The Nature of Morality: A Discussion

You said we could imagine different laws of physics, and I simply pointed out we can imagine different Gods too. But in reality, the laws of physics are what they are. They are immutable. Maybe  gravity works differently in other universes, but even if so, that doesn't preclude a set of laws, perhaps the laws of quantum physics, being true throughout the omniverse. I'm not just making this up--this is what actual cosmologists think. I can't pretend to understand the physics, but this is a pretty accessible article covering the scientific landscape with regards to this question as of 2015.  The reality is that many of the people who study the origin of the universe, people who are far more expert than you or me, do not think God is a necessary first cause, and indeed think some set of laws (quantum or otherwise) are sufficient. It's possible they are wrong, but do you really think they are making an obvious logical error?  Or consider professional philosophers. These a...

If the First Cause could have logically been different, then the first cause would not be logically necessary, and it could not be the real first cause. Remember our main example of logical necessity - mathematics. It makes no sense to say the laws of mathematics might be different. It could never be true that 1+1 = 3, no matter what possible universe you are in. If there were 1 billion universes, the laws of mathematics would apply to all of them. So mathematics is logically necessary. It is true throughout the entire omniverse, always, no matter what. Another issue with the laws of physics being the First Cause is that there are many of them. I composed a proof earlier why the First Cause has to be singular - do you disagree with that proof? Finally, the laws of physics aren't actual things. They do not exist in and of themselves (which is necessary for a first cause) - they only exist insofar as spacetime exists - these laws only exist insofar as things exist which happen to obe...

We may be able to imagine a universe/omniverse where the laws of physics are different , but we can't imagine a universe/omniverse where they (or some kind of laws governing the nature of things, which is what the laws of physics are) don't exist. So I would say they are logically necessary.  By contrast, it is easy to imagine a different kind of God than is supposed in the Christian conception, or even a universe with no God at all. So I don't think this test is favorable to God.  Simplicity and indivisibility are not synonymous with each other. Creativity, analysis, personality...these are all complex functions. I don't think it make sense to call anything capable of such functions "simple".  And we have zero evidence that a mind can exist without an accompanying brain. Until evidence emerges, I consider such a thing highly improbable.  CS Lewis poses a false dichotomy. It's not a choice of confirming the man "forever in his present happiness"...

The laws of physics themselves cannot be the first cause because they are not logically necessary. There is nothing in the nature of the laws of physics to hold themselves in existence, as is demanded of a first cause. We can easily imagine a universe where the law of gravity was a little different (or a lot different) with no logical contradiction. You're right that "as we work backwards in the chain of causation things get simpler and more fundamental." The Catholic Church teaches that simplicity is one of the attributes of God - that God is not "composed or divisible by any physical or metaphysical means." - http://www.saintaquinas.com/article5.html I was talking about this attribute earlier as part of talking about oneness. So how can complete simplicity have a mind? By mind, I do not mean a brain. A mind is an "I" that can reason and choose. True, we have only seen minds connected to brains, which science points to having evolved over time. But th...

I think the most likely candidate for a first cause are the laws of physics themselves. I don't think a mind makes much sense at all since the nature of a mind involves incredible, evolved complexity, and as we work backwards in the chain of causation things get simpler and more fundamental.  Yes, I have heard about the kinder, gentler hell. But, even short of physical torture, are those who are separated from God not suffering? Are they not feeling the anguish of God's absence and the pain of regret? Or are they perfectly happy in Hell? Even a small amount of suffering, stretched out over eternity , is monstrous. After all, having a little bit of water dripped on your forehead is no big deal. Having it dripped on your forehead for 48 hours straight is torture. There are obviously no lessons being taught in Hell, since an eternal condition makes such a "teaching" irrelevant.  CS Lewis asks, "What are you asking God to do?" Even if we grant that those in Hell...

This discussion began on FaceBook in response to a post about whether abortion is justified when a woman is impregnated as a result of rape. But it quickly moved into much deeper waters, tackling fundamental questions about the nature of morality. As the discussion seems to have outgrown a FaceBook post comments section, we have decided to continue it here. Below is the exchange that appeared on FaceBook:   Original Post shared by a Third Party: Lucas Dollar   If you tell a girl that she has to keep her baby after getting raped cuz God wanted her pregnant, I’m gonna rob you and you can’t complain cuz God wanted me to be rich Discussion: Samuel Gerkin   If you tell an unborn baby that they have to die because of their father's crime, then the children of criminals on death row could also be sentenced to death. Either an unborn baby is a person, or not. And either we know what an unborn baby is, or not. There are only four possibilities: 1. An unborn baby is a...