Gut Feelings Equals Objective?

[POI]

Otseng stated the following: "Objective morality is more an intuitive sense and it's not defined by a list of rules."

For debate: Seems Otseng is stating that if one has strong intuition(s) about something or things, it is objectively moral?

[SiNcE_1985]

Why?

Because only a thinking mind can be intuitive...and the origins of human thinking minds is best explained by the God hypothesis.

Naturalistic explanations won't/dont work.

[POI]

Why?

Because only a thinking mind can be intuitive...and the origins of human thinking minds is best explained by the God hypothesis.

Naturalistic explanations won't/dont work.

Sorry, I'm going to need a little more than this... So far, all I'm reading is question begging. Why does this 'God hypothesis' prevail over all other given explanation(s)/hypotheses/other?

[William]

Meantime, you could engage with what I wrote. Do you agree with my evaluation?

In the meantime, I was hoping you could pick up where you dropped out much prior, in explaining why a 'god-mind' necessarily exists, simply because human minds exist? Ala -post 3809 of (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... start=3800)

Sure. I answered that I view the whole process as a mindful one. Do you have an specific questions regarding that you would like me to expand upon re my seeing said process as such?

I can say re the thread topic, that it is more than simply a "gut feeling" (as that expression is generally understood) but overall I observe what the science shows us, and see/realise/acknowledge the mindfulness therein - both with the scientists examining nature, and within that which they are examining.

Expanding a little on that - as example - I often find myself wondering why David Attenborough doesn't come out and say it when watching his nature stuff, while also understanding that he must follow certain protocol re "scientific expression" and such expression can easily be construed to being "one foot in crazy-land" and upset his support systems, perhaps even threaten them - if indeed David himself isn't someone who believes the whole process is a mindless one.
Either way, I still find myself wondering why folk don't see the obvious when they are so up close studying it.

[SiNcE_1985]

Sorry, I'm going to need a little more than this... So far, all I'm reading is question begging. Why does this 'God hypothesis' prevail over all other given explanation(s)/hypotheses/other?

First off, there are only 2 explanations that can be given.

1. God did it.

2. God didn't do it (mother nature did it).

If there is a third option, I haven't seen it yet.

Law of excluded middle = if there are only two options and one is successful negated, then the second option wins by default.

A. #2 is successfully negated.

B. Therefore, #1 wins by default.

Now of course, the devil is in the details.

But that is the gist of it, since you asked.

[POI]

it is more than simply a "gut feeling" (as that expression is generally understood) but overall I observe what the science shows us, and see/realise/acknowledge the mindfulness therein

Based upon your response, maybe it would be more efficient if we navigated/pivoted to this topic (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=260), starting at post 263? I'll recap it for you. More brains to hash this out, as I'm already engaging Mae Von and would welcome all other's input.

Seems our gut feelings do not necessitate a 'higher power' or an 'intuition giver'. Why? I'll explain...

Theists will argue we universally agree X is "bad". But in the topic of "morality", there exists 'obvious no-brainer' topics, and also many which are not so obvious. Case/point, it's a no-brainer to state that cancer is 'bad'. However, if a 'moral intuition giver' truly exists, why the wide disagreement on the many topics, which are not so cut-and-dry, like the ones listed in red on the other topic? If we all universally agree murder, theft, and cancer are bad, what about all the ones in where we disagree? Maybe the rubric is not to simply assume you receive your "moral intuitions" from a "moral giver"? Maybe the rubric instead resides upon another direction, completely void of such an assumed completely invisible assumption.

[POI]

A. #2 is successfully negated.

B. Therefore, #1 wins by default.

You replied with more question begging here. Why is #2 successfully negated?

[SiNcE_1985]

You replied with more question begging here.

No, I replied with a simple outline of the argument/position.

Why is #2 successfully negated?

Because mental states (emotions and intuitions) aren't physical entities.

A thought has no mass, color, height, length, or width.

You cannot take physical matter and form a thought.

Therefore, it is irrational to think that mental states owe it's origins to any natural phenomenon.

Not only is it illogical from that standpoint, but as I pointed out in another thread, you have a real chicken/egg problem.

You cannot naturally/logically use one to explain the origins of the other.

So, if that option is negated, guess what is the only viable option available.

The "G" word.

Yep.

[William]

it is more than simply a "gut feeling" (as that expression is generally understood) but overall I observe what the science shows us, and see/realise/acknowledge the mindfulness therein

Based upon your response, maybe it would be more efficient if we navigated/pivoted to this topic (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=260), starting at post 263? I'll recap it for you. More brains to hash this out, as I'm already engaging Mae Von and would welcome all other's input.

The link leads to a thread you created over a year ago.
It appears to have to do with your personal journey of experience as a human being and asks questions about that, in relation to "Where's God?" and gives the impression that you have (for unknown reason) being excluded even that you made certain attempt at contact.

I see I showed little interest in contributing to the topic posts, except to make it known that the question (where is God) seemed too vague to offer any answer and so the OP couldn't be understood (by me) in any particular way which made sense.
My posts in that thread convey that feeling, humorously/harmlessly.
viewtopic.php?p=1108985#p1108985
viewtopic.php?p=1109067#p1109067

brunumb "got the point" I was making...
viewtopic.php?p=1109126#p1109126

Seems our gut feelings do not necessitate a 'higher power' or an 'intuition giver'. Why? I'll explain...

Theists will argue we universally agree X is "bad". But in the topic of "morality", there exists 'obvious no-brainer' topics, and also many which are not so obvious. Case/point, it's a no-brainer to state that cancer is 'bad'. However, if a 'moral intuition giver' truly exists, why the wide disagreement on the many topics, which are not so cut-and-dry, like the ones listed in red on the other topic? If we all universally agree murder, theft, and cancer are bad, what about all the ones in where we disagree? Maybe the rubric is not to simply assume you receive your "moral intuitions" from a "moral giver"? Maybe the rubric instead resides upon another direction, completely void of such an assumed completely invisible assumption.

Maybe. How do you go about showing where else moral intuitions derive? Obviously they derive from within the human psyche, but why do they exist at all in the first place. Why did the urge to externalize the morals into the world happen?
We should agree that the survival of humanity had much to do with this, but that in itself does not mean/signify/show evidence that "therefore God (as a moral giver) does not exist" unless one also accompanies this with a clear definition of "God" and it can be shown through that, that yes indeed, we do not exist within a creation.

For example, what we call "gut feeling" (intuition et al) is something of a mystery even given it is stimulated by the fear of not surviving, but we don't know for sure whether this intuition is a product of a reaction to an outside stimulus, or an inner one which we would have, even if the "outside" were different. For example, if we didn't need to eat to survive. If we were mind unencumbered with a human form.

Generally theists argue that "God is outside of the creation itself" which is rather unhelpful and has some asking "where is God?" in relation to that argument.
Generally atheists argue that intuition is an inner thing (of the mind) and that there is no need to evoke ideas of external Gods.

I see what the theists are arguing is that "God" is mindful, and some arguing that God is a ghost of sorts (holy-spirit) which is outside of the universe as well as inside of the universe (in terms of being able to interact with humans.)

That (to me) seems over-complicated and an unnecessary explanation/reasoning and even a stumbling block.

The way I see it, if God is mindful, and so are we, then we can explain intuition (this innate ability to intuit right from wrong) as "coming from God within humans" rather than from some unspecified outside source/place.

This would mean, that the answer to the question "where is God" has something to do with looking inward (mindfully/to the mind) as the best place in which to - perhaps - come to some understanding/find the answer to the question.

The task of getting an atheist to "see" God within their own mindfulness/the mindfulness that they are, seems riddled with obstacles (stumbling blocks) - perhaps the main one being that if the human mind is the source of this "knowing" what need is there for any God? But again, the definition of God within those atheistic minds may be why they come to such a conclusion...not helped by the various competing ideas/concepts of God (as an outside influencer) which are in circulation and atheists commonly accept so they can argue against.

[POI]

You replied with more question begging here.

No, I replied with a simple outline of the argument/position.

Why is #2 successfully negated?

Because mental states (emotions and intuitions) aren't physical entities.

A thought has no mass, color, height, length, or width.

You cannot take physical matter and form a thought.

Therefore, it is irrational to think that mental states owe it's origins to any natural phenomenon.

Not only is it illogical from that standpoint, but as I pointed out in another thread, you have a real chicken/egg problem.

You cannot naturally/logically use one to explain the origins of the other.

So, if that option is negated, guess what is the only viable option available.

The "G" word.

Yep.

1) So far, what I'm reading from you is an argument from 'substance dualism'? (i.e.): Substance dualists typically argue that the mind and the body are composed of different substances and that the mind is a thinking thing that lacks the usual attributes of physical objects: size, shape, location, solidity, motion, adherence to the laws of physics, and so on. (yes-ish <or> no-ish)? If no, please redirect accordingly.

2) Evidence suggests our (personalities/thoughts/brain states/other) are directly affected by what happens to us physically. Which then begs the question, where does our mind reside?

[POI]

I see I showed little interest in contributing to the topic posts, except to make it known that the question (where is God) seemed too vague to offer any answer and so the OP couldn't be understood (by me) in any particular way which made sense.

The reason I wanted to redirect over to this thread, was that the exchange we are having directly relates to the one I'm having with Mae Von in that thread, which has navigated, yes. I figured it would be more beneficial to exchange more ideas, verses less. But. it's fine. We can leave it here since another intertwined exchange may happen with another as well. See below...

Maybe. How do you go about showing where else moral intuitions derive? Obviously they derive from within the human psyche, but why do they exist at all in the first place. Why did the urge to externalize the morals into the world happen?

So far, they derive from the self. Beyond that screams the <possibility> of fallacious reasoning? Why? If a "moral law giver" or "intuition giver" exists, statistically, our moral compasses and intuitions would be relatively the same with all projected 'moral' topics, not just the more logically obvious ones, like "cancer is bad".

We should agree that the survival of humanity had much to do with this, but that in itself does not mean/signify/show evidence that "therefore God (as a moral giver) does not exist" unless one also accompanies this with a clear definition of "God" and it can be shown through that, that yes indeed, we do not exist within a creation.

For example, what we call "gut feeling" (intuition et al) is something of a mystery even given it is stimulated by the fear of not surviving, but we don't know for sure whether this intuition is a product of a reaction to an outside stimulus, or an inner one which we would have, even if the "outside" were different. For example, if we didn't need to eat to survive. If we were mind unencumbered with a human form.

Generally theists argue that "God is outside of the creation itself" which is rather unhelpful and has some asking "where is God?" in relation to that argument.
Generally atheists argue that intuition is an inner thing (of the mind) and that there is no need to evoke ideas of external Gods.

Yes, directly above, in post 109, I asked another interlocutor some fundamental questions regarding 'substance dualism', etc... I guess we'll need to explore....