Define: God

[El_Machinae]

I think I've figured out what the issue is. I'm not saying that there's a definition of morality that everyone agrees with. I'm certainly not saying that there's a theory of moral practice available that's perfect.

I'm just saying that, in all the definitions of morality, there's one that objectively actually exists.

It says that there are moral actions (that actually exist) and they have consequences (that actually exist) and they're utterly predictable because they're completely beholden to the real laws of the universe.

So, the laws of morality objectively exist. And then there's the question of moral behaviour. Well, by definition, moral actions affect sentients. There's literally no moral action that doesn't.

The consequences of a moral action are determined by whether they harm or help the sentient. These consequences all exist, they're objectively real things. Harm is real. Hurt is real. In fact, whether these action harmed or hurt the sentient are not subjective. The sentient does not decide whether the action harmed or hurt. The consequences are not subject to their opinion.

So, I think I see where the problem is. My contention is only that objective morality exists.

It's that thing that's composed of real things that operates according to real laws.

It's that real thing composed of real laws that answers the question "is this a good thing to do?"

The problem with the relativists is that they deny that there's this thing that's composed of real things that operates according to known laws. Well, they're wrong. There were peoples who thought that pi was 22/7, and the relativists would think that circles don't exist and that pi is subjective. They're wrong again. The circle exists and it's just that some cultures were wrong about pi. But, the circle still existed as far as they were concerned. It's not like Archimedes built upon Egyptian math and the retort "well, that's just your opinion on circleness"

 

[Hygro]

I have a friend who is a biologist. He will tell you that one of the first things life gained ability to do was distinguish "good" and "bad".

 

[Kyriakos]

Define God. Tell me what you think / believe God is.

Then consider the following questions:

1) How do you know your definition of God is correct?
2) What if other people have different definitions?
3) What if the definition you gave God could be attributed to something other than God?

Please note that whether or not you believe in God is irrelevant to this discussion.

It seems virtually impossible than any two people will have the actual same definition of this notion/term. Some similarities will be there (eg the term connotes a being with more powers than a human, up to absolute power or in tautology with anything in existence), but it appears far more likely that for most people the term ends up being tied to very specific/personal ideas.*

In my view if a being worth to be termed a God does exist, then that being would have to be not conscious in the human manner, by which i mostly mean it would be rather a vast unconsciousness of sorts, but still functioning in a hugely integral manner for that to which it is a god. I am agnostic anyway.

*One could say it is an 'algebraic' term, insofar as it is a relation to something other and not a set object. But the relation is moreover specific to each individual human thinker of it.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I have a friend who is a biologist. He will tell you that one of the first things life gained ability to do was distinguish "good" and "bad".

I have read recently some extracts from T. Jeffersons writings and he describes human morality as "doing good to others" -- something which may vary by culture apparently..

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

In my view if a being worth to be termed a God does exist, then that being would have to be not conscious in the human manner, by which i mostly mean it would be rather a vast unconsciousness of sorts, but still functioning in a hugely integral manner for that to which it is a god. I am agnostic anyway.

*One could say it is an 'algebraic' term, insofar as it is a relation to something other and not a set object. But the relation is moreover specific to each individual human thinker of it.

This is my view as well however I wouldnt use term unconsciousness (even thought that may still be correct in a way) since that would go totaly against the tradition of most religions viewing God as entity which can be of direct (even if secret) help to the struggling human but rather the term superconscious quite incomprehensible to regular human mind..

 

[Borachio]

*One could say it is an 'algebraic' term, insofar as it is a relation to something other and not a set object. But the relation is moreover specific to each individual human thinker of it.

Or a "placeholder", I suppose.

Actually, I sometimes like to think of God as an entity with no definable attributes.

But then if one of its attributes is that it has no definable attributes, this plainly can't be true either.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Or a "placeholder", I suppose.

Actually, I sometimes like to think of God as an entity with no definable attributes.

But then if one of its attributes is that it has no definable attributes, this plainly can't be true either.

Not having attribute is an attribute?

 

[Borachio]

Exactly what I'm saying. But it could, of course, be the case that God's single attribute is that it has no other attributes.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Well, according to Parmenides, if One does exist then One has to at the same time be One and like One, and unlike One, and Many and One, and all sorts of other eleatic stuff

(from the eponymous dialogue with Socrates. Basically it seems to be a dialectic of getting from finite logic to a barrier of non set/defined states of what things may be- or not).

In math (philosophy of math) there is also the so-called "the rule of the annulment of the third option"*, which refers to Aristotle (but firstly Parmenides and Zeno) and their argument that "Something can either be X or non-X, and not a third option".

Although Parmenides leads things to chaos at the border with his idea of One/Oneness.

*Of great interest in the debate about whether infinite sets can be deemed as varying in largeness to other types of infinite sets- or not. Debate mostly between Cantor and his establishment enemies, but it still continues.

It is a Coup de Main, as another mathematician (David Hilbert) put it in his own polemic against other fiends in that realm

 

[timtofly]

This is my view as well however I wouldnt use term unconsciousness (even thought that may still be correct in a way) since that would go totaly against the tradition of most religions viewing God as entity which can be of direct (even if secret) help to the struggling human but rather the term superconscious quite incomprehensible to regular human mind..

Religions are just a group of humans who think they hold the same beliefs on an issue. It does not seem possible that people are going to give up their personal subjective view, to an all encompassing objective one, unless every other human on earth is going to agree on the objective nature of such a being. Humans are social creatures and they will form groups, but that is as far as it is going to go. Humans have always strived either by force or enticement to bring all humans together in a single belief system.

It may seem irrational, but we are told that God set it up so humans are their own individual arbitrator, instead of all humans being of one mind. If God had hard wired all humans to believe the same, then there would be no choice available.

If humans are the product of evolution, then God is just relegated to another piece of property that can be used for personal gain like any other type of property that humans use for control and self fulfillment.

 

[warpus]

It's like you're insisting on staying one layer below the analogy, kinda. Because some people call Atkins nutritious and some people call South Beach diet nutritious, there're no underlying objective laws of nutrition. The consequences of moral decisions exist. They're objectively real, and they operate according to objective laws. Unless a moral theory has something which its measuring that's based on something real it's a theory of something, but it's not morality.

No, I'm just saying that the moral rules we live by are due to us - not due to anything inherent in the universe. The universe just provides us with a stomping ground where moral frameworks are possible. Whatever moral frameworks we build on this stage is in the end up to us.

But it looks like we will never agree on that one point. But at least I think we each now understand where the disagreement lies.

edit: Ah, you wrote more

I'm just saying that, in all the definitions of morality, there's one that objectively actually exists.

Well, let's see it then. You have put forward one definition, the Christians have a bunch of their own, the Muslims as well, Buddhists, Humanists, satanists, and so on.

Why should I accept that one of these is objectively true, while all the other ones are false? Where is the empirical data that highlights one as "the one" ?

 

[El_Machinae]

No, I'm just saying that the moral rules we live by are due to us - not due to anything inherent in the universe. The universe just provides us with a stomping ground where moral frameworks are possible. Whatever moral frameworks we build on this stage is in the end up to us.

Well, sure. What we choose to do is our own choice. The laws of the universe inform us, but we've got an imperfect grasp. Whether we were correct or incorrect, though, is not up to us. I guess whether we think we were correct is subjective, but that is not the same thing.

We also don't have a perfect theory of gravity. We muddle along and experiment, doing our best, with some major breakthroughs. And, at no point is it US who determine whether we've got the theory correct. The best we can do is to measure our efforts against the universe's feedback.

Well, let's see it then. You have put forward one definition, the Christians have a bunch of their own, the Muslims as well, Buddhists, Humanists, satanists, and so on.

Why should I accept that one of these is objectively true, while all the other ones are false? Where is the empirical data that highlights one as "the one" ?

This is the one the is composed of real things, operates according to objective laws, whose results actually exist?

All of the moralities you're describing are actually best attempts to enact the objective morality. But, they're the equivalent of diets in this analogy. Various theories of gravity.

They're all regarding actions that results in consequences that have an outcome. They're all operating off of imperfect information, and so in practice they're going to get things wrong. But the outcome of their efforts is still determined by the natural laws of the universe.

Take a planet of Muslims, a planet of Buddhists, Humanists, satanists, etc. Let them have a society that exists according to their morality. Heck, they all have their own theory of gravity, too, suppose.

Add time. Now measure.

Did some societies thrive more? Was there more suffering in some? Did some lack cohesion? Did human nature cause rebellion against the tenets of the faith?

Could they make airplanes?

All these outcomes exist. And, they were determined by objective laws. The consequences of each rocket attempt, of each attempt to get people to thrive, is prewritten. We didn't decide if people thrived because of the moral structure, natural laws did.

I'm not sure where the confusion is. I'm not saying I understand the objective morality, or even that it's knowable. I'm saying that there's an objective reality that exists, this reality allows people to make decisions, and decisions have outcomes that are determined by the objective reality.

edit: further, let's all consider scholars and philosophers of Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, etc., etc. morality. We all admit there's stuff about the universe we don't know or cannot prove. Each of these scholars can name 'unknown' things that would make their philosophy correct and would make their philosophy wrong.

Take Christian for example. Now, the existence of the Christian God is not a subjective, relativist question. The nature of His existence is an objective fact. In the simplest terms, He exists or He doesn't. Large portions of Christian ethics utterly depend on whether their God exists. The correctness of their opinion utterly depends on this objective fact. The consequence of their moral decisions utterly depends on this fact. It's not a subjective question.

 

[warpus]

And, at no point is it US who determine whether we've got the theory correct.

The thing is that no scientific theory is really fully correct. Scientific theories are approximations of reality - they will never get everything bang on.

And the thing with moral frameworks, is that they're not approximations. They just exist. They don't attempt to model a natural law of the universe - they exist as abstractions that we've invented, to help us lead "good" lives.

I'm not sure where the confusion is. I'm not saying I understand the objective morality, or even that it's knowable. I'm saying that there's an objective reality that exists, this reality allows people to make decisions, and decisions have outcomes that are determined by the objective reality.

The disagreement lies here: I don't think there is such a thing as an objective way to judge an action as -10 immoral or 10/10 moral, or something in between. It will depend on what moral framework you are going with when you're making the judgement call - different frameworks will lead to different answers.

If we were to assume that the moral framework you describe is the one that the universe "runs on", then I'd agree with you. But your moral framework is just one of many. There are many many ways to interpret and judge morality.

 

[El_Machinae]

The disagreement lies here: I don't think there is such a thing as an objective way to judge an action as -10 immoral or 10/10 moral, or something in between.

Yeah, this is where we disagree.

If we take two examples: skinning Susie alive compared to handing her a nice flower, for example, I think it's objectively true that one action caused more harm and inhibited her thriving more than the other.

I don't think it's relatively true, or that it's maybe true, or that it really matters what framework I'm using.

To me, the consequence of the action exists. And it existed according the laws of the universe in ways that are not the least bit subject to our whim.

And the thing with moral frameworks, is that they're not approximations.

Can you think of a moral framework that is independent of reality? Or even a moral tenet?

 

[warpus]

Yeah, this is where we disagree.

If we take two examples: skinning Susie alive compared to handing her a nice flower, for example, I think it's objectively true that one action caused more harm and inhibited her thriving more than the other.

I don't think it's relatively true, or that it's maybe true, or that it really matters what framework I'm using.

This example still depends on factors that you're not considering.

Maybe there's an alien civilization out there, where skinning people is a nice gesture? Perhaps their nerve endings evolved in some strange way, and skinning causes them pleasure as opposed to pain? Maybe giving someone a flower in that civilization/society is an insult?

You're right though, that as soon as you make some assumptions: - skinning leads to pain, the giving of flowers is a nice gesture, and so on - that for most, if not all human societies and cultures - this particular example is very clear cut.

However, it is not the simple examples that we need to look at - but rather the complicated ones.

Can you think of a moral framework that is independent of reality?

The 10 commandments?

Just kidding.. but.. your question seems to me indicate that you perhaps misunderstood what I meant by what I said.

I don't think that moral frameworks are independent of reality - they after all are contained in reality. They just don't exist as approximations of some natural law or phenomenon or property of the universe - like scientific theories do.

 

[El_Machinae]

This example still depends on factors that you're not considering.

That's the point, kinda. In order to change how good or evil the gestures were, you needed to change the fundamental factors. And then you went on to change the factors in ways you know conforms to underlying physical laws.

You weren't "well, the universe exists as a multiple of possibilities, and in some of those alternate universes skinning alive doesn't lead to bad outcomes, and as the skinning occurs each possible universe is actualized and so you cannot actually say her thriving was impacted."

This is probably the most important part. The fact that the outcome is comparable means that it's sortable. The truth of objective morality naturally falls out of this.

They just don't exist as approximations of some natural law or phenomenon or property of the universe - like scientific theories do.

Well, I disagree. I think all of our concepts of good and evil behaviours are due to their historical ability to create good or bad outcomes. And, as well, we've expanded our ability to notice good or bad outcomes due to empathy, and so were able to expand our conceptions of good and evil.

It was a consequence of our behaviour interacting with natural laws that then led to their naming and description. Truth-telling became known as 'good' because it became understood that truth-telling was really good at leading to good outcomes. Much better than lying did.

Play the game enough times, and usually only half the parties will agree that lying leads to the best outcome. Play the game enough times, and both people will often agree that the truth-telling leads to the best outcome, especially on average.

Add 200,000 years, and people describe the truth as good. And, after that, people will only disagree that the truth is good IF consequences occur that are bad. Then they weigh.

The heuristic was created from measuring consequences ("approximating natural law"). Its implicit goal is good consequences.

 

[warpus]

Impasse reaching critical levels.

But I'm not sure if this really brings us any closer to define God. Which is probably impossible anyway, so it probably doesn't matter what we talk about here.

From what I remember all this came up because I was talking about God possibly being a non-sentient entity, and then you wondered if heaven and hell might be possible under such a scheme.

That actually reminds me of a sci-fi novel I was reading about a virtual hell (a novel by Iain M. Banks) and never finished .. and actually I don't even want to say anything in case I'm spoiling stuff for anyone.. It's a brilliant book about hell in a universe where God probably doesn't exist... but in that case the hell was designed and implemented by someone, and not by God.

 

[Smote]

El_Mac,

I'm with you on utilitarianism. But it still takes some assumptions, even ignoring aggregation.

1. Human life matters
2. The quality of human life matters

It's a bit of a stretch arguing it's objective in nature if it depends on these sorts of assumptions - though personally I think anything can be argued to be objective in nature after assuming the world exists (otherwise everything is subjective). Anything can be argued because:

Take subjective thing:
Say its a result of the makeup of the brain, which is physical.
Now it's objective.

Objective/Subjective is somewhat meaningless, I think, if you believe that all thought originates from physical processes (as I do).

 

[Tahuti]

Perhaps God can also be defined as the most inner aspect of a person. I can't think of a reason why atheists would object to it, and it would take a couple of cues from Kaballah and the Hindu concept of the 'atman' as well.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Perhaps God can also be defined as the most inner aspect of a person. I can't think of a reason why atheists would object to it, and it would take a couple of cues from Kaballah and the Hindu concept of the 'atman' as well.

I can. Most atheists are materialists.