Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
For what does the critic of the causal principle ask us to believe? , We are asked to countenance the possibility of the following situation: the nonexistence of anything, followed by the existence of something. , The words "followed by" are crucial , how are they to be interpreted? , What they cannot mean is that there is at one time nothing and at a subsequent time something, because the nonexistence of anything is supposed toinclude time: , to say that at one time there is nothing whatsoever is self-defeating because it is to say that there is a time at which nothing exists , hence something did exist. , But it is hard to see how else we are supposed to understand "followed by"; or when the denier of the causal principle says that it is possible for something to come, from nothing what are we to understand by "from"? , Again it cannot have a causal sense because something is supposed to have come into existence uncaused. All that appears to be left is a timeless contradiction , the existence of nothing and the existence of something [4]
Imagine I had an infinite number of marbles in my possession, and that I wanted to give you some. , In fact, suppose I wanted to give you an infinite number of marbles. , In that case I would have zero marbles left for myself.
However, another way to do it would be to give you all of the odd numbered marbles. , Then I would still have an infinite left over for myself, and you would have an infinite too. , You'd have just as many as I would , and, in fact, each of us would have just as many as I originally had before we divided into odd and even! , Or another approach would be for me to give, you, all the marbles numbered four and higher. , That way, you would have an infinite of, marbles, but I would have only three marbles left.
What these illustrates demonstrate is that the notion of an actual infinite number of things leads to contradictory results. , In my first case in which I gave you all the marbles, infinity minus infinity is zero, in the second case in which I gave you all the odd-numbered marbles, infinity minus infinity is infinity; and in the third case in which I gave you all the marbles numbered four and greater, infinity minus infinity is three. , In each case, we have subtracted the identical number from the identical number, but we have come up with non-identical results. [6]
There are two main objections to this which I will cover: one, that it is a fallacy of composition, and two, that inserting the idea of a god as a cause is special pleading. There is also a minor point with my opponent's position which I feel needs clarification.1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2.The universe began to exist
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause
3.Even if this objection does work, it does not falsify the first premise. At best, it would remove the empirical and experiential support for it, but it does not falsify it.
This, I feel, requires clarification. What exactly does "create in the lack of antecedent determining conditions" mean? I suspect that this may be nothing more than a missing comma issue, but I want to be sure.It should be noted that the cause of the universe must be personal, since it would have to create in the lack of antecedent determining conditions.
1.Whatever exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause
2.The universe exists
3.Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence
Quite. There is absolutely nothing about the universe which would make us think that it is necessary - which puts it on exactly even ground with God.The problem is that there is nothing about the universe which would make us think it's a necessary being.
Like the argument, the rebuttal to this is simple.1.If objective moral values exist, then God exists
2.Objective moral values exist
3.Therefore, God exists
PREMISE 1. The universe consists of the space-time continuum and everything inside it.
CONCLUSION 1. If the universe does not exist, by definition, time does not exist.
PREMISE 2. Causality cannot exist without time.
CONCLUSION 2. Causality did not exist "before" the universe existed.
CONCLUSION 3. The universe could not have been the result of a causal relationship.
You know as well as I do that removal of both empirical and experiential support for an argument renders it useless. I can say that Cthulhu lives on Pluto if I want, but without empirical or experiential support for it, that statement is nothing more than the bare assertion fallacy.
This is another fallacy of composition, though it is different from the one that the Kalam Cosmological Argument commits. According to Leibniz, everything in this universe can be explained through the mechanism of external causation. However, he goes wrong in assuming that the universe itself requires an external cause, rather than being "necessary". This external cause, he posits, is God.
[....]
Quite. There is absolutely nothing about the universe which would make us think that it is necessary - which puts it on exactly even ground with God.
[...]
There is absolutely nothing about God that makes us think that he is necessary, either. The only difference between the two things in the battle for necessity is that we can prove that the universe exists. On the other hand, we cannot prove that God exists. Therefore, to posit God as an explanation for the universe is bare assertion, and a violation of Occam's razor.
Ignoring for the moment that there have been several truly sick people over the years, this is still not evidence for objective moral values. Moral tendencies are explained perfectly well through natural mechanisms: namely, natural selection.
Natural selection applies to species as well as individuals. Inferior species will die out. And one of the things which can make a species most fit for survival is the tendency to work together and help each other rather than fight.
There are exceptions, of course - there are animal species which each each other, or even their own young - but many species have evolved to not attack each other. Piranha, for example, do not attack each other, even in the midst of a feeding frenzy. Many animals will help an injured pack member. The reason is simple: a species which cooperates is more fit for survival in many situations.
But it is not a generalization. Rather, it is simple fact. Causality requires that one event take place after and as a result of another event. Philosopher has conveniently ignored the first part of the definition, but doing so renders reality as we know it moot; events in the past can be the result of events in the future, and two events occurring at exactly the same moment can each be the result of the other. In short, it reduces our universe to an acausal explosion of chaos. Removing causality's requirement that effects take place after causes is both demonstrably wrong (as we can see all around us that cause comes before effect) and a surefire way to destroy everything we know about the universe.Premise 2 seems evidently false. While in our experience we observe that causation requires time, to say that it is a necessary feature of causation is an accidental generalization.
This could be referring to one of two things: the universe's birth or the Big Bang (the two are not equivalent; the Big Bang was something that happened to the universe at the beginning, but it was not the birth of the universe). In the case of the former, this statement is incorrect, because there was no cause. In the case of the latter, it is still incorrect. The Big Bang is as far back in the universal timeline as we can see, but it is not the beginning. In fact, our current understanding of causality requires that the singularity which expanded during the Bang existed for at least a Planck second before "exploding". In neither case did the cause take place at the same time as the effect.The type of causation that would have been operative at the big bang would be simultaneous causation -- one in which the cause is simultaneous, and not prior to, the effect.
But Oderberg's argument is likewise flawed. He has taken the limits of the language - namely, that we cannot express "before the universe" without using the word "before" - and taken that to be a concession that time has always existed. This is untrue. It is simply that we cannot express the conditions prior to the existence of the universe in any other fashion due to the limitations of the language we are using.This is only true if the argument in question is based only on experiential and empirical considerations. In regards to the first premise, this is not true. While the first premise does find support in experiential confirmation, I also gave a non-empirical and non-experiential argument by philosopher David Oderberg which argued that the denial of the first premise in fact entails a contradiction.
The latter part of this statement is perfectly true. There were no conditions prior to the universe which could have determined a natural cause. However, there were also no conditions which could have determined a personal cause.The cause of the universe must have been personal, since there were no conditions "prior" to the beginning of the universe which could have determined a natural cause.
Where did I dispute this?1. Size doesn't matter.
You have evidence to support this?Since the universe is a contingent entity (There exists a possible world X in which the universe does not exist)
And the atheist's argument is that it is not. When there is absolutely no reason to think that the universe cannot be necessary - or, indeed, that the universe is even subject to the argument of necessity - saying that it must be and that, therefore, a magical being exists which is not is a violation of the razor.It's simply question begging to say that theism violates Ockham's razor. According to Ockham's razor, entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. The theist's very point here is that theism is necessary to explain the existence of the universe.
And where is the "ought" set in stone? Where is your evidence that the "ought" is anything more than your own opinion?Biology is by definition descriptive (It describes how things are and how they came to be), whereas ethics is prescriptive (It tells us how we ought to act).
Of course not, because, again, "ought" does not exist objectively. But you are ignoring evolution.Simply because X is selectively advantageous does not mean that therefore we ought to do X. Is does not equal ought.
Yes, because morality does not exist objectively. If it did, we could measure and quantify it, rather than it being subject to opinion and social norms.Science by definition is barred from answering all moral questions.
No one was doing so. My argument is not "Wolves help injured pack members, therefore wolves ought to help injured pack members". Rather, it is "Wolves desire to help injured pack members". That is all. There is no "ought".Perhaps an example of what the naturalistic fallacy is will help. Suppose that Jones is going to the store. You can't infer the conclusion "Therefore, Jones ought to go to the store" from that premise, because a description does not entail a prescription. Similarly, the fact that X is beneficial toward selection does not mean that we ought to do X. You cannot infer a prescription from a descriptive statement.
Your argument is, in effect, "Sick people torture babies, but I don't think that's right, and most people don't think that's right, so there must be an objective moral code which says that torturing babies is wrong". Can you see the break in logic here? You cannot leap from "Most people consider torturing babies wrong" to "There is an objective moral code which condemns baby-torturers", especially in light of the known evolutionary tendency towards non-baby-torturing in our species. You need evidence that a moral code exists outside of the confines of your head. So far, you have presented none.The fact that there have been sick people over the years who find it perfectly acceptable to torture babies for fun does not diminish the intuitive warrant at all.
No, it doesn't, for exactly the same reason that your argument for objective morality fails. These people think that we live in a Matrix world of sensation. Their argument fails because they are entirely unable to present evidence for the existence of this Matrix-world outside of their own beliefs and opinions. Your objective moral argument fails for the same reason: you are unable to present evidence for it outside of the confines of your own head.After all, some people actually believe that we live in a matrix-like world. Does their disagreement therefore give us warrant to doubt our intuition that the external world exists? Of course not.
Because there is absolutely no evidence for them.Commander Eagle did not give us a reason why objective morality does not exist. He simply asserted an alternate explanation -- but an alternate explanation is not a refutation. He needs to show why it is likely that objective moral values do not exist.
And my refutation was an example of why it is not an example of objective morality. That the vast majority of humans consider the Holocaust horrific does not make it objectively wrong.Finally, Commander Eagle seems to have completely misunderstood my use of the Holocaust example. I did not intend that as an argument, but as an example of what I meant by the term "objective."
But it is not a generalization. Rather, it is simple fact. Causality requires that one event take place after and as a result of another event. Philosopher has conveniently ignored the first part of the definition, but doing so renders reality as we know it moot; events in the past can be the result of events in the future, and two events occurring at exactly the same moment can each be the result of the other. In short, it reduces our universe to an acausal explosion of chaos. Removing causality's requirement that effects take place after causes is both demonstrably wrong (as we can see all around us that cause comes before effect) and a surefire way to destroy everything we know about the universe.
This could be referring to one of two things: the universe's birth or the Big Bang (the two are not equivalent; the Big Bang was something that happened to the universe at the beginning, but it was not the birth of the universe). In the case of the former, this statement is incorrect, because there was no cause. In the case of the latter, it is still incorrect. The Big Bang is as far back in the universal timeline as we can see, but it is not the beginning. In fact, our current understanding of causality requires that the singularity which expanded during the Bang existed for at least a Planck second before "exploding". In neither case did the cause take place at the same time as the effect.
Philosopher has attempted to create a new type of causality with absolutely no basis for doing so. Even were he able to establish the existence of "simultaneous causality", however, it would not help his position. Even simultaneous causality requires that two events occur during the same moment in time. Prior to the existence of the universe, there was no time for two events to take place in. The universe could not have come into existence simultaneously with his god's willing of it. There is no time to measure if two events take place in the same moment or not.
But Oderberg's argument is likewise flawed. He has taken the limits of the language - namely, that we cannot express "before the universe" without using the word "before" - and taken that to be a concession that time has always existed. This is untrue. It is simply that we cannot express the conditions prior to the existence of the universe in any other fashion due to the limitations of the language we are using.
Another problem with the "nothing has a cause" rebuttal that you present is that it attempts to equivocate between what humans perceive to have been created and what actually has been. Like the moral argument that you present, this is incorrect. You can say that "the shoe was created because its molecules were not all in that position before," but that is meaningless equivocation. The definition of "created" used in that statement and the definition of "created" which is relevant to this debate are two entirely different things. The former means "brought into its present state", while the latter means "brought into being". They are not equivalent, and thus the "everything has a cause for its creation" argument is devoid of support.
Everything in this universe has a reason for why it is in its current state, yes, but there is absolutely no evidence supporting the claim that everything in this universe has a cause for why it exists.
The latter part of this statement is perfectly true. There were no conditions prior to the universe which could have determined a natural cause. However, there were also no conditions which could have determined a personal cause.
In addition, this argument is nothing but the appeal to magic. In the universe, there is absolutely no evidence for any distinction between "natural" and "personal" causes, or for the existence of free will. This makes the existence of a personal, free-willed cause nothing but bare assertion, as well as being the appeal to magic: since a natural cause couldn't have done it, it must have been a djinn.
Where did I dispute this?
You have evidence to support this?
In addition, Leibniz's argument is still a fallacy of composition. Everything within the universe has, and must have, an explanation for its current state. This does not hold for the universe itself, in the same way that causality does not hold for the universe itself. Leibniz's argument is nothing but bare assertion.
And the atheist's argument is that it is not. When there is absolutely no reason to think that the universe cannot be necessary - or, indeed, that the universe is even subject to the argument of necessity - saying that it must be and that, therefore, a magical being exists which is not is a violation of the razor.
All things can be explained within the context of Leibniz's own argument if we simply state that the universe is necessary. To posit the existence of another being with no special qualifications (other than Leibniz's statement that it is necessary, rather than the universe) is bare assertion, and therefore a violation of the razor.
Your argument is, in effect, "Sick people torture babies, but I don't think that's right, and most people don't think that's right, so there must be an objective moral code which says that torturing babies is wrong". Can you see the break in logic here? You cannot leap from "Most people consider torturing babies wrong" to "There is an objective moral code which condemns baby-torturers", especially in light of the known evolutionary tendency towards non-baby-torturing in our species. You need evidence that a moral code exists outside of the confines of your head. So far, you have presented none.
No, it doesn't, for exactly the same reason that your argument for objective morality fails. These people think that we live in a Matrix world of sensation. Their argument fails because they are entirely unable to present evidence for the existence of this Matrix-world outside of their own beliefs and opinions. Your objective moral argument fails for the same reason: you are unable to present evidence for it outside of the confines of your own head.
Because there is absolutely no evidence for them.
My alternate explanation was not another explanation for objective morality. Rather, it was an explanation for why you might think that there is objective morality. It is not actually a basis for such. If you want to argue in favor of objective morality, you cannot sit there and say "Well, you can't prove that it doesn't exist!" I cannot prove that Cthulhu does not exist. Does this mean that your assertion that he does has any merit? Of course not. The burden of proof is on you.
we can say that there exists a possible world P in which the universe exists. Since there exists no internal contradiction in this notion, it follows logically that the universe is contingent and thus requires an explanation.
Except that it does. I explained this in my last post. By definition, causality requires time. If you wish to posit that an event can cause a simultaneous event, present your evidence. Likewise, if you wish to assert that causality can occur without time, present your evidence.Philosopher said:#1 - Criticism of Simultaneous Causation
You seem to have re-asserted the fact that causality requires time without any justification. Now, while it is true that the type of causality which takes place in the universe is temporal in nature, it doesn't seem that temporality is therefore a necessary condition of causality. You argue that simultaneous causation "reduces our universe to an acausal explosion of chaos." This is simply untrue. In our universe, causation "requires" time because we live in a temporal framework. Remove that framework, and causation can still happen, just not in a temporal framework. That all our examples of causation take place within a temporal framework does not show that causation therefore is necessarily temporal.
Except that, by definition, causation cannot be atemporal.There was nothing to dispute the two thought experiments I brought up which demonstrated how causation would work in an atemporal framework. I happen to agree that as long as there is time, then causation must be temporal. However, this says nothing as to whether or not causation can be atemporal.
No, it isn't. If you wish to suggest that it is, present your evidence.By the way, simultaneous causation isn't something that was invented to conveniently "fix" this issue, it's a legitimate option within causation.
What magical thing, then, allows it to operate within the first Planck second of universal birth and at no other point?Simultaneous causation would have only been operative at the first moment of time.
This doesn't work. For God to begin creating the universe, he has to start before the universe existed - unless you wish to assert that your god made use of simultaneous causation in creating the universe, which you still have not shown to be possible.You then argue that even if simultaneous causation were a legitimate option, it would not due because "prior to the existence of the universe, there was no time for two events to take place in." This is half-correct. The moment in which God created the universe would constitute the first moment of time, and hence his creating the universe would be simultaneous with its beginning to exist.
His argument is this:#2 -- David Oderberg's Argument for P1 of the KCA
But Oderberg's argument is likewise flawed. He has taken the limits of the language - namely, that we cannot express "before the universe" without using the word "before" - and taken that to be a concession that time has always existed. This is untrue. It is simply that we cannot express the conditions prior to the existence of the universe in any other fashion due to the limitations of the language we are using.
This seems to me to attack a completely strawman of Oderberg's argument. Oderberg's argument is not that time must have always existed because of our use of language (I don't see how that was inferred from the passage at all) -- but because the principle of something coming from nothing is self-contradictory.
This is, indeed, an argument that "something from nothing" is contradictory - but its basis is in the limitations of the language. You can see it yourself in the bolded part of the argument. Oderberg essentially argues that there can never have been nothing, but the entire basis of this argument is that we must use the phrase "followed by" to express the transition from nothing to something. In fact, there was no such transition, but we have no way of expressing this in the English language. There was never nothing, because there was never a time when the universe did not exist.For what does the critic of the causal principle ask us to believe? We are asked to countenance the possibility of the following situation: the nonexistence of anything followed by the existence of something. The words "followed by" are crucial , how are they to be interpreted? What they cannot mean is that there is at one time nothing and at a subsequent time something, because the nonexistence of anything is supposed toinclude time: to say that at one time there is nothing whatsoever is self-defeating because it is to say that there is a time at which nothing exists , hence something did exist.
But Oderberg is himself strawmanning. He is taking the limitations of the language as the argument itself. The argument is not truly that there was nothing, then something; it is that, because of the lack of time "prior" to the universe, there is no need for a cause, because "nothing" is not subject to the temporal laws the govern our universe.Someone who advocates that it is possible for something to come from nothing must argue that the existence of nothing was followed by the existence of something, but this is self-contradictory, since it presupposes a temporal framework in which something exists. What's left is a contradiction -- the existence of something and the existence of nothing (A & ~A).
Yes, which is what I was referring to.Another problem with the "nothing has a cause" rebuttal that you present is that it attempts to equivocate between what humans perceive to have been created and what actually has been. Like the moral argument that you present, this is incorrect. You can say that "the shoe was created because its molecules were not all in that position before," but that is meaningless equivocation. The definition of "created" used in that statement and the definition of "created" which is relevant to this debate are two entirely different things. The former means "brought into its present state", while the latter means "brought into being". They are not equivalent, and thus the "everything has a cause for its creation" argument is devoid of support.
Everything in this universe has a reason for why it is in its current state, yes, but there is absolutely no evidence supporting the claim that everything in this universe has a cause for why it exists.
Let me first clear up what I think is just a wordage issue. I'm not sure what the phrase "'nothing has a cause' rebuttal" is supposed to mean -- I offered no such argument. Instead, I offered a pre-emptive attack on the objection that "nothing begins to exist."
Hardly. Again, you are using a different definition of "begins to exist" than the one that is actually relevant to this argument. The shoe did not exist in that form prior to the moment of its "creation", but it did exist in another form - the molecular form, the one which matters for the purpose of this discussion.Now, you say that I "equivocate between what humans perceive to have been created and what actually has been." This is because the shoe was brought into its present state, whereas the definition of "created" that is essential to my argument involves something being brought into being. First, as I pointed out in my opening post, "This commits the modo hoc version of the fallacy of composition. It fallaciously equates the stuff that a thing is made out of with the thing itself."
Again, you are equivocating between two definitions of "began to exist", one which is relevant to this argument and one which is not. You "began to exist" in the sense that the molecules comprising your being took on their current form. You did not begin to exist in the sense that the molecules comprising your being popped into existence, which is the relevant definition of "began to exist".For example, while the matter which I am made out of was rearranged into a different form, I still began to exist. As I said before, this just equates what I am made out of with who I am.
No, it does not presuppose mereological nihilism. Whether or not parts and wholes come into being is irrelevant to this discussion, because, whatever your definition of "part" or "whole", these objects are made up of particles which came into existence at the beginning of the universe - unless you'd like to violate the laws of conservation, that is - and that is the only "comes into existence" definition that is relevant here.In fact, this objection presupposes a radical view of mereology known as mereological nihilism. I see no reason to accept this view, unless you give an argument for it.
And your evidence to support the existence of free will is...?The latter part of this statement is perfectly true. There were no conditions prior to the universe which could have determined a natural cause. However, there were also no conditions which could have determined a personal cause.
In addition, this argument is nothing but the appeal to magic. In the universe, there is absolutely no evidence for any distinction between "natural" and "personal" causes, or for the existence of free will. This makes the existence of a personal, free-willed cause nothing but bare assertion, as well as being the appeal to magic: since a natural cause couldn't have done it, it must have been a djinn.
Several confusions here. While you grant that there were no prior conditions to the universe which could have determined a natural cause, to extend this conclusion to a personal cause is simply wrong. The salient difference between personal causes and natural causes are that personal causes are not always determined by prior conditions -- they act freely of their own will.
Where did I say that it did?Several things to note. First, not every instance of part-whole reasoning commits the fallacy of composition.
Because you have no evidence to support your claim that the universe as a whole is subject to the same laws that govern the things inside it.So you need to do more than just accuse me of a fallacy here, you need to show why the charges should stick.
Except that it does: he sees that everything inside the universe has an explanation for its current condition, and so reasons that the universe must as well. In addition to being part-whole reasoning, this is entirely unsupported, and as of yet you have yet to present any evidence for it.Second, Leibniz's argument does not reason from part-whole -- that attacks a strawman. Leibniz's argument is that whatever exists (part or whole alike) has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
Then we can say that there exists a possible world P in which your god does not exist. Since there is no internal contradiction here, it follows logically that he is therefore a contingent entity requiring an explanation.Third, the FoC charge simply doesn't hold if the universe is a contingent entity. Something is contingent if its non-existence is possible. Using possible worlds semantics, we can say that there exists a possible world P in which the universe does not exist. Since there exists no internal contradiction in this notion, it follows logically that the universe is contingent and thus requires an explanation.
Except that I have just shown that it would not be. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a) the universe is even subject to the necessary explanation argument or b) that the universe cannot be necessary if it is subject to this argument. You have not yet provided a single piece of evidence that it is subject or contingent.And the atheist's argument is that it is not. When there is absolutely no reason to think that the universe cannot be necessary - or, indeed, that the universe is even subject to the argument of necessity - saying that it must be and that, therefore, a magical being exists which is not is a violation of the razor.
All things can be explained within the context of Leibniz's own argument if we simply state that the universe is necessary. To posit the existence of another being with no special qualifications (other than Leibniz's statement that it is necessary, rather than the universe) is bare assertion, and therefore a violation of the razor.
Indeed, the atheist's argument is that it is not, but that is equally fallacious. Recall what I wrote earlier, "the theist's very point here is that theism is necessary to explain the existence of the universe. Hence, to invoke Ockham's razor in support of either side is just question-begging."
You can't trot in Ockham's razor when the very issue we're debating is what is necessary to explain the phenomena that we have, it would be question-begging for either side.
I never said that they did. I said that the appearance of objective morality can be explained quite easily without the need for an objective moral code. You are strawmanning.Your argument which purports to show "why you might think that there is objective morality" fails because it commits the genetic fallacy. The origins of an idea do not invalidate it.
Then give evidence for the existence of this moral code. Evolution explains the existence of the appearance of an objective moral code quite neatly without the need for an actual code of objective morals. If you wish to posit the existence of such a code, you need evidence.Indeed, this argument can be reversed against you. Perhaps the reason why evolution gave us a sense of moral code is precisely because there is a moral code out there.
Who said that evolution selected for a belief in objective morality? Certainly not me. I said that evolution selected for tendencies which we perceive as moral. It also selected for rationality, but humans aren't perfectly rational, which is why we take the existence of actions which we perceive as immoral or moral as evidence of an objective moral code.If you reply that evolution did in fact select the false belief in objective morality because it was selectively advantageous, then who is to say that it didn't select for other false beliefs, which would potentially destroy the foundations for rationality since evolution would only be selecting for what what was pragmatic and not what was true.
Uh... no, it isn't. If the reversed argument is invalid, then you can't use it as a rebuttal - and it is invalid.Whether or not this reversal is sound is besides the point
No, it isn't, and no, it doesn't.The burden of proof is not on the believer in objective morality, but on the skeptic. Why is this? Because the idea that objective morality exists has a higher probability given the background evidence than does the idea that morality is relative given the background evidence.
No, objective morality does not have a higher explanatory power than subjective morality given the background evidence. The background evidence is simply that there are some actions which we perceive as moral and immoral, and that people believe this to be evidence of objective morality. This is exactly what one would expect given subjective morality, as evolution would give us tendencies towards at least vaguely similar moral codes - but it does not actually mean that objective morality exists. If you wish to say that there is an objective moral code of some kind, you need evidence - without that, saying that morality is objective is nothing but bare assertion, as well as another violation of Occam's razor, as everything is perfectly well-explained without the need for an objective code.It has a wider explanatory scope because it is more able to explain the fact that we have an intuition which tells us that some things are just objectively wrong and the fact that a wide range of cultures have the same basic moral framework.
Even if it were, being the default position does not save it from the fact that it has no supporting evidence.Indeed, belief in objective morality is the default position.
Fine. The case against objective morality:It is as evident as the belief that the external world exists. The skeptic of objective morality must deny what many see to be obvious, and thus he owes us an explanation (He bears the burden of proof) of why objective morality does not exist (Note that explaining it in terms of evolution says nothing about whether or not it exists, see above)
.
Which, again, is perfectly well-explained under a subjective moral system with absolutely no outside requirements. Since your system is the one which posits the existence of outside codes, the burden is on you to prove the existence of these codes.The evidence for objective morality, which I have already presented, is our moral intuition.
Correct subjectively. The universe doesn't care. Our moral intuitions are correct for us, and probably for most other humans, but the universe has no morals.Absent some reason to doubt what our moral intuitions tell us, we should presume them to be correct (This is called prima facie reliability).
You are still failing to appreciate the difference between appearance of an objective code and existence of an objective code. The appearance of an objective code is also perfectly well explained under a subjective moral system. The objective moral system is the one positing the existence of an outside force which determines the moral correctness of actions; it is up to its proponents to prove the existence of said force.Is it not obvious that it is wrong to torture babies for fun, that we should treat others fairly, and that it is wrong to cheat others? If you deny that, then you owe us an explanation as to why morality is not objective.
"Obvious fact"? Hardly. This is nothing more than the appeal to emotion. You don't want it to be objectively neutral if someone tortures babies for fun, but what you want and what is are not the same. Objectively, I observe no more reaction from the universe if a baby is tortured than if I breathe. Objectively, I observe that not everyone thinks that it is wrong to torture babies. Objectively, I observe that the tendency of humans to believe that torturing babies is wrong is perfectly well explained through natural means.The skeptic of objective morality is like the person who insists that we live in a matrix-like world -- he denies the seemingly obvious fact that it is objectively wrong to torture babies for fun, and thus he owes us an explanation.
Thus, in the absence of reasons to deny that leprechauns exist, it is reasonable to suppose that they indeed do. If the existence of objective morality is so easily established, then you should be able to do so in a single paragraph. All you have to do is present your evidence that an objective moral code exists. So far, you have not presented anything that is not explained by subjective morality - which requires no entities which cannot be proven to exist.Thus, in the absence of reasons to deny that morality is objective, it is reasonable to suppose that it indeed is.
Except that it does. I explained this in my last post. By definition, causality requires time. If you wish to posit that an event can cause a simultaneous event, present your evidence. Likewise, if you wish to assert that causality can occur without time, present your evidence.
Except that, by definition, causation cannot be atemporal.
No, it isn't. If you wish to suggest that it is, present your evidence.
This doesn't work. For God to begin creating the universe, he has to start before the universe existed - unless you wish to assert that your god made use of simultaneous causation in creating the universe, which you still have not shown to be possible.
What magical thing, then, allows it to operate within the first Planck second of universal birth and at no other point?
This is, indeed, an argument that "something from nothing" is contradictory - but its basis is in the limitations of the language. You can see it yourself in the bolded part of the argument. Oderberg essentially argues that there can never have been nothing, but the entire basis of this argument is that we must use the phrase "followed by" to express the transition from nothing to something. In fact, there was no such transition, but we have no way of expressing this in the English language. There was never nothing, because there was never a time when the universe did not exist.
But Oderberg is himself strawmanning. He is taking the limitations of the language as the argument itself. The argument is not truly that there was nothing, then something; it is that, because of the lack of time "prior" to the universe, there is no need for a cause, because "nothing" is not subject to the temporal laws the govern our universe.
Hardly. Again, you are using a different definition of "begins to exist" than the one that is actually relevant to this argument. The shoe did not exist in that form prior to the moment of its "creation", but it did exist in another form - the molecular form, the one which matters for the purpose of this discussion.
Stop trying to equivocate.
Again, you are equivocating between two definitions of "began to exist", one which is relevant to this argument and one which is not. You "began to exist" in the sense that the molecules comprising your being took on their current form. You did not begin to exist in the sense that the molecules comprising your being popped into existence, which is the relevant definition of "began to exist".
No, it does not presuppose mereological nihilism. Whether or not parts and wholes come into being is irrelevant to this discussion, because, whatever your definition of "part" or "whole", these objects are made up of particles which came into existence at the beginning of the universe - unless you'd like to violate the laws of conservation, that is - and that is the only "comes into existence" definition that is relevant here.
And your evidence to support the existence of free will is...?
Where did I say that it did?
Because you have no evidence to support your claim that the universe as a whole is subject to the same laws that govern the things inside it.
Except that it does: he sees that everything inside the universe has an explanation for its current condition, and so reasons that the universe must as well. In addition to being part-whole reasoning, this is entirely unsupported, and as of yet you have yet to present any evidence for it.
Then we can say that there exists a possible world P in which your god does not exist. Since there is no internal contradiction here, it follows logically that he is therefore a contingent entity requiring an explanation.
This gets you nowhere. It leads only into an infinite regression. You need evidence that the universe is contingent upon something, not just bare assertion.
Except that I have just shown that it would not be. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a) the universe is even subject to the necessary explanation argument or b) that the universe cannot be necessary if it is subject to this argument. You have not yet provided a single piece of evidence that it is subject or contingent.
I never said that they did. I said that the appearance of objective morality can be explained quite easily without the need for an objective moral code. You are strawmanning.
Then give evidence for the existence of this moral code. Evolution explains the existence of the appearance of an objective moral code quite neatly without the need for an actual code of objective morals. If you wish to posit the existence of such a code, you need evidence.
Who said that evolution selected for a belief in objective morality? Certainly not me. I said that evolution selected for tendencies which we perceive as moral. It also selected for rationality, but humans aren't perfectly rational, which is why we take the existence of actions which we perceive as immoral or moral as evidence of an objective moral code.
[
The burden of proof is always on the one making the positive claim. "Objective morality exists" is a positive claim. That means that the burden of proof is on you to prove that it exists.
And the "background evidence" that you are talking about is simply that there are some actions which we perceive as moral and immoral. This is perfectly well accounted for under a subjective moral system. Or do you have some evidence which cannot be accounted for with subjective morality?
No, objective morality does not have a higher explanatory power than subjective morality given the background evidence. The background evidence is simply that there are some actions which we perceive as moral and immoral, and that people believe this to be evidence of objective morality. This is exactly what one would expect given subjective morality, as evolution would give us tendencies towards at least vaguely similar moral codes - but it does not actually mean that objective morality exists. If you wish to say that there is an objective moral code of some kind, you need evidence - without that, saying that morality is objective is nothing but bare assertion, as well as another violation of Occam's razor, as everything is perfectly well-explained without the need for an objective code.
Which, again, is perfectly well-explained under a subjective moral system with absolutely no outside requirements. Since your system is the one which posits the existence of outside codes, the burden is on you to prove the existence of these codes.
You are still failing to appreciate the difference between appearance of an objective code and existence of an objective code. The appearance of an objective code is also perfectly well explained under a subjective moral system. The objective moral system is the one positing the existence of an outside force which determines the moral correctness of actions; it is up to its proponents to prove the existence of said force.
Obvious fact"? Hardly. This is nothing more than the appeal to emotion. You don't want it to be objectively neutral if someone tortures babies for fun, but what you want and what is are not the same. Objectively, I observe no more reaction from the universe if a baby is tortured than if I breathe. Objectively, I observe that not everyone thinks that it is wrong to torture babies. Objectively, I observe that the tendency of humans to believe that torturing babies is wrong is perfectly well explained through natural means.
And, also objectively, I note that you are attempting to shift the burden of proof onto me with no justification for doing so. You posit the existence of an objective moral code. You prove that it exists.
This brings us to another flaw in your argument: you have not defined objective morality. What would be the differences between a world with subjective morality and a world with objective morality? In other words, what evidence do you see that cannot be explained through subjective morality?
1. Everything to do with morality, including the appearance of objective morality, is perfectly well-explained under a subjective moral system.
2. Objective morality requires the existence of an outside code and code-maker, the existence of neither of which has been proven - or even suggested - by the evidence.
Correct subjectively. The universe doesn't care. Our moral intuitions are correct for us, and probably for most other humans, but the universe has no morals.
I still have not seen you tackle the thought experiments I raised in my second post -- that was my evidence.
The flaw with this experiment is that the cup cannot have been sitting on the table for eternity, as this would require an infinite amount of time to have passed before it is interacted with. As this cannot happen, the entire experiment is invalid.Let me briefly restate them. Suppose I put a cup on the table. As long as an earthquake doesn't happen, the table will hold the cup in place and prevent it from falling. This may look like an example where one succeeding event causes another, but if the cup had been sitting on the table for an eternity, it wouldn't be the case that one event would cause another succeeding event. [1] In this thought experiment, the type of causation that would have been operative would be simultaneous causation. In the same way, God's causing the universe is simultaneous with it coming to be. At T1, God both creates the universe and the universe comes into being.
And Craig makes the same error that you do - positing the existence of a magical type of causality which does not rely on time without any justification for doing so.Writes Craig,
"In any case, there seems to be no conceptual difficulty in saying that the cause of the origin of the universe acted simultaneously (or coincidentally) with the origination of the universe. We should therefore say that the cause of the origin of the universe is causally prior to the Big Bang, though not temporally prior to the Big Bang. In such a case, the cause may be said to exist spacelessly and timelessly sans the universe, but temporally subsequent to the moment of creation." [2]
As I have explained before, "causation that works in the absence of time" is a contradiction in terms. So far, you have given us absolutely no reason to think that such a thing is even logically possible, let alone that it actually exists.This just misunderstands what simultaneous causation is. Given the existence of time, then all causation must take place within a temporal framework, since all events would take place sequentially. Simultaneous causation only works in the absence of time, since in such a scenario all events would not take place sequentially.
No, it has everything to do with semantics, but now I grasp why you were objecting to it. It's my fault - I failed to get my point across.Once again, this completely misses the point of what Oderberg is saying. He focuses on the phrase "followed by" not to give an argument based on semantics, but to illustrate a point by emphasis (We can take those words out and his point would still stand). His point is that someone who denies the first premise must either affirm a state of affairs in which something exists (He used the phrase "followed by" to illustrate this), or a state of affairs in which something and nothing exists. Basically, somebody who says that something can come from nothing must either affirm either: 1) there was at one time nothing and at a subsequent time something or 2) there is something and nothing. It cannot be the first, since the scenario presupposes the existence of time (and in which case, there wouldn't really be literally nothing). So then it must be the second . However, it also cannot be the second because it entails a contradictory state of affairs (There exists nothing and there exists something). Thus, the first premise is a logically necessary truth -- its denial implies a contradiction.
Perhaps a clearner formulation will help you see what Oderberg is saying. Basically, the person who denies the first premise must affirm that something can come out of nothing. This claim implies either
1. There was nothing, and then there was something
2. There is nothing and there is something.
Now, according to Oderberg, it can't be the first, since it presupposes a temporal state of affairs in which something exists. So then it must be the second. But, it can't be the second because it's self-contradictory (A & ~A). Therefore, the first premise is true. This point is fairly easy to grasp and absolutely nothing to do with semantics.
But this is not what is being argued by the person who objects to the first premise. Rather, they argue this:the person who denies the first premise must affirm that something can come out of nothing. This claim implies either
1. There was nothing, and then there was something
2. There is nothing and there is something.
Then you are using a definition of "cause" which is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. The definition of "cause" which matters here is "a thing which brings another into existence". You cannot take an example of something which fits your definition of cause and apply it to a discussion using the other definition.No equivocation is taking place. The term "cause" is used univocally. That is, the argument defines a "cause" as simply something which brings about or produces a effect.
Again, yes, it does matter. Now you are equivocating between "comes into being" definitions again. The one which matters here is "comes into existence out of nothing". The one you are attempting to equivocate to is "takes on its current form".It doesn't matter whether or not this effect is produced out of previous matter or out of no matter -- they're still both effects, just different types.
No. It is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.If we're referring to the "nothing begins to exist" objection, then yes, it does presuppose mereological nihilism. Since, on this objection, what a thing is identical to what it is made out of. According to the proponent of this objection, things such as chairs, tables, cups, cars, and people do not really exist... they're simply different arrangements of matter that we give an arbitrary name -- only the basic building blocks (matter) exist. This is almost a textbook definition of mereological nihilism -- since objects with parts don't really exist.
Nonsense.This just misunderstands the whole point. In this particular scenario, I don't need evidence
Being logically necessitated is evidence. However, you have yet to establish that it is logically possible, let alone necessitated. So you still need evidence.since the existence of a being with free will is logically necessitated by the conditions.
I have explained this before. We perceive things as subject to these rules because they exist within time. The universe does not exist within time. You are trying to apply one trait of everything within the universe (having an explanation) to the universe itself while ignoring another trait that everything in the universe shares - being subject to time.So, how exactly is reasoning from part to whole in this case fallacious?
You are assuming your conclusion(s). You must prove that the universe has some possible world P where it does not exist and that God exists on all possible worlds. You cannot simply state that they do.Now, I have given evidence that the universe is contingent. Philosophers use possible worlds to express modal claims(contingent, necessary, etc...). Something is contingent if it could fail to exist (Ie: it does not exist on at least one possible world). Something is necessary it it cannot fail to exist (Ie: it exists on all possible worlds). Now, the universe could conceivably have failed to exist. Therefore, it does not exist on some possible world P. God by definition cannot fail to exist, and so God exists necessarily.
So, basically, it's impossible because you say so and God is magic.But you might object, as you have done, that God could have failed to exist, and therefore, God is contingent. This objection fails to appreciate the distinction between epistemic and metaphysical possibility. Epistemically, it is possible that God does not exist, but metaphysically, such a statement is impossible by virtue of God's essence.
Simple.Now, there seems to be nothing about the universe both epistemically or metaphysically (Unless you wish to show me) which makes it necessarily existence, and thus we are warranted in believing that the universe exists contingently.
And I affirmed this, with the slight modification that we are justified in believing that they are subjectively correct. We can never perceive any morals other than our own, which gives them the veneer of objectivity - but they are not actually objective.You keep insisting that I have not given any proof when I have. My proof was quite simply the proper basicality of our moral intuitions. Our moral intuitions strongly tell us that torturing babies for fun is wrong. My argument is that in the absence of a sufficient reason to doubt our moral faculties, we are justified in believing them.
And I did. The subjective explanation accounts for everything that we see in the world to do with morality. It explains why we have morals and why they appear to be objective, all without the need for anything that cannot be objectively proven to exist.Now, you brought up evolution as an alternate explanation for why we tend to believe some things were objectively right/wrong. However, an alternate explanation is not a refutation. You need to show that your explanation is more probable than mine.
No, I haven't, because that isn't my argument. I argue:The first point in my previous response was spot on. If you intended to use evolution to explain why we believe some things to be moral (and thus show that morality isn't really objective, but some evolutionary byproduct), then you commit the genetic fallacy. Your response was something along the lines of "Objective morality doesn't really exist, it just appears that way because evolution selected for tendencies which we perceive as moral." If that is indeed how you're arguing, then it confuses the origin of an idea with the soundness of it, thus committing the genetic fallacy.
I never claimed otherwise.Generally, but not always. If the claim being made is a properly basic (ie: self-evident) claim, then one doesn't shoulder the burden of proof. If I claimed that we were not created five minutes ago with food in our stomachs and memories in our brains, I don't have to prove it -- it's self-evident. Rather, it's the skeptic who has to prove his claim. So the type of claim being made matters.
This is a total non sequitur. The bolded part of your sentence is entirely irrelevant. You might as well say that "In this case, the claim "Objective morality exists" is rather self-evident -- pancakes are tasty." That you subjectively believe that torturing babies is wrong is not evidence for objective morality. Neither is the fact that society at large believes the same thing, because evolution explains how this could occur without the need for any new things like your objective code.In this case, the claim "Objective morality exists" is rather self-evident -- even if you don't believe it exists, you can't doubt that our moral intuition tells us that certain things (ie: torturing babies for fun) is just wrong.
Yes. Now you look at morality. You see that it isn't the same across all people, but rather that many people have many different ideas of what it is - like looking at a cloud, no one sees the same picture that no one else does. You might look at premarital sex, for example, and think that it is immoral, while someone else might not. On the other hand, everyone is going to see a tree.Now, you completely misunderstand what I mean by background evidence here. Let me first give an example. Let's say I'm walking on the sidewalk and I spot a tree. Several things can explain this. First, the reason I see a tree could just be that there is really a tree. Or, it could be that I am being deceived by an evil demon into thinking that there is a tree when there really isn't. Which does the better job? The former, obviously.
Argument ad populum fallacy.Our background evidence is the existence of beings who have moral faculties which seem to suggest that right and wrong really exist. Can objective morality explain this? Yes. Can subjective morality explain this? Yes. Both can -- but which does a better job? The former, since it does not deny what appears to be obvious to so many people.
No, it doesn't. Objective morality explains absolutely zilch that subjective morality doesn't.It has greater explanatory power and a greater explanatory scope.
No. As I have explained above, there is absolutely no evidence in favor of objective morality. Your entire argument rests on the thin veneer of objectivity which our brains give to us, but this is perfectly well explained under a subjectively moral framework.So, the default position is that of belief in objective morality, meaning you have the burden of proof.
And you have absolutely no evidence to support this assertion. "Wrong" in whose eyes? The universe's? The universe doesn't care.But what do I mean by objective? Perhaps an example will help. By objective, I mean that the Holocaust would have been wrong even if the Nazis won World War II and successfully brainwashed the entire population into believing that it is.
No, it doesn't. In fact, it explains it more poorly, because it posits that there is some magic force in the universe which determines what is right and wrong and somehow beams this information into our heads. You need evidence to support that assertion.1. Correct, a subjective moral system also explains the appearance of objective morality. But, an objective moral system better explains why we take many things to be objectively right/wrong,
False analogy. The message is not concrete and differs from person to person, though there's a slight tendency towards seeing something similar. You aren't coming across a message in the woods, you are coming across a field of mushrooms that sort of spell out the words "HELP ME" if you squint and tilt your head, and your buddy is seeing the words "HELD ME".2. This is just blatant question-begging. The very argument in question is supposed to demonstrate that, you just presupposed it to be false. A harmless example will illustrate my point. Suppose I'm hiking in the woods with a buddy and I come across a message in a bottle that asks for help. I exclaim "Somebody must have written this message, we have to rescue him!" My buddy, in response, argues "No, that message requires the existence of a message writer, the existence of which has not been proven!" You can spot the obvious mistake in that.
I admit the mistake.Oh come on, this is just completely circular. The very fact we're debating is whether or not there are moral facts to be discovered. You can't just assert that there are no morals to prove that there are no morals.
Thought experiments are not evidence.
The flaw with this experiment is that the cup cannot have been sitting on the table for eternity, as this would require an infinite amount of time to have passed before it is interacted with. As this cannot happen, the entire experiment is invalid.
And Craig makes the same error that you do - positing the existence of a magical type of causality which does not rely on time without any justification for doing so.
As I have explained before, "causation that works in the absence of time" is a contradiction in terms. So far, you have given us absolutely no reason to think that such a thing is even logically, possible, let alone that it actually exists.
But this is not what is being argued by the person who objects to the first premise. Rather, they argue this:
1. There was no, point in time, (note the difference between this and "no time") when the universe did not exist
2. As there is no point in time when the universe did not exist, asking what the cause of the universe was is pointless, because there was no time for a cause to have taken place in
The first conclusion - that there was nothing and then something - is false by definition, because without time you cannot have a "then". So there must be a third option, one which you are ignoring - namely, that there was never nothing.
And this is true. There, was, never a point in time in which nothing existed. For the only definition of "forever" which matters, the universe has existed forever, and not only requires no explanation but denies the possibility of one entirely.
Then you are using a definition of "cause" which is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. The definition of "cause" which matters here is "a thing which brings another into existence". You cannot take an example of something which fits, your, definition of cause and apply it to a discussion using the other definition.,
Again, yes, it, does, matter. Now you are equivocating between "comes into being" definitions again. The one which matters here is "comes into existence out of nothing". The one you are attempting to equivocate to is "takes on its current form".
No. It is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.,
Again you equivocate between two different definitions of "comes into being". The one that is relevant here is "comes into existence from nothing". The one that is, irrelevant, is "comes into its current form as a rearrangement of pre-existing matter and energy". Parts and wholes fall under the second definition. Whether or not they really exist is pointless to discuss, because they fall under the second definition, which is not the one that is relevant to this discussion.,
Nonsense.
Being logically necessitated is evidence. However, you have yet to establish that it is logically, possible, let alone necessitated. So you still need evidence.
I have explained this before. We perceive things as subject to these rules because they exist within time. The universe does not exist within time. You are trying to apply one trait of everything within the universe (having an explanation) to the universe itself while ignoring another trait that everything in the universe shares - being subject to time.
The universe is not subject to time. It cannot have an explanation.
You are assuming your conclusion(s). You must prove that the universe has some possible world, P, where it does not exist and that God exists on all possible worlds. You cannot simply state that they do.
So, basically, it's impossible because you say so and God is magic.,
Yay.
Any real evidence? Or even justification for saying that "God's essence makes it impossible for him to not exist"?
The universe exists.,
Therefore, we have knowledge of one entity: the universe.
It is possible that this entity is either contingent or necessary.
We have no evidence that any other entity exists.
The evidence suggests that the universe is necessary.
And I affirmed this, with the slight modification that we are justified in believing that they are, subjectively correct. We can never perceive any morals other than our own, which gives them the veneer of objectivity -, but they are not actually objective.
And I did. The subjective explanation accounts for everything that we see in the world to do with morality. It explains why we have morals and why they appear to be objective, all without the need for anything that cannot be objectively proven to exist.
Your explanation requires objective proof of something which has not been proven to exist.
The burden of proof is on you.
This is a total, non sequitur. The bolded part of your sentence is entirely irrelevant. You might as well say that "In this case, the claim "Objective morality exists" is rather self-evident -- pancakes are tasty." That you subjectively believe that torturing babies is wrong is not evidence for objective morality. Neither is the fact that society at large believes the same thing, because evolution explains how this could occur without the need for any new things like your objective code.
No, it doesn't. In fact, it explains it more poorly, because it posits that there is some magic force in the universe which determines what is right and wrong and somehow beams this information into our heads. You need evidence to support that assertion.
No, I haven't, because that isn't my argument. I argue:
"Objective morality does not exist. There is no evidence for it. "
Evolution is not a refutation of the entirety of objective morality. It is a refutation of your argument that an appearance of objectivity is evidence of objectivity. Evolution explains this appearance of objectivity in an entirely subjective framework, so an, appearance, of objectivity is not evidence for objectivity. You need something more.
Yes. Now you look at morality. You see that it isn't the same across all people, but rather that many people have many different ideas of what it is - like looking at a cloud, no one sees the same picture that no one else does. You might look at premarital sex, for example, and think that it is immoral, while someone else might not. On the other hand, everyone is going to see a tree.
Argument ad populum, fallacy.
No, it doesn't. Objective morality explains absolutely zilch that subjective morality doesn't.,
And you have absolutely no evidence to support this assertion. "Wrong" in whose eyes? The universe's? The universe doesn't care.
False analogy. The message is not concrete and differs from person to person, though there's a slight tendency towards seeing something similar. You aren't coming across a message in the woods, you are coming across a field of mushrooms that sort of spell out the words "HELP ME" if you squint and tilt your head, and your buddy is seeing the words "HELD ME".
Yeah, my apologies. My family doesn't usually celebrate the Fourth beyond a big lunch of hot dogs and hamburgers and some fireworks once the sun goes down. But I got a call that morning from some other relatives who had come into town, and who were throwing a party at another relatives' house (he was pretty surprised, too).Philosopher said:Well, it's fine with me
You misunderstand me. I am not talking about thought experiments being evidence of it being possible. The point of this debate is for you to present evidence that simultaneous causation actually happened. A thought experiment is not evidence in that context.Philosopher said:Thought experiments are not evidence.
The flaw with this experiment is that the cup cannot have been sitting on the table for eternity, as this would require an infinite amount of time to have passed before it is interacted with. As this cannot happen, the entire experiment is invalid.
And Craig makes the same error that you do - positing the existence of a magical type of causality which does not rely on time without any justification for doing so.
As I have explained before, "causation that works in the absence of time" is a contradiction in terms. So far, you have given us absolutely no reason to think that such a thing is even logically, possible, let alone that it actually exists.
On the contrary, thought experiments do constitute evidence.
Not really. If a thought experiment does not conform to our physical reality, then it is useless to us in the context of providing evidence that such a thing not only can but did occur in our physical reality. You need actual evidence, not hypothetical situations.Thought experiments, moreover, do not have to conform to our physical reality (That's the very point of a thought experiment, it just has to be logically coherent), so your criticism of it is completely off-base.
Yes, it is, but this state of affairs cannot exist within our universe. That experiment does not apply here.It is conceptually possible to imagine some possible state of affairs in which a cup and table have existed eternally.
Not within our universe, it isn't. The thought experiment which you use to justify this statement does not apply here. We do not have an infinite expanse of time for a cup and table to exist.Simultaneous causation is therefore possible.
Why should I try to show it to be impossible? I am trying to, yes (I find this part of the discussion interesting), but that is beside the point. Whether or not it is possible doesn't affect this debate in the slightest. You don't have to show that it is possible. You have to show that it actually happened.Now, keep in mind that in order to show that simultaneous causation is impossible, you have to show that it is self-contradictory.
No. An equally valid negation of the premise is the simple "Nothing begins to exist", which renders the first premise unsound, as it is nothing but bare assertion.But this is not what is being argued by the person who objects to the first premise. Rather, they argue this:
1. There was no, point in time, (note the difference between this and "no time") when the universe did not exist
2. As there is no point in time when the universe did not exist, asking what the cause of the universe was is pointless, because there was no time for a cause to have taken place in
The first conclusion - that there was nothing and then something - is false by definition, because without time you cannot have a "then". So there must be a third option, one which you are ignoring - namely, that there was never nothing.
And this is true. There, was, never a point in time in which nothing existed. For the only definition of "forever" which matters, the universe has existed forever, and not only requires no explanation but denies the possibility of one entirely.
You're attacking the wrong premise, this has nothing to do with the first premise. The first premise is "Whatever begins to exist has a cause." The negation of that premise is "It is not true that whatever begins to exist has a cause," meaning that the critic of the first premise must believe that things can pop into existence ex nihilo. The criticism which you are voicing is thus not directed toward the first premise, but the second premise. The negation of the second premise is "It is not true that the universe began to exist." The points you elaborated on above, rather than attacking the first premise, actually attacks the second (Since they allege that the universe has always existed)
Then it is attacking a straw man, and can be discarded entirely.Once again you just seem to have completely misunderstood Oderberg's argument. His argument is intended for those who believe that something can come from nothing, it says nothing about whether or not the universe began to exist.
Then you are using a definition of "cause" which is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. The definition of "cause" which matters here is "a thing which brings another into existence". You cannot take an example of something which fits, your, definition of cause and apply it to a discussion using the other definition.,
Again, yes, it, does, matter. Now you are equivocating between "comes into being" definitions again. The one which matters here is "comes into existence out of nothing". The one you are attempting to equivocate to is "takes on its current form".
I withdraw the objection.Nonsense.
Being logically necessitated is evidence. However, you have yet to establish that it is logically, possible, let alone necessitated. So you still need evidence.
The evidence itself is the KCA. If the first two premises of the KCA are sound, then the conclusion must entail the existence of a being with free will. You're essentially saying "Even if the KCA is sound, you still need to prove that God exists", that's the very point of the KCA's third premise. I don't see what the problem here is, it's simply reasoning
No. You are assuming your conclusion. You need to prove that the universe needs an explanation.I have explained this before. We perceive things as subject to these rules because they exist within time. The universe does not exist within time. You are trying to apply one trait of everything within the universe (having an explanation) to the universe itself while ignoring another trait that everything in the universe shares - being subject to time.
The universe is not subject to time. It cannot have an explanation.
You are assuming your conclusion(s). You must prove that the universe has some possible world, P, where it does not exist and that God exists on all possible worlds. You cannot simply state that they do.
So, basically, it's impossible because you say so and God is magic.,
Yay.
Any real evidence? Or even justification for saying that "God's essence makes it impossible for him to not exist"?
First, you confuse an explanation with a cause, the two are completely different. Even if I grant for the sake of argument that the universe is eternal, it would still need an explanation. It wouldn't need a cause per se, but it would still need an explanation.
You misunderstand my objection. One, you have not proven that the universe is contingent. You have simply stated that there is a possible world where the universe does not exist. There is absolutely no reason to believe this. You need evidence.Second, it seems you misunderstand how possible world semantics works. As so long as the universe's non-existence is possible, then there exists a possible world in which it does not exist. In the case with God, he by definition is necessarily existent, his existence is not contingent upon anything. It's like asking me to prove that circles are square or that bachelors are unmarried, it's true by definition.
You just violated your own argument. If the universe was the only entity in existence, then your own argument states that, by necessity, it must be necessary, because it cannot be contingent on anything else.We have no reason to suppose that the universe is necessarily existent. You argue in response:
The universe exists.,
Therefore, we have knowledge of one entity: the universe.
It is possible that this entity is either contingent or necessary.
We have no evidence that any other entity exists.
The evidence suggests that the universe is necessary.
This argument isn't even valid, let alone sound. Even if no other entity exists, it does not follow that the universe is necessarily existent.
Your point?To be necessarily existent is to exist in all possible state of affairs.
I told you exactly what the evidence is. The evidence is that we know that the universe exists, but have absolutely no evidence of anything else. Thus, the only logical conclusion is that the universe is necessary. Positing the existence of other entities and stating that the universe is contingent on their existence is pointless, and nothing but bare assertion, as we have absolutely no evidence supporting the existence of these other entities.Moreover, what evidence? You stated what there exists evidence, but you failed to tell me what this evidence is.
Because there is absolutely no evidence that they are.And I affirmed this, with the slight modification that we are justified in believing that they are, subjectively correct. We can never perceive any morals other than our own, which gives them the veneer of objectivity -, but they are not actually objective.
That's the problem, why aren't they actually objective?
Straw man. I have not stated that morality does not exist. I have stated that it is subjective. There is a huge difference.Imagine that I used this same argument in response to sense experience. Someone says "My sense experience tells me that there is a tree in front of me." Applying the same line of argument, it would follow that one is not justified in believing that there objectively exists a tree in front of him. Obviously, unless we have other reasons to believe otherwise, we are more justified in believing that morality is actually objective.
You are equivocating between "exists" and "objective". No one has argued that morals do not exist. I argue that they are subjective. And, again, every single thing, including the appearance of objectivity, can be explained within the context of subjective morality. Since the subjective system is the one which does not posit the existence of a magic moral force, the burden of proof is on those who back objective morality. You need evidence.To argue that they are not actually objective despite the strong appearance otherwise, it seems to me, is to beg the question.
Philosopher, normally I am opposed to the use of emoticons in a situation like this. But there really is no other way to express my feelings right now.And I did. The subjective explanation accounts for everything that we see in the world to do with morality. It explains why we have morals and why they appear to be objective, all without the need for anything that cannot be objectively proven to exist.
Your explanation requires objective proof of something which has not been proven to exist.
The burden of proof is on you.
This is a total, non sequitur. The bolded part of your sentence is entirely irrelevant. You might as well say that "In this case, the claim "Objective morality exists" is rather self-evident -- pancakes are tasty." That you subjectively believe that torturing babies is wrong is not evidence for objective morality. Neither is the fact that society at large believes the same thing, because evolution explains how this could occur without the need for any new things like your objective code.
No, it doesn't. In fact, it explains it more poorly, because it posits that there is some magic force in the universe which determines what is right and wrong and somehow beams this information into our heads. You need evidence to support that assertion.
The subjective explanation does provide a reason for why we think morality to be objective, but the objective explanation provides an even better explanation
No.Yes, it posits the existence of God, but to say that we have no evidence for God is to beg the question, since that's what the moral argument is supposed to do. In other words, you just presupposed your conclusions.
Until we receive evidence that it isn't, i.e. realize that there is no evidence for the magic force that would make it objective rather than subjective.This is not a non-sequitur at all. That something strongly appears to be one way should give us at least prima facie justification to believe that perhaps it actually is that way.
No, it does not, because I am not explaining anything away. I am incorporating it into subjective morality. You still fail to understand. Every single piece of evidence available is perfectly well-explained without the existence of God, or whatever you want to call the mystic force that you say makes morality objective. That makes your entire argument one giant bare assertion and multiple attempts to shift the burden of proof fallaciously.No, I haven't, because that isn't my argument. I argue:
"Objective morality does not exist. There is no evidence for it. "
Evolution is not a refutation of the entirety of objective morality. It is a refutation of your argument that an appearance of objectivity is evidence of objectivity. Evolution explains this appearance of objectivity in an entirely subjective framework, so an, appearance, of objectivity is not evidence for objectivity. You need something more.
I never claimed it was a refutation of objective morality. Instead, I said that it commits the genetic fallacy because it attempts to explain why we believe in objective morality in terms of certain evolutionary traits. But explaining something away on the basis of how we came to believe in it just commits the genetic fallacy.
Do you deny that cooperation within a species makes that species stronger? Do you deny that the most efficient - and possibly only - way to ensure that species cooperate is to make them desire to perform certain actions and avoid others?Secondly, while evolution does purport to give an explanation of why we believe in objective morality, you have not shown that explanation to be true.
No. It does not presuppose in advance that objective morality does not exist. It simply shows that morality can be explained through entirely natural forces. It is possible that there is some wizard out there making it all objective, yes, but as we only have evidence for subjectivity, that is nothing but bare assertion.Moreover, your explanation seems to beg the question in that it presupposes in advance that objective morality does not exist and then purports to give an explanation for why we believe things to be objectively moral/immoral.
Asking me to prove a negative? Shame, shame, shame.You must first show that it does not exist before you give an explanation of we why come to believe in it
Hardly, as the clear areas of agreement are also incorporated into my model - there are some actions which are extremely bad for society, and are heavily selected against (and, of course, this is still ignoring the freaks). As both of our models agree that there will be clear areas of agreement, their existence is irrelevant, unimportant to either side.Yes. Now you look at morality. You see that it isn't the same across all people, but rather that many people have many different ideas of what it is - like looking at a cloud, no one sees the same picture that no one else does. You might look at premarital sex, for example, and think that it is immoral, while someone else might not. On the other hand, everyone is going to see a tree.
It's rather disengenious to focus on moral grey areas while ignoring the clear areas of agreement.
So, in short, your "objective" system is one hundred percent identical to the subjective one, but with a god tacked on. Great. Now provide evidence for the existence of your god, or the subjective system stands, as yours is nothing but bare assertion.People are of course going to differ on the finer aspects of morality, but this provides no reason at all to believe that morality is subjective.
Again, never said it didn't exist.Imagine three people, one claims to see a UFO in the sky, another a plane, and another a helicopter Should we conclude that because their responses are contradictory, that there wasn't anything in the sky? Surely there was something, but the witnesses disagreed on the finer aspects of it. The same with morality.
The case could be made that they are, but I am not in the mood. In any case, even if the burden of proof were on me, I have met it. As I have said, all the available evidence is incorporated into a subjective system. Yours is the one which posits the existence of new, unproven things, and as such the burden is now on you.Argument ad populum, fallacy.
No, it doesn't. Objective morality explains absolutely zilch that subjective morality doesn't.
Firstly, ad populum arguments are not fallacious when they are used to establish the burden of proof.
That isn't "greater explanatory power". That is an alternate explanation for the same phenomena, and you have given added weight to your side because you like it more.Secondly, objective morality has greater explanatory power in that it affirms that objective morality actually exists over the subjective explanation, which claims that morality is is merely an illusion.
I know that. I was, again, asking for evidence of your definition's truth. You have defined it. Now I want evidence that it is true.And you have absolutely no evidence to support this assertion. "Wrong" in whose eyes? The universe's? The universe doesn't care.
Seriously? Once again, this is not an argument, this is a definition. I was not giving an argument, but an illustration of what I mean by objective.