Give an example of “morality” existing outside of human thought. Give an example of how you can make any determination about what is morally right or wrong without exercising a personal opinion.
And just to preempt any attempt to claim that you can use religion as a moral barometer, I would point out that in order to do that, you first have to exercise a personal moral judgement that following a given religion is the “right” thing to do.
It is an inference drawn from the fact that every single thing we have ever known is within our existing universe. Can you give a shred of evidence for anything existing outside the universe? Until you can, I will continue to consider it a reasonable conclusion.
Trivial nitpick; we don’t necessarily invent morality as a conscious act, we pick moral codes that conform to mechanisms devloped in evolution, i.e. guilt feels bad, justice feels good, etc. The evolutionary advantage of these kinds of feelings is apparant to me, as it allows human societies to function reasonably well.
Yep, extending on that nitpick: I think that in debates like this atheists often offer an open goal by implying that morality is arbitrary.
Just because morality has no supernatural origin, and just because people can disagree about a particular action’s morality, doesn’t make it arbitrary (since there are good alternative reasons why moral disputes occur).
Dehacker is the one who said that morality is purely a human invention. I asked him to substantiate that claim, and what is your response? To challenge me to prove him wrong.
Does the phrase “burden of proof” mean anything to you?
Besides which, the issue isn’t merely whether morality exists outside of human thought. The issue is whether morality is purely a human convention. You can state that it is, but without substantiating it, that’s just an assertion, not empirical evidence.
Indeed, a theist would maintain that morality exists in the mind of God as well. One could retort “There is no God!” but that would be asserting the very thing that’s under debate.
Again, a circular argument. Your argument assumes that there is no creator of the universe, for example. You’re welcome to that view, but that’s not a valid argument when you’re attempting to argue for nothing existing outside the universe.
Before that, I think someone should present evidence that there is an “outside the universe”.
Again, his argument is based on available evidence. Provide evidence that there is an “outside universe” and/or a “creator” that may or may not reside there, and there will be something of substance to consider.
No, it isn’t. It’s an assertion that nothing exists outside of the universe on the grounds that we haven’t observed any such thing. Even if we were to grant that premise – that everything we know exists in the universe – it does not logically follow that no such thing exists. That’s hubris in the extreme, and it’s an invalid way of approaching the question of whether the universe has a creator.
Indeed, one of the favorite arguments of Diogenes and other atheists on the SDMB is the (so far unevidenced) possibilty that there may be other universes out there. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t argue for the existence of other universes, then turn around and inist that nothing exists outside the universe on the grounds that no such thing has ever been observed.
Moreover, the universe refers specifically to everything that physically exists. This does not preclude the existence of non-material things such as moral principles. One might argue against the existence of such things, but not by saying that they have never been observed in the universe. (Admittedly, this particular definition is problematic for proponents of a multiverse, but that’s irrelevant to this particular objection.)
So, morality might not be a human concept because a god may have come up with it first? Does the phrase “burden of proof” mean anything to you?
How do moral principles exist without physical brains? I maintain they can’t, but I’m sure you believe it’s up to me to scour the universe and prove it, right?
Doesn’t this contradict your earlier statement?:
If everything that exists is part of the universe, then there can’t be anything outside it, can there?
That’s not my objection. Entropy establishes a winding down of sorts from an initial event. The big bang was the initial matter and energy source according to our best evidence. The question is why did the big bang happen?
Life exists because we have an outside source, the sun, feeding us energy. Even life is subject to entropy though. It takes many snakes to keep one hawk alive because energy is lost. 10 hawks eats 100 snakes that ate 1000 mice that ate 1,000 pounds of wheat that grew in a collective 10,000 hours of sunlight per 100 square cm plant area or the energy of the sun striking 10 kilometers for 1 hour. The numbers are fudged, but you get the example.
If hawks could harvest the solar energy directly instead of using the food chain how many more hawks would 10 kilometer’s worth of solar energy support? More then 10? If so where did the rest of the energy go? That’s entropy.
The sun, our outside energy source, stops and our food production stops, and we freeze to death or die from starvation. The sun will stop some day too. Most it’s energy is radiated away into space, and it will run out. That’s entropy. It’s winding down and running out of fuel to make energy to compensate for what’s lost/ Without another energy source life on earth will die, if it survives that long. Which it won’t, but that’s a side track of steller evolution.
In order for everything to have existed forever the laws of physics would of had to have been different at some point to wind us up. That may be possible, but how do we tell? What are the meta rules by which the universe’s rules are defined and redefined? what defines the meta rules? How are the rules of physics enforced? This is why the question is so astounding. It implies things beyond our cause and effect, and definition based understanding. What those things are I can’t guess, but they must exist or it’s turtles all the way down.
You’re the one with the burden of proof. You’re the one asserting a supernatural explanation for human behavior.
That is the default logical presumption. It requires no support. You are the one with the burden to disprove it, just as you would have the burden to prove that elves or rocs exist.
Nobody is arguing that “nothing exists outside the universe” (or multiverse). The argument is that there is no evidence for anything outside of material existence, and that hypothesizing a magical creator for anything material is neither warranted by observation, nor does it have any valid explanatory power.
You’re also mistaken in your assertion that no evidence exists for a multiverse.
As for “moral principles.” nobody is arguing that those don’t exist either. They exist as evolved physiological, chemical responses to stimuli and serve to bind populations and foster their survival.
Science is interested in anything that has any testable effect within our grasp. That has nothing to do with the size or circumstances of the universe. We aren’t just going to stop if there’s still more to know out there.
Now I’m not saying that God exists in any way that we could eventually discover him, but if you believe he is real, then you must believe that it’s just as plausible that one day we will discover him. If the very definition of his being is as something which cannot be found via objective reality, then like I said, you don’t believe in God.
If you can produce another candidate, by all means feel free. You can assert that magical orcs and goblins invented it, but it would behoove you to produce an orc and a goblin in that case. I, on the other hand, can provide evidence of humans, and the great works of literature we create expounding on morality and ethics.
I don’t think you understand the structure of a circular argument. I made no such assumption. I simply am following the evidence where it leads. I am not arguing that nothing exists outside our universe, just that we have no evidence of it, at least not yet. Since we have nothing to indicate any entities exist outside our universe, the correct, default assumption is they have no bearing on things such as morality and ethics.
Hubris, huh? How about if we just don’t consider fantastical, magical possibilities until we see some credible evidence to suggest they might be real. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that. Otherwise, I will have to note the amazing hubris you display by dismissing the fact that invisible pink flying skymonkeys are really inside of Barack Obama’s brain controlling his actions, while the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Zeus were dancing together at the Inaugural Ball last night. I mean, logically you can’t say it didn’t happen, right?
String theory demands multiple universes. Does that require multiple gods.
OK, consider me schooled
The Universe arising from nothing? Perfectly plausible. For what is nothing? Why, it’s a perfect balance between matter and anti-matter. A random fluxuation in a tiny space of nothing results in a supremacy of matter in a tinzy spot and WHAM- Big Bang with all that entails. (Therefore, it stands to reason that a “evil twin” anti-matter Universe was created at the same time…)
Perfectly plausible, a simple explanation - no need for The Big P.I. In The Sky to create anything… How someone can elect the magical fire-breathing Jahve theory over this, I’ll never understand.
If there were no humans, would you accept there is no need for a god…or morality? You’re going to need a very good explanation if you disagree. I wont ask you to locate god, but I will ask you for a single morality issue prior to humans appearing on this planet.