Destiny Debates a YT chatter (Objective Morality, God, Christianity)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 มิ.ย. 2022
- Subscribe & like for daily Destiny clips
YT Chat GIGACHAD
►Date: 8 Jun, 2022
I love you（｀・ω・）ゞ
---------------------------------------------------
This channel is a fan-made channel and not affiliated with Destiny
#Destiny
---------------------------------------------------
Feeling extra generous today?
Consider donating ^-^
Feeding America:secure.feedingamerica.org/sit...
Find your local food bank: findfoodsupport.withgoogle.com/
Find more charities to help: www.givewell.org/ - เกม
This is why we don’t start out with a belief and then try to make arguments for it being true
My uncle used to drill fundamentalist ‘arguments’ into his kids for hours.
They had no understanding of logic or basic research. Just ‘memorizing the good arguments.’ No understanding of what makes any points valid.
It took them years to unlearn their habit of assuming an argument then clinging to it like their life depended on it.
It's August!
@@enderstate2470 it is not XD
every moral framework begins with presuppositions, i think that’s the reason destiny doesn’t hold many philosophical debates these days
if you believe in him he becomes real, trust me bro ;)
Unironically yes.
@@teratoidmaple0987 basicially freddy krueger
So basically you become more comfortable with bullshitting yourself over ti... I mean, nothing.
@David Montgomery Yeah, the desperation often shows. Maybe convincing others will finally convince myself kinda thing.
Chatter - “don’t you think you just didn’t look for god hard enough?”
He’s on to something, folks.
Watched 15 minutes of this just to listen to this kid make an argument ad populum fallacy after saying nothing at all.
Is this just Pascal's Wager with extra steps?
EDIT: HOLY SHIT! Nevermind. He was WAY dumber than I thought.
>God's invisible/undectable/unproven.
Sure does seem awfully identical to "non existent."
We shouldn't expect to physically measure the spiritual. Like if "magic" were real and measurable, that's just science then.
@@inthesprawl If god does not interact with the physical world then he is indistinguishable from no god.
@@ShouVertica He does. But when it's personal experience and not repeatable, we dismiss it as an anecdotal fluke. If it is repeatable and measurable, we see it as just natural science and no longer spiritual. Am I explaining that well?
@@inthesprawl Yes but you're not able to differentiate between delusions, which is the point. If your God is completely identical to no God in practice then it's a conclusion of none.
@@ShouVertica It's a conclusion of faith, which is even in the Bible. If your framework is the scientific method, then by definition only the non-spiritual can be verified. I haven't had a life-changing spiritual experience (and that wouldn't matter scientifically) but I can still see that the historical evidence for the Bible is reliable and then have faith that the supernatural claims are true. Unfortunately our own current standards don't think that's enough, but I can also put that aside as just being our own current standards.
these conversations are all the same; props to the guy for giving it a shot but damn... Ive heard this soooo many times and its sooo loaded with so much stuff to answer a question so unsatisfactorily
If god wanted to maximize their happiness by having the best possible relationship with us, which would require us to live the most moral life possible, god would already create us with an objectively flawless moral system.
That doesnt seem possible. It's a requirement that we go through a growing period where we take part in our own development.
Morality being subjective doesn't mean you suddenly don't have any moral obligations.
Actually it does.
@@mindlander Someone choosing not to adhere to objective morality is the same as someone doing the same thing with a subjective morality, no?
How come?
@@mindlander It really doesn’t.
@@meltedsnowman9637 can you be obligated to follow two different moralities?
does anyone know who this person?
(thought his argument was quite interesting, but not sure if I completely understand, so ye was curious about talking to him/learning about the argument. )
I'm the guy.
I wish he talked about the objective morality argument more, it’s so much more interesting than speculating on a omnipotent invisible god.
Is it really? What arguments for objective morality are interesting?
The notion that millions of grown adults believing in a single deity is some sort of evidence that said deity exists is absolutely batshit absurd. Millions of people believe that putting a tooth under your pillow summons a fairy to pay you, we don't give credence to delusions based on their popularity.
Somehow witness testimony is no longer evidence when it comes to atheists.
I kept praying for money and then I got a raise, bro, god is real, he got me that raise. I didn’t get it for myself.
Pain.
TH-cam chat should be on the stream above DGG chat.
Why?
TH-cam chat sucks.
@@iannovak5223 because I said so
I get what you mean, but part of the reason I use YT chat is to avoid being permanently etched into video.
@@brandogg974 GIGACHAD
Is that God from YT chat in the thumbnail??
Objective Morality is not possible even if God existed. So Steven shouldn't have conceded that.
Yeah, just schizzed out in the comments here for 6 paragraphs partially because of it.
@@enderstate2470 Not if you understand morality to be actions that lead to genuine happiness.
TH-cam chat just doesnt miss, huh?
This guys God sure has placed a lot of perfect excuses for why you can’t prove he exists.
Absolutely... Based and RP
Here's the facts. Now find the evidence.
8 comments and can’t see 1 lmao
im christian but this was just cringe to listen to live
Why are you religious
Because people are
@@squirrel1331 Most likely upbringing, or a need for meaning in life.
@@IllD. a sence of belonging to
@@squirrel1331 Because nihilism is terrible. Christianity is only marginally better.
Destiny vs. Sentinel Apologetics
who's this guy in YT chat?
Who cares
a gigachad
have you figured it out already?
People will make fun of him but the suggestion is the same as a pastor would give. Try harder bro God is out there.
What's wrong with the idea of praying more? You think valuable truth comes easily?
How are multiple sources claimimg to know the true god? Who has the real god? How about your answer shurlock.
Same old arguments
GON
Why would a God have anything to do with "objective" morality? God being God only means it can make everyone believe the same set of morals to varying degrees or completely, and be able to make some/all of those individuals perceive that as "fact" (if desired). God could also make every single thing ever believe God didn't exist, if it wanted to, which would be untrue (in this case).
I mean, would you say that whatever plane of existence a God lies in also has its own objective morality from a God above it? If so, then what if those beliefs contradict the actions and set morality that the previous God had laid in place? From a practical level, 'of course' morality exists, but actually no.
The only argument I could slightly understand is that if objective morality does exist, just like the bits and pieces of physical laws we constantly glean from observation, but God forced onto humans/life a deliberate block in our ability to determine this. This argument can apply to literally anything and everything so it means essentially means nothing, though.
Is it 'wrong' that a crab may immediately eats hundreds of its own after a birth? I mean, I don't really care and I understand there was probably a practical reason for this behavior to evolve, but it's interesting. Now, if you want to say that morality does exist, but it's only relevant after a certain level of intelligence, it's also interesting to note that male otters are known to find and rap (with an E) baby-seals to death (iirc, they will also do this to otter pups), and will injure females during mating season (sometimes kill) with one of the most common wounds being the nose torn off. My point is, it's just a ********* animal, but I can't help but think WOW that's wrong every time I think of it, and it's a lot closer to a human than a crab.
On top of that, if you wanted to 'justify' it in the same way you would the crab thing, then couldn't you say there's somewhat of an evolutionary selection for similar behavior (including all other kinds of horror) in humans, AND in people taking issue with it? Can't you reverse-engineer that to apply morality to otters, albeit tweaked? Wouldn't there probably be males otters that are a lot less unsavory, making morality get increasingly relative/abstract when combined with human-morality? Why not keep extending backwards, to crabs, and then to even bacteria, and why does morality need a conscious brain to exist, especially if God deemed morals to exist regardless? Bacteria need to work on a tiered system of rules and opposing 'ideas', fighting those 'ideas' out just as much as humans do, and that may as well be morality.
Morality is an entirely subjective and relevant construct. It exists only as much as the shadow behind me does, in that it's a consequence of measurable and objective rules, but only a consequence. The idea of it needs to heavily change to ever be considered something objective, and that would have to not include the conscious experience, in order to reduce it to something with interpretable data. That idea of 'morality' would obviously affect consciousness, but those systems of morality would exist in unconscious spaces as well, with varying intensity throughout any life. You could probably extend that to include lifeless space itself, if desired, but that definition of morality would be so all-encompassing at that point and lose most of its meaning and utility. The human idea of morality ONLY serves a purpose when entirely subjective and relevant. It being objective is almost paradoxical.
yeah messy schizophrenia drugs etc idc
"Why would a God have anything to do with "objective" morality?"
The idea would be that if objective morality existed, then God would know what was good and what wasn't, and would be able to communicate it to us, and being objective it would be something that could be universally applied.
"would you say that whatever plane of existence a God lies in also has its own objective morality from a God above it? If so, then what if those beliefs contradict the actions and set morality that the previous God had laid in place?"
If one God's view contradicted another God's, then it would be said that one of them wouldn't be all knowing, and therefore wouldn't be able to be said to be what God is suppose to be.
"God forced onto humans/life a deliberate block in our ability to determine this."
The idea is that God gave us the ability to at least try to follow his morality if we chose to, but also gave us the freedom to choose not to, presumably because it would make us happier to be able to choose it rather than being forced.
"Is it 'wrong' that a crab may immediately eats hundreds of its own after a birth?"
It could be that there is some purpose to these kinds of things that we simply don't understand with our limited knowledge.
"Wouldn't there probably be males otters that are a lot less unsavory, making morality get increasingly relative/abstract when combined with human-morality?"
It could be that all beings are given different choices to make given our unique situations.
So for example a person born into a very difficult situation who chooses to do a medium amount of bad instead of a lot of bad, may be looked upon more favorably in God's eyes than someone born into an optimum situation who chooses to do a medium amount of bad instead of none, etc.
Which would make how good or bad we're doing relative to our individual situations, while at the same time that which is good and bad would still be universal and objective.
"That idea of 'morality' would obviously affect consciousness, but those systems of morality would exist in unconscious spaces as well, with varying intensity throughout any life. You could probably extend that to include lifeless space itself, if desired, but that definition of morality would be so all-encompassing at that point and lose most of its meaning and utility."
Morality would only effect conscious beings, since what happens to things are unconscious is only of consequence in terms of how it effects conscious experiences.
"The human idea of morality ONLY serves a purpose when entirely subjective and relevant."
The problem with viewing morality as subjective and "relevant" (I think you meant "relative"), is that then there's no way to determine with any certainty what is good and bad.
If another group of people were doing something that you thought was bad, like sacrificing people to please their gods or something, and they believed it was a good thing, there'd be no certain basis with which to disagree with them, and you'd just have to let them do it.
Where as if morality were objective and we could determine it, then we could use that basis to evaluate the moral value of various actions.
p.s. I don't necessarily subscribe to these views, I'm just trying to address it from that point of view.
Cheers.
@@sigigle Really am just curious, are you practicing for something? I feel like you countered most of what I said because of a mental-exercise. That's not meant to be derisive, I just expected nobody to read any of what I said, as my last self-deprecating sentence was somewhat true. I really was high as balls when commenting, and do have extreme obsessive tendencies that randomly flare up, making me somewhat off-putting to engage with.
I have a habit of randomly scizo-posting and then wondering what was wrong with me a few days later.
@@sigigle and yeah, when I typed relevant, I kept feeling a warning go off in my head, saying "you know you ******** up" but I kept having invasive thoughts distracting me from figuring it out. I'll read the rest of what you said when I'm less r-worded. I'm having a really r-word comedown day.
Sorry for for being strange.
@@enderstate2470
Heya,
Yeah I thought I would just share what I thought that perspective might say, partly just incase it was of any use to you, and to refresh/clarify my mind on the topic, and also incase you had any more info I might learn from because you seemed quite well thought out on it.
And you seemed fine to me, just like someone exploring and articulating their thoughts, which can be useful.
I too have some limited experience with schizophrenia like symptoms, shifting sense of identity, chaotic thoughts, etc. and I think it's related to the Big 5 trait Openness and might have some positives like intuitive and creative thinking, open to new info, etc.
2 people that have some interesting things to say about it are Jordan Peterson on big 5 trait Openness, and Terence McKenna on schizophrenia, psychedelics, etc.
I think it's related to an order and chaos type thing too, left brain right brain, linear thinking vs. lateral thinking, etc.
I do think morality is subjective btw, I think it's about preference maximization, which can vary/differ between individuals, with some preferences just being either more or less universal than others.
I also think preferences are something that's discovered rather than created.
We could go into it further, ill leave it there for now before this comment gets too much longer lol :)
Cheers
God still doesnt get you to objective morality. See the euthyphro dilemma
Euthyphro's dilemma is based on a bad definition of morality.
The atheists have arrived
There is a moral truth in the world, but it is statistical and rather practical in nature. It is the set of rules and imperatives that lead to the best outcomes as fast as possible. It changes as we develop as a global society. It varies from person to person while moving towards a more unified understanding. It is practically unknowable and in part consists of all the ethical frameworks that have been formulated, but also internally inconsistent, fluid, since individuals will always be different from one another.
Morality is not truth apt. In other words, Moral statements can't be true or false. What you're referring to is just Goal-oriented advice. For instance, If you don't want to risk getting alienated by society, don't kill innocent people.
@@iannovak5223 Well I mean it is objectively true that there is an optimal set of rules that can push us towards what we desire most optimally. To think of something deeper or more concrete than that I think is just an issue of imagination allowing for thought paths that do not relate to reality. Kind of like the concept of free will adds impossible and incoherent and wholly abstract possibilities to existence without which there is no real question to be asked.
@@hartyewh1 They are only objective once a Goal has been established. The Goal itself is subjectively valued. To go back to my initial example, why ought one not want to be alienated by society? Maybe there are people who don't care for the consequences and would rather kill and torture innocent people for pleasure. And I agree that It's objectively true that there is an optimal way to increase the net wellbeing in the world for example, but the statement "We Ought to aim to increase the net wellbeing in the world" is neither an Objectively True nor False statement.
The goal is entirely dependent on the subject, and when different goals come in conflict with one another, it all collapses into subjectivity since no one goal is inherently truer than another.
@@iannovak5223 There is no ought, only desire to and only that can imply an ought.
@@hartyewh1 I don't know what you're saying.
Are you saying the statement baby torture is wrong does Not entail "One Ought not torture babies"?
Wrong and Right in a moralistic sense is just what Oughtn't and Ought be.
What a worthless convo
Lmao that was stupid