Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

I didn't find it difficult to understand what he means.

You understand what he means by “nearer” and “further” in context of the goal?

Ok. You tell us how he is measuring distance.

With his metaphoric ruler.

Which uses what metric as unit-distance?

[Harbal]

You understand what he means by “nearer” and “further” in context of the goal?

Ok. You tell us how he is measuring distance.

With his metaphoric ruler.

Which uses what metric as unit-distance?

I don't know, as he didn't specify.

[Skepdick]

With his metaphoric ruler.

Which uses what metric as unit-distance?

I don't know, as he didn't specify.

Welcome. To the same page.

That’s why I asked him to tell us more about his distance metric.

I thought you understood what he meant…

[Harbal]

Which uses what metric as unit-distance?

I don't know, as he didn't specify.

Welcome. To the same page.

That’s why I asked him to tell us more about his distance metric.

I thought you understood what he meant…

I think I did understand, but I don't think I can make you understand if you don't know how metaphor works.

[Skepdick]

I don't know, as he didn't specify.

Welcome. To the same page.

That’s why I asked him to tell us more about his distance metric.

I thought you understood what he meant…

I think I did understand, but I don't think I can make you understand if you don't know how metaphor works.

Ah, so it’s just a metaphor.

It wasn’t true?

[Harbal]

Welcome. To the same page.

That’s why I asked him to tell us more about his distance metric.

I thought you understood what he meant…

I think I did understand, but I don't think I can make you understand if you don't know how metaphor works.

Ah, so it’s just a metaphor.

It wasn’t true?

It wasn't literal. Metaphors are able to convey truth, but you have to be a willing participant in order to receive it.

[Skepdick]

I think I did understand, but I don't think I can make you understand if you don't know how metaphor works.

Ah, so it’s just a metaphor.

It wasn’t true?

It wasn't literal. Metaphors are able to convey truth, but you have to be a willing participant in order to receive it.

So was this one of the metaphors that was able; or one of the metaphors unable to communicate truth?

I don’t know…

That’s why I asked for his distance metric.

[Harbal]

Ah, so it’s just a metaphor.

It wasn’t true?

It wasn't literal. Metaphors are able to convey truth, but you have to be a willing participant in order to receive it.

So was this one of the metaphors that was able; or one of the metaphors unable to communicate truth?

Yes, I believe it was one of those metaphors.

[Skepdick]

It wasn't literal. Metaphors are able to convey truth, but you have to be a willing participant in order to receive it.

So was this one of the metaphors that was able; or one of the metaphors unable to communicate truth?

Yes, I believe it was one of those metaphors.

Indeed. It was one of those two…

Can’t tell which one.

[Veritas Aequitas]

IC's team's 'loving' god.

'You are completely free to believe in and love me or not. But if you don't, you will suffer either annihilation (the loss of eternal life), or eternal torture in hell, after you die.'

And IC claims this malicious demon is the source of objective morality.

IC's 'loving' God is an illusion reified as 'real'.

1. It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

Your critique of IC's morality is dubious because there are,
Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
i.e.
1. Philosophical Realism sense - Illusory
2. FSK-ed sense - objective in the empirical-rational in degrees

Since yours is grounded in the philosophical realism sense, i.e. illusory, you do not have any credibility to critique IC's theistic claim of Objective Morality.

However, from the FSK perspective, IC's theistic-FSK morality is granted to be objective, but because of "1. It is Impossible for God to be Real" the theistic morality as objective has ZERO [0.00001] degrees of objectivity in contrast to the objectivity of science-FSK as the standard.

By all means, keep straw-manning philosophical realism - because all your arguments for philosophical antirealism are fallacious - so you have no choice. But none of this gets you anywhere near moral objectivism.

Handwaving again.

What "straw-manning" ???
That you claim your fact is a feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that are the case, states of affairs, that are independent of human conditions, i.e. opinions, beliefs, judgments, descriptions and the rest of the human conditions is philosophical realism as defined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Like any facts, moral facts either do or don't exist - and moral realists and objectivists have produced not even one example of a moral fact. The end.

But none of this gets you anywhere near moral objectivism.

I have argued [you have not countered] your above is grounded on a fallacious argument that all moral elements are not facts [i.e. philosophical-realism-facts].

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

WHO ARE YOU to decide there are no objective FSK-ed moral facts;

I have argued there are objective FSK-ed moral facts;
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34619 Apr 16, 2022
What is a [FSK-ed] Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

[Will Bouwman]

And to get personal confirmations of your own, you'd have to take those two steps God always requires: to believe in at least the possibility He exists, and to be willing to believe that He could reward you for an honest search.

Absent those things, you're never going on any kind of search anyway, so they seem pretty modest expectations, wouldn't you say?

Both those things I am still willing to entertain, despite what I considered honest searches. However modest God's expectations, He apparently wasn't impressed with my efforts.

I'm interested. What did you do, on your search?

The first time was when I was very young. On being told that Jesus was knocking at the door of my heart and that if I didn't open up I would go to hell, I tried very hard to let him in. Later I read the Bible, hopeful that doing so might persuade me of something marvellous. I hope that satisfies your interest. My interest is in why you should call anything "Evolutionary propaganda". How does young Earth creationism better explain the issues I highlighted?

...here's the latest discovery of a way in which Evolutionary propaganda has gone wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zignS602-f8

What that fails to acknowledge is that simpler organisms are found in lower strata, as we would expect were evolution the case; a single deluge would have mixed them all up. What it fails to explain is how enough material to compress organisms with the force of an hydraulic press, such that it forms solid rock, could have eroded in a few thousand years so that fossils can appear on the surface.

[Will Bouwman]

So if you know that Newton's perspective clashes with the way science is done; do you then agree or disagree with Newton that "God has no place in science" ?

As I have just said to Immanuel Can:

As it happens, Newton didn't believe his own theory of gravity could maintain the solar system. As he said in the General Scholium: "This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being." So yes, God very much had a role in Newton's universe, but not in science, which to Newton was what we mortals could study. If God decides to perform a miracle, that's not science.

It's so weird that when asked about your own perspective on God's place in science you present Newton's views and not your own.

It's only weird if you don't understand implication.

[Skepdick]

As I have just said to Immanuel Can:

It's so weird that when asked about your own perspective on God's place in science you present Newton's views and not your own.

It's only weird if you don't understand implication.

No, I understand implication just fine and it's still weird.

And as somebody who does understand implication, furnishing Newton's perspective when being asked for your own implies that you share Newton's perspective. Which is weird, because you know that it clashes with science.

[Will Bouwman]

...as somebody who does understand implication, furnishing Newton's perspective when being asked for your own implies that you share Newton's perspective.

No shit, Sherlock.

[Skepdick]

...as somebody who does understand implication, furnishing Newton's perspective when being asked for your own implies that you share Newton's perspective.

No shit, Sherlock.

Keep digging, Watson.

What makes it weird is that you know Newton's perspective clashes with the way science is actually conducted. And yet you still share it...

As a self-proclaimed philosopher of science why do you choose to be wrong about science?

You idiot. Newton's perspective clashes with how science is actually conducted.

I know; I wrote an article on it: https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia