Does God exist?

[azara]

4 hours ago, talalrulez said:

hi again. In your last point, you mentioned something about a video. For that, i am sorry if i wasn't able to regard your previous statement, as i legit do not know where this video is, nor do i know the point that it made. 

Concerning your point on the objectivity of morals, i'm not sure but i feel as if you're confusing objective morals with subjective morals.  By definition, "objective" means it is universal towards everyone with no exception, and of course "subjective" means it varies from person to person.
 
There is not one type of morality that is universal towards everyone, it really depends on that person's nature and nurture, in fact, morality may not even be the same for two people raised under the same rooftop (such as a pair of twins where one happens to be a vegan). However, religion does try to provide us with objective morals. In your statement against @ILoveJesus you gave us the example of a madman bomber who is incredibly affectionate of his wife, bla bla bla. you then stated that 100 people, no matter if they are all Christians, would give different answers to whether they should torture the innocent woman or not, and again, i cannot argue that you are right. but i'm not at all surprised. 

i don't believe in objective morals. i believe that objective morals don't really exist in people, but as i mentioned before, religion does try to give us objective morals. obviously, it doesn't work, however, i believe that it can somewhat fine-tune our beliefs to be almost in line with it's beliefs. 

you are right. situations are not always simple. for example, my TOK teacher gave us an example where the guy from "texas chainsaw massacre" one day came to our school, and attempted to kill the teachers. obviously, all the teachers are hiding, and this guy is searching for them crazily. now you know the location of one teacher. if this guy came up to you and asked you if you knew the hiding spot of a teacher, would you give it up, or say you don't know? (btw, the madman won't kill you if you don't know where the teacher is) immediately, i asked my TOK teacher whether the teacher is someone i like or dislike. 

Because, our attitudes towards people will always dictate our moral decisions. in this example, if it was a teacher i liked, i wouldn't have given up his hiding spot, and if it was a teacher i disliked/hated with all my guts, i would give his location in a heartbeat (lol jk). however, as mentioned before, religion sure would love to impose upon us its moral values, but its impossible, so it attempts at at least making us have moral codes that are close to the moral codes of the religion. our moral decision will remain subjective in nature, but will be close to the objective morality of whatever religion you believe in.   

 

lol i feel like i rambled on towards the end, and stopped making sense. i sincerely apologize and srsly, i wouldn't mind if you told me if my words stopped making sense or not.   

The video is a page or two back now, it was posted by @ILoveJesus.

What you have said here is essentially agreeing with me - that morals are not objective (even if religion tries to make them so).  The whole conversation about morals arose because ILJ's video argued that the existence of objective morals is proof that there is a God.  This argument, I thought, was obviously flawed in two ways.  The first, which we have now spent a lot of time on, is that I don't think morals are at all objective, because as you point out, they're informed by personal opinions.  You agree with me here, if I've interpreted your comments correctly.

The second is that just because there may be objective morals (although there aren't, as we've both agreed), this doesn't mean that God created them.  The few morals which could perhaps be described as "objective" are those found also in animals - the video argued that animals aren't bound by God's will/laws, in contradiction to your argument that they are - and are necessary for survival.  "Don't kill each other", "don't go at it with your siblings", and "look after each other's young", are all obviously based in survival.  So too are some of the more human rules about not lying, cheating, stealing, and ensuring justice using a fair legal system.  These create a harmonious society.  There is no indication that God is behind any such morals, objective or otherwise.  So the video appears to have two major logic jumps (as well as a number of minor flaws, but whatever, I'm not too nitpicky) which invalidate its argument.

I'm not arguing with you, @talalrulez, I was disproving the points in ILJ's video.  If you watch the video, I'd be interested to hear your views as well.

[ILoveJesus]

9 hours ago, azara said:

What you are talking about are morals which everybody who is sane believes in - don't murder, steal, cheat, etc.  The argument that morals are objective and independent is difficult to substantiate beyond very obvious examples.  Okay, fine, saying the Holocaust was wrong is always going to be universally agreed with, so it looks objective.  But think about nuanced and subtle, difficult moral decisions, where there's no definite right answer.  Here's an example I found on the net (better than any I could think of immediately):

A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods.  However, he loves his (innocent) wife very much.  If she is tortured in front of him, he may divulge the location of the bombs.  Is it right to torture her?

Both options - letting hundreds of people die, or torturing an innocent - are horrible.  According to you, if God exists, objective morals exist, so there is only one correct answer to this problem.  But if you gave the problem to, say, 100 people, I'm sure you would get divided opinions on what should be done.  And if you gave the problem to 100 Christian people, I think opinions would still be divided, so religion wouldn't be too much a help to them here.  

I think this is a strong example of where morals are very subjective.

There are many actions which can be objectively neutral, but that's not a problem for the argument. If there is just one thing that is objectively good or objectively wrong (independent of what some maniacs think, meaning that it doesn't matter that if some people disagree with it) then God exists. Atheists agree on this statement. According to Richard Dawkins, one of the most popular atheists, if there is no God, there is "no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
Now we shouldn't deny  what our conscience tells us about the Holocaust (that it really is wrong), and follow the argument to its logical conclusion that God exists.

Edited January 16, 2017 by ILoveJesus
Included a quote by Richard Dawkins in case you didn't believe me

[talalrulez]

1 hour ago, azara said:

The video is a page or two back now, it was posted by @ILoveJesus.

What you have said here is essentially agreeing with me - that morals are not objective (even if religion tries to make them so).  The whole conversation about morals arose because ILJ's video argued that the existence of objective morals is proof that there is a God.  This argument, I thought, was obviously flawed in two ways.  The first, which we have now spent a lot of time on, is that I don't think morals are at all objective, because as you point out, they're informed by personal opinions.  You agree with me here, if I've interpreted your comments correctly.

The second is that just because there may be objective morals (although there aren't, as we've both agreed), this doesn't mean that God created them.  The few morals which could perhaps be described as "objective" are those found also in animals - the video argued that animals aren't bound by God's will/laws, in contradiction to your argument that they are - and are necessary for survival.  "Don't kill each other", "don't go at it with your siblings", and "look after each other's young", are all obviously based in survival.  So too are some of the more human rules about not lying, cheating, stealing, and ensuring justice using a fair legal system.  These create a harmonious society.  There is no indication that God is behind any such morals, objective or otherwise.  So the video appears to have two major logic jumps (as well as a number of minor flaws, but whatever, I'm not too nitpicky) which invalidate its argument.

I'm not arguing with you, @talalrulez, I was disproving the points in ILJ's video.  If you watch the video, I'd be interested to hear your views as well.

lmao, i watched the video and all i saw was another video attempting at promoting the faith over atheism. although im not atheist (im actually muslim), i agree with your point. the placing forth of morals is not entirely the work of God. sure, God/the gods does/do take time in various scriptures to try and promote certain morals. but i believe that originally, moral arose, as just like any animal, we valued our life and feared from danger. therefore, things like lying and stealing, which could potentially endanger humans, and affect a society's strength, were discouraged. However, i still do believe that God did have effects on the objectivity of morals. i just believe that God didn't start them up, and that objective moral arose out of our want for safety. so in that regard, i guess i nearly completely agree with you!   

45 minutes ago, ILoveJesus said:

There are many actions which can be objectively neutral, but that's not a problem for the argument. If there is just one thing that is objectively good or objectively wrong (independent of what some maniacs think, meaning that it doesn't matter that if some people disagree with it) then God exists. Atheists agree on this statement. According to Richard Dawkins, one of the most popular atheists, if there is no God, there is "no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
Now we shouldn't deny  what our conscience tells us about the Holocaust (that it really is wrong), and follow the argument to its logical conclusion that God exists.

i've actually decided that i don't like you. see, whenever i hear a quote of anything, whether it be a religious book, or a normal person, i usually go back to said source and look at the context. and for those confused why an atheist, would say that without god bla bla bla, here is the full quote, which actually refers to his darwinian view of life.

 

“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

 

btw, the reason why ive considered i don't like you @ILoveJesus is because i especially hate people taking quotes out of context. i hate it even more when people dont even take the full quote, but parts of the quote. that's exactly what both you and this video have done. 

[ILoveJesus]

18 minutes ago, talalrulez said:

lmao, i watched the video and all i saw was another video attempting at promoting the faith over atheism. although im not atheist (im actually muslim), i agree with your point. the placing forth of morals is not entirely the work of God. sure, God/the gods does/do take time in various scriptures to try and promote certain morals. but i believe that originally, moral arose, as just like any animal, we valued our life and feared from danger. therefore, things like lying and stealing, which could potentially endanger humans, and affect a society's strength, were discouraged. However, i still do believe that God did have effects on the objectivity of morals. i just believe that God didn't start them up, and that objective moral arose out of our want for safety. so in that regard, i guess i nearly completely agree with you!   

i've actually decided that i don't like you. see, whenever i hear a quote of anything, whether it be a religious book, or a normal person, i usually go back to said source and look at the context. and for those confused why an atheist, would say that without god bla bla bla, here is the full quote, which actually refers to his darwinian view of life.

 

“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

 

btw, the reason why ive considered i don't like you @ILoveJesus is because i especially hate people taking quotes out of context. i hate it even more when people dont even take the full quote, but parts of the quote. that's exactly what both you and this video have done. 

Lol what I said is still true. If God doesn't exist, then Richard Dawkins' view, which is in the quote, is true. So I'm not deceiving anyone here.
 

[talalrulez]

58 minutes ago, ILoveJesus said:

Lol what I said is still true. If God doesn't exist, then Richard Dawkins' view, which is in the quote, is true. So I'm not deceiving anyone here.
 

actually, no its not. dawkin's is discussing how darwinism maintains balance in a communities and ecosystems. it has nothing to do with God. he also talks on how suffering and blessing are part of an endless cycle of balance. it sounds kind of similar to the theory of equivalent exchange presented to the viewers and readers of fullmetal alchemist. so in the end, yes, you and that video are deceiving many people. however, i can let you go assuming you may not be the type of person that doesn't critically analyze everything he sees or hears.

[ILoveJesus]

16 minutes ago, talalrulez said:

actually, no its not. dawkin's is discussing how darwinism maintains balance in a communities and ecosystems. it has nothing to do with God. he also talks on how suffering and blessing are part of an endless cycle of balance. it sounds kind of similar to the theory of equivalent exchange presented to the viewers and readers of fullmetal alchemist. so in the end, yes, you and that video are deceiving many people. however, i can let you go assuming you may not be the type of person that doesn't critically analyze everything he sees or hears.

Dude, you're thinking way too hard about this quote. Richard Dawkins is an atheist. His view is this: "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” So he says that it looks precisely as if there's no evil no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. This is the truth if there is no God. But if there is a God then there would be objective good and evil because God is the objective standard of good.
Do you understand?
 

[tim9800]

Hey all,

Just casually scrolled through this thread having not posted recently, and I have a couple of things to contribute to the discussion. Since the last time I contributed, I have had the benefit of the summer holidays to think things through, and now I believe I have a better grasp of my views. I know this might raise questions about the validity of this debate, but I happen to be from Sydney as well, and its nice to see the prevalence of Australian flair in IBSurvival discourse

On the subject of morality: I believe there is no objective morality - in the end, every person is bound only by their own integrity, or otherwise, another criteria with which they pass as an assessment of their actions, such as utilitarianism (with which I agree partially). A moral objectivist might pose the argument: "If there is no inherent, overarching form of good and evil, then there would be nothing wrong about murdering someone for whatever reason." Yet, why is murder outlawed in almost every country in the world, punishable by life sentencing and perhaps death in return? It is because, through human evolution, society, or rather societies, have arrived at the conclusion that in almost all cases the preservation and elongation of human life is most efficient to the functioning of said society. This, I believe, is able to co-exist with the axiom of subjective morality, as one is not only free to do what they want, but must inevitably succumb to laws that serve the purpose of maximising societal efficiency and welfare. Those that see otherwise end up incarcerated and isolated from society, and hence there must also be a degree of limitation to subjective morality.

On the subject of religion: Not to pose morality and religion as separate matters, but I felt it would be better to structure my views in this way. I myself identify most closely as an agnostic atheist. Although my personal definition may differ from the formal definition, whatever that is, I do not currently believe in any god, and I do not claim to know or ever know the existence of any god. Moreover, given the inherent limitations of human observation, I doubt that humanity will ever know or not know whether god exists. I myself have been raised and am still growing up in a Christian family, and the raising of this issue has always been rather controversial. Though I found it most logical to assume the position of agnostic atheism as it probably the most accurate and encompassing. How? There is an unknowably larger amount of unknown information than there is known information. Wouldn't it be more logical to place your bet on the unknown side? In saying this, however, I do not believe that my position is a valid one for criticising the beliefs of others as it itself is not a belief - rather, it is the lack thereof. If I do not claim to know the existence of god, then the existence, and resultant belief in all gods are equally valid. Moreover, this position isn't exactly the most healthy to promote investigation, so I myself am still reviewing it. I am currently doing an EE on Absurdism, which was perhaps a precursor to me adopting this position, and its definitely something that interests me. 

Edited January 16, 2017 by tim9800

[tim9800]

3 hours ago, ILoveJesus said:

Atheists agree on this statement. According to Richard Dawkins, one of the most popular atheists, if there is no God, there is "no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

Ok, couldn't help but debunk your statement. Although you don't specifically state in your post that 'because Richard Dawkins said it, this argument applies to all atheists' you have also failed to include evidence from a variety of sources, leading me to believe that you have used Richard Dawkin's statement as a means of cherry picking, and essentially strawmanned the atheist argument by also taking the quote out of context because Dawkins never specifically included 'if there is no God' in his argument, as talalrulez has correctly pointed out. You assumed that it would be something Dawkins would say because he is an atheist, but in reality, this is never explicated. Will return to this later.

Even if the quote wasn't taken out of context, you have implied the direct association that Richard Dawkins is proof for the non-existence of god - an appeal to authourity. Again, although you did not explicitly say that 'because Richard Dawkins is popular, he is right', you referred to him as 'one of the most popular atheists' - this is irrelevant to the point that 'Atheists agree on this statement'. Your logic, which I have attempted to recreate, goes somewhat like this:

1. Richard Dawkins is an atheist
2. Being an atheist means there is no god
3. Richard Dawkins means there is no god

Firstly, the existence of god and Richard Dawkin's belief in god are mutually exclusive. If the first premise is correct, the second premise is still definitionally incorrect, because Richard Dawkins is an atheist, meaning he does not believe in god. However this says nothing about god's existence. Richard Dawkins doesn't have to believe in god for him to be there, nor does his lack of belief mean he isn't there.

Secondly, Dawkins is by no means proof for the non-existence of god, nor a valid figurehead for the entirety of atheism. Sort of went over this above, and you haven't made this an explicit part of your statement, so I will avoid trying to guess what you might have possibly meant and will skip to the final point

Even if, by an aberration of all things logical, your statement was true, it would not aid in your overaching argument that 'If there is just one thing that is objectively good or objectively wrong... then God exists'. What about Kant's Categorical Imperative, which argues for an objective morality, a moral code separate from religion, but derived from the bases of reason?

I've tried to diverge as little as possible from your point, but I hope I've been able to communicate the underlying fallacies.

 

[ILoveJesus]

1 hour ago, tim9800 said:

Ok, couldn't help but debunk your statement. Although you don't specifically state in your post that 'because Richard Dawkins said it, this argument applies to all atheists' you have also failed to include evidence from a variety of sources, leading me to believe that you have used Richard Dawkin's statement as a means of cherry picking, and essentially strawmanned the atheist argument by also taking the quote out of context because Dawkins never specifically included 'if there is no God' in his argument, as talalrulez has correctly pointed out. You assumed that it would be something Dawkins would say because he is an atheist, but in reality, this is never explicated. Will return to this later.

Even if the quote wasn't taken out of context, you have implied the direct association that Richard Dawkins is proof for the non-existence of god - an appeal to authourity. Again, although you did not explicitly say that 'because Richard Dawkins is popular, he is right', you referred to him as 'one of the most popular atheists' - this is irrelevant to the point that 'Atheists agree on this statement'. Your logic, which I have attempted to recreate, goes somewhat like this:

1. Richard Dawkins is an atheist
2. Being an atheist means there is no god
3. Richard Dawkins means there is no god

Firstly, the existence of god and Richard Dawkin's belief in god are mutually exclusive. If the first premise is correct, the second premise is still definitionally incorrect, because Richard Dawkins is an atheist, meaning he does not believe in god. However this says nothing about god's existence. Richard Dawkins doesn't have to believe in god for him to be there, nor does his lack of belief mean he isn't there.

Secondly, Dawkins is by no means proof for the non-existence of god, nor a valid figurehead for the entirety of atheism. Sort of went over this above, and you haven't made this an explicit part of your statement, so I will avoid trying to guess what you might have possibly meant and will skip to the final point

Even if, by an aberration of all things logical, your statement was true, it would not aid in your overaching argument that 'If there is just one thing that is objectively good or objectively wrong... then God exists'. What about Kant's Categorical Imperative, which argues for an objective morality, a moral code separate from religion, but derived from the bases of reason?

I've tried to diverge as little as possible from your point, but I hope I've been able to communicate the underlying fallacies.

 

So you think that there can be objective moral values without a God? I haven't read about the Categorical Imperative you mentioned, but as long as there is no objective standard of morality (God) then it's all just a human opinion against another human opinion. So if someone like Kant were to come up with a moral code, then it would not have any objective value because it came from a human.
Also, objective moral laws require objective moral law givers. They don't come from nothing.
And lastly, a lot of people have argued that objective moral values (e.g. torturing and innocent person is wrong) can arise from the evolution of our species). While it's true that evolution can provide subjective moral codes, it can't explain objective moral values. Here's why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWbxtJcnkI

 

[aTeddy]

4 hours ago, ILoveJesus said:

So you think that there can be objective moral values without a God? I haven't read about the Categorical Imperative you mentioned, but as long as there is no objective standard of morality (God) then it's all just a human opinion against another human opinion. So if someone like Kant were to come up with a moral code, then it would not have any objective value because it came from a human.
Also, objective moral laws require objective moral law givers. They don't come from nothing.
And lastly, a lot of people have argued that objective moral values (e.g. torturing and innocent person is wrong) can arise from the evolution of our species). While it's true that evolution can provide subjective moral codes, it can't explain objective moral values. Here's why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWbxtJcnkI

 

I think the real core of the issue is that evolution and objective morality are incongruent. 

Objective morality implies that the set of rules should always apply to humanity. The extent of this is amplified by your claim that your particular set of rules [set out in a book written by Bronze Age peasants] is decreed by a deity. The reality is "human nature" is far more malleable than to follow one set of rules forever. Changes in the material conditions of a society guide evolution over time, meaning that the nature of human society can fundamentally change, leading to the advent of new moral rules. Rules that were used by one form of our species, may not be adhered to because the species' material conditions and thus genetic makeups will be different. Thus, evolution seems to select for subjective morality. 

Without ethicalising this just yet, it seems that ethical laws serve a specific evolutionary function to each different human society, meaning a set of rules aiming to apply to all humans for the entirety of its history seems arbitrary. In terms of Christianity, this phenomenon is already being seen. For example, it was once decreed in the Old Testament that mixing fabrics was unethical and forbidden, though, this previously forbidden act is now wholly normalised, even to most of its strictest adherents! The ethical rule no longer serves its function and is rendered obsolete. This is why I think its impossible and arbitrary to have an objective set of rules that apply to all humans for all time, because evolutionary progression changes moral laws to be congruent with material conditions. 

Your form of objective morality shows no sign of being able to subvert evolution. If your Bible didn't carry with it the caveat that belief leads to immortality, it would have been phased out of usage, just like belief in Zeus has. Your "objective morality" is merely a glorified form of subjective morality, which has yet to be rendered obsolete due to its promises of immortality. 

[azara]

@ILoveJesus, can you prove to me that all morals are objective? You keep saying that they are, but you haven't provided proof.  I, and others, have provided plenty of proof that they are not.

Saying "the Holocaust was objectively bad, therefore all morals are objective" is like me saying "this icecream is strawberry flavoured, therefore all icecream is strawberry flavoured".  Taking one example of something everyone agrees is bad does not mean all morals are objective.  Nor does it mean that one example is objective either - it just means that everyone agrees on that one issue.  Our morals could still have been influenced by our respective backgrounds; it just so happens that essentially every upbringing and community will come to the same conclusion on this issue.  How do we know the Holocaust was bad? We compare it with stories of other murders and atrocities, so we comprehend the scale of the destruction.  We notice the shudders of our families and friends when speaking about it, and we learn about it in schools.  So our backgrounds influence how we know it was bad.

My second question for you is about God being objectively good.  The Bible describes some quite violent actions, caused by His hand.  For example, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and also the Flood.  The Flood also wiped out all the animals (except two of each species, of course), which as your video pointed out, are apparently not under the will of God.  You say we should never allow the torture innocents, but God allowed His son to be tortured to death on a cross.  These do not seem like objectively good or rational decisions to me.  How do you explain that God is good, given the Bible's descriptions of such events?

I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

[tim9800]

15 hours ago, ILoveJesus said:

So you think that there can be objective moral values without a God? I haven't read about the Categorical Imperative you mentioned, but as long as there is no objective standard of morality (God) then it's all just a human opinion against another human opinion. So if someone like Kant were to come up with a moral code, then it would not have any objective value because it came from a human.
Also, objective moral laws require objective moral law givers. They don't come from nothing.
And lastly, a lot of people have argued that objective moral values (e.g. torturing and innocent person is wrong) can arise from the evolution of our species). While it's true that evolution can provide subjective moral codes, it can't explain objective moral values. Here's why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWbxtJcnkI

 

Operating under your same logic:

15 hours ago, ILoveJesus said:

So if someone like Kant were to come up with a moral code, then it would not have any objective value because it came from a human.

Couldn't you say the same thing about the Bible? If this were true, the Categorical Imperative would be just as objective or subjective as the Bible. Why? Because, just like Kant, the Bible is a collection of accounts from humans. Any moral code is always bound by the subjective conditions upon which it is formed. To be truly objective, the Bible must be written by god, a source of moral objectiveness beyond human opinion, because, as you say:

15 hours ago, ILoveJesus said:

objective moral laws require objective moral law givers. They don't come from nothing.

Since there is no part of the Bible which is written by god, then its objectivity is put into question. An example of the Bible's subjectiveness

The Bible's view on marriage (NIV 1 Corinthians 7:8-10)

Quote

⁸ Now to the unmarried^[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. ⁹ But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

¹⁰ To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. ¹¹ But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

If the Bible were objective, as you say it is, then the statement 'Being single is evil' would be either correct or incorrect. But this is evidently not the case - instead, the Bible has provided us with the opinion of Paul '(not I, but the Lord)', a human being subject to his own moral disposition, and his own moral interpretation of God's command. On top of Paul being a human and hence a producer of subjective opinion, he has not even attempted to establish objectivity, instead assessing both scenarios and concluding that both are ok, contradicting the ideal of objective morality. Objective morality, as we recall, is the notion that every deed is either completely good or evil - if both being single and being married are considered good, then what is evil? 

On top of assessing the objectiveness of the Bible, I would also like to assess your own conception of moral objectvity:

15 hours ago, ILoveJesus said:

objective moral values (e.g. torturing and innocent person is wrong)

Although the notion of torturing an innocent person may appear objective, it is better explained through moral subjectivity i.e. the reasons and conditions for which people believe it is wrong. Person A may believe it is wrong because the cost of torturing an innocent person is disproportionate to the benefit of saving hundreds (where such a wager applies), whereas Person B may believe that it is wrong because of a certain moral code he has imposed upon himself. At the surface of this dilemma, you ignore possible paths of reasoning and claim that the fact they reached the same end result is evidence for objective morality, when ultimately the underlying motives are different. Well, so what?

This means that you cannot even consider something such as torturing an innocent person as completely objective, because it is only the end is result is objective. The particular intents for why all people arrive at that objective ending are subject to the individual. But even if you argued on the premise of objective ends, your argument is flawed in the form of sociopaths and serial killers, who may be exceptions to the statement that 'torturing an innocent is evil'. I am in no way supporting that innocents should be tortured, but I am highlighting how you have neglected to address the exceptions to this objectivity.

Conclusion: The reason why some codes, such as 'torturing an innocent is evil', seem objective is because many agree on the same end result. However, once you expand that code to incorporate intent, e.g. 'torturing an innocent is evil because...', then the code becomes subjective, and is proof for subjective morality. 

Edited January 17, 2017 by tim9800

[ILoveJesus]

4 hours ago, azara said:

@ILoveJesus, can you prove to me that all morals are objective? You keep saying that they are, but you haven't provided proof.  I, and others, have provided plenty of proof that they are not.

Saying "the Holocaust was objectively bad, therefore all morals are objective" is like me saying "this icecream is strawberry flavoured, therefore all icecream is strawberry flavoured".  Taking one example of something everyone agrees is bad does not mean all morals are objective.  Nor does it mean that one example is objective either - it just means that everyone agrees on that one issue.  Our morals could still have been influenced by our respective backgrounds; it just so happens that essentially every upbringing and community will come to the same conclusion on this issue.  How do we know the Holocaust was bad? We compare it with stories of other murders and atrocities, so we comprehend the scale of the destruction.  We notice the shudders of our families and friends when speaking about it, and we learn about it in schools.  So our backgrounds influence how we know it was bad.

My second question for you is about God being objectively good.  The Bible describes some quite violent actions, caused by His hand.  For example, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and also the Flood.  The Flood also wiped out all the animals (except two of each species, of course), which as your video pointed out, are apparently not under the will of God.  You say we should never allow the torture innocents, but God allowed His son to be tortured to death on a cross.  These do not seem like objectively good or rational decisions to me.  How do you explain that God is good, given the Bible's descriptions of such events?

I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

I never said that all morals are objective. The argument went like this: If God doesn't exist, objective moral values don't exist. But objective moral values and duties do exist. Therefore, God exists.
Never does it say that all moral values are objective. If there is just one objective moral value, then God exists.  First I'll tell you a little about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. God first told Abraham, that he would destroy the cities because the people were so evil. But then Abraham and God agreed that he would not destroy the cities if there were just 10 righteous people there. Later they found out that there were no righteous people living there, that all of them were wicked, so then God destroyed the cities, but he still chose to save Lot's family. 
Looking back at it, God just wanted to get rid of the evil, and I don't see it as immoral.
The same goes for the flood. Everybody was consumed by sin except Noah, and God got rid of it. He spared Noah's family though, and he also provided a way for the rest to escape if they were willing to listen to Noah. Also, he promised he would never do it again. So once again, God did it to get rid of the evil and was willing to save anyone else who trusted Noah.
And finally, the crucifixion: Jesus and the Father both wanted to save humanity from their sins, and they both knew that Jesus had to die for that, so they agreed that Jesus would do it. I really don't see how it was immoral.
I don't believe these acts were morally unjust, but even if you believe that the Bible describes an immoral God, then it doesn't mean that God is not immoral. It could be that the Bible has errors in it. The doctrine of inerrancy is not essential for Christian faith.

Anyways, I hope you realize that some actions really are better than others. For example, that loving a child really is morally better than torturing it, and that that's not just a matter of opinion.
It's funny that you're all from Sidney by the way

[ILoveJesus]

3 hours ago, tim9800 said:

Operating under your same logic:

18 hours ago, ILoveJesus said:

So if someone like Kant were to come up with a moral code, then it would not have any objective value because it came from a human.

Couldn't you say the same thing about the Bible? If this were true, the Categorical Imperative would be just as objective or subjective as the Bible. Why? Because, just like Kant, the Bible is a collection of accounts from humans. Any moral code is always bound by the subjective conditions upon which it is formed. To be truly objective, the Bible must be written by god, a source of moral objectiveness beyond human opinion, because, as you say:

Since there is no part of the Bible which is written by god, then its objectivity is put into question. An example of the Bible's subjectiveness

 

Good questions! First off, the Bible is not a moral code, like the Categorical Imperative. It's a collection of historical narratives. Also, I never said that the Bible was objective, and I'm not defending that position either because it's not essential to the Christian faith. So I'm not saying that every statement in the Bible about morality has objective value. I don't see any problems here.
 

 

3 hours ago, tim9800 said:

On top of Paul being a human and hence a producer of subjective opinion, he has not even attempted to establish objectivity, instead assessing both scenarios and concluding that both are ok, contradicting the ideal of objective morality. Objective morality, as we recall, is the notion that every deed is either completely good or evil - if both being single and being married are considered good, then what is evil? 

There's a misconception here. I'm saying that objective moral values exist. I'm not saying that every action is either good or evil, I'm just saying that there are objective moral values, and that's all that's necessary for God to exist. Furthermore, this does not mean that an action has to be either good or bad regardless of the situation. In fact, it depends on the situation very often, and this does not disprove objective morality. 
Punching someone can be objectively wrong if the person didn't deserve it, and it can be objectively neutral if it were because you're in a boxing match. This does not in anyway disprove that there are objective moral values. Note that actions can be morally neutral. I'm sure you can find many examples where it depends on the situation, like you did with marriage.

 

 

4 hours ago, tim9800 said:

Although the notion of torturing an innocent person may appear objective, it is better explained through moral subjectivity i.e. the reasons and conditions for which people believe it is wrong. Person A may believe it is wrong because the cost of torturing an innocent person is disproportionate to the benefit of saving hundreds (where such a wager applies), whereas Person B may believe that it is wrong because of a certain moral code he has imposed upon himself. At the surface of this dilemma, you ignore possible paths of reasoning and claim that the fact they reached the same end result is evidence for objective morality, when ultimately the underlying motives are different. Well, so what?

This means that you cannot even consider something such as torturing an innocent person as completely objective, because it is only the end is result is objective. The particular intents for why all people arrive at that objective ending are subject to the individual. But even if you argued on the premise of objective ends, your argument is flawed in the form of sociopaths and serial killers, who may be exceptions to the statement that 'torturing an innocent is evil'. I am in no way supporting that innocents should be tortured, but I am highlighting how you have neglected to address the exceptions to this objectivity.

Conclusion: The reason why some codes, such as 'torturing an innocent is evil', seem objective is because many agree on the same end result. However, once you expand that code to incorporate intent, e.g. 'torturing an innocent is evil because...', then the code becomes subjective, and is proof for subjective morality. 

When I say that objective moral values exist, that meanst that they are true, regardless of what people think. So if some sociopath thinks that the holocaust was morally good, that doesn't change the matter at all.
The reason I believe that things some things are actually wrong is because our conscience clearly tells us these things, not because many agree on it. Also, things aren't wrong for no reason. There is a reason why things are wrong. There might even be several correct reasons. And it's true that some people can come to the same conclusion with the wrong reason. For example, someone could say that the Holocaust was wrong because he believes that Jews should be crucified instead of killed in a gas chamber. He came to the same conclusion but for a wrong reason. Anyways, that was a bit irrelevant.
In conclusion, our conscience clearly tells us that some things really are wrong, and that's why you should believe that some things really are wrong, and some things really are good. Not because other people agree on it.

[azara]

Our morals are either influenced by our upbringings/backgrounds/beliefs (subjective), or they are not (objective).  You can't have some that are, and some that aren't.

The Holocaust being wrong isn't a moral.  It's an example of the moral that it's wrong to torture or kill innocent people.  But if we go back to my example - torturing  a wife to save a group of people from her husband's bombs - it becomes more complicated.  Obviously, this stituation isn't anywhere close to the Holocaust.  But if the moral is always that we shouldn't kill innocent people, then just as the Holocaust should not have happened, we should not torture or kill the wife to save the large group of people from the madman's bombs.  I doubt you will find that 100% of people would agree with such a position; hence, this moral is not objective, either.  It only looks objective when applied to very simple examples.

As for God killing wicked people who deserved it: I just read Genesis 19 to check what they were actually doing wrong, because I was always under the impression they were worshipping idols.  As it turns out, their terrible sin was wanting to have gay sex with foreigners, who they didn't know were angels.  I'll point out the women weren't involved, but they definitely copped it along with their husbands.  Anyway.  What did Lot do? He offered them his daughters to rape instead! And then, after he was saved, both the daughters had sex with their father to preserve the family line, after getting him drunk.  From this story, I can conclude that Lot's family is dysfunctional, and no better than the rest of them.  But seriously, did the whole city really deserve to die? (And why was Lot spared, he doesn't seem pure and wonderful to me at all...) Is this really merciful and good?

If God is so powerful, why was his best solution to absolving humanity of sin having his son tortured to death? There's no obvious reason why this had to occur.  I can think of better solutions, such as just rocking up in all the synagogues one Saturday and giving a lecture.  Or maybe just waiting for Jesus to die of old age? In fact, Jesus' death is a good example for that "don't torture and kill innocents" moral.  You think it's perfectly okay, under these circumstances, because you're a Christian and believe greater benefit arose from it than harm caused.  But I don't think it's all right, because I don't think any benefit came from it.  In this example, our different backgrounds have influenced our morals.

[aTeddy]

17 hours ago, ILoveJesus said:

I never said that all morals are objective. The argument went like this: If God doesn't exist, objective moral values don't exist. But objective moral values and duties do exist. Therefore, God exists.
Never does it say that all moral values are objective. If there is just one objective moral value, then God exists.  First I'll tell you a little about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. God first told Abraham, that he would destroy the cities because the people were so evil. But then Abraham and God agreed that he would not destroy the cities if there were just 10 righteous people there. Later they found out that there were no righteous people living there, that all of them were wicked, so then God destroyed the cities, but he still chose to save Lot's family. 
Looking back at it, God just wanted to get rid of the evil, and I don't see it as immoral.
The same goes for the flood. Everybody was consumed by sin except Noah, and God got rid of it. He spared Noah's family though, and he also provided a way for the rest to escape if they were willing to listen to Noah. Also, he promised he would never do it again. So once again, God did it to get rid of the evil and was willing to save anyone else who trusted Noah.
And finally, the crucifixion: Jesus and the Father both wanted to save humanity from their sins, and they both knew that Jesus had to die for that, so they agreed that Jesus would do it. I really don't see how it was immoral.
I don't believe these acts were morally unjust, but even if you believe that the Bible describes an immoral God, then it doesn't mean that God is not immoral. It could be that the Bible has errors in it. The doctrine of inerrancy is not essential for Christian faith.

Anyways, I hope you realize that some actions really are better than others. For example, that loving a child really is morally better than torturing it, and that that's not just a matter of opinion.
It's funny that you're all from Sidney by the way

Nice of you to open with such an obvious fallacy! You are creating a false dichotomy, i.e, implying that the only proposed "objective moral value giver" is the Christian God. Why is your syllogism not evidence for Zeus or Allah? There is no reason why it shouldn't apply to them as well. The fact that applying your axiom of "If an objective moral value exists, then a God exists" leads to an inconsistent polytheistic mess is elucidative of the fallacious nature of your argument.  The crux of what you are saying is also reliant on so many false premises. If, for a moment we discard the evident logical inconsistency of your claim, I will attempt to disprove your absurd claim that it is possible for an objective moral value to exist. The two examples you give bare the same characteristic: that is inherently correct for a deity to assert their ultimate power over the race when a moral trangression has been committed. If we assume this to be a characteristic of enforcing objective morality, it begs the question, how is this moral transgression determined to be a transgression by your deity?

In Sodom and Gomorrah, the moral transgression is sexual "immorality", in the form of homosexuality and other presumably promiscuous behaviours, which you simply assert as "evil". Genetics shows that in humans, the concordance rate of homosexuality between monozygotic twins is 52%. In consideration of the 2-3% rate of homosexuality in the general populus - evidently, the genetic component is massive! Furthermore, it has been conclusively shown that homosexuality is displayed all throughout the animal kingdom. With this considered, I challenge your arguments on the grounds that for an objective ethical rule to be enforcable, it must be a choice made by a rational actor. In this case, the good scientific evidence shows that homosexuality is not a choice made by humans, and it is displayed throughout non-human populations. In so doing, I level criticism at the validity of homosexuality as an objective ethical transgression in the Bible, because in light of afore mentioned evidence, it does not have the characteristics of a choice. 

Genetic Source: A Genetic Study of Sexual Orientation - Bailey and Pillard (1991)
Other Animals Source: The evolution of male homosexuality and its implications for human psychological and cultural variations.  - Werner and Sommer (2006) 

The other example you give is Noah's Ark. There is no way to know what the ethical trangression made in this instance was, therefore, it is impossible to critique its validity. However, if I digress for a moment, you'll see why this example simply makes your Bible look like an anachronistic fairy tale. Firstly, Noah's Ark proposes that the waters of the ocean rose to "40ft higher than the highest mountain." At 8918 [everest height + 40] ft, there is only 33% Oxygen than that of sea level. Without extensive acclimatisation, every living thing would have died, on the boat or not. Suspending this disbelief, the amount of meat required for just the lions alone for a year would farcically exceed the capacity of the boat. Not to mention the destruction of all vegetation, so there would be nothing to eat after the flood. 

What I mean to say is, this book was clearly, for all to see, written by Bronze Age peasants, with not a single modicum of divine inspiration. 

That aside, with the validity of both your specific examples in strong doubt, it still must be said that your assertion "Objective moral values can exist" still stands de facto. The claim is unfalsifiable, in that, there is no way for it to be disproven, without conclusively disproving each religion [in itself an impossible task]. As I said before, I strongly claim that all morals arise from the material conditions of a society and thus, are inherently subjective. NO moral, even not murdering, is consistent across all societies, lending strong evidence to my conclusion.

Take a good look at your argument. Take a good look at a list of logical fallacies. I think you'll find that you have to use a few for your argument to appear valid. 

[ILoveJesus]

7 hours ago, azara said:

Our morals are either influenced by our upbringings/backgrounds/beliefs (subjective), or they are not (objective).  You can't have some that are, and some that aren't.

Yes you can. You can have some objective moral values, and the rest would then be a matter of subjective opinon.

 

7 hours ago, azara said:

The Holocaust being wrong isn't a moral.  It's an example of the moral that it's wrong to torture or kill innocent people.  But if we go back to my example - torturing  a wife to save a group of people from her husband's bombs - it becomes more complicated.  Obviously, this stituation isn't anywhere close to the Holocaust.  But if the moral is always that we shouldn't kill innocent people, then just as the Holocaust should not have happened, we should not torture or kill the wife to save the large group of people from the madman's bombs.  I doubt you will find that 100% of people would agree with such a position; hence, this moral is not objective, either.  It only looks objective when applied to very simple examples.

As for God killing wicked people who deserved it: I just read Genesis 19 to check what they were actually doing wrong, because I was always under the impression they were worshipping idols.  As it turns out, their terrible sin was wanting to have gay sex with foreigners, who they didn't know were angels.  I'll point out the women weren't involved, but they definitely copped it along with their husbands.  Anyway.  What did Lot do? He offered them his daughters to rape instead! And then, after he was saved, both the daughters had sex with their father to preserve the family line, after getting him drunk.  From this story, I can conclude that Lot's family is dysfunctional, and no better than the rest of them.  But seriously, did the whole city really deserve to die? (And why was Lot spared, he doesn't seem pure and wonderful to me at all...) Is this really merciful and good?

If God is so powerful, why was his best solution to absolving humanity of sin having his son tortured to death? There's no obvious reason why this had to occur.  I can think of better solutions, such as just rocking up in all the synagogues one Saturday and giving a lecture.  Or maybe just waiting for Jesus to die of old age? In fact, Jesus' death is a good example for that "don't torture and kill innocents" moral.  You think it's perfectly okay, under these circumstances, because you're a Christian and believe greater benefit arose from it than harm caused.  But I don't think it's all right, because I don't think any benefit came from it.  In this example, our different backgrounds have influenced our morals.

"The Holocaust being wrong isn't a moral". I said that the Holocaust was morally wrong. Doesn't that make sense?
First I'd like to hear from you why the situation between killing the large group of people and torturing the wife is a tough one.

 

[azara]

10 minutes ago, ILoveJesus said:

"The Holocaust being wrong isn't a moral". I said that the Holocaust was morally wrong. Doesn't that make sense?

Yes.  But the moral which made it morally wrong is that we should neither torture nor kill innocent people.  And if we apply that moral to other situations, it becomes less of a black and white issue.  Do you disagree?

Anyway, this does not really address my comment that morals which seem objective may actually not be when we delve deeper into their complexities.  At that point, our backgrounds become important in our interpretation of morality.

Quote

First I'd like to hear from you why the situation between killing the large group of people and torturing the wife is a tough one.

You have responded as though the answer to the situation is obvious, whereas it's very unclear to me which you would choose.  What do you think should be done?

I think the moral dilemma is difficult because both choices are morally reprehensible.  On the one hand, you don't have to torture somebody innocent, but in doing so, many lives will be lost.  On the other hand, you could torture the innocent wife, but you'll save the lives of the population.  I don't think the choice is obvious at all, though I myself would probably choose to torture the wife.  There's also the factor of passive bystanding (letting the people die) vs. active moral harm (torturing the wife), so doing nothing seems easier.  The point of the example is to show that there will be a variety of opinions on answering this; some would choose to torture, others would choose not to.  This supports the subjective morals theory.

By the way, I see you're in the Netherlands.  Your English is great!

[ILoveJesus]

10 hours ago, aTeddy said:

Nice of you to open with such an obvious fallacy! You are creating a false dichotomy, i.e, implying that the only proposed "objective moral value giver" is the Christian God. Why is your syllogism not evidence for Zeus or Allah? There is no reason why it shouldn't apply to them as well. The fact that applying your axiom of "If an objective moral value exists, then a God exists" leads to an inconsistent polytheistic mess is elucidative of the fallacious nature of your argument.  The crux of what you are saying is also reliant on so many false premises. If, for a moment we discard the evident logical inconsistency of your claim, I will attempt to disprove your absurd claim that it is possible for an objective moral value to exist. The two examples you give bare the same characteristic: that is inherently correct for a deity to assert their ultimate power over the race when a moral trangression has been committed. If we assume this to be a characteristic of enforcing objective morality, it begs the question, how is this moral transgression determined to be a transgression by your deity?

In Sodom and Gomorrah, the moral transgression is sexual "immorality", in the form of homosexuality and other presumably promiscuous behaviours, which you simply assert as "evil". Genetics shows that in humans, the concordance rate of homosexuality between monozygotic twins is 52%. In consideration of the 2-3% rate of homosexuality in the general populus - evidently, the genetic component is massive! Furthermore, it has been conclusively shown that homosexuality is displayed all throughout the animal kingdom. With this considered, I challenge your arguments on the grounds that for an objective ethical rule to be enforcable, it must be a choice made by a rational actor. In this case, the good scientific evidence shows that homosexuality is not a choice made by humans, and it is displayed throughout non-human populations. In so doing, I level criticism at the validity of homosexuality as an objective ethical transgression in the Bible, because in light of afore mentioned evidence, it does not have the characteristics of a choice. 

Genetic Source: A Genetic Study of Sexual Orientation - Bailey and Pillard (1991)
Other Animals Source: The evolution of male homosexuality and its implications for human psychological and cultural variations.  - Werner and Sommer (2006) 

The other example you give is Noah's Ark. There is no way to know what the ethical trangression made in this instance was, therefore, it is impossible to critique its validity. However, if I digress for a moment, you'll see why this example simply makes your Bible look like an anachronistic fairy tale. Firstly, Noah's Ark proposes that the waters of the ocean rose to "40ft higher than the highest mountain." At 8918 [everest height + 40] ft, there is only 33% Oxygen than that of sea level. Without extensive acclimatisation, every living thing would have died, on the boat or not. Suspending this disbelief, the amount of meat required for just the lions alone for a year would farcically exceed the capacity of the boat. Not to mention the destruction of all vegetation, so there would be nothing to eat after the flood. 

What I mean to say is, this book was clearly, for all to see, written by Bronze Age peasants, with not a single modicum of divine inspiration. 

That aside, with the validity of both your specific examples in strong doubt, it still must be said that your assertion "Objective moral values can exist" still stands de facto. The claim is unfalsifiable, in that, there is no way for it to be disproven, without conclusively disproving each religion [in itself an impossible task]. As I said before, I strongly claim that all morals arise from the material conditions of a society and thus, are inherently subjective. NO moral, even not murdering, is consistent across all societies, lending strong evidence to my conclusion.

Take a good look at your argument. Take a good look at a list of logical fallacies. I think you'll find that you have to use a few for your argument to appear valid. 

I think you should take a good look at what I posted instead. Cause it seems like you completely misread it.
First off, I never said that it had to be the Christian God. Why are you accusing me of doing so? Maybe because I mentioned stories from the Bible. But the reason I mentioned them is because another person asked questions about them. 
Second, I even said:

On 2017-01-17 at 11:03 AM, ILoveJesus said:

I don't believe these acts were morally unjust, but even if you believe that the Bible describes an immoral God, then it doesn't mean that God is not immoral. It could be that the Bible has errors in it. The doctrine of inerrancy is not essential for Christian faith.

This makes all of your comlaints about Sodom and Gomorrah and Noah's Ark completely irrelevant.

Finally, you're saying that there are no objective moral values because there is nothing that all societies agree on. Dude, objectivivity means that they are true independent of what people think. So it wouldn't matter if some people disagree with it, it's still wrong. I've had to explain that so many times.
Anyways, you're saying that there is no objective good and evil, but I'm sure your moral experience tells you otherwise.

[ILoveJesus]

7 hours ago, azara said:

Yes.  But the moral which made it morally wrong is that we should neither torture nor kill innocent people.  And if we apply that moral to other situations, it becomes less of a black and white issue.  Do you disagree?

Anyway, this does not really address my comment that morals which seem objective may actually not be when we delve deeper into their complexities.  At that point, our backgrounds become important in our interpretation of morality.

You have responded as though the answer to the situation is obvious, whereas it's very unclear to me which you would choose.  What do you think should be done?

I think the moral dilemma is difficult because both choices are morally reprehensible.  On the one hand, you don't have to torture somebody innocent, but in doing so, many lives will be lost.  On the other hand, you could torture the innocent wife, but you'll save the lives of the population.  I don't think the choice is obvious at all, though I myself would probably choose to torture the wife.  There's also the factor of passive bystanding (letting the people die) vs. active moral harm (torturing the wife), so doing nothing seems easier.  The point of the example is to show that there will be a variety of opinions on answering this; some would choose to torture, others would choose not to.  This supports the subjective morals theory.

By the way, I see you're in the Netherlands.  Your English is great!

Hey, thanks for the compliment. But it's just cause I've lived in America before. Still, I think it's so important to keep these debates friendly and not start hating each other. Our differences in ideas should not have any affect on our perceptions of each other.
You just admitted that both choices are really morally wrong ("both choices are morally reprehensible")! That means that you agree that objective moral values exist, so God exists!
I don't think the choice is obvious either, and I didn't mean to state it as if I did think it was obvious. I don't know what I would choose. I just wanted to hear from you that both choices are morally wrong.
The very reason that it's a tough choice is because both options are immoral. If they weren't then the decision wouldn't even matter. 

Now even though you admitted that both choices are really morally wrong, which would mean that God exists, I doubt you'll admit that. However, objective moral values don't come from nowhere, and not from evolution either (here's the video explaining that, in case you haven't watched it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWbxtJcnkI ).