Is morality objective or subjective?

[Peter Holmes]

1 Don't tell me what I believe.

I'll go you one better: I can tell you what all Atheists are logically obligated to believe, if they actually believe their Atheism at all.

2 Consider the following argument.

P1 I reject any team's god-claim.
P2 One team claims that only its god can give mortals life-after-death.
C Therefore, I reject the possibility of life-after-death.

The logical conclusion is only, "Therefore, I reject that team's claim."

Now, if you don't understand why that's invalid - why it's a non sequitur - why to reject any team's god claim is not to reject the possibility of life after death

I did not say it was. You have indeed created an invalid syllogism there, as I note above.

Well done. Getting there. Now, exactly the same logical argument applies to all the conclusions you falsely claim are entailed by rejection of any team's god-claims. Insert any god-claim in P2 - about the purpose of the universe, the nature of morality, and so on - and the argument remains invalid.

'There's life after death', 'the universe has a purpose' - and so on - are not god-claims.

But if, as you say, you think life after death is a "possibility," you must have reasons for thinking that.

Again, you misunderstand logical entailment. I accept the possibility of life-after-death, because I can't meet the burden of proof for claiming that it's impossible. But, like you, as what you say next shows, I don't believe life-after-death has ever occurred.

(Btw, I also accept the possibility that fairies and gods exist, because I can't meet the burden of proving that it's impossible. But I believe they don't exist.)

Otherwise, it's just a very wild speculation, and not a very probable one, since it's not been the case ever.

So you reject all the resurrection stories, including in the buybull. Welcome back from the asylum.

It would be refreshing were you to acknowledge that your entailment-from-atheism argument is invalid, as I've shown above. But I predict you won't, because such an acknowledgement completely demolishes your position. But hey - hope springs eternal.

[Veritas Aequitas]

(Btw, I also accept the possibility that fairies and gods exist, because I can't meet the burden of proving that it's impossible. But I believe they don't exist.)

What a muddle??

Existence is never a predicate itself; existence must be predicated.
Your statements should be rephrased as;
1. I also accept [believe in] the possibility that fairies and gods exist [as empirically real], because I can't meet the burden of proving that it's impossible.
2. But I believe they don't exist [as empirically real].

The above 1 & 2 are contradictory.

If you believe God[s] is an empirically possibility, you cannot equivocate with 'impossible'.
The most you can say is, god's existence is of very low possibility.
In that case, you will need to introduce the human-based scientific FSK as the standard to rate the low possibility of theism due to lack or no empirical evidences.

In this case you are comparing the high factuality of scientific facts with the very low factuality of theistic claims.
That has to your basis, otherwise how else?
To admit you don't have the ability to meet the burden of proof is cowardly.

On the other hand, my dismissal and arguments against God's existence as impossible to be real empirical-rational is based on a claim of contradiction due to the fallacy of equivocation by theists.
This leave no possibility for theists to claim there is any possibility at all for a God to exists as real [empirical-rational].

[Peter Holmes]

(Btw, I also accept the possibility that fairies and gods exist, because I can't meet the burden of proving that it's impossible. But I believe they don't exist.)

What a muddle??

Existence is never a predicate itself; existence must be predicated.
Your statements should be rephrased as;
1. I also accept [believe in] the possibility that fairies and gods exist [as empirically real], because I can't meet the burden of proving that it's impossible.
2. But I believe they don't exist [as empirically real].

The above 1 & 2 are contradictory.

If you believe God[s] is an empirically possibility, you cannot equivocate with 'impossible'.
The most you can say is, god's existence is of very low possibility.
In that case, you will need to introduce the human-based scientific FSK as the standard to rate the low possibility of theism due to lack or no empirical evidences.

In this case you are comparing the high factuality of scientific facts with the very low factuality of theistic claims.
That has to your basis, otherwise how else?
To admit you don't have the ability to meet the burden of proof is cowardly.

On the other hand, my dismissal and arguments against God's existence as impossible to be real empirical-rational is based on a claim of contradiction due to the fallacy of equivocation by theists.
This leave no possibility for theists to claim there is any possibility at all for a God to exists as real [empirical-rational].

The muddle is yours, because you're all at sea with this terminology.

1 Grammatically, existence can definitely be a predicate, as in 'gods exist'. But even if 'predicate' means 'property' or 'attribute', then, sure, it would be unusual to call a thing's existence one of its properties. It either does or doesn't exist - and then 'existence' has to be defined.

2 Empiricism is a theory of knowledge, not of reality. (Theories of reality - what exists - are ontological or metaphysical.) So the expressions 'empirical reality' and 'empirically real' are incoherent. And the mash-up nicely demonstrates the mistaking of what we know - or what can be known - for what actually exists - the mistake at the heart of your - and maybe Kant's - argument: 'what exists can only be what we know'.

3 Your argument against the existence of gods is fallacious, as I've demonstrated earlier.

[Immanuel Can]

'There's life after death', 'the universe has a purpose' - and so on - are not god-claims.

Then you're going to need to explain what mechanism can produce life after death without God.

And then you're going to have to show that objective purpose is in the universe without God.

And if you can't, then they are indeed "God claims."

But if, as you say, you think life after death is a "possibility," you must have reasons for thinking that.

Again, you misunderstand logical entailment. I accept the possibility of life-after-death, because I can't meet the burden of proof for claiming that it's impossible.

Yes, you can. If you believe the things that Atheism requires you to deduce: such as that the universe is nothing but a collision of accidental, material forces, then any supposition of afterlife becomes unintelligible and impossible. Dead materials gave rise to the universe; unless you believe in something other than mere materials, there is no "life" after death.

You need, at the very least, a concept of "soul" to be able to be "alive".

So you reject all the resurrection stories,

You don't know the difference between history and speculation?

Belief in the resurrection is a product of the historical record, not of speculation. One may argue about the mechanics of things, but a few things are not debated by any Biblical scholar: one would be that Jesus Christ existed. Another would be that He was crucified. A third is that nobody doubts that following that time, a multitude of people mysteriously developed a very strong belief that the same Person had risen and appeared to them, and nobody was able to produce the requisite body that would have definitively debunked the story. And nobody doubts that the belief these people developed was so strong that many of them were savagely persecuted and died in horrible ways while still absolutely insisting on its truthfulness...which one does not do for what one knows is a lie. All they would have had to do is say, "Sorry, I was wrong;" and they wouldn't have been thrown to lions or nailed upside down and bled out.

These recognitions are generally accepted by all serious scholars, even those skeptical ones who supplement them with theories like "the swoon theory," or he "body stolen" theory. They form the basic frame of mutual recognition of facts within which the attempts to discredit the resurrection actually operate; so both sides accept these basic truths as perfectly reliable. All that's left is to debate the supernatural features of how all these things happened -- it's no question at all that they did happen.

So this is a good deal stronger than any speculation. There's something profoundly historical that needs unpacking there, and cannot be rationally dismissed as "fairies" or "unicorns."

[Peter Holmes]

'There's life after death', 'the universe has a purpose' - and so on - are not god-claims.

Then you're going to need to explain what mechanism can produce life after death without God.

And then you're going to have to show that objective purpose is in the universe without God.

And if you can't, then they are indeed "God claims."

No, they aren't. Read the words. You import your assumption that only your team's god could give mortals life after death, or a purpose to the universe - as a premise. And that's called begging the question. Again, you really don't understand deductive logic.

But if, as you say, you think life after death is a "possibility," you must have reasons for thinking that.

Again, you misunderstand logical entailment. I accept the possibility of life-after-death, because I can't meet the burden of proof for claiming that it's impossible.

Yes, you can. If you believe the things that Atheism requires you to deduce: such as that the universe is nothing but a collision of accidental, material forces, then any supposition of afterlife becomes unintelligible and impossible. Dead materials gave rise to the universe; unless you believe in something other than mere materials, there is no "life" after death.

No. After your brief moment of clarity, you've immediately forgotten that rejection of any team's god-claims doesn't entail any of the conclusions you falsely claim atheists must endorse. Funny how you fail to address that inconvenient fact. Sic transit.

You need, at the very least, a concept of "soul" to be able to be "alive".

So you reject all the resurrection stories,

You don't know the difference between history and speculation?

Belief in the resurrection is a product of the historical record, not of speculation. One may argue about the mechanics of things, but a few things are not debated by any Biblical scholar: one would be that Jesus Christ existed. Another would be that He was crucified. A third is that nobody doubts that following that time, a multitude of people mysteriously developed a very strong belief that the same Person had risen and appeared to them, and nobody was able to produce the requisite body that would have definitively debunked the story. And nobody doubts that the belief these people developed was so strong that many of them were savagely persecuted and died in horrible ways while still absolutely insisting on its truthfulness...which one does not do for what one knows is a lie. All they would have had to do is say, "Sorry, I was wrong;" and they wouldn't have been thrown to lions or nailed upside down and bled out.

I can't be bothered to debunk this tired old apologetic claptrap. You agree that life-after-death never happens - but wait, it happens several times in the buybull. It's embarrassing.

These recognitions are generally accepted by all serious scholars, even those skeptical ones who supplement them with theories like "the swoon theory," or he "body stolen" theory. They form the basic frame of mutual recognition of facts within which the attempts to discredit the resurrection actually operate; so both sides accept these basic truths as perfectly reliable. All that's left is to debate the supernatural features of how all these things happened -- it's no question at all that they did happen.

All of the things that many (by no means all] buybullical scholars think did happen are natural. Speculations, such that a man walked on water, or a dead body came back to life, are confined to the non-historical . Scholarly historical methodology excludes supernatural explanations. Nul point.

So this is a good deal stronger than any speculation. There's something profoundly historical that needs unpacking there, and cannot be rationally dismissed as "fairies" or "unicorns."

So, an invented tribal god brought his son, who was also a god, back to life, having allowed his son's execution, by way of some kind of punishment and atonement for human sinfulness. And that's not speculation? It's pathetic.

You don't argue in good faith, seeking true conclusions. You dishonestly ignore inconvenient debunking of your claims and arguments. In short, you're an intellectually moribund apologist for a nasty religion.

[Immanuel Can]

You import your assumption that only your team's god could give mortals life after death, or a purpose to the universe - as a premise.

Give me your alternative.

What is there that can give life to mortals after death?

If you've got nothing, it's clearly not an assumption: at least right now, it's a rock-solid fact.

...rejection of any team's god-claims doesn't entail any of the conclusions you falsely claim atheists must endorse.

If you reject all God claims, there are only two alternatives: that there IS a God claim you would accept, but it's none of the present ones; or, there is no God claim you would ever accept. It seems to me you're plugging for the latter -- and, in fact HAVE to plug for the latter, if you're an Atheist. (Correct me if I'm wrong about your view, and you're an agnostic instead of an Atheist, however, evidently that doesn't count among the things an actual Atheist can believe.)

So you accept no statement that God exists, and would refuse all such. You're an Atheist. Then you now need to explain to me how an Atheist can believe in even the possibility of life after death.

The floor is yours.

So, an invented tribal god

False premise: now you're begging the question. You're asking me to share your assumption that God is "tribal" and "invented." But the contentious point is whether or not the Supreme Being is either.

The pejoratives don't help your case, Peter. I'm not abusive to you, and I'm treating you as a reasonable human being, not as my dartboard. You can relax. It's Atheism that's under scrutiny here: I exempt you.

[Harbal]

'There's life after death', 'the universe has a purpose' - and so on - are not god-claims.

Then you're going to need to explain what mechanism can produce life after death without God.

In the interests of fairness, you would also need to explain by what mechanism God produces life after death.

[Immanuel Can]

'There's life after death', 'the universe has a purpose' - and so on - are not god-claims.

Then you're going to need to explain what mechanism can produce life after death without God.

In the interests of fairness, you would also need to explain by what mechanism God produces life after death.

By way of being the Originator of life.

It's both analytic that IF (note the conditional) God exists, He can produce life, and empirical, that He has.

[Harbal]

Then you're going to need to explain what mechanism can produce life after death without God.

In the interests of fairness, you would also need to explain by what mechanism God produces life after death.

By way of being the Originator of life.

It's both analytic that IF (note the conditional) God exists, He can produce life, and empirical, that He has.

There are also scientific theories of how life could, and did, originate, but I am sure you would set the bar very high when it comes to what you would accept as evidence of the truth of any. If what you claim were being subjected to scientific standards, the best you could call it would be an unproven theory. We both know there is no universally accepted proof of God's existence, or that God was the originator of life, so you cannot start from that as being a given. If you can't explain how God created life, and then enabled it to somehow continue after physical death, you are in no position to require the same of anyone else in respect of any alternative theories.

[Immanuel Can]

In the interests of fairness, you would also need to explain by what mechanism God produces life after death.

By way of being the Originator of life.

It's both analytic that IF (note the conditional) God exists, He can produce life, and empirical, that He has.

There are also scientific theories of how life could, and did, originate...

Note the "if." I did so in deference to the pseudo-scientific theses that compete. I did not do it because I think they're plausible.

[Harbal]

By way of being the Originator of life.

It's both analytic that IF (note the conditional) God exists, He can produce life, and empirical, that He has.

There are also scientific theories of how life could, and did, originate...

Note the "if." I did so in deference to the pseudo-scientific theses that compete. I did not do it because I think they're plausible.

I'm not asking anyone to believe them; I don't even know what they are. But you say God created life, and is able to continue it after physical death, and if you want anyone to believe you, you need to give a plausible account of how he does that; otherwise your claim has no more warrant to be taken seriously than you take the scientific claims. I don't think you are being asked any more than you ask, and expect, of others.

[Immanuel Can]

...you say God created life, and is able to continue it after physical death, and if you want anyone to believe you, you need to give a plausible account of how he does that...

As I did. He's God. All life comes from Him.

Now, you can say, "Well, I don't believe in God." That's a different question. But if, as I believe, God actually does exist, then that's a very plausible account. In fact, there could be nothing more plausible than that the Originator of life and Giver of souls should be able to say how long that life or soul continues.

[Veritas Aequitas]

(Btw, I also accept the possibility that fairies and gods exist, because I can't meet the burden of proving that it's impossible. But I believe they don't exist.)

What a muddle??

Existence is never a predicate itself; existence must be predicated.
Your statements should be rephrased as;
1. I also accept [believe in] the possibility that fairies and gods exist [as empirically real], because I can't meet the burden of proving that it's impossible.
2. But I believe they don't exist [as empirically real].

The above 1 & 2 are contradictory.

If you believe God[s] is an empirically possibility, you cannot equivocate with 'impossible'.
The most you can say is, god's existence is of very low possibility.
In that case, you will need to introduce the human-based scientific FSK as the standard to rate the low possibility of theism due to lack or no empirical evidences.

In this case you are comparing the high factuality of scientific facts with the very low factuality of theistic claims.
That has to your basis, otherwise how else?
To admit you don't have the ability to meet the burden of proof is cowardly.

On the other hand, my dismissal and arguments against God's existence as impossible to be real empirical-rational is based on a claim of contradiction due to the fallacy of equivocation by theists.
This leave no possibility for theists to claim there is any possibility at all for a God to exists as real [empirical-rational].

The muddle is yours, because you're all at sea with this terminology.

1 Grammatically, existence can definitely be a predicate, as in 'gods exist'. But even if 'predicate' means 'property' or 'attribute', then, sure, it would be unusual to call a thing's existence one of its properties. It either does or doesn't exist - and then 'existence' has to be defined.

Perhaps 'grammatically' but we are doing philosophy in this forum.
To conflate [equivocate] grammar with reality is a very serious philosophical mistake.

When theists claim 'God exists' it implies that their God exists predicated as a real entity [being] with its omni- qualities.
As such to merely 'God exists' as it is is an insult to philosophy.

2 Empiricism is a theory of knowledge, not of reality. (Theories of reality - what exists - are ontological or metaphysical.) So the expressions 'empirical reality' and 'empirically real' are incoherent. And the mash-up nicely demonstrates the mistaking of what we know - or what can be known - for what actually exists - the mistake at the heart of your - and maybe Kant's - argument: 'what exists can only be what we know'.

I have linked this a 'million' times,
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

Before knowing [empirically] something, it must have emerged and realized.
The subsequent experiencing, perceiving & knowing that prior emerged and realized thing re-enforced [topped up] the mind-related "reality" of it.

There is no absolutely mind-independent reality out there awaiting discovery by humans or science.

Van Fraasen: There are No Laws of Nature [other than the ones participated by humans]
viewtopic.php?t=40451

Kant: Laws of Nature, We Ourselves Introduced
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33772

Thus whatever is really-real, factual & objective must always be conditioned upon a specific human based FSR-FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most credible and objective.

3 Your argument against the existence of gods is fallacious, as I've demonstrated earlier.

Where in this thread?
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

Don't simply handwave it.
I am very serious in getting to the bottom of your argument to defend against it.

[Harbal]

...you say God created life, and is able to continue it after physical death, and if you want anyone to believe you, you need to give a plausible account of how he does that...

As I did. He's God. All life comes from Him.

Now, you can say, "Well, I don't believe in God." That's a different question. But if, as I believe, God actually does exist, then that's a very plausible account. In fact, there could be nothing more plausible than that the Originator of life and Giver of souls should be able to say how long that life or soul continues.

Yet if I claimed that life came about by some other phenomenon, you would say that unless I could explain the process by which it produced it, I would have no grounds for making the claim. You would not accept, "well it just did it", but that is what you expect others to accept when you say it.

As for souls, no one seems to be able to give a definitive explanation of what one actually is, let alone demonstrate that such a thing actually exists. So, if we are still entitled to believe in souls, despite that, why should we not also be entitled to give them whatever qualities and purpose we like, without even having to explain how it could be possible? You appear to have granted yourself that entitlement, but are denying it to everyone else.

When Peter Holmes suggested there could be life after death, and a purpose to the universe without God, you said:

Then you're going to need to explain what mechanism can produce life after death without God.

And then you're going to have to show that objective purpose is in the universe without God.

And if you can't, then they are indeed "God claims."

But you can't explain what mechanism can produce life after death with God, so it is hard to see how not being able to explain it without him makes God a plausible alternative, let alone the inevitable alternative.

[Dontaskme]

As I did. He's God. All life comes from Him.

Life doesn't come from any labeled thing or position or place named HIM. Life is obviously at zero distance from itself always, completely undivided, whole, self-contained, and self-sustaining. This is not too difficult to understand. There has never been any sighting of the seer, never any knowledge of the knower. Why, because there is absolutely no divison here between the seer and the seen, the knower and the known. Life is a self-sustaining unitary process, living all for and by itself.

There is no other place where now-here has come from, as in somewhere other than now-here.There is only here. Now-here, No-where. Zero distance from itself. Why are you so invested in naming the nameless IC? Don't you understand that by doing so you are causing a division, a conflict, a violence, a hostilty in a universe that was/is never obligated to make sense to you EVER.

Seems like you are a terrified chicken that cannot handle the unbearable realisation of never being able to know the knower, or see the seer. How awful for you, how unacceptable that must be for you that you MUST invent your own fabricated story of what you personally believe is true. All just a fictional manufactured story archived away in some book that no one ever wrote. Imagine that, how your brain can literally believe in any idea it wants to, at the drop of a thought. If anything at all, the universe is a story telling phenomena.

The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you, or anything. The universe is obviously unconditional and indifferent. But as soon as you start adding terms and conditions upon it with what can only be described as mental imagination. The naming, the terming, acts only to divide, and then you have no choice but to battle with that thing named, namely your God. You have to defend it with every fibre of your being until death. What a heavy responsible burden you have placed around your neck.