Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

Then demonstrate God's existence to yourself then.

I no longer need to. But how does what I know manage to help you, if there's nothing I can say or do that you will accept?

Ok, you might say you do not need to demonstrate it to yourself, I get that, but I just thought if you did, even though you don't need to, then by writing it all down again, rather than just keeping itside you're head as thoughts....then you will be able to share you're thoughts with those who are curious to read them.

I'm personally curious to know how a human being such as yourself can demonstrate the evidence that God exists, that's all. It'll help with my curiosity and will allow me to see how a human being such as yourself can actually demonstrate God's existence.

I'm not interested in accepting it or not, I just want to see what a demonstration/explanation written in words looks like out of curiosity that's all.

Is that ok?

It doesn't work quite like that. Before you get to the "so God must exist" bit, you have to subject yourself to mind conditioning until your previous world view starts to look completely irrational, and only then will you be ready to receive the truth.

[iambiguous]

But that's like saying, "Health is the area of human nature that is concerned with how human beings eat and exercise." But health is an objective reality, not merely a product of "likes and dislikes." Obesity and unhealth would be the products of mere "likes and dislikes."

Yes, human health is rooted objectively in human biology. And some "likes and dislikes" in regard to the things that we eat and drink, and in regard to exercise and in practicing preventive medicine are able to be grasped as either more or less rational...if being and staying healthy is important to you.

On the other hand, issues like eating animal flesh or things like this -- viewtopic.php?t=41105 -- precipitate moral conflicts that, to the best of my current knowledge, philosophers and ethicists are still unable to embrace as, say, Kant might?

Or how about the Israeli government's efforts to restrict the shipments of food and water into Gaza? That can't be good for the health of the men, women and children there. And, of course, the fanatical Muslim rendition of that. Fourteen hundred plus Israel men, women and children have no health at all anymore.

Indeed, what do any number of extremist Christians, Jews and Muslims care about the health of the infidels?

Same God though, right?

[iambiguous]

Would it make you wiser if you banned the truth?

No. That's why I stay away from the Bible.

Gary, one day, I'm afraid you're going to regret some of the things you've said, if you don't make that right...and not with me. I would sincerely wish a better outcome for you.

Or...

Henry, one day, I'm afraid you're going to regret some of the things you've said, if you don't make that right...and not with me. I would sincerely wish a better outcome for you.

[iambiguous]

So a reminder that morality means at least 4 things:

- The human conscience, in other words the human moral sense. Some people don't have one, they are amoral.
- Subjective morality
- Objective morality
- Moral systems

The two threads have like 1000 pages together, but looks like some people still haven't managed to acknowledge all 4.

Let alone acknowledge them given a particular cxontext.

[iambiguous]

You can SAY "rape is wrong," but your subjectivism tells you that rape isn't more wrong than anything else a person can want to do.

This, of course, is just another "for all practical purposes" rendition of "in the absense of God all things are permitted".

Something "here and now" I agree with. And it always brings me back around to this:

This comes closest to upending my own "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind. People tap me on the shoulder and ask "can you seriously believe that the Holocaust or abusing children or rape or cold-blooded murder is not inherently, necessarily immoral?"

And, sure, the part of me that would never, could never imagine my own participation in things of this sort has a hard time accepting that, yes, in a No God world they are still behaviors able to be rationalized by others as either moral or, for the sociopaths, justified given their belief that everything revolves around their own "me, myself and I" self-gratification.

And what is the No God philosophical -- scientific? -- argument that establishes certain behaviors as in fact objectively right or objectively wrong? Isn't it true that philosophers down through the ages who did embrace one or another rendition of deontology always included one or another rendition of the transcending font -- God -- to back it all up?

For all I know, had my own life been different...for any number of reasons...I would myself be here defending the Holocaust. Or engaging in what most construe to be morally depraved behaviors.

After all, do not the pro-life folks insist that abortion itself is no less a Holocaust inflicted on the unborn? And do not the pro-choice folks rationalize this behavior with their own subjective sets of assumptions.

Though, okay, if someone here is convinced they have in fact discovered the optimal reason why we should behave one way and not any other, let's explore that in a No God world.

What would be argued when confronting the Adolph Hitlers and the Ted Bundys and the 9/11 religious fanatics and the sociopaths among us. Arguments such that they would be convinced that the behaviors they choose are indeed inherently, necessarily immoral.

How would you reason with them?

But never in a million years could I imagine Mr. Cant and other moral objectivists here [God or No God] coming around to this. And that's because given the "psychology of objectivism" their own particular moral dogmas are precisely what allow them to anchor their Self to a font that ever and always comforts and consoles them. Thus, in my view, this isn't about philosophy so much as about human psychological defense mechanisms. And God and religion are right at the top of the list.

[Immanuel Can]

I am more than happy to comment on what you have to say about objective morality, and I will treat your views with the same respect you gave to mine, but I am not interested in discussing my views on morality with you any longer, as I feel we have exhausted the topic.

Okay. What do you want to discuss, then?

I don't really think there is any basis for discussion, because as soon as you mention God, I might as well leave the room. I thought I would just stand on the side lines and take random pot shots, if that is acceptable.

Ah. Well, one must have a hobby, I guess.

Thanks for the chat, anyway. Agreement is not a necessary precondition of conversation -- nor of likeability -- and I'm conscious of your investment in time and energy to hash this over, so that's good. Hopefully, we both come away clearer on the questions, and that's not nothing.

[Immanuel Can]

People with subjective moralities establish an agreement that they owe duty or obligation to this thing or that thing, or else.

Or else what? Or else they change their feeling, and owe nothing?

...those who don't follow it get punished by the others.

Well, that's called "raw power." It has nothing to do with morality. Raw power can be used to make others do practically anything.

If you don't obey Stalin, you get shot; if you don't obey Hamas, you get your throat slit...it's hard to see how obedience to Hamas or Stalin, therefore, would be something we'd call "moral." It looks merely fearful.

So that leaves us with the possibility (that I can think of) that the universe itself might somehow be inherently moral, without God and karmic system.

You'd have to explain how that was possible.

The Materialist and Physicalist types will say it's simply not possible: we're here as the result of a cosmic accident (the Big Bang, or more precisely, whatever chain of events led up to the Big Bang), so there is no meaning "in the very fabric of existence," anymore than there's a meaning in a paint splatter that fell from your paintbrush on a Saturday morning of painting. Any meaning that we think we perceive is only a result of us fooling ourselves; the truth is, it's a paint splatter, and random.

Which doesn't mean that humans wouldn't have consciences, both could be true.

That would be odd: that the universe actually has no meaning "in its fabric," but it accidentally created a kind of sentient being that insists on thinking there's one.

Materialists/atheists/naturalists would have to accept this too. I see no signs of this possibility being true either, though.

I don't, either. It doesn't even really look like an explanation. It's more like just a description of two phenomena that make no sense together.

[iambiguous]

Write down you're demo of God's existence, then share and reveal what you've explained to yourself in words, to us Atheists here, so we can read the evidental proof of God's existence according to you.

No, not according to him. According to the scientists and historians here: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/animate ... cTEALw_wcB

I plowed through them all myself hoping -- expecting -- that Mr. Cant would explore them with me one by one. He did one but then just abandoned the project, merely concluding that "the evidence is there". Still, one day, perhaps, when God allows him to grow a pair, he'll pursue the other 16 videos here: viewtopic.php?t=40750

[Harbal]

Okay. What do you want to discuss, then?

I don't really think there is any basis for discussion, because as soon as you mention God, I might as well leave the room. I thought I would just stand on the side lines and take random pot shots, if that is acceptable.

Ah. Well, one must have a hobby, I guess.

Thanks for the chat, anyway. Agreement is not a necessary precondition of conversation -- nor of likeability -- and I'm conscious of your investment in time and energy to hash this over, so that's good. Hopefully, we both come away clearer on the questions, and that's not nothing.

I'm not sure morality is an appropriate topic for you and I to discuss, because whenever I get involved with you, it always brings the worst out in me. Still, I don't suppose I would have you any other way.

[iambiguous]

The Materialist and Physicalist types will say it's simply not possible: we're here as the result of a cosmic accident (the Big Bang, or more precisely, whatever chain of events led up to the Big Bang), so there is no meaning "in the very fabric of existence," anymore.

"Hear! Hear!", Mr, Cant.

They can say what they want about the existence of existence itself.

And even though they do employ the scientific method in grappling with it...and do not just take a more or less blind "leap faith" to the Big Bang...that's not the same as pinning it all down ontologically or teleologically.

At least not as the Bible pins down ontologically and teleologically the existence of the Christian God, right? Those YouTube videos are just icing on the cake.

On the other hand, you did forget [again] to note the distinction between essential meaning [in a God world] and existential meaning [in a No God world].

[Immanuel Can]

I don't really think there is any basis for discussion, because as soon as you mention God, I might as well leave the room. I thought I would just stand on the side lines and take random pot shots, if that is acceptable.

Ah. Well, one must have a hobby, I guess.

Thanks for the chat, anyway. Agreement is not a necessary precondition of conversation -- nor of likeability -- and I'm conscious of your investment in time and energy to hash this over, so that's good. Hopefully, we both come away clearer on the questions, and that's not nothing.

I'm not sure morality is an appropriate topic for you and I to discuss, because whenever I get involved with you, it always brings the worst out in me. Still, I don't suppose I would have you any other way.

Fair enough.

Maybe we're like one of those demented couples who seem to want to live together so as to fight more conveniently.

I'll look us up a family therapist.

[Gary Childress]

Would it make you wiser if you banned the truth?

No. That's why I stay away from the Bible.

Gary, one day, I'm afraid you're going to regret some of the things you've said, if you don't make that right...and not with me. I would sincerely wish a better outcome for you.

I'm sure God will not be upset over some choice words. I would think God would have a little more backbone and patience than you seem to credit him with. My dad was pretty strict and very vocal and let us know when he was upset about something. And I was/am stubborn and independent as well. We got used to it as a family and it became a part of living together. I've learned how to deal relatively amicably with hostile people. It's like hearing. Some people hear a whisper like it's right next to them. It takes a brick to fall on my head to get my attention sometimes. However, I don't freak out or get bent out of shape when the thump happens.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm sure God will not be upset over some choice words.

You can be sure of the opposite.

"But I tell you that for every careless word that people speak, they will give an account of it on the day of judgment." (Matt. 12:36)

[Atla]

People with subjective moralities establish an agreement that they owe duty or obligation to this thing or that thing, or else.

Or else what? Or else they change their feeling, and owe nothing?

...those who don't follow it get punished by the others.

Well, that's called "raw power." It has nothing to do with morality. Raw power can be used to make others do practically anything.

If you don't obey Stalin, you get shot; if you don't obey Hamas, you get your throat slit...it's hard to see how obedience to Hamas or Stalin, therefore, would be something we'd call "moral." It looks merely fearful.

Raw power is what objective morality uses too when a system applied to multiple people is formed from it, so I don't understand the nature of your objection. If you don't obey Stalin, you get shot; if you don't obey Hamas, you get your throat slit; if you do something naughty (according to God), God puts you into Hell where you will be tortured for eternity. But God's followers may already punish you while you're alive.

Raw power is also what the justice system is based on. Is there any other way?

You'd have to explain how that was possible.

The Materialist and Physicalist types will say it's simply not possible: we're here as the result of a cosmic accident (the Big Bang, or more precisely, whatever chain of events led up to the Big Bang), so there is no meaning "in the very fabric of existence," anymore than there's a meaning in a paint splatter that fell from your paintbrush on a Saturday morning of painting. Any meaning that we think we perceive is only a result of us fooling ourselves; the truth is, it's a paint splatter, and random.

"Cosmic accident" is a made-up fairy tale element, not an essential part of materialism and physicalism. When they find some better explanation, they will have to accept it.

Which may never happen because we are looking at an observable universe that's compatible with human life, but such a world looks almost infinitely improbable, it looks like an accident.

[Dontaskme]

..................

Still waiting IC

To read you're demonstration / explanation in you're own words about the claim that God exists. You have previously said that some of us atheists do not make that possible for you because it wouldn't matter to them or help them. But I think you are just using that as an excuse to wiggle out of the job.

So chop chop IC...lets see what you got.