unicorns exist, I would like one
2. Unicorns exist
Therefore, I would like one.

But, I don't believe unicorns exist, but I can write a logical argument in favor of why I might want one.

You can show OMV's exist if you want. I don't think they do, but I accept that you believe they do. (I also accept that you believe in a god, which I think undermines your credibility in assessing reality)

Under my definition of morality, it's because you are harming another sentient creature for purposes that, on balance, are unequal to the good you receive. (I don't see how adding God to the mix helps).

I don't see why your default assumption is that we always need to work towards our own self interest. What rule is that?

That’s not my default assumption. I’m saying atheism doesn’t rule it out. On what basis do you judge harming another as bad here? How do you objectively know what you call “good” is that, versus just a taste of yours that is different than another taste?

Harm. We've covered this.

You haven't shown that God exists, that God is moral, or that God doesn't want you to stab people. Quoting the Bible is quoting the writings of Men. Your feelings about where they got those ideas is irrelevant.

I haven’t done any of those things. So what? They are irrelevant to this discussion. This discussion is about assuming theism or atheism is true and seeing if they can lead to morality being objective.

If you assume either one true, you can happily go on any tangent you want. I could assume Islam is true and adjust my morals accordingly.
Your hangup seems to be that you believe Theism is true, you think Atheists are evil and only work for their self-interest.
Menawhile, you are in a religion that teaches you to save yourself for eternal life. While it tells you to tell others, it doesn't tell you to sacrifice yourself for others at your souls expense. Meanwhile, millions of atheists risk their lives for others all around the world, with no lie about an afterlife.

So, even if there is no God, you could still choose to be moral according to your religion. You'd be wrong to attribute those morals to a God, but you'd act morally without a God.

Yes. I’d be acting morally (in a subjective sense, i.e., in the same sense as choosing which ice cream flavor to enjoy).

Yes, under one definition, but not your own. And, not what most people would call truly moral.
The 9-11 a**holes did what they thought was moral, even though God doesn't exist. But, few people accept their actions as moral.

Can you tell me why the 9-11 a**holes were morally wrong under your Theistic view of morality?

At least I can point to the obvious harm.

as for Nazis, and I've seen slavery used, your argument is that "If they won, we'd think killing Jews is OK".

Yep,

Then you agree that consensus isn’t necessarily a great reason to believe something, right? Maybe there are some situations where one shouldn’t wait on the consensus and then just side with that, right?

Again, it bothers me that you seem to be obtuse. I was very clear about accepting experts "provisionally". Clearly you must remember this.

But, worse, I think you are purposely not understanding. Why do you think Nazis are experts on Jews? What gave you that impression?

That's what's so bizarre. You feel that "If there is a God we'd have clear Moral values" (paraphrasing), but history has shown that we don't have clear moral values, or understanding.

I never said or implied that. Paraphrase what I say. I said that objective moral values could exist if God existed and that if atheism is true, then OMV’s wouldn’t exist.

Again, OMV's only exist in Christian Apologetics, not Moral Theory discussions. BUt, if you mean to say that morals are real and can only exist within the mind of God, then I simply respond that, "I could simply remove God from the equation and claim morals (OMV's or otherwise) can exist in the Universe, without a God.

Why would I be wrong?

At this point, I think you need to explain why OMV's can only obtain if there is a God.

I am using OMV's in a way I think you are using it, as long as you aren't defining OMV's as values that can only exist if God exists (which is typically how Christians use OMV).

I think you mean that they are unchanging, true, real, non-subjective, binding, rules that apply in any time or space, especially for humans (but does it include animals or other sentient beings?).

1. Can you explain why God is required for OMV's? What rule is in place, or logical argument?
2. Why can't they exist if there is no God? What rule is in place, or logical argument?
3. Do they actually exist? Can you provide evidence?

[boatsnguitars]

This is getting long.
Let me recap some points:

A. You said, "Atheists say morals aren't "just taste", but to you it is "just taste" (ice cream or genocide are just different tastes people have, paraphrasing).
My response was this is reductionist, and that morality is a complex and rational endeavor that we engage in as a species, specifically as a social species. "Just taste" is like saying Religion is just taste.
In fact, if you are right (which I don't think you are) Religion would be "just taste", and considering there is no God, then you have simply chosen a religion you prefer, because it works for you - it benefits your needs/goals.
I would argue that your religion is more than "taste", it involves the society you were raised in, complex myths that incorporate truths about the human condition, moral laws, dietary laws that, songs, etc.

Because, remember, there is no God. If you disagree, then you'll have to have God prove it to us. Your belief in God doesn't bear on the truth or falsity of your claim.

B. Questions for you:
1. What are OMV's (provide definition)?
2. Why is God required for OMV's?
3. Why can't they exist if there is no God?
4. What magical power does God have to make them exist, and in what form? Are they held in buckets? Are they ideas in his mind? How did God happen to own or embody OMV's?
5. How does God move them from his mind, or bucket, and make them apply to us? Does he just think about it and we understand it? Are they written on our souls (and how)?
6. How do they manifest? Are they simply rules God thinks about and we are to guess? Are they written down somewhere? For example, if you believe rape is wrong, can you show me where this moral value exists?
7. Do they actually exist? Can you provide evidence?
8. Can you verify these OMV's are actually OMV's? How do you test to see if not eating shellfish is an OMV or just a good idea?


Edit:

See, my belief is that people like WLC have created this idea simply to shoehorn God into the mix.
They say, "Hey, there seem to be some reallyiversal ideas about what is Good and what isn't, so what if we say that can only be because of God? What if we claim that they can only exist because of God, and that if they don't exist, then morals are "just taste"? We'll make it sound really bad if there's no God!
What are the atheists going to do? Claim that murder is good? Claim that there are OMV's - then we'll say, "The only way you can say that is admit there is God! Checkmate, atheist!"

Then someone says, "But Bill, God murders or has people murder in the Bible."

WLC thinks and says, No, if God does i, it's automatically Good!"

"Even raping children?!"

WLC and Church responds, "Especially raping children!"

and, once again, we see what the Church is really all about.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #97]

Video 1: Sapolsky argues that for free will to exist, one needs to show a neuron firing without any physical signature. Why? The physical signature traces what physically happens, it doesn’t comment on if there is anything non-physical going on. If a free will makes a decision for a being that is composed of mind/spirit/soul/whatever term you want to use and matter, then there will be a physical signature as that decision plays out. Sapolsky doesn’t show that the actual decision is something that comes later in the line, being triggered by neuron 756 or anything like that.

He then talks about how some factors affect the decisions we make (around the 4 minute mark, the part about walking by a church, etc.) according to studies. Assuming those studies are reliable (and I mean it in the sense of how it was conducted, how many people were involved, what kind of people, not that they are lying about the results), this is a weak philosophical (not scientific) argument. It’s all about the likelihood of doing A or B because of that factor. Notice that he doesn’t say doing A is always the case. If so, then he might have something. As of now, what that shows is that many people don’t really think through their decisions, not that one can’t have more control over their decisions.

He even admits that science can’t show us what the determined choice will be (around 15:20), but if it was clearly determined physically, why not? This lack shows that it’s not as clear as he presents it. Could science one day get us here? Perhaps. But it’s not there now so to act like it is is to simply hope in faith that one is right. Don’t you reject things that rest solely on faith?

In response to that critique, he says but science has progressed so much, so why not think that will just continue? Sure, but that this progress can get us truth here assumes determinism to be true in the first place. If it’s not, then science won’t get us there. So, one must assume determinism to use this line of reasoning as support for determinism. It’s circular.

The rest of the video seems to be questions that follow these beginning points being true, so they seem irrelevant to our part of this discussion. If I’ve missed an important point, please bring it up.

Video 2: Hossenfelder’s claim is that free will is incompatible with laws of nature and meaningless

Hossenfelder says “you are here to hear what the science says” at mark 0:19 and then goes on to make philosophical claims! She brings science in, but uses it to make philosophical claims. Her philosophical argument seems to go like this:

P1. If you have initial conditions in a situation, then any future result will be determined by the laws of nature
P2. You have an initial condition to any situation
P3. Therefore, any result will be determined by the laws of nature

That’s philosophy not science. But this argument does not rule out that free agency is not a part of the initial conditions. She offers no scientific evidence that free agency is not part of the initial conditions here.

She then goes on to make good points about some of the philosophical moves that try to get around this, but those critiques all assume that the above argument is sound, which I don’t think is true for the reason above. She’s right; those are bad philosophical arguments, but she doesn’t deal with my critique above.


Video 3: I’m not sure why you think this video critiques anything I’ve been saying.

Thank you for watching the videos and for responding to them. Please listen again from 14:10 to 18:22. of the first video. Robert explains the stage of understanding we have reached with science and that we will progress further. People with damage to certain areas of the brain do socially inappropriate things. It can be non-lethal things like laughing at a funeral or lethal things like committing murder. We can't predict with 100% certainty yet who will do what but we can predict that those with good environments and experiences are less likely to be the murderer. Later in the video, he says that we should think of murderers in the way we think of cars with broken brakes. We don't blame cars with broken brakes. We don't drive cars with broken brakes either. We lock them up until they are repaired then we drive them again. Similarly, we should lock up murderers until we have repaired their brains. We are not very good at repairing brains currently, but we will get better as we learn more.

In many of my posts, I have mentioned that genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences determine the behaviour of organisms. For example, if you didn't have human genes, you would not be able to read and write. No other species has developed written language. From your conception, you have had environments that didn't kill you. If you had been killed by lethal environment, you would not be able to reply to my post. You have had a lifetime of adequate nutrients, otherwise, you would have died and would not be able to reply to my post. Your experience of learning the English language has enabled you to be able to read my post and reply to my post. If you had never experienced the English language you would not even understand what I wrote, never mind reply in English. As you can see, your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences made it possible for you to reply to my post.

At a more fundamental level, everything that exists acts according to the laws of physics. It is possible that everything that has happened in the universe we exist in has happened inevitably due to the laws of physics acting on the initial conditions of the Big Bang. We can't really prove or disprove this idea because we don't have any way to go back in time and run experiments on the Big Bang.

You mentioned that something immaterial like a spirit or a soul could be part of the initial conditions on which the laws of physics act. How do you know that immaterial spirits or souls exist? If they do exist, why don't we see them in X-rays or functional MRI scans or PET scans or CT scans? How do immaterial spirits or souls interact with neurons which are made from molecules? Can you prove that free agency exists? How does free agency exist in the deterministic reality made of space-time and matter-energy? I am saying matter-energy because matter can convert into energy and energy can convert into matter.

I don't know the answers to the questions I asked above. It's ok if you don't know them. We are all doing the best we can with our unique mix of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

The third video shows how circumstances can lead to evil deeds.

[The Tanager]

If we restrict the definition of "flourishing" to be something that can only happen in a theistic idyll, well there we go.

If we accept that "flourishing" is "pretty dang good, considering it all", then we lose the ability to tell others if they're actually doing them any flourishing.

It's a bit sad, but par for the course to say only good stuff happens with a god that can't be shown to exist, but such is the mindset of so many theists.

To that bunch, only their god is truly good, so anyone who doesn't believe in that god, well they can't possibly "flourish".

Where did I restrict the definition of “flourishing” to be something that can only happen in a theistic idyll? Where did I say only good stuff happens with a god? Where did I describe what I thought was included in the idea of “flourishing”?

[The Tanager]

Is that really how you understood that? Be honest, God is watching and apparently, according to you, there are OMV's which may include lying as bad.

I really would like you to answer this because I don't see how, after all this, you think that's what I said. Again, I see this as a smarmy rhetorical trick Christain Apologists do when they are losing an argument.

Yes, that’s what it really looked like to me. Please clarify what you meant instead. What is your support for your premise 2 that there is no God and objective morals exist?

Really? Have you not been reading anything? They are experts. They talk and write about this for a living. If they were bad at it, they'd starve.
You and I don't, we are hobbyists, dabblers, and worse, you're a Religionist. You head is filled with very specific worldviews that are considered unimpeachable. You are taught to reject anything non-Biblical. If I'm being honest, you have no chance of understanding this, in reality.

Why do you think you know what I’m taught? Ad hom attacks have no rational place in this discussion. Let’s stay with a rational discussion here.

Yes I’ve been reading your claims. You’ve claimed that a lack of consensus on these philosophical matters means something important. I’m asking you to support that claim logically. The types of questions philosophy asks (including whether science reliably gives us truth about the world) are not going to produce a consensus. We can get consensus on science, but only if we ignore the lack of consensus about the philosophical assumptions science is built on. If you truly need a consensus to believe these kinds of things, then you shouldn’t believe any scientific claim.

Do you see your problem? Re-read that a few times.
I'll repeat:
Atheists do have a reason to be moral, even though there is no God.

I never said atheists can’t be moral. I said atheism doesn’t ground the truth of objective morality.

You claim that by being moral they are being inconsistent because they shouldn't have moral values, but seem to act as if they do.

No, I said atheists are inconsistent if they believe morality is subjective, yet treat different moral opinions/tastes differently than they treat different musical opinions/tastes. If you disagree, then show why this isn't inconsistent.

I said atheists are wrong if they think their worldview gives them objective morality. If you disagree, then show the feature that grounds the objectivity of morals.

Maybe some don't believe it's "just" taste. (Classic reductionism on your part.)
again, if you'd read up on moral values you'll see that most atheists (all that I know) don't say it is "just" taste, but that it's tied into well-being, obligation, social contract, etc.

I have studied many of their works and I think they do end up being different ways to talk about one’s tastes. What fits in the category of “well-being,” ends up being one taste and not another possible taste. The obligation comes from a group of humans who have power or is assumed, etc. I’m open to being shown wrong. If you think there is a clear case, then make it. If you aren’t willing to make the arguments, then don’t enter into rational discussions on these issues.

I would argue that your religion is more than "taste", it involves the society you were raised in, complex myths that incorporate truths about the human condition, moral laws, dietary laws that, songs, etc.

I think your view of “taste” is too narrow. Yes, all of those things would go into religion (if atheism is true), but it would still just be my taste on things all adding up to my religion. That’s all covered in what I mean by calling it a “taste”.

It's Christian Apoloists that have done the trick. They claim something exists that can only exist if there is a God, therefore, they conclude, God must exist.
For example:
1. Only God can Divinely forgive my sins
2. My sins are Divinely forgiven
Therefore, God exists.

It's a crock.

I can talk about OMV's, God, Unicorns, Sauron, Beowulf, etc. None of it means I accept they are real. Watch:
1. If unicorns exist, I would like one
2. Unicorns exist
Therefore, I would like one.

But, I don't believe unicorns exist, but I can write a logical argument in favor of why I might want one.

You can show OMV's exist if you want. I don't think they do, but I accept that you believe they do. (I also accept that you believe in a god, which I think undermines your credibility in assessing reality)

Address the actual claims made, don’t bring up silly arguments that trained Christian philosophers and apologists don’t really make and then act like that does something to rebut the actual claims that are being made.

This discussion here isn’t about proving objective morals. It’s about whether atheism can give us objective morals (assuming they exist) and whether theism can give us objective morals (assuming they exist).

That’s not my default assumption. I’m saying atheism doesn’t rule it out. On what basis do you judge harming another as bad here? How do you objectively know what you call “good” is that, versus just a taste of yours that is different than another taste?

Harm. We've covered this.

So, the reason you are saying harm is bad is because it is harm and harm is bad? If not, then clarify.

Your hangup seems to be that you believe Theism is true, you think Atheists are evil and only work for their self-interest.

I’ve said no such thing, nor do I believe atheists are evil and only work for their own self-interest.

Can you tell me why the 9-11 a**holes were morally wrong under your Theistic view of morality?

At least I can point to the obvious harm.

If Christian theism were true, they would be wrong because God made humans to care for each other and the world in ways that promote life and joy (as defined by how they were designed) and what those people did on 9-11 goes against that purpose.

You can point to harm, but why think one shouldn’t harm others? What, in your worldview, makes harm objectively bad?

Again, it bothers me that you seem to be obtuse. I was very clear about accepting experts "provisionally". Clearly you must remember this.

But, worse, I think you are purposely not understanding. Why do you think Nazis are experts on Jews? What gave you that impression?

Under that scenario, the Nazis would be the only experts in anything and all those experts would agree. So, that would be the consensus. For all non-experts you’ve been saying to trust the consensus of the experts, if there is one.

At this point, I think you need to explain why OMV's can only obtain if there is a God.

I am using OMV's in a way I think you are using it, as long as you aren't defining OMV's as values that can only exist if God exists

I think you mean that they are unchanging, true, real, non-subjective, binding, rules that apply in any time or space, especially for humans (but does it include animals or other sentient beings?).

By “objective” I mean “independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinion”. Technically, they could be changing, although I’m not sure which theories would truly lead to changing objective values. They would be real, non-subjective, binding on moral agents (which at least includes humans).

I shared a while ago why an atheistic evolutionary account would not lead to objective morals. You can certainly respond to my posts there or, since you claim atheism can give OMV’s, support that claim.

See, my belief is that people like WLC have created this idea simply to shoehorn God into the mix.
They say, "Hey, there seem to be some reallyiversal ideas about what is Good and what isn't, so what if we say that can only be because of God? What if we claim that they can only exist because of God, and that if they don't exist, then morals are "just taste"? We'll make it sound really bad if there's no God!
What are the atheists going to do? Claim that murder is good? Claim that there are OMV's - then we'll say, "The only way you can say that is admit there is God! Checkmate, atheist!"

Then someone says, "But Bill, God murders or has people murder in the Bible."

WLC thinks and says, No, if God does i, it's automatically Good!"

"Even raping children?!"

WLC and Church responds, "Especially raping children!"

and, once again, we see what the Church is really all about.

These are straw man arguments and ad hom attacks. Both are irrational. Let's deal with what theists are actually doing and arguing.

[The Tanager]

Thank you for watching the videos and for responding to them. Please listen again from 14:10 to 18:22. of the first video. Robert explains the stage of understanding we have reached with science and that we will progress further. People with damage to certain areas of the brain do socially inappropriate things. It can be non-lethal things like laughing at a funeral or lethal things like committing murder. We can't predict with 100% certainty yet who will do what but we can predict that those with good environments and experiences are less likely to be the murderer. Later in the video, he says that we should think of murderers in the way we think of cars with broken brakes. We don't blame cars with broken brakes. We don't drive cars with broken brakes either. We lock them up until they are repaired then we drive them again. Similarly, we should lock up murderers until we have repaired their brains. We are not very good at repairing brains currently, but we will get better as we learn more.

Yes, like I said, this shows that various factors increase the likelihood of choosing A or choosing B, but it does nothing to show that these factors determine choosing A over B or vice versa. Oh, but in the future, we’ll know more. If that time comes and one can prove determinism, then believe it then. If you believe the conclusion now because the future may give us proof, then you believe in it by faith alone. Oh, but science has progressed so far. I agree! But this hope rests on the assumption that determinism is true, so that future progress in science will show determinism is true. That tells me that science doesn’t currently support determinism being true.

In many of my posts, I have mentioned that genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences determine the behaviour of organisms. For example, if you didn't have human genes, you would not be able to read and write. No other species has developed written language. From your conception, you have had environments that didn't kill you. If you had been killed by lethal environment, you would not be able to reply to my post. You have had a lifetime of adequate nutrients, otherwise, you would have died and would not be able to reply to my post. Your experience of learning the English language has enabled you to be able to read my post and reply to my post. If you had never experienced the English language you would not even understand what I wrote, never mind reply in English. As you can see, your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences made it possible for you to reply to my post.

But that’s not determinism. Limited free will agrees with the above.

At a more fundamental level, everything that exists acts according to the laws of physics. It is possible that everything that has happened in the universe we exist in has happened inevitably due to the laws of physics acting on the initial conditions of the Big Bang. We can't really prove or disprove this idea because we don't have any way to go back in time and run experiments on the Big Bang.

Possible, sure. Possible doesn’t mean actual, though. Even if we could run experiments on the Big Bang, why think this would show everything was inevitable?

You mentioned that something immaterial like a spirit or a soul could be part of the initial conditions on which the laws of physics act. How do you know that immaterial spirits or souls exist?

Notice the context of my comment. I was critiquing Hossenfelder’s argument. She has to be able to logically rule out the possibility of the mind/spirit/soul/free agency for her argument to go through. She doesn’t. But she thinks this is an argument that disproves free will. That’s her conclusion. A conclusion that rests on premises that assume no free agency. That’s circular.

If they do exist, why don't we see them in X-rays or functional MRI scans or PET scans or CT scans? How do immaterial spirits or souls interact with neurons which are made from molecules?

The spirit/soul/mind/free agency would be non-physical, so why would it show up on physical scans? How the mind interacts with the brain is a secondary question; not having an answer there doesn’t mean such an interaction doesn’t take place.

Can you prove that free agency exists?

I don’t think there is a knock-down proof for free agency. I do think it is more reasonable than determinism. Part of my support rests on things you won’t agree with: that free will would be preferable to a loving God over determinism, the existence of such a God, the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, reliability of the new testament documents on preserving Jesus’ teaching, etc….but even without all of that, free agency is the simpler answer (because determinism has to explain everything that free will is consistent with and posit an additional layer of reality on top of that to where all of that stuff just explained is illusionary. I think that shifts the burden to determinism needing evidence to make it more reasonable, but I do think this issue is closer to 50/50 than other philosophical issues.

How does free agency exist in the deterministic reality made of space-time and matter-energy? I am saying matter-energy because matter can convert into energy and energy can convert into matter.

I’m not sure what problem you see here. It’s not part of matter-energy, so why would matter-energy being deterministic mean things outside of matter-energy must also be deterministic. The free will is part of the initial conditions that can affect matter-energy.

The third video shows how circumstances can lead to evil deeds.

It shows that circumstances play a role in it, but it definitely didn’t seem to argue, much less show, that circumstances determine it. He talked about how some people do act differently than the majority crowd, didn’t he? That shows that the circumstance itself doesn’t determine it. There is, in fact, no one factor that always correlates to the same “choice”.

[JoeyKnothead]

If we restrict the definition of "flourishing" to be something that can only happen in a theistic idyll, well there we go.

If we accept that "flourishing" is "pretty dang good, considering it all", then we lose the ability to tell others if they're actually doing them any flourishing.

It's a bit sad, but par for the course to say only good stuff happens with a god that can't be shown to exist, but such is the mindset of so many theists.

To that bunch, only their god is truly good, so anyone who doesn't believe in that god, well they can't possibly "flourish".

Where did I restrict the definition of “flourishing” to be something that can only happen in a theistic idyll? Where did I say only good stuff happens with a god? Where did I describe what I thought was included in the idea of “flourishing”?

I could have been more clear here, and I hate putting arguments onto others that they don't make. For that bit, I apologize and retract to you personally, and anyone else who needs it.

Where my comments reflect the Christian promotion of a book that says nonbelievers can do no good, I neither apologize, nor retract. It's my contention the logical take here is that nonbelievers allegedly can't "flourish".

[Compassionist]

Thank you for watching the videos and for responding to them. Please listen again from 14:10 to 18:22. of the first video. Robert explains the stage of understanding we have reached with science and that we will progress further. People with damage to certain areas of the brain do socially inappropriate things. It can be non-lethal things like laughing at a funeral or lethal things like committing murder. We can't predict with 100% certainty yet who will do what but we can predict that those with good environments and experiences are less likely to be the murderer. Later in the video, he says that we should think of murderers in the way we think of cars with broken brakes. We don't blame cars with broken brakes. We don't drive cars with broken brakes either. We lock them up until they are repaired then we drive them again. Similarly, we should lock up murderers until we have repaired their brains. We are not very good at repairing brains currently, but we will get better as we learn more.

Yes, like I said, this shows that various factors increase the likelihood of choosing A or choosing B, but it does nothing to show that these factors determine choosing A over B or vice versa. Oh, but in the future, we’ll know more. If that time comes and one can prove determinism, then believe it then. If you believe the conclusion now because the future may give us proof, then you believe in it by faith alone. Oh, but science has progressed so far. I agree! But this hope rests on the assumption that determinism is true, so that future progress in science will show determinism is true. That tells me that science doesn’t currently support determinism being true.

In many of my posts, I have mentioned that genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences determine the behaviour of organisms. For example, if you didn't have human genes, you would not be able to read and write. No other species has developed written language. From your conception, you have had environments that didn't kill you. If you had been killed by lethal environment, you would not be able to reply to my post. You have had a lifetime of adequate nutrients, otherwise, you would have died and would not be able to reply to my post. Your experience of learning the English language has enabled you to be able to read my post and reply to my post. If you had never experienced the English language you would not even understand what I wrote, never mind reply in English. As you can see, your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences made it possible for you to reply to my post.

But that’s not determinism. Limited free will agrees with the above.

At a more fundamental level, everything that exists acts according to the laws of physics. It is possible that everything that has happened in the universe we exist in has happened inevitably due to the laws of physics acting on the initial conditions of the Big Bang. We can't really prove or disprove this idea because we don't have any way to go back in time and run experiments on the Big Bang.

Possible, sure. Possible doesn’t mean actual, though. Even if we could run experiments on the Big Bang, why think this would show everything was inevitable?

You mentioned that something immaterial like a spirit or a soul could be part of the initial conditions on which the laws of physics act. How do you know that immaterial spirits or souls exist?

Notice the context of my comment. I was critiquing Hossenfelder’s argument. She has to be able to logically rule out the possibility of the mind/spirit/soul/free agency for her argument to go through. She doesn’t. But she thinks this is an argument that disproves free will. That’s her conclusion. A conclusion that rests on premises that assume no free agency. That’s circular.

If they do exist, why don't we see them in X-rays or functional MRI scans or PET scans or CT scans? How do immaterial spirits or souls interact with neurons which are made from molecules?

The spirit/soul/mind/free agency would be non-physical, so why would it show up on physical scans? How the mind interacts with the brain is a secondary question; not having an answer there doesn’t mean such an interaction doesn’t take place.

Can you prove that free agency exists?

I don’t think there is a knock-down proof for free agency. I do think it is more reasonable than determinism. Part of my support rests on things you won’t agree with: that free will would be preferable to a loving God over determinism, the existence of such a God, the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, reliability of the new testament documents on preserving Jesus’ teaching, etc….but even without all of that, free agency is the simpler answer (because determinism has to explain everything that free will is consistent with and posit an additional layer of reality on top of that to where all of that stuff just explained is illusionary. I think that shifts the burden to determinism needing evidence to make it more reasonable, but I do think this issue is closer to 50/50 than other philosophical issues.

How does free agency exist in the deterministic reality made of space-time and matter-energy? I am saying matter-energy because matter can convert into energy and energy can convert into matter.

I’m not sure what problem you see here. It’s not part of matter-energy, so why would matter-energy being deterministic mean things outside of matter-energy must also be deterministic. The free will is part of the initial conditions that can affect matter-energy.

The third video shows how circumstances can lead to evil deeds.

It shows that circumstances play a role in it, but it definitely didn’t seem to argue, much less show, that circumstances determine it. He talked about how some people do act differently than the majority crowd, didn’t he? That shows that the circumstance itself doesn’t determine it. There is, in fact, no one factor that always correlates to the same “choice”.

Just because we can't predict with 100% accuracy, who will do what does not mean that the choices are not determined by genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences, and the laws of physics. We can't predict the weather with 100% accuracy either. That does not mean that the weather is not determined by variables and the laws of physics.

I wish there was a way to know with 100% certainty what is real and what is not as I find it very frustrating that I can't know. I hate not being able to prevent all suffering, injustices, and deaths and not being able to make all living things forever happy.

I don't think we are going to agree and that's ok. I don't require anyone to agree with me. Thank you for all your thoughtful replies. I wish you all the best.