Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

I wouldn't know what the evidence for any claim would be like until I saw it, would I?

Sure you would. It's the observer (or scientist) who sets the test. And he does so before he has any evidence. He has to decide what "evidence" would look like, so he can recognize it when it comes.

That's all I'm asking you to do -- to decide what form "evidence" would take for you when it arrived. It's a very reasonable request.

Not that I would accept evidence of God as evidence of objective morality, as I consider morality to be a purely human thing.

That would be an odd conclusion for you to try to sustain: that there IS a God, but that His existence didn't have any implications for morality. I don't know how you'd manage to put those two together. It seems rather obvious that if you DID "accept evidence for God," you'd also have to at least entertain the possibility that He would have a moral perspective -- in fact, it's hard to imagine how He could be "God" at all, and not have something to say on that subject, would it not?

You seem to be assuming that the only concept of what God is, or could be, is the one that you have.

Any concept of "God" would come with the same consequences, obviously.

I haven't been presented with any proof...

Sure you have. You simply don't have a standard in hand that can help you recognize it as evidence. You're starting from the assumption that no evidence can be allowed to exist. So not surprisingly, you find none.

You are misrepresenting what I said; show me evidence of "objective" morality...

We were actually talking about evidence of God, I thought. Perhaps we missed each other on that.

But you can get both by the common root: because if God exists, that fact is certain to have moral implications; and if He does not, there's no such thing as morality anyway, and it's just a human delusion. So whether or not God exists is fundamental to the question of whether or not objective morality does.

I have already said that morality is nothing to do with God.

I don't think anybody finds that plausible. If you know what "God" means, you'd have to know that morality would also be a product of His doing. There's no other reasonable way to suppose, without undermining the basic definition of what it means to be "God."

If there were a God, and he had moral opinions, they would be his opinions, not mine.

God doesn't have "opinions." Humans do, because for them there is a distinction between believing something and the truth of the matter. God always knows what's true.

[Harbal]

I wouldn't know what the evidence for any claim would be like until I saw it, would I?

Sure you would. It's the observer (or scientist) who sets the test. And he does so before he has any evidence. He has to decide what "evidence" would look like, so he can recognize it when it comes.

That's all I'm asking you to do -- to decide what form "evidence" would take for you when it arrived. It's a very reasonable request.

You are just being difficult, and starting to sound rather ridiculous.

You seem to be assuming that the only concept of what God is, or could be, is the one that you have.

Any concept of "God" would come with the same consequences, obviously.

I can conceive of any kind of God I like. I can conceive of one that created the universe and then had no further interest in it, if I want to.

We were actually talking about evidence of God, I thought. Perhaps we missed each other on that.

But you can get both by the common root: because if God exists, that fact is certain to have moral implications; and if He does not, there's no such thing as morality anyway, and it's just a human delusion. So whether or not God exists is fundamental to the question of whether or not objective morality does.

No, I totally reject that line of thinking. Any rationality in it is entirely dependent on a load of assumptions on your part, and none of them justified, in my opinion.

I have already said that morality is nothing to do with God.

I don't think anybody finds that plausible. If you know what "God" means, you'd have to know that morality would also be a product of His doing. There's no other reasonable way to suppose, without undermining the basic definition of what it means to be "God."

Without undermining your definition, you mean. There are potentially an infinite number of definitions of God.

God doesn't have "opinions."

No, I didn't suppose he did, which is why he has nothing to do with morality. Morality is solely about opinion.

[FlashDangerpants]

That would be an odd conclusion for you to try to sustain: that there IS a God, but that His existence didn't have any implications for morality. I don't know how you'd manage to put those two together. It seems rather obvious that if you DID "accept evidence for God," you'd also have to at least entertain the possibility that He would have a moral perspective -- in fact, it's hard to imagine how He could be "God" at all, and not have something to say on that subject, would it not?

You seem to be assuming that the only concept of what God is, or could be, is the one that you have.

Any concept of "God" would come with the same consequences, obviously.

Bold of you to assume that God has all these other powers but lacks the ability to form an opinion or hold a belief.

[Immanuel Can]

I wouldn't know what the evidence for any claim would be like until I saw it, would I?

Sure you would. It's the observer (or scientist) who sets the test. And he does so before he has any evidence. He has to decide what "evidence" would look like, so he can recognize it when it comes.

That's all I'm asking you to do -- to decide what form "evidence" would take for you when it arrived. It's a very reasonable request.

You are just being difficult, and starting to sound rather ridiculous.

You seem to be having difficulty grasping basic common sense, H. If a person has no test for a thing, he's not likely to find any. That's pretty easy to understand.

You seem to be assuming that the only concept of what God is, or could be, is the one that you have.

Any concept of "God" would come with the same consequences, obviously.

I can conceive of any kind of God I like. I can conceive of one that created the universe and then had no further interest in it, if I want to.

You're still going to have to ask, "Why did this 'God' of mine make a thing called 'morality' in the first place?" So the answer to that is going to have profound moral implications anyway.

We were actually talking about evidence of God, I thought. Perhaps we missed each other on that.

But you can get both by the common root: because if God exists, that fact is certain to have moral implications; and if He does not, there's no such thing as morality anyway, and it's just a human delusion. So whether or not God exists is fundamental to the question of whether or not objective morality does.

No, I totally reject that line of thinking.

Well, that's a mistake: it's obviously true.

I have already said that morality is nothing to do with God.

I don't think anybody finds that plausible. If you know what "God" means, you'd have to know that morality would also be a product of His doing. There's no other reasonable way to suppose, without undermining the basic definition of what it means to be "God."

Without undermining your definition, you mean. There are potentially an infinite number of definitions of God.

It applies to all of them. See above.

Morality is solely about opinion.

That's your assumption. But one cannot win the objective/subjective debate by simply insisting on a mere assumption. One would need proof. And for proof, one would need a test that one would accept as proof.

[Dontaskme]

We were actually talking about evidence of God, I thought.

Why not just say it like Jesus did.

He announced as and through the only instrument available, the living flesh and bone...he said: ''I am the light of the world''

Why not just swap the word God for Light?

Light is self-illuminating, there is no need to keep announcing what is already self-evident. Jesus the Light passed this way only ONCE as once is synonymous with infinity for eternity, the nature of light, which is everywhere all at once, which is everywhere and nowhere,one without a second.
So once one is known, one can never be unknown. Every one is the same knowing.

Again, you do not have to show up to you're own show IC... a child already knows this, and so does nondual undertanding, the nature of reality itself.

[Lacewing]

Any concept of "God" would come with the same consequences, obviously.

What are the consequences (that you think are obvious) that come with any concept of "God"?

How is it that you know these various concepts of "God" and what they entail?

[Harbal]

Sure you would. It's the observer (or scientist) who sets the test. And he does so before he has any evidence. He has to decide what "evidence" would look like, so he can recognize it when it comes.

That's all I'm asking you to do -- to decide what form "evidence" would take for you when it arrived. It's a very reasonable request.

You are just being difficult, and starting to sound rather ridiculous.

You seem to be having difficulty grasping basic common sense, H. If a person has no test for a thing, he's not likely to find any. That's pretty easy to understand.

You and I are not the only ones who will be reading this conversation, and I can't help wondering how many of the others will see any common sense in what you are saying.

I can conceive of any kind of God I like. I can conceive of one that created the universe and then had no further interest in it, if I want to.

You're still going to have to ask, "Why did this 'God' of mine make a thing called 'morality' in the first place?" So the answer to that is going to have profound moral implications anyway.

I don't have to ask that any more than I have to ask why did God make blue my favourite colour, and red someone else's favourite. But if I did ask about either colour or morality, I wouldn't expect the answer to be particularly profound.

No, I totally reject that line of thinking.

Well, that's a mistake: it's obviously true.

No, it isn't true; it's a load of rubbish.

Without undermining your definition, you mean. There are potentially an infinite number of definitions of God.

It applies to all of them. See above.

It doesn't apply to any of my definitions of God. See above. ☝

Morality is solely about opinion.

That's your assumption.

No, it's my opinion.

[Dontaskme]

God doesn't have "opinions." Humans do,

Nope, humans do not have opinions. An opinion is a point of view, which is being viewed by that which can never be viewed. In other words, a point of view is likened to a single perception within that which can never be perceived as and through the mechanism of thought. Thoughts are non-locatable.

A human is a concept known, it's a ''thought'' which in and of itself knows nothing of it's existence, because a concept is likened to a drop in the ocean, and is nothing other than the ocean dropping in and out of itself alone, appearing, disappearing and reappearing infinitely for eternity. Birthless and Deathless, only appearing as though talking birth and dying in this conception, as the story is being written as and through the medium of light and sound appearing as flesh and bone, the only instrument available that consciousness uses to express itself through.

A perception is like a drop in the ocean, it is known instantly as it arises, one with the knowing, but the whole absolute ocean in which the drop makes an appearance can never be known, because there is only the absolute ocean knowing. The absolute can't know it knows, because it is the only knowing there is. Just as the sun's light can never shine on itself, the sun is completely self-radiating, the sun doesn't depend on an external light source to be light, it is light.

[FlashDangerpants]

If there were a God, and he had moral opinions, they would be his opinions, not mine.

God doesn't have "opinions." Humans do, because for them there is a distinction between believing something and the truth of the matter. God always knows what's true.

You present a paradox. God's power is limited indeed if Harbal can have opinions but God cannot.

[Dontaskme]

If a person has no test for a thing, he's not likely to find any. That's pretty easy to understand.

You seem to be having difficulty grasping basic common sense, man is not the knower, like you assume, man is known in this conception, one with the knowing. There is not two knowers known as Man and God.

It feels like I know, but I is what is aware of the feeling. There is no objective experience. There's no distinction between that which knows and that which is known.

You cannot have man and God, and that's why Jesus had to die.

[Dontaskme]

God doesn't have "opinions." Humans do, because for them there is a distinction between believing something and the truth of the matter. God always knows what's true.

There is no Human and God.

Relationships are based on the assumption that we are separate entities.

There is an awareness of the concepts ( Human and God )known in this conception, and that awareness I am has no observable qualities. I am transparent, colourless presence. I am nothing conceivable or perceivable. I am present and aware but am not-a-thing, nothing....except in this conception.

Presence simply cannot experience itself as an object. There simply is no objective experience.

[Immanuel Can]

Any concept of "God" would come with the same consequences, obviously.

What are the consequences (that you think are obvious) that come with any concept of "God"?

You'll have to go back and read the thread. I don't want to redo what I've already done.

[Immanuel Can]

It doesn't apply to any of my definitions of God.

Well, "definitions," by definition, are linguistic conventions held in common within a particular linguistic group, not merely your or my private choice. Terms mean what conforms to that common stock of concepts. When the term "God" is used, it generally refers to the Supreme Being and Creator. Otherwise we use a different term, like small-g "god" or "demiurge."

You're free, of course, to use the term otherwise, if you want: but you won't be comprehensible to anybody else if you do.

[Dontaskme]

You're free, of course, to use the term otherwise, if you want: but you won't be comprehensible to anybody else if you do.

Howabout the term LIGHT ... like it was said straight from the source itself? via the great man himself, namely our Jesus, who loves us all and listens to every heart, and knows every heart, unlike you're heart, which is as black as the ace of spades, not red, racing and pumping with vigour and vibrant life giving energy, like the ace of hearts.

Oooh no, we canna be defining God by any other definition canna we IC? God is you're sacred little jewel init, you've gotta be tight with God's providence eh?

BTW, I know you deliberately ignore me IC, simply put, you have never been able to hear past you're own voice when it comes to the definition of what God actually means, so it's entirely you're prerogative to ignore anything that does not fit tight with you're own made-up belief according to you're model of what God means...each to their own God of their own understanding.

[Immanuel Can]

I know you deliberately ignore me IC

I do.

After all, I gave you lots of chances to behave sensibly, and you decided not to. So I just don't bother now.

I'll know if you ever shape up. If you don't, I have no time for you.