What could make morality objective?

[promethean75]

Negative, ghost rider. Please see Matthew 19:26.

[iambiguous]

IC,

I really would be fascinated to follow an exchange between you and henry...

I really would love a pony.

Sad that neither of us is going to get his wish.

How about this then, Mr. Wiggle?

"How close to 100% certain are you that the Christian God does in fact exist?"

[Immanuel Can]

IC,

I really would be fascinated to follow an exchange between you and henry...

I really would love a pony.

Sad that neither of us is going to get his wish.

How about this then, Mr. Wiggle?

"How close to 100% certain are you that the Christian God does in fact exist?"

Not interested anymore.

You manufacture things I didn't say, and pretend I said them, and then overreact to them. You pointlessly repeat things I find so dull-witted and unchallenging I don't even bother to respond...at which point, you simply print the same foolishness again, as if it made it profound to be seen the second time. You ask for evidence, then you get your evidence, then you pretend it isn't evidence, and carry on as if you had gotten nothing.

I see no particular end to that sort of conversation...and I mean that in both the chronological and teleological senses of the word "end."

So let's end now.

[iambiguous]

I really would love a pony.

Sad that neither of us is going to get his wish.

How about this then, Mr. Wiggle?

"How close to 100% certain are you that the Christian God does in fact exist?"

Not interested anymore.

You manufacture things I didn't say, and pretend I said them, and then overreact to them. You pointlessly repeat things I find so dull-witted and unchallenging I don't even bother to respond...at which point, you simply print the same foolishness again, as if it made it profound to be seen the second time. You ask for evidence, then you get your evidence, then you pretend it isn't evidence, and carry on as if you had gotten nothing.

I see no particular end to that sort of conversation...and I mean that in both the chronological and teleological senses of the word "end."

So let's end now.

Absolutely shameless!!!





Note to God:

Did you put him up to this?
You know, if you actually do exist.







[give us a sign]

[henry quirk]

So, how on Earth then could Deism be said to work in the same way?

Be fair, guy. I said: I reckon the one who designs, creates, and mebbe sustains the whole of reality does decide what constitutes right & wrong, as fact. You, as a free will, get to decide whether you'll abide or defy. Whether we're talkin' Jehovah or Allah or Crom, we're talkin' about The Creator of Reality. You wanna pick at differences: I focus on the similarities. We -- theists, deists -- agree the one who designs, creates, and mebbe sustains the whole of reality does decide what constitutes right & wrong. And we all, as free wills, get to decide whether we'll abide or defy.

-----

Absolutely shameless!!!

just beatin' you to the punch
-----

Look, you choose certain behaviors "Intuitively". Intuitively meaning logically? And either the Deist God in creating the human condition plays a critical role in differentiating right from wrong behaviors among mere mortals, or He doesn't.

No, I don't choose actions intuitively. Why do you lie like that? I use the word intuition very directly and narrowly, in a specific context.

No, intuitively doesn't mean logically.

He does. What do you think the one who designs, creates, and mebbe sustains the whole of reality does decide what constitutes right & wrong means?

-----

Absolutely shameless!!!

just beatin' you to the punch
-----

So, instead of "what would Jesus do?", what do Deists put in its place? How close to or far removed from your own political dogma is the Deist God? If you bump into a Deist who is, say, a Communist, are you likely to tell him or her, "well, you're right from your side and I'm right from mine."

Deists, being persons, have the same moral intuition as anyone. Even the commie scum deist knows his life, liberty, and property are his and his alone. Unfortunately, like the murderer, the slaver, the rapist, the thief, the commie scum deist chooses to treat the other guy as he himself would never agree to be treated: as commodity.

-----

Absolutely shameless!!!

just beatin' you to the punch
-----

Same God but any and all political ideologies are permitted if it's what you believe "intuitively?

Why do you lie so much? No, the moral intuition that all men, every where and when, share isn't dependent on god-belief or philosophy or politics. You can be an atheist, or even commie scum, and you'll still know, down deep in your marrow, that your life, liberty, and property are yours and yours alone. What bein' an atheist or a commie or a subjectivist or nihilist might do is allow you to rationalize that it's A-OK to commodify the other guy.

-----

Absolutely shameless!!!

just beatin' you to the punch
-----

Yeah, it's what you say, it's what you believe, it's what you know "in your head".

It's what everyone, includin' you, knows. You know, as fact, your life, liberty, and property are yours.

-----

Absolutely shameless!!!

just beatin' you to the punch
-----

Then what? How do you go about demonstrating it reflects the most intuitively sound frame of mind that all rational men and women, if not obligated to embrace, would do so simply because they are rational men and women.

I don't. All this rational this and obligation that is your thing. Free wills have no obligation to act morally any more than free wills have to obligation to keep their naked hands out of camp fires. But there are consequences if you don't.

-----

Absolutely shameless!!!

just beatin' you to the punch
-----

And what about what these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...(what if they) ntuit just as fiercely as you do?

They do. Like me, like you, like everyone readin' this post, like everyone who has lived, is living, will live, they each know, as fact, their lives, liberties, and properties are theirs alone. All these traditions, ideologies, philosophies: they either align with this fact, and with the inherent reciprocity (Hi flash!) of this fact, this natural right, or they don't.

-----

Absolutely shameless!!!

just beatin' you to the punch
-----

I'm tying to get a sense here of just how far removed you are from those here like IC in regard to morality. You and he share many of the same political prejudices. But "in the end" he is going to Heaven, and you are going to Hell if Christianity is the real deal.

I think morally we're on the same page: it's wrong to murder, to slave, to rape, to steal, to defraud, and it's wrong becuz the person who could be murdered, slaved, raped, robbed, defrauded has the same moral claim, the same natural right to his life, liberty, and property as we do to ours. Where we differ: he believes Christ is The Way and I don't; he believes there's an Ultimate Consequence (Heaven or Hell) and I don't.

-----

Absolutely shameless!!!

just beatin' you to the punch
-----

Also, as I noted with IC above:
...millions and millions of people around the globe have no living relationship with the Christian God. Instead, they have one with other Gods. And you tell me how that is not rooted historically and culturally in dasein.

Really, give it a shot. Down through the ages and across the globe different people both as children and as adults encounter what can be experiences that are far, far removed. So, of course some will be Deists some will be Christians, some will be Hindus, some will be Buddhists some will be Shintos some will be Taoists some will be Scientologists some will be atheists some will be all but oblivious to God and religion.

Sure, there are all kinds of traditions, conventions, philosophies, religions, cultures, ideologies, and on and on. And among all the adherents of all those traditions, etc: that down in the bone understanding, that intuition, that their lives, liberties, and properties are theirs and theirs alone. Even when these traditions, etc, and leaders of these traditions, etc preach self-abnegation they know this about themselves.

As I say: all these traditions, conventions, philosophies, religions, cultures, ideologies, they either align with this fact, this natural right, or they don't.

-----

Absolutely shameless!!!

just beatin' you to the punch
-----

No, that is just something that "in your head" "here and now" you believe. Intuitively.

No, that's the thing everyone knows, balls to bones...includin' you.

-----

Absolutely shameless!!!

just beatin' you to the punch
-----

Isn't his quote above just one more "spiritual contraption" in which words merely define and defend others words?

No, it's an accurate descriptor. We all have the same Source, none of us have the full story, we fill in the blanks as best we can. Me, I'm lazy: I just stick with what we all know and go no further.

-----

Absolutely shameless!!!

just beatin' you to the punch
-----

At least you have the possibility of continuing on into the afterlife re the Deist God.

I personally don't think so. And yes, I'm a complete idiot cuz I'm not worried about it. Que sera, sera.

-----

Absolutely shameless!!!

just beatin' you to the punch
-----

the Christian bit about salvation

I don't need saving.

-----

Absolutely shameless!!!

just beatin' you to the punch
-----

Intuitively, it is all perfectly reasonably for Deists to believe in the same God but to be completely at odds in regard to things like abortion and gun control?

They're no more or less immune to disagreement than Protestants and Catholics (or Protestants and Protestants [or atheists and atheists]).

-----

Absolutely shameless!!!

just beatin' you to the punch
-----

I've often construed that as a kind of "cafeteria morality".

And I use it as of worldwide scope or applicability; universal.

-----

Absolutely shameless!!!

just beatin' you to the punch
-----

Rights that "somehow" in your head are "sort of" connected to the Deist God.

As I say: God is the explanation, not salvation.

-----

Absolutely shameless!!!

just beatin' you to the punch

[Veritas Aequitas]

Be fair, guy. I said: I reckon the one who designs, creates, and mebbe sustains the whole of reality does decide what constitutes right & wrong, as fact. You, as a free will, get to decide whether you'll abide or defy.

Whether we're talkin' Jehovah or Allah or Crom, we're talkin' about The Creator of Reality.

You wanna pick at differences: I focus on the similarities. We -- theists, deists -- agree the one who designs, creates, and mebbe sustains the whole of reality does decide what constitutes right & wrong.
And we all, as free wills, get to decide whether we'll abide or defy.

The above are very good points as conditioned within a Framework and System of Theism or Deism. However, there are differences to be considered.

In theism, especially Christianity and Islam [majority of theists], a believer has entered [explicitly or implicitly] into a contract [covenant] with God with a promise of avoiding HELL, given eternal life in heaven/paradise and the REWARDS therein in exchange for the believers' compliance [absolute with no compromise] to the commands [terms of contract] of God in the constituted holy texts.
E.g. Thou Shalt not Kill, period!

Believers in these religions has free will [relative] but with very heavy risks attached because if they do not comply with the terms of the contract with God, they would have sinned thus risk getting the chance of avoiding HELL and eternal life in heaven/paradise.

However, believers still have the last say in whether they want to comply or not. If they decide not to comply, then they would have recognized they have sinned in accordance to the terms of the contract they have 'signed' with God, thus risking God's wrath and their chances of avoiding HELL and getting eternal life in heaven/paradise.

Those theists who committed sins deliberately, unknowingly or has no choice in life or death situations will have to face the omniscient God on Judgment Day to judge their compliance to the terms of contract [covenant].

God have the final say, and all those who deliberately sinned will have to hope for God's mercy for a lighter punishment or total forgiveness if they had to sin because they faced a life or death situation or had sinned in the good cause for the religion [e.g. joining the crusades].

As for deists [pantheists, panentheists] who reasoned out God's existence inferred from intuitions and experiences, they have a free will and choice to do what they want which is inhibited only by their very thin intuitions and conscience which can easily be overwhelmed by evil forces.
If their intuitions and conscience give way [dam burst], deists can turned evil.

Morality is innate and inherent within human nature.
Whether one is a theist, deist, agnostic or non-theistic, the moral function and potential exist in ALL humans as a physical moral fact and in degrees of objectivity [as conditioned within a moral FSK].

[Skepdick]

All I can do is to note how, in my own "rooted existentially in dasein subjunctive opinion"

How close to 100% certain are you that your own "rooted existentially in dasein subjunctive opinion" is true?

[Skepdick]

Be fair, guy. I said: I reckon the one who designs, creates, and mebbe sustains the whole of reality does decide what constitutes right & wrong, as fact. You, as a free will, get to decide whether you'll abide or defy.

Whether we're talkin' Jehovah or Allah or Crom, we're talkin' about The Creator of Reality.

You wanna pick at differences: I focus on the similarities. We -- theists, deists -- agree the one who designs, creates, and mebbe sustains the whole of reality does decide what constitutes right & wrong.
And we all, as free wills, get to decide whether we'll abide or defy.

The above are very good points as conditioned within a Framework and System of Theism or Deism. However, there are differences to be considered.

In theism, especially Christianity and Islam [majority of theists], a believer has entered [explicitly or implicitly] into a contract [covenant] with God with a promise of avoiding HELL, given eternal life in heaven/paradise and the REWARDS therein in exchange for the believers' compliance [absolute with no compromise] to the commands [terms of contract] of God in the constituted holy texts.
E.g. Thou Shalt not Kill, period!

Believers in these religions has free will [relative] but with very heavy risks attached because if they do not comply with the terms of the contract with God, they would have sinned thus risk getting the chance of avoiding HELL and eternal life in heaven/paradise.

However, believers still have the last say in whether they want to comply or not. If they decide not to comply, then they would have recognized they have sinned in accordance to the terms of the contract they have 'signed' with God, thus risking God's wrath and their chances of avoiding HELL and getting eternal life in heaven/paradise.

Those theists who committed sins deliberately, unknowingly or has no choice in life or death situations will have to face the omniscient God on Judgment Day to judge their compliance to the terms of contract [covenant].

God have the final say, and all those who deliberately sinned will have to hope for God's mercy for a lighter punishment or total forgiveness if they had to sin because they faced a life or death situation or had sinned in the good cause for the religion [e.g. joining the crusades].

As for deists [pantheists, panentheists] who reasoned out God's existence inferred from intuitions and experiences, they have a free will and choice to do what they want which is inhibited only by their very thin intuitions and conscience which can easily be overwhelmed by evil forces.
If their intuitions and conscience give way [dam burst], deists can turned evil.

Morality is innate and inherent within human nature.
Whether one is a theist, deist, agnostic or non-theistic, the moral function and potential exist in ALL humans as a physical moral fact and in degrees of objectivity [as conditioned within a moral FSK].

One of the many problems people have with religion is that one single property that science has and religion doesn't.

It's not a self-correcting system - it becomes frozen in time.

Or at the very least, the latency with which iterates is measured in millenia. Science self-corrects in under a century!

Latency matters to users.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latency_(engineering)

[promethean75]

"How close to 100% certain are you that your own "rooted existentially in dasein subjunctive opinion" is true?"

I know right? Biggs just becuz u read somewhere that our subjunctive opinions are rooted existentially in dasein, doesn't mean it's true.

Philosophers wrote that. That's the word of philosophers, not God. U can't trust it.

[Skepdick]

"How close to 100% certain are you that your own "rooted existentially in dasein subjunctive opinion" is true?"

I know right? Biggs just becuz u read somewhere that our subjunctive opinions are rooted existentially in dasein, doesn't mean it's true.

Philosophers wrote that. That's the word of philosophers, not God. U can't trust it.

Maybe you can trust it.
Maybe you can't trust it.

How do you decide who to trust and what to trust?

How close to 100% certain are you that you can trust X? for X in {philosophers, science, nature, yourself, God, .....}

[promethean75]

I don't worry much that I'm philosophically wrong, if I am. It would be like doing incorrect poetry. Is that even possible? I wouldn't know I was doing it wrong. As Gustave Vonhamsonshmidt once put it:

'what it is like to not trust a philosophical proposition is not so bad as to warrant any real concern on my behalf for the truth or falsehood of it.'

Siriusly when was the last time u stood on a ledge poised to jump as dramatic Bourne supremacy music played in the background, panicing over the question of whether or not all knowledge is a posteriori?

Scientific statements, those that belong to the natural sciences, those that make claims that can be tested... now not trusting those WOULD be bad.

As you stand on that ledge, two of the most important pieces of information u could possibly have is whether or not gravity exists and whether or not u can fly. Neither of these are philosophical questions, thank goodness.

[Skepdick]

Siriusly when was the last time u stood on a ledge poised to jump as dramatic Bourne supremacy music played in the background, panicing over the question of whether or not all knowledge is a posteriori?

A posteriori or a priori is immaterial.

If you are poised to jump either you trust; or you know that the water below is deep enough. That is if you are trying to live.
If you are trying to die then either you trust or you know that the fall's going to kill you.

Scientific statements, those that belong to the natural sciences, those that make claims that can be tested... now not trusting those WOULD be bad.

Why? They are falsifiable. They are merely strongly confident claims - they are statistical averages, but they are also context-free claims.

Scientifically speaking caucasians are taller than asians, but I am not taller than Yao Ming.

As you stand on that ledge, two of the most important pieces of information u could possibly have is whether or not gravity exists and whether or not u can fly. Neither of these are philosophical questions, thank goodness.

You missed one question here... What are you trying to do; and If you have a parachute; or a wing suit - why is gravity even a concern?

You seem incapabe of transitioning from a context-free to a context-specific domain.

[promethean75]

That's always been my problem ever since i was a kid. All CF and CS domains are non-transitional to me. My brain just won't do it.

[Skepdick]

That's always been my problem ever since i was a kid. All CF and CS domains are non-transitional to me. My brain just won't do it.

It think the integraton is trivial.

If your context-free belief survives contact with the context then it's confirmed true.
If your context-free belief doesn't survive contact with the context - surprise!

New information.

It's a dangerous epistemic place you've arrived at when nothing ever surprises you. You think you know everything

[promethean75]

"Scientifically speaking, caucasians are taller than asians, but I am not taller than Yao Ming."

I'm sorry sir but no scientist I'd ever wanna know would say that.

A true scientist would instead include the necessary existential quantifiers in his claim and say 'some or most caucasians are taller than asians'.