Alex O'Connor vs Frank Turek | The Moral Argument DEBATE

[ding]

So all of the bad things that people ascribe to this universe and blame God for and use as an excuse to not surrender to God's will, don't really exist. They are the absence of God's attributes and attributed to man's free will to not choose God's attributes.

The universe is neither "bad" nor "good" it simply is.

Actually, existence is good. Bad is not extant. Bad is the absence of good. It is two sides of the same coin but the coin is good. We know this because everyone has a preference for good. Even bad people.

 

[Blues Man]

Science, math, music, art and logic are consequences of a material world. They are not consequences of mind.

Music is nothing but a collection of pleasing sounds. Those sounds would exist if there were no people to hear them.

Music evolved with people as they realized some sounds were more pleasing than others, and then that some combination of sounds was more pleasing than others.

The rules of music that we hold to such as chord construction, scales, harmonies etc are also a result of the architecture of our auditory system.

Music is a consequences of a material world. Music is not consequences of mind. Music is manifested and discovered by mind.

Quoting George Wald, Nobel Laureate, "...the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

I disagree.

The universe is completely unaware of human beings and has not changed since human beings came to be and will not change when human beings cease to be.

I never said the universe was aware of human beings. I said the same thing George Wald said... "...the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

The universe is always changing; cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and the evolution of consciousness say the universe is always changing and complexifying.

Humans are aware of the universe and what is known about the universe is discovered and manifested by mind.

the physical world has no consciousness and never did so we humans cannot restore consciousness to the universe

You are taking what George Wald wrote out of context. He never said the universe was conscious. His full quote was, "...Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .” What he is saying is that everything exists into and of itself but it is mind that gives it meaning. That without mind there is no consciousness of that which exists. That's the fundamental position of consciousness.

By saying we restore consciousness he is implying that there was a consciousness at some prior time.

 

[Blues Man]

So all of the bad things that people ascribe to this universe and blame God for and use as an excuse to not surrender to God's will, don't really exist. They are the absence of God's attributes and attributed to man's free will to not choose God's attributes.

The universe is neither "bad" nor "good" it simply is.

Actually, existence is good. Bad is not extant. Bad is the absence of good. It is two sides of the same coin but the coin is good. We know this because everyone has a preference for good. Even bad people.

Those are value judgement therefore subjective.

Your assertion that there are only 2 states: the bad and the good leaves out the most prevalent state of the natural world, neutrality.

 

[ding]

It means that all of those things exist in and of themselves (independent of man) as part of a material world and are discovered or manifested by the human mind. In other words, if there were never any humans to know or discover those things, they would still exist waiting to be discovered.

You can add morals and love and mercy and wisdom, etc. to that list.

I agree that the physical/material world, as well as it's immaterial aspects, necessarily preceded human consciousness, but your statement [t]hey are not consequences of mind, suggests that the physical/material world preceded consciousness?

That's not what I am intending to imply. In fact, I am intending to imply the exact opposite. That mind, rather than being a late outgrowth of the evolution of existence has always existed as the source or matrix of the physical world. Such that Mind created a physical world where beings that know and create would eventually arise. And that is why we have the attributes that we do. Because those came from the Creator.

 

[ding]

Science, math, music, art and logic are consequences of a material world. They are not consequences of mind.

Music is nothing but a collection of pleasing sounds. Those sounds would exist if there were no people to hear them.

Music evolved with people as they realized some sounds were more pleasing than others, and then that some combination of sounds was more pleasing than others.

The rules of music that we hold to such as chord construction, scales, harmonies etc are also a result of the architecture of our auditory system.

Music is a consequences of a material world. Music is not consequences of mind. Music is manifested and discovered by mind.

Quoting George Wald, Nobel Laureate, "...the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

I disagree.

The universe is completely unaware of human beings and has not changed since human beings came to be and will not change when human beings cease to be.

I never said the universe was aware of human beings. I said the same thing George Wald said... "...the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

The universe is always changing; cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and the evolution of consciousness say the universe is always changing and complexifying.

Humans are aware of the universe and what is known about the universe is discovered and manifested by mind.

the physical world has no consciousness and never did so we humans cannot restore consciousness to the universe

You are taking what George Wald wrote out of context. He never said the universe was conscious. His full quote was, "...Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .” What he is saying is that everything exists into and of itself but it is mind that gives it meaning. That without mind there is no consciousness of that which exists. That's the fundamental position of consciousness.

By saying we restore consciousness he is implying that there was a consciousness at some prior time.

Not if you actually read the whole quote and for that matter the whole speech. You are deliberately taking it out of context.

 

[ding]

So all of the bad things that people ascribe to this universe and blame God for and use as an excuse to not surrender to God's will, don't really exist. They are the absence of God's attributes and attributed to man's free will to not choose God's attributes.

The universe is neither "bad" nor "good" it simply is.

Actually, existence is good. Bad is not extant. Bad is the absence of good. It is two sides of the same coin but the coin is good. We know this because everyone has a preference for good. Even bad people.

Those are value judgement therefore subjective.

Your assertion that there are only 2 states: the bad and the good leaves out the most prevalent state of the natural world, neutrality.

There is no bad. There is only good. By any objective measure existence is good. Go ahead and do a full accounting. What you perceive as bad is..

1. the absence of good
2. completely overstated
3. tiny in comparison to what is good

Arguing neutrality is a shade of grey that has no bearing on the self evident truth that existence is good.

 

[Ringtone]

when humans were tribal and nomadic there was a different set of morals.

as humans started to live in larger groups there had to be a corresponding shift in behaviors and attitudes.

Morals are nothing but acceptable behaviors that a society defines.

There is no universal set of morals because even today there exists differences in morals between different societies

Religious people like to claim that their god has put down a universal code and that does not prove that there is one.

I missed this earlier, but ding addresses it masterfully. Simply stated, moral truth is deciphered or discovered by finite minds via experience and logic. The sort of differences you seem to be alluding to are societal or cultural norms. The fundamentals of morality are universally understood. The violation of the latter will always entail some form of coercion or suppression.

 

[Blues Man]

So all of the bad things that people ascribe to this universe and blame God for and use as an excuse to not surrender to God's will, don't really exist. They are the absence of God's attributes and attributed to man's free will to not choose God's attributes.

The universe is neither "bad" nor "good" it simply is.

Actually, existence is good. Bad is not extant. Bad is the absence of good. It is two sides of the same coin but the coin is good. We know this because everyone has a preference for good. Even bad people.

Those are value judgement therefore subjective.

Your assertion that there are only 2 states: the bad and the good leaves out the most prevalent state of the natural world, neutrality.

There is no bad. There is only good. By any objective measure existence is good. Go ahead and do a full accounting. What you perceive as bad is..

1. the absence of good
2. completely overstated
3. tiny in comparison to what is good

Arguing neutrality is a shade of grey that has no bearing on the self evident truth that existence is good.

Again good is a subjective assessment imposed by humans on the world.

Good and bad have no meaning to the universe.

 

[Blues Man]

when humans were tribal and nomadic there was a different set of morals.

as humans started to live in larger groups there had to be a corresponding shift in behaviors and attitudes.

Morals are nothing but acceptable behaviors that a society defines.

There is no universal set of morals because even today there exists differences in morals between different societies

Religious people like to claim that their god has put down a universal code and that does not prove that there is one.

I missed this earlier, but ding addresses it masterfully. Simply stated, moral truth is deciphered or discovered by finite minds via experience and logic. The sort of differences you seem to be alluding to are societal or cultural norms. The fundamentals of morality are universally understood. The violation of the latter will always entail some form of coercion or suppression.

There is no moral truth.

Morals are a human concept. And as human societies become similar, the more their behaviors and attitudes will align.

That this happens is not necessarily proof that there is some absolute moral code floating in the ether but rather it demonstrates that humans are far more alike than they are different

 

[Hollie]

when humans were tribal and nomadic there was a different set of morals.

as humans started to live in larger groups there had to be a corresponding shift in behaviors and attitudes.

Morals are nothing but acceptable behaviors that a society defines.

There is no universal set of morals because even today there exists differences in morals between different societies

Religious people like to claim that their god has put down a universal code and that does not prove that there is one.

I missed this earlier, but ding addresses it masterfully. Simply stated, moral truth is deciphered or discovered by finite minds via experience and logic. The sort of differences you seem to be alluding to are societal or cultural norms. The fundamentals of morality are universally understood. The violation of the latter will always entail some form of coercion or suppression.

“The fundamentals of morality are universally understood”.

What nonsense! Morality is subjective and changes as societies change.

You might want to consider what has been considered “moral” in past societies / cultures as evidence of that. You can look to the writings of Christianity to see how morality has changed from when Hebrew theology was incorporated into the Bibles. The Bibles are the last place I would look for lectures on morality. The actions of the Christian gods are as immoral as I can describe.

Human history has shown that there is no objective assessments of right and wrong, only subjective ones. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. By their subjective standards, they were “moral”.

The Noah fable leads the planet to be re-populated by Noah and his immediate family (incestuous and familial relations), after his ocean cruise, the cruise that the Christian gods necessitated after wiping most of humanity from the planet.

So yes, please lecture us on morality.

 

[Ringtone]

That's not what I am intending to imply. In fact, I am intending to imply the exact opposite. That mind, rather than being a late outgrowth of the evolution of existence has always existed as the source or matrix of the physical world. Such that Mind created a physical world where beings that know and create would eventually arise. And that is why we have the attributes that we do. Because those came from the Creator.

Yeah. I see that and agree. I need to read all of the posts and catch up. I was AWOL yesterday.

I also appreciate the ramifications of your observation that the ultimate ground of existence and the attributes thereof are necessarily one and the same eternal being. That is to say, God is Goodness, God is Logic, God is Knowledge and so on.

 

[Hollie]

That's not what I am intending to imply. In fact, I am intending to imply the exact opposite. That mind, rather than being a late outgrowth of the evolution of existence has always existed as the source or matrix of the physical world. Such that Mind created a physical world where beings that know and create would eventually arise. And that is why we have the attributes that we do. Because those came from the Creator.

Yeah. I see that and agree. I need to read all of the posts and catch up. I was AWOL yesterday.

I also appreciate the ramifications of your observation that the ultimate ground of existence and the attributes thereof are necessarily one and the same eternal being. That is to say, God is Goodness, God is Logic, God is Knowledge and so on.

God is Goodness, God is Logic, God isKnowledge and so on™

All those little Johnnies and Janes swept away by the flood and drowned might disagree.

 

[Ringtone]

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Behold, the essence of the universal standard of natural law understood by all. Everyone knows when they violate this standard as they cannot sustain their petty to vile violations of this standard by any other means but coercion or suppression.

 

[Ringtone]

when humans were tribal and nomadic there was a different set of morals.

as humans started to live in larger groups there had to be a corresponding shift in behaviors and attitudes.

Morals are nothing but acceptable behaviors that a society defines.

There is no universal set of morals because even today there exists differences in morals between different societies

Religious people like to claim that their god has put down a universal code and that does not prove that there is one.

I missed this earlier, but ding addresses it masterfully. Simply stated, moral truth is deciphered or discovered by finite minds via experience and logic. The sort of differences you seem to be alluding to are societal or cultural norms. The fundamentals of morality are universally understood. The violation of the latter will always entail some form of coercion or suppression.

There is no moral truth.

Morals are a human concept. And as human societies become similar, the more their behaviors and attitudes will align.

That this happens is not necessarily proof that there is some absolute moral code floating in the ether but rather it demonstrates that humans are far more alike than they are different

So there are no moral absolutes, except the moral absolute that there are no moral absolutes?

crickets chirping

On another thread, you held that there's a difference between killing someone and murdering someone..

So what precisely is your underlying justification for this moral distinction, and by what means do you make this distinction?

 

[ding]

So all of the bad things that people ascribe to this universe and blame God for and use as an excuse to not surrender to God's will, don't really exist. They are the absence of God's attributes and attributed to man's free will to not choose God's attributes.

The universe is neither "bad" nor "good" it simply is.

Actually, existence is good. Bad is not extant. Bad is the absence of good. It is two sides of the same coin but the coin is good. We know this because everyone has a preference for good. Even bad people.

Those are value judgement therefore subjective.

Your assertion that there are only 2 states: the bad and the good leaves out the most prevalent state of the natural world, neutrality.

There is no bad. There is only good. By any objective measure existence is good. Go ahead and do a full accounting. What you perceive as bad is..

1. the absence of good
2. completely overstated
3. tiny in comparison to what is good

Arguing neutrality is a shade of grey that has no bearing on the self evident truth that existence is good.

Again good is a subjective assessment imposed by humans on the world.

Good and bad have no meaning to the universe.

Your behaviors say otherwise.

 

[ding]

That's not what I am intending to imply. In fact, I am intending to imply the exact opposite. That mind, rather than being a late outgrowth of the evolution of existence has always existed as the source or matrix of the physical world. Such that Mind created a physical world where beings that know and create would eventually arise. And that is why we have the attributes that we do. Because those came from the Creator.

Yeah. I see that and agree. I need to read all of the posts and catch up. I was AWOL yesterday.

I also appreciate the ramifications of your observation that the ultimate ground of existence and the attributes thereof are necessarily one and the same eternal being. That is to say, God is Goodness, God is Logic, God is Knowledge and so on.

God is Goodness, God is Logic, God isKnowledge and so on™

All those little Johnnies and Janes swept away by the flood and drowned might disagree.

Only because you read the Bible like a child for the express purpose of making a children's argument that even you yourself do not believe. If you were any more dishonest your head would implode.

 

[ding]

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Behold, the essence of the universal standard of natural law understood by all. Everyone knows when they violate this standard as they cannot sustain their petty to vile violations of this standard by any other means but coercion or suppression.

Exactly. Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[ding]

when humans were tribal and nomadic there was a different set of morals.

as humans started to live in larger groups there had to be a corresponding shift in behaviors and attitudes.

Morals are nothing but acceptable behaviors that a society defines.

There is no universal set of morals because even today there exists differences in morals between different societies

Religious people like to claim that their god has put down a universal code and that does not prove that there is one.

I missed this earlier, but ding addresses it masterfully. Simply stated, moral truth is deciphered or discovered by finite minds via experience and logic. The sort of differences you seem to be alluding to are societal or cultural norms. The fundamentals of morality are universally understood. The violation of the latter will always entail some form of coercion or suppression.

There is no moral truth.

Morals are a human concept. And as human societies become similar, the more their behaviors and attitudes will align.

That this happens is not necessarily proof that there is some absolute moral code floating in the ether but rather it demonstrates that humans are far more alike than they are different

So there are no moral absolutes, except the moral absolute that there are no moral absolutes?

crickets chirping

On another thread, you held that there's a difference between killing someone and murdering someone..

So what precisely is your underlying justification for this moral distinction, and by what means do you make this distinction?

Yes, I am very curious about his answers too. It seems that good and bad do have meaning to him and he is part of the universe.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
you provide no commentary for your video ...

refreshing, they concluded in the end after attributing to the brain that actually the brain is not the consciousness of the experience they were alluding to.

 

[Hollie]

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Behold, the essence of the universal standard of natural law understood by all. Everyone knows when they violate this standard as they cannot sustain their petty to vile violations of this standard by any other means but coercion or suppression.

Behold, we are not beholden to religious extremists who make false and unsubstantiated claims such as "the essence of the universal standard of natural law understood by all''.

Firstly, ''natural law'' is not a function of supernatural gods who would ''naturally'' create supernatural law. Secondly, various cultures inventing various gods who delivered contradictory versions of law refutes quite clearly the religious extremists' statement about some universal standard,

Behold, the confused, inarticulate rambling of the religious extremist.