There are no ‘verifiable facts’ that support an external agent. Facts are physical proofs. To find physical proofs of a non-physical entity is not likely.
There is however argumentation. For example, the existence of an objective moral code, one that cannot be satisfactorily explained by a purely naturalistic understanding of the universe.
You’ll have to explain where you got the idea that eating a nice scallop meal was intrinsically immoral.
Not so. The torture of an innocent child is morally wrong. Fact. It is morally wrong at all times and under all circumstances. That cannot be justified from within a naturalistic worldview.
Not so. The external agency hypothesis is supported by the evidence of objective morality.
Why would I give a toss what people in your tribe think when my survival is at risk?
We know how much we value our own offspring. If their survival is threatened, or if we need to assert our dominance in some way, empathy will have little sway.
Your game theory ideology has no power when it opposes survival.
They aren’t ‘my’ morals. That’s the whole point. I may chose to adopt them, but then so does the vast majority of humanity.
But that position is not sustainable in naturalism. Naturalism mitigates towards our favouring blood relationships far and away above cultural bonds, which have little or no value. An orphan child does not carry on my genetic traits, so what is the utility
What then, is the basis of your view? There is no satisfactory naturalistic explanation.
Yet many do. How does giving money to someone I don’t know, in a country I have never visited, for a purpose I will never see fulfilled, give me reason to feel good?
Nonsense. Male circumcision has proven medical benefits. BUt that isn’t the point. Since when was a nanosecond of pain even approaching the definition of torture I gave earlier?
You have no ‘proof’ for any of that, it is mere speculation. The existence of an external entity is not ‘provable’, since the concept of proof is limited to the natural universe. In that regard, my hypothesis is similar to , although I maintain more plausible, the multiverse. The multiverse is proposed as a hypothesis for the existence of this universe. There is no proof, not even evidence for such an hypothesis, yet people ‘believe’ it.
Not at all. It flows logically that an EA would require some intrinsic moral character in order to specify a coherent moral code.
[quote=“tomndebb, post:293, topic:668065”]
II don’t need argumentation. I provided evidence many posts ago.
[QUOTE}
No, you didn’t. But if it makes you feel better believing that, I won’t disillusion you. And yes you do need to support your contentions, moderator or not.
That is a not so subtle sidestep. I defined torture when asked. Keep on task.
Ah, no. I simply see the need to eliminate the examples of madmen. I ask again…name a society in which the torture of children, as I defined it earlier, was morally acceptable.
Is this your standard response? If so, it is not particularly sound. A number of posters have made genuine attempts, but all have been rebutted. Can you posit your own?
Good try, but I have rebutted the responses I have seen, and it hasn’t been difficult. There is no valid naturalistic objection to the torture of an innocent child that will not fail in the face of the fight for survival and the division of scarce resources.
[quote=“Intrinsicvalue, post:350, topic:668065”]
[quote=“tomndebb, post:293, topic:668065”]
II don’t need argumentation. I provided evidence many posts ago.[QUOTE}
No, you didn’t. But if it makes you feel better believing that, I won’t disillusion you. And yes you do need to support your contentions.
[quote=“iiandyiiii, post:338, topic:668065”]
He offered one, sure, but he insisted that it was “objective”, and provided no evidence that it was so.
So let me pose a question. Assuming you object to the torture of an innocent child, would you object to that action if carried out in a society in which it was accepted as being ok?
I am very tired of this bullshit argument. Has this external entity any effect on our world, no matter where it is? If not, you’re obviously making it up with zero reason to do so. If it has, that is the physical evidence you claim cannot exist. It might be magic tricks like in the Bible, or it might be getting in our heads. If it did get in our heads, it should do so with a consistent message.
As for the multiverse, you don’t have a clue about how science works. No one “believes” it the way people believe in God. It is an interesting hypothesis and that is all, and its proponents will admit that they don’t know how to demonstrate it, and are looking in the math for reasons to support it or falsify it.
I love your little sidestep also. Your external entity is clearly fine with exposing infants and letting them starve or get eaten by predators, but is against whatever definition of torture you made up? Nice guy.
Nonsense.
“A nanosecond of pain” Really, is that all you can bring to handwave it away?
Apparently you have not been imbued with the intrinsic morality against child torture.
I don’t believe that this exists, and you have provided no evidence.
Yes, because I believe that it’s wrong. My moral sense, though human derived and not derived externally, applies (for me) to everyone when making moral judgments.
The utility is for the society. Many people value their society as much as or even more than their blood. And there is collective value- most people in a society might value it, whereas only an individual family values their bloodline. In America, for example, there is far more value collectively placed on the idea of freedom and the pursuit of happiness than on any individual bloodline.
“Naturalism” doesn’t mean that the only value is on blood relatives and bloodlines. You need to get past this. Humans put value on many things- for example, someone may value their cultural legacy (that they or their works be remembered). A “meme”, the cultural equivalent of a genetic trait, can spread very quickly.
That’s a question for you to answer. For many people, it would not make them feel good. I give to the needy because it would make me feel bad not to- because I think it’s the right thing to do. That human-derived moral choice comes because I value my society and my species, and think the future for both is brightest if we treat each other with compassion and value every individual. I want humanity to thrive and succeed. This is a moral choice I make- I don’t have to put value on humanity and society (and many do not), but I choose to.
You assert that there is an objective morality, yet you provide zero evidence. You haven’t really even tried- you just say that torturing children is objectively wrong. I think it’s wrong, but I believe all morality is derived from human beliefs. For me to believe in an objective morality I would have to believe in some sort of external agent- it doesn’t make sense to believe in the first without the second. It doesn’t work backwards- it can’t, logically… it would be like believing in a light without a light source. So since I see no evidence for an external agent (God), then there is zero reason to believe in objective morality.
Get on task, yourself.
You have provided NO definition of child torture. You have provided a single example of a single event that you would regard as the torture of an innocent child, but you have never provided a definition.
Instead, you have simply hand-waved away every discussion of a naturalistic rationale to prevent torture, generally inventing positions for naturalism that exist only in your mind, and then have repeated your assertion that there is an objective morality without providing a single shred of evidence to support your personal belief. Where is you evidence from people expressing a naturalist philosophy that supports the positions that you have attributed to them? Where is your evidence of an objective morality?
Once more, you are inventing a position for the naturalistic approach while failing to demonstrate that what you claim to be naturalism is actually anything more than the creation of your own mind.
Under the naturalistic position that any harm to any other person when not behaving defensively harms oneself, your beating and raping a three-year-old is wrong under naturalistic law. There is no “fight for survival” in “the face of scarce resources” that would justify beating and raping a child. I fully expect you to deny that reality in some fashion, but you will, again, fail to support your position with anything other than your personal belief.
You are utterly unpersuasive of your personal beliefs and you are really not making any point in this thread except to demonstrate that some people cannot differentiate between their own beliefs and the real world.
You did argue that, and you were shown to be wrong. Repeating the assertion is not a form of substantive argument.
And I would agree with him. The ‘evidence’ he provided is just as credible as that which naturalism provides. You just choose to place your faith in the latter.
I didn’t say “every individual.”
Of course it’s derived at by yourself, and by your own choice. But that design came from an external source.