What could make morality objective?

[Age]

There's no evidence that life forms are eternal.

Okay. If this is what you want to keep 'believing' is true, then there is absolutely nothing else to say here.

After all what else could anyone else say here, now?

Agreed. End of.

So, what 'we' have here, now, is another one who tries to claim that not just 'evidence' exists, but that absolutely 'all the evidence' contradicts 'my claim'.

But, when asked for clarity, this one also provides absolutely nothing at all.

So, what 'we' have here now is: 'There actually is an eternal life form', and that there is no evidence at all contrary to this Fact.

And, in Fact, the actual proof that the eternal life form exists, already exists here, literally, for all to 'look at', and 'see'.

[Peter Holmes]

Okay. If this is what you want to keep 'believing' is true, then there is absolutely nothing else to say here.

After all what else could anyone else say here, now?

Agreed. End of.

So, what 'we' have here, now, is another one who tries to claim that not just 'evidence' exists, but that absolutely 'all the evidence' contradicts 'my claim'.

But, when asked for clarity, this one also provides absolutely nothing at all.

So, what 'we' have here now is: 'There actually is an eternal life form', and that there is no evidence at all contrary to this Fact.

And, in Fact, the actual proof that the eternal life form exists, already exists here, literally, for all to 'look at', and 'see'.

Not interested in your coat-trailing mystical claptrap. State your premise(s) and conclusion clearly and simply - or go away and bother someone else.

[Age]

Agreed. End of.

So, what 'we' have here, now, is another one who tries to claim that not just 'evidence' exists, but that absolutely 'all the evidence' contradicts 'my claim'.

But, when asked for clarity, this one also provides absolutely nothing at all.

So, what 'we' have here now is: 'There actually is an eternal life form', and that there is no evidence at all contrary to this Fact.

And, in Fact, the actual proof that the eternal life form exists, already exists here, literally, for all to 'look at', and 'see'.

Not interested in your coat-trailing mystical claptrap. State your premise(s) and conclusion clearly and simply - or go away and bother someone else.

I will speak in terms that you use.

There is no evidence that there are no life forms that are eternal. All the evidence contradicts that claim.

When you speak and write like this, you seem to be able to comprehend and understand. So, I will just say more or less the 'exact same thing/s' you do.

Is this clear and simple enough for you.

The only difference between 'you' and 'I' here is that I can and will prove 'my claim', whereas you cannot possibly do so.

[Peter Holmes]

There is no evidence that there are no life forms that are eternal. All the evidence contradicts that claim.

False. There is no evidence for the claim that there is at least one eternal life form. And if 'eternal' means 'always existing', there is no evidence for the existence of even one life form that has always existed, and will always exist.

But you say you have such evidence, so put up or shut up.

[Peter Holmes]

There is no evidence that there are no life forms that are eternal. All the evidence contradicts that claim.

False. There is no evidence for the claim that there is at least one eternal life form. And if 'eternal' means 'always existing', there is no evidence for the existence of even one life form that has always existed, and will always exist.

But you say you have such evidence. Indeed, you say this: All the evidence supports the claim that there is at least one eternal life form.

What evidence?

And, by the way, this has nothing to do with the silly claim that reality depends on life forms.

[Age]

There is no evidence that there are no life forms that are eternal. All the evidence contradicts that claim.

False. There is no evidence for the claim that there is at least one eternal life form. And if 'eternal' means 'always existing', there is no evidence for the existence of even one life form that has always existed, and will always exist.

But you say you have such evidence, so put up or shut up.

Just to Correct you, once again, I say I have proof, not just only evidence, which you claimed you have.

Now, why is it up to me to 'put up and shut up', but not up to you?

LOL you claim that ALL the evidence points to your claim being true. So, why do you not just 'put up or shut up'? After all you have 'ALL the evidence', correct?

[Age]

There is no evidence that there are no life forms that are eternal. All the evidence contradicts that claim.

False. There is no evidence for the claim that there is at least one eternal life form. And if 'eternal' means 'always existing', there is no evidence for the existence of even one life form that has always existed, and will always exist.

But you say you have such evidence. Indeed, you say this: All the evidence supports the claim that there is at least one eternal life form.

What evidence?

And, what evidence do you have, for your claim here?

And, by the way, this has nothing to do with the silly claim that reality depends on life forms.

I never thought it did.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA. Please complete the following sentence.
The part or aspect of reality that is relatively independent from life forms is...

There is no part nor aspect of reality in this case.

So here's your premise: No part or aspect of reality is relatively independent from life forms.

And this belies your claim that your anti-realist theory\ is 'nuanced'. You can delete the word 'relatively', because it adds nothing. So your premise is this:

No part or aspect of reality is independent from life forms. And the corollary is this:

All parts or aspects of reality are dependent on life forms. And to simplify:

Reality depends on life forms. From which it follows that:

If there were no life forms, there would be no reality - no universe.

Strawman.
I did not claim the above which is without the proper qualifications.

Based on what have presented, I had claimed the following;

If there were no life forms, there would be no reality - no universe that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

If there were no life forms, there is reality - universe, but this conclusion is not absolutely independent of the human conditions, instead is relative to the human conditions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Of course, if there were no life forms, there would be no perception, knowledge or descriptions of reality by life forms. But we're not talking perception, knowledge and descriptions of reality. We're talking about reality itself - the universe. And your conclusion is: no life forms = no reality - no universe.

And if you don't agree with that conclusion, it comes directly from your premise. So you disagree with your premise. Which is because it's silly.

Strawman as usual.

What is reality is that which
1. -emerged with the human conditions upon a 13.7 b years of history.
2. -is realized as real
3. -then perceived
4. -then cognized
5. -subsequently described.

Despite my explaining the above a '1000' times, you deliberately ignore 1&2 to present your dishonest narrow argument.

What is reality to you is assumed [based on faith] to pre-exists awaiting discovery by humans.
Your presumption without proof for reality is circular.

As I had stated I have not problem agreeing with you on the default understanding of reality as independent of the human conditions, but I do not accept is as an ideology of absoluteness without compromise.

If you are doing serious philosophy, any claim based on absoluteness is not tenable, so as fallible humans we need to be humble to acknowledge the relative state of reality.

[Peter Holmes]

Of course, if there were no life forms, there would be no perception, knowledge or descriptions of reality by life forms. But we're not talking perception, knowledge and descriptions of reality. We're talking about reality itself - the universe. And your conclusion is: no life forms = no reality - no universe.

And if you don't agree with that conclusion, it comes directly from your premise. So you disagree with your premise. Which is because it's silly.

Strawman as usual.

What is reality is that which
1. -emerged with the human conditions upon a 13.7 b years of history.

False. There were no humans for most of the universe's history. And anyway, you claim that it's not humans but life forms. Stop referring only to humans.

2. -is realized as real

This is meaningless rubbish. And the passive voice, which suppresses agency, reinforces that.

3. -then perceived
4. -then cognized
5. -subsequently described.

This supposedly significant sequence is banal. Something has to exist before it can be perceived, known and described. So what?

Despite my explaining the above a '1000' times, you deliberately ignore 1&2 to present your dishonest narrow argument.

You don't explain anything. You merely go through your mantra over and over again, as though it amounts to an argument. It doesn't. And when I set out your actual argument, you can't address it, but monotonously repeat 'straw man'. Here it is.

P Reality depends on life forms.
C Therefore, if there were no life forms, there would be no reality.

You call this the product of 'higher' reasoning that sets it and you above the rest of us. It doesn't. It comes from some fundamental conceptual mistakes that Kant repackaged with his invention of the noumenon - a fiction, a ghost that doesn't exist but can't be exorcised.

What is reality to you is assumed [based on faith] to pre-exists awaiting discovery by humans.
Your presumption without proof for reality is circular.

Reality - the universe - existed long before life forms appeared. And there's massive and overwhelming proof that it did. So this is not even up for debate. Your premise - reality depends on life forms - is patently false.

As I had stated I have not problem agreeing with you on the default understanding of reality as independent of the human conditions, but I do not accept is as an ideology of absoluteness without compromise.

The condition of absoluteness is your imposition. But yes, the universe existed absolutely, completely, definitively, unarguably, etc before life forms appeared. So that universe - our reality - was utterly independent from life forms.

Our 'default understanding of reality' - and especially its existence independent from life forms - is rational and massively evidenced. But your stupid anti-realism is irrational, has no supporting evidence whatsoever, and is the poison fruit from a twisted philosophical tree.

If you are doing serious philosophy, any claim based on absoluteness is not tenable, so as fallible humans we need to be humble to acknowledge the relative state of reality.

Word salad. 'Reality depends on life forms. Therefore, no life forms = no reality.'

And you condemn absoluteness? It's a joke.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Of course, if there were no life forms, there would be no perception, knowledge or descriptions of reality by life forms. But we're not talking perception, knowledge and descriptions of reality. We're talking about reality itself - the universe. And your conclusion is: no life forms = no reality - no universe.

And if you don't agree with that conclusion, it comes directly from your premise. So you disagree with your premise. Which is because it's silly.

Strawman as usual.

What is reality is that which
1. -emerged with the human conditions upon a 13.7 b years of history.

False. There were no humans for most of the universe's history. And anyway, you claim that it's not humans but life forms. Stop referring only to humans.

2. -is realized as real

This is meaningless rubbish. And the passive voice, which suppresses agency, reinforces that.

3. -then perceived
4. -then cognized
5. -subsequently described.

This supposedly significant sequence is banal. Something has to exist before it can be perceived, known and described. So what?

Despite my explaining the above a '1000' times, you deliberately ignore 1&2 to present your dishonest narrow argument.

You don't explain anything. You merely go through your mantra over and over again, as though it amounts to an argument. It doesn't. And when I set out your actual argument, you can't address it, but monotonously repeat 'straw man'. Here it is.

P Reality depends on life forms.
C Therefore, if there were no life forms, there would be no reality.

You call this the product of 'higher' reasoning that sets it and you above the rest of us. It doesn't. It comes from some fundamental conceptual mistakes that Kant repackaged with his invention of the noumenon - a fiction, a ghost that doesn't exist but can't be exorcised.

What is reality to you is assumed [based on faith] to pre-exists awaiting discovery by humans.
Your presumption without proof for reality is circular.

Reality - the universe - existed long before life forms appeared. And there's massive and overwhelming proof that it did. So this is not even up for debate. Your premise - reality depends on life forms - is patently false.

As I had stated I have not problem agreeing with you on the default understanding of reality as independent of the human conditions, but I do not accept is as an ideology of absoluteness without compromise.

The condition of absoluteness is your imposition. But yes, the universe existed absolutely, completely, definitively, unarguably, etc before life forms appeared. So that universe - our reality - was utterly independent from life forms.

Our 'default understanding of reality' - and especially its existence independent from life forms - is rational and massively evidenced. But your stupid anti-realism is irrational, has no supporting evidence whatsoever, and is the poison fruit from a twisted philosophical tree.

If you are doing serious philosophy, any claim based on absoluteness is not tenable, so as fallible humans we need to be humble to acknowledge the relative state of reality.

Word salad. 'Reality depends on life forms. Therefore, no life forms = no reality.'

And you condemn absoluteness? It's a joke.

You overlooked my response above and kept on with your strawman
viewtopic.php?p=720263#p720263

If there were no life forms, there would be no reality - no universe that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
If there were no life forms, there is reality - universe, but this conclusion is not absolutely independent of the human conditions, instead is relative to the human conditions.

[Peter Holmes]

Strawman as usual.

What is reality is that which
1. -emerged with the human conditions upon a 13.7 b years of history.

False. There were no humans for most of the universe's history. And anyway, you claim that it's not humans but life forms. Stop referring only to humans.

2. -is realized as real

This is meaningless rubbish. And the passive voice, which suppresses agency, reinforces that.

3. -then perceived
4. -then cognized
5. -subsequently described.

This supposedly significant sequence is banal. Something has to exist before it can be perceived, known and described. So what?

Despite my explaining the above a '1000' times, you deliberately ignore 1&2 to present your dishonest narrow argument.

You don't explain anything. You merely go through your mantra over and over again, as though it amounts to an argument. It doesn't. And when I set out your actual argument, you can't address it, but monotonously repeat 'straw man'. Here it is.

P Reality depends on life forms.
C Therefore, if there were no life forms, there would be no reality.

You call this the product of 'higher' reasoning that sets it and you above the rest of us. It doesn't. It comes from some fundamental conceptual mistakes that Kant repackaged with his invention of the noumenon - a fiction, a ghost that doesn't exist but can't be exorcised.

What is reality to you is assumed [based on faith] to pre-exists awaiting discovery by humans.
Your presumption without proof for reality is circular.

Reality - the universe - existed long before life forms appeared. And there's massive and overwhelming proof that it did. So this is not even up for debate. Your premise - reality depends on life forms - is patently false.

As I had stated I have not problem agreeing with you on the default understanding of reality as independent of the human conditions, but I do not accept is as an ideology of absoluteness without compromise.

The condition of absoluteness is your imposition. But yes, the universe existed absolutely, completely, definitively, unarguably, etc before life forms appeared. So that universe - our reality - was utterly independent from life forms.

Our 'default understanding of reality' - and especially its existence independent from life forms - is rational and massively evidenced. But your stupid anti-realism is irrational, has no supporting evidence whatsoever, and is the poison fruit from a twisted philosophical tree.

If you are doing serious philosophy, any claim based on absoluteness is not tenable, so as fallible humans we need to be humble to acknowledge the relative state of reality.

Word salad. 'Reality depends on life forms. Therefore, no life forms = no reality.'

And you condemn absoluteness? It's a joke.

You overlooked my response above and kept on with your strawman
viewtopic.php?p=720263#p720263

If there were no life forms, there would be no reality - no universe that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

False. There's no evidence for this conclusion whatsoever. You merely intone it as a doctrine of faith, because Kant's fiction of things-in-themselves has warped your understanding.

If there were no life forms, there is reality - universe, but this conclusion is not absolutely independent of the human conditions, instead is relative to the human conditions.[

Nonsense. Fact: if there were no life forms, there would still be a universe. Fact: if there were no humans, the fact that, if there were no humans, there would still be a universe, would still be a fact. So that fact is not dependent on humans.

[Age]

There is no part nor aspect of reality in this case.

So here's your premise: No part or aspect of reality is relatively independent from life forms.

And this belies your claim that your anti-realist theory\ is 'nuanced'. You can delete the word 'relatively', because it adds nothing. So your premise is this:

No part or aspect of reality is independent from life forms. And the corollary is this:

All parts or aspects of reality are dependent on life forms. And to simplify:

Reality depends on life forms. From which it follows that:

If there were no life forms, there would be no reality - no universe.

Strawman.
I did not claim the above which is without the proper qualifications.

Based on what have presented, I had claimed the following;

If there were no life forms, there would be no reality

Of course there would be no word 'reality', nor any concept of 'reality', if there were no life forms, like you human beings.

Absolutely no one has ever disputed this "veritas aequitas". So, why you keep going on 'about this' you, still, do not yet know.

- no universe that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Again, obviously there would be no word 'universe', nor any concept of 'universe', if there were no life forms, like you human beings.

However, to claim that there would be no, actual, Universe, Itself, if there were no life forms, like you human beings, then you are more insane than you come across here sometimes.

If there were no life forms, there is reality - universe, but this conclusion is not absolutely independent of the human conditions, instead is relative to the human conditions.

OBVIOUSLY, whatever is 'concluded' by life forms, like you human beings, would not have been 'concluded' if there were no life forms, like human beings.

OF COURSE, absolutely every 'conclusion' made by a 'life form' IS DEPENDENT upon 'that life form', AND, RELATIVE to that 'life form's' so-called 'conditions'.

Has absolutely any 'life form' even tried to dispute this with you "veritas aequitas"?

If yes, then who, and what 'life form', exactly?

[Age]

Of course, if there were no life forms, there would be no perception, knowledge or descriptions of reality by life forms. But we're not talking perception, knowledge and descriptions of reality. We're talking about reality itself - the universe. And your conclusion is: no life forms = no reality - no universe.

And if you don't agree with that conclusion, it comes directly from your premise. So you disagree with your premise. Which is because it's silly.

Strawman as usual.

Why can you 'not see' and 'comprehend' what "peter holmes" has been pointing out to you, for how long 'now'?

What is reality is that which
1. -emerged with the human conditions upon a 13.7 b years of history.

LOL you start off with the words, 'What is reality ...', and then go straight into some thing that could not be more False, more Wrong, more Inaccurate, and/or more Incorrect.

Why are you, still, not yet aware that what is 'reality', itself, is very, very, very different from what are 'life form's' concepts?

2. -is realized as real

So, 'the earth is flat', is 'reality' to you, because 'the earth being flat' was 'realized', 'as real'.

3. -then perceived
4. -then cognized
5. -subsequently described.

Just so you become aware, even your claim that the Universe has existed for only the tiny fraction of 13.7 billion years is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, and thus matches 'as real' as the 'realized', 'as real', the 'earth is flat' 'realization', 'view', and 'belief'.

Despite my explaining the above a '1000' times, you deliberately ignore 1&2 to present your dishonest narrow argument.

Is there in any part of the whole Universe a possibility that what you are explaining could be False or Wrong in any way?

Or, is this just an absolute impossibility, to you, and in your own world here?

What is reality to you is assumed [based on faith] to pre-exists awaiting discovery by humans.

And, 'what is reality', to you, is just 'that' what is agreed upon, by a few human beings, in any particular moment, which, by the way, were usually based upon 'assumptions' anyway.

Your presumption without proof for reality is circular.

And, what proof do you, actually, have for your presumptions about the Universe, and even about Reality, Itself?

What so-called 'proof' you have are just the 'thoughts' within some, at any particular moment, who are claimed to do "science", right?

But, let 'us' not forget that if any of those 'thoughts' do not align with 'yours' and 'your beliefs', then 'those other ones' are Wrong, right?

As I had stated I have not problem agreeing with you on the default understanding of reality as independent of the human conditions, but I do not accept is as an ideology of absoluteness without compromise.

If you are doing serious philosophy,

How does one 'do philosophy'? And,

What, exactly, is 'serious philosophy'?

any claim based on absoluteness is not tenable, so as fallible humans we need to be humble to acknowledge the relative state of reality.

What are you on about here, now?

'Reality' is not 'relative' to something else. 'Reality', just is.

That you human beings view, see, and believe different versions, which do not align with 'Reality', Itself, does not at all mean that there is some so-called 'relative state of reality'. What this means is that you human beings are not, yet, viewing and seeing things, absolutely, clearly nor for what they, really, are, exactly.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You overlooked my response above and kept on with your strawman
viewtopic.php?p=720263#p720263
If there were no life forms, there would be no reality - no universe that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

False. There's no evidence for this conclusion whatsoever. You merely intone it as a doctrine of faith, because Kant's fiction of things-in-themselves has warped your understanding.

Faith?

Your bringing in of non-human life forms is not relevant because non-human life forms do not have the intellectual capabilities to reflect upon the above questions.

I will stick to:
1. If there were no humans, there would be no reality - no universe that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
It is very logic and deductive.
If there were no humans, there is nothing to enable the realization reality to make the conclusion as in 1.

If there were no humans, what is there to prove reality and universe is existing.

I can agree if your claim is limited to common sense and conventional sense.
I do not agree if you insist it is an absolute claim regardless of whether there are humans or not.

If there were no life forms, there is reality - universe, but this conclusion is not absolutely independent of the human conditions, instead is relative to the human conditions.[

Nonsense. Fact: if there were no life forms, there would still be a universe. Fact: if there were no humans, the fact that, if there were no humans, there would still be a universe, would still be a fact. So that fact is not dependent on humans.

Fact?
You are begging the question.
Your definition of fact is a feature of reality the exists absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
Then you are using fact to insist 'if there were no humans, the fact that, if there were no humans, there would still be a universe'.
You have not provided any proof at all.

On the other hand my claim is reality, say the table exists as real based on the empirical evidences as contingent upon the scientific FSERC of testing, repetition and justifications that it is real.
I claim the table is real which I can place things on it, but I am humble enough to qualify it is as real subject to the human-based FSERC I relied upon.
Because the FSERC is human-based, I am not in a position to claim the table exists absolutely as real regardless of whether there are humans or not despite the temptation to jump onto the realist bandwagon.
It is not easy for me to suspend judgment of the realist's possibility, but logic convince me to be humble.

So you see, you are arrogantly playing God in insisting there is an absolutely independent table out there which exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.