Why is the question – “Can God create a stone that he cannot lift” nonsense?
Hey Mickey.
Your opinion is that the only justification for moral laws is a mitzvah.
I don’t understand, is there still no persuasion in this to listen to moral laws, because they are said to have a pure origin from God? Are they not a social/cultural/evolutionary product, and there is no reason to commit to them and act according to them (apart from utilitarianism, of course). It is true that if we knew that God commanded them, they would be binding, but how does that really mean that this is the case?
With gratitude and appreciation
I don’t understand the question. If you think morality is not from Him, don’t obey morality. The argument only says that without belief in God there is no valid morality. It doesn’t necessarily mean that if there is belief in God there is valid morality. In other words, the argument is addressed to someone who thinks there is valid morality and tells him that he assumes, even if implicitly, the existence of God.
As for your question, it’s purely skeptical. Regarding anything I think, you can ask me how you think it’s true. If that’s what I think, then the burden of proof to prove me wrong is on you. But as mentioned, that doesn’t pertain to the argument.
Really, my intention was to ask, "If you believe that morality exists (it seems strange to me that you would tell someone who doesn't believe in God that he can murder and steal, but maybe), why is this skepticism? Just as Dawkins' suggestion to use "climbing the improbable mountain" to explain the complexity of a hand is not purely skepticism, because since it is known that evolution has occurred, there is no reason to justify the existence of God (and I don't think you disputed the basis of the argument, but rather that you believe it is insufficient), so too with regard to morality, you are the one who adds to the certain and you must prove that the existing basis (evolution) is insufficient."
If I think morality exists and is valid, whoever wants to claim that it is an illusion – has the burden of proof. What is not clear here? Just like whoever wants to claim that my eyes are deceiving me or that my mind is deceiving me on any other subject.
A proposal to explain something in an evolutionary way is indeed not skepticism. But what does that have to do with it?
If you want to say that evolution implanted a moral impulse (conscience) in me even though it is not valid, to the same extent you can claim that evolution made me believe my eyes or my mind even though they have no basis in reality. Maybe it also made me believe in evolution even though it has no basis in reality. 🙂
Even someone who does not believe in God is forbidden to steal and murder, but he cannot know about it. Just as a Jew who does not believe in God is obligated to observe the commandments even though he cannot know about it.
I disagree, Occam taught us with his razor, that the starting point is not to add entities/explanations as such, and if morality is also understood by what we already know (evolution, and this is not some theory but it is quite clear that such traits will develop) how appropriate it is to invent ethical realism that produces and innovates something - on which there is evidence.
Why invent evidence that is reliable if evolution shows that it is useful but not necessarily reliable?
Exactly, and therefore there is no basis for morality and whoever wants to force me to prove why add another thesis - ethical realism (for example).
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
