After reading the quoted material in the Ignorance thread, I feel a godless world needs to be explored
If you exist in the system, nothing can be "proved" unless you go out of the system, which you can't, at least of the moment. So, absolute truth, at least IMO, is fleeting at best.Without libertarian free will (and a sufficient source to ground it), we are left logically incapable of discerning true statements from false and reason itself falls into ruin.
If "God" has ultimate sovereignty, morality is based on whatever "God" wants it to be; he could make eating "fish and chips" immoral and punished by eternal torment and make eating "fish then chips" moral and the sole basis for eternal bliss.Without an objective good which morality serves to describe in terms of human "oughts', we are left with a subjective good where anything goes and ultimately only might makes right (argument from morality).
If the moral code is above "God" and he is just a messenger and not sovereign.
See this - http://www.volconvo.com/forums/philo...tml#post835773
Saying "ultimately might makes right" (technically it could be viewed "God" doing that) leaves Man no room to grow. It assumes no social reciprocity or Man not genuinely caring for his neighbor without a deity.
Because Man can't do anything for himself. Science can't come up with something an refine it over time.Without a creative mind deliberately ordering the universe, we are left without sufficient explanation for the fine-tuning of the cosmos (the fine-tuning argument).
I already do not "hold reason as a meaningful arbiter of true statements" not because I don't believe in your "God", but because I take Godel to the level of reality and say, "The only way to prove the system is to be outside the system." (Yes, I would say that even God cannot prove God.)Without a fundamental grounds for logic/reason, we are left with no reason to expect the universe to be discoverable via human reason, or to hold reason as a meaningful arbiter of true statements.
See - http://www.volconvo.com/forums/philo...tml#post836075
In short, you seem to assume too much.In short, without the fundamental theistic premise,
It already is.... logic becomes nothing more than a form of will-to-power rhetoric
I'd change "local, physical material" with "society", "cultural" and have liberty with the connotation of the word "might"....then it already is., where "right" and "wrong", and "true" and "false" are arbited by the might of local, physical material;
Already can't... we have no expectation of the free will capacity to objectively discern true statements from false
Harming others, that's a good reason for holding people responsible, as for thoughts, we do have RICO but, I'd say shouldn't until it becomes action (I can perceive the consequences of that logic, and will accept them)., nor any reason to hold ourselves or others sufficiently responsible for their actions or thoughts;
So, point? I can, and already do, accept that...... we must accept chance as a sufficient grounding for fine-tuning, design, and ultimately all things; we must accept an essentially meaningless and purposeless existence;
I'm good with brain chemistry doing that....we must accept that all values, views and beliefs are essentially equivalent expressions of physical matter in motion.
Of course, if you don't ground things on "God', it's obviously not properly grounded.Only theism offers the opportunity to have a rationally consistent, properly grounded...
And what is so, for lack of better words, "wrong" with that. The universe being random is valid worldview that you refuse to accept. Just like the universe being designed is a valid worldview. Validity does not equate to correctness. I will admit, a random universe is hard for the human creature to accept. Assuming "God" does exists and you are correct as you outlined, the only thing different in a godless world would be the absence of "God" and a different basis.... and warranted worldview that is anything other than essentially mindless materials simply interacting for a while, producing whatever effects they produce, and then slowly succumbing to the heat death of entropic doom, reducing all arguments to nothing but the rhetoric of happenstance interacting molecules.