Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

If you're...

...focusing on the function of the language being used.

then you are indeed focusing on the placeholders.

'nuff said.

Quit lying, bozo.

I am focusing on what you are doing with language. Irrespective of the placeholders you are using.

You are describing.

[henry quirk]

[Peter Holmes]

Just an aside. IC wrote this: 'Our beliefs do not alter the existence or non-existence of anything...a salutary reminder not merely for the religious, but for the Atheists [sic], to be sure.'

Agreed. Things were and are the way they were and are, whatever anyone believes and says about them. Objectivity in a nutshell.

[Skepdick]

Just an aside. IC wrote this: 'Our beliefs do not alter the existence or non-existence of anything...a salutary reminder not merely for the religious, but for the Atheists [sic], to be sure.'

Agreed. Things were and are the way they were and are, whatever anyone believes and says about them. Objectivity in a nutshell.

But that's simply not true. To insist that things were and are the way they were is to insist that nothing ever changes.

Of course our beliefs alter the existence and non-existence of stuff.

It was our desire to travel like birds do that altered the non-existence of airplanes.
It was our desire to communicate with people all over the world that altered the non-existence of The Internet.

Your moronic world-view can't account for change/creation/invention.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Just an aside. IC wrote this: 'Our beliefs do not alter the existence or non-existence of anything...a salutary reminder not merely for the religious, but for the Atheists [sic], to be sure.'

Agreed. Things were and are the way they were and are, whatever anyone believes and says about them. Objectivity in a nutshell.

Of course, birds of feather will agree with each other.
Both you [philosophical realist] and IC [theist] are grounding the claim of reality on philosophical realism, i.e.

• Philosophical realism ... is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

You claim facts-by-themselves are absolutely independent of the human conditions is just the same as IC claiming his God [thing-in-itself] as absolutely independent of the human conditions. Both of you are unable to prove your claims as real.

If you refer to Science to support your claim, that is not tenable because whatever is a scientific-fact has to be science-FSK-ed [human-based], thus cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Whatever the description of a thing will not change the that thing that is described.
However, whatever is believed [FSK-ed] to be is correlated with its being at the present and the future.

[Peter Holmes]

Whatever the description of a thing will not change the that thing that is described.
However, whatever is believed [FSK-ed] to be is correlated with its being at the present and the future.

Sic.

'Whatever is believed to be is correlated with its being'. This is gibberish.

But perhaps the penny is edging - glacially slowly - towards the drop.

We have to perceive, know and describe things in human ways. But our perception, knowledge and description of a thing doesn't bring it into existence or, as you agree, change it.

Gods either do or don't exist - and you and I reject the claim that they exist. But whether they do or don't exist has nothing to do with what you or I or anyone believes. And that's realism in a nutshell. With regard to gods, you're firmly in the realist camp.

[Skepdick]

Whatever the description of a thing will not change the that thing that is described.
However, whatever is believed [FSK-ed] to be is correlated with its being at the present and the future.

Sic.

'Whatever is believed to be is correlated with its being'. This is gibberish.

But perhaps the penny is edging - glacially slowly - towards the drop.

We have to perceive, know and describe things in human ways. But our perception, knowledge and description of a thing doesn't bring it into existence or, as you agree, change it.

Gods either do or don't exist - and you and I reject the claim that they exist. But whether they do or don't exist has nothing to do with what you or I or anyone believes. And that's realism in a nutshell. With regard to gods, you're firmly in the realist camp.

Aaaand back onto the onto-theological bandwagon he jumps.

What do you mean by "exists"?

Here I am.
Here you are.
There's everything.

What or where is the "existence" of each of those things?

[Will Bouwman]

Not nearly, actually.

Given that none of those you have presented so far have been persuasive (if anyone has been converted by Immanuel Can's efforts to date, please say so) do you not think it time to roll out something you have kept up your sleeve?

It depends on what you ask. It seems that people want to recycle the same debates. And maybe, as you say, that's because I'm insufficiently clear or persuasive. Maybe.

It's not you that is insufficiently clear or persuasive, nor is recycling the same debates limited to this forum. The work of Behe, Meyers, Dembski, Swinburne, Plantinga, Lane Craig and a host of others is all recycling the same debates, tweaking them to accommodate developments in science and logic - always following, never leading.

Or maybe it's because people choose their Atheism for reasons other than intellection, and thus intellection is unable to dislodge them from their commitments.

Either way, we shall see.

There may be some who do so, but the main issue is that the arguments for God are only persuasive to those who will themselves to believe them - and you know it:

...you have to really want to know Him. He does not come and perform tricks to satisfy cynics.

It's obvious that people have a priori assumptions that set what they are prepared to recognize. Those a prioris, though, can be good or bad, depending on whether they're a priori truths or a priori falsehoods. So at the end of the day, it simply moves the debate back one step, to the question, "How good are one's a prioris?" And that's right where the debate definitely needs to go.

Very well. How good are your a prioris?

[Veritas Aequitas]

double posting

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whatever the description of a thing will not change the that thing that is described.
However, whatever is believed [FSK-ed] to be is correlated with its being at the present and the future.

Sic.

'Whatever is believed to be is correlated with its being'. This is gibberish.

But perhaps the penny is edging - glacially slowly - towards the drop.

We have to perceive, know and describe things in human ways. But our perception, knowledge and description of a thing doesn't bring it into existence or, as you agree, change it.

I agree, our perception, knowledge and description of a thing doesn't bring it into existence like say an apple or table out there.

Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Does not bring it into Existence
viewtopic.php?t=40715

BUT
But before any real thing is perceived, known and described it has to emerge to be realized as real within a FSR_FSK which is subject interacted, thus cannot be absolutely human independent or 'mind-independent'.
Thus, there a prior emergence and realization process to be accounted for.

as explained here.
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

I added the following;
'Whatever is believed to be is correlated with its being'.
This meant that the process of believing in that thing as FSK-ed contributes to the evolution of its realization in the present and future.
The subsequent belief of the existence of gut-bacteria via FSK reinforces the realization of gut-bacteria.
There are no absolutely permanent absolutely mind-independent things out there, thus what exists correlates with with the human conditions [mind, brain, body, beliefs].

Gods either do or don't exist - and you and I reject the claim that they exist.
But whether they do or don't exist has nothing to do with what you or I or anyone believes. And that's realism in a nutshell. With regard to gods, you're firmly in the realist camp.

What??
I have given you the definition of philosophical realism a 'million' times,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
I am definitely NOT a realist in the above sense.
However, I am a realist in the Empirical Realism sense.

I claimed you are undeniably a philosophical realists [reality and things independent of opinions, beliefs and judgments] as defined above.
This is fundamentally what theists are grounding their theism.
Whilst you deny God exists, your philosophical grounding is the same as the theists'.

Btw, you have not support your claims with any reference nor alignment to any specific philosophy.
I have always state my philosophical stance clearly, i.e.
1. ANTI-Philosophical Realism
2. Kantian -Empirical Realism, Transcendental Idealism
3. Buddhism and other non-realist Eastern Philosophies.

My guess [you need to confirm] your philosophical stance is this;

1. Analytic Philosophy with the Linguistic Turn with the following background;

• In 1936, back from Vienna but not yet in the Chair, he [Ayer] announced an uncompromisingly formal version of linguistic philosophy:
  
  The Linguistic Turn:
  [T]he philosopher, as an analyst, is not directly concerned with the physical properties of things.
  He is concerned only with the way in which we speak about them.
  In other words, the propositions of philosophy are not factual, but linguistic in character — that is, they do not describe the behaviour of physical, or even mental, objects; they express definitions, or the formal consequences of definitions. (1936: 61-2).

Three Tenets of the Analytic School:

• Dummett gave a classic articulation of the Linguistic Turn, attributing it to Frege:
  Only with Frege was the proper object of philosophy finally established: namely,
  first, that the goal of philosophy is the analysis of the structure of thought;
  secondly, that the study of thought is to be sharply distinguished from the study of the psychological process of thinking; and,
  finally, that the only proper method for analysing thought consists in the analysis of language.
  [...] [T]he acceptance of these three tenets is common to the entire analytical school (1978: 458).

I believe your philosophical stance lies somewhere within the above, BUT the above philosophies all has their "legs amputated" and refuted at present.

Can you confirm the above?

[Peter Holmes]

Whatever the description of a thing will not change the that thing that is described.
However, whatever is believed [FSK-ed] to be is correlated with its being at the present and the future.

Sic.

'Whatever is believed to be is correlated with its being'. This is gibberish.

But perhaps the penny is edging - glacially slowly - towards the drop.

We have to perceive, know and describe things in human ways. But our perception, knowledge and description of a thing doesn't bring it into existence or, as you agree, change it.

I agree, our perception, knowledge and description of a thing doesn't bring it into existence like say an apple or table out there.

Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Does not bring it into Existence
viewtopic.php?t=40715

BUT
But before any real thing is perceived, known and described it has to emerge to be realized as real within a FSR_FSK which is subject interacted, thus cannot be absolutely human independent or 'mind-independent'.
Thus, there a prior emergence and realization process to be accounted for.

And this remains gibberish, how ever many times you repeat it. 'A thing has to emerge to be realised as real within a framework and system of reality-framework and system of knowledge, which is subject interacted, before it can be perceived, known and described.' Why?

As for the stuff about analytic philosophy - mistaking what we say for what we think is as confusing as mistaking what we say for the reality outside language. There was a wrong-turn to language, in my opinion, beginning with Frege and the Tractatus.

[Skepdick]

And this remains gibberish, how ever many times you repeat it.

Yeap. No different to "reality exists independent of human minds"

Metaphysical gibberish.

[Atla]

emerge to be realized as real within a FSR_FSK which is subject interacted

lmao

Before the noumenal object is percieved, it's just THERE.

[Peter Holmes]

All the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed before humans evolved - and, therefore, independent from humans - and there's no evidence that it didn't - that it began to exist when humans evolved - or that it wouldn't have existed had humans not evolved.

The moronic stupidity of the idea that reality is human-dependent beggars belief.

[Skepdick]

emerge to be realized as real within a FSR_FSK which is subject interacted

lmao

Before the noumenal object is percieved, it's just THERE.

Here, there, anywhere, nowhere, everywhere, somwhere. It's all mind-dependent talk.

Try again.