Is morality objective or subjective?

[Gary Childress]

But your life is going to stay what it is, if all you do is complain. My advice would be that you change it. But if you're "happy" the way you are, then I have nothing to say about that.

My life IS WHAT IT IS. Your "perfect" God made a mistake, obviously.

[Immanuel Can]

But your life is going to stay what it is, if all you do is complain. My advice would be that you change it. But if you're "happy" the way you are, then I have nothing to say about that.

My life IS WHAT IT IS. Your "perfect" God made a mistake, obviously.

Your life is your own. You may not have decided how it would start, but you're responsible for what you do with what you've got. Make good use of your time. Use your resources wisely. And stop complaining. Do something with yourself.

Or don't. But there's only one person who will pay the price if you don't.

[Gary Childress]

There is no refuge or relief. Hamas will hate the Jew with supreme hatred while its leaders have proven how indifferent they are to what the Palestinians, their own people, are going through as a consequence of their aggression.

I'd like to be able to say that it's two different things...Hamas and the Palestinians. But it wasn't just Hamas that was in the street dancing when the Jewish civilians were being slaughtered, raped and murdered. And it wasn't Hamas per se that was chanting "Gas the Jews." It isn't just Hamas that believes the slogan that Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth, "from the river to the sea." And it wasn't just Hamas that made it possible for Hamas to build its secret tunnels, or prepare its rockets...

I'm afraid we all have to face the fact that while Hamas did the dirty deed, far too many others were excited, happy and enthused about everything they did. And they're still celebrating: in many places, they held 9-11 marches and demonstrations. Talk about a tasteless, nihilistic and wicked thing to do...to celebrate dead Jews and dead Americans, on the very day of the most vicious and cowardly terrorist attack in Western history!

But I'm afraid that sort of sentiment is much more general than Hamas. There are great numbers of sympathizers around the world -- some of them in congress -- who are just as eager as Hamas to see Jews murdered. That much, they have made abundantly clear to all of us in the last few days.

I'm sure Israel's treatment of Palestinians under its control and continued colonizing of the West Bank didn't help matters either. Unfortunately, 911 was the result of various US administrations' constant fiddling with politics in the ME. And apparently, officials, including your buddies The Republicans, haven't learned a thing from it. You'd see things my way if you knew anything about, "socialism" and economics.

[Immanuel Can]

You'd see things my way if you knew anything about, "socialism" and economics.

Maybe not.

[Gary Childress]

But your life is going to stay what it is, if all you do is complain. My advice would be that you change it. But if you're "happy" the way you are, then I have nothing to say about that.

My life IS WHAT IT IS. Your "perfect" God made a mistake, obviously.

Your life is your own. You may not have decided how it would start, but you're responsible for what you do with what you've got. Make good use of your time. Use your resources wisely. And stop complaining. Do something with yourself.

Or don't. But there's only one person who will pay the price if you don't.

Your God is a joke. You yourself admit that "moral" = ANYTHING God says is moral. Meanwhile, he apparently drowns everyone because we made him mad and tells his "chosen" people to go murder another tribe. I'm sure Israel is perfectly right to drop as many bombs as it wants on Gaza. God obviously hates Palestinians too.

[Gary Childress]

You'd see things my way if you knew anything about, "socialism" and economics.

Maybe not.

Yes, you support God and anyone else who has inordinate power in this world--BECAUSE THEY ARE POWERFUL.

[Immanuel Can]

You yourself admit...

When somebody writes, "you yourself admit" you can pretty much guarantee that no such thing is true.

[Gary Childress]

You yourself admit...

When somebody writes, "you yourself admit" you can pretty much guarantee that no such thing is true.

I've never asked for "pity" ASSHOLE, so feel free to eat your own shit.

[Immanuel Can]

I've never asked for "pity"...

Gary, stop arguing with people online, and sort yourself out. If you don't, then you're your own fault.

[Gary Childress]

I've never asked for "pity"...

Gary, stop arguing with people online, and sort yourself out. If you don't, then you're your own fault.

Maybe YOU should stop arguing with people online. You believe in "God" and fairy pixies apparently. You think God has everything covered. Meanwhile, people are dying and killing each other over ordinary needs and desires. Keep praying and asking for God to help them. I'm sure it really helps them a lot. Better yet, support Israel while it bombs people or support "Christian" George Bush for invading Iraq and Afghanistan, killing many more people than died in 911. You're deluded. I have no idea why you aren't on psych meds.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well, this is the wonderful argument you had there:
It is impossible for God to exist as real

P1. For all theists, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real [i.],

P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exist as real

C1. Therefore it is impossible for God to exist real.

Really? That's your best shot? Give me something worth bothering with, and we can both help humanity.

I believe you have some sort of subconscious fears in addressing my argument.

It's not an argument. It's neither logically valid nor premised truthfully, which makes it unsound. As such, it represents no intellectual challenge, no interesting idea, no reasonable objection to anything. It's just too boring and misguided to work with, too easily dispatched.

And that, you will discover, is why it is not (despite your belief that it presents an important argument) anything you will find in the relevant skeptical literature; you're the only one who thinks it's an "argument."

Here's ChatGpt [with reservations] unbiased views on my argument;

• ChatGpt:
  Your argument is structured well and attempts to logically demonstrate that it is impossible for God to exist as real based on the concept of absolute perfection.[/list]
  
  ChatGpt made some comments on the premises and after some explanations, ChatGpt concluded;
  
  • ChatGpt:
    In summary, your argument is logically coherent, but the strength of its persuasion depends on the acceptance of the premise about the conditioned nature of reality. Anticipating and addressing potential counterarguments would further enhance the robustness of your position.
  The above conditioned nature of reality refer to the dichotomy of Philosophical Realism vs ANTI-Philosophical_Realism which I had refuted Philosophical Realism as untenable in many threads.
  
  I believe you have some sort of subconscious fears in addressing my valid and sound argument.
  Given the above, I don't expect you to counter my argument; in any case, there is no way you can refute my argument.
  However, do not simply assert that there are no effective counter to the 'God exists' theory.

[FlashDangerpants]

You need to stop begging an AI bot to tell you you are a special boy. That stupid argument asserts natural limits of time and space to a supernatural entity that is definitionally beyond them. It's been dogshit since day 1, and ChatGPT cannot rescue it.

[Immanuel Can]

ChatGpt:
Your argument is structured well and attempts to logically demonstrate that it is impossible for God to exist as real based on the concept of absolute perfection.

Absurd. I have no idea what you asked it, but whatever it was, it was clearly not something it was equipped to process.

ChatGpt made some comments on the premises and after some explanations, ChatGpt concluded;

ChatGpt:
In summary, your argument is logically coherent,

It isn't, actually. In both structure and content, it fails.

but the strength of its persuasion depends on the acceptance of the premise about the conditioned nature of reality

Well, at least it found ONE of its at least four flaws.

Anticipating and addressing potential counterarguments would further enhance the robustness of your position.

Cliche. It's true of every argument.

Not impressed...not even a bit.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My life IS WHAT IT IS. Your "perfect" God made a mistake, obviously.

Your life is your own. You may not have decided how it would start, but you're responsible for what you do with what you've got. Make good use of your time. Use your resources wisely. And stop complaining. Do something with yourself.

Or don't. But there's only one person who will pay the price if you don't.

Your God is a joke. You yourself admit that "moral" = ANYTHING God says is moral. Meanwhile, he apparently drowns everyone because we made him mad and tells his "chosen" people to go murder another tribe. I'm sure Israel is perfectly right to drop as many bombs as it wants on Gaza. God obviously hates Palestinians too.

Given your declared position, it may be a wise move to believe in a God where you can pray to and seek help [& hopes] for any problem that humans cannot resolve for you.
This will at least shift the problem from your mind to avoid looping and making any mental problem worse.
Since the Abrahamic Gods are full of baggage, panentheism may be a good option for you.

Panentheism ("all in God", from the Greek πᾶν, pân, 'all', ἐν, en, 'in' and Θεός, Theós, 'God')[1] is the belief that the divine intersects every part of the universe and also extends beyond space and time.
...... panentheism maintains an ontological distinction between the divine and the non-divine and the significance of both.

In panentheism, the universal spirit is present everywhere, which at the same time "transcends" all things created. While pantheism asserts that "all is God", panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe.
Some versions of panentheism suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifestation of God. In addition, some forms indicate that the universe is contained within God,[2] like in the Kabbalah concept of tzimtzum.
Much of Hindu thought is highly characterized by panentheism and pantheism.[3][4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

The only caution is not to be too dogmatic about it and preaching such a belief to everyone 'its your way or the highway' like the Christians and Muslims do.

[Veritas Aequitas]

ChatGpt:
Your argument is structured well and attempts to logically demonstrate that it is impossible for God to exist as real based on the concept of absolute perfection.

Absurd. I have no idea what you asked it, but whatever it was, it was clearly not something it was equipped to process.

ChatGpt made some comments on the premises and after some explanations, ChatGpt concluded;

ChatGpt:
In summary, your argument is logically coherent,

It isn't, actually. In both structure and content, it fails.

but the strength of its persuasion depends on the acceptance of the premise about the conditioned nature of reality

Well, at least it found ONE of its at least four flaws.

Anticipating and addressing potential counterarguments would further enhance the robustness of your position.

Cliche. It's true of every argument.

Not impressed...not even a bit.

Are you familiar with ChatGpt [AI Chatbot] and what are its strengths and limitations?
ChatGpt has limitations but reviewing logical arguments is one of its strength.


Note this;

When the new version of the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT arrived this week, I watched it do something impressive: solve logic puzzles.

One after the other, I fed the AI called GPT-4 questions from the logical reasoning portion of the LSAT used for law school admissions. Those always leave me with a headache, yet the software aced them like a competent law student.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... t4-review/

The above refer to GPT-4's ability to solve complicated logic problems.
To do so, GPT must at least be very competent on the basics of logic to ensure it is capable to making its arguments valid.

You insist [handwave] my argument is not valid without giving justifications.
But ChatGpt [3.5] being very competent in the basics of logic confirmed my argument is valid.
So you are wrong.

My emphasis to ChatGpt is to review the validity not the soundness which need more details.