Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mr. Warren's "10 questions". Value and Laws Subset
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 1 of 11 (491313)
12-14-2008 8:17 AM


Bertot pointed me to a debate between two people about "the existence of god".
In this debate one of the participants, namely Mr. Warren, had asked his opponent 10 questions. I would like to give answers to these myself, as I think Mr. Flew (the one who answered these questions) gave some pretty lousy answers to them.
First of all, here's the entire debate: http://www.thebible1.net/video/warrenflewdebate/
The questions are all brought up during Mr. Warren's first speech.
I will reproduce the questions and my answers here:
This is the morality part, there is also an evolution part.
1) True or false: Value did not exist before the first human being.
This is false. If he had said before there was intelligence, I would've agreed with him.
2) True or false: In murdering 6 million Jewish men women and children, the Nazis were guilty of real, objective, moral wrong.
False. There is no objective moral wrong.
3) In torturing and or murdering 6 million Jews, the Nazis were guilty of violating:
The law of Germany
The law of England
The law of the United States
The law of god
Some other law
No law at all

Now, I don't know what all these laws were at the time, so I would have to go with "No law at all". The reason we could convict the Nazis was quite simple. We won the war.
8) Each one of us has a real moral objective obligation to become an atheist, so that if he does not become such, he becomes guilty of real objective moral wrong.
False. There is no objective moral right or wrong, therefore, one cannot have that obligation.
9) Real objective evil exists.
False.
10) From the concept of god and the actual existence of subjective evil, one can soundly deduce the non existence of god.
Since there is no universal concept of god, this question makes no sense to me.
Now that you have my answers, I would like to discuss the points raised by these questions and my answers to them. Do you agree or disagree, and why?
Edited by Huntard, : Did as AdminNosy suggested.
Edited by AdminNosy, : Title change

I hunt for the truth

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 12-14-2008 8:53 AM Huntard has replied
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 12-14-2008 12:01 PM Huntard has replied
 Message 8 by ikabod, posted 12-15-2008 5:55 AM Huntard has not replied
 Message 9 by Stile, posted 12-15-2008 10:40 AM Huntard has not replied
 Message 11 by Itinerant Lurker, posted 12-21-2008 8:05 AM Huntard has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 11 (491315)
12-14-2008 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Huntard
12-14-2008 8:17 AM


Two Topics
When I try to figure out where to move this I see that there are two topics:
One discusses evolution and the other faith or society.
The first 3 and the last 3 belong to the latter category and the rest to the former.
Could you split it into two topics please? I think that will allow for easier focusing on the topics at hand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Huntard, posted 12-14-2008 8:17 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Huntard, posted 12-14-2008 10:39 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 3 of 11 (491326)
12-14-2008 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
12-14-2008 8:53 AM


Re: Two Topics
Did as you asked. Thanks

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 12-14-2008 8:53 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 4 of 11 (491332)
12-14-2008 10:58 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 5 of 11 (491335)
12-14-2008 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Huntard
12-14-2008 8:17 AM


Huntard writes:
1) True or false: Value did not exist before the first human being.
This is false. If he had said before there was intelligence, I would've agreed with him.
Define value. Depends on what is meant by value, the answer would either be true or I don't know. False cannot be an answer for this question.
2) True or false: In murdering 6 million Jewish men women and children, the Nazis were guilty of real, objective, moral wrong.
False. There is no objective moral wrong.
I beg to differ.
3) In torturing and or murdering 6 million Jews, the Nazis were guilty of violating:
The law of Germany
The law of England
The law of the United States
The law of god
Some other law
No law at all
Now, I don't know what all these laws were at the time, so I would have to go with "No law at all". The reason we could convict the Nazis was quite simple. We won the war.
You're wrong here. The only way the nazis could have gotten away with their own law was if they could justify the holocaust as war related. Other than that, they had laws regarding stealing, kidnapping, and murder just like the rest of us. The difference was they didn't have a justice system that would enforce those laws.
8) Each one of us has a real moral objective obligation to become an atheist, so that if he does not become such, he becomes guilty of real objective moral wrong.
False. There is no objective moral right or wrong, therefore, one cannot have that obligation.
I beg to differ.
9) Real objective evil exists.
False.
I beg to differ.
10) From the concept of god and the actual existence of subjective evil, one can soundly deduce the non existence of god.
Since there is no universal concept of god, this question makes no sense to me.
I beg to differ.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Huntard, posted 12-14-2008 8:17 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Huntard, posted 12-14-2008 12:23 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 7 by kuresu, posted 12-14-2008 7:26 PM Taz has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 6 of 11 (491336)
12-14-2008 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Taz
12-14-2008 12:01 PM


Taz writes:
Define value.
I don't know exactly what Mr. Warren meant here, but I'm assuming he was talking about morals.
Depends on what is meant by value, the answer would either be true or I don't know. False cannot be an answer for this question.
Perhaps I should have made clear that I was talking about modern humans here too. Since I hold that our morals come from our intelligence, I said this was false, as the other species before modern humans that had intelligence, also would've had morals.
I beg to differ.
Would you mind pointing me to this "objective moral wrong"? I've never come across it.
You're wrong here. The only way the nazis could have gotten away with their own law was if they could justify the holocaust as war related. Other than that, they had laws regarding stealing, kidnapping, and murder just like the rest of us. The difference was they didn't have a justice system that would enforce those laws.
Well, as I said, I didn't know these laws. Question answered it seems.
I beg to differ.
Could you point me to this "objective right or wrong"?
I beg to differ.
See above.
I beg to differ.
Then what is the concept of god that everyone agrees on?

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 12-14-2008 12:01 PM Taz has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 7 of 11 (491356)
12-14-2008 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Taz
12-14-2008 12:01 PM


You're wrong here. The only way the nazis could have gotten away with their own law was if they could justify the holocaust as war related. Other than that, they had laws regarding stealing, kidnapping, and murder just like the rest of us. The difference was they didn't have a justice system that would enforce those laws.
Well, there is also the slight matter of crimes against humanity. The nuremburg and tokyo trials were really the first time they were used in court (the previous two being in the congress of Vienna of 1815 ending the slave trade and in WWI, when the allied powers denounced the actions of turkey against the armenians).
These laws were most certainly not on any one's books and were applied retro-actively to the beginning of the war. The courts were created not because of Germany's inability to prosecute the criminals, but because we wanted to. At any rate, Germany immediately after WWII was under complete political control of the allies (part of that whole unconditional surrender). So it's not like it wasn't capable of trying the criminals under its own legal system. It's that the allies "wanted blood".
What are the laws of germany from this period regarding kidnapping, murder, etc? Given that the concentration of jews and other "undesirables" was carried out in the open, it might be fair to say that german law did not recognize equality of the law to these people. If not, kidnapping, stealing, and murdering lower classes may not technically have been illegal in Germany. Admittedly, I do not know Germany's laws from this period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 12-14-2008 12:01 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Taz, posted 12-20-2008 9:08 PM kuresu has not replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 8 of 11 (491371)
12-15-2008 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Huntard
12-14-2008 8:17 AM


From listening to the video I believe question one is asking was there any measure of morality , ie the ability to assign a (moral) value to a certain behaviour , BEFORE human being arose . This clearly leads to the crux of question two , which I asking is there an objective moral value to anything ,or is that value derived from humans .
In terms of the Warren - Flew debate , Warren is attempting to establish a moral code that is not human in origin , but from god in this case .
This mean s that the questions need to be considered in that debates context , and what Warren was attempting to prove from Flew’s answers .
These are loaded question , set up to so that what ever the answer , that answer can be used to further Warren position .
Question Three is very interesting , as during the period the German state put in place laws designed to further the extermination of the jews . English and American laws clear have no jurisdiction in Germany , the law of god , from the nature of the debate we can take as Christian , so thou shall not kill is broken . As to “some other law “ I know there some international treaties on the treatment of civilian populations , but I don’t think the Nazis had signed up to any of them .
The missing point is that it was said at the time of the Nuremburg trials that this was new crime , never before contemplated , and so needed new laws to deal with it , in other words there would have been laws , but no one foresaw the need for them , as no one expected such an act .
Question eight asks does Flew claim atheist have a objective moral code , which of course leads to the follow up of , if yes where does such a code come from , if no the atheist have only a personal moral code , and such codes can make the Nazis act moral to individuals .
Question nine is a nice trick question , if you say yes , where is you objective code from , and does not that mean you have a objective good as well , if no then you have no objective scale to measure the any crimes against , and its back to personal morals.
Question ten , remember in the debate they are talking about a Christian god ,so Christian god and subjective evil ,I think the point is evil is not subjective IF god exists , thus the literal answer is yes , or one has to explain how god works .
Trying to answer these question outside of the debate is problematic as the questions are not fully formed and lack some of the necessary information that would allow fully formed answers , the true or false nature of questions one and two being a point in case .
give the above here goes
1. I don’t know history has yet to proved information on that era .
2. Yes , but that then leads to a very long debate about the nature of morals
3. Yes , those laws attributed to god ,and some other laws ..see above
8. No , there is free will and choice
9. With out a definition of evil , beyond the religious context I can not answer
10. I am not qualified to make such a judgement on the nature of the Christian god , in the context of the question , I lack the theological knowledge .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Huntard, posted 12-14-2008 8:17 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 9 of 11 (491386)
12-15-2008 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Huntard
12-14-2008 8:17 AM


Just my thoughts
Huntard writes:
1) True or false: Value did not exist before the first human being.
This is false. If he had said before there was intelligence, I would've agreed with him.
I can see where Taz is coming from when he says we can't actually say False. That is, that we can't actually *know* that animals also can have values. I think, though, that this aspect is only valid in the extreme sense similar to how we can't *know* even what other humans are thinking.
As far as practically speaking goes, I think it's relatively easy to show that animals "value" things in a similar way as humans do. Perhaps not quite as complex, but certainly the idea is there.
I agree, "False", I also agree that the existence of 'value' requires intelligence. That is, there is no inherent attribute of "value" on objects or ideas, it is something that intelligent beings subjectively place onto objects or ideas.
2) True or false: In murdering 6 million Jewish men women and children, the Nazis were guilty of real, objective, moral wrong.
False. There is no objective moral wrong.
Agreed, "False". They certainly are guilty of real, moral wrong in pretty much any moral system I've ever heard of. But there is no such thing as an absolute, objective morality which is what I think this statement is trying to suggest. The subject (Nazis) has no bearing on the "False" conclusion and is simply a red-herring inserted to distract and guilt those who could be easily swayed. The "False" conclusion is simply a given with the request of an absolutely objective system of morality.
3) In torturing and or murdering 6 million Jews, the Nazis were guilty of violating:
The law of Germany
The law of England
The law of the United States
The law of god
Some other law
No law at all

Now, I don't know what all these laws were at the time, so I would have to go with "No law at all". The reason we could convict the Nazis was quite simple. We won the war.
I have to disagree with you here. I'd say this is "True". I think it's pretty safe to assume that genocide was against some sort of written law somewhere at the time. Of course all laws are subjectively derived, so I'm not sure where this is intended to go. But, whatever, I still think this is True.
8) Each one of us has a real moral objective obligation to become an atheist, so that if he does not become such, he becomes guilty of real objective moral wrong.
False. There is no objective moral right or wrong, therefore, one cannot have that obligation.
Agreed, "False". Again, this is false simply for the absolute objective morality system it's referring to as in question 2. The mention of obligation and atheism is just another red herring to try and manipulate the reader.
9) Real objective evil exists.
False.
Agreed, "False". For the same reasons as question 8 and 2. Here, "evil" is the red herring intending for some sort of manipulation. Absolute, objective morality does not exist, this question is identical to numbers 2 and 8.
10) From the concept of god and the actual existence of subjective evil, one can soundly deduce the non existence of god.
Since there is no universal concept of god, this question makes no sense to me.
Agreed, "False". This is not the reason that one can soundly deduce the non existence of God. The non existence of God can soundly be deduced the same way everything else that only exists within the human imagination is shown to not exist. There's no evidence for Him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Huntard, posted 12-14-2008 8:17 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 10 of 11 (491769)
12-20-2008 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by kuresu
12-14-2008 7:26 PM


I'm puzzled about something. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? Your post seems to be a regurgitation of what I said in different arrangement of words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by kuresu, posted 12-14-2008 7:26 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Itinerant Lurker
Member (Idle past 2656 days)
Posts: 67
Joined: 12-12-2008


Message 11 of 11 (491792)
12-21-2008 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Huntard
12-14-2008 8:17 AM


doubtful
quote:
3) In torturing and or murdering 6 million Jews, the Nazis were guilty of violating:
The law of Germany
The law of England
The law of the United States
The law of god
Some other law
No law at all
Now, I don't know what all these laws were at the time, so I would have to go with "No law at all". The reason we could convict the Nazis was quite simple. We won the war.
Um. . .no. Winning the war gave the allies the ability to apply their laws, but the act of victory did not create those laws out of thin air. A better way to phrase the question would be that murdering six million jews was against the laws of Poland, France, and Czechoslovakia. . .not to mention the whole invasion thing. Not being a WWII era legal scholar, I'm nonetheless fairly certain there were some laws on the books against invasion, depriving people of their lives and property based on their race, and the like. Our ability to convict the Nazis of wrongdoing doesn't affect the fact that what they did was, in fact, legally and morally wrong. That's like saying that our ability to catch and prosecute a criminal determines that criminal's guilt. Just because we're not able to catch a criminal does not mean they are innocent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Huntard, posted 12-14-2008 8:17 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024