re: Stephen Hawking Dead - Hawking Radiation Proves Existence of God

quote:

---

made up simply to illustrate a point, I know the claim is false and doesn't require additional refutation.

---

Nope. Comes to me in visions so I don't need your suggestions.

quote:

---

you were being "taught", even if you didn't receive it as such. But, such a thing is immaterial to the discussion so I'm fine with ending that string.

---

then I wasn't taught. Good, one ended.

quote:

---

A claim is either true or it is not and just because you cannot test something in a lab doesn't mean it isn't true.

---

Fair enough and just because you believe something with all your heart doesn't make it true either.

quote:

---

Nope. Comes to me in visions so I don't need your suggestions.

---

Say what you like at this point but you've already tipped your hand. You've made it known that this exercise you're doing right now is illustrative as an attempt to show me the absurdity of claiming access to divine revelation for truth. Because of this context, I am dismissing your claim outright.

If you honestly thought you had access to the truth as you believe it from a divine or supernatural source, I'd willingly discuss it with you, but you don't actually care. You're trying to mock me.

quote:

---

then I wasn't taught. Good, one ended.

---

Sure, whatever. Like I said, it's immaterial to the discussion. It's ended.

quote:

---

Fair enough and just because you believe something with all your heart doesn't make it true either.

---

Agreed. A claim is either true or false and no amount of belief or disbelief will change that.

quote:

---

There is no objective morality.

I can't make you or anyone else value life, and indeed many do not. That is reality. It's idealistic to discuss this any other way

---

If that's true, then no one has any credible basis for saying anyone else is acting wrongly or immorally. "Might makes right" rules the day as those in power arbitrarily set the moral standard that everyone else within their sphere of coercion has to abide by.

It also means that we have no right to judge other nations and cultures for what they find to be morally acceptable, even if we find their actions to be morally repugnant.

quote:

---

If that's true, then no one has any credible basis for saying anyone else is acting wrongly or immorally. "Might makes right" rules the day as those in power arbitrarily set the moral standard that everyone else within their sphere of coercion has to abide by.

It also means that we have no right to judge other nations and cultures for what they find to be morally acceptable, even if we find their actions to be morally repugnant.

---

There is no objective morality, and that's exactly what we do see. "Might" does make "right," and that doesn't need to be limited to physical force. "Might" can be ideas, laws, frameworks, etc. I don't like your use of "arbitrarily," either. Moral standards are very rarely arbitrary.

"Might" gives us the "right" to judge other nations and cultures. That doesn't mean that we're objectively correct. It simply means that we say they're wrong, and if necessary we can do something about it.

quote:

---

There is no objective morality

---

I disagree. I believe in an objective moral code that all people are subject to and will be judged by and that our consciences generally bear witness to this standard.

quote:

---

and that's exactly what we do see. "Might" does make "right," and that doesn't need to be limited to physical force. "Might" can be ideas, laws, frameworks, etc.

---

Might is always about enforcement. Ideas, laws, frameworks, etc. are toothless without someone with literal might (soldiers, police, etc.) to physically cause others to conform to the standard. This standard means that anything can literally be deemed as morally right or acceptable as long as there is a person or entity in place to force people to comply.

The danger of accepting this principle as true is that it means Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Genghis Khan, and Nero were all in the right and their actions morally acceptable in some sense. The fact that they are directly responsible for the rape, torture, and murder of millions of people is fine because their might made those actions right.

quote:

---

I don't like your use of "arbitrarily," either. Moral standards are very rarely arbitrary.

---

Many dictators have made laws and killed people based on nothing more than a whim or personal preference. I think it's quite appropriate to say that it is arbitrary, and even if it's not, it might as well be. Arbitrary or not, it amounts to nothing more than preference.

quote:

---

"Might" gives us the "right" to judge other nations and cultures.

---

Moral relativism means that no one is right and no one is wrong. If another culture does something you don't like, it doesn't mean they are wrong, it just means their preference is different than yours and you don't like it. Having the power to force others to act according to your own preferences and against their own would be considered immoral by most accounts and yet it has no moral standing in the realm of relativism.

quote:

---

That doesn't mean that we're objectively correct. It simply means that we say they're wrong, and if necessary we can do something about it.

---

That's the issue. We "say" they are wrong, but they aren't actually wrong under this moral system. No one is right or wrong if there is no objective standard to compare all other standards to. Not liking something doesn't mean that something is morally wrong.

Slavery is not immoral because it's simply a stronger person forcing a weaker person to do what they (the stronger person) want. It's not about what should happen but what can happen. It's not immoral for a lion to forcibly copulate with another lion or to kill another animal because there is no morality in nature. Moral relativism treats humans like animals where there is no actual moral standing with each other. There is only action and what you can do as an individual or as a society.

In this case, slavery is not immoral in itself. Murder is not immoral in itself. Rape is not immoral in itself. Theft is not immoral in itself. These things are only as good or bad as those in power say it is based on their own personal preferences. Any outcry against those actions is simply another way of saying that vanilla ice cream is better than strawberry ice cream. So what? It's just an opinion.

But as human beings, we know better. Moral relativism doesn't align with what we know to be true, even if people act contrary to that knowledge.

quote:

---

That's fine. Your belief does not create objective morality.

---

My belief doesn't create objective morality but it does allow for the existence of objective morality, if the object of my belief is true.

quote:

---

Those people were right in their own minds,

---

Not just in their own minds. Either their might made them categorically right, or "right" doesn't actually exist, at least not in a meaningful way. Whether they thought they were right is of no consequence if moral relativism is true, because it's nothing more than opinion or preference.

quote:

---

and many believed that they were right.

---

Same as above. Consensus about preference doesn't make said preference a moral "right".

quote:

---

We said they weren't and opposed them. Greater "might" made them wrong,

---

This goes to show the bankruptcy of the paradigm. Until they were defeated, they had defeated others, making them "right" according to their might. Those that defeated them were "right" until they, too, were defeated, or relinquished their power.

quote:

---

not prayer or other superstitious activities.

---

I'm talking about the bankruptcy of moral relativism, but you don't know if "prayer or other superstitious activities" are ultimately responsible for the downfall of those evil people. Christians believe that God typically uses means to accomplish His will.

quote:

---

Without a specific example, generally, there is nothing arbitrary about what those dictators did or will do. They are products of society, subject to their genetics, their upbringing, their environments, their educations, etc. So are their ideas and actions. That isn't arbitrary.

---

According to what you said here, the word "arbitrary" has no meaning, as nothing can be really arbitrary. In terms of reason for action, there are a lot of arbitrary impulses that people--including evil dictators and war lords--act on. But as I said, even if they weren't entirely arbitrary, it wouldn't matter because it all boils down to preference at the end of the day anyway.

quote:

---

That isn't what moral relativism means. It means that right and wrong are dependent on a point of view. Humans typically build this as the point of view for the majority.

---

I know what it means and have said as much previously. I was re-defining the term based on its application rather than its strict definition. If moral relativism is true, there is no absolute moral right or right because every standard is based on what each individual accepts for themselves, just like favorite flavor of ice cream. That's why any standard that is generally adhered to by groups has to be enforced, because each individual will have a different view of what is morally right and wrong and therefore needs some outside force to compel them to live by a standard they don't necessarily agree with. That "force" doesn't make anything actually right or wrong. It just determines which individual, subjective preference groups must adhere to.

quote:

---

Yes, they are actually wrong. We have the "might" to say they are wrong.

---

This further shows the danger of such a worldview. It relegates morality to mere opinion or preference. Our opinions are no better or worse than the opinions of those we defeat through force. The ability to compel others into action or inaction based on force is the deciding factor in what standard is enforced. We know deep down that "might makes right" isn't right, but it's the only standard that can exist when the concept of an objective morality is discarded.

quote:

---

God doesn't say they are wrong. He can't say they are wrong. That falls on us, regardless of what you believe drives that.

---

If God exists, then He can certainly say they are wrong and, if the Bible is true, He has said as much, regardless of what anyone believes about it. If the truth claim is true, then God has already spoken and we are required to abide by His moral standard.

quote:

---

Slavery is a terrible example for you to bring to the discussion. Religion supported slavery far longer than any irreligious idea could.

---

Slavery is a good example because in our society we all agree that it is wrong. I could use murder, but it really doesn't matter for the sake of illustration as there are several different moral evils that we have identified as being universally evil, slavery being one of them. We can discuss the religious implications if you want (we've discussed this in terms of the Bible recently) but kidding a free person and treating them as less than human for the sake of subjugation is deemed immoral by us. If moral relativism is true, there's no way we can legitimately condemn the slave owners in our country in the past for owning slaves because they were the ones who had the "might" back then. If we accept the rules of the game "might makes right", then all we can do is acknowledge that their standard was different than ours and they were justified in enforcing their standard because they had the means to do so until they didn't any more.

quote:

---

All of this is correct, as difficult as that may be to accept. Fortunately, we have no need to rely on "in itself."

---

By "in itself", I mean the very nature of the act is immoral. With moral relativism, there is no such thing as being immoral by nature because morality is entirely contextual. You can't say all murder is immoral, all rape is immoral, or all slavery is immoral because you have to admit that as long as those with the might make the rules, if they rule that those things are acceptable then they have to be morally acceptable. Very few moral relativists live their lives consistently with this worldview because if they did, there would be nothing but chaos.

quote:

---

God changes none of that, by the way.

---

The God of the Bible does. If God exists and His moral code is supreme AND He holds people accountable to it, then we are all obligated to obey it and to judge all other standards in its light. Wielding power doesn't mean you can make the rules under this paradigm. Instead, you are even more responsible for abiding by it because of the influence you have over others made in the image of God. The Bible says that we are all made in the image of God which gives us intrinsic value. This is a vastly different way of looking at things than if you agree with moral relativism. People don't have intrinsic value. They have only the value that each individual decides, and as a matter of action, people only have the value that those with the power decide.

quote:

---

This further shows the danger of such a worldview. It relegates morality to mere opinion or preference. Our opinions are no better or worse than the opinions of those we defeat through force. The ability to compel others into action or inaction based on force is the deciding factor in what standard is enforced. We know deep down that "might makes right" isn't right, but it's the only standard that can exist when the concept of an objective morality is discarded.

---

It doesn't matter that it's dangerous. It's reality. Morality is opinion and preference, regardless of where we shift authority.

Again, this applies to religion as well.

quote:

---

If God exists, then He can certainly say they are wrong and, if the Bible is true, He has said as much, regardless of what anyone believes about it. If the truth claim is true, then God has already spoken and we are required to abide by His moral standard.

---

If...

Even so, that would still not create objective morality.

quote:

---

Slavery is a good example because in our society we all agree that it is wrong. I could use murder, but it really doesn't matter for the sake of illustration as there are several different moral evils that we have identified as being universally evil, slavery being one of them. We can discuss the religious implications if you want (we've discussed this in terms of the Bible recently) but kidding a free person and treating them as less than human for the sake of subjugation is deemed immoral by us. If moral relativism is true, there's no way we can legitimately condemn the slave owners in our country in the past for owning slaves because they were the ones who had the "might" back then. If we accept the rules of the game "might makes right", then all we can do is acknowledge that their standard was different than ours and they were justified in enforcing their standard because they had the means to do so until they didn't any more.

---

Slavery is a terrible example, because in our society we do not all agree that it's wrong. You can use any example that you like, and we'll be exactly where we started. Someone is right and someone is wrong, and only people have the ability to change who is who.

quote:

---

By "in itself", I mean the very nature of the act is immoral. With moral relativism, there is no such thing as being immoral by nature because morality is entirely contextual. You can't say all murder is immoral, all rape is immoral, or all slavery is immoral because you have to admit that as long as those with the might make the rules, if they rule that those things are acceptable then they have to be morally acceptable. Very few moral relativists live their lives consistently with this worldview because if they did, there would be nothing but chaos.

---

I know what you mean. It's just wrong. With or without moral relativism or religion, there is no such thing as being immoral by nature. You're just shifted authority again.

Once again, religion is no different. Fundamentalists are not a majority for a reason.

quote:

---

The God of the Bible does. If God exists and His moral code is supreme AND He holds people accountable to it, then we are all obligated to obey it and to judge all other standards in its light. Wielding power doesn't mean you can make the rules under this paradigm. Instead, you are even more responsible for abiding by it because of the influence you have over others made in the image of God. The Bible says that we are all made in the image of God which gives us intrinsic value. This is a vastly different way of looking at things than if you agree with moral relativism. People don't have intrinsic value. They have only the value that each individual decides, and as a matter of action, people only have the value that those with the power decide.

---

If...

He changes nothing. I'm not obliged to do anything. You believe your god exists, and it has absolutely no value to me. He can do nothing to stop me. He can do nothing to stop anyone.

Never mind.

quote:

---

Your belief doesn't really matter for my point. Even if everything you believe is true, you still don't have objective morality. All you have is someone else in your corner. Religions have opinions, just like people, except they go one step further and claim to have divine backup. "I think this is what is right, and oh by the way, my god agrees with me." That doesn't give you objective morality. It just gives you the arrogance to tell someone else they're wrong and you're right, with imagined divine support for your opinion.

---

Objective or subjective is in relation to humanity. Subjective human morality is moral standard that originates from within humanity, within each individual. This morality is experienced differently by different people where each person has their own understanding and perspective on morality that differs from the understanding and perspective of the next person.

Objective human morality is moral standard that originates outside of humanity by which all human subjective standards of morality are judged. This standard has to come from someone or something outside of ourselves but also must be enforceable by that someone or that something else in order for it to not just exist, but to have accountability. Like human laws that exist without law enforcement, it's not enough to simply have an objective morality because we could just reject it in favor of our own imaginations. I believe in a moral standard that originates outside of the human mind and by which all human actions are judged.

quote:

---

Right does exist. It exists however we say it exists. They thought they were right, we thought were right. History tells us exactly how that went. It wasn't any god who stepped in to say we were right. Religion is no different in that regard, either. Religion has used "might" throughout history at the tip of a sword, the wrong end of a barrel, or coming from the mouths of believers.

---

"Might makes right" is a phrase used to teach how the rules are made by those in positions of power to enforce those rules, but might doesn't literally make right because there is no definitive right and wrong in moral relativism. If each person can make their own standard of right and wrong then there is no objective standard by which all other standards are judged. One person forcing another person to act according to his standard because he's got a bigger gun doesn't make him right, it just makes him more powerful. The human experience is a testament to this as we see injustice and immorality persist throughout the world by those in power, forcing their immorality on others. If moral relativism is true, there is no true right and wrong, only differences of opinion.

quote:

---

Same as above. We say what makes something a moral right.

---

If this is true, then morality is nothing more than a preference, because "we" are made up of individuals with different views on moral goodness. Without an objective standard to judge our own standards by, all of our standards are equally valid. Mother Theresa is no better than Stalin with that perspective.

quote:

---

Right, and if they had continued to win, guess what...they'd still be "right." Religion didn't stop them. God didn't stop them. An imagined objective morality didn't stop them.

---

My point is that might doesn't actually make right. Just because someone can impose their will doesn't make them right in doing so. The practical application to this concept is something that most people would reject if they thought it through because it runs contrary to human nature.

I believe that God holds all people accountable for their actions based on His objective moral standard. That accounting doesn't necessarily take place while we are alive, which is why some immoral people seem to thrive all the way up until death.

quote:

---

I do know that it didn't stop them. History knows it, too.

---

Not at all. What you "know" is the efficient cause of something, not necessarily the first cause of it.

quote:

---

Correct. Arbitrary has no value in this discussion. Name some of those arbitrary impulses if you disagree

---

Arbitrary as you described it (because it doesn't really exist, in your definition) isn't meaningful. Arbitrary as defined as whimsical, random, or without thoughtful reason or design is what I intended. Within context, I was saying that those in power can make arbitrary rules and enforce the due to their "might" and everyone else has to obey them. In an ultimate sense, whether laws are arbitrary and without reason or if they are purposeful and reasonable, they are equal in terms of legitimacy within the moral worldview of relativism as both are nothing more than preferences. In that sense, arbitrary actions (such as Hitler's henchmen being able to pick people out at random for harassment, violence, and murder) have as much value as the purposeful.

quote:

---

You've shown the opposite, particularly when you said "Moral relativism means that no one is right and no one is wrong." That's most definitely not what it means. I don't accept your "re-defining" of the term.

---

I believe I've been very clear on this. I've defined moral relativism previously in essentially the same way you have and you can look up any textbook definition to see that what I've said is true about the relative nature of morality under that paradigm. What I was doing was jumping to the logical conclusion of moral relativism which is that there is no single standard of right and wrong that can be universally applied to all individual and subjective moral standards, which by necessity means that no one is right and no one is wrong. That has to be true in moral relativism because the philosophy admits that morality is not set in stone. Whether you accept my redefinition (for the sake of argument) is irrelevant since the truth claim I made is logically consistent.

quote:

---

All of this applies to religion as well, though, so it's not a point that needs to have much time devoted to it.

---

I'm not arguing for "religion" broadly. There are many religions and all of them contradict each other in various ways meaning they all can't be "right" at the same time in the same sense. I'm a Christian, not a religionist.