A Plea...

[2ndRateMind]

Seems to me, some atheists are vehemently opposed to theists of any sort. And some theists are likewise opposed to atheists of any sort.

The central contention is: Did the universe arise spontaneously from nothing? Or was the universe created by the Mind of God?

Whichever unproven hypothesis you prefer, I see no reason for any vehement enmity between the two parties to the argument. Mostly, but with this caveat. If the God hypothesis is true, and God is good, then what is moral matters crucially. If it isn't, it doesn't, really. I sometimes wonder if some atheists argue so vehemently because they do not like the idea that what is moral, matters.

Can we agree, then, to respect one another, whether or not morality matters? Just an idea, for your consideration.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

If "it feels good to fulfill my duty" isn't a good reason to do be moral, then neither would "I have a duty to be moral" qualify as a good reason.

Uh huh. But if you read Kant (ideally with a commentary - he is pretty tough going) you will discover he is quite decided on this. His idea of a moral action is such that it commands us, even if that moral action does not make us 'feel good about ourselves'. In fact, Kant dismisses all emotion from the moral calculus quite explicitly. For him, doing something moral because I want to do it is not being moral, at all. He thinks that an action is only moral insofar as it arises out of duty, something we must do in order to be moral, whether we want to or not, and whether it makes us feel good or not, and that duty must be derived from the categorical imperative.

I am not sure of the point you are trying to make here. Perhaps you could put it differently, such that my poor second rate mind can grapple with it?

I was trying to point out that objectivity in itself is not something to stride [strive?] for. Given two alternatives, where A is objective while B is subjective, A is does not win by default.

Is it your position, then, that a subjective morality (what I might - erroneously or with only partial accuracy - think to be good) is just as ethical as an objective morality (what actually is good)?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Bust Nak]

But if you read Kant (ideally with a commentary - he is pretty tough going) you will discover he is quite decided on this. His idea of moral action is such that it commands us, even if that moral action does not make us 'feel good about ourselves'. In fact, Kant dismisses all emotion from the moral calculus quite explicitly. For him, doing something moral because I want to do it is not moral, at all. He thinks that an action is only moral insofar as it arises out of duty, something we must do in order to be moral, and that duty is derived from the categorical imperative.

That's all well and good but does not change the fact that one only ever carrys out this duty because it makes them feel good about himself. Pointing out that one should do this even if it doesn't feel good is moot because it always feels good.

Do you think, then, that a subjective morality (what I might - erroneously or accurately - think to be good) is just as ethical as an objective morality (what actually is good)?

No but that's moot since none of the following:
1) objectively something that one wishes to be a universal law, or
2) objectively promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number, or
3) objectively benfits human flourishing
is necessrily what actually is good.

[2ndRateMind]

Do you think, then, that a subjective morality (what I might - erroneously or accurately - think to be good) is just as ethical as an objective morality (what actually is good)?

No but that's moot since none of the following:
1) objectively something that one wishes to be a universal law, or
2) objectively promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number, or
3) objectively benefits human flourishing
is necessarily what actually is good.

Indeed. But that is the state of the art of ethics at time t=now. Perhaps you have an improvement to offer? Meanwhile, if I am confronted by some non-trivial ethical dilemma, I tend to contemplate it from all these angles, weigh the perspectives, and come to some considered conclusion. I advocate no less for everyone.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Bust Nak]

Perhaps you have an improvement to offer?

I do have a suggestion, embrace moral subjectivism, feel what is wrong and what is right. You know it intuatively, nature as done the hardwork to wire that into your system.

I will leave you to decide if that's an improvement or not.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 64 by Bust Nak]

Been there, done that, got that t-shirt. In the end I found it unsatisfactory, because I am less interested in what I merely think is good, than in what actually is good. Doubtless Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all thought they were doing what is good, but that does not make morality relative or subjective ethics valid.

Best wishes, 2RM

[Bust Nak]

I found it unsatisfactory, because I am less interested in what I merely think is good, than in what actually is good...

That's not a very good reason for abandoning relativism/subjectivism. That's like saying "I was a believing Christian but found Christianity unsatisfactory because it is false." Surely there is some other reason that first lead one to believe Christianity is false before they would find Christianity unsatisfactory. What is that underlying reason?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

The central contention is: Did the universe arise spontaneously from nothing? Or was the universe created by the Mind of God?

Conservation of Mass answers this question with every observation (under controlled circumstances) ever made.

It states quite plainly that mass (aka everything in the universe), was not created, nor is it able to be destroyed.

No creation required, no creator required.

It is as simple as that.

The idea of the universe/mass needing a creator is just another myth.
Busted.

[William]

[Replying to post 56 by RedEye]

No. You can't posit such a link without explaining the origin and workings of this "creative mindful process", especially if we have established that such a thing is not needed as an explanatory device for the universe.

No such thing has been 'established'.

The universe as we see it now and are presently experiencing it, is not what is 'the universe' - but rather it is the eternal process which is 'The Universe'. The GOD aspect is that which drives its manifestation from potential state to actualized and then back to potential...eternally doing so.

I'm not sure what any of that means. What potential state? Is this science or metaphysics? All I see is an assertion backed by nothing.

Yes. this seems to be a problem some have when they argue for the universe always having existed in one form or another, but fail to understand process to do with this theory.

This potential has to do with what an eternal universe must have been prior to this particular material manifestation of this particular unfolding.

The universe as something argued as being eternal and never having a beginning or end must therefore be the stuff which makes up the universe rather than how the particular way the stuff manifests into physical objects, as the objects themselves are not eternal. The stuff the objects are made of is what is eternal as well as is the process which allows for the non eternal manifestations to unfold as they do.

The argument that this unfolding happens mindlessly is simply assertion which does not take into account the obvious intelligence involved, and this lack of taking into account the obvious has to do with a bias against such thinking rather than because there is no evidence showing the process is intelligent.

The intelligent aspect of the process is the "GOD" part. Consciousness is involved and the argument is that there is no reason to assume that one created the other when it can be understood that both are simple aspects of the same eternal process. One is the mind and the other is the matter but both are the whole - like two sides of the coin are what makes the coin the coin.

We humans represent a type of consciousness which obliviously requires explanation for both the universe and our place within it.

Obviously?

Yes. Have you not yet noticed?

Why?

That is obvious once one delves into investigating it.

We have an explanation for human beings. It is called evolution. There is no problem there.

Having an explanation for the form is not having an explanation for both the universe and our place within it. Biological evolution answers the 'how' not the 'why'.

We have an explanation for the universe back to the Planck Epoch. At that point we hit the unknown. I am content to wait for answers from science.

You are more likely to die before science is able to answer such questions, given that the questions themselves are based in the metaphysical/philosophical sectors of human thinking from wench they arise.

Science is not presently the best method to answer such questions (and one should be able to comprehend that as being the case), so your 'contentment' appears to be more the case of a willfully developed bias against such thinking which is strengthened by superficial arguments acting as circling wagons attempting to protect said willfully developed bias whilst awaiting for the cavalry to arrive in the form of scientific evidence supporting said willfully developed bias.

I don't require any explanation although it would be nice to have one. I most certainly don't need any wild assertions about some "creative mindful process". It doesn't help.

Science is quiet on that front. I often wonder why many scientists and atheists are unwilling to acknowledge the obvious in relation to the process and intelligence, until I remember that human propensity to being seen as 'the most intelligent organism in the universe' would be undermined if scientists and atheists were to do so. They seem unable to tolerate the idea of a process being more intelligent than the outcomes of said process.

As well as this, we have ancient ideas of GOD promoted by organised religion which serve to fuel the fire of atheist arguments against the idea of GOD altogether, but I generally understand this as being straw-clutching and a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater as argument against such ancient ideas of GOD are not in themselves arguments against the idea of a creative mind being involved with the processes of physical manifestation from quantum potential.

My counter argument is not resorting to 'the supernatural'.

Sure it is.

Your one-liner does nothing to help your assertion that I am invoking 'supernatural'. You appear to be saying that 'intelligence' and 'consciousness' is 'supernatural' in relation to my argument re the universe as a closed system which is eternal in nature and unfolds through each physical manifestation of forms as an intelligently directed process.

Do you require an explanation for the existence of a "mindful creative process"?

Yes I do, and also I have developed the explanation which satisfies the evidence.

This, because I started at the premise that intelligence is behind the creative process manifested, as clearly can be observed.

This argument is the very same one as the ongoing discussion I am involved with in the "What type of design is this? - 2nd atttempt" thread, with Bust Nak, starting at post #35. -
Essentially the idea is that this universe is a closed system which has eternally existed in one form or another with beginnings signifying new manifestation. The eternal aspect is the physical stuff (quantum) plus the mind/intelligence/consciousness which directs those manifestations.

♦ On the theory of the universe having always existed and will always exist.

[RedEye]

[Replying to post 56 by RedEye]

I'm not sure what any of that means. What potential state? Is this science or metaphysics? All I see is an assertion backed by nothing.

Yes. this seems to be a problem some have when they argue for the universe always having existed in one form or another, but fail to understand process to do with this theory.
:
The stuff the objects are made of is what is eternal as well as is the process which allows for the non eternal manifestations to unfold as they do.

The argument that this unfolding happens mindlessly is simply assertion which does not take into account the obvious intelligence involved, and this lack of taking into account the obvious has to do with a bias against such thinking rather than because there is no evidence showing the process is intelligent.

This is the problem I have with your argumentation style. I ask what you mean by a term and you launch into a series of assertions (without the slightest hint of evidence) and invite a dozen other questions about a whole new set of esoteric terms. You insist that something is obvious when it isn't. And you completely forget about answering the original question I asked to go off on some barely related tangent. I'm sorry but I can't deal with how your mind seems to work. I have no patience for it. Life is too short. Sorry.

[William]

[Replying to post 69 by RedEye]

Yes. this seems to be a problem some have when they argue for the universe always having existed in one form or another, but fail to understand process to do with this theory.
:
The stuff the objects are made of is what is eternal as well as is the process which allows for the non eternal manifestations to unfold as they do.

The argument that this unfolding happens mindlessly is simply assertion which does not take into account the obvious intelligence involved, and this lack of taking into account the obvious has to do with a bias against such thinking rather than because there is no evidence showing the process is intelligent.

This is the problem I have with your argumentation style. I ask what you mean by a term and you launch into a series of assertions (without the slightest hint of evidence) and invite a dozen other questions about a whole new set of esoteric terms.

in Post #25 2ndRateMind was quoted;

2ndRateMind: If the universe was not created by God, which you say you do not believe, and if it did not arise out of nothing, which you also say you do not believe, then just how did it happen to come to be?

To which you were quoted replying;

RedEye: Ask that same question for how your God came to be. Whatever answer you come up with will be the answer for how the universe came to be.

To which I replied;

William: That is an easy answer. The universe as we know it, had a beginning. The word out is The First Source aka "GOD in the generic" never did, so the same Q is irrelevant under that premise.

Then in the very next post you wrote in reply;

RedEye: Did it? At what moment in time did the universe not exist?

and;

RedEye: I define the universe to have always existed.

So it was your assertion above to which I have been focused upon as the premise, thus I have been giving some kind of explanation for how the 'universe which has always existed' manages to do so.

So your question regarding this;

I'm not sure what any of that means. What potential state? Is this science or metaphysics? All I see is an assertion backed by nothing.

...is amusing in that it is your premise that the universe has always existed yet you do not seem to be able to grasp how this would be possible, scientifically speaking.

So, since you are apparently unable to follow along with the terms I am using, perhaps you would like to inform the readers as to how the universe has managed to always exist while at the same time have a beginning (the big bang) and - as scientist inform us - will eventually have an end.