What could make morality objective?

[iambiguous]

You need to decide what your actual argument is. What you offered them was nothing but a might-makes-right proposition and you are getting toasted for that. But that sentence right there suggests you actually have some other argument in mind.

Which I also pointed out to him.

I don't think that not yet articulated argument holds, and certainly not his appeal to incredulity aimed at PH for not necessarily going along with such a deity. But at least he could actually make that argument instead of arguing consequences (well, asserting consequences and assuming the matter concluded) and being outraged when this is pointed out.

The gap between how the Stooges here encompass me -- objectify me -- and how I struggle mightily in grappling with my own fractured and fragmented frame of mind pertaining to things like morality and religion, never seems to go away.

The closest I've ever come to pinning myself down here was captured by John Fowles in The Magus:

"He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest."

I can only note how God and religion are construed by me existentially given my own understanding of dasein in my signature threads above. And then to suggest that my predicament is their own as well.

The only hope is for him to say that at the same time he is convinced there is a Christian deity he is convinced that a deity of that type is morally correct by some magical argument we haven't heard yet. Some fallible human can't simply say: Well, I deduced his perfect moral status from the knowledge that this deity exists.

Magical argument?

If there is a God, the God and He 1] created the human condition and 2] is omniscient and omnipotent and 3] presides over Judgment Day with the capacity to send us to Heaven or Hell, well, that might not definitively establish His credentials for concocting moral Commandments, but who or what comes closer?

One of these folks...

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

...perhaps?

[Iwannaplato]

The gap between how the Stooges here encompass me -- objectify me -- and how I struggle mightily in grappling with my own fractured and fragmented frame of mind pertaining to things like morality and religion, never seems to go away.

The closest I've ever come to pinning myself down here was captured by John Fowles in The Magus:

"He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest."

I can only note how God and religion are construed by me existentially given my own understanding of dasein in my signature threads above. And then to suggest that my predicament is their own as well.

Not a bit of this relates to what we wrote that you quoted.

The only hope is for him to say that at the same time he is convinced there is a Christian deity he is convinced that a deity of that type is morally correct by some magical argument we haven't heard yet. Some fallible human can't simply say: Well, I deduced his perfect moral status from the knowledge that this deity exists.

Magical argument?

If there is a God, the God and He 1] created the human condition and 2] is omniscient and omnipotent and 3] presides over Judgment Day with the capacity to send us to Heaven or Hell, well, that might not definitively establish His credentials for concocting moral Commandments, but who or what comes closer?

You're still not making an argument. It's an implicit appeal to incredulity.

One of these folks...

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

...perhaps?

So, the implicit but not quite stated argument here is that no one would be a better candidate than others, but no explanation related to why any entity can know/create objective morality.

For example, why is God, in this scenario, not a, yes, vastly powerful, creature with preferences. What makes those preferences objective morals? They would CLEARLY not be universal.

And thanks for calling me a Stooge. I've noticed it seems to come when you really don't have much of a response. I'll take it as an oblique, unintentional 'Good point.'

[iambiguous]

Not really.
You can treat the idea of God like a black box, basing the interpretation of the contents of that unknowable box but proposing the inputs and by seeing what the world is actually like see if the definition fits.

No, the assumption being made here [by me] is that, in fact, a God, the God does exist. That one becomes aware of this. That He is omniscient and omnipotent. That He works in "mysterious ways" beyond the capacity of mere mortals to grasp. That He has the capacity to send "sinners" to Hell.

Yes, but that is all completely bollocks.

In other words, if you don't believe something, that makes it bollocks. Me, I'm still but one more utterly insignificant "speck" of existence in the staggering vastness of "all there is". I'm just not as "arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian" as the FFOs are here in regard to things like morality and religion.

My point is that if you run with that assumption what does the evidence of life as we know it tell about how well that fits, from the book of Nature, as it were.
"Works in mysterious " ways is a joke - that just gives you wiggle room fro your ignorance.

Stooge stuff?

Then straight back up into the didactic, "serious philosophy" clouds...

Here is how the black box idea works.
If your god is omniscient then he has to have known from the begining of time who is a sinner and who is a saint, and in creation of those people he knows that by design. (i'm not going to fast for you here am I?)
When he sends me to Hell, he already knew he was going to do that before I was born,
We may securely infer from this that salvation is a myth, because god has already chosen his saved.
This is the conclusion of the theologian John Calvin.
Have you any logical objections to this?

Logic and religion? Logic and God?

And of course the assumption that your own logic here is, what, entirely in sync with what you'll claim to know in turn about the existence of existence itself? No gaps for you, no "things you don't know you don't know" about all of this.

What is God for then?
If you are so insignificant then why are you wasting your time on thinking about an unknowable? Maybe you think that this pretense of ignorance, you will be saved?

Again, I speculated above about a world in which, say, the Christian God does exist. Now, I don't believe that He does, but those that do are able to configure Him into whatever comforts and consoles them the most. And many believe what they do about Him just as fiercely and fanatically as the things you don't believe about Him.

And all I can iterate is that, if Jesus Christ does return and there is absolutely no doubt that He does exists, I'm born again. You and Peter and Iwannabeplato can do what you want.

Take your chances in Hell?

[iambiguous]

The gap between how the Stooges here encompass me -- objectify me -- and how I struggle mightily in grappling with my own fractured and fragmented frame of mind pertaining to things like morality and religion, never seems to go away.

The closest I've ever come to pinning myself down here was captured by John Fowles in The Magus:

"He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest."

I can only note how God and religion are construed by me existentially given my own understanding of dasein in my signature threads above. And then to suggest that my predicament is their own as well.

Not a bit of this relates to what we wrote that you quoted.

The only hope is for him to say that at the same time he is convinced there is a Christian deity he is convinced that a deity of that type is morally correct by some magical argument we haven't heard yet. Some fallible human can't simply say: Well, I deduced his perfect moral status from the knowledge that this deity exists.

Magical argument?

If there is a God, the God and He 1] created the human condition and 2] is omniscient and omnipotent and 3] presides over Judgment Day with the capacity to send us to Heaven or Hell, well, that might not definitively establish His credentials for concocting moral Commandments, but who or what comes closer?

You're still not making an argument. It's an implicit appeal to incredulity.

One of these folks...

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

...perhaps?

So, the implicit but not quite stated argument here is that no one would be a better candidate than others, but no explanation related to why any entity can know/create objective morality.

For example, why is God, in this scenario, not a, yes, vastly powerful, creature with preferences. What makes those preferences objective morals? They would CLEARLY not be universal.

And thanks for calling me a Stooge. I've noticed it seems to come when you really don't have much of a response. I'll take it as an oblique, unintentional 'Good point.'

Look, all I am doing above is speculating about how we mere mortals might react if in fact IC's Christian God does exist, He returns to Earth and He really does have the capacity to leave some behind come the rapture.

Now, if it comes to that, and you want to argue with Him that none of it establishes that His "preferences" reflects objective morality, be my guest.

And please note that you become a Stooge only when, from my own rooted existentially in dasein subjunctive frame of mind, you choose to make this all about me. It's a judgment call. Mine. I'm certainly not insisting that others are obligated to think the same.

[FlashDangerpants]

You need to decide what your actual argument is. What you offered them was nothing but a might-makes-right proposition and you are getting toasted for that. But that sentence right there suggests you actually have some other argument in mind.

Which I also pointed out to him.

I don't think that not yet articulated argument holds, and certainly not his appeal to incredulity aimed at PH for not necessarily going along with such a deity. But at least he could actually make that argument instead of arguing consequences (well, asserting consequences and assuming the matter concluded) and being outraged when this is pointed out.

The gap between how the Stooges here encompass me -- objectify me -- and how I struggle mightily in grappling with my own fractured and fragmented frame of mind pertaining to things like morality and religion, never seems to go away.

The closest I've ever come to pinning myself down here was captured by John Fowles in The Magus:

"He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest."

I can only note how God and religion are construed by me existentially given my own understanding of dasein in my signature threads above. And then to suggest that my predicament is their own as well.

Oh the melodrama. You're an imitation Kropotkin, quite a cheap one at that, and we barely notice you are alive, you are not important. We tried to help you fix your own poor argument because it was deductively suspect. That you can't do that without assistance is fairly sad, but that you go mental when offered assistance and hoist yourself upon some cross to complain about how we objectify you is just pathetic.

The only hope is for him to say that at the same time he is convinced there is a Christian deity he is convinced that a deity of that type is morally correct by some magical argument we haven't heard yet. Some fallible human can't simply say: Well, I deduced his perfect moral status from the knowledge that this deity exists.

Magical argument?

If there is a God, the God and He 1] created the human condition and 2] is omniscient and omnipotent and 3] presides over Judgment Day with the capacity to send us to Heaven or Hell, well, that might not definitively establish His credentials for concocting moral Commandments, but who or what comes closer?

One of these folks...

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

...perhaps?

It seems there is no way to explain the basics of facts versus values to you.

[iambiguous]

Which I also pointed out to him.

I don't think that not yet articulated argument holds, and certainly not his appeal to incredulity aimed at PH for not necessarily going along with such a deity. But at least he could actually make that argument instead of arguing consequences (well, asserting consequences and assuming the matter concluded) and being outraged when this is pointed out.

The gap between how the Stooges here encompass me -- objectify me -- and how I struggle mightily in grappling with my own fractured and fragmented frame of mind pertaining to things like morality and religion, never seems to go away.

The closest I've ever come to pinning myself down here was captured by John Fowles in The Magus:

"He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest."

I can only note how God and religion are construed by me existentially given my own understanding of dasein in my signature threads above. And then to suggest that my predicament is their own as well.

Oh the melodrama. You're an imitation Kropotkin, quite a cheap one at that, and we barely notice you are alive, you are not important. We tried to help you fix your own poor argument because it was deductively suspect. That you can't do that without assistance is fairly sad, but that you go mental when offered assistance and hoist yourself upon some cross to complain about how we objectify you is just pathetic.

The only hope is for him to say that at the same time he is convinced there is a Christian deity he is convinced that a deity of that type is morally correct by some magical argument we haven't heard yet. Some fallible human can't simply say: Well, I deduced his perfect moral status from the knowledge that this deity exists.

Magical argument?

If there is a God, the God and He 1] created the human condition and 2] is omniscient and omnipotent and 3] presides over Judgment Day with the capacity to send us to Heaven or Hell, well, that might not definitively establish His credentials for concocting moral Commandments, but who or what comes closer?

One of these folks...

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

...perhaps?

It seems there is no way to explain the basics of facts versus values to you.

Absolutely shameless!!

Well -- click -- in a free will world, anyway.

[FlashDangerpants]

Absolutely shameless!!

Aren't you the one who has the romantic entanglement with his own sister?

[iambiguous]

Absolutely shameless!!

Aren't you the one who has the romantic entanglement with his own sister?

And my first cousin.

Though, sure, if you are fiercely and fanatically certain that such behavior is shameless, I won't try to persuade you otherwise.

Just out of curiosity, however, convey to me the argument that establishes -- philosophically or otherwise -- that incest is inherently, necessarily irrational and immoral.

[FlashDangerpants]

Absolutely shameless!!

Aren't you the one who has the romantic entanglement with his own sister?

And my first cousin.

Though, sure, if you are fiercely and fanatically certain that such behavior is shameless, I won't try to persuade you otherwise.

Just out of curiosity, however, convey to me the argument that establishes -- philosophically or otherwise -- that incest is inherently, necessarily irrational and immoral.

I'm a moral antirealist, there are no such things as arguments that establish anything to be immoral, that's a problem for moral realists to overcome. But seeing as you have spent the last day or so telling us that if there is a God then your own incest means you deserve to go to Hell, I don't even understand why you are challenging me on this.

Your psyche really is fractured isn't it?


Is it time to randomly ejaculate a click now?

[iambiguous]

Aren't you the one who has the romantic entanglement with his own sister?

And my first cousin.

Though, sure, if you are fiercely and fanatically certain that such behavior is shameless, I won't try to persuade you otherwise.

Just out of curiosity, however, convey to me the argument that establishes -- philosophically or otherwise -- that incest is inherently, necessarily irrational and immoral.

I'm a moral antirealist, there are no such things as arguments that establish anything to be immoral, that's a problem for moral realists to overcome.

Well, I guess that settles it then. If you believe there are no arguments able to establish any behaviors to be immoral then all of these folks...

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

...are what, fools?

But seeing as you have spent the last day or so telling us that if there is a God then your own incest means you deserve to go to Hell, I don't even understand why you are challenging me on this.

Indeed, if and when the existence of a God -- the Christian God, say -- is unequivocally established and He deems incest to be a sin then, sure, I will note that I was not a Christian at the time back then, ask Him to forgive me, accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior and ascend to Heaven. Again, based on the assumption [and that's all it can be for me as a mere mortal] that an omniscient and omnipotent Creator of the universe and of the human condition itself, is far, far, far more likely to have a handle on the nature of moral Commandments than I am.

Your psyche really is fractured isn't it?

Only pertaining to moral and political and spiritual value judgments.

And if you are a moral antirealist...

"In metaethics, moral anti-realism is the doctrine that there are no objective moral values or normative facts. It is usually contrasted with moral realism, which holds that there are objective moral values and any moral claim is therefore either true or false."

...how can you not be fractured and fragmented yourself in regard to conflicting goods?

Is it time to randomly ejaculate a click now?

How would I know? In regard to free will, I am back to this...

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.

Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.

Either in the only possible reality in the only possible world or of their own volition.

"Click" is just my way of noting how surreal discussions can become in regard to determinism. The human brain grappling to grasp itself. I take a "leap of faith" to free will. Only I have no way of knowing if I was ever actually able not to.

[Iwannaplato]

Look, all I am doing above is speculating about how we mere mortals might react if in fact IC's Christian God does exist, He returns to Earth and He really does have the capacity to leave some behind come the rapture.

So, a focus on consequences, again. (and not consequentialism, but the pleasant and unpleasant stuff that such a deity could do). And look, I certainly have sympathy for the weight of those consequences, in that hypothetical situation, but the issue, perhaps even more clearly stated by PH, was whether this deity is somehow objecctivelymoral, along with the issue of whether you're going along with the issue is moral. You implied that it would resolve in the positive the existence of objective morals.

Now, if it comes to that, and you want to argue with Him that none of it establishes that His "preferences" reflects objective morality, be my guest.

Again, consequences, here implicit. And thus missing the point again. Or avoiding the point, I don't know.

And please note that you become a Stooge only when, from my own rooted existentially in dasein subjunctive frame of mind, you choose to make this all about me. It's a judgment call. Mine. I'm certainly not insisting that others are obligated to think the same.

ALL about you? Nah. I continue on point on the topic also. A bit like the way you inform people they are pinheads or whatever, though I think you're intelligent which makes the whole thing rather fascinating.

But, again, it's fine to call me Stooge. It seems to come after you can't manage to admit something obvious and/or to actually respond to what I or others write and this is pointed out to you. It's a compliment.

[Atla]

Only pertaining to moral and political and spiritual value judgments.

And if you are a moral antirealist...

"In metaethics, moral anti-realism is the doctrine that there are no objective moral values or normative facts. It is usually contrasted with moral realism, which holds that there are objective moral values and any moral claim is therefore either true or false."

...how can you not be fractured and fragmented yourself in regard to conflicting goods?

By having preferences/core values and a fairly stable sense of self, like normal people do? The question is why did "you" become fractured and fragmented, or is there even a "you" in there?

[Iwannaplato]

By having preferences/core values

There's an interesting connection here between some theists' positions - like IC's - and Iambigious' position. Hence his asking for a long time How ought one behave? Without the deity we have, it is assumed, no rudder. And doing what a deity tells us, must be morally right. They differ on epistemology and likely individual experiences, but both positions seem not to notice important portions of the self.

[Atla]

By having preferences/core values

There's an interesting connection here between some theists' positions - like IC's - and Iambigious' position. Hence his asking for a long time How ought one behave? Without the deity we have, it is assumed, no rudder. And doing what a deity tells us, must be morally right. They differ on epistemology and likely individual experiences, but both positions seem not to notice important portions of the self.

I wish it was the case that they are simply not noticing important portions of the self. Life should be romantic and fixable like that. But some people simply lack some important portions of the self.

[Sculptor]

No, the assumption being made here [by me] is that, in fact, a God, the God does exist. That one becomes aware of this. That He is omniscient and omnipotent. That He works in "mysterious ways" beyond the capacity of mere mortals to grasp. That He has the capacity to send "sinners" to Hell.

Yes, but that is all completely bollocks.

In other words, if you don't believe something, that makes it bollocks. Me, I'm still but one more utterly insignificant "speck" of existence in the staggering vastness of "all there is". I'm just not as "arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian" as the FFOs are here in regard to things like morality and religion.

My point is that if you run with that assumption what does the evidence of life as we know it tell about how well that fits, from the book of Nature, as it were.
"Works in mysterious " ways is a joke - that just gives you wiggle room fro your ignorance.

Stooge stuff?

Then straight back up into the didactic, "serious philosophy" clouds...

Here is how the black box idea works.
If your god is omniscient then he has to have known from the begining of time who is a sinner and who is a saint, and in creation of those people he knows that by design. (i'm not going to fast for you here am I?)
When he sends me to Hell, he already knew he was going to do that before I was born,
We may securely infer from this that salvation is a myth, because god has already chosen his saved.
This is the conclusion of the theologian John Calvin.
Have you any logical objections to this?

Logic and religion? Logic and God?

And of course the assumption that your own logic here is, what, entirely in sync with what you'll claim to know in turn about the existence of existence itself? No gaps for you, no "things you don't know you don't know" about all of this.

What is God for then?
If you are so insignificant then why are you wasting your time on thinking about an unknowable? Maybe you think that this pretense of ignorance, you will be saved?

Again, I speculated above about a world in which, say, the Christian God does exist. Now, I don't believe that He does, but those that do are able to configure Him into whatever comforts and consoles them the most. And many believe what they do about Him just as fiercely and fanatically as the things you don't believe about Him.

And all I can iterate is that, if Jesus Christ does return and there is absolutely no doubt that He does exists, I'm born again. You and Peter and Iwannabeplato can do what you want.

Take your chances in Hell?

You are big cop-out boy playing Pascal's wager.
You are no philosopher.
You should bugger off back to "I love Philosophy" where you beling with all the other drongos.