How believing in God can resolve moral conflict?

[Immanuel Can]

You need a person for a fact to be known or proven.

That's not the real question, though. The question is really whether the "knowing" or "proving" actually MAKES anything into a "fact." Do you actually insist it does? Or is there such a thing as "a fact nobody (yet) knows?" Because common usage holds that there is such a thing.

You'd have to explain why you think there isn't.

The definition of fact is passive which means that it is something that one knows or proves.

So gravity is not a "fact." Because at one time, nobody knew about it. And Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun, because at one time, nobody "knew" or had "proved" that it did...

Seriously?

Yes.

I notice you cut off my first question, and didn't even try to answer it. It read:

"So if nobody knows it, its' not a "fact" that the Earth is round?"

You really need to answer that one. Because while I agree with your claim about "truth" there, I don't believe you've got your word "fact" right at all.

But you can prove you do, by answering that question.

If there is no one, there is no one to know that the Earth is round.

But IS it a fact that the Earth IS round? Was it a fact when nobody knew it?

If it was, then your definition above is not right: people don't have to "know" or "prove" these things in order for them to be "facts."

I believe in gods, who are omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.

So far, we are not essentially disagreeing, then. So I don't have to prove those three attributes to you, I guess.

They are not just the creator of everything.

"Not just"? Or "just not"? The difference is that in the first case, you'd be saying, "God didn't only create everything...but also..." and in the second, you'd be saying that God is not the Creator of the universe. Which did you mean?

And "they"? Are you believing in multiple gods?

have had lots of spiritual experiences so my belief is based on my experience.

Okay, tell me about that, if you would.

But anyhow, even if your God is proven to be the true one then need moral facts to derive the rightness and wrongness of acts.

Something's wrong with the grammar in that sentence. "then need"?

Can you rewrite it to show what you mean?

[promethean75]

"So gravity is not a "fact." Because at one time, nobody knew about it. And Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun, because at one time, nobody "knew" or had "proved" that it did...     Seriously?"

It would serve you well to be advised of a certain distinguished philosopher, intellectual, bishop and gentleman who obtained both an M.A. and a B.A. at The Provost, Fellows, Foundation Scholars and the other members of Board, of the College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity of Queen Elizabeth near Dublin, and who believed that very claim and agreed to wit with one bahman.

[bahman]

That's not the real question, though. The question is really whether the "knowing" or "proving" actually MAKES anything into a "fact." Do you actually insist it does? Or is there such a thing as "a fact nobody (yet) knows?" Because common usage holds that there is such a thing.

You'd have to explain why you think there isn't.

The definition of fact is passive which means that it is something that one knows or proves.

So gravity is not a "fact." Because at one time, nobody knew about it. And Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun, because at one time, nobody "knew" or had "proved" that it did...

Seriously?

Gravity is a fact when someone knows about it. It is not a fact when there is no one. The definition of the word "fact" is passive so it indicates that it applies to a situation where there is a person who is aware of something that is known or proven to be true.

I notice you cut off my first question, and didn't even try to answer it. It read:

"So if nobody knows it, its' not a "fact" that the Earth is round?"

You really need to answer that one. Because while I agree with your claim about "truth" there, I don't believe you've got your word "fact" right at all.

But you can prove you do, by answering that question.

If there is no one, there is no one to know that the Earth is round.

But IS it a fact that the Earth IS round? Was it a fact when nobody knew it?

It is the truth and not fact.

If it was, then your definition above is not right: people don't have to "know" or "prove" these things in order for them to be "facts."

That definition is right.

I believe in gods, who are omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.

So far, we are not essentially disagreeing, then. So I don't have to prove those three attributes to you, I guess.

Okay.

They are not just the creator of everything.

"Not just"? Or "just not"? The difference is that in the first case, you'd be saying, "God didn't only create everything...but also..." and in the second, you'd be saying that God is not the Creator of the universe. Which did you mean?

You are right. I should have said: They are just not the creator of everything.

And "they"? Are you believing in multiple gods?

Yes, I believe they are many but it could be only one Evil god who is pretending to be many.

have had lots of spiritual experiences so my belief is based on my experience.

Okay, tell me about that, if you would.

My spiritual experiences are more than tens years old. I see them, hear them, ... I even experienced Jesus too. He wanted me to become His sword.

But anyhow, even if your God is proven to be the true one then need moral facts to derive the rightness and wrongness of acts.

Something's wrong with the grammar in that sentence. "then need"?

Can you rewrite it to show what you mean?

I should have said: But anyhow, even if your God is proven to be the true one then one needs moral facts to derive the rightness and wrongness of acts.

[Harbal]

I had forgotten just how fruitful the discourse here could be.

[Immanuel Can]

Gravity is a fact when someone knows about it. It is not a fact when there is no one.

Then you're using the word "fact" like nobody else uses it. In regular usage, "fact" means something that's true regardless of whether or not particular people know it.

That's called a "stipulative definition." It's not ethically wrong to make one, but you're supposed to announce that you're going to be confining your usage in some way people have no reason to expect...that is, if you want them to understand what you're saying.

They are not just the creator of everything.

"Not just"? Or "just not"? The difference is that in the first case, you'd be saying, "God didn't only create everything...but also..." and in the second, you'd be saying that God is not the Creator of the universe. Which did you mean?

You are right. I should have said: They are just not the creator of everything.

Not the Creator, then?

And "they"? Are you believing in multiple gods?

Yes, I believe they are many but it could be only one Evil god who is pretending to be many.

So you don't speak of the Supreme Being as "God"? You only speak of "gods," then, which really means allegedly super-human but contingent beings.

have had lots of spiritual experiences so my belief is based on my experience.

Okay, tell me about that, if you would.

My spiritual experiences are more than tens years old. I see them, hear them, ... I even experienced Jesus too. He wanted me to become His sword.

Under what circumstances do you get this "experiences"?

But anyhow, even if your God is proven to be the true one then one needs moral facts to derive the rightness and wrongness of acts.

I'm going to try to repeat that, so I understand it.

You're saying, "Even if my God is the real God, then...[who?]...needs moral facts (which means, things that people "know" and "prove") in order to be able to say what's right and what's wrong."

That's what you want me to understand by what you say, then?

Who is the "needer" of the moral facts, in that sentence?

[Immanuel Can]

I had forgotten just how fruitful the discourse here could be.

How come I feel like I'm running hard while up to my knees in molasses?

[bahman]

Gravity is a fact when someone knows about it. It is not a fact when there is no one.

Then you're using the word "fact" like nobody else uses it. In regular usage, "fact" means something that's true regardless of whether or not particular people know it.

That's called a "stipulative definition." It's not ethically wrong to make one, but you're supposed to announce that you're going to be confining your usage in some way people have no reason to expect...that is, if you want them to understand what you're saying.

That is the definition that I get from google.

"Not just"? Or "just not"? The difference is that in the first case, you'd be saying, "God didn't only create everything...but also..." and in the second, you'd be saying that God is not the Creator of the universe. Which did you mean?

You are right. I should have said: They are just not the creator of everything.

Not the Creator, then?

There is no creator of everything. I said this many times. I have an argument against the act of creation of everything.

And "they"? Are you believing in multiple gods?

Yes, I believe they are many but it could be only one Evil god who is pretending to be many.

So you don't speak of the Supreme Being as "God"? You only speak of "gods," then, which really means allegedly super-human but contingent beings.

They have minds. Mind is not contingent. Whether they have bodies/souls/etc. or not, I don't know.

Okay, tell me about that, if you would.

My spiritual experiences are more than tens years old. I see them, hear them, ... I even experienced Jesus too. He wanted me to become His sword.

Under what circumstances do you get this "experiences"?

I saw him with a sword in his hand which he asked me to be it.

But anyhow, even if your God is proven to be the true one then one needs moral facts to derive the rightness and wrongness of acts.

I'm going to try to repeat that, so I understand it.

You're saying, "Even if my God is the real God, then...[who?]...needs moral facts (which means, things that people "know" and "prove") in order to be able to say what's right and what's wrong."

That's what you want me to understand by what you say, then?

Who is the "needer" of the moral facts, in that sentence?

Anyone who wants to prove that an act is right or wrong. Without a fact, no one can prove anything.

[Harbal]

I saw him with a sword in his hand which he asked me to be it.

I don't suppose you managed to get a photo, did you?

[Immanuel Can]

Gravity is a fact when someone knows about it. It is not a fact when there is no one.

Then you're using the word "fact" like nobody else uses it. In regular usage, "fact" means something that's true regardless of whether or not particular people know it.

That's called a "stipulative definition." It's not ethically wrong to make one, but you're supposed to announce that you're going to be confining your usage in some way people have no reason to expect...that is, if you want them to understand what you're saying.

That is the definition that I get from google.

Let's see...which site?

You are right. I should have said: They are just not the creator of everything.

Not the Creator, then?

There is no creator of everything. I said this many times.

And yet, the universe had to have a starting point, because we know both scientifically and logically, it is impossible for it to have been past-eternal. So what do you think is the cause of the universe?

Yes, I believe they are many but it could be only one Evil god who is pretending to be many.

So you don't speak of the Supreme Being as "God"? You only speak of "gods," then, which really means allegedly super-human but contingent beings.

Mind is not contingent.

So they're not the Supreme Being; they, themselves are contingent. In your view, the Supreme Being is something you call "Mind"? And the "gods" are just avatars of "Mind"?

My spiritual experiences are more than tens years old. I see them, hear them, ... I even experienced Jesus too. He wanted me to become His sword.

Under what circumstances do you get this "experiences"?

I saw him with a sword in his hand which he asked me to be it.

No. I mean, where were you, and what were you doing when you had this vision? Were you sleeping? Meditating? Imbibing a chemical substance? Or did it happen to you while you were awake?

But anyhow, even if your God is proven to be the true one then one needs moral facts to derive the rightness and wrongness of acts.

I'm going to try to repeat that, so I understand it.

You're saying, "Even if my God is the real God, then...[who?]...needs moral facts (which means, things that people "know" and "prove") in order to be able to say what's right and what's wrong."

That's what you want me to understand by what you say, then?

Who is the "needer" of the moral facts, in that sentence?

Anyone who wants to prove that an act is right or wrong. Without a fact, no one can prove anything.

Oh. So what you mean is , "Even if God is real, no human will know what moral truths there are (i.e. they won't be, by your definition, "facts") because no human yet "knows" those as moral truths?" Is that it?

[bahman]

I saw him with a sword in his hand which he asked me to be it.

I don't suppose you managed to get a photo, did you?

No.

[Harbal]

I don't suppose you managed to get a photo, did you?

No.

That's a shame.

[bahman]

Then you're using the word "fact" like nobody else uses it. In regular usage, "fact" means something that's true regardless of whether or not particular people know it.

That's called a "stipulative definition." It's not ethically wrong to make one, but you're supposed to announce that you're going to be confining your usage in some way people have no reason to expect...that is, if you want them to understand what you're saying.

That is the definition that I get from google.

Let's see...which site?

Just google it. This.

Not the Creator, then?

There is no creator of everything. I said this many times.

And yet, the universe had to have a starting point, because we know both scientifically and logically, it is impossible for it to have been past-eternal. So what do you think is the cause of the universe?

I have a thread about this. Nothing to something is possible. You can find the thread here.

So you don't speak of the Supreme Being as "God"? You only speak of "gods," then, which really means allegedly super-human but contingent beings.

Mind is not contingent.

So they're not the Supreme Being; they, themselves are contingent.

There is a Supreme Being among them. Any being has a mind. Mind is not contingent. I have an argument for that.

In your view, the Supreme Being is something you call "Mind"?

No, mind is a fundamental substance. Any being has one.

And the "gods" are just avatars of "Mind"?

No, each god has a separate mind. Mind cannot be created or destroyed.

Under what circumstances do you get this "experiences"?

I saw him with a sword in his hand which he asked me to be it.

No. I mean, where were you, and what were you doing when you had this vision? Were you sleeping? Meditating? Imbibing a chemical substance? Or did it happen to you while you were awake?

I was awake and I was in my apartment.

I'm going to try to repeat that, so I understand it.

You're saying, "Even if my God is the real God, then...[who?]...needs moral facts (which means, things that people "know" and "prove") in order to be able to say what's right and what's wrong."
That's what you want me to understand by what you say, then?

Who is the "needer" of the moral facts, in that sentence?

Anyone including God.

Oh. So what you mean is , "Even if God is real, no human will know what moral truths there are (i.e. they won't be, by your definition, "facts") because no human yet "knows" those as moral truths?" Is that it?

No, I mean that there is no moral fact.

[bahman]

I don't suppose you managed to get a photo, did you?

No.

That's a shame.

Yes. Anyway, I am not sure that one can take a photo of such an experience.

[Immanuel Can]

That is the definition that I get from google.

Let's see...which site?

Just google it. This.

This is why you shouldn't just read the first line of a definition. The first line is just a partial definition, not a total one. "3. the truth about events as opposed to interpretation."

So "interpretation" is not a necessary part of "fact," according to your own source. That would seem to ruin that definition you were using.

Nothing to something is possible.

No, nothing can be "causeless" that is not eternal.

Mind is not contingent.

So they're not the Supreme Being; they, themselves are contingent.

There is a Supreme Being among them.

No, I don't mean there's just a "bigger one." I mean "supreme," in the sense that it is the essence of being itself. It is, to use the Hebrew idoim, "The I AM."

Anything short of that is a contingent being.

In your view, the Supreme Being is something you call "Mind"?

No, mind is a fundamental substance.

"Mind "and "substance" are not the same.

A "mind" is, by definition, not a "substance."

I'm going to try to repeat that, so I understand it.

You're saying, "Even if my God is the real God, then...[who?]...needs moral facts (which means, things that people "know" and "prove") in order to be able to say what's right and what's wrong."
That's what you want me to understand by what you say, then?

Who is the "needer" of the moral facts, in that sentence?

Anyone including God.

God doesn't "need" anything. If He does, He would not be supreme or self-existent.

I'm thinking your views are a bit too confused for me to sort out. Part of the problem is your unconventional use of ordinary words. But the other problem is that you don't realize the fundamental contradictions in your view of eternality and mind.

Maybe that's as much as we can sort out.

[bahman]

Nothing to something is possible.

No, nothing can be "causeless" that is not eternal.

Did you read my argument against the act of creation of everything?

So they're not the Supreme Being; they, themselves are contingent.

There is a Supreme Being among them.

No, I don't mean there's just a "bigger one." I mean "supreme," in the sense that it is the essence of being itself. It is, to use the Hebrew idoim, "The I AM."

Any being has a mind which is not contingent. Even you have a mind.

Anything short of that is a contingent being.

Qualia is the only contingent thing. Some being have a body and mind that their body is contingent but not their mind.

In your view, the Supreme Being is something you call "Mind"?

No, mind is a fundamental substance.

"Mind "and "substance" are not the same.

A "mind" is, by definition, not a "substance."

To me, a substance is something that exists and has a set of properties. Therefore mind is a substance.

I'm going to try to repeat that, so I understand it.

You're saying, "Even if my God is the real God, then...[who?]...needs moral facts (which means, things that people "know" and "prove") in order to be able to say what's right and what's wrong."
That's what you want me to understand by what you say, then?

Who is the "needer" of the moral facts, in that sentence?

Anyone including God.

God doesn't "need" anything. If He does, He would not be supreme or self-existent.

I'm thinking your views are a bit too confused for me to sort out. Part of the problem is your unconventional use of ordinary words. But the other problem is that you don't realize the fundamental contradictions in your view of eternality and mind.

Maybe that's as much as we can sort out.

Does God know a moral fact?