Take Back Our Country

[seer]

The claim that the "laws of morality" are like the "laws of physics" or the "laws of logic" or the "laws of mathematics" has no basis. The things are not analogous to one another. Each of them deals with things that have existence independent of the human mind. With or without sentient minds, this solar system will still have the number of planets it has and they will orbit according to the so called "laws of physics," With or without sentient minds, a thing still cannot be true and untrue in the same way, at the same time. With or without sentient minds, if there were two things orbiting the sun and then two more joined them, there would be four things orbiting the sun.

Morality, however, is a categorization of human actions as they impact what the individual values. If there is no sentient person to value, then there is no moral framework at all. It entirely ceases to exist. I believe you have tried to make this argument in the past. But you cannot validly say, "morality is like mathematics, they are both absolute." That's simply an unsupported assertion.

In reality, as I have noted multiple times now, morality is much more like human legal systems. Both deal with accepted and not accepted action. Both apply a codified set of norms to assess an objective action by a sentient actor. I think we can all see that legal systems are subjective to the group/society/country formulating them. That there are different ones for different groups does not appear to render any of them meaningless. Morality is simply the same principle brought to the individual level. Indeed, as I think about it, it dawns on me that the so-called "moral" codes documented in the bible are not morality at all; it is the legal code defined for those who consider themselves Christian. Morality remains an individual, subjective activity. We see that around us each and every day. We see it here constantly.

No Carp, the law of God would be analogous. It is universal like the laws of logic, or the laws of physics. It exists independent of human minds. It is absolute, and there are negative consequences if you violate or ignore it - as with logic or physics. So the law of God would be universal and certainly not meaningless. I mean if you get to compare physical motion with moral ideals then I certainly can use this comparison.

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, the law of God would be analogous. It is universal like the laws of logic, or the laws of physics. It exists independent of human minds. It is absolute, and there are negative consequences if you violate or ignore it - as with logic or physics. So the law of God would be universal and certainly not meaningless. I mean if you get to compare physical motion with moral ideals then I certainly can use this comparison.

Just saying it doesn't make it so, Seer. Even if you can show god exists, which you can't, the best you can show is that god has his own moral framework and that would be eternal if god is eternal. Absolute depends on whether or not god ever changes it. It would not be objective in any sense different than that my moral framework is objective to you, so too god's would be objective to me. In the absence of a god, the entire construct falls apart.

And the difference between our analogies, Seer, is that I was demonstrating that "relative and subjective" does not rob a thing of meaningfulness. You are trying to equate the two systems in their entirety. They have nothing to do with each other except your assertion that they are related.

[seer]

Just saying it doesn't make it so, Seer. Even if you can show god exists, which you can't, the best you can show is that god has his own moral framework and that would be eternal if god is eternal. Absolute depends on whether or not god ever changes it. It would not be objective in any sense different than that my moral framework is objective to you, so too god's would be objective to me. In the absence of a god, the entire construct falls apart.

And the difference between our analogies, Seer, is that I was demonstrating that "relative and subjective" does not rob a thing of meaningfulness. You are trying to equate the two systems in their entirety. They have nothing to do with each other except your assertion that they are related.

The point is Carp, if you get to compare moral ideals to physical qualities, so do I. And the law of God would be both universal and not meaningless, as a matter of fact it would be the most meaningful thing possible.

[carpedm9587]

The point is Carp, if you get to compare moral ideals to physical qualities, so do I.

No. At no point did I compare moral ideals to physical qualities. I pointed out that the argument "it's relative and subjective, so it's meaningless" fails in the face of at least two other things in our experience that are relative and subjective and considered meaningful. What you are attempting to do is completely different than that narrow defined argument.

And the law of God would be both universal and not meaningless, as a matter of fact it would be the most meaningful thing possible.

In your universe, and to you, apparently, Seer. But that is a subjective assessment on your part. To me, it is meaningless because I do not believe the god you worship actually exists.

[seer]

In your universe, and to you, apparently, Seer. But that is a subjective assessment on your part. To me, it is meaningless because I do not believe the god you worship actually exists.

Yeah, and it is my subjective assessment that the laws of logic exist too. So what? And you ignoring the law of God does not change its reality or effectiveness.

[Sparko]

In your universe, and to you, apparently, Seer. But that is a subjective assessment on your part. To me, it is meaningless because I do not believe the god you worship actually exists.

And yet you reject the same argument from us. Amazing.

[Psychic Missile]

No Carp, the law of God would be analogous. It is universal like the laws of logic, or the laws of physics. It exists independent of human minds. It is absolute, and there are negative consequences if you violate or ignore it - as with logic or physics. So the law of God would be universal and certainly not meaningless. I mean if you get to compare physical motion with moral ideals then I certainly can use this comparison.

Is morality dependent upon God's existence? If God were to destroy himself, would an objective morality exist? What if God were to give a human his powers and properties and then destroy himself? Would that human's subjective morality become objective?

[carpedm9587]

Yeah, and it is my subjective assessment that the laws of logic exist too. So what? And you ignoring the law of God does not change its reality or effectiveness.

Well, at the end of the day, ALL assessments are subjective, by definition. Which actually leaves you rather narrow ground to claim there are objective realities...


But I don't like to play in the hypothetical world of the philosopher. I take it as a given that there are objective realities, and we can observe and understand them, though sometimes imperfectly. Physical laws are evident. Mathematical laws are evident. Laws of logic are evident. Moral laws are not. Every religious group declares it has the "absolute" moral truth. Every religious person believes they have the "absolute" moral truth. And the agreement among them is no more or less than we see among non-religious people. You simply cannot show that a moral absolute exists. Showing that physical, mathematical, and logical laws exists is fairly straightforward, unless you lean towards that school of "we cannot know we even exist." It's why your claim to lump moral laws with the others just doesn't work.

[seer]

Well, at the end of the day, ALL assessments are subjective, by definition. Which actually leaves you rather narrow ground to claim there are objective realities...

So objective things like the laws of logic, physics, colors, trees, the moon, physical reality in general, etc... can't be known because they are subjectively understood?

But I don't like to play in the hypothetical world of the philosopher. I take it as a given that there are objective realities, and we can observe and understand them, though sometimes imperfectly. Physical laws are evident. Mathematical laws are evident. Laws of logic are evident. Moral laws are not. Every religious group declares it has the "absolute" moral truth. Every religious person believes they have the "absolute" moral truth. And the agreement among them is no more or less than we see among non-religious people. You simply cannot show that a moral absolute exists. Showing that physical, mathematical, and logical laws exists is fairly straightforward, unless you lean towards that school of "we cannot know we even exist." It's why your claim to lump moral laws with the others just doesn't work.

Nonsense, the law of God would no more cease to exist, than would the laws of logic - whether we understood either or completely ignored either or not. Our confusion tells us nothing.

[carpedm9587]

So objective things like the laws of logic, physics, colors, trees, the moon, physical reality in general, etc... can't be known because they are subjectively understood?

I was merely pointing out the end-result of the path you were traversing...

Nonsense, the law of God would no more cease to exist, than would the laws of logic - whether we understood either or completely ignored either or not. Our confusion tells us nothing.

Except there is no god, and you cannot demonstrate that there is. You also cannot demonstrate that there are absolute laws of morality. So you are asking us to take your word for it that such things exist, that you know what they are, and that we should all be lining up behind your understanding of what these laws are. But you cannot show any of these things to be true. And sorry, Seer, if there is no god, then there is no god-centered morality. So yes, it all does collapse, leaving us with exactly what I described.

[seer]

I was merely pointing out the end-result of the path you were traversing...

Are you daft? You are the one who brought up the subjective thing:In your universe, and to you, apparently, Seer. But that is a subjective assessment on your part.

You do this a lot, as if subjectivity prevents us from knowing objective truths.

Except there is no god, and you cannot demonstrate that there is. You also cannot demonstrate that there are absolute laws of morality. So you are asking us to take your word for it that such things exist, that you know what they are, and that we should all be lining up behind your understanding of what these laws are. But you cannot show any of these things to be true. And sorry, Seer, if there is no god, then there is no god-centered morality. So yes, it all does collapse, leaving us with exactly what I described.

Of course I can demonstrate God, creation proves a Creator. The fact that you don't intuitively know that just proves that sin has made you irrational.

[seer]

Is morality dependent upon God's existence? If God were to destroy himself, would an objective morality exist?

I would say no, but moral realists (who are generally non-theists) would say yes.

[carpedm9587]

Are you daft?

Contrary to popular opinion, no...

You are the one who brought up the subjective thing:In your universe, and to you, apparently, Seer. But that is a subjective assessment on your part.

To which you responded that it was your subjective assessment that the laws of logic exist.

You do this a lot, as if subjectivity prevents us from knowing objective truths.

Our subjective nature prevents us from knowing that we know (or can apply) objective truths perfectly. It doesn't prevent us from knowing them at all.

Of course I can demonstrate God, creation proves a Creator.

Unless it's not "creation." You can't define your way into a proof, Seer.

The fact that you don't intuitively know that just proves that sin has made you irrational.

Or it demonstrates that you have fallen into an old human propensity for using gods to explain what they do not understand...

[carpedm9587]

I would say no, but moral realists (who are generally non-theists) would say yes.

I'm curious...why did you delete the second half of his question?

[seer]

Our subjective nature prevents us from knowing that we know (or can apply) objective truths perfectly. It doesn't prevent us from knowing them at all.

Then stop bringing up the stupid subjective thing.

Unless it's not "creation." You can't define your way into a proof, Seer.

But of course it is a creation; "In the beginning God..."

Or it demonstrates that you have fallen into an old human propensity for using gods to explain what they do not understand...

And you have once again proven that your cognitive abilities have been twisted by sin, same old story.