What could make morality objective?

[Belinda]

What makes morality objective is the theists' God , and also the pantheists' God-or-Nature.

[Peter Holmes]

What makes morality objective is the theists' God , and also the pantheists' God-or-Nature.

After everything that's been said in this discussion? This has to be a joke.

[Belinda]

What makes morality objective is the theists' God , and also the pantheists' God-or-Nature.

After everything that's been said in this discussion? This has to be a joke.

Do you mean the "joke" is that I wrote what I wrote, or the content of what I wrote?

[Peter Holmes]

What makes morality objective is the theists' God , and also the pantheists' God-or-Nature.

After everything that's been said in this discussion? This has to be a joke.

Do you mean the "joke" is that I wrote what I wrote, or the content of what I wrote?

The claim that the theists' god - for the existence of which there's precisely the same evidence as there is for the existence of the pantheists' god-or-nature - ie zero, zilch, nada, tipota - makes or even could make morality objective - that's the joke - given how often and how thoroughly I and others have shown that morality can't be objective. But perhaps I missed your convincing refutation of what we've argued.

[Belinda]

After everything that's been said in this discussion? This has to be a joke.

Do you mean the "joke" is that I wrote what I wrote, or the content of what I wrote?

The claim that the theists' god - for the existence of which there's precisely the same evidence as there is for the existence of the pantheists' god-or-nature - ie zero, zilch, nada, tipota - makes or even could make morality objective - that's the joke - given how often and how thoroughly I and others have shown that morality can't be objective. But perhaps I missed your convincing refutation of what we've argued.

So it is the content of my proposition you object to. Please bear in mind my remarks about God and God-or-Nature are hypothetical.

[Peter Holmes]

Do you mean the "joke" is that I wrote what I wrote, or the content of what I wrote?

The claim that the theists' god - for the existence of which there's precisely the same evidence as there is for the existence of the pantheists' god-or-nature - ie zero, zilch, nada, tipota - makes or even could make morality objective - that's the joke - given how often and how thoroughly I and others have shown that morality can't be objective. But perhaps I missed your convincing refutation of what we've argued.

So it is the content of my proposition you object to. Please bear in mind my remarks about God and God-or-Nature are hypothetical.

In which case, please phrase it as a hypothetical: if the theists' god exists, then... (But anyway, that doesn't follow.)

[Terrapin Station]

The generally accepted philosophical view is there is no absolute certainty, therefore any claim is possible to be false if verified and justified to be so. That of course would include any scientific claims.

So if that's the case, how are we asking for proof of realism?
Did you just mean any evidence for it, evidence that is not absolutely certain, and where it's possible for it to be false?

Not sure of your question?

You asked for proof of realism. But you're admitting that "there is no absolute certainty, therefore any claim is possible to be false."

So I'm asking you, with respect to asking for proof of realism, if you're just asking for any evidence of realism, evidence that is not absolutely certain, where it's possible for it to be false.

That's a yes or no question.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So if that's the case, how are we asking for proof of realism?
Did you just mean any evidence for it, evidence that is not absolutely certain, and where it's possible for it to be false?

Not sure of your question?

You asked for proof of realism. But you're admitting that "there is no absolute certainty, therefore any claim is possible to be false."

So I'm asking you, with respect to asking for proof of realism, if you're just asking for any evidence of realism, evidence that is not absolutely certain, where it's possible for it to be false.

That's a yes or no question.

I believe what I posted somewhere is relevant here.

The maxim is 'There is no Absolute Certainty'
thus, "whatever is impossible" cannot be 100% absolute certain,
so, 'whatever is impossible' can be possible,
but that is only in theory.

For you to bank on the above possible-impossibility is merely to fall into a loop, i.e. whatever you claim 'impossibility is possible' is not of absolute certainty, thus can be wrong and so onto an infinite regress.
Philosophically but we must be realistic.

We have discussed the most realistic and credible knowledge we have on hand is from the scientific FSK which is based on the empirical and the philosophical.
The Scientific FSK is the Most Credible
viewtopic.php?p=489333#p489333

Thus my claim, God is impossible to be real within the most realistic and credible FSR/FSK, i.e. the scientific FSR/FSK.[/list]

Therefore when I ask for proofs of [philosophical] realism, then the evidence must at least meet the requirement of the most realistic and credible FSK plus any relevant philosophical justifications for it to be realistic.

What is real to you, i.e. philosophical realism, i.e. objects-reality is mind-independent is merely an assumption within the scientific FSK.

[Skepdick]

You asked for proof of realism. But you're admitting that "there is no absolute certainty, therefore any claim is possible to be false."

So I'm asking you, with respect to asking for proof of realism, if you're just asking for any evidence of realism, evidence that is not absolutely certain, where it's possible for it to be false.

That's a yes or no question.

When somebody asks for "evidence for realism" they are probably asking for evidence that justifies ONLY realism without ALSO justifying rival theories.

But therein the crux: any evidence "for realism" is also interpretable as evidence "for solipsism" and evidence "for anti-realism", and "evidence for Theism". All evidence supports all philosophies.

When people ask for "proof" or "evidence", what they really mean is they are asking for YOUR decision-procedure that allowed YOU to select "realism" from the bag full of philosophies.

Does all the available evidence justify realism more than it justifies all other philosophies?

That's a yes or no question too. And the answer is "no".

[Belinda]

The claim that the theists' god - for the existence of which there's precisely the same evidence as there is for the existence of the pantheists' god-or-nature - ie zero, zilch, nada, tipota - makes or even could make morality objective - that's the joke - given how often and how thoroughly I and others have shown that morality can't be objective. But perhaps I missed your convincing refutation of what we've argued.

So it is the content of my proposition you object to. Please bear in mind my remarks about God and God-or-Nature are hypothetical.

In which case, please phrase it as a hypothetical: if the theists' god exists, then... (But anyway, that doesn't follow.)

Okay. If the theists' god exists, and the theists' god is that which reifies goodness, then the theists' god objectifies goodness.

NB I presume that by 'objectify' you intend 'reify'.

[Peter Holmes]

So it is the content of my proposition you object to. Please bear in mind my remarks about God and God-or-Nature are hypothetical.

In which case, please phrase it as a hypothetical: if the theists' god exists, then... (But anyway, that doesn't follow.)

Okay. If the theists' god exists, and the theists' god is that which reifies goodness, then the theists' god objectifies goodness.

NB I presume that by 'objectify' you intend 'reify'.

No - I haven't used the words 'objectify' or 'reify' so far, let alone as synonyms.

The claim 'this god objectifies/reifies goodness' - like the less portentous claim 'this god is good' - can only ever express an opinion. And beyond that, a definition (description) of what we call goodness can only ever express an opinion. (I'm obviously not a Platonist. Are you?)

[Skepdick]

I'm obviously not a Platonist. Are you?

You keep telling us not to confuse what things ARE with what we SAY about them.

And here you are...confusing what you ARE with what you SAY about yourself.

What features of yours would make you a Platonist?

[Terrapin Station]

You asked for proof of realism. But you're admitting that "there is no absolute certainty, therefore any claim is possible to be false."

So I'm asking you, with respect to asking for proof of realism, if you're just asking for any evidence of realism, evidence that is not absolutely certain, where it's possible for it to be false.

That's a yes or no question.

I believe what I posted somewhere is relevant here.

I'm only interested in your directly answering the question I asked, as I asked it. Is this something you're capable of?

[Skepdick]

I'm only interested in your directly answering the question I asked, as I asked it. Is this something you're capable of?

Are you capable of demonstrating what that looks like in practice?

Because you keep dodging all my questions...

[Belinda]

Peter Holmes wrote:

I haven't used the words 'objectify' or 'reify' so far, let alone as synonyms.

If you understood the words you would understand what they commonly mean.