What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

There is everything wrong with the expression 'moral fact'. So let's try again.

If semantics are part of grammar (your claim, not mine) AND you insist that you are not a linguistic/grammatical/semantic prescriptivist then what does the word "wrong" mean outside of any moral framework?

What does it mean for a linguistic expression to be "wrong"!?!

[RCSaunders]

It would not be enough to say, "A scientist has 'reasoned' that water freezes at 100 degrees." That won't make it true, even if he had "reasoned" his way to that conclusion. What will test him is the reasoning of others, based on tests and experimentation in the natural world...and that's not inside his head, but external to him.

Gibberish. Knowing the truth does not require anyone else's agreement. The only test is the reality one's knowledge is about. If water freezes at some temperature and one discovers it, they know it, period. The water and its properties exist and one uses one's mind to learn about that existent they are conscious of and its nature by first perceiving it, identifying it, studying it, and discovering its nature. There is no conflict between what is in his consciousness and the existence he is conscious of. Any tests and experimentation are only possible if he perceives those tests and experiments.

[Skepdick]

Gibberish. Knowing the truth does not require anyone else's agreement. The only test is the reality one's knowledge is about. If water freezes at some temperature and one discovers it, they know it, period. The water and its properties exist and one uses one's mind to learn about that existent they are conscious of and its nature by first perceiving it, identifying it, studying it, and discovering its nature. There is no conflict between what is in his consciousness and the existence he is conscious of. Any tests and experimentation are only possible if he perceives those tests and experiments.

Nonsense.

Water freezes at whatever temperature Anders Celsius, Daniel Fahrenheit and Baron Kelvin decided it freezes at.
In Skepdick's own, favourite temperature scale water freezes at 42 degrees, because Dogulas Adams influenced me.

Inventing the truth doesn't require anybody else's agreement. Knowing the truth requires agreement with whoever invented it.

[Immanuel Can]

It would not be enough to say, "A scientist has 'reasoned' that water freezes at 100 degrees." That won't make it true, even if he had "reasoned" his way to that conclusion. What will test him is the reasoning of others, based on tests and experimentation in the natural world...and that's not inside his head, but external to him.

Knowing the truth does not require anyone else's agreement.

That's the point -- it doesn't even depend on the individual scientist's "agreement." He can "disagree" with the implications of his own results -- they will still be the same implications, because the thing that tests the value of a scientific theory is the external world, not any individual person or group of persons. The truth will be the truth, whether or not anybody on earth knows it at a given moment.

Persons are needed for any agreement, any scientific consensus to appear. But even scientific consensus has been often proved wrong. And how? Because, at the end of the day, it failed to reflect reality...so eventually it was exposed as errant. So we are no longer Aristotelian cosmologists, and no longer believe in bodily humours, because despite these things once having been scientific consensus, we know now they were wrong all along. Reality pushed back, and we found our "knowledge" defeated by reality.

The only test is the reality one's knowledge is about. If water freezes at some temperature and one discovers it, they know it, period.

Right. But they often don't "discover" it right away, because most scientific questions are more subtle and problematic than freezing water. In such cases, they may not actually know anything about that particular issue for sure, even if they think they do. If reality later shatters their theory, reality wins.

Reality always wins.

[Belinda]

Thanks, but this way of thinking is itself mystical and contradictory, in my opinion.

Of course, all each of has is our own experience. But there's no reason to think that what each of us experiences isn't real, including our own bodies and each other. What is this 'objective reality' to which we can't have access? What evidence do you have that it exists? How is it possible to say 'that VA said what VA said and said it in a social context' if those words don't refer to a reality that we share?

Your position boils down to solipsism - even hard solipsism - and that's completely self-defeating.

I am not a solipsist because I am social. If I were not social I could never have existed nor exist now .
You misunderstand me. Everything that happens is real including all your experiences of moving around i.e. yourself as a physical body, seeing, hearing, feeling emotions,reasoning, everything.

Obviously I have not adequately explained objective reality is a faith stance.It is a faith stance without which it would be impossible to choose even to toss a coin.

I do talk quite a lot about social reality as if it's axiomatic. This is because it is a big part of my personal world view. There are I know many people writing to these forums who believe individual men can live in the libertarian way. I am not one of those.

Nor am I. And that's a moral attitude that we share.

But I think the expression 'objective reality' is peculiar. What distinction is it making? What other kind of reality is there apart from the reality that exists independently from any judgements, beliefs or opinions about it, and that would continue existing if there were no judgements, beliefs or opinions about it?

Is it supposed to be different from 'subjective reality''? And if so, how? And how can it make sense to talk about 'a leaking of objective reality into this world where each thinking being is confined to his own experience'? Whence this strange idea of confinement? I think it's a delusion derived from a religious belief in two substances, channelled through Cartesian dualism.

I think your emphasis on the social is absolutely right - and that militates against your strange ontology - again, in my opinion. Social reality is our starting point, our sine qua non. And encompassing that is the only reality there is, which it's strange to describe as either objective or subjective.

We can and do study social reality notably via some academic disciplines , social anthropology, history, social psychology, sociology, sociolinguistics.

We can't ever study objective reality because all our perceptions and interpretations are filtered through subjective experience. our subjective experiences are themselves interpreted through social reality. People who claim to know objective reality are either mystics , charlatans, people who regard deductive systems as ways to objective reality, or people who believe others who make such a claim . Nevertheless we need to name objective reality as the concept is actually on the discussion table so to speak.

Objective reality is also important because we cannot live for long without exploring our environments as ifthere is something real to be discovered.

[Immanuel Can]

We can't ever study objective reality because all our perceptions and interpretations are filtered through subjective experience.

That's like saying, "We can't ever use a thermometer, because it's not precisely calibrated below half a degree of accuracy...so we don't ever really know for sure what temperature it is, and that makes all thermometer's useless."

Not even close to a justified argument. And the truth is that our subjective impressions are pretty good...usually fairly accurate, though by no means undefeatable, and very serviceable for most of our purposes.

But you've got to ask yourself a deeper question: if we say, "All we have is a subjective impression," then the right question is, "A subjective impression of what?"

Of what? Of what thing is our "subjective impression" an impression?

And, of course, the answer is "objective reality," which is really real. In fact, it's only with reference to those areas in which we DO know objective reality that we are able to judge whether or not our subjective impressions are reliable or unreliable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My computer is down, if I am not mistaken I downloaded the book if not I have surveyed the "contents" and noted the various articles by different authors.

You begin by saying, essentially, "I have no chance of knowing anything about this," and then you go on to talk about it. Amusing.

Obviously you have read and assign the wrong poster to me.
Evidence, which post?

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is nothing wrong with stating 'moral fact' that can be justified with empirical evidence supported by philosophical reasoning.

There is everything wrong with the expression 'moral fact'. So let's try again.

Please give an example of a moral fact, and show why it's a fact - a true factual assertion - because it describes a feature of reality correctly.

(Hint: 'people must breathe to stay alive' is a fact. But 'people should / must be allowed to breathe' is not a fact.)

And then I'll show you why what you offer isn't a fact, but rather the expression of a moral judgement, belief or opinion.

I already show you what is generally accepted as 'what is fact'.

Note 'what is fact':

A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.
For example, "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star." is a cosmological fact.
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Note there are linguistic, cosmological, historical, etc. fact.
There is nothing wrong with 'moral fact' as long as it is justified from empirical evidence via induction, etc. and supported by philosophical reasoning.

It is an empirical fact, all living humans breathe.
Therefore,
All living humans ought to breathe is a moral fact,
thus,
No humans ought to stop another human from breathing, is a moral fact.
This is a fact recognized by all humans.
It is not a personal judgment.

Btw, it is a relative objective moral fact.

This is what Hume implied in searching for a 'foundation of ethics' from what [empirically] is common to all humans. Note the SEP quote I listed earlier.

SEP wrote:
His [Hume] method in that work differs from that of the Treatise: instead of explicating the nature of virtue and vice and our knowledge of them in terms of underlying features of the human mind,
he proposes to collect all the traits we know from common sense to be virtues and vices,
observe what those in each group have in common,
and from that observation discover the “foundation of ethics.”
(EPM 1.10).

You disagree with Hume on this?

[Veritas Aequitas]

1 What we call a fact is either a state-of-affairs or a true description of a state-of-affairs. And both of those are real things, not unreal or imaginary things. So if by 'empirical' you just mean 'real', the expression 'empirical fact' is a tautology. What other kind of fact could there be?

There is no harm for it to be tautology especially when the terms are so confusing to so many as it has happened with you. So 'empirical fact' is merely a reinforcement.

Don't patronise me. You don't seem to understand what the word 'empirical' means: 'based on experience or observation'. A fact is NOT something based on experience or observation - so the expression 'empirical fact' is incoherent. Suck it up. You're misusing the term. And empiricism is a metaphysical epistemological theory - so it's better not to open that can of worms. Move on with 'facts'.

I have argued there are 'moral facts' economic facts, legal facts, etc.

And here's the consequence of thinking an 'empirical fact' is one among other kinds of fact - legal, economic, etc. That's an absurd category error. And we all know you argue there are moral facts - that's your huge mistake.

What nonsense is that?
I have provided evidence on what is the generally accepted meaning of 'what is fact'.

Where did I say or imply "choose moral goals and rules."

I have always argued, secular moral objectives are justified from empirical evidences supported by philosophical reasoning.

Offs. A choice justified by appeal to evidence and argument is still a f******g choice. What do you think happens when we choose between A and B and go for B - based on evidence and argument? Do you think B becomes a fact? Think, man. If B was a fact, choosing it would be unnecessary, wouldn't it? Think about it. Ffs.

Nonsense and stupid again.
So you insist Science "choose" its scientific theories based on justifications from evidence and argument.

I contended that secular moral objectives are derived from the same principles of the objective scientific truth.
Surely you are not denying scientific truths are objective.
Secular moral objectives however are moral facts not directly empirical facts.

Can you see the kindergarten mistake here? An 'objective' is just a goal - nothing to do with objectivity, which is independence from opinion. Are you really saying that morality is objective because we can have moral objectives? Omg. Has it been as ridicuous as that all along? Ffs.

Patronizing eh?
I believe you have conflated with what is 'generally objectivity' with the 'objectivity' of Philosophical Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Note I argued Philosophical Realism and its objectivity is never realistic.

See the two different meanings here - see meaning 1 and meaning 2 here;
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective#h1

Apparently you are the ignorant one on the etymology of 'objectivity'. This is why I always accuse your philosophical views as narrow and shallow which is a fact as evident from this and so many cases.

What I have shown is there are moral objective facts which are justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasonings within a moral framework.
Note I quoted SEP re Hume's view on this, but there is more from other than Hume.

Here is the clue from Hume on how we can dig into secular moral objectives;



Thus Hume's establishment of the "foundation of ethics" [moral objectives] are inferred [reasoned] from empirical observations. This is like Science's objective truths.

Hume did not present a straight answer to the above in his Treatise and Enquiry, but if one were to read more deeply, one will be able to grasp the above principle.

Most interpreters recognized "utility" as a basis for Hume's moral evaluation, but utility [one man's meat another's poison] is so subjective to individuals and groups, thus cannot be a solid ground for morality.

You misunderstand Hume's intention, which was not to show that an 'is' can entail an 'ought', but rather to explain where our 'oughts' come from - and that can be explained rationally.

That is what I have done, I explained moral objective oughts can be RATIONALLY derived and justified from empirical evidence that are common to all humans and supported by philosophical reasoning [i.e. rationality].

So you agree we [subjects] are part of reality, to be more precise it is 'intricately part and parcel of reality. Note this;

• P1 we [subjects] are intricately part and parcel of reality.
  P2 whatever is objective is also part ad parcel of reality.
  C1 Therefore whatever is objective are intertwined with the subjects.

This is so wrong it's barely worth trying to rectify it. I don't know where to begin.

from the above, it follows;
Objectivity is fundamentally subjectivity [conditioned by subjects]
[/list]

Since objective is conditioned by subjectivity, such objectivity cannot be absolutely-absolute but relatively [conditionally] objective.
absolutely-absolute = as claimed for God, i.e. totally unconditional existing by itself.

My point:
We can justify secular moral objectives from empirical evidences supported with philosophical reasoning.
These secular moral objectives are relative-objectivity as opposed to absolute-objectivity attributed to the illusory God.

Yes, we can (try to) justify choosing moral goals by appealing to evidence and argument. But, of course, that doesn't make the goals objective - independent from opinion.

Note the meaning of what is objective - not philosophical objectivity.

• objective = expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective#h1

I am not choosing moral goals per se.
What I have done is to derive secular moral objectives [facts] by justifying from empirical evidences and supported by philosophical reasoning within a Framework of Morality and Ethics, to be used as GUIDES only.

Once the moral objective is derived from a Framework of Knowledge, it is objective as qualified to that Framework of Knowledge, thus independent of personal feeling, subjective views and interpretation.

What you cannot get over is being stuck with Philosophical Realism;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
which is not realistic and to insist is being delusional.
Prove to me Philosophical Realism as defined in the link above can justify its ultimate objective reality?

[Peter Holmes]

Note the meaning of what is objective - not philosophical objectivity.

objective = expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective#h1

I am not choosing moral goals per se.

What I have done is to derive secular moral objectives [facts] by justifying from empirical evidences and supported by philosophical reasoning within a Framework of Morality and Ethics, to be used as GUIDES only.

Look at what you've written. You've defined 'objective' as an adjective (a modifier): 'expressing or dealing with facts...' And notice that there's a separation here: on the one hand there are facts; and on the other there are things that 'express of deal with facts'.

But then you say you have derived 'secular moral objectives [facts]...' Notice here that you're using 'objectives' as a noun - a naming word - not as an adjective, which is how you defined 'objective' above. And you offer the noun phrase 'facts' as a synonym for 'objectives'.

Now, an objective (noun) is a goal or aim - and the word contains no sense or implication of 'expressing or dealing with facts...' A goal or aim can't express or deal with facts. The noun 'fact' is not, in any context that I know of, a synonym for the noun 'objective'.

So your use of language is confused. Please sort it out.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note the meaning of what is objective - not philosophical objectivity.

objective = expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective#h1

I am not choosing moral goals per se.

What I have done is to derive secular moral objectives [facts] by justifying from empirical evidences and supported by philosophical reasoning within a Framework of Morality and Ethics, to be used as GUIDES only.

Look at what you've written. You've defined 'objective' as an adjective (a modifier): 'expressing or dealing with facts...' And notice that there's a separation here: on the one hand there are facts; and on the other there are things that 'express of deal with facts'.

But then you say you have derived 'secular moral objectives [facts]...' Notice here that you're using 'objectives' as a noun - a naming word - not as an adjective, which is how you defined 'objective' above. And you offer the noun phrase 'facts' as a synonym for 'objectives'.

Now, an objective (noun) is a goal or aim - and the word contains no sense or implication of 'expressing or dealing with facts...' A goal or aim can't express or deal with facts. The noun 'fact' is not, in any context that I know of, a synonym for the noun 'objective'.

So your use of language is confused. Please sort it out.

OK that seem confusing.

1. First the moral facts that are objective are justified from empirical evidence supported by philosophical reasoning within a Morality and Ethics Framework.
E.g. It is justified from empirical evidences -"ALL living humans breathe" and via philosophical reasoning, "ALL living human ought to breathe"

2. Then these moral facts which are objective [in 1] are adopted [via philosophical reasonings] as objectives [ideal goals] [moral objectives] within the Moral System merely as GUIDES only, i.e.
"No humans shall prevent another living human from breathing" as a GUIDE only.

3. In real life, being human, there will be humans choking another [& others] by various means and murders by choking are committed everywhere. Then the Ethical system will be initiated to close the Moral Gap optimally to as near as possible to the impossible ideal [moral objective].

4. Without 2, i.e. moral objectives, humanity will be struggling with moving goal post regarding morality and ethics.

[Peter Holmes]

Note the meaning of what is objective - not philosophical objectivity.

objective = expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective#h1

I am not choosing moral goals per se.

What I have done is to derive secular moral objectives [facts] by justifying from empirical evidences and supported by philosophical reasoning within a Framework of Morality and Ethics, to be used as GUIDES only.

Look at what you've written. You've defined 'objective' as an adjective (a modifier): 'expressing or dealing with facts...' And notice that there's a separation here: on the one hand there are facts; and on the other there are things that 'express of deal with facts'.

But then you say you have derived 'secular moral objectives [facts]...' Notice here that you're using 'objectives' as a noun - a naming word - not as an adjective, which is how you defined 'objective' above. And you offer the noun phrase 'facts' as a synonym for 'objectives'.

Now, an objective (noun) is a goal or aim - and the word contains no sense or implication of 'expressing or dealing with facts...' A goal or aim can't express or deal with facts. The noun 'fact' is not, in any context that I know of, a synonym for the noun 'objective'.

So your use of language is confused. Please sort it out.

OK that seem confusing.

1. First the moral facts that are objective are justified from empirical evidence supported by philosophical reasoning within a Morality and Ethics Framework.
E.g. It is justified from empirical evidences -"ALL living humans breathe" and via philosophical reasoning, "ALL living human ought to breathe"

No. This is the fundamental mistake. Your 'via philosophical reasoning' is vacuous. There is no logical entailment - no deduction - from 'all living humans breathe' (fact) to 'all living humans ought to breathe' (judgement). You merely state that without any justification. It's simply a judgement, belief or opinion. It's just not a fact (a state-of-affairs, or a true factual assertion) that humans ought to breathe. This is not a moral fact.

2. Then these moral facts which are objective [in 1] are adopted [via philosophical reasonings] as objectives [ideal goals] [moral objectives] within the Moral System merely as GUIDES only, i.e.
"No humans shall prevent another living human from breathing" as a GUIDE only.

Perhaps at least we've clarified the complete difference between 'objective' - adjective: dealing with facts - and 'objective' - noun: goal. I suggest you us the expression 'moral goals', to avoid any confusion.

3. In real life, being human, there will be humans choking another [& others] by various means and murders by choking are committed everywhere. Then the Ethical system will be initiated to close the Moral Gap optimally to as near as possible to the impossible ideal [moral objective].

4. Without 2, i.e. moral objectives, humanity will be struggling with moving goal post regarding morality and ethics.

I agree that we have needed and need moral goals, aims or ideals, in order to thrive collectively - and therefore individually - as social animals. No argument from me on that. But that we should try to thrive collectively and individually, and therefore should have moral goals - these are matters of judgement, belief or opinion. They are NOT facts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Look at what you've written. You've defined 'objective' as an adjective (a modifier): 'expressing or dealing with facts...' And notice that there's a separation here: on the one hand there are facts; and on the other there are things that 'express of deal with facts'.

But then you say you have derived 'secular moral objectives [facts]...' Notice here that you're using 'objectives' as a noun - a naming word - not as an adjective, which is how you defined 'objective' above. And you offer the noun phrase 'facts' as a synonym for 'objectives'.

Now, an objective (noun) is a goal or aim - and the word contains no sense or implication of 'expressing or dealing with facts...' A goal or aim can't express or deal with facts. The noun 'fact' is not, in any context that I know of, a synonym for the noun 'objective'.

So your use of language is confused. Please sort it out.

OK that seem confusing.

1. First the moral facts that are objective are justified from empirical evidence supported by philosophical reasoning within a Morality and Ethics Framework.
E.g. It is justified from empirical evidences -"ALL living humans breathe" and via philosophical reasoning, "ALL living human ought to breathe"

No. This is the fundamental mistake. Your 'via philosophical reasoning' is vacuous. There is no logical entailment - no deduction - from 'all living humans breathe' (fact) to 'all living humans ought to breathe' (judgement).
You merely state that without any justification. It's simply a judgement, belief or opinion. It's just not a fact (a state-of-affairs, or a true factual assertion) that humans ought to breathe. This is not a moral fact.

That is why I asserted your thinking is too narrow and shallow.

Note here is the deduction;

• P1 ALL humans are programmed to survive at all costs at least till the inevitable.
  P2 If all humans do not breathe they will not survive and will die prematurely.
  C1 Therefore all living human ought to breathe at least till the inevitable.

What say you?

2. Then these moral facts which are objective [in 1] are adopted [via philosophical reasonings] as objectives [ideal goals] [moral objectives] within the Moral System merely as GUIDES only, i.e.
"No humans shall prevent another living human from breathing" as a GUIDE only.

Perhaps at least we've clarified the complete difference between 'objective' - adjective: dealing with facts - and 'objective' - noun: goal. I suggest you us the expression 'moral goals', to avoid any confusion.

OK will try but problem is moral objectives is used so commonly, thus will likely forget.

3. In real life, being human, there will be humans choking another [& others] by various means and murders by choking are committed everywhere. Then the Ethical system will be initiated to close the Moral Gap optimally to as near as possible to the impossible ideal [moral objective].

4. Without 2, i.e. moral objectives, humanity will be struggling with moving goal post regarding morality and ethics.

I agree that we have needed and need moral goals, aims or ideals, in order to thrive collectively - and therefore individually - as social animals. No argument from me on that. But that we should try to thrive collectively and individually, and therefore should have moral goals - these are matters of judgement, belief or opinion. They are NOT facts.

The moral goals are derived from empirical facts and philosophical reasoning as moral facts.
Note the wiki link re 'What is fact'.
There is no issue with moral fact as long as it is explained sufficiently as related to the moral framework.

Note I argued for 'beauty facts' here;
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29282

That Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa is Miss Universe 2019 is an objective fact, i.e. a 'beauty fact' but such a fact is conditioned upon the rules and judges appointed by the Miss-Universe Organization and Constitution.
Once this fact is established via due process, personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations of individuals don't matter at all. It can only change if there is something wrong with the process and the contest is performed again.

Thus even beauty can be objectified in this case, but we have to assess its degree of objectivity in accordance to the features above which would be very low.

[Peter Holmes]

The moral goals are derived from empirical facts and philosophical reasoning as moral facts.
Note the wiki link re 'What is fact'.
There is no issue with moral fact as long as it is explained sufficiently as related to the moral framework.

Not so. You're mistaking 'derivation' for 'deduction'.

There's no deductive entailment from 'people must breathe or they die' to 'people ought to breathe'.

If there were an entailment, as you know, to accept the premise and reject the conclusion would be irrational. But here there's no contradiction in doing so: P 'people must breathe or they die' C 'people ought not to breathe' - is not a contradiction - so there's no deductive entailment in the original.

Of course, we can try to justify the judgement 'people ought to breathe' by citing the fact that if they don't breathe they'll die. But then, why ought people not to die? Is that supposed to be a fact? No- it's just another judgement.

The lack of deductive entailment between a factual assertion and a moral one is what makes the expression 'moral fact' incoherent.

[Belinda]

We can't ever study objective reality because all our perceptions and interpretations are filtered through subjective experience.

That's like saying, "We can't ever use a thermometer, because it's not precisely calibrated below half a degree of accuracy...so we don't ever really know for sure what temperature it is, and that makes all thermometer's useless."

Not even close to a justified argument. And the truth is that our subjective impressions are pretty good...usually fairly accurate, though by no means undefeatable, and very serviceable for most of our purposes.

But you've got to ask yourself a deeper question: if we say, "All we have is a subjective impression," then the right question is, "A subjective impression of what?"

Of what? Of what thing is our "subjective impression" an impression?

And, of course, the answer is "objective reality," which is really real. In fact, it's only with reference to those areas in which we DO know objective reality that we are able to judge whether or not our subjective impressions are reliable or unreliable.

The calibration of thermometers is inexact but is practical and the readings are probably good enough, better for instance than feeling your bare chest with your hand.In short, there are empirical methods that are relatively efficacious for judging temperatures. That different temperature is relative is revealed by special organs of sense and by the brain-mind. Mammals and cold blooded lizards and snakes can feel relative hot or cold.


"Useless" versa 'useful' is a socially prescribed value. Thermometers exist and are useful.

True, we can feel God exists in a relative sense if we define God as the most good entity in existence, or define God as the most powerful entity in existence, or define God as the most knowledgeable entity in existence, and so forth. What we cannot do is define existence itself, nor can we define God itself.This is because we cannot define something that has a) no attributes or b) something that has all attributes.

This is why Christian doctrine includes the Christ , because the Christ has a human aspect which can interpret God and demonstrate the proper attributes of God.This is why Islamic doctrine includes the Koran and the Holy Prophet which interpret God and the proper attributes of God.