Is Objective Morality Impossible Without God? Drew vs TJump

Is Objective Morality Impossible Without God? Drew vs TJump
Articles
46



hmm hey everybody it's your friend Adam I'm here with Drew Welty and Tom jump and we're gonna be talking about objective morality a bit our debate question is I don't unfortunately our debate question is is objective morality impossible without God so drew is going to be making the argument that objective morality is impossible without a belief in God and Tom is going to be countering that argument just a little housekeeping here in the beginning I next week I'm actually going to be debating myself the question is gonna be is secular morality better than Christian morality which will be along the same kind of theme I think is this and then on the 24th I'm gonna be debating Kent Hovind on can evolution explain morality and obviously Kent Hovind is a creationist so he doesn't think that evolution can tell us anything about morality so that should be interesting so you said you're gonna debate yourself is that right I'm debating myself what do you mean what you said you're debating yourself oh I know I am debating I am going to be debating myself next week I'm actually gonna be debating Sarah is so I'm gonna be debating okay I just mean I'm not gonna be moderating next week but I should do I should I should do my I should actually debate myself sometime just to see if I could do it just to see if I can maintain character so you have this you have to use your hold the new logo if you do that yeah so you have so I before we get into this I had given I I did I did a debate before where I moderated and I tend to interject a bit when I moderate and sometimes it comes off as two against one so I did offer Tom the the ability to come on with another person so we would have even numbers if I interject Tom has doesn't didn't want to do that so I am going to try and instead of interject I'm gonna try to just form questions so during the question-and-answer period I can just ask questions that'll get at the point that I want to make and if you want to add me in the chat with any questions I'll keep track for them and ask them during the question-and-answer period so drew you have the floor you can go first I'm not I'm not keeping strong time but if somebody talks for a long period of time I will interrupt and get us back on track if someone goes off top off topic too much I'll get us back on topic so drew the floor is yours okay yeah that makes sense so first of all thanks for having me I'm excited to do this and I think the the first thing I'm gonna do in this conversation is kind of give some object are not objective some some definitions because frankly this conversation has a tendency to get derailed on what objective versus subjective means so I'm gonna give a couple definitions I'm gonna give a definition of objective subjective morality I'm gonna give the definition of objective morality I'm going to talk about a distinction that I think is important for the definition of a objective morality and then we'll kind of go from there I'll talk a little bit about also why I think that it's not possible to have objective morality without God so so the first thing I'm going to find here is subjective morality so are not subjective morality is subjective by itself so subjective and in my opinion is is that are those things that our preference oriented their mind dependent so if you and I go to a a art gallery and we look at a piece of art and I say that this is the best piece of art I've ever seen and you say this is the worst piece of art I've ever seen I don't believe that's the case that either of us is correct or wrong because that you're talking purely about subjective things those things are depending up our minds my definition of objective are those things that are not my independence so if I tell you that two plus two equals four it doesn't matter what you think about two plus two equal link for it's just the case that it is in fact it is in fact that a fact that two plus two does actually equal four so I know that there are some different definitions of objective but that is the one that I believe is as most most efficient for the way I'm talking about it so yeah the next thing I'm gonna do is define morality I actually took this definition of morality from one of my opponents videos so hopefully we don't get off in the weeds about what morality means because this is technically his definition so morality is the principles or criteria used to judge what is right and wrong I think that it's a good place to start because there may be more to that but I think this is a good baseline at the very least we're talking about morality so in terms of my my definition of objective morality I would say that those are moral facts that are independent from the mind are true independent of what people think of them so it would be the case that morality is objective if it's the case that I go and kill somebody and it doesn't depend on what you or I think about it to determine if that thing is wrong or not so if if if morality was subjective it would be such that if I killed him it would be only the case that we kind of have quarrels about our preferences towards what I did and maybe why it's wrong but like it's not actually grounded in anything the distinction I want to make here before I move on to why I think God is necessary to ground morality is that there's this thing that I like to call objective guidance within subjective axioms that happens a lot with atheists is that they say well the axiom that I'm operating on is subjective but once we're operating in this this this is axiom we can make objective judgments towards towards the different behaviors that we're talking about so you may say it's the case Matt Dillahunty actually said this at a video recently or not recently I recently watched here's here's actually quote the foundation of morality as I mentioned already and already conceded a min ago is subjective but assuming we agree on well-being we can then make non subjective assessments of the consequences of our actions so this is different than what theists are talking about when we're talking about objective morality I think it's perfectly fine for you to say that we have a once we're operating within an axiom let's say that well-being is as good or something like that or we should operate in a situation where we should try to promote well-being of humans then you can sort of make objective judgments about well it's actually objectively the case that it's bad for well-being if you were to chop my head off or something like that that's not what we're talking about I think that that's perfectly fine I just don't think that you can actually ground you it's not grounded anything it's it's a subjective way to it's not grounded it's not objective it's it's just you've decided on this axiom and then you move on right so my point is that that creates this situation where it's still the case that even know you can make objective claims about morality and the way that you defined it you're not actually making objective moral claims you're just kind of making claims within your moral community and I think that that's a problem and that's the problem that theists are trying to address when they are talking about objective morality so I believe that it's the case that in a secular world there are no moral facts that's primarily because we would live in a physical world and facts are not facts are not in the same universe essentially as so normative and descriptive claims basically so if you're talking about descriptive claims we're living in a world of the script of claims normative claims are just simply preference in that in that universe so I would say that in order for a subjective claim like a moral claim to be grounded it would have to be essentially grounded by by having a god decree that there's some sort of moral fabric to the universe otherwise you're just talking about personal preference beyond that you you are in fact only talking about preference it's it's not the case that so it takes the art example if god for some reason to creed that there was actually an objective standard for beauty then it may be the case that people can actually be right and wrong about what is beautiful but as we know if right now it's just subjective so that that's basically my position is that in order to ground a subjective position in an objective way it would require a God to do that and it's a simple position but that's that basically what I'm arguing there's a lot of reasons why I think it's important that that's the case but that's basically my position and a nutshell so yeah I'm happy to give the floor to Tom like Tom all right yeah so I'm going to object to his definition of objective and subjective a little bit it's not mind dependent independent its opinion dependent and independent like for example that's fine I see a color red that's dependent on my mind but it's still objective like I mean it I don't get an opinion on what the color is I see it's a fact about the world it's objective that's fine opinion all right I agree that's morality for it to be objective is something that has to be true independent of opinion but there are lots of different ways to get this you don't need a god for example morality can be an undiscovered law of nature if there was a law of nature that grounded morality that existed independent of our opinions that would be an objective basis of morality so yeah morality can definitely exist without a God in that sense it's clearly logically possible another would be a platonic object you can have platonic morality where morality exists is some kind of platonic abstract that exists in the ether and that exists independent of our minds that would be an objective model morality or you can have an abstract ideal like the triangle triangles don't actually exist but we can use the abstract idea of a perfect triangle as a description and we can use the abstract idea of a perfect morality as a description so that's another way morality can be objective there are numerous models of morality and philosophy and ethics most philosophers are ethical realists so it's above 50% of phosphors are ethical realist which means they believe in an objective morality even though about 73 percent of philosophers are atheists so even though most philosophers are atheists they still believe in objective morality you don't need a god for objective morality in ethics it's just not a requirement then there's dozens and dozens of ways in philosophy to get this secondly God based morality isn't objective it's subjective it's based on his God's opinion and my opponent noted at the beginning he says moral claims are based off of a decree by God well a decree by God is God's personal preference and as my opponent stated in the very next sentence if you're talking about a personal preference it's not it's not objective so even with a God based morally that's subjective because it's based off of personal preference and so the only way to have an objective morality means it has to be opinion independent including of God's opinion so that's that's essentially my position okay and so those a lot so I'm trying to write this down so I figure I can't address everything so um okay so first I'm not really sure what the why the point why'd you listed the percentages of philosophers that were I mean that really has no bearing on I'll explain it the people who know the most about the field of ethics of morality who understand it more than anybody else and who spend their lives devoted to study in the field most of them understand that or have a belief in objective morality and they grounded in things other than the God so the people who are most qualified in this field ground objective morality outside of the God now whether or not you want to accept that it is up to you but there's pretty good reason there to think that yeah we can ground objective morality without a god okay I mean that how is that anything other than an appeal to an authority right in science and philosophy the highest authorities consensus that's usually what we go based off I can't actually do physics and go test electrons we trust the authorities that's how science works based off the the the highest weight I'm sorry could you repeat that the highest authority in science is consensus correct how is that the case it's just in a fact you can just Google the concilium since science and it'll just state it philosophy of science what why does why does consensus matter in science isn't it just the fact that something is true or it's not true it doesn't matter how many people believe it's true well this is a little off topic but no if you can Google Quinn's web of belief there isn't such thing as just truth bare truth you have to interpret it in the context of facts okay yeah fair enough I I'm I'm gonna just dismiss the Philosopher's point I don't think it's I don't think it's relevant that's fine I mean we can disagree about that I don't think that science really has a lot to do with consensus maybe we can work our way towards truth with consensus and I can refer to experts but frankly I don't think that it's the case that you can just say a lot of people believe X I mean there's all sorts of psychological reasons they could believe that I'm not going to go into that because it's gonna go way up in the weeds right my only point here is just that the experts in the field believe you can definitely grow more let's jump in and try to steal man each other's positions to begin with Tom do you have a firm grasp of jerusaiem an his position I'm a little unclear on how his moral framework is dependent upon God he didn't really mention God in his opening so right I mean I could make a guess based off of my understanding of most theists but I believe his position is something that's in order to have morality it needs to be grounded in some kind of a mind and a lawgiver something like that I believe is what he did something what do you say no I just think that if you're going to make a subjective fact and objective fact he would need a God to do that so yeah yeah so it's it's not simply that Oh like it's not simply that I'm sorry I'm what did you that say my position was I it doesn't bear any resemblance to mine so I could just repeat yeah my my general understanding of most theists is that in order to have an objective basis of morality you need a lawgiver though morality needs to be grounded in a mind and so it needs to come from my mind which is what they think God is I'm not sure it needs to be grounded in a mind I mean you may need a lawgiver but I don't I don't I'm not sure has to be grounded in on mind necessarily I don't mean tell me what your position is all I'm saying so so okay so if if we talk about a couple different types of objective facts like if like they're liking necessarily existing objective objective facts and then they're like contingently existing objective facts so like it might be the case that it's objective in every possible universe that you can't have a a square circle right so it may just be the a necessarily existing truth that you can't have a square triangle but it's not necessarily the case that like the acceleration due to gravity has to be exactly what it is we could live in a universe where that is not the same way and all my point is is that I think morality is is similar to like the acceleration due to gravity it would be a law that God would impose upon the universe and thus it's it's so objective that the acceleration due to gravity is what it is it would just have to be like it would just have to be created in such a way that that's the case and so that's my point is really that you would require a God to create this moral fabric of the universe I don't think that it has to come from a mind or anything like that I don't okay so if the universe was created without a God for example pantheism was just an eternal all-powerful universe then that pantheism can have a law with like gravity which is just a moral law so now we have an objective morality without a God right how would a how would you get a a subjective standard from an objective standard and just a it's just a just an empty universe no so we have the universe the universe is eternal all-powerful just like God but has no consciousness no mind one of the laws of the universe like the law of gravity you know it affects everything physics there is another physical law of nature which is a moral law just a law of nature we haven't discovered yet so it exists like gravity and affects our brains in such a way that we feel this moral nature it exists physically as a part of the universe can you can you describe a way to me that that's separated from human psychology because I'm having a hard time understanding how we could have a moral fabric in that way so because like you're talking about intuitions right now no no I'm saying matter life doesn't matter no minds matter I'm saying morality is a law of nature like gravity it's a physical thing like electromagnetism the strong and weak nuclear force like a law of nature it's a physical thing there's a part of the universe itself this is one we haven't discovered yet so you're saying that moral laws could be physical correct could you describe to me how that could be the case it just can be the case there's no logical contract okay yeah so you would have to point out a logical contradiction there's no logical contradiction which means I'm saying there's a contradiction I'm trying to understand what that would even look like like like you're talking how was murder is wrong that claim how is that a physical thing it could just be a law of nature which causes us to feel this but our emotions our intuitions about morality are driven by evolution why would why would we feel this way because of right I'm saying it could be the case that they're not driven by evolution they're driven by this law which then affects evolution so again my goal here is just to say here is an alternative possibility we're objective morality can't exist without God that's it that's all I need to show here okay so okay so first of all I'd like to state that this is kind of the pie in the sky stuff that I was I was referring to prior to this conversation I was concerned that we were going to go here rather than talking about objective moral systems but that's fine if we want to have this conversation that's fine okay so just I'm still unclear like I'm comfortable in the objective moral systems thing Tom is saying that you can have an objective moral system without a God I don't necessarily know I I'm not sure that I'm fully aware of Tom's position or your position drew if you have a moral system that has rules that are objectively part of the natural universe that that we will all like every community would agree upon how is that set of rules nessus like necessary how is it God necessary to that set of rules drew what what is your argument there okay so basically what I'm saying I'm saying within a natural well how do you get a a moral framework like it's not clear to me that you can have a force like gravity but just shift that to like murders wrong rape is wrong what is that like how does that exist within a natural universe exactly like I mean my point here is that you're talking about something metaphysical at this point are you not I mean like yeah so like it doesn't appear to me that you can just say that it's this like you can have a big bang and then all the sudden it amidst all the molecules there's murder is wrong the murders are wrong as described something and it describes it's it's a language description it's irrelevant to the statement I can say morality itself the essence of morality can come from a law of nature and mortar murder is wrong as a statement that describes what that essence is so like murder is wrong wouldn't describe God's nature right I mean I mean you could I guess you could I would have to think about that more but I mean if you if you're sort of– you that gets into like what is God like they're right I mean like do you want to go down that road sort of so God has some nature and what morality is is like God's nature right I think God's nature informs what he would say he would like like it God's nature informs what he would declare his morality sure so can God declare something immoral as moral can God lie can God tell people to do immoral things I don't think God can lie okay so and so he can't lie which means he's determined by his nature his nature causes him to decree certain things and not other things right sure so his nature is what defines morality his nature then tells him what he's going to decree but his nature is what defines morality correct yeah sure why not all right so we just get rid of the decree now we have pantheism we just have a nature and the nature defines morality and it's just a part of the the naturalistic pantheism so we have the same it works the same way the God does we just get rid of the decree like it I think I think it actually could you define pantheism for me really quick I want to make sure we're thinking about the same thing here so naturalistic pantheism is just the is an internal a powerful universe just with the gods properties without the consciousness okay so it's the gods properties without the consciousness pretty much okay I mean let me think about that actually I don't I don't think I've considered that then so I'll just give you a better understanding yet properties are eternal all-powerful all-knowing all-loving personal consciousness sure sure yeah change out what those properties for example if you get rid of personal you get deism or you get just an impersonal God yeah rid of personal unconscious you get pantheism which is just the eternal a powerful universe and you can get polytheism with many gods or trans theism where there's something above a god or get Pastafarianism with the spaghetti monster there's lots of different ways you can play with those traits to get a lot of different alternatives and the one I'm going with here is just the eternal powerful universe eternal all-powerful universe with the moral law yeah with the moral law Tom what how are you defining your objective moral framework because it seems to me you have the same problem on your side you're correct so yeah Adam what you're bringing up is that the theists definition of objective isn't objective they claim its objective but it's not there's a big there's some big massive problems with their definition and I'm just going to assume they're right and have dropped the exact same definition they're using no I agree with you that it doesn't actually work but I'm going to because they think it does work I'm just going to adopt that same position even if it doesn't work and use that as a basis to show there's an alternative but but your question leads into the fact that the theists position of objective morality isn't objective a god decree a morality doesn't give us an objective morality right drugs well you're you're saying you you've claimed before in other videos and other debates that you have a a secular version of morality that is in fact objective correct I use an abstract ideal kind of perspective of an objective so I use a completely different approach entirely but right now I'm just the trick just addressing right right right but since it since it definitely overlaps with what we're talking about can you lay out that argument for us and maybe drew can attempt to steal man that argument that takes like 20 minutes to go through that argument that's a really tough argument but just give us a tweet version tweet version so my position of objective morality is the description of the best of all possible worlds for all possible will so if we can give a description an abstract description of what the best of all possible worlds could look like for everyone that would be an objective basis of morality what would it be for everyone or would it be like utilitarian would it be for for most people no I'd be for everyone everyone everyone including Hitler really okay yes and so if we can give like an abstract description of the perfect triangle like we can't actually draw a perfect triangle because if we zoom in to the electrons the electrons are going little bubble shapes is literally impossible to draw a perfectly straight line so it's absolutely impossible for us to draw a perfectly straight triangle but we can use the abstract idea of this perfect triangle to get as close as possible in the world we can so we use this abstract idea of the best of all possible worlds as a guide to get as close as possible as you can given our pragmatic limitations in this world right so but this would involve something like genetic engineering or something like that because obviously you have jobs that people don't want to do but you're theoretically making a universe where they're happy doing those crappy jobs that nobody wants to do is that is that what you're going for no this would be more like the matrix where everybody gets your own universe you can do whatever you want with it right okay so even though the people doing the shitty jobs perceive themselves as being high status individuals that's that's the scenario no the best of all possible worlds for all possible ills is one where every single person gets their own universe they get to do whatever they want with it how how is this how would this I mean the abstracts are great but how does this is this practical in the real world we use the ideal to try and get as close as possible as we can for example stop lights by my definition would be immoral because you're forcing people to stop without their consent and so if we get to the technological point where there's no longer a consequence to getting rid of stoplights they would become immoral and so we should get rid of them so if we go ahead like AI cars that could drive without stoplights it would be immoral to make people use stoplights because it doesn't save lives anymore or if we had a way to feed all humanity without eating meat it would no longer be moral to kill animals because it's an unjustified imposition on the will of the animals so we can use this to say as we gain in technology we should allow each individual as much freedom as possible so long as they don't impose on the freedom of others or something like that it's really complicated argument still want to stick to just just the topic of the debate for a little bit longer yeah we can do that no yeah we're fine like like I said I'm not entirely focused on on winning here I wanted us to be productive and I this is I told you before we started I thought this is where it's gonna go yeah so in terms of the pantheism thing I mean if you want to say that uh that there's an all-powerful could you give me the other trait really quick I'll powerful eternal universe all-powerful and eternal universe so it's basically God without without consciousness right correct okay okay that's fine all right so yeah if you're willing to grant that cuz that wouldn't you I as a guide by most definitions because it doesn't have the consciousness but I find it okay cool no I I'm like I told you I'm not here to like if if it takes me conceding this point for us to move to something more grounded I'm fine do that all right yeah like I I want to have discussion about morality and objective morality I I don't wanna have a discussion about pantheism and it sends it out strictly I understand which I yeah I understand why you're why you're why you're going down this route I thought this was the most effective route to talk about why morality can be I disagree with your point about about God if God created God created it what you're saying is it's it's if if God created morality is contingent upon God right so so it's not it's not necessarily existing this is what kind of my point of bringing up so is it objectively the case that that's uh that the acceleration due to gravity is what it is yes yes but it could have been different correct so the fact that is contingent does not make it subjective correct that's what I'm saying about morality God could have created the same type of law that is the same type of thing that government's the acceleration due to gravity but just because this contingent does not necessarily mean a subjective that's my point all right so just the reason I brought up the pantheism was just to show that there are different ways to have an objective morality without a god for example like an undiscovered law of nature or like a platonic object or like an ideal abstract idea so would you grant that point there are other ways to have objective morality there are other ways to have objective morality if you are ascribing to some sort of distorted view of like I mean it's but you're basically what you're talking about is a God without consciousness I mean because the main the main work being done by God here is the all-powerful part would you agree if if you're saying that what if you're serious from your perspective most theists would disagree most most theists think the consciousness is the most important part from my perspective but if that I'm okay with you so just my yeah my my main point is the it's turning a subjective into an objective is is the part I'm concerned with the fact that it's conscious I'm not really sure yeah that's I'm concerned with creating a subjective claim and turning that into an objective one bites some sort of enact action by by the unit if you want to call it the universe that's fine I don't okay so are you familiar with platonic objects forms yes okay so a platonic object is an object that exists it exists independent of our opinion so it would be objective correct sure I am NOT I'm not well versed in platonic forms are they necessarily existing the way you use necessary contingent is kind of strange to me in philosophy they're used in a slightly different way so I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the date could they okay so if something exists necessarily could not not exist it's my point right am I am i misunderstanding something about the word necessarily existing it usually doesn't go with existing there's no such thing as a necessarily existing there are necessary truths and contingent truths but they aren't necessarily existing true so don't go together so like a necessary truth is like all squares have four sides a contingent truth and all bachelors are under nine feet tall sure sure yeah but do you don't you don't think something could exist necessarily you think that there are discussions about that in philosophy I've had them with with doctors I mean right philosophy right now is that no existence is not a predicate you can't have a necessary existing thing that's that's okay once again you're appealing to consensus here that is not just because in the terms yes that's right people who understand the terms okay look I've this this existence is not a predicate thing like I've I've talked with doctor people with PhDs you disagree I'm just saying that consensus here just that you've appealed the consensus twice I don't think it's relevant I'm sure you don't but it is I mean if you don't realize it that's fine but it is so if one person thinks something and it's the truth does it matter what everybody else thinks if you could get to the truth no but we can't get to the truth so you have we have to go to on probabilities but going back to the point again so platonic objects exist independent of our minds which makes them objective because again if we go back to our definition of objective it was something that exists independent of opinion correct sure so if a platonic object exists independent of our opinion then it's objective correct sure and immorality can be a platonic object which is one of the common arguments in philosophy so that would make it objective correct sure okay so there's there's now there's two ways to have a morality without a God one is with pantheism one with I'm not sure they put like objects kid exists without a God but I mean like again I'm I understand what you're saying I'm having a hard time like I'm having a hard time understanding how objects that are like so it's you're saying that there's something physical in the universe that is a perfect is this the form of a perfect triangle yes that's what platonic forms are yes that's that's what I was clarifying yeah I guess I guess my question is do you think it's reasonable to believe that that's the case no this is just an example of what's a possible alternative of an objective morality not actually I'm just going through different possibilities here yeah it's also possible we're made of cheese right yes it's possible okay yeah this yeah okay okay yeah this is yeah okay so this is essentially what I was saying when I was not concerned about okay so what basically what I'm concerned about is the implications of objective morality in terms of people believing in God or whatever now I understand that the topic of the debate was phrased in such a way that we are actually talking about whether or not it's the case that like we're essentially talking about infinite possibilities here and we're hanging our hat on almost anything is possible there there are things that our I mean we're talking about the things that exist in the way so like the things that are exists objectively and also necessarily like it like necessary truths like squaw triangle can't also be a square I mean those are the things that were like we're having a conversation about like if morality isn't like that and it doesn't exist in the way that I'm talking about right so the point I'm making is that your belief that a God has a basis of objective morality is equivalent to platonic objects having a basis of objective morality which is equivalent to and I'm just love nature being a base of objective morality none of these are more or less reasonable to believe they're all equivalent there are lots of different ways to ground an objective morality they are all equally I would say unreasonable to believe in this case okay what what makes them objective Tom that's a really good question Adam well you're you're saying that multiple that there's multiple objective moralities that's like saying that there's multiple you know distances of the earth to the Sun it's just that's not the case the whole idea behind objectivity is that so the way theists define objective leaves open the possibility to get objective morality from many different things how are you how are you saying that they define objective independence of our minds so mind our opinion independent kind of thing right yeah so there are things like morality can exist independent of our opinions in many different ways now I don't actually agree that that necessarily makes it objective morality like I don't agree that a God based morality is objective but we can use that definition and accept it and show that it doesn't work because there's lots of different ways to do it so again just my main point here is that based off the thief that deist definition of objective morality was just grant it let's say it's true whether or not it works or not we can use that same definition and come up with many different alternatives to ground objective morality independent of a god now I choose to use one of those which is the abstract ideal approach could you explain how the abstract ideal grounds Browdy the same way is a perfect triangle like there is a there is an objectively the case than triangle has three sides and they're perfectly straight sides it's an objective thing you don't have an don't get an opinion on okay the opinion triangles are actually yes this is actually probably a good thing to talk about um okay okay could you describe okay so and you based it so you're so essentially what you're saying is that okay so if morality is like a triangle we're comparing it to the the perfect triangle or whatever if we're trying to get may create a better triangle now you talked about in your your secular objective morality you talked about the the best of all possible worlds and that's what you use as a comparison towards like like that's basically what you use is your yard stick towards measuring if we're like moving towards a better world or not right yes yes okay now I guess my point regarding your your moral system which I you have I mean you've touched on a little bit towards the beginning when Adam asked you to talk about it but I've watched the whole video I don't know if you I mean there's a lot more to it than that I think that's III guess I'm trying to figure out how you create an objective moral system from from from just looking at a so like you're still operat you still haven't okay so if you have the best of possible worlds you still needed some sort of normative claim saying that we should move towards the best of all possible worlds no I don't actually make the normative claim we should move towards the best of all possible it's just a descriptive claim saying this is the best of all possible worlds yeah but if you created morals if you're trying to create a moral system out of that you're not creating a moral system but there's a zero more like you're saying you're creating a moral system with no normal normative claims at all right I'm getting rid of the AUSA's you're just descriptive claims I'm saying that morality is a description of the best of all possible worlds and the description of whether or not we're moving a way toward towards it or away from it so wait so any sauce that's buddy morality is a description of the best of all possible worlds correct okay I mean I mean that's that's now you defined in your video when you were talking about this I mean yeah the introduction to morality morality is how we determine what is right and wrong and can you give us the definition that you started with drew yeah morality is the principles or criteria used to judge what is right or wrong you're talking about normativity here you're not talking about descriptions of the universe correct and then when I go deeper into it I explain the way we determine when it's right or wrong we make a comparison to the best of all possible worlds but you're making no normative claims as we shouldn't move towards that necessarily correct is just a descriptive claim it's saying what is right and what is wrong is a descriptive claim of what is so why are you why are you using the term morality here that you're not actually it's not a morality you're just talking about descriptions of the universe morality is not defined crime concretely there is no solution to objective morality yet there isn't an agreed-upon solution it's not a solved there may not be in a so but that means that it's open-ended what we can define is it or not there are certain kinds of things which stand in it calls strange and versions of reasoning where we take what seems to be the case and we change it in some really drastic way to get to a better answer like what quantum mechanics did and what Einstein's general relativity and same space-time can bend and what Darwin did by saying complex things can come from simple things so I'm what I'm doing is counterintuitive I agree with that I am detaching the normative we Ott's from morality and just making a descriptive claim and that's my solution to the Ishrat problem so it's my thought that's not a solution to the assault he's actually a solution it's not because no I agree no look the is our distinction is a problem because you're like you're not solving B is a problem by just talking about B is–is that's not a solution that's just saying I'm only going to talk about half this conversation no drew drew can you define drew can you define the assault problem for the audience who might not know well yeah the idea is that you can't get a descriptive claim from a normative claim which is you can't you which which is basically saying that you can't say light you can't say that the you can't you get from an is yeah the idea is you can't say just because something is you ought to do something you need some sort of moral framework in between to get you between those two things and raise he's saying he solved the is aught problem because he's only talking about is that's not a solution you're just talking about half the no that's exactly a solution in philosophy if it platform doesn't apply to your moral claim then you've solved the problem because it's no longer a problem for your moral problem what you've redefined a moral here is just descriptions of the universe correct that's my solution to the azan problem that that works is called a strange inversion of reasoning there is a basis for that in philosophy you can do that that ok yeah like look you're you are redefining morality here correct because there is no objective definition of morality there is not a correct definition which means we can do that and try to I mean you can you can define it however you want I'm just saying that what you're talking about is not what 99% of people consider it to be morality and so like what I'm saying is we're talking for anything no no hey you're mischaracterizing what I'm saying I'm not saying that it's right that morality should be defined this way because everybody thinks it that way that's all I'm saying I'm saying we're having a conversation over here and you're having a conversation over here we're not talking about the same thing we're talk I have I have one picture in my mind what I'm having this conversation you have a different picture in your mind when are having this conversation true can you explain to us the two visions of morality his vision and and the one that you say most people are using yeah his vision is Mariah yeah so his vision is essentially he's defining morality is essentially descriptive claims about the universe in comparison to the best possible world correct is that want to make sure I'm not what most people think about morality is we're talking about normative claims about behavior it's sometimes people talk about like the in the context of a group of people we're talking about so we're talking about ought claims in the context of a sometimes a group but we're really talking about human behavior maybe even conscious behavior if you want to not limit it to humans so like like what you're talking about is is I don't like any eye why are you using the word morality I'm not sure whether there's better use for morality you're used for morality is flawed and incomplete and it makes problems and it's completely incoherent my use is more accurate and works better to describe what morality actually is okay if we seek it Tom can you give us your definition of morality again he drew Dru's said it twice but I never I don't know that we've heard you say it Tom mm-hmm so there's the definition morality is the principles we use to describe what is right and wrong and then the principles I use to describe what is right and wrong is the description of the best of all possible worlds so it's not necessarily the rights and wrongs but it's a system of describing those rights and wrongs correct so you so like if I commonly people make the claim like murderers wrong and they want to say that that is an objective claim you're not saying that that claim is objective you're saying that your system to illuminate that claim is what's objective correct okay yeah drew and drew you're saying you're you're you're using a more a more traditional I I'm using a traditional definition of morality because I think when you have a the title of a conversation called morality people come to watch that conversation because they think you're talking about a subject now what is that traditional view of morality like this yeah you're saying the set of rules but the principles or criteria used to judge what is right and wrong that is a there may be stuff you want to add in I'm fine but it is somewhere in that universe when we're talking about morality well no you're the definition you're using is specifically contingent on actions done by beings or consciousnesses right because I'm using the same definition that morality is the criteria used to determine what is right and wrong my definite my morality does that the difference between our definitions is that yours is contingent on actions done by being okay that's a good clarification could you actually describe to me how you could determine something is right or wrong within your definition of morality the same way all moral systems do with moral intuition well progress as a guide can you give me a single example our society today is more moral than society's and past because we allow really acceptance of LGBT community when we didn't before we don't burn witches we don't put people in slavery because of the color of our skin okay why are those things bad though because of moral intuition and world progress that's how we define so you're saying just wait so okay that's our experience of more like you so okay so you're talking about our intuitions and forming morality yes that's how epistemic ly we get to an understanding the more okay so you're okay with Ted Bundy's intuitions being moral no Ted but we all humans the way morality is justified by theists and atheists in ethics is we use moral intuition more progress as how we discover morality is kind of like gravity we see gravity because things fall and we say well this is something then we have to describe this something so moral intuition moral progress is how everyone in ethics uses as the grounds to say there is such a thing as morality wait okay so moral progress could you I'm sorry we're like where there's a lot of redo please describe me moral progress in a world where we're just describing things moral progress is something in this world that we have now just something we observe like gravity gravity falls it's independent of my theory of the best of all possible worlds moral progress in philosophy is the description that we see the modern societies as having progressed morally and become morally superior to past societies for example by being more accepting of the LGBT community present people by the color of her skin by what metric what by what metric are you saying that we're better than we were before you would have to ask the philosophers and just Google Stanford encyclopedia philosophy moral progress because that's the philosophy that's not me that's not my definition okay so what you're telling me is that we've made progress okay compared to the way we used to be that's the definition in philosophy of moral progress yeah so what but why is it progression why you ask the philosopher ok question about your position and your choice this is not my vision this is a definition of philosophy you have to ask the philosophers that one this has nothing to do with my position this is just the ground ok basically ok this is a very simple question why is what used to be worse than today because for there to be progress there has to be some discrepancy but in philosophy this is not my position this is a Mott the modern standardized definition of moral progress comes from the field of law no I'm not clay I'm not claiming it's your Oscars basis on the Stanford encyclopedia philosophy okay look I I'm trying to figure out what you're like I don't care if it's your position I'm trying to figure out how there's a comparison being made here is this is this something related to your view about the best possible worlds I know no no this is this is the foundation of all of ethics in every field of philosophy is the moral intuition well progress it is everything and ethics it's the basis for the theist model of morality in spaces for the atheist model yeah okay can what what did what prompted you to talk about someone's views other than yourself when I asked you that question like what like why are you bringing up somebody else what is my basis of us how do I justify something about my basis on how we determine one thing is right or wrong and I said I use moral intuition moral progress which is the same thing that every model of morality okay so it is your position right it's the basis of every model of morality but okay if it's your position it doesn't matter if you made it if it's your position explain it like I'm trying to understand what your position is and you won't explain it you're telling me to go Google somebody right because I don't need to explain this this is philosophy this is the basis of every view of ethics if you reject this you reject ethics okay give me a justification for saying that now is worse or better I don't know this is the basis you just said it's about justification like all of ethics this is I don't want to go into a detailed discussion of other philosophers work this has been dissed you just set your position on the basis of their work yes if you want to know what their work is go look at their work this is not contingent on my position specifically this is contingent on all of ethics if you want to know something about the entire field of ethics no research ethics don't philosophers disagree on ethics different philosophers have different ethical framework yes like just what do you mean like Bentham and Hume have completely different moral philosophies like every Mont every model of morality in ethics every ethicists basis ethics on moral intuition moral progress that's it those are the two options those are what you got every single one of them I I have a book I haven't mentioned I this is great this has been a great discussion we're going on fifty fifty minutes here and I have a bunch of questions so I want to give both of you guys a closing argument and just I mean do do you have any do you have any questions I kind of jumped in the middle I don't want to cut you off if you for him yeah if you're trying to get a question no I I think like look I mean I wanted it to be product I don't know I'm not sure it was productive yeah I hear him on when we were actually talking about objective morality and in pantheism I I think that those are at least on base when I asked him questions about other things I'm not sure that that was productive like once again I said that I was willing to concede things to have a productive conversation like the pantheism thing I'm find it can see as long as we can talk about things that I view as productive but I think it's gotten less productive I yea frankly I'm not sure that I don't I don't have any questions I'm not sure like for the last 15 minutes I'm not sure we talked and Tom do you have any closing questions yeah the topic of the debate was can you have an objective morality without a god and I demonstrated yes you can here are several ways that you can have objective morality without God we started talking about my personal subjective interpretation of what objective morality is we got into the weeds cuz that's a different topic the topic was can you have objective morality without God yes you obviously can that was kind of the point and if you want to lead into a more complicated discussion about my personal view of objective morality I'd have to actually prepare all of my stuff there to be ready for that specific conversation she's not what I was expecting to have I was just saying yeah yeah I I was a concerned this was going to happen and I actually was I was considering suggesting changing the question but I felt that that would be unfair because I felt he was going to go this way as soon as I started looking at your videos I I told Adam before this why it's like I think we're gonna go into platonic forms and he didn't believe me I I never believed anyone no no I hey you should trust my intuitions more man like I I I understand why this went there and I like trust me I I understand what you're doing here I it's literally the topic no no look that's that's why I that's why I said I didn't think it would be fair to suggest to Adam that it was changed I I would I was preparing for something I think we were both preparing for different things frankly well let's go to questions and then you guys can do if you want to have a more detailed discussion about my model of morality particularly discussion about that you know yeah sure know that that's fine yeah so the first question is PSA suggests how can objective morality exist if we don't know what happens when we die I don't I don't even know how to answer that I don't think we need to know how we could die for objective morality to exist it's a distinction between epistemology and ontology how we know things and things existing like if it's true independent of how we existing it's subjective and so whether or not we know it is relevant does its objective objective tivity can exist independent and whether or not we know it I agree with that yeah but but if if we if if there's information from after death and we aren't privy to well it doesn't matter like it's objectively true yeah they exist or they don't exist yeah come on jeez it's like the truth is out there was that a serious question I think you may have asked that before it started is like a poky thing sunbro says I wonder if there is any meaningful distinction between the idea of God and truth we can't prove truth in a similar manner if we can't prove God so so our truth and God of inter interchangeable no I mean it's it's I think therefore I am is an objective truth I mean it oh my god no there's not the same thing 1 plus 1 equals 2 is an objective truth is that is that God no they're totally separate things do you have a comment yes sure I think that's fine yeah okay I'm not sure that those things are entirely connected yeah I think that if you yeah you if God exists there may be some connection between him and the truth but I don't think that I think truth can exist without God so question for drew how is your oral framework dependent on the existence of God I believe that God created a moral framework when he created the universe so so his so it's just dependent on the fact that if there was no God this framework would have never been created is that where is that your argument sure yes okay yeah no God doesn't exist I don't believe that there are morals so so Tom a question for you how do you enforce your ethics without a God you don't it's not about ethics it's a description it's describing what the best of the possible is it's not actually forcing us to do it there's no enforcement there so this is this is the equivalent of setting up a game don't don't all games need some sort of referee though well they need rules but you don't have to follow the rules you just be not following the rules so for my if you don't follow my rules it would just mean you're not being moral there's no punishment there you're just not a moral person right okay writer John Buck says question for Tom jump if morality is like a law of nature such as gravity does this not violate Humes guillotine which is Humes guillotine has to do with the is odd distinction that we were argue about and I I think is is a description of the world like facts are is is and oughts tend to be values like I ought not record labels yeah prescriptive claims so does it vile he does your system violate humans guillotine no because if morality is a law of nature than it is descriptive it's describing something that exists in the world it's not it's not a prescriptive anymore what well yeah he's completely redefining it it has nothing to do with normativity from what I understand right yeah it's just not just wouldn't be prescriptive normative just means applies to everyone equally okay we're yeah we're operating under different differences I'm just normative is essentially the way that you're using prescriptive is that under the definition I'm using yeah I'm just yeah I was taught differently that's fine it doesn't matter it's that we're not disagreeing here is just a disagreement between difference yeah writer John buck question for drew is free choice necessarily for morality almost free choice necessary for morality yes a lot implies can yeah I think that if I mean if you can't choose then I think that yeah I think that I'm not sure how you would create a moral system about what you ought to do if you can't choose behavior just in a practical sense I don't want I'm not gonna go in it for it I would have to think about it more but my my baseline intuition is that if you can't choose otherwise there's no point in talking about what people ought to do because they can't do otherwise the writer John buck is in the chat asking and I think this is directed at Tom and I it's a question I have to what is what is the morality describing if you're saying that your moral system is just a descriptive system what is it describing the best of all possible worlds for all possible ills so the best of all possible worlds for all possible players in that world essentially all possible wills like beans so this is this is a matrix type situation no no no it's not like a matrix issue it's like people actually have their own universe it doesn't have to be like a simulation yeah the matrix is one possibility way to describe it like in a now well I'm just saying like in the physical universe that we live in a lot of times one person's desires come at the expense of another person and that is a problem of moralities right we would need to live in a completely different world to be able to achieve this festival possible we don't live in the best of all possible right now right but you're saying that that is the objective morality that is that is what we should that's the objective standard is the best of all possible worlds writer John bucks says question for Tom if naturalistic pantheism is true and the universe is not conscious does that mean that conscious creatures such as ourselves are not part of the universe no so like you can be my hand is not conscious but it's still a part of me like it doesn't doesn't need to be like this camera is not conscious but it's not a part of me either so you could have consciousness as individual subsets of a bigger whole and not have it be the whole like like just to add on to that I don't think that the universe we currently live in is conscious so I don't think that yeah I doubt that the universe itself is conscious that we're living so just because the the universe that we live in is likely unconscious doesn't mean that it affects our consciousness necessarily or these we're talking about the universe is like an entity from what I understand yeah it's it's not it's not like there's no consciousness in the universe it's that the universe itself is not conscious is what he's saying exactly yeah now Tom you had mentioned that you can have multiple objective moral systems how is that possible you can't have multiple objective moral systems at the same time they can't like all exist in the same universe they're gonna be one at a time but there are different possibilities of what that might be so it's like there can't be multiple all-powerful beings they're gonna be one all-powerful being but there are different candidates for what the all-powerful being might be maybe it's Yahweh maybe it's Brahman maybe it's the Thor or Zeus or whatever there's lots of different possibilities of what it might be but there can only be one of them which is actually true gacho drew what essential element does God interject to make morality objective I would see primarily the the work is being done by the all-powerful piece can you elaborate the extent to the essential elements of God what I what is the question again could you rephrase that what what what essential element or property does god interject it into moral systems to make a moral system objected to makes a moral system the the rules of the moral system objectively right or wrong let me let me rephrase a little bit how morality different from one that I make up God why why explain that judges they got his God more God is different than than we are on a benevolent omniscient omnipresent all those things we're not those things and so those things make his morality objective where ours would be no all I'm saying about the the objective versus subjective in terms of God is that I believe he could make subject if problems objective by declaring them so he's all-powerful I believe he could do that okay so it's because he's all-powerful he can make it that's why I can see it on the pantheism thing because I think the work is being done by the all-powerful part yeah so last question question for Tom you mentioned intuition a lot and moral progress what is the difference between intuition human intuition and revelation well revelation is like a something given to you from some external source usually intuition is just a feeling you have when you see something so intuition could be a revelation like there is a mathematician Ramanuja in who claimed that all his math was a revelation from the Hindu gods but intuition is usually not considered to be a revelation they're usually considered separate things even though they could be potentially the same thing could you could you repeat the question Lawrence I'm Adam what is the difference between intuition and revelation he said Thomas said many times in this debate that morality is is is formed through this moral progress that has to do with human intuition and I just seems to me I don't know he's saying human intuition I feel like the theists are constantly saying divine revelation and I feel like they're talking about the same thing I think yeah I think the question is about what's the difference between like these two these two lines of thinking I don't think he means literally what's the difference between these two words did you say I'm saying yeah intuition is something we can measure revelation is something we can't revelation is assumed intuition is demonstrate how or how why can't we measure revelation in the same way if a theist says that my moral intuition is a revelation from God and they write that revelation out and either is successful or not successful I mean you're talking about moral progress in the same way right your so you're saying this thing was caused by this other things you have to demonstrate the other things you say I have this feeling which was caused by God right it's like saying that cup was knocked over by that person you have to demonstrate the connect between those two things whereas intuition is just saying that cup was knocked over like we can observe the thing the cup being knocked over but we can't observe it with the doctor over by that other thing specifically there's the two aspects in Revelation whereas they don't was only the one in in intuition and what do you mean by the moral progress is that we're moving more towards your platonic morality nothing to do with me it's everything to do with philosophy just you can Google moral progress stanford encyclopedia philosophy it is the general impression we have that modern societies are more moral than past societies that's what moral progress is defined as in philosophy can I ask you a question actually is why did you bring up the moral progress but in this conversation I I'm having a hard time with this whether I know I asked you a question I can't remember why it came up I don't hear that question was either but it was something about what is my grounds to believe that something is moral or something is right or wrong or something like that how do we tell the difference you think there's something about Ted Bundy like why do we say Ted Bundy's Ted Bundy's intuition yeah it's like why do we say his intuitions are any different than your right let's go I'm using the same criteria that is used in moral intuition moral progress or as morally towards more progress which is how we determine there is such a thing as morality that's why I brought it up okay yeah I guess I was just yeah I was just confused why you brought it up and then like wouldn't really even talk about it well I think this has been a fascinating discussion I noticed when I'm not when I'm not actually debating I can pay a lot more attention to what both people are saying but so I mean I I got a lot out of it I think there was a lot of interesting discussion in the chat as well I'm gonna give you both a closing statement and then I'll just do I'll do some housekeeping at the end with my dates and whatnot so do you want to go do you want to go first Tom and we'll give drew the last word since he began yeah sure so my initial interpretation of the questions and I was can morality be objective without a god and my goal is just to demonstrate yes it can be here are different ways to do that that was my my attempt in this discussion what I brought up why I brought up Teutonic object I'm the undiscovered law of nature and those kind of things and I just want to thank I think thank you guys for coming on thanks Adam for inviting me I really appreciated the discussion it was really in and all let's you go yeah so all we reflected the same thanks I think regardless of how in the weeds we got I think that it was a good conversation I think that there was obviously a miscommunication about what the conversation was going to be about because I think that as soon as I reread the question as we got closer to the bait I was like oh crap I think I know where this is going and it's not where I thought I was going I think that I think it was productive nonetheless we had some we had some sort of substance of discussion towards the middle I think that definitely it would have been more interesting how we talked about the secular objective morality and the difference between morality is grounded in the idea of God rather than some sort of secular moral framework but I completely understand that that was not the question I think that I think that typically when this this conversation comes up on the internet it's it's typically that debate it's the debate between theists and Aunty theists or just atheists about the difference between or if it can there be objective morality without believing in God in a different way than this conversation took place but I am I understand why you were wanting to stay on topic so I want to say that even though I feel like it wasn't as productive as if it could have been if we had that discussion I understand why you were staying on topic because it would be not fair for us to veer off on another topic if you had prepared for something that was clearly that the topic of the debate right so so yeah I guess that's all I say we can always you know we can always tweak the question and do around – that's always a possibility I'm committed to doing debate a week on Wednesday same time same place so and I'm getting interesting offers from people so you can always DM me on Twitter which is about the best way to get a hold of me I read the comments so you could leave a comment below so I next week am going to be debating close to this topic because we're gonna be talking about is secular morality better than Christian morality I'm actually going to be debating that Christian morality is better than secular morality I'm going to be debating Sarah I don't know if it's Sarah Michelle or sir Sarah Michael so I think it's Sarah Michael so I'll be debating her next Wednesday July 17th I'll be debating Kent Hovind on Wednesday July 24th on kin evolution explain morality that question may be tweaked a little bit but it'll definitely have to do with evolution and morality so that's all for this week thank you so much for your time and we'll see you in the next video

I'll hand it to Drew, he at least understood the argument which I haven't seen from a theist yet. What he did from there was typical.

8:56 an he's already let out the rope.

And the Tjump dismantle…. ahhh good stuff.

annnd 13:16 , already on the ropes! kek.

1+1=2 is not a good example of objective truth. It's circular, since what adding 1 to 1 equates to depends on the subjective definition of 1. There are plenty of good examples, that's just not one of them.

A triangle can't also be a square? Any three points defines a triangle. A square has four points. Thus, three points of a square form a triangle.

Morality based on physical law is actually simple. Diverse competing organic self-reicating molecular patterns, at every iteration of replication, either continue another iteration, or do not. If a given pattern stops replicating, it is at that point extinct, and no possibility exists for any further replications of that pattern for all time. If, on the other hand, it replicates, then the possibility exists for yet another iteration.

Since there are diverse patterns competing for limited organic material from which to continue, only those patterns that develop methods to ensure continuation remain, whereas others become extinct.

This lays the groundwork for the fundamental moral imperative – continuation is good, extinction is bad. It is also implied that the imperative applies to that pattern to the exclusion of others.

All other moral constructions can be derived from the fundamental moral imperative. For example, a species whose specimens destroy each other would be in a weak competitive position compared to competing species, and would thus be more susceptible to becoming extinct. Therefore, it is (generally) morally wrong (from that species's perspective) to destroy other members of the same species. Thus, Thou shalt (i.e. ought) not kill, follows from the fundamental moral imperative.

If morality were to from (one) God in order to be objective, then the morality is objective from man's perspective, but not necessarily from all other perspectives.

Drew keeps on saying, "I thought this is where the conversation would go" and "Now we're going down this route, of course whenever he doesn't understand what's going on in the conversation.

I’ve always though the solution to a square circle is by using a higher special dimension. As in you could have a 3D object that from two different perspectives look like either a square or circle. That 3D object could be called a square circle.

Im from a civilization in the distant past that discovered technology so that everyone could be the god of their own universe and derive their own objective morality. T Jump agrees that this is possible and even ennevitable.

Also, I AM the god of your universe and i derived my own objective morality for you to follow. T Jump thinks this is an insane, illogical impossibility.
Am i wrong?

Well done TJump – good showing and great points.
I don't think Drew was prepared for this discussion – he was all over the place.

Tom would you debate a moral subjectivist? your arguments work well against theist moral objectivists but I'm not sure they'd hold up against atheist moral subjectivists

Hey guys. Been reading some of the comments here and wanted to clarify a couple of things.

1. I should’ve been more careful when describing my position to Adam, the host, because there was clearly a miscommunication about it, so the topic of the debate was different than what I actually believe. I said I knew we were going to go the platonic objects route prior to the conversation, because if I was arguing Tom’s side that is exactly what I would do. Because the topic was already decided, rather than asking for a change of topic at the last second, which would not be fair for Tom because he would’ve been preparing for the topic at hand, I did my best to argue for a position that I myself do not believe is super reasonable. I conceded in this debate for good reason. Tom won the argument. Clearly it is possible object morality can exist without God. I did my best to argue for this position for the sake of doing what I committed to.

2. There are some attacks on my intelligence in the comment section here, and I suspect that is primarily because I was trying to rationalize a bad position as best as I possibly could. This may come across as me ascribing to an unreasonable position and attempting to rationalize it because I am committed to it despite it being unreasonable, but I assure you this is not the case.

3. I asked a lot of questions in this debate that were off topic because I was trying to understand the totality of Toms position on secular objective morality. He pushed back in several places and told me to refer to other people’s work. This frustrated me because I was trying to understand, but frankly it was outside the scope of what this debate was, so I don’t blame Tom for doing this at all. If this was a debate about his particular position then I think criticism here would be warranted, but it was not about his position or version of secular objective morality. The topic of the debate did not require him to talk about it to win (which he clearly did). Part of the reason I pressed Tom so much on the moral intuitions thing he brought up is because of my background in psychology, and what I know about the relevant research regarding differences between people’s moral intuitions(they vary across groups. There is no agreement psychologically speaking on what is moral). Peaked my interest and Toms refusal to explain it frustrated me.

4. I have seen some comments saying I am angry, or people trying to analyze my body language. There are only a couple of things I would say about this. I’m an assertive person, and that comes across as anger or aggression sometimes. I wasn’t ever angry, I was frustrated at a couple points but I never was, and still am not angry at Tom. Our interactions off stream before and after we’re friendly. When discussing ideas things will almost always get heated, but that doesn’t mean I’m mad at him. Regarding my body language all I would say is be careful when trying to evaluate body language, especially when you don’t know the person you are trying to evaluate. Body language analysis is subject to a large amount of personal bias and people often read into what they are seeing a lot. It can be a useful nonverbal method of communication for people you know, because you can compare their current body language to how they usually act. People pointed out that I was rocking back and forth or something and suggested I was angry because of that. I assure you that isn’t the case. I deal with some minor anxiety and when I’m in a stressful situation, such as a heated conversation or even a particularly morbid movie, I tend to display weird body language and breathing patterns. I often don’t notice them myself until someone else points them out like my girlfriend or something.

5. I said from the beginning that I was willing to concede as long as the conversation was productive, because I don’t hold any personal value in the argument I was making. I did concede, and Tom played the argument exactly as she should have. I feel that this was a productive conversation because it led me to think about some other topics that came up during the conversation that were off topic but interesting about things like consensus.

Finally, my objective is to better understand people’s positions and help other people realize that people that disagree on a lot, me and Tom disagree on likely everything, can have heated and interested conversations without hating each other. I don’t care if the audience here disagrees with all of my positions, which weren’t really expressed in this conversation at all, as long as people understand we don’t have to call anyone stupid or evil when we disagree.

If you the time to read this or watch the video, thanks.

Also, once again thanks for the interesting conversation yesterday Tom.

As I said the animal kingdom is just a physical perception of reality. I question our being a part of it in terms of our self determining consciousness which is controlling this physical perception of reality up until we commit that choice of action into the physical perception at which time the laws of physics take control of our projected intention. For example I can throw a ball hard or soft. Up until I form the intent my muscles must wait for input.
Once I make my choice and commit it by sending a signal to those muscles I am in control of the process of forming INTENT..
That actually points to the concept of the SPIRIT that controls that action. If I am operating out of a spirit of anger I might throw the ball with the intent to bean the batter. or if I am operating under a spirit of fear of consequences or spirit of sportsmanship I might resist the temptation to throw a bean ball. What would the spirit of Truth and Right and Love tend to make me do with that pitch?
And now you can see how the god of highest moral authority is connected to the god of the laws of physics creation and ruler of the universe.

Remarkable chat. From a psychological point of view, it was interesting to watch Drew's body language as his beliefs were challenged methodically. Rocking back and forth, vocal pitch and couched anger – all signs of very human/primate behavior when we are confronted by an opposing human/primate. Ironically, the behavior alone is a basic demonstration of Tom's position of how subjective ideas either morph into shared intentionality or diverge into subsets of objectivity.

I don't understand how any theist can think morality based on God is any more objective than morality based in any other agent.

Man, I'd like to have a conversation with Drew.

Host is so dense. Tom, at 34 minutes, isn’t saying there are multiple objective moralities. Tom’s point is that there is no reason to believe there is any difference between the 3 he describes. Tom’s posting out the Absurdity by comparison (Reductio ad absurdum). The Christian god is no better explanation than his 2 other explanations, therefore has no better basis for acceptance than is other 2 examples.

Tom totally dominates to the point the Christian concedes that the universe doesn’t need to be created by a conscious agent! 🤨 Therefore, Occam's razor, the least amount of assumptions should be excepted over one explanation with more assumptions. Christians add the unnecessary assumption of god, not necessary, no reason to accept the idea of an agent being needed for objective morality.

Loved how you came out of the gate Tom. I have never understood how theists can claim that their concept of objective morality is subject to the existence of their preferred God belief. That makes it subjective.

What is ironic and hilarious is that CS Lewis describes hell the same way Tjump defined "the best possible world" in The Great Divorce. Who's opinion is correct? Is it hell or the "best" possible world? be careful what you wish for, Tjump may get exactly what he wishes.

"The BEST of all possible worlds". Who decides what the "best" is, or what is that based on? This is so circular.

Ought the speed of light be what it is? I it's a law of nature, so it must be. E=mc2 is a description of the way the universe is, not some ethereal entity that causes nature to be as it is.

“I knew he was going to bring up platonic objects”
Yes, because it demonstrates that you’re wrong, thus winning the debate.

16:50

If TJump accepts a Google search to reach the "fact" that the highest form of accepted science is achieved through an appeal to consensus then he should accept my Google search that states that Gravity is not a law.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass.

19:08 Adam asks Drew to actually make an argument to support his position, and Drew immediately asks Tom a question. 🤦‍♂️

I think the best way to understand TJ is to ask him questions where he can reply and give his answers. THEN you get to understand where he is coming from and then later after UNDERSTANDING his position–then you can DEBATE him on that topic on another show.

Classical circuitous thinking by believers in a god or God: God exits and then end it with God exist. The atheists, on the other hand, start their thinking from not knowing that God exists and end it with thinking that they do not know if a god or God exists.
In other words, all of us, when talking/thinking about god or God, start with non-facts and end all our thinking with non-facts.
So, why debate nonfacts?????? I don't and never will. So, let's drop it! But let's not drop attacking the Hebraic and the Jewish words [aka OT, NT]. To me both books are very evil, silly at times, confused and Neve rot become understandable; yet had hurt people and will forever harm them!

Shocking but true: Ro 11:34 says that God has a mind. Which, I assume, contains all morality and/or laws. But Paul says that no one can know God's mind. Ro 3:4 says that all of us lie. But since God makes all there is now and will be making more and more of it in the future, that proves God makes us or forces us to lie and deprives us of what He knows.
Furthermore, according to the scribes of the Jewish word [NT], no one is good; all of us sin; thanks to the Jewish and Hebraic words for that fact.
Yes, God made us fallible, flighty, frighty, farcy, fearful and feared, at sea, and sinful and then keeps on punishing us for being how God wanted us to be, act, etc.
And people dare call it objective morality?????

That was a pretty good debate, though TJumps moral system seemed rather similar to secular humanism in my opinion.

Also, when asked about moral progress, I think I would have just responded that we're better today with respect to the axioms of morality than we were in the past.

Do a lot of people conflate what they think and say and all that exists outside their skins? And then make a perilous mistake by projecting what they know or think they know on what clearly exists outside their skins and the probability that we will not ever know all we want and need to know.

Obviously, if the gods of the Hebraic and of the Jewish word exist; then, they also make us do all we do. So, gods' moralities exist. And if only Allah exists; the IT also rules all humans, but does not make us feel his mastery of us.
And the ancient Biblical scribes even go so far to claim that god, h.s., and jesus live in the believers of god or jesus and the trio in them; making them, thus, holy and blameless [Heb 2:11].
And there is a claim Heb 8:6-13 which says that god or gods will make all believers perfect one day.

You humiliated yourself. You looked like a smug pretentious dick who was talking out of his assistant.

Maybe you didn't get any meaningful pushback in this one, but at least you got Drew thinking. It's something:D

Btw, this chat seems a little bit, let's say… unsophisticated. TJump obviously has a superior following:D

PS
Well you surely got me thinking, so how do you account for the normativity on this view?

46 Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

1.0 You have an Inner Teacher
Articles
1.0 You have an Inner Teacher

Hello, my name is Matt. I’m starting this video series on how to help establish a relationship between yourself and your inner teacher. I would have appreciated this kind of discussion years ago and had to go to many sources to kind of put it all together. and then, How …

EarthGang – Up | A COLORS SHOW
Articles
100
EarthGang – Up | A COLORS SHOW

Just another day In these filthy sweet Atlanta streets Back on the greenback hunt One for the money and two for the loot You want to run with boo best tie your shoe I make all your dreams and nightmares come true I’ve got all that I want, now I’ve …

✅ How to Merge your Soul with a Tree ✅
Articles
14
✅ How to Merge your Soul with a Tree ✅

Blessing’s this is Trent from Dream Energy Academy and Lucid Dreaming Tea. Today’s lesson is going to be about how to merge your soul with a tree. Now when you start off you actually want to take your shoes off your feet when you do this. Any time your out …