What could make morality objective?

[Immanuel Can]

I said "some level" (which is good enough), not an absolute level of knowledge

I'm going to change the tone here. I'm actually going to let you off the hook, because I know you can't back that claim, and there's no point in grinding you with it. That's not nice.

So I'm going to say this, instead. IF you had said, "No evidence I know of exists..." I would have accepted that without a moment's question. If you had said, "No evidence I know of, and none my friends know of," or even "No evidence I have heard from the purported experts I know," I would have had no reason to question your claim.

But when you say things like, "I know nobody knows," then it calls on you to explain how you know every thing everyone else knows, or could come to know. And is it any wonder that I question that? Of course not.

Or if you had said, "I have read all the many purported evidences for the existence of a God capable of constituting a moral objectivity," I would probably ask you which evidences you meant, but I would have no reason to think that you had never entertained any of them.

But when you say, "No such things exist, nobody ever has any, or could have any, and I know they don't exist," I know for certain that all parts of that claim are false, and are nothing but a colossal bluff. For I know the arguments. And it's not hard for me to guess, no matter how smart and well-travelled you may turn out to be, that you do not possess the range of knowledge required to substantiate such a claim. It's just far too wild for a human being to make.

So I have to raise the necessary question about your claim to that.

The solution? Make a more modest claim.

[Atla]

No, no...let's go into that. I don't want to miss a step, and you must remember...I'm a person of limited ability here, you say.

You wrote:

So you say it can be done, some people have actually done it, and it's possible today.

So again, "how"?

I said "some level" (which is good enough), not an absolute level of knowledge

Heh. But you said "the total knowledge of humanity." Wow. That's an "absolute level of knowledge," if ever there was one.

Time to ante up: who are these people who eliminated any possibility of the knowledge of God, and did it by plumbing "the total knowledge of humanity"? I want to go and meet these guys. How did they do it?

It's impossible to 'eliminate any possibility'.

I was wondering. Let's say that there's an afterlife, and since you seem to lack a normal conscience, God is inclined to send you to Hell right away. But what if you pester people on forums long enough, maybe that will earny an entry ticket into Heaven? What do you think?

[Atla]

I said "some level" (which is good enough), not an absolute level of knowledge

I'm going to change the tone here. I'm actually going to let you off the hook, because I know you can't back that claim, and there's no point in grinding you with it. That's not nice.

So I'm going to say this, instead. IF you had said, "No evidence I know of exists..." I would have accepted that without a moment's question. If you had said, "No evidence I know of, and none my friends know of," or even "No evidence I have heard from the purported experts I know," I would have had no reason to question your claim.

But when you say things like, "I know nobody knows," then it calls on you to explain how you know every thing everyone else knows, or could come to know. And is it any wonder that I question that? Of course not.

Or if you had said, "I have read all the many purported evidences for the existence of a God capable of constituting a moral objectivity," I would probably ask you which evidences you meant, but I would have no reason to think that you had never entertained any of them.

But when you say, "No such things exist, nobody ever has any, or could have any, and I know they don't exist," I know for certain that all parts of that claim are false, and are nothing but a colossal bluff. For I know the arguments. And it's not hard for me to guess, no matter how smart and well-travelled you may turn out to be, that you do not possess the range of knowledge required to substantiate such a claim. It's just far too wild for a human being to make.

So I have to raise the necessary question about your claim to that.

The solution? Make a more modest claim.

No no, my claim stands. I know that no one has that kind of proof.

[Immanuel Can]

I know that no one has that kind of proof.

You want to think you know, but you don't actually know.

Now, that's a suitably modest claim. If you said it, I would believe you.

However, modesty also would remind you that you don't know everybody. And if you did a rudimentary internet search, you'd find lots of people who claim they DO have evidence and reasons. So it's verifiably untrue that nobody has such evidence or arguments, even if it's true you don't presently know them.

Now, if you go and find them, and after you do, you want to say, "I've studied the Kalaam Cosmological Argument," or "The Argument from Evil," or "The Argument from Design," or "The Ontological Arguments," or historical text X or Y, or any one of the dozens of other arguments and evidences out there, and "I don't accept them," then we can discuss what features of those arguments you still don't believe, and why.

But to say no such arguments even exist? Well, anybody who knows the arguments knows that's not true.

You can still always say, "I don't find them compelling." But you can't say "There are none", and then expect to be believed by anybody who knows anything about it at all.

[Atla]

I know that no one has that kind of proof.

You want to think you know, but you don't actually know.

Now, that's a suitably modest claim. If you said it, I would believe you.

However, modesty also would remind you that you don't know everybody. And if you did a rudimentary internet search, you'd find lots of people who claim they DO have evidence and reasons. So it's verifiably untrue that nobody has such evidence or arguments, even if it's true you don't presently know them.

Now, if you go and find them, and after you do, you want to say, "I've studied the Kalaam Cosmological Argument," or "The Argument from Evil," or "The Argument from Design," or "The Ontological Arguments," or historical text X or Y, or any one of the dozens of other arguments and evidences out there, and "I don't accept them," then we can discuss what features of those arguments you still don't believe, and why.

But to say no such arguments even exist? Well, anybody who knows the arguments knows that's not true.

You can still always say, "I don't find them compelling." But you can't say "There are none", and then expect to be believed by anybody who knows anything about it at all.

There are many arguments, just no actual evidence/proof.

[Immanuel Can]

There are many arguments, just no actual evidence/proof.

You don't know this, either.

You don't even show that you know more than "there are many arguments" (out there, somewhere, unknown in particular to you). You don't know what "evidence/proof" is attached to any of them. But unless you do know some particulars, then it has to be the case that you determined already to reject it all, in ignorance.

Do you know anything or not? Let's see. Which of the "many arguments" you know are out there do you reject, and why?

[Atla]

There are many arguments, just no actual evidence/proof.

You don't know this, either.

You don't even show that you know more than "there are many arguments" (out there, somewhere, unknown in particular to you). You don't know what "evidence/proof" is attached to any of them. But unless you do know some particulars, then it has to be the case that you determined already to reject it all, in ignorance.

Do you know anything or not? Let's see. Which of the "many arguments" you know are out there do you reject, and why?

Evidence/proof please, not arguments.

Hey I just had a talk with God. I asked him about Immanuel Can, he said that if you keep pestering people on forums for 10 more years, trying to turn them into believers in God, then he'll let you into Heaven. He will give you a normal conscience too. You've earned all this.

[Immanuel Can]

Evidence/proof please, not arguments.

Heh. Evidence is FOR arguments, mon ami.

Which argument do you know and reject? Then we'll look at the associated evidence.

[Atla]

Evidence/proof please, not arguments.

Heh. Evidence is FOR arguments, mon ami.

Which argument do you know and reject? Then we'll look at the associated evidence.

So you don't have any. How terribly surprising.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I know that no one has that kind of proof.

You want to think you know, but you don't actually know.

Now, that's a suitably modest claim. If you said it, I would believe you.

However, modesty also would remind you that you don't know everybody. And if you did a rudimentary internet search, you'd find lots of people who claim they DO have evidence and reasons. So it's verifiably untrue that nobody has such evidence or arguments, even if it's true you don't presently know them.

Now, if you go and find them, and after you do, you want to say, "I've studied the Kalaam Cosmological Argument," or "The Argument from Evil," or "The Argument from Design," or "The Ontological Arguments," or historical text X or Y, or any one of the dozens of other arguments and evidences out there, and "I don't accept them," then we can discuss what features of those arguments you still don't believe, and why.

But to say no such arguments even exist? Well, anybody who knows the arguments knows that's not true.

You can still always say, "I don't find them compelling." But you can't say "There are none", and then expect to be believed by anybody who knows anything about it at all.

Your sound alike, Immanuel Kant had asserted it is impossible to prove the existence of God by whatever the argument.
This is something like Hume's "no ought from is" thus it is "No God from Is" where "is" is reality, i.e. all-there-is.

Kant demonstrated all arguments for the existence of God are reducible to the 'ontological argument'.
The ontological argument involved the fallacy of equivocation where the "transcendent" [unreal] is conflated with what-is-real.

So the other proof of God's existence is via direct empirical evidences that God exists. If God is omni-whatever, i.e. omni-present why is God not presenting itself for verification and justification that God is really real?

But the above proof is a non-starter and not necessary because in the first place,
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Why the idea of God [illusory] emerged onto the consciousness of man is due to the need to resolve an inherent existential crisis; the origin of God is grounded on human psychology and not ontological as some thing that exists as real.

There are others who recognized the inherent existential crisis and resolved its associated problem realistically, effectively and optimally rather than relying on an illusory God as a psychological crutch. This idea of an illusory God as a psychological crutch has directly contributed to much evil and violence in the world, and will continue to do so in the future.

Thus the need for objective morality and ethics to prevent and reduce theistic driven and all other evil and violence.

[Ginkgo]

Evidence/proof please, not arguments.

Heh. Evidence is FOR arguments, mon ami.

Which argument do you know and reject? Then we'll look at the associated evidence.

How about the intelligent design argument? That is always a good one to reject.

[Skepdick]

How about the intelligent design argument? That is always a good one to reject.

All intelligent design arguments hinge upon Irreducible complexity, but if you want to shed the theological stigma of IC, then consider the Computational irreducibility hypothesis - it's structurally equivalent.

If you threat the IC hypothesis/theory as any scientific theory then it's falsifiable, but not yet falsified.
The test in favour of IC is the very fact that reality is complex beyond human understanding.

The falsification of IC requires a man-made theory of everything.

[Atla]

Evidence/proof please, not arguments.

Heh. Evidence is FOR arguments, mon ami.

Which argument do you know and reject? Then we'll look at the associated evidence.

How about the intelligent design argument? That is always a good one to reject.

don't feed him, we can make arguments for anything we want

[Immanuel Can]

Evidence/proof please, not arguments.

Heh. Evidence is FOR arguments, mon ami.

Which argument do you know and reject? Then we'll look at the associated evidence.

So you don't have any. How terribly surprising.

There is evidence. For which argument are you wanting the evidence? I'll give it to you. Then we can discuss it.

[Peter Holmes]

The sequence is: evidence supports claims (assertions), which are then premises in arguments.

The idea that there can be evidence for an argument is incoherent, in my opinion.