What is Dart's concept of God?

[_JohnStuartMill]

I don't think this second defense of Divine Command theory is so unsalvageable, at least from the arguments you've given. Most mainstream Christians (I'm guessing) would stop you at "If God were to have a different nature..." and say "If He did, He wouldn't be God, and your rebuttal to DCT breaks down". Which makes kind of a weird sort of sense because, after all, Christians usually hold deity to be perfect, and because they belong to a monotheistic religion, think that there's only one way for it to be so. If one defines "God" as the literal Creator of the entire universe and its properties (which most Christians do), then Divine Command Theory starts to look an awful lot like Natural Religion, and converges with the "morality through reasoning" that you or I would recognize as ideal. Both theories would say that there are moral truths that are discoverable by reason and observation; the only difference between the two that I can see is that require there to be a supernatural agent at the end of the discovery process, while morality by reasoning would not. (I'd add that DCT would be shown to be inferior to its alternative on Occam's Razor grounds, in that case.)

The problem is that if God would cease to be moral if his commands/nature were different, that means that the truth of moral statements exists logically prior to the nature of God. Divine Command Theory is the view that the truth of moral statements is contingent on the wil/nature of God. Ergo, if God would be immoral in another world with a different nature, DCT is by definition false. In short, "both" is not an option. At least not this way.

Following their line of argument, though: the Gods of these hypothetical other worlds would not be immoral in those worlds; only the God of our world would be.

At this point, you might be arguing for a practical DCT, where knowing what is morally true or not is dependent on knowing the will of God. One might argue this because while the truth of moral statements isn't contingent on the will of God, God is the only sort of being able to figure out the truth of moral statements, and we all must rely on it to know those truths when it tells us them. Mormon theology is extremely unfriendly to DCT, despite many average Mormons either explicitly believing it or implicitly believing it through their arguments (especially against atheists), but this type of DCT is more available to them. The problem with thinking that is Euthyphro rears its ugly head again with its emptiness and arbitrariness problems. This time, it's just epistemic. If you don't have some independent ability to evaluate the moral goodness of God's commands, you still are faced with anything going and there being no basis to judge God perfectly good over anything else.

Yeah, I don't think this is properly thought of as DCT. Good on the Mormons for this point.

As far as Kevin being derivative of Behe goes, I don't buy that. Sure, Kevin is quoting intelligent design websites and endorsing ID arguments. Kevin is making classic creationist arguments. Heck, skepticism on on the capacity of evolutionary theory to account for the origin of flight (because afterall what good is half a wing?) leading one to conclude a designer must be involved is probably the most famous creationist argument of all. It dates back over a century. So much for his disavowal of intelligent design. But in order for me to think Kevin is being derivative of Behe, I'd need to see him making an argument that is uniquely dependent on how Behe relayed it. If Kevin started talking about irreducible complexity or something, then we could call derivative of Behe. (I realize he's referencing that type of argument, but that type of argument predates Behe in creationist literature by decades.)

You're right -- it's probably not fair to say that Kevin is being derivative of Behe. (I'm not familiar enough with the exact design arguments that Behe makes to say that Kevin definitely isn't being derivative.) It is fair to say that he is throwing out the same kind of awful arguments that Behe does, though.

[_EAllusion]

Following their line of argument, though: the Gods of these hypothetical other worlds would not be immoral in those worlds; only the God of our world would be.

I think my talk of worlds was confusing. I just meant it in the modal sense. Put more succinctly, if God had a hypothetically different nature, say where he thought torturing babies for fun was cool, would that necessarily be moral or could it possibly be immoral? If the latter, then there is some standard of morality that exists logically (and that word is key) prior to God's nature. If that is true, then moral truth isn't contingent on God's nature.

You're right -- it's probably not fair to say that Kevin is being derivative of Behe. (I'm not familiar enough with the exact design arguments that Behe makes to say that Kevin definitely isn't being derivative.) It is fair to say that he is throwing out the same kind of awful arguments that Behe does, though.

In fairness to Behe, I don't think he'd make an argument like Kevin has made, as Kevin's is a near verbatim repeat of a very famous creationist argument that is skeptical of evolution on a level Behe accepts. Behe makes a "what good is half a wing?" argument with respect to blood clotting cascades and other biochemical systems, but he'd deny he's making that classic creationist argument while Kevin is reveling in it.

For what it is worth, in the section where Kevin quoted me, I'm actually responding to a comment of his where he is seriously asking about a mutation that resulted in fish turning into birds, when obviously we're not talking about a single or handful of mutations here.

More quotes from me in that thread on the same conversation are along the lines of:

The majority view within evolutionary biology is that birds evolved from a branch of theropod dinosaurs. There are competing views within the realm of legitimate debate, however, and it would be wrong to present this as a settled issue. No one thinks that birds evolved from fish directly, if that is what was implied.

Kevin -

There is, however, a problem with a sea creature completely changing its atmosphere from water to air. There begs and intelligent explanation as to how any organism can overcome the laws of aerodynamics and obtain flight without some kind of intelligence at play.

EA -

Unintelligent spooky action that has a property such that it makes sea creatures turn into birds. There you go, no intelligence at play. On the downside, I invented a magical explanation that merely defined itself to explain the properties I'm seeking to explain without any independent evidence of its existence. True, just like "The designer did it."

I'm not sure if you get there are supposed to be a lot of intermediate steps here. As for fish evolving into landdwellers, I do recommend Carl Zimmer's excellent book "At Waters Edge." I mentioned him before. Funnily enough, he wrote it right before the discovery of Tiktaalik. You may have read about it.

e.g. http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

A co-discoverer wrote an awesome, awesome evolutionary pop-science book called "Your Inner Fish." Come to think of it, you should read that.

It's only because it was clear that he didn't get we were talking about a lot of intermediate steps that I wrote what Kevin quoted in this thread.

Notably, in response to my comment on theropods, Kevin wrote this:

OK, now that makes sense. Silentkid just said the same thing and now I can see that kind of evolution taking place. Thanks to the both of you for saying this. Could you at least understand why the sea to air branch would appear problematic?

Though this makes more sense than a sea-air mutation, I still don't see how one can ascribe flight to anything without some kind of intelligent means to an end. Its just easier to believe with a land to air model.

[/quote]

So at least at that point he seemed to accept that his crazy x-men understanding of evolutionary theory was as lacking enough for my suggestion to take some classes not to sound out of place.

[_JohnStuartMill]

I think my talk of worlds was confusing. I just meant it in the modal sense. Put more succinctly, if God had a hypothetically different nature, say where he thought torturing babies for fun was cool, would that necessarily be moral or could it possibly be immoral? If the latter, then there is some standard of morality that exists logically (and that word is key) prior to God's nature. If that is true, then moral truth isn't contingent on God's nature.

Why couldn't it necessarily be moral? If God is the lawgiver of the universe, Who animates even the principles of logic and causation, then messing around with His characteristics (e.g., His ethics) changes the playing field considerably. In this case, a reductio ad absurdum relying on our distaste for torturing babies isn't likely to be as effective as it normally is.

In fairness to Behe, I don't think he'd make an argument like Kevin has made, as Kevin's is a near verbatim repeat of a very famous creationist argument that is skeptical of evolution on a level Behe accepts. Behe makes a "what good is half a wing?" argument with respect to blood clotting cascades and other biochemical systems, but he'd deny he's making that classic creationist argument while Kevin is reveling in it.

For what it is worth, in the section where Kevin quoted me, I'm actually responding to a comment of his where he is seriously asking about a mutation that resulted in fish turning into birds, when obviously we're not talking about a single or handful of mutations here.

More quotes from me in that thread on the same conversation are along the lines of:

The majority view within evolutionary biology is that birds evolved from a branch of theropod dinosaurs. There are competing views within the realm of legitimate debate, however, and it would be wrong to present this as a settled issue. No one thinks that birds evolved from fish directly, if that is what was implied.

Kevin -

There is, however, a problem with a sea creature completely changing its atmosphere from water to air. There begs and intelligent explanation as to how any organism can overcome the laws of aerodynamics and obtain flight without some kind of intelligence at play.

EA -

Unintelligent spooky action that has a property such that it makes sea creatures turn into birds. There you go, no intelligence at play. On the downside, I invented a magical explanation that merely defined itself to explain the properties I'm seeking to explain without any independent evidence of its existence. True, just like "The designer did it."

I'm not sure if you get there are supposed to be a lot of intermediate steps here. As for fish evolving into landdwellers, I do recommend Carl Zimmer's excellent book "At Waters Edge." I mentioned him before. Funnily enough, he wrote it right before the discovery of Tiktaalik. You may have read about it.

e.g. http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

A co-discoverer wrote an awesome, awesome evolutionary pop-science book called "Your Inner Fish." Come to think of it, you should read that.

It's only because it was clear that he didn't get we were talking about a lot of intermediate steps that I wrote what Kevin quoted in this thread.

Notably, in response to my comment on theropods, Kevin wrote this:

OK, now that makes sense. Silentkid just said the same thing and now I can see that kind of evolution taking place. Thanks to the both of you for saying this. Could you at least understand why the sea to air branch would appear problematic?

Though this makes more sense than a sea-air mutation, I still don't see how one can ascribe flight to anything without some kind of intelligent means to an end. Its just easier to believe with a land to air model.

So at least at that point he seemed to accept that his crazy x-men understanding of evolutionary theory was as lacking enough for my suggestion to take some classes not to sound out of place.[/quote]
I'm glad that Kevin has written a few things that make sense, but I'm not willing to absolve him of much here, because the details aren't all that important -- he's still making the same elementary error in logic. "I can't figure out a naturalistic explanation for X, therefore God exists" is bad reasoning whether X=the evolution of avian flight or X=the evolution from marine to terrestrial habitation, or anything else.

[_antishock8]

Dart, do you believe Jesus Christ was in any way shape or form on earth in the role of a savior for mankind?

How does the Big Bang theory include your god (of which you have no identifiable notion of, but is sure it exists...)?

[_EAllusion]

Why couldn't it necessarily be moral? If God is the lawgiver of the universe, Who animates even the principles of logic and causation, then messing around with His characteristics (e.g., His ethics) changes the playing field considerably. In this case, a reductio ad absurdum relying on our distaste for torturing babies isn't likely to be as effective as it normally is.

It could be necessarily moral. But if it is, then we go around back to the other aspect of the Euthyphro dilemma and face the emptiness and arbitrariness problems. I was just talking about the non-necessary option and its consequences.

Also, the argument from ignorance form of Kevin's argument doesn't change no matter the biological target. Yep. Nor will his capacity to not get that either, methinks.

[_EAllusion]

Antishock -

There's a real good chance that Kevin would buy into the Kalaam Cosmological argument if he doesn't already. I don't think he'll have a problem with big bang theory. He's more likely to argue that it requires a personal cause.

[_antishock8]

EA,

You mean a cosmological argument?

How does quantum physics fit into that notion when it's theorized (yes, a real theory instead of a guess) that particles pop into and out of existence? There's nothing to stop the Universe from just popping into existence, just as there may be nothing to stop it from contracting into itself and popping out of existence.

Where does the Big Bang theory include Dart's non-notion of a god?

[_Some Schmo]

Quite frankly, it's likely he knows that anything he describes as a god is going to get shot down in bitter flames, and he just does have the balls to put it out there.

Course, that's giving him way more credit than he deserves.

Sure Schmo. I am sure Dart is running in terror of your laser precision argument of "Essentially anyone who believes in God is an irrational idiot or fool."

Well, first of all, dart wouldn't know a good argument if it bit his arm off.

And secondly, show me a quote where I said what you typed.

[_antishock8]

This is so strange that Dart is afraid of answering exactly two questions...

Dart, do you believe Jesus Christ was in any way shape or form on earth in the role of a savior for mankind?

How does the Big Bang theory include your god (of which you have no identifiable notion of, but is sure it exists...)?

[_EAllusion]

You mean a cosmological argument?

How does quantum physics fit into that notion when it's theorized (yes, a real theory instead of a guess) that particles pop into and out of existence? There's nothing to stop the Universe from just popping into existence, just as there may be nothing to stop it from contracting into itself and popping out of existence.

Where does the Big Bang theory include Dart's non-notion of a god?

The Kalaam Cosmological argument is a type of cosmological argument that argues from the accepted premise of the Big Bang that a personal cause that is God-like is required to account for it.

Particles popping in and out of existence is a popular type of metaphysical interpretation of quantum mechanics, not a scientific theory. As for why one can't propose a similar metaphysical possiblity to the fact of the universe having a beginning of sorts in the The Big Bang, thereby arguing against the need for a god-cause, I can pretend to be a cosmological argument supporter if you like, but I don't see the point in arguing with them using me as a proxy.