RichardChad

  • ***
  • 2427 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #15 on: November 27, 2015, 05:36:48 pm »
Aleph has provided no grounding what so ever for his moral realism (other than intuitions).

His case can be defeated simply by:
1. defining what an objective moral law is: a moral law that is binding on humans regardless of their view on it.
2. then observing that with out a moral law giver, there can be no objective moral law.
If the argument for OMV's  depends on a law giver then their existence can't be used to prove God' existence.

Regardless, I agree this is a problem for Aleph's position.

My DNA relies on me, and it's used to demonstrate my existence.
I don't see how this avoids the circularity I alluded to.  But we're drifting off topic.

Back to the topic: Are they done?  Will there be rebuttals?

what is your circularity argument?
I'll believe you don't believe in objective moral values when you stop using terms like "right" and "wrong".

I'll believe you believe in determinism when you start saying things like "I'm so sorry you're determined to think that way"

1

Asherah-deceased

  • ***
  • 2486 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #16 on: November 28, 2015, 12:48:23 am »
Aleph has provided no grounding what so ever for his moral realism (other than intuitions).

His case can be defeated simply by:
1. defining what an objective moral law is: a moral law that is binding on humans regardless of their view on it.
2. then observing that with out a moral law giver, there can be no objective moral law.
If the argument for OMV's  depends on a law giver then their existence can't be used to prove God' existence.

Regardless, I agree this is a problem for Aleph's position.

My DNA relies on me, and it's used to demonstrate my existence.
I don't see how this avoids the circularity I alluded to.  But we're drifting off topic.

Back to the topic: Are they done?  Will there be rebuttals?

what is your circularity argument?

Here's the basic argument for God's existence based on OMVs:

1. If OMVs exist, a law giver exists
2. OMVs exist
3. Therefore a law giver exists

But even if intuition tells us OMVs exist, we cannot conclude they do unless a law giver exists. Therefore #2 becomes:

2'. If a law giver exists then OMVs exist

Combines into:
1. If OMVs exist, a law giver exists
2'. If a law giver exists then OMVs exist
3. Therefore null


2

RichardChad

  • ***
  • 2427 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #17 on: November 29, 2015, 08:55:55 am »
Aleph has provided no grounding what so ever for his moral realism (other than intuitions).

His case can be defeated simply by:
1. defining what an objective moral law is: a moral law that is binding on humans regardless of their view on it.
2. then observing that with out a moral law giver, there can be no objective moral law.
If the argument for OMV's  depends on a law giver then their existence can't be used to prove God' existence.

Regardless, I agree this is a problem for Aleph's position.

My DNA relies on me, and it's used to demonstrate my existence.
I don't see how this avoids the circularity I alluded to.  But we're drifting off topic.

Back to the topic: Are they done?  Will there be rebuttals?

what is your circularity argument?

Here's the basic argument for God's existence based on OMVs:

1. If OMVs exist, a law giver exists
2. OMVs exist
3. Therefore a law giver exists

But even if intuition tells us OMVs exist, we cannot conclude they do unless a law giver exists. Therefore #2 becomes:

2'. If a law giver exists then OMVs exist

Combines into:
1. If OMVs exist, a law giver exists
2'. If a law giver exists then OMVs exist
3. Therefore null

Valid modus ponens:
If A, then B
A
Therefore, B

P1. If OMVs exist, a law giver exists
P2. OMVs exist
C. Therefore a law giver exists

So, of course the argument is perfectly valid form and there is no circularity.

======

"But even if intuition tells us OMVs exist, we cannot conclude they do unless a law giver exists"

It looks like what you want to object to is P1, not P2, you want to say that OMV can exist without a law giver, so P1 fails.
I'll believe you don't believe in objective moral values when you stop using terms like "right" and "wrong".

I'll believe you believe in determinism when you start saying things like "I'm so sorry you're determined to think that way"

3

Asherah-deceased

  • ***
  • 2486 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #18 on: November 29, 2015, 10:49:58 am »
No, I'm fine with P1, given your definition of objective. The question is: how do you justify P2?

4

Paterfamilia

  • ***
  • 4479 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #19 on: November 29, 2015, 12:05:11 pm »
Aleph has provided no grounding what so ever for his moral realism (other than intuitions).

His case can be defeated simply by:
1. defining what an objective moral law is: a moral law that is binding on humans regardless of their view on it.
2. then observing that with out a moral law giver, there can be no objective moral law.
If the argument for OMV's  depends on a law giver then their existence can't be used to prove God' existence.

Regardless, I agree this is a problem for Aleph's position.

My DNA relies on me, and it's used to demonstrate my existence.
I don't see how this avoids the circularity I alluded to.  But we're drifting off topic.

Back to the topic: Are they done?  Will there be rebuttals?



There will be several more stages of debate.
"First I knocked them out of a tree with a rock.  Then I saved them."

5

RichardChad

  • ***
  • 2427 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #20 on: November 29, 2015, 01:58:22 pm »
No, I'm fine with P1, given your definition of objective. The question is: how do you justify P2?

P1. If OMVs exist, a law giver exists
P2. OMVs exist
C. Therefore a law giver exists

If you demonstrate the truth of premise 2 by saying "God exists, therefor OMVs exist", then you would be arguing in a circular fashion.

However, that is not the way WLC supports p2, namely :

[We have] grounds for belief in objective moral values and duties—namely we apprehend them in moral experience. And we are justified in going with that experience unless and until we have a defeater that would lead us to doubt that. Compare our beliefs in the existence of the external world. I am surely rational to believe in a properly basic way that I am surrounded by a world of physical objects that I see. But if someone were to give me some sort of evidence that I am really a brain in a vat or in the Matrix, and so all that around me is an illusory projection of my own mind, then that would be a defeater for that properly basic belief, and I may come to doubt that belief. Now, in exactly the same way they can say, “In order for me to doubt what I perceive as moral values and duties in a properly basic way, you need to give me some defeater for thinking that I'm having a delusion.” And here I think the problem is the one enunciated by Louise Antony, the atheist philosopher whom I debated on the existence of God, when she put is so well. She said, “Any argument for moral skepticism is going to be based upon premises which are less obvious than the reality of moral values and duties themselves, and therefore can never be rational to accept moral skepticism.”[2] And I think that's just a really, really, powerful argument. It would be similar to saying any argument that I'm a brain in a vat or someone in the Matrix is going to be based upon evidence or premises less obvious than the reality of the physical objects around me, and so I would never be justified in believing such a thing or doubting what my senses tell me. And I think it's exactly the same with these moral values and duties.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/Those-Who-Deny-Objective-Moral-Values#ixzz3subwe0pg


Therefore the argument as written is not circular.
I'll believe you don't believe in objective moral values when you stop using terms like "right" and "wrong".

I'll believe you believe in determinism when you start saying things like "I'm so sorry you're determined to think that way"

6

Asherah-deceased

  • ***
  • 2486 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #21 on: November 29, 2015, 04:31:54 pm »
I agree THAT argument isn't circular, but that rationale isn't dependent on OMVs being grounded as you seemed to be saying it needed to be. I think what you're actually saying is that Aleph is defeated by the conclusion of the moral argument, which (you believe) follows - ie one can't claim OMVs exist and escape that conclusion. Right?

However, Aleph denies P1, and he defines "objective" differently. Between your view and Aleph's, it boils down to what is the best explanation for that intiuition that you both agree we have.

I also wonder if Aleph and Banjo are as far apart as they seem to think.  I suspect Banjo is using YOUR definition of "objective," which differs from Aleph's.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 04:39:23 pm by Asherah »

7

RichardChad

  • ***
  • 2427 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #22 on: November 29, 2015, 07:19:21 pm »
I agree THAT argument isn't circular, but that rationale isn't dependent on OMVs being grounded as you seemed to be saying it needed to be.
OMVs must be grounded in such a way that they are independent of what we believe, or they aren’t Objective Moral Values, they’re Subjective Moral Values.
I would hope that we can agree to use the dictionary definition of the word “objective”


I think what you're actually saying is that Aleph is defeated by the conclusion of the moral argument, which (you believe) follows - ie one can't claim OMVs exist and escape that conclusion. Right?
Yes, that's correct.


However, Aleph denies P1, and he defines "objective" differently. Between your view and Aleph's, it boils down to what is the best explanation for that intiuition that you both agree we have.

Aleph is free to disagree with P1, but not free to redefine the word "objective". We all need to use the dictionary definition, we don’t get to redefine words to suit our purposes.



I also wonder if Aleph and Banjo are as far apart as they seem to think.  I suspect Banjo is using YOUR definition of "objective," which differs from Aleph's.
Agreed, they are both arguing for subjective moral values, FBA just needs to point that out to be successful in the debate.

Aleph articulates a subjective process by which "objective" truths can be determined, it's trivially easy to point out that by his process, these so-called "objective" truths can change as person's views change, or different groups of people can come up with different "objective" truths. In other words, he is just redefining "subjective" as objective.



I'll believe you don't believe in objective moral values when you stop using terms like "right" and "wrong".

I'll believe you believe in determinism when you start saying things like "I'm so sorry you're determined to think that way"

8

Jabberwock

  • *****
  • 14510 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #23 on: December 01, 2015, 02:47:10 am »
I would object to Aleph's claim that

Quote
If our intuitions constitute strong prima facie reason to believe these moral statements are true, then that’s all we need to achieve the ontological commitments. If “It’s wrong to kick cats” is true, then there must be such a thing as kicking cats and wrongness, and kicking cats must be wrong. That’s what it means for a statement to be true, for it to “correspond to reality”.

We believe that the statement "Harry Potter is a wizard" is true, but it does not commit us to say that Harry Potter must exist indepedently of our minds.
First learn to spell "ironic discussion"...

9

Lion IRC

  • ***
  • 2233 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism. Time to vote!
« Reply #24 on: December 23, 2015, 04:13:00 am »
...Each party will post their responses within 72 hours of the other parties previous post

Or not.

I'm calling it.
Banjo Atheist winner by a narrow margin.

1. Because of the TKO. Aleph forfeits for non-compliance with deadline rule. (Ignoring the rules - really? In a debate about objective rules LOL Classic!)

2. Because Banjo's style beat Aleph's substance - and on substance they were a dead heat AFAICT

3. Because Banjo's case was more logically consistent. It was a "preferences versus intuition" cage fight but at least Banjo's debate didn't pretend that subjective preferences transcended subjective intuitions.

Thanks for the debate guys.

I'm starting a Pole Vault...err, I mean Poll Vote  HERE
« Last Edit: December 23, 2015, 04:25:55 am by Lion IRC »
This user will NEVER be posting at Reasonable Faith Forum again.

10

Paterfamilia

  • ***
  • 4479 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #25 on: December 28, 2015, 11:40:41 pm »
Hey guys we may have jumped the gun here a bit - reports of the end of the debate have been slightly exaggerated ha ha.

It being the busy-ness of the season and all, we are extending some grace to the participants.  Aleph naught has indicated that he will respond to FBA's latest response, and there will be one more round of responses.


Thanks for everyone's patience in allowing this valuable exchange continue past the planned expiration!

"First I knocked them out of a tree with a rock.  Then I saved them."

11

Lion IRC

  • ***
  • 2233 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #26 on: December 29, 2015, 05:35:12 am »
The formal debate has ended. Obviously if they want to continue their unmoderated discussion in their own good time thats fine.

You gotta feel a bit of sympathy for Banjo Atheist who no-doubt rushed to meet his posting deadline
...needlessly as it turns out.
This user will NEVER be posting at Reasonable Faith Forum again.

12

Paterfamilia

  • ***
  • 4479 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #27 on: December 29, 2015, 02:24:44 pm »
The formal debate has ended. Obviously if they want to continue their unmoderated discussion in their own good time thats fine.

You gotta feel a bit of sympathy for Banjo Atheist who no-doubt rushed to meet his posting deadline
...needlessly as it turns out.


You can certainly say anything you like, even if it's wrong.  Your sympathy is misguided.

Since both parties were caught up by the exigencies of the holidays, and both are willing to continue, and there being no compelling reason not to, the debate will restart at Aleph's next post, after which will occur one more round of responses.

Lion, did you get a pair of pop-guns with your tin star?

"First I knocked them out of a tree with a rock.  Then I saved them."

13

Lion IRC

  • ***
  • 2233 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #28 on: December 29, 2015, 02:46:17 pm »
The formal debate has ended. Obviously if they want to continue their unmoderated discussion in their own good time thats fine.

You gotta feel a bit of sympathy for Banjo Atheist who no-doubt rushed to meet his posting deadline
...needlessly as it turns out.

...Lion, did you get a pair of pop-guns with your tin star?

I don't understand.
WAIT....are you the supposed Moderator of this particular formal debate?
This user will NEVER be posting at Reasonable Faith Forum again.

14

Paterfamilia

  • ***
  • 4479 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #29 on: December 29, 2015, 03:06:20 pm »
The formal debate has ended. Obviously if they want to continue their unmoderated discussion in their own good time thats fine.

You gotta feel a bit of sympathy for Banjo Atheist who no-doubt rushed to meet his posting deadline
...needlessly as it turns out.

...Lion, did you get a pair of pop-guns with your tin star?

I don't understand.
WAIT....are you the supposed Moderator of this particular formal debate?




Yes I am, as opposed to you, who are not.

I am sympathetic as well.  I am sympathetic to your pet peeve of debates that don't end.  Very sympathetic.

However, I am more sympathetic to both participants, who mightily endeavor to substantiate ill-conceived, untenable positions.  One of the values of having a debate is the entirely possible moment when Perry Mason realizes he doesn't have a case at all.  If the judge were tell him abruptly to sit down, the trial is over, the rest of the courtroom might never realize that the honorable litigator has tied his rep to the wrong defendant.

This debate will have an ending, but not today.  Thank you for your patience.





"First I knocked them out of a tree with a rock.  Then I saved them."