Well, wouldn't it make sense that if God had designed us, he would want us to have an emergent consciousness so we could sense his presence? — MikeL

It makes sense to us assuming God exists and that's what we want to prove isn't it?

Socratic notion that evil is ignorance. — TimeLine

Even Buddhism holds to this belief - ignorance is evil. According to Buddhism, ignorance of facts, e.g. not knowing the ephemeral nature of all things, leads to suffering. Now that I think of it, Buddhism takes an indirect route to evil i.e. it's not a well developed concept as is in the Abrahamic religions. Rather, the focus is on suffering and I suppose evil is a type of suffering. So, what I'd like to know is ignorance of what leads to evil?

I was hurt and there is no mistake in that. — TimeLine

Could it be that your ignorance of the facts - of the nature of people - led to your suffering?

But that's crazy. It's like looking at a rocket ship parked on the side of the road and refusing to believe it was intelligently designed because you can't locate a designer. — MikeL

I thought the same too. However, look at what you're comparing the rocket to? It's ok to compare the rocket to a car or a house. This comparison seems alright if you want to make the design-designer argument.

However, comparing the universe to a rocket or a car or a plane is problematic. Only likes can be compared to likes, do you agree? If yes then the rocket-universe analogy fails because the universe isn't like anything man has created? Those who argue against the design argument for god say that the correct analogy would be a universe that is designed and has a creator to our universe. What do you think?

Those are qualitative assessments, not quantitative and that would be statistics not psychology. — Jeremiah

Most religious people are against abortion: This is a quantitative assessment isn't it?

Psychology has to depend on statistics, no?

I don't know but I'd expect there to be intense heat and perhaps that could light a spark or two. Sound doesn't travel in vacuum.

I feel like I'm missing the point here.

Have I forgiven her because of my own experiences that enabled me to understand her better or have I forgiven her because she acknowledged her wrongdoing? — TimeLine

Can't it be both? Perhaps neither?

Forgiveness is an act of a victim. Do you feel victimized? Do you feel a wrong was done to you? Or did you realize that you were mistaken and that you were never a victim?

how do they justify the assertion that if design then conscious agency isn't true — MikeL

It appears that we have to justify that if there's design then there's a designer (a conscious agency) since we make that claim and arguments such as your depend on this premise being true.

If conscious agency arises in the way that all hierarchical states have arisen: from atoms to cycles to cells to tissues to systems then consciousness as an emergent hierarchical state fits right in, wouldn't you agree? — MikeL

I'm not sure how this helps your argument for God.

It depends on the questions asked? If the inquiry is quantified then the answer too can be mathematically rigorous, akin to the hard sciences.

I think quantitative psychology has yielded results that give us insights into our own mentality. For instance, most religious people are against abortion or education level is associated with atheism, etc. These ''discoveries'' are, assuredly, mathematical - statistical, to be specific. So, I think some level (satisfactory or not, depends on your view I guess) mathematical precision, rather approximation, is possible in psychology.

The most important thing to me, given the dim view of psychology as suggested in the OP, is that psychology may be a soft science but it is NOT pseudoscience. Or is it?

Surely the evolution of complex life from such a perfectly formed base of molecular and then cellular interaction points to intelligent design. — MikeL

I tried this argument and people said:

If [conscious agency] then [design] is true but the converse: If [design] then [conscious agency] isn't true.

What's your response to this?

I think its incorrect to assume there is a unanimous "current moral theory". Or idk, what is it? — Frank Barroso

That's my point. There is no single moral theory. Each has its own flaws - the ''broken compass''. Given that, no one can even dream of finding the path to goodness, whatever that means, in this world as it is.

Combine that with evil = disorder/chaos and the inevitable conclusion is the failure of the good. Of course, the existence of chaos is debatable. Nature seems to be arranged in patterns but the chaos = evil equivalence is an ancient one e.g. war, riots, situations where the rule of law breaks down are equated with chaos, and these are evil.

Entropy is increasing in the physical world, but that doesn't mean it's increasing in a moral sphere (or system). — Noble Dust

Are we not physical and does that not matter for anything we do, including morality? You raise a good point though. Entropy may be exclusively physical. Anyway, I didn't mean it quite so literally. I was merely referring to the numerical advantage evil has over good.

Everything doesn't make a person happy. Every person has a specific, finite set of wants. They try to satisfy them through planning which are, again, finite and specific. Compare that to the multititude of ways in which even the best plans can backfire. Murphy's law: if something can go wrong, it will.

So, evil wins and good loses.

Yes, you can make everyone happy with a lie.
In other words, your adage proves against your favour, as evil can make everyone happy. (As per your definition of evil.) — szemi

Yes, but is that real happiness?

Yes. Truth is supposed to benefit people in some form or way. — MountainDwarf

I think I understand now. It's not about happiness or survivial per se. We don't bend truth (we can't) to achieve happiness. We change ourselves (our attitudes, expectations, thoughts, actions, etc.) in accordance with the truth. I think the question ''what's the value of truth?'' is central to any philosophy of life - a lot of suffering has its roots in being unrealistic (ignoring the truth). Contrary to what I thought, us manipulating the truth to achieve happiness, the truth should guide us - shaping our worldview into one that's realistic and practical.

So that we can change. It is our duty to change in accordance with knowledge — MountainDwarf

Exactly.

You would be seeking Truth out for your betterment.
If one is equating Truth with pain and suffering then yes one's survival instinct would probably lead one elsewhere. But, even if there was pain and suffering with Truth, one need not necessarily associate pain and suffering with the loss of Happiness and thus the loss of Truth. We just put it all together. Its the human experience? — Frank Barroso

I think this is important. The association between truth and suffering is an, for lack of a better word, illusion. The truth should shape our worldview. It's when we fail to do this that truth leads to suffering. I don't know the origins of this obvious disconnect between us, humans, and reality. Evolution, if it's true, should've synchronized us to the facts of reality. Yet, here we are, the vast majority of us, with unrealistic expectations that, inevitably, lead to a lot of suffering.

One interesting fact that has relevance is that the definition of realistic is changing with every tick of the clock. Science has made so much progress - once lethal diseases are cured with just a week of antibiotics, we live in air-conditioned houses in the middle of deserts, etc. Might it be that humans can achieve and fulfill what is only now, ''unrealistic'' expectations? Can we change the truth????

Ultimately or personally? — MountainDwarf

Ultimately.

A little bit of science will help to clarify my view.

Entropy, disorder, is always increasing. Order is necessary for any moral system. So, if science is true, disorder is the ultimate end of all things, including moral systems.

What then, is the moral, virtuous young man to do? — Frank Barroso

A virtuous man, to me, should hold morality as the highest goal. So, predictably, such a man will continue along the path of goodness, however ill defined it may be, to the end. What this end is depends on the people around him. Jesus didn't survive his company but the Buddha was well respected and lived to be 80.

Or live under a moral bending of one's ethics simply doing the least harm as is available, due to what? Cowardice? And, if not cowardice, I'd love to hear what. — Frank Barroso

Cowardice? One could say that religious morals depend a lot on the fear factor. Hell is a sure way to make people behave. That's the stick. But we do have a carrot too - heaven. Irregligious morality has tried, very hard I think, to rid its foundations of fear - one should be good for goodness is an end in itself, not out of fear.

Everyone is making up stories to fit their goal. — Rich

I think you're right on this one. First you have preferences and then you find the philosophy that fits them.

It could also be that there are too many competing philosophies, none more valid than the other, and you have to make a choice. This choice can only made based on preferences.

What's your favorite story about determinism? — Rich

I haven't dived to the right depth yet but causation seems so real to me. You push a stone, it moves. The temperature falls, we get ice. I insult you, you get hurt...and so on. Causation is built into our worldview - we plan our moves, we think before we speak, we weigh the options, etc. To deny causation is madness.

Then, it's obvious that we're part of this web of causation. Of course, I'm not denying free will but I am saying there are rules to the entire process (laws of nature, social interaction, etc) and so, even if there is free will, it's restricted for the most part.

but not good by what standards? — bloodninja

That's a fundamental question nobody knows the answer to.

I was just pointing out the error in supposing "the highest common interests of all sentient beings" = good.

But you can say anything you want. — Rich

It's a bit of a puzzle to me how you can ''say anything you want''. This hasn't been the case in my life and, I suppose, this is true for all people. There has to be good reasons for opening one's mouth or putting pen on paper.

What is this philosophy in which ''you can say anything you want''?

Its a rather simple formula: do nothing to sabotage that which is preceived as the highest common interest of all sentient beings. — XanderTheGrey

That formula assumes that ''the highest common interest of all sentient beings'' will be good. Is this a good assumption?

Slavery was once thought to be morally permissible. So was infanticide in some countries.

It looks like, sometimes, ''the highest common interests of all sentient beings'' aren't good.

The rest of my post. The part(s) you didn't respond to. — Michael

You pointed out two flaws:

1. Question begging
2. Imagining x can make x exist

Can you think of something probably more likely than Kant's failure? — tim wood

From the rest of your post, it seems that Kant was aware of the gist of my solution.

One more thing...

Interpreted this way, Kant's moral theory, if applied universally, is more practical than competing theories. I guess the ''applied universally'' part is impractical.

Consequentialism seems impractical because the full scope of an action's consequences are impossible to determine. For instance, the effects of an action can, theoretically, continue to the end of time itself.

Well, you can say that but if God's intentions are beyond our understanding why does he even attempt to reveal himself through things like Scripture or tradition?

Put another way, if God's intentions are beyond our understanding how can he communicate his intentions to us?

How do you know when God is on your side and when he isn't? — MountainDwarf

These are good questions. Perhaps an analogy will help.

A mother loves her child. She wants her child to be the best - a good person, excel in all fields, a productive member of society, etc. This is a mother's prime objective. The way this is achieved is by encouragement, inspiration, love AND discipline. Discipline is one area where some sternness and force may be required. The child, being immature, lacks the capacity to understand the logic and method of his mother but the end result, if all goes well, is a healthy vibrant member of society. Later, perhaps in adulthood, the person will appreciate both the tender love and the painful punishments/admonishments of his mother.

Likewise the evil we see may be just God's method of teaching us the value of goodness. No?

What you're saying is that there can't be a greatest being, mathematically. There are an infinite number of infinities, each bigger than the other. So, there can't be a biggest.

But is big = great?

I mean, does something have to be quantitatively big for it to be great? A brave man is great but there isn't a number that specifies his greatness. Math has no relevance to bravery. Similarly, I think God's properties of omnipotence, omnibenevolence and omniscience are qualities, not quantities.

I suppose a vague reply is a possible solution to the problem but isn't it a weak response? I mean a vague reply is simply trying to save Kantian morality as opposed to confirming its validty - avoiding the essence of the issue raised by the problem of lying to a murderer.

You can't define into existence a thing with superlative properties. — Michael

This is one flaw you've pointed out and one that I can understand. Are there any other problems with the argument?

It's a non sequitur basically.

Definitely. Have you seen the Youtube video with the Professor from MIT on the problem of evil? — MountainDwarf

The problem of evil isn't really a problem because we can always say God's intentions are beyond our understanding.

What do you mean? I've expressed the argument as clearly as possible in sentential logic.

No, because this morning I imagined a being that is 10% greater than the one I imagined yesterday. — andrewk

How about if I imagine God to be the infinite?

And you're still wrong. According to Kant, one's duty doesn't depend on others being dutiful. It is wrong for me to lie even if others lie. It is wrong for me to kill even if others kill. — Michael

How about if we look at it from another angle. The categorical imperative is a moral imperative i.e. it's supposed to be applied universally - morality is about existence in relation to another, about society, the collective.

Morality isn't about individual, solitary existence. What is the point of not lying or not killing when you're the only person in existence. In other words, morality reduces to nonsense at the individual level. This is implied by the categorical imperative: if lying is universal, nothing will make sense; chaos will ensue and this is exactly what's happening with lying to the murderer thought experiment - it is one instance where the categorical imperative is being applied to one person when, actually, it should apply to all.

that form must pass the test of non-contradiction — Cavacava

Everything must pass the test of non-contradiction.

The person can always choose to say nothing to the would be murderer, and then everyone is happy. — MikeL

Yes, but if you're compelled to give an answer the problem remains.

Thanks for your comments. What do you think of my post just above?

Kant specifically says that one is duty-bound to lie to a would-be murderer. — Michael

Perhaps he ''failed'' to see the full power of the categorical imperative. Applied universally, it precludes any conflict of duty.

I mean, as per the categorical imperative, murder is wrong. So, if applied, this would free the world of murderers. The categorical imperative makes lying wrong and so, there would be no liars. The point is there's no reason to lie in a world without murderers. In other words, there will never arise a conflict of duties, as presented in the ''lying to a murderer'' thought experiment.

And in which world will there be no murderers or thieves or deceivers or liars? Such a world is what I refer to as perfect.

As I said before, this term "greater" is so unclear as to be vacuous. Spell out the actual properties and you'll see that your argument doesn't work. — Michael

What's the problem with ''greater''? Take power, knowledge and benevolence and maximize them into omnipotence, omnscience and omnibenevolence. It doesn't look that problematic to me.

You're saying the argument is circular. Anyway, here's another version that, hopefully, brings out the main point of the argument:

1. God is the greatest being [imaginable]
2. If God is the greatest being [imaginable] then God must exist
Therefore,
3. God must exist

The above is as clear as I can get. The argument is circular too, as you said. There is no assumption of existence in premise 1; God is in the imagination. The problem I see is in premise 2. How does something in the imagination become real?

(Y)

'Better' is a subjective term anyways. — MountainDwarf

Well, we can come to a consensus. In fact that's what's happened with omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipotence.

Of course not! If it were describable in mere human words, that would hardly be very impressive, would it? — andrewk

:D You have a point. Let's go with your ''greatest being'' then. Surely you agree that this particular being, that which can't even be described, is the greatest being imaginable. So, assertion 1 is true.

Consider language.

We have letters: a, b, c,...,x, y, z. These letters represent sound and are the fundamental stuff of language. Consider this level 1

Then these letters come together to form words: apple, ball, cat, dog, etc. This new combinations of letters have meaning distinct from the letters. There are rules on how to combine letters to form words and these are distinct from rules that govern level 1. Call this level 2

Letters come together to form sentences: "This cat is brown", "The apple is ripe", etc. These sentences have their own set of rules, distinct from levels 1 and 2. This is level 3

Sentences come together to form expositions, passages, essays, books, etc. Level 4 which has its own set of rules, distinct from the previous 3 levels.

As you can see, each level acquires an extra property, requiring its own interpretation and analysis. I think this works for all complex systems.

So, yes, we can reduce all 4 levels to level 1 but that would be a mistake because all 4 levels have their own state of existence, distinct from each other and thus, requiring a distinct interpretation.

I don't think there's any information lost in viewing the world this way - biology overlaying itself on chemistry, for example - because, in fact, we're on the right path by giving due importance to the complexities of complexity.

Causal has nothing to do with fate or determinism. — Rich

How would we formulate determinism or fate without causation?

If I say determinism is true then I am presupposing causation of some kind. Of course, causation can be non-deterministic but, the point is, fate and determinism can't be explained without it.

Now that I'm an official Platonist, I realize that I don't always choose to be virtuous or just. — MysticMonist

Isn't this a contradiction?

how does one repent for misdeeds? — MysticMonist

For me repentance requires empathy. One must be able to put oneself in the other's shoes. Feel and experience, to the same degree, what the other (victim?) went through.

What must follow, then, is an attempt to correct the wrong. To undo the damage is best but, where impossible, compensation is acceptable.

These two - emapthy and redress - are the essence of repentance.

Of course, it's not always perfect. Emapthy may be nonexistent but some form of correction may be done. Sometimes, empathy is there but no recourse for correction/compensation.

Anyway, the perfect form of repentance requires both empathy and corrective measures.

I am extremely dubious about the possibity of rationally choosing values. — bloodninja

Am I correct to say that your basing yourself on nature of some kind? A generality that unites and guides us, our thoughts and actions? Value isn't something we choose through reasoning but something that is specified by our nature?

If yes, what role does reason play in our lives? Is it simply a tool to achieve and acquire values determined by our nature?

To say the least, I don't think the link between nature and reason is one-directional. Both inform each other - they interact and information travels both ways, so to speak.

I have been thinking lately that our feelings of morality are simply an expression of this conformity. In other words that we are deeply structured by norms and feel uncomfortable when anybody deviates from norms. Do you not think so? — bloodninja

Searching for a solid foundation for morality has turned up nothing. Norms, you say, are what morality is about. But, these norms must have a rational basis, at least for the philosopher. The average joe doesn't care or doesn't have the time or resources to evaluate the norms taught to him. Yes, but the occasional question does arise, as when faced with moral dilemmas of some kind. How would we answer these reasoned questions about the worthiness of our norms?

My view on this is simple.

Do we complain about water or air being tasteless? We don't because these are unmodifiable properties of air and water. I think the word here is necessary as opposed to contigent.

Similarly, can the self, its gain or loss, ever be surgically removed from human actions? No. The self is a necessary part of all interactions, social or otherwise.

If so, finding gain in a person's actions and holding that against him, diminishing the value of his action, is as foolish as complaining that air and water are tasteless.

The definition of a selfless act must be attuned to the facts of neccesity and contingency.

Yes, the perfect observer doesn't exist. We give and we take - it's an exchange, always.

I think the idea behind Aletheia is that in unconcealing or disclosing being, you are simultaneously concealing or covering up being. — bloodninja

We could see it that way I suppose. Truth, I think, has many faces and stages. The mystical and the scientific are different faces of truth. There are many other such perspectives - each as valid as the other.

Then there are stages - science and, I presume, other forms of knowledge, evolves with each step along the way being a more refined and accurate description of reality.

I don't think people do things because they value them. For the most part people just do what one does because it's what one does. — bloodninja

You see no background reasoning in human activity? It's all instinct to you. Just as a dog loves bones, without any background reasoning, humans love to paint, think, etc? We simply do what we do? What of morality then? Our sense of the good and bad sometimes tells us to go against our instincts. We tell ourselves not to steal, not to kill, not to exploit, etc. Ethics can't be explained from your perspective.

Anyway, my conclusion is that truth has value beyond its use for mere survival.

This is a condition which is not proven or supported by argument pro or con — szardosszemagad

I agree. That existence is better than nonexistence is questionable. How about if we look at this from the perspective of life as a whole. It's surely better that an omnibenevolent being exists than not exists. Do you agree? If yes, then existence of such a being is positively better than nonexistence.

No, because I can imagine a being greater than yours. — andrewk

You can imagine a being greater than God, who's omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient? Can you describe such a being?

If it were an attempt at a proof, this begging-the-question would be a fatal flaw. — tim wood

Can you clarify where the argument goes wrong?

Is the path we walk fated? Do we have choice? Is the past written or is it just as unclear as the future? — MikeL

What does philosophy, or even science, have to say about causation?

In the simplest of terms, every event has an influence on what follows downstream in time. You light a fire. It illuminates and gives off light. The light attracts moths and the heat cooks a meal. The moths attract bats and the meal attracts people and so on. A very basic sequence of events; causation isn't this simple but you get the point.

In fact, our lives depend on causation and we (excluding myself) always ponder the consequences of our actions.

If so, it follows that our lives, at least the circumstances of our existence, are subject to causal principles. Also, we know that we're not in control of all events that occur or can occur. Isn't this fate?

what does truth even mean? — bloodninja

You asked the right question. For me, truth is about propositions. Of course, the propositions themselves aren't the actual stuff the propositions are about. I think they're more like reflections and so long as there's a logical consistency between propositions (the reflections) and the objects they're about, we can assume we're dealing with the some form of truth.

They are both in the truth, not because they value truth, but because they are, as human, essentially this disclosing activity. — bloodninja

What else is there to disclose but the truth? Why do something if you don't value it?

You seem to value something more than reason. Why? Because if you rely on reason, mysticism goes into the trash can. What is this something? Intuition?

Anyway, I'm sympathetic to your views. Reason and rationality isn't the be all and the end all. Note that mysticism hasn't yielded anything useful, at least not as much as reason and rationality has. Unless, of course, you think the odd hermit/fakir who claims liberation/salvation is a useful result.

That said, there's still much that is beyond our grasp and that's assuming that we really know what we think we know. Perhaps there are stages of knowledge and we get closer and closer to the actual truth. There could be many paths to knowledge and the mystical way may be one of them. If so, we have no reason to prefer one way over the other. Whether mysticism or science, ultimately, we get to the truth. You'll have to explain why you prefer mysticism.

1. There exists an idea X of a being such that:
a. X can be imagined by at least one human, and
b. for any Y that is an idea of a being, if Y can be imagined by at least one human, then either Y=X or X is greater than Y

2. If statement 1 is true then we label the idea X whose existence is asserted by 1, as 'God'. — andrewk

I can, presumably others too, imagine a greatest possible being - omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent - one greater than which can't be imagined. So, (a) and (b) are true, making assertion 1 true.

Is that not sufficient to make 1 true?