Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In

[Veritas Aequitas]

According to you

1. There is no thing in itself.
2. Man as measurer is a thing in itself.
3. A creator exists as beyond man.

1. There is no thing in itself, only thing-by-man-himself.
2. Man is the measure of all things, things-by-man-himself.
3. There is no creator [a thing] existing as beyond man other than things-by-man-himself.

1. "Only things by man himself" is a principle thus necessitating some greater power beyond man.
2. There is no principle in itself thus a principle lies beyond "only things by man himself"
3. Man is a measure of all things not the measure.

You are forcing your views on 1 - there are only things-by-man-himself.
There is no need for some greater power beyond which is a thing-in-itself; 1. there is no thing-in-itself.

You are merely speculating that is some greater power beyond man.
This is what the theists are speculating with a God, i.e. a greater power beyond man.
Theists rely on this claim based on faith, i.e. no proof nor reasonable reasons.

Can you prove what you claim as 'some greater power beyond man' exists that is absolute independent of man?

[Peter Holmes]

1. There is no thing in itself, only thing-by-man-himself.
2. Man is the measure of all things, things-by-man-himself.
3. There is no creator [a thing] existing as beyond man other than things-by-man-himself.

1. "Only things by man himself" is a principle thus necessitating some greater power beyond man.
2. There is no principle in itself thus a principle lies beyond "only things by man himself"
3. Man is a measure of all things not the measure.

You are forcing your views on 1 - there are only things-by-man-himself.
There is no need for some greater power beyond which is a thing-in-itself; 1. there is no thing-in-itself.

You are merely speculating that is some greater power beyond man.
This is what the theists are speculating with a God, i.e. a greater power beyond man.
Theists rely on this claim based on faith, i.e. no proof nor reasonable reasons.

Can you prove what you claim as 'some greater power beyond man' exists that is absolute independent of man?

1 What are the things-in-themselves that don't exist? Why deny the existence of a thing whose existence is incoherent?

2 In what way do humans co-create the fact that water is H2O?

3 If the chemical composition of water is a 'thing-by-man-himself', why is it a co-creation?

4 Who or what is the co-creator with us of the fact that water is H2O?

5 How long must this Kantian or garbled-Kantian drivel endure?

[Eodnhoj7]

1. There is no thing in itself, only thing-by-man-himself.
2. Man is the measure of all things, things-by-man-himself.
3. There is no creator [a thing] existing as beyond man other than things-by-man-himself.

1. "Only things by man himself" is a principle thus necessitating some greater power beyond man.
2. There is no principle in itself thus a principle lies beyond "only things by man himself"
3. Man is a measure of all things not the measure.

You are forcing your views on 1 - there are only things-by-man-himself.
There is no need for some greater power beyond which is a thing-in-itself; 1. there is no thing-in-itself.

You are merely speculating that is some greater power beyond man.
This is what the theists are speculating with a God, i.e. a greater power beyond man.
Theists rely on this claim based on faith, i.e. no proof nor reasonable reasons.

Can you prove what you claim as 'some greater power beyond man' exists that is absolute independent of man?

False, according to your view there is no thing in itself, and man is a thing, therefore man as measurer does not exist in itself. Something exists as a measurer beyond man.

You cannot prove or disprove something beyond man considering there is no proof which exists in itself thus a proof always lies beyond the proof mentioned. Proof is intrinsically empty, and you are asking for that which is empty in itself, thus you are asking for what is contradictory.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. "Only things by man himself" is a principle thus necessitating some greater power beyond man.
2. There is no principle in itself thus a principle lies beyond "only things by man himself"
3. Man is a measure of all things not the measure.

You are forcing your views on 1 - there are only things-by-man-himself.
There is no need for some greater power beyond which is a thing-in-itself; 1. there is no thing-in-itself.

You are merely speculating that is some greater power beyond man.
This is what the theists are speculating with a God, i.e. a greater power beyond man.
Theists rely on this claim based on faith, i.e. no proof nor reasonable reasons.

Can you prove what you claim as 'some greater power beyond man' exists that is absolute independent of man?

1 What are the things-in-themselves that don't exist? Why deny the existence of a thing whose existence is incoherent?

What is speculated as things-in-themselves are things like square-circle and the likes which are impossible to exist in the first place.
The most refined thing-in-itself is God [illusory].
Kant did not state specifically, but allude to the point that they [the ideas of things-in-themselves] arise from deep psychological roots of the human psyche.

2 In what way do humans co-create the fact that water is H2O?

How else does the fact "water is H20" as a realization that emerge other than with the inevitable entanglement through humans.
Note I argued your 'what is fact' is merely linguistic - which is also by humans.

3 If the chemical composition of water is a 'thing-by-man-himself', why is it a co-creation?

One perspective is the co-creators are other humans besides oneself. Whatever are others [which is a part of reality which humans are part and parcel of] are also co-created by humans.

4 Who or what is the co-creator with us of the fact that water is H2O?

As I had stated, 'water' as whatever is an emergence via entanglement through humans. This is what is most certain, i.e. empirically and philosophically.
To speculate other than that [driven by human psychology] means invoking 'Wittgenstein's Silence' i.e. one has to shut up literally, else one end up reifying an illusion of a final cause.

5 How long must this Kantian or garbled-Kantian drivel endure?

The above question merely exposed your ignorance. I suggest you don't condemn Kant until you have read and understand [not necessary agree with] his work thoroughly, else you are merely undermining your own intellectual integrity, honesty and reputation.

The above knowledge is not solely from Kant but from other sources* as well which reflect what reality-is as-it-is which is for humans multi-perspectives.
Whatever is presented, the point is, it must be rational and if claimed to be real, it must be verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.

• *If you have read my posts thoroughly you will note I have supported my views from all sorts of perspectives in contrast to your merely ONE perspective which is a very rigid linguistic argument.

All that you leveraged on is 'fact is fact' i.e. feature of reality, states of affair, that is the case, & the likes, and all these are mere words and do not realize the real-of-reality.

You never bother to explore and understand how what-is-really-real or the fact is real-ized within human consciousness.

Once we understand what is the realization of reality, we need to verify and justify it empirically and philosophy to reinforce it is epistemologically real.
To do so we have to resort to some kind of Framework and System of Reality or Knowledge.

Point is the realization and justification of reality inherently entangle with humans which are part and parcel of reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. "Only things by man himself" is a principle thus necessitating some greater power beyond man.
2. There is no principle in itself thus a principle lies beyond "only things by man himself"
3. Man is a measure of all things not the measure.

You are forcing your views on 1 - there are only things-by-man-himself.
There is no need for some greater power beyond which is a thing-in-itself; 1. there is no thing-in-itself.

You are merely speculating that is some greater power beyond man.
This is what the theists are speculating with a God, i.e. a greater power beyond man.
Theists rely on this claim based on faith, i.e. no proof nor reasonable reasons.

Can you prove what you claim as 'some greater power beyond man' exists that is absolute independent of man?

False, according to your view there is no thing in itself, and man is a thing, therefore man as measurer does not exist in itself. Something exists as a measurer beyond man.

Note this;

• There are no thing-in-itself,
  Man is a thing,
  Therefore there is no man-in-itself

Man-in-itself is what is claimed as a soul-in-itself that will survive physical death and can have eternal life.

Man exists as man-by-itself i.e. men-by-themselves.

The point is you are merely speculating what is beyond man.

Why can't you accept what is given [things] which are verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically as real?

Why you must speculate into the beyond to the thing-in-itself is purely psychological.

You cannot prove or disprove something beyond man considering there is no proof which exists in itself thus a proof always lies beyond the proof mentioned. Proof is intrinsically empty, and you are asking for that which is empty in itself, thus you are asking for what is contradictory.

Whatever is proven is "empty" [sunyata] but it is real empirically and philosophically.
If you cannot prove anything as real, then it is false.

It is possible for one to speculate on the unknown, but this unknown has to be empirically and philosophically possible.
Example I can speculate there are human-liked aliens in a planet 100 light years away from Earth. This is because all the bolded items have been proven thus they are empirically possible. It is only a matter of producing the evidence to verify and confirm their empirical existence.

On the other hand, the thing-in-itself or man-in-itself are empirically impossible.
Can you prove your soul [man-in-itself] that will survive physical death exists as real?
Why you must speculate into the beyond of man is purely psychological and that is what theists do.
If you are not a theists, you are still doing the same reification of an illusion [assumption].

[Eodnhoj7]

You are forcing your views on 1 - there are only things-by-man-himself.
There is no need for some greater power beyond which is a thing-in-itself; 1. there is no thing-in-itself.

You are merely speculating that is some greater power beyond man.
This is what the theists are speculating with a God, i.e. a greater power beyond man.
Theists rely on this claim based on faith, i.e. no proof nor reasonable reasons.

Can you prove what you claim as 'some greater power beyond man' exists that is absolute independent of man?

False, according to your view there is no thing in itself, and man is a thing, therefore man as measurer does not exist in itself. Something exists as a measurer beyond man.

Note this;

• There are no thing-in-itself,
  Man is a thing,
  Therefore there is no man-in-itself

Man-in-itself is what is claimed as a soul-in-itself that will survive physical death and can have eternal life.

No the soul would be saved by a source which is beyond man through which his existence is a fractal.

Man exists as man-by-itself i.e. men-by-themselves.

The point is you are merely speculating what is beyond man.

False, man as no thing in himself necessitates being that exists beyond man.

Why can't you accept what is given [things] which are verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically as real?

Why you must speculate into the beyond to the thing-in-itself is purely psychological.

Empiricism is purely psychological as it is an interpretation of the senses through the faculty of reason.

You cannot prove or disprove something beyond man considering there is no proof which exists in itself thus a proof always lies beyond the proof mentioned. Proof is intrinsically empty, and you are asking for that which is empty in itself, thus you are asking for what is contradictory.

Whatever is proven is "empty" [sunyata] but it is real empirically and philosophically.
If you cannot prove anything as real, then it is false.

Empiricism is empty in itself thus necessitating real abstractions in interpreting it.

It is possible for one to speculate on the unknown, but this unknown has to be empirically and philosophically possible.

The totality of being leaves unknown empirical elements thus necessitating, by your standards, empiricism being false given not all empirical realities can be observed.

Dually the totality of being necessitates consciousness as part of it thus necessitating existence as self aware therefore a definition of God occurs in describing beingl. The totality of being would equivocate to a definition of God.


Example I can speculate there are human-liked aliens in a planet 100 light years away from Earth. This is because all the bolded items have been proven thus they are empirically possible. It is only a matter of producing the evidence to verify and confirm their empirical existence.

On the other hand, the thing-in-itself or man-in-itself are empirically impossible.
Can you prove your soul [man-in-itself] that will survive physical death exists as real?

Matter changing to further matter, thus matter working through itself as self referential necessitates matter as a thing in itself, but matter cannot be a thing in itself and something must exist beyond it...this is according to your logic.


Why you must speculate into the beyond of man is purely psychological and that is what theists do.
If you are not a theists, you are still doing the same reification of an illusion [assumption].

Empiricism is assumed.

[Veritas Aequitas]

False, according to your view there is no thing in itself, and man is a thing, therefore man as measurer does not exist in itself. Something exists as a measurer beyond man.

Note this;

• There are no thing-in-itself,
  Man is a thing,
  Therefore there is no man-in-itself

Man-in-itself is what is claimed as a soul-in-itself that will survive physical death and can have eternal life.

No the soul would be saved by a source which is beyond man through which his existence is a fractal.

Man exists as man-by-itself i.e. men-by-themselves.

The point is you are merely speculating what is beyond man.

False, man as no thing in himself necessitates being that exists beyond man.

Why can't you accept what is given [things] which are verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically as real?

Why you must speculate into the beyond to the thing-in-itself is purely psychological.

Empiricism is purely psychological as it is an interpretation of the senses through the faculty of reason.

You cannot prove or disprove something beyond man considering there is no proof which exists in itself thus a proof always lies beyond the proof mentioned. Proof is intrinsically empty, and you are asking for that which is empty in itself, thus you are asking for what is contradictory.

Whatever is proven is "empty" [sunyata] but it is real empirically and philosophically.
If you cannot prove anything as real, then it is false.

Empiricism is empty in itself thus necessitating real abstractions in interpreting it.

It is possible for one to speculate on the unknown, but this unknown has to be empirically and philosophically possible.

The totality of being leaves unknown empirical elements thus necessitating, by your standards, empiricism being false given not all empirical realities can be observed.

Dually the totality of being necessitates consciousness as part of it thus necessitating existence as self aware therefore a definition of God occurs in describing beingl. The totality of being would equivocate to a definition of God.


Example I can speculate there are human-liked aliens in a planet 100 light years away from Earth. This is because all the bolded items have been proven thus they are empirically possible. It is only a matter of producing the evidence to verify and confirm their empirical existence.

On the other hand, the thing-in-itself or man-in-itself are empirically impossible.
Can you prove your soul [man-in-itself] that will survive physical death exists as real?

Matter changing to further matter, thus matter working through itself as self referential necessitates matter as a thing in itself, but matter cannot be a thing in itself and something must exist beyond it...this is according to your logic.


Why you must speculate into the beyond of man is purely psychological and that is what theists do.
If you are not a theists, you are still doing the same reification of an illusion [assumption].

Empiricism is assumed.

So you believe the soul is real to be saved by a real God.
The above are illusions assumed to be real.
Note my counter argument to the above;

God is an Impossibility to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Demonstrate to me Empiricism-in-general is assumed.

[Eodnhoj7]

Note this;

• There are no thing-in-itself,
  Man is a thing,
  Therefore there is no man-in-itself

Man-in-itself is what is claimed as a soul-in-itself that will survive physical death and can have eternal life.

No the soul would be saved by a source which is beyond man through which his existence is a fractal.

Man exists as man-by-itself i.e. men-by-themselves.

The point is you are merely speculating what is beyond man.

False, man as no thing in himself necessitates being that exists beyond man.

Why can't you accept what is given [things] which are verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically as real?

Why you must speculate into the beyond to the thing-in-itself is purely psychological.

Empiricism is purely psychological as it is an interpretation of the senses through the faculty of reason.



Whatever is proven is "empty" [sunyata] but it is real empirically and philosophically.
If you cannot prove anything as real, then it is false.

Empiricism is empty in itself thus necessitating real abstractions in interpreting it.

It is possible for one to speculate on the unknown, but this unknown has to be empirically and philosophically possible.

The totality of being leaves unknown empirical elements thus necessitating, by your standards, empiricism being false given not all empirical realities can be observed.

Dually the totality of being necessitates consciousness as part of it thus necessitating existence as self aware therefore a definition of God occurs in describing beingl. The totality of being would equivocate to a definition of God.


Example I can speculate there are human-liked aliens in a planet 100 light years away from Earth. This is because all the bolded items have been proven thus they are empirically possible. It is only a matter of producing the evidence to verify and confirm their empirical existence.

On the other hand, the thing-in-itself or man-in-itself are empirically impossible.
Can you prove your soul [man-in-itself] that will survive physical death exists as real?

Matter changing to further matter, thus matter working through itself as self referential necessitates matter as a thing in itself, but matter cannot be a thing in itself and something must exist beyond it...this is according to your logic.


Why you must speculate into the beyond of man is purely psychological and that is what theists do.
If you are not a theists, you are still doing the same reification of an illusion [assumption].

Empiricism is assumed.

So you believe the soul is real to be saved by a real God.
The above are illusions assumed to be real.
Note my counter argument to the above;

God is an Impossibility to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Demonstrate to me Empiricism-in-general is assumed.

God can be defined as the totality of all there is, the totality is empirical.


Empiricism in general is assumed given we are imprinted through the senses and these senses are assumed. We accept what we perceive based upon belief that the senses are correct due to their alignment with prior memories of prior senses. For example the seeing of a mirage as an illusion is based upon prior memories of sense experiences with water. The illusion is assumed, ie imprinted on the senses, and the illusion is aligned, or rather fails to align, with prior memories of what water consists of. Memory is the assumption of the experience as a repeatable thought which is repeated, thus reassumed, within the mind.

[Veritas Aequitas]

God can be defined as the totality of all there is, the totality is empirical.

'All-there-is' is open-ended.
'Totality' implied completeness within a boundary which is not open-ended.

You can define your god empirically as totality of all there is, e.g. all there is in that container is 10 marbles. This can be easily verified and justified empirically and philosophically.
If yours is an empirically-based God, then bring your empirical God to be verified and justified Scientifically which is the standard bearer of empirical verification.

The latest acceptable idea of God as perfection, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and beyond an imperfect-man's comprehension is not empirical.

Empiricism in general is assumed given we are imprinted through the senses and these senses are assumed. We accept what we perceive based upon belief that the senses are correct due to their alignment with prior memories of prior senses. For example the seeing of a mirage as an illusion is based upon prior memories of sense experiences with water. The illusion is assumed, ie imprinted on the senses, and the illusion is aligned, or rather fails to align, with prior memories of what water consists of. Memory is the assumption of the experience as a repeatable thought which is repeated, thus reassumed, within the mind.

You are using the term 'assumption' irrelevantly and wrongly.
=to take for granted or without proof:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/assume?s=t

Empiricism of the highest order, i.e. inferring knowledge via scientific knowledge do not rely directly on assumptions.
That 'Water is H20' as an empirical scientific fact is not assumed at all.
What is observed via the senses is processed via a reliable framework and system with its mechanisms and processes to reach a conclusion that is testable and repeatable by any one, thus objective.
That the framework & system include certain assumptions, e.g. consistency is secondary.

Upon the activation of an illusion, some may claim it is real [in a way an assumption] but such claims are never credible at all.
The only way a claim is credible is to ensure it is verified and justified empirically and philosophically, e.g. via Science as the standard bearer of veracity.

You are merely making claims [noises] of an empirical-god [which is a cheapskate anyway] but you are running away from subjecting your god to verification and justification.

[Peter Holmes]

God can be defined as the totality of all there is, the totality is empirical.

'All-there-is' is open-ended.
'Totality' implied completeness within a boundary which is not open-ended.

You can define your god empirically as totality of all there is, e.g. all there is in that container is 10 marbles. This can be easily verified and justified empirically and philosophically.
If yours is an empirically-based God, then bring your empirical God to be verified and justified Scientifically which is the standard bearer of empirical verification.

The latest acceptable idea of God as perfection, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and beyond an imperfect-man's comprehension is not empirical.

Empiricism in general is assumed given we are imprinted through the senses and these senses are assumed. We accept what we perceive based upon belief that the senses are correct due to their alignment with prior memories of prior senses. For example the seeing of a mirage as an illusion is based upon prior memories of sense experiences with water. The illusion is assumed, ie imprinted on the senses, and the illusion is aligned, or rather fails to align, with prior memories of what water consists of. Memory is the assumption of the experience as a repeatable thought which is repeated, thus reassumed, within the mind.

You are using the term 'assumption' irrelevantly and wrongly.
=to take for granted or without proof:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/assume?s=t

Empiricism of the highest order, i.e. inferring knowledge via scientific knowledge do not rely directly on assumptions.
That 'Water is H20' as an empirical scientific fact is not assumed at all.
What is observed via the senses is processed via a reliable framework and system with its mechanisms and processes to reach a conclusion that is testable and repeatable by any one, thus objective.
That the framework & system include certain assumptions, e.g. consistency is secondary.

Upon the activation of an illusion, some may claim it is real [in a way an assumption] but such claims are never credible at all.
The only way a claim is credible is to ensure it is verified and justified empirically and philosophically, e.g. via Science as the standard bearer of veracity.

You are merely making claims [noises] of an empirical-god [which is a cheapskate anyway] but you are running away from subjecting your god to verification and justification.

I agree that god-claims are irrational, because they lack credible evidence. But even if they were true, that wouldn't mean morality is objective. A creature - even one with free will - isn't morally obliged to obey its creator, even a good and well-intentioned one.

But now, apply your demand for empirical evidence to the existence of moral facts. For example, what empirical evidence is there for the assertion that humans killing humans is morally wrong? Appealing to a moral framework and system of knowledge merely begs the question.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I agree that god-claims are irrational, because they lack credible evidence. But even if they were true, that wouldn't mean morality is objective. A creature - even one with free will - isn't morally obliged to obey its creator, even a good and well-intentioned one.

I have already argued, what is not subjective is objective and vice-versa.
What is subjective is generally restricted to one subject's personal view.
Thus if a view is co-shared by two or more subjects, that would by the above logic, be objective.
But being objective does not imply real.
To be real, the claim must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.
The reality and veracity of the claim come in degrees depending on the credibility of the FSK/FSR, where the scientific FSK is the standard bearer.

Thus if the claim God exists is supported by a FSK with more than 2 then the claim is objective albeit of very low degree of reliability.
Where theistic-based morality is based on God exists and supported by millions, such a morality is objective in a way.
But because its grounding, i.e. God exists is not verified and justified empirically and philosophically, it credible rating of objectivity is very low, say 10/100 along the objectivity continuum.

Where theistic morality is considered in terms of a group, its morality is subjective not objective, i.e. there is only one major group. This is why the God-Command-Theory is categorized as Moral Subjectivism within Metaethics.

But now, apply your demand for empirical evidence to the existence of moral facts. For example, what empirical evidence is there for the assertion that humans killing humans is morally wrong? Appealing to a moral framework and system of knowledge merely begs the question.

Not wasting my time here.
Not my response to the above question in the other threads.

[Peter Holmes]

I agree that god-claims are irrational, because they lack credible evidence. But even if they were true, that wouldn't mean morality is objective. A creature - even one with free will - isn't morally obliged to obey its creator, even a good and well-intentioned one.

I have already argued, what is not subjective is objective and vice-versa.
What is subjective is generally restricted to one subject's personal view.
Thus if a view is co-shared by two or more subjects, that would by the above logic, be objective.
But being objective does not imply real.
To be real, the claim must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.
The reality and veracity of the claim come in degrees depending on the credibility of the FSK/FSR, where the scientific FSK is the standard bearer.

Thus if the claim God exists is supported by a FSK with more than 2 then the claim is objective albeit of very low degree of reliability.
Where theistic-based morality is based on God exists and supported by millions, such a morality is objective in a way.
But because its grounding, i.e. God exists is not verified and justified empirically and philosophically, it credible rating of objectivity is very low, say 10/100 along the objectivity continuum.

Where theistic morality is considered in terms of a group, its morality is subjective not objective, i.e. there is only one major group. This is why the God-Command-Theory is categorized as Moral Subjectivism within Metaethics.

But now, apply your demand for empirical evidence to the existence of moral facts. For example, what empirical evidence is there for the assertion that humans killing humans is morally wrong? Appealing to a moral framework and system of knowledge merely begs the question.

Not wasting my time here.
Not my response to the above question in the other threads.

1 What we call subjectivity is dependence on opinion. So it has nothing to do with how many people are depending on opinion. One person can be subjective, or some, or many, or all of us. The number of people is irrelevant. So your claim that 'what is subjective is generally restricted to one subject's personal view' is false. It's a misunderstanding.

2 What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts. So it has nothing to do with how many people are considering the facts. One person can be objective, or some, or many, or all of us. The number of people is irrelevant. So your claim that 'if a view is co-shared by two or more subjects, that would ... be objective' is false. It's a misunderstanding.

3 To repeat: what empirical evidence is there for the assertion that humans killing humans is morally wrong? Appealing to a moral framework and system of knowledge merely begs the question.

The reason why you won't answer that question is that you can't answer it, and that fact demolishes your argument for moral objectivity. And it's tough to abandon a cherished, quasi-religious belief. But I'm glad to hear you won't waste any more of your own and our time.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I agree that god-claims are irrational, because they lack credible evidence. But even if they were true, that wouldn't mean morality is objective. A creature - even one with free will - isn't morally obliged to obey its creator, even a good and well-intentioned one.

I have already argued, what is not subjective is objective and vice-versa.
What is subjective is generally restricted to one subject's personal view.
Thus if a view is co-shared by two or more subjects, that would by the above logic, be objective.
But being objective does not imply real.
To be real, the claim must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.
The reality and veracity of the claim come in degrees depending on the credibility of the FSK/FSR, where the scientific FSK is the standard bearer.

Thus if the claim God exists is supported by a FSK with more than 2 then the claim is objective albeit of very low degree of reliability.
Where theistic-based morality is based on God exists and supported by millions, such a morality is objective in a way.
But because its grounding, i.e. God exists is not verified and justified empirically and philosophically, it credible rating of objectivity is very low, say 10/100 along the objectivity continuum.

Where theistic morality is considered in terms of a group, its morality is subjective not objective, i.e. there is only one major group. This is why the God-Command-Theory is categorized as Moral Subjectivism within Metaethics.

But now, apply your demand for empirical evidence to the existence of moral facts. For example, what empirical evidence is there for the assertion that humans killing humans is morally wrong? Appealing to a moral framework and system of knowledge merely begs the question.

Not wasting my time here.
Not my response to the above question in the other threads.

1 What we call subjectivity is dependence on opinion. So it has nothing to do with how many people are depending on opinion. One person can be subjective, or some, or many, or all of us. The number of people is irrelevant. So your claim that 'what is subjective is generally restricted to one subject's personal view' is false. It's a misunderstanding.

2 What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts. So it has nothing to do with how many people are considering the facts. One person can be objective, or some, or many, or all of us. The number of people is irrelevant. So your claim that 'if a view is co-shared by two or more subjects, that would ... be objective' is false. It's a misunderstanding.

3 To repeat: what empirical evidence is there for the assertion that humans killing humans is morally wrong? Appealing to a moral framework and system of knowledge merely begs the question.

The reason why you won't answer that question is that you can't answer it, and that fact demolishes your argument for moral objectivity. And it's tough to abandon a cherished, quasi-religious belief. But I'm glad to hear you won't waste any more of your own and our time.

2 Subjectivity is dependence on opinion. So it has nothing to do with how many people are depending on opinion. One person can be subjective, or some, or many, or all of us. The number of people is irrelevant. So your claim that 'what is subjective is generally restricted to one subject's personal view' is false. It's a misunderstanding.

Note I posted this in another thread;
Objectivity and Morality
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31161
You did not object to the main theme of the thread re Objectivity.

What is objectivity?

In general,

• In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
  A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

By the above definition what is objectivity can also be
a concept of truth that is dependent on the shared-views from the consensus of two or more individuals based on a framework and system of knowledge.

Note the basis of framework as mentioned by Richard Feyman in Skepdick's link below;
https://youtu.be/MO0r930Sn_8?t=96

However what is objective within objectivity [as defined] need not be true or factual.

For any claims to be true, factual and real, we need to review whether the robustness of the framework and system of knowledge [FSK] that ensure its output is objective.

Read the rest of the point in the OP.

There is contrast to what is objectivity as above,
What is subjectivity which is based on a subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity

I believe to deal with an issue effective within philosophical thinking is necessary to invoke the concept of a continuum in this case, the continuum of objectivity and subjectivity.

I believe in term of the context of the continuum of objectivity, it is reasonable to rate say the objectivity of religious doctrine at 2/100 in contrast to that scientific objectivity at +/- 90/100.
It is like 98% blackness is 2% whiteness which is not an issue, you dispute this?
If you are unable to agree with the above, it only show your ignorance and bigotry.

I have repeated the same explanation a '1000' times in most cases.
I will still response and invest the time as long as it serves MY interests not others.

[Eodnhoj7]

God can be defined as the totality of all there is, the totality is empirical.

'All-there-is' is open-ended.
'Totality' implied completeness within a boundary which is not open-ended.

You can define your god empirically as totality of all there is, e.g. all there is in that container is 10 marbles. This can be easily verified and justified empirically and philosophically.
If yours is an empirically-based God, then bring your empirical God to be verified and justified Scientifically which is the standard bearer of empirical verification.

False, all that there is contains that which contains the marbles. For any container of being a container exists beyond it where being contains itself through itself where nothing is beyond being except further being. Being as existing through further being necessitates a boundary to being where being contains itself effectively.

There is no universally agreed upon standard for empirical justification, what may exist as proof for some does not apply as proof for all. The standard of what constitutes an accurate test of God falls back on those who ask for proof considering proof is subject to interpretation and interpretation is subjective.



The latest acceptable idea of God as perfection, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and beyond an imperfect-man's comprehension is not empirical.

Beyond comprehension is the totality of matter which forms all empirical phenomenon yet matter is accepted as proof for empirical claims thus a contradiction occurs.

Empiricism in general is assumed given we are imprinted through the senses and these senses are assumed. We accept what we perceive based upon belief that the senses are correct due to their alignment with prior memories of prior senses. For example the seeing of a mirage as an illusion is based upon prior memories of sense experiences with water. The illusion is assumed, ie imprinted on the senses, and the illusion is aligned, or rather fails to align, with prior memories of what water consists of. Memory is the assumption of the experience as a repeatable thought which is repeated, thus reassumed, within the mind.

You are using the term 'assumption' irrelevantly and wrongly.
=to take for granted or without proof:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/assume?s=t

All proofs are subject to further proofs beyond it with the underlying nature of proof resting upon something assumed. There is no proof which does not require something unproven beyond it as accepted.

Proof, as defined through a Google search:
"evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."
Thus all proofs require an abstraction beyond it in order to be justified. Thus evidence or argument thus necessitates proof as an interpretation.



Empiricism of the highest order, i.e. inferring knowledge via scientific knowledge do not rely directly on assumptions.
That 'Water is H20' as an empirical scientific fact is not assumed at all.

False it is an observation of applied boundaries, as a concept, to a phenomenon. The relations of hydrogen and oxygen are defined as the limits of what constitutes water. The fact is an interpretation, the interpretation is a definition. A fact is the application of boundaries to one phenomenon out of many. It is an act of distinction. The distinction is an agreed upon interpretation of where to begin and end in measuring a phenomenon. Facts are deemed as that which is agreed upon, water can easily be defined as a non combustible clear liquid, thus expanding the definition of water. Facts are classifications, classifications are made up.



What is observed via the senses is processed via a reliable framework and system with its mechanisms and processes to reach a conclusion that is testable and repeatable by any one, thus objective.
That the framework & system include certain assumptions, e.g. consistency is secondary.

The process of repeatability to accept something as fact is the same process of repeatability through which a phenomenon manifests itself. The repetition of a particle from point A to point B necessitates the particle as real. Repeatability is the grounding of the totality of being, given being repeats itself through a constant series of fractals. The definition of God as Being, with this being occuring through repetition, necessitates God as existing through the process of measurement employed by man given man is fractal of God due to his (man's) ability to measure. This ability is measure is a repetition of God's definition as measurer. To measure that which measures is to result in further measurements.





Upon the activation of an illusion, some may claim it is real [in a way an assumption] but such claims are never credible at all.
The only way a claim is credible is to ensure it is verified and justified empirically and philosophically, e.g. via Science as the standard bearer of veracity.

You are merely making claims [noises] of an empirical-god [which is a cheapskate anyway] but you are running away from subjecting your god to verification and justification.

There is no universal standard for verification and justification other than repeatability. As mentioned above the same repeatability for what is accepted as true is the same repeatability through which being manifests itself. You lend yourself to a contradiction given the definition of God as the totality of being requires using the very same being to test itself thus a loop occurs. One would be using God to test God.

Dually in forming a test to test God one would have to contain all variables of the totality of being within the framework. Empiricism cannot do this as empiricism is a contradiction. It requires matter as proof yet the totality of matter cannot be observed.

The real question would be:

What would be a justifiable test for God? And would one have to apply a test to make sure this is the right test? Empiricism leaves an incomprehensible open ended standard for what constitutes an appropriate test given anything can be subject to a definition of testing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

God can be defined as the totality of all there is, the totality is empirical.

'All-there-is' is open-ended.
'Totality' implied completeness within a boundary which is not open-ended.

You can define your god empirically as totality of all there is, e.g. all there is in that container is 10 marbles. This can be easily verified and justified empirically and philosophically.
If yours is an empirically-based God, then bring your empirical God to be verified and justified Scientifically which is the standard bearer of empirical verification.

False, all that there is contains that which contains the marbles. For any container of being a container exists beyond it where being contains itself through itself where nothing is beyond being except further being. Being as existing through further being necessitates a boundary to being where being contains itself effectively.

There is no universally agreed upon standard for empirical justification, what may exist as proof for some does not apply as proof for all. The standard of what constitutes an accurate test of God falls back on those who ask for proof considering proof is subject to interpretation and interpretation is subjective.



The latest acceptable idea of God as perfection, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and beyond an imperfect-man's comprehension is not empirical.

Beyond comprehension is the totality of matter which forms all empirical phenomenon yet matter is accepted as proof for empirical claims thus a contradiction occurs.

Empiricism in general is assumed given we are imprinted through the senses and these senses are assumed. We accept what we perceive based upon belief that the senses are correct due to their alignment with prior memories of prior senses. For example the seeing of a mirage as an illusion is based upon prior memories of sense experiences with water. The illusion is assumed, ie imprinted on the senses, and the illusion is aligned, or rather fails to align, with prior memories of what water consists of. Memory is the assumption of the experience as a repeatable thought which is repeated, thus reassumed, within the mind.

You are using the term 'assumption' irrelevantly and wrongly.
=to take for granted or without proof:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/assume?s=t

All proofs are subject to further proofs beyond it with the underlying nature of proof resting upon something assumed. There is no proof which does not require something unproven beyond it as accepted.

Proof, as defined through a Google search:
"evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."
Thus all proofs require an abstraction beyond it in order to be justified. Thus evidence or argument thus necessitates proof as an interpretation.



Empiricism of the highest order, i.e. inferring knowledge via scientific knowledge do not rely directly on assumptions.
That 'Water is H20' as an empirical scientific fact is not assumed at all.

False it is an observation of applied boundaries, as a concept, to a phenomenon. The relations of hydrogen and oxygen are defined as the limits of what constitutes water. The fact is an interpretation, the interpretation is a definition. A fact is the application of boundaries to one phenomenon out of many. It is an act of distinction. The distinction is an agreed upon interpretation of where to begin and end in measuring a phenomenon. Facts are deemed as that which is agreed upon, water can easily be defined as a non combustible clear liquid, thus expanding the definition of water. Facts are classifications, classifications are made up.



What is observed via the senses is processed via a reliable framework and system with its mechanisms and processes to reach a conclusion that is testable and repeatable by any one, thus objective.
That the framework & system include certain assumptions, e.g. consistency is secondary.

The process of repeatability to accept something as fact is the same process of repeatability through which a phenomenon manifests itself. The repetition of a particle from point A to point B necessitates the particle as real. Repeatability is the grounding of the totality of being, given being repeats itself through a constant series of fractals. The definition of God as Being, with this being occuring through repetition, necessitates God as existing through the process of measurement employed by man given man is fractal of God due to his (man's) ability to measure. This ability is measure is a repetition of God's definition as measurer. To measure that which measures is to result in further measurements.





Upon the activation of an illusion, some may claim it is real [in a way an assumption] but such claims are never credible at all.
The only way a claim is credible is to ensure it is verified and justified empirically and philosophically, e.g. via Science as the standard bearer of veracity.

You are merely making claims [noises] of an empirical-god [which is a cheapskate anyway] but you are running away from subjecting your god to verification and justification.

There is no universal standard for verification and justification other than repeatability. As mentioned above the same repeatability for what is accepted as true is the same repeatability through which being manifests itself. You lend yourself to a contradiction given the definition of God as the totality of being requires using the very same being to test itself thus a loop occurs. One would be using God to test God.

Dually in forming a test to test God one would have to contain all variables of the totality of being within the framework. Empiricism cannot do this as empiricism is a contradiction. It requires matter as proof yet the totality of matter cannot be observed.

The real question would be:

What would be a justifiable test for God? And would one have to apply a test to make sure this is the right test? Empiricism leaves an incomprehensible open ended standard for what constitutes an appropriate test given anything can be subject to a definition of testing.

You are missing the point.

What I have been arguing is,
to claim whatever thing [God or whatever] to have real existence, it must be verified and justified empirically [at the minimal] and philosophically where scientific justification is the standard bearer of truth.
There is no exemption for God to be tested differently from any other thing.

I agree, empiricism has its limitation and the scientific method that rely on empiricism also has other limitations but it works in practice due to its justification processes and repeatability.
And btw, whatever are scientific facts being the standard bearer of truth, they are at best, mere polished conjectures.
The point is whatever is claimed as scientifically true is openly qualified to its conditions and limitation, plus the critical minimal it is subject to empirical evidences.

But the difference with the above is, what you are claiming, i.e. that-which-is-beyond-man or a God is real is merely based on noises without any grounds, testing, the minimal empirical evidence, the assurance of repeatability, falsifiability, and other requirements.

Point is anyone can make that noise as a claim of whatever-X is real without the need to justify its truth via a framework and system like the scientific method.