The claim that humans have an awareness of morality because it is of biological worth <in no way> refutes the existence of God, as far as I see it.>

You are correct in that it doesn't actually refute the first premise. Consider: Let's say that God exists and moral values come from God. Let's say that our moral experience is exactly as it always has been. Now, let's assume also that evolution is true and that we learn morals by social conditioning and also due to our evolved, sophisticated minds.

This just means that it's possible that our "moral antenna" has developed, just like our eyes for instance, to the point where we can learn and understand moral experience. This in no way begins to contend with the given that God exists and is the locus of moral values.

Now, where are they getting confused?

They are getting confused by the givens. If we give that God doesn't exist and then ask how we can explain moral values <then> we can give <the same> explanation about moral values being developed over many years and being condition and evolved to adapt them.

The crucial difference is that in this case, moral values don't really exist. It's an experiential phenomena but not an objective one. That is, moral values would prove to be nothing more than an illusion. They wouldn't exist <somewhere, out there>.

I can't believe how many people <think> they are enlightened when they think they can refute the moral argument by appealing to evolution as the means to how we know moral values. It blows my mind because I explain it all the time and it just goes in one ear and out the other. Then they say, "you've explained nothing" and I scratch my head.

If one wants to refute premise 1, he needs to show that:

1. Moral values exist objectively
2. They have a transcendental foundation but <not> in God.

<tga>, this is all about ontology; origins; the foundation in reality of moral values; their metaphysical status.

I guess only really intelligent people (?) are able to understand that evolution is irrelevant to this question. That is, we can accept evolution as a given, as a truth in reality, and it has no bearing on either premise <nor> the negations of either premise, should someone try to argue for their plausibility.

The second premise:

2. OMV exist

is one that some try to refute with appeals to evolution too. Amazing. They think that explaining how history and evolution and the fact that people disagree one what is right and wrong all point to the fact the OMV do not exist. All those things could be true and it proves nothing because the <origins> of moral values aren't being discussed.

Now, if atheists could show that God does not exist at all, then they would have a good reason to say that premise 2 is false, because there would be <no transcendent foundation> by which to ground moral values in order for them to exist objectively - but this would affirm premise 1, wouldn't it!

You reflexively shoehorn this into a pejorative context.

<tga> had made a similar comment last month and I replied <Yes, it is true that not all issues can be broken down into binary choices, but concepts can be stacked categorically, increasing in broadness, until a binary set of positions can be juxtaposed and asked about.>

So rather than an inability to engage in objective and reflective absoption of our reality, it's the ability to take what is complex and make it simple, which is the sign of an intelligent person with great understanding.

Presenting an argument with binary choices is only insufficient when it becomes a false dilemma. My favorite example is the Euthyphro Dilemma which I just talked about on <rogoff>.

Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #241590)

<uthyphro asked if God decided what is good or if He recognizes what is good. If God decides what is good then goodness is arbitrary because God could decide, tomorrow, that eating your children alive is now good. That would make goodness meaningless. On the other hand, if God recognizes what is good, the goodness exists but it exists outside of God, so we don't need God to exist for moral values to exist objectively.>

This is a false dilemma and the binary choice is no good.

But it is a good thing to make the complex simple when you can, and this is the beauty of the Moral Argument.

The Moral Argument is as simple as tic tac toe and its strength lies in the fact that it is based on valid logic.

We have

1. If not A then not B
2. B
3. Therefore A

This takes all the guesswork out of the soundness of the argument itself. What remains are the premises, and this is where the binary construct is not artificial, but necessary.

Each premise is a proposition. Propositions can either be true or false and nothing else. This is built into a proposition. Because this is a true or false situation, the premise becomes a matter of binary construct, that is, it's either true or false.

That's all there is to it.

The fact that this argument is bound to a logical framework makes it very easy for both sides to conduct the debate. The opponent who tries to refute the argument has to do what is required of all deductive arguments, and that is to refute one of the premises.

Again, they are either true or false so he <must> show that they are false. Actually, the burden isn't that great on the opponent since he only has to show that either premise's negation is more plausible than the actual premise. This would show that it is more <rational> to think the premise is false and so <more rational> to think the conclusion is false by necessity.

So we have a very simple, two premise deductive framework and a two propositions acting as premises that are either true or false.

Anything complex is made up of smaller parts that are less complex. It's like that old saying about engineering. A machine can seem very complex until you realize that everything is either a lever or a wheel.

We've broken down all that is physical into atoms.

There are protons and neutrons.

How about that?

But in the context of the moral argument, there is no room for this notion of irreducible complexity and there is no reason to think that irreducible complexity is real. It's just a phrase and doesn't mean that something complex can't be broken down. It just means that if you remove a part from a working system, the system won't work anymore.

I can see that everything I wrote in my prior comment went over your head.

Am I left or am I right?

And I use the shorthand all the time, a fact which <fyffe> tries to use to beat me with.

Of course, a person's entire political conception is usually complex, if the person is "into" politics. But it can be broken down issue by issue.

The trouble with the "left/right" nomenclature is that almost no one agrees with their party platform on <every> issue.

People like me, who are almost half and half (half the time I agree with GOP, the other half with Democratic Party) are not only difficult to categorize, but speaking for myself we find it difficult to align strongly with a party based on issues.

Which is why I align with the Dems for reasons other than policy issues.

The gray part is maybe just in the way I choose to think about politics. It is relatively simple, but difficult to describe in the short time I have before going to work, so I leave it for another time.>

Known as, "Not standing for things the hard way!"

I'll just go with the last 10 minutes
depending how the wind blows.

I don't see it in terms of party platform, although I think it's reasonable to look at it that way. I see it in terms of philosophical ideology; conservative vs liberal. Underlying that I see it as, largely, theistic vs atheistic.

In Western civilization, I see theism (Christianity in particular) underlying conservatism and humanism (atheism, materialism, naturalism etc...) underlying liberalism, despite the fact that some hard core liberals claim to be Christians.

If you sit back and reflect on why liberals are liberals and why conservatives are conservatives, you generally find that their are more fundamental values that drive one to the left or right, and those values are rooted in theistic or non theistic worldviews.

Yes, there are conservative atheists and I've encountered them along the way, but they usually aren't strong conservatives. They make an interesting case study nontheless.

But just as we can ask how many fingers do humans have on one hand, the correct answer being four fingers one thumb, someone can always say, "Wrong! Some people have only three fingers". This is true, but it is still the correct answer to say that people have four fingers and one thumb.

Personally, I think if we are to be consistent, theism leads to conservatism and atheism (humanism, materialism, naturalism) leads to liberalism.

I don't see it in terms of party platform, although I think it's reasonable to look at it that way.>

Well, OK, you don't see it that way, but as a framework for defining what viewpoint is liberal or conservative, it seems the default way to go.

If one party is considered conservative, then their platform is the default conservative platform. Likewise for liberal (or to be more accurate, leftist).

< I see it in terms of philosophical ideology; conservative vs liberal. Underlying that I see it as, largely, theistic vs atheistic.>

Yes, but you admitted as much that you're into debating philosophy, moreso than politics even.

Very few people are, so you are going to have an uphill battle on your hands just establishing a context for discussion, let alone a debate on the issues!

If you want to move on to theistic versus atheistic, how are you even going to <reach>, let alone argue with, folks on the left who consider themselves devout Christians or whatever religion?

I'll call myself, "sophisticated" for not being able to pick a team.>

Heh heh, basically, this is how I view this forum.

I come over here to chat with my neighbor at his internet porch.

Hey, <BP>! How's it going?

<OK, TGA, let's talk about ...>

Then in comes <diceman>, to hiss and scratch.

What's this, I ask?

<a stray cat that took a liking to BP.>

Very few people are, so you are going to have an uphill battle on your hands just establishing a context for discussion, let alone a debate on the issues!>

This is true, very few people really want to get into the philosophy behind it all and are content to say "Republican GOOD Democrat BAD" or vice versa. It's very boring to me, honestly. I like to go slumming on the <rogoff> page I guess. Occasionally someone will put up a really good post though and I enjoy reading them.

<If you want to move on to theistic versus atheistic, how are you even going to <reach>, let alone argue with, folks on the left who consider themselves devout Christians or whatever religion?

You are kind of putting up roadblocks to your own path, IMO.>

I mostly try to debate atheists instead. When it comes to other Christians, I try to focus on what C.S. Lewis called Mere Christianity which seeks to focus on the bare bones of Christianity rather than the fine points of doctrine.

Some people can easily see aspects of their worldview philosophy manifested in politics, and those are the people I most enjoy debating because they understand the basics and so much more. They also understand a refutation when they see one and it keeps the debate on a much higher level. For example, in the Moral Argument, against such an opponent, I don't need to explain what "objective" means over and over and over and try so hard to make sure the opponent doesn't go off track.

Interesting and vapid at the same time. How do you do that?

Okay, let's unpack this just a wee bit.

Are liberals PRO HOMOSEXUAL or do them condemn homosexuality?

While you're think about that one, think about this:

What did Jesus say about homosexuality?

However, his disciples that he taught and sent the Holy Spirit to teach them all they needed to know after he left, said plenty about it. So while I don't think we can directly quote Jesus himself, we can quote the people that he put the <word> into and wrote it down according to his will.

<9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to nor perform homosexual acts,> 1 Cor 6:9

<realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, 11according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.> 1 Tim 1:9

<They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator, who is forever worthy of praise! Amen. 26For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error> Romans 1:26-27

This is what Jesus taught them about homosexuality and other sins.

Homosexuals are equal to kidnappers and people that kill their parents.

Clear enough?

No, Jesus said plenty about homosexuals, otherwise his disciples wouldn't have recorded his teachings as they did.

It's only that his "quotes" didn't contain words about homosexuality, per se.

And yet you can't quote Jesus saying anything about Homosexuals!

LOOOOOL!!!

<Jesus: 18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man unclean. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts,> <<murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what make a man unclean; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him unclean.>

<Matthew 17:17>

Heh heh, basically, this is how I view this forum.>

Yeah, you'll find the folks who embrace
a million diverse points of view, get down to one when they don't like something.

<The trouble with the "left/right" nomenclature is that almost no one agrees with their party platform on <every> issue.>

Just a manufactured argument for someone looking to hide.

Most assume a >50% support.

From the Letter of Saint Jude:

< 5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved[c] a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise <<<indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,>>> serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.>