Atheists who believe in moral truth must be nihilists.

[_beastie]

Oh, I know who this poster reminds ME of. Charles Dowis. Charles has such a knack for adopting a condescending tone, even when that condescending tone is not only unjustified but quite disconnected with the reality of the conversation. As long as you don't actually take him seriously enough to try and meaningful communicate on whatever point he is expounding, he can be quite entertaining for that reason.

I don't recall Charles being particularly interested in atheism, however, but ALID certainly has the same tone.

[_Runtu]

Oh, I know who this poster reminds ME of. Charles Dowis. Charles has such a knack for adopting a condescending tone, even when that condescending tone is not only unjustified but quite disconnected with the reality of the conversation. As long as you don't actually take him seriously enough to try and meaningful communicate on whatever point he is expounding, he can be quite entertaining for that reason.

I don't recall Charles being particularly interested in atheism, however, but ALID certainly has the same tone.

Yes, that is Charles's MO, but you're right, he's not much into the philosophy of atheism. Last time I talked to Charles was when he objected to my thread about Book of Mormon Evidence. He and I go way back to a.r.m. days.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

A: You don't sound like somebody who knows what he is talking about. What is your basis for this claim? Has somebody proven that there is no moral truth without moral realism and aggregate value theory?

Moral realism is the position that moral truth exists. And I am the one who does't know what he is talking about.

.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

A: Whether or not the universe has God is irrelevant: his proof depends upon moral realism, aggregate value theory, and infinite time.

I think his proof neglects a unique trait of God. But that is neither here nor there as far as the specific topic being examined.

[_Analytics]

ALITD: Moral realism is the position that moral truth exists. And I am the one who does't know what he is talking about.

A: The paper describes moral realism in a very specific manner, and that is what I’m referring to:

A necessary condition of a person being morally obligated to engage in an action is that the performance or consequence of the action either increases positive value or prevents the decrease of positive value. If the future is infinite, it is impossible to increase or decrease the amount of value, since there are aleph-zero hours and each hour includes at least one unit of value (even if all that is valuable is matter or energy, or slices of space, or intervals of time).

One could believe that moral truth exists without believing that the way to measure moral truth is by adding up discrete units of value over an infinite space.

I don’t pretend to be much of a philosopher. But at least I’m attempting to engage the actual arguments of the paper.

[_grayskull]

He is pointing out what Christian scholars have noted for years: that a godless, finite life when compared against the backdrop of an infinitely long universe is meaningless.

I ask you again,

Can you name a Christian scholar who "notes" what you claim above?

[_beastie]

He is pointing out what Christian scholars have noted for years: that a godless, finite life when compared against the backdrop of an infinitely long universe is meaningless.

Once again, this argument has nothing to do with what is most likely true about our universe, including the existence of a godbeing, and everything to do with what some human beings would prefer to be true.

In other words, the possibility that life is "meaningless" is not altered by the fact that some human beings really, really, dislike the idea that life may be meaningless.

Hey, I don't like the idea of some godbeing who punishes people for believing the wrong thing. But I realize that my dislike of the idea has nothing to do with the likelihood of the existence of such a being. Therefore, when I comment on the notion, I qualify that such a godbeing would not be worthy of worship, in my opinion.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

A: The paper describes moral realism in a very specific manner, and that is what I’m referring to:

A necessary condition of a person being morally obligated to engage in an action is that the performance or consequence of the action either increases positive value or prevents the decrease of positive value. If the future is infinite, it is impossible to increase or decrease the amount of value, since there are aleph-zero hours and each hour includes at least one unit of value (even if all that is valuable is matter or energy, or slices of space, or intervals of time).

One could believe that moral truth exists without believing that the way to measure moral truth is by adding up discrete units of value over an infinite space.

I don't think you read the paper carefully. Moral realism is defined therein as, "Moral realism is true if and only if particulars possess value nondependently upon whether conscious organisms believe they have value. Global moral realism is true if and only if all organisms, inanimate mass and energy, and space and time, and states of these entities, have value nondependently upon whether conscious organisms believe they have value."

That's another way of saying true moral statements exist. In other words, that there is moral truth.

[_beastie]

Besides, while the universe may be infinite, there's certainly no evidence that the existence of this planet, nor the human beings on it, is infinite.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Besides, while the universe may be infinite, there's certainly no evidence that the existence of this planet, nor the human beings on it, is infinite.

I don't think peope here are getting what Smith means by increasing value and why the finiteness of the universe matters. Take classic utilitarianism. In order for an action to be morally good, it must increase the total happiness in the universe. If the universe is infinite in a spatiotemporal sense, this is not possible. Ergo, there are no morally good actions.