-->
@TheRealNihilist
No.
Why are there hardly any theists on internet debate platforms?
Posts
Total:
103
-->
@3RU7AL
Because the implications of moral realism require it.
-->
@Fallaneze
So you have no "moral code" and you have no specific god, but you "reason" that there "must-be" some sort of "moral code" and therefore there "must-be" some sort of theistic god.Because the implications of moral realism require it.
Does that sound fair to you?
-->
@3RU7AL
No, it doesn't sound fair, because that's not an accurate representation of my reasoning.
Various lines of evidence support moral realism over moral non-realism. Therefore, I believe moral realism. Moral realism logically entails the existence of a theistic God. By believing moral realism, I acknowledge that this belief logically entails the existence of a theistic God.
-->
@Fallaneze
No, it doesn't sound fair, because that's not an accurate representation of my reasoning.
That's why I asked.
Various lines of evidence support moral realism over moral non-realism.
Of course, we've been over this, and your "evidence" is pure conjecture.
Therefore, I believe moral realism.
Which is your right. hOWEver, without a demonstrable "moral code" your "belief" is immaterial.
Moral realism logically entails the existence of a theistic God.
This is by no means a foregone conclusion. Wolves have social rules, does this mean there "must-be" a wolf-god? Seagulls have different social rules than wolves, does this mean there must be a Seagull-god?
By believing moral realism, I acknowledge that this belief logically entails the existence of a theistic God.
In other words, you have no "moral code" and you have no specific god, but you "reason" that there "must-be" some sort of "moral code" and therefore there "must-be" some sort of theistic god.
Do you have a demonstrable "moral code" (Y/N)
Do you have a specific god (Y/N)
Is your "evidence" for "moral realism" based purely on your own personal "moral intuition"? (Y/N)
-->
@Fallaneze
No.
Okay so you are making argument from physicists. I'll provide counters now not directly to your arguments but I will get back to it if you want:
Martin Rees is a person you are quoting a lot. He says gravity is not fine-tuned. Do you agree?
He also makes another claim. "there's another parameter which is the fluctuation amplitude in the early universe verse how rough the early universe was and if the fluctuations were ten times bigger if the number described in those flucutations were 10 to the minus 4 not 10 to the minus 5 then galaxies would still form even if the cosmological constant was a thousand times higher"
Just something else against your position with what he also said in the video "but certainly we are very far from having a theory to say just how special our universe is. It's certainly special in the sense but to quantify that requires a lot more physics that we now have and would be dependent on the details of that physics.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Rees popularized the findings of fine-tuning to a general audience in an article he wrote in Discover magazine. Rees himself was not responsible for all of these findings. As quoted earlier, there is wide agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is fine-tuned. The data Rees used in the Discover magazine article was from a variety of researchers.
I'd trust whatever the prevailing scientific views are on whether gravity is fine-tuned or not. I don't know whether gravity is or not. There are over a dozen fine-tuned variables so it wouldn't disprove fine-tuning even if it weren't.
-->
@3RU7AL
My evidence for moral realism isn't conjecture. Moral realism, I may remind you, is the prevailing moral theory among moral philosophers by a more than 2:1 ratio. It's also the prevailing moral theory among ordinary people. So before you shout "ad populum" I'm merely pointing out that the status quo is with moral realism, not moral non-realism. Moral realism has superior explanatory power over moral non-realism empirically, rationally, instinctively, and intuitively. That's more than enough reason for me to accept moral realism and reject moral non-realism. The primary reason for believing moral non-realism is because it's the only compatible view atheism has with morality. Other terrible reasons include the belief that moral disagreement means that there are no moral facts and having no tangible evidence of moral realism must mean that it can't be true.
-->
@Fallaneze
Can you address my points that Rees brought up against the fine tuning argument?
The only thing you did was reinforce what you already said. Doesn't help me understand how Rees is wrong about things that are not fine-tuned which Rees agrees with.
-->
@Fallaneze
My evidence for moral realism isn't conjecture. Moral realism, I may remind you, is the prevailing moral theory among moral philosophers by a more than 2:1 ratio. It's also the prevailing moral theory among your ordinary people. So before you shout "ad populum" I'm merely pointing out that the status quo is with moral realism, not moral non-realism.
Status-quo = "agumentum ad populum".
Moral realism has superior explanatory power over moral non-realism empirically, rationally, instinctively, and intuitively.
No it most certainly does not. Please "explain" a single thing that "moral realism" improves our understanding of in any way.
That's more than enough reason for me to accept moral realism and reject moral non-realism.
It's a vacuous claim of a "universal moral code" with zero details. 100% pointless.
The primary reason for believing moral non-realism is because it's the only compatible view atheism has with morality.
I'm a deist. I have no interest in "defending atheism". We should theoretically be on exactly the same page.
News flash, love, joy, fear, and moral outrage are all QUALITATIVE, EXPERIENTIAL, PERSONAL, SUBJECTIVE EPIPHENOMENA (not scientifically observable Quantifiable facts).
Other terrible reasons include the belief that moral disagreement means that there are no moral [LOVE, JOY, FEAR] facts and having no tangible evidence of moral realism must mean that it can't be true.
And having no tangible evidence of "moral realism" doesn't, by itself, necessarily mean it "can't be true", hOWEver, WITHOUT ANY DEMONSTRABLE "MORAL CODE" (evidence) IT IS MOOT (entirely and absolutely meaningless).
Please present your "moral facts". I've never seen one myself.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
His point that our universe is "certainly special" but that we have yet to quantify *how* special it is? I don't see how what he said works against my position. A "special" universe is consistent with intelligent design.
A "special" universe is consistent with intelligent design.
But you can't "quantify" it? So how do you know you are right?
How about these things that go against fine-tuning universe like Rees said in that video:
He says gravity is not fine-tuned. Do you agree?He also makes another claim. "there's another parameter which is the fluctuation amplitude in the early universe verse how rough the early universe was and if the fluctuations were ten times bigger if the number described in those flucutations were 10 to the minus 4 not 10 to the minus 5 then galaxies would still form even if the cosmological constant was a thousand times higher"
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm just gonna go one claim at a time. You generate new claims quicker than I'm making them.
An ad populum fallacy is when you believe that a claim is true because most people believe it is. Since pointing out that moral realism is the status quo is not the same thing as believing that moral realism is true because most people believe it is, it's not an populum fallacy.
Standard rules of debate set the burden on proof (1) on the person making the claim OR (2) the person arguing against the status quo. Since you fall under camp (2), I'm pointing out that the burden of proof is actually on you to change the prevailing view. I'm not basing my conclusion that moral realism is true on any of this. So, again, it's not an ad populum fallacy.
This was me responding to just one of your claims. If I responded to all of them I'd have to write a novel.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The fine-tuned universe is a conglomerate of dozens of variables, and perhaps more that haven't been discovered yet. For the cosmological constant, this one variable alone is fine-tuned to 1 in 10^120. To give you a taste of how infinitesmally precise that is, there are estimated to be 1 in 10^80 atoms in the entire universe. It doesn't matter that we don't have a final number on exactly how ridiculously fine-tuned the universe is.
Nothing Rees said in the excerpt indicates that fine-tuning isn't true. Rees is the one who wrote the article saying that the universe IS fine-tuned. I've given you more than 6 variables, all based on scientific research, indicating that the universe is fine-tuned. There are even more variables that weren't covered by the Wiki source.
If the universe was fine tuned. Gravity would be, his fluctuation part would not be possible.Nothing Rees said in the excerpt indicates that fine-tuning isn't true.
Rees is the one who wrote the article saying that the universe IS fine-tuned.
In the video he said he can't quantify which means physicists need to wait until they can. He did not make that claim.
I've given you more than 6 variables, all based on scientific research, indicating that the universe is fine-tuned. There are even more variables that weren't covered by the Wiki source.
You need to talk about the instances like he said that gravity isn't fine tuned or the part about fluctuation. That goes against a fine tuned universe and if the universe was fine-tuned Rees have said it but he didn't. He didn't in the video or in the sources you got from wikipedia.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The six variables from the Wiki source were all quantified and again, not all of this research is coming from Rees. Rees is just the messenger, dispersing this information gathered from other phycisicts and cosmologists to a general audience.
"If the universe was fine tuned. Gravity would be, his fluctuation part would not be possible."
I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're saying here. It seems like you're under the impression that fine-tuning, if true, must mean that all variables in the universe, including gravity, must be fine-tuned as well. This is not what the fine-funed universe proposition means at all.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Btw, Martin Rees wrote an essay entitled "Fine-tuning, complexity, and life in the universe" in which he details the evidence for fine-tuning.
-->
@Fallaneze
I'm just gonna go one claim at a time. You generate new claims quicker than I'm making them.An ad populum fallacy is when you believe that a claim is true because most people believe it is. Since pointing out that moral realism is the status quo is not the same thing as believing that moral realism is true because most people believe it is, it's not an populum fallacy. Standard rules of debate set the burden on proof (1) on the person making the claim OR (2) the person arguing against the status quo. Since you fall under camp (2), I'm pointing out that the burden of proof is actually on you to change the prevailing view. I'm not basing my conclusion that moral realism is true on any of this. So, again, it's not an ad populum fallacy. This was me responding to just one of your claims. If I responded to all of them I'd have to write a novel.
Trivial.
Even (IFF) "moral realism" is accepted as "true" (THEN) it still has absolutely no practical implications (AND) is utterly meaningless.
-->
@Fallaneze
Btw, Martin Rees wrote an essay entitled "Fine-tuning, complexity, and life in the universe" in which he details the evidence for fine-tuning.
So what? What if the universe is fine-tuned? What are the real-world policies that should change as a result of this hypothesis?
-->
@3RU7AL
As mentioned earlier, based on standard practices, you have the burden of proof to show why moral non-realism is true.
-->
@3RU7AL
The important part is determining what the best explanation is for the fine-tuned universe. It's highly indicative of intelligent design.
-->
@Fallaneze
As mentioned earlier, based on standard practices, you have the burden of proof to show why moral non-realism is true.
I've skipped that part by not contesting it. What are the practical implications if it is considered true?
-->
@Fallaneze
Fine, say it's god or space-aliens. Why does this matter to you? What are the implications?The important part is determining what the best explanation is for the fine-tuned universe. It's highly indicative of intelligent design.
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you asking what are the practical implications of acknowledging that you have the burden of proof or are you asking what are the practical implications of moral realism?
-->
@3RU7AL
It matters because I prefer to hold as many true beliefs and as few false ones as possible. If evidence weighs in favor of the existence of God then I will hold that belief in the interest of holding as many true beliefs and as few false ones as possible.
-->
@Fallaneze
Are you asking what are the practical implications of acknowledging that you have the burden of proof or are you asking what are the practical implications of moral realism?
Even (IFF) "moral realism" is accepted as "true" (THEN) it still has absolutely no practical implications (AND) is utterly meaningless.
-->
@Fallaneze
If you don't know which god fine-tuned everything and you have no way of knowing what the heck it wants, how does this inform your decision making on a practical level?It matters because I prefer to hold as many true beliefs and as few false ones as possible. If evidence weighs in favor of the existence of God then I will hold that belief in the interest of holding as many true beliefs and as few false ones as possible.
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you have any justification for claiming that moral realism has no practical implications and is meaningless or are you making an argument from ignorance?
It doesn't need to inform my decision making on a practical level. I prefer to have as many true beliefs and as few false ones as possible. That in itself is practical.
-->
@Fallaneze
It doesn't need to inform my decision making on a practical level.
Perfecto.
-->
@Fallaneze
Do tell me what it is.This is not what the fine-funed universe proposition means at all.
Btw, Martin Rees wrote an essay entitled "Fine-tuning, complexity, and life in the universe" in which he details the evidence for fine-tuning.
I write a paper about white supremacy. Am I for it now? You need more than just he wrote a paper about it therefore he believes in fine-tuning. I would like him to state by your definition whatever it maybe that physicists believe the universe is fine tuned.