Is morality objective or subjective?

[iambiguous]

Your observation is that all rules, of any kind, can be, and often are, enforced by way of power. My counter is that objective morality is the only possibility for resisting the belief that "morality" is, itself, noting BUT a product of raw power.

Let's run that by Hamas and their equivalent in Israel. Now, for example. Rules can be imposed by the moral objectivists through the use of political/military power. Might makes right. The moral nihilists, however, can employ the same "anything goes" means. If they do in fact have the power to accomplish this.

It's just that some here who champion a God, the God, their God, not only insist their own Kingdom of Ends justifies any and all means, but back that up further by going from door to door in the hope of actually saving souls from Hell itself.

So, while some argue that objective morality is the only possible remedy here, it had damn well better be their own that you embrace.

Or else...

[seeds]

I agree that random chance/accident is probably nonsense. But you see, the worst resolution of the issue is the idea of God, because a God who could create our universe is even far more improbable.

So of course 'neither accident, nor God' is one of the first steps towards real philosophy...

Well said!

Random chance and accidents are only perceived as such by humans because they don't recognize many 'orderly' and natural influencing factors at work.

Not so, Lacewing.

Among other reasons, it is precisely because some of us recognize "...many orderly and natural influencing factors at work..." that causes us to wonder HOW and from whence did the "...orderly and natural influencing factors..." arise?

And if you insist that they arose from "...natural influencing factors..." then you are guilty of circular reasoning.
_______

[Atla]

I'm not lost, messed up or tangled. I can see it very clearly.

Why are you confused? Maybe because subjectivism doesn't make sense.

It makes sense, just as it did 10 minutes ago.

Then they aren't Atheists. They're just agnostics.

Semantics, there is also the weak vs strong atheism distinction in use. Anyway an omnipotent God could also convince the strong atheists.

He has. They just refuse to see it:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools..." (Romans 1:19-22)

And the skeptics have good reason to think that that's just text written by humans. An omnipotent God could do better.

It's not "extrapolated" from anything scientific at all. It's a pure fantasy, and has no empirical (or scientific) basis whatsoever...in addition to being a mathematical absurdity.

It's extrapolated from a scientific basis, but is not part of science.

[Lacewing]

I agree that random chance/accident is probably nonsense. But you see, the worst resolution of the issue is the idea of God, because a God who could create our universe is even far more improbable.

So of course 'neither accident, nor God' is one of the first steps towards real philosophy...

Well said!

Random chance and accidents are only perceived as such by humans because they don't recognize many 'orderly' and natural influencing factors at work.

Not so, Lacewing.

Among other reasons, it is precisely because some of us recognize "...many orderly and natural influencing factors at work..." that causes us to wonder HOW and from whence did the "...orderly and natural influencing factors..." arise?

And if you insist that they arose from "...natural influencing factors..." then you are guilty of circular reasoning.
_______

Sorry, I'm not following how what you're saying comes from what I'm saying.

[iambiguous]

Well, there are only two options: something can be random, or something can be purposeful /intentional / designed instead.

Actually, there's a third option...

Something -- the universe, say -- was in fact purposefully and intentionally designed and someone here has accumulated substantive and substantial evidence that, in fact, demonstrates it to be their very own God.

Then the part where their God purposefully and intentionally designed planet Earth. Resulting in these things:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

So it's pretty clear that if Atheism of any kind is true, then all explanations that involve Somebody installing or designing some purpose for the universe have to be ruled out from the get-go.

No. Why? Because some atheists are more than willing to acknowledge that atheism itself is problematic. And that, sure, if someone here is able to demonstrate that their own God does exist then bye-bye atheism.

On the other hand, they are still in competition with all of these guys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

So Atheists have to believe the universe is a product of randomness. If they don't, then they have no option but to return to some "design" explanation, which would implicate God again. And they don't want to do that, obviously.

Of course, that Mr. Cant persists in capitalizing Atheists is but another rendition of his True mentality. True Christians. True Atheists.

Now let's pin this down: True Randomness.

No one here aside from those who have taken their own rooted existentially in dasein leap to moral objectivism has even the remotest understanding of what random might possibly mean in regard to these questions:

Why does something exist instead of nothing?
Why does this something exist instead of something else?
Where does the human condition fit into a definitive understanding of this particular something itself?
What of solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, the Matrix?
What of the multiverse?

Assuming of course that free will itself is not just a psychological illusion.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not lost, messed up or tangled. I can see it very clearly.

Why are you confused? Maybe because subjectivism doesn't make sense.

It makes sense, just as it did 10 minutes ago.

Then I'm sorry; you don't understand it. If you did, you'd see that everything I'm saying about it is true. And that's discernable from a totally independent basis, whether one was an objectivist or not. It's a set of faults inherent to subjectivism itself.

Then they aren't Atheists. They're just agnostics.

Semantics, there is also the weak vs strong atheism distinction in use. Anyway an omnipotent God could also convince the strong atheists.

Of course. But He promises not to, because the condition of the heart is more important than anything, and Atheists hate and refuse to know God. God's not interested in making Himself known to hard-hearted cynics.

He says so.

It's not "extrapolated" from anything scientific at all. It's a pure fantasy, and has no empirical (or scientific) basis whatsoever...in addition to being a mathematical absurdity.

It's extrapolated from a scientific basis,

Give that basis. What do you imagine it is?

[Atla]

Then I'm sorry; you don't understand it. If you did, you'd see that everything I'm saying about it is true. And that's discernable from a totally independent basis, whether one was an objectivist or not. It's a set of faults inherent to subjectivism itself.

You haven't shown any inherent faults yet, so there's nothing to see. We've demonstrated that it's you who is incapable of stepping outside the objectivist mindset.

Of course. But He promises not to, because the condition of the heart is more important than anything, and Atheists hate and refuse to know God. God's not interested in making Himself known to hard-hearted cynics.

He says so.

Or what is more likely: humans made up this story about God, in order to get people to put blind faith into God.

Give that basis. What do you imagine it is?

Size and constitution of the universe, physical laws, physical constants. Especially the constants.

[Immanuel Can]

Then I'm sorry; you don't understand it. If you did, you'd see that everything I'm saying about it is true. And that's discernable from a totally independent basis, whether one was an objectivist or not. It's a set of faults inherent to subjectivism itself.

You haven't shown any inherent faults yet,

That's ALL I've pointed out to you. I haven't asked you to believe in objectivism...you could become a nihilist, if you wanted to. You can even remain an irrational subjectivist if you insist. But I'm shown from subjectivism -- from its own assumptions -- that subjectivism is nonsense.

Have you been sleeping? Check back: you'll see I'm right.

Or what is more likely: humans made up this story about God, in order to get people to put blind faith into God.

Given the evidence? God's more likely. Atheism's a very recent fad, and not one that's apparently going to last long. The evidence is all on the side of there being design in creation.

Give that basis. What do you imagine it is?

Size and constitution of the universe,

Let's start with that: how does "size of the universe" lead one to the "circular time" or "multiverse" or "infinite worlds" explanation? (They're all different, of course; but all goofy.)

Then I'll be asking about what you mean by "constitution of the universe," and how it helps, and then the rest, of course. Because it's not at all obvious you meant anything at all by listing them. But we can find out.

[Dontaskme]

"You shall find Me when you seek Me with all your heart."

How about not hiding in the first place. How old are you? 2 and a half, turning 3 next year?
Why not just step out here in the open totally naked where everyone can see you, and bring all your demons with you. Let’s settle this childish game of peekaboo I’m only 2 and live inside of you once and for all. Unless you’ve got something to hide. Which is obviously the case. Since you have no face. Have you. Not even a body. How shoddy.

No Show. No God.

[Atla]

That's ALL I've pointed out to you. I haven't asked you to believe in objectivism...you could become a nihilist, if you wanted to. You can even remain an irrational subjectivist if you insist. But I'm shown from subjectivism -- from its own assumptions -- that subjectivism is nonsense.

Have you been sleeping? Check back: you'll see I'm right.

Since you insisted, we went over the points you made and refuted them together. Read back if you have already forgotten.
Again: subjectivism makes sense, is not self-contradictory whatsoever. The only claim that stands against subjectivism is that isn't good enough for the foreseeable future, but objectivism is out in the West starting from the 21st century, so subjectivism is the best you'll get.

Given the evidence? God's more likely. Atheism's a very recent fad, and not one that's apparently going to last long. The evidence is all on the side of there being design in creation.

The evidence is all on atheism's side.
Even if we only look at theism, there have been at least 10000 gods, so even within theism the evidence is negligible for your particular God.

Let's start with that: how does "size of the universe" lead one to the "circular time" or "multiverse" or "infinite worlds" explanation? (They're all different, of course; but all goofy.)

Then I'll be asking about what you mean by "constitution of the universe," and how it helps, and then the rest, of course. Because it's not at all obvious you meant anything at all by listing them. But we can find out.

If it has at least size X, where X is a huge seemingly arbitrary number, then maybe there could be other sizes as well. Unless the size is infinite, but then we once again end up with, well, the infinite.
Anyway this is mostly off-topic so I'll leave it at that

[Lacewing]

Given the evidence? God's more likely.

How does extraterrestrial life fit into your beliefs and the Bible? Does it simply not exist anywhere else in the immense Universe? Just sort of a whole lot of creation for nothing?

[Immanuel Can]

"You shall find Me when you seek Me with all your heart."

How about not hiding in the first place.

Then there's no initiative or choice on your side.

[Immanuel Can]

Again: subjectivism makes sense, is not self-contradictory whatsoever.

Okay...you are asleep.

Well, I guess if all the evidence doesn't convince you, then there's no evidence you will accept as convincing.

Let's start with that: how does "size of the universe" lead one to the "circular time" or "multiverse" or "infinite worlds" explanation? (They're all different, of course; but all goofy.)

Then I'll be asking about what you mean by "constitution of the universe," and how it helps, and then the rest, of course. Because it's not at all obvious you meant anything at all by listing them. But we can find out.

If it has at least size X, where X is a huge seemingly arbitrary number, then maybe there could be other sizes as well.
[/quote]
No, the "universe," by definition, has only one "size." We don't know exactly what it is, because it's constantly expanding, we are told; but it always has only that dimension that it has at a given moment.

"Uni+verse" means, "all in one," or "everything that exists." It doesn't mean "planet," or "solar system," or even "galaxy" -- all of which are smaller than the universe.

So how does the size of the only universe we have relate to making the multiverse hypothesis, or whichever of the three you actually want to back, even remotely plausible? Let's have that argument next.

[Atla]

Okay...you are asleep.

Well, I guess if all the evidence doesn't convince you, then there's no evidence you will accept as convincing.

I'm not asleep, you simply haven't presented any evidence. It's well-known that there isn't any, and instead of surprising us with some actual evidence anyway, you've merely demonstrated that you don't even understand the concepts you are trying to argue against. Most disappointing.

[Immanuel Can]

Okay...you are asleep.

Well, I guess if all the evidence doesn't convince you, then there's no evidence you will accept as convincing.

I'm not asleep, you simply haven't presented any evidence.

Read back. You'll get there, if you have any intention of getting there.