What could make morality objective?

[TimeSeeker]

Final question for Immanuel Can't: Is there any evidence that would convince you that God doesn't exist?

e.g Are you willing to be forthcoming with where your epistemic uncertainty lies?

[TimeSeeker]

That's a difference in action, subsequent to knowledge, not a difference in knowledge itself. Epistemology deals only with what we can or cannot know.

Yes, but saying "there is cancer" (whether you know it or not) IS a knowledge claim.You are saying that YOU know that I have cancer, but I don't.

You need to point me to the reference frame from where you've made this claim.

Your notion of "objectivity" - I will blast it to hell

[Immanuel Can]

Yet another illustration of why our sense of control is a delusion. We all age.

Fallacy of gray. Again.

Median age in 3000BC - under 40.
Median age in 2018 - 65

Um...you call it a "fallacy," and then illustrate its truthfulness. That's kind of a self-defeating way to argue.

It wouldn't matter if we all lived to 1,000. The truth is that we will all die. And when we do, either, as Atheists say, we will dissolve into blackness never to return, or, as the Bible says, "It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this, the Judgment."

What's obvious is that if the Atheists were right, they'd never know it; but if the Bible is right, they will definitely know they were wrong.

Moreover, we all die...that is the outcome of entropy.

And yet - here you are. Not committing suicide!

Non-sequitur. There's no logical connection between, "Life is of limited duration" and "One should kill oneself, so as to make that come faster."

[TimeSeeker]

Um...you call it a "fallacy," and then illustrate its truthfulness. That's kind of a self-defeating way to argue.

And now you are demonstrating a DIFFERENCE OF VALUES.

It wouldn't matter if we all lived to 1,000. The truth is that we will all die.

Non-sequitur. There's no logical connection between, "Life is of limited duration" and "One should kill oneself, so as to make that come faster."

Ah! But there is! Your continued living is a CHOICE.Every CHOICE reveals value.

You are either revealing "I like living" OR that you revealing "I am afraid of taking my life".

[Immanuel Can]

Are you willing to be forthcoming with where your epistemic uncertainty lies?

I have already been so. I have said that knowledge is probabilistic, not absolute. We all have to make our best calculation of probability, based on the empirical, existential and logical evidence on hand for us. And then we live or die with the results of the thing in which we determine to put our faith -- in the existence and goodness of God; or, on the other hand, on our indifference to, or even contempt for His existence. And eventually, we eat from the tree we plant, in that case.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, but saying "there is cancer" (whether you know it or not) IS a knowledge claim.You are saying that YOU know that I have cancer, but I don't.

Nope, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that whether or not you have cancer will not depend on your knowledge of the fact.

[TimeSeeker]

Nope, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that whether or not you have cancer will not depend on your knowledge of the fact.

Yes. That's an epistemic claim. You are saying that there is 50% chance I have cancer and 50% chance I don't.

[TimeSeeker]

I have already been so. I have said that knowledge is probabilistic, not absolute. We all have to make our best calculation of probability, based on the empirical, existential and logical evidence on hand for us. And then we live or die with the results of the thing in which we determine to put our faith -- in the existence and goodness of God; or, on the other hand, on our indifference to, or even contempt for His existence. And eventually, we eat from the tree we plant, in that case.

Fallacy of gray!!!

There is 1 in 20 chance of you burning your toast tomorrow morning.
There is 1 in 20 chance of your parachute not opening on your next skydive.

Are you telling me that just because your knowledge is probabilistic it doesn't affect your ACTIONS?

I won't jump. I will make toast with 1 in 20 odds.

Expected VALUE theory. You subjective, consequentialist snowflake

[Peter Holmes]

Just so, you can recognize the works of God as indicative of His existence...

You are putting the cart before the horse, Mr Can. First you have to demonstrate your god's existence before you can recognise anything as its works.

Agreed. So far, theists haven't demonstrated the existence of a god, or anything supernatural. They just believe they exist. And that means any claims they make about a god's nature, deeds and wishes are tendentious - with no objective foundation or justification. But if you hear and repeat a creed and stories often and for long enough, they can become substitutes for evidence and truth. That's how religions work.

Theists claim that at least one god exists, so they believe the factual assertion 'there is a god' is true. Atheists simply reject that claim. The claim that atheism is a 'worldview' is a straw man. Disbelief in the existence of a god no more constitutes a worldview than disbelief in the existence of fairies. But some theists need the straw man. Perhaps an imagined opponent reinforces your own self-esteem. Who wants to be ignored or laughed at?

The irony is that the existence or non-existence of a god (or any other agent) has no bearing on my OP question. The claim 'this is (objectively) good / bad because a god says it is' has no place in a rational moral discussion - which Mr Can is determined not to understand.

[Immanuel Can]

Nope, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that whether or not you have cancer will not depend on your knowledge of the fact.

Yes. That's an epistemic claim. You are saying that there is 50% chance I have cancer and 50% chance I don't.

No, it's not, and I'm not. I'm not claiming to "know" whether or not you have cancer, or by what probability you do or don't. I'm just saying that whether you do or not will not be changed by your knowledge of the fact...or your ignorance of it either.

[Immanuel Can]

There is 1 in 20 chance of you burning your toast tomorrow morning.
There is 1 in 20 chance of your parachute not opening on your next skydive.

As the old saying goes, " The mortality rate around here never changes: it's 100%. Everybody dies."

[TimeSeeker]

No, it's not, and I'm not. I'm not claiming to "know" whether or not you have cancer, or by what probability you do or don't. I'm just saying that

*SIGH* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition

If you refuse to CALL them epistemic claims then I will:
I KNOW that you either have cancer or you don't.
I KNOW that tomorrow you will either die or you won't.

[Immanuel Can]

Just so, you can recognize the works of God as indicative of His existence...

You are putting the cart before the horse, Mr Can. First you have to demonstrate your god's existence before you can recognise anything as its works.

Agreed. So far, theists haven't demonstrated the existence of a god, or anything supernatural.

It's not required yet. In regard to morality, we are only discussing what the rational implications of each worldview are, not proving one over the other.

Once the real implications of Atheism are clear, then it becomes quite obvious that the next question is the existence and nature of God. But we're not there yet. The OP is still hanging: we have to know if morality is even potentially objective, i.e. "what could make morality objective". And unless I miss my guess, you're still convinced that no conditions exist upon which it even potentially could be...right?

If you will specify terms upon which you do actually believe morality could be objective, then we can explore whether or not those terms are true or not. But if you would not be convinced even if God does exist, then what is the utility of trying to prove He does, yet?

[Immanuel Can]

No, it's not, and I'm not. I'm not claiming to "know" whether or not you have cancer, or by what probability you do or don't. I'm just saying that

*SIGH* [/b ]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition

NOT contraposition. I'm not taking a position on the question of whether or not you do have cancer. I'm saying that whether or not you do is unrelated to your knowledge.

[TimeSeeker]

NOT contraposition. I'm not taking a position on the question of whether or not you do have cancer. I'm saying that whether or not you do is unrelated to your knowledge.

Your logocentrism is sickening.

If you refuse to CALL them epistemic claims then I will:
I KNOW that you either have cancer or you don't.
I KNOW that tomorrow you will either die or you won't.

I do believe both of the above meet the criteria for justified true belief. e.g knowledge.

The mere fact that I considered the idea of "you having cancer or dying" means I entered a state of epistemic uncertainty.