Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Moral Realism?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Jichard View Post
    I've pointed you to sources on the sorts of meta-ethical questions moral realism answers. For example:
    So why do you not accept that moral realism answers meta-ethical questions?

    I accept that ethical subjectivism answers meta-ethical questions. It obviously does, since it's a meta-ethical position.
    Oh goody - so whose subjective view is correct then? But I think I get it - you make up a theory then claim that it answers meta-ethical questions. Yeah, I guess you can do that.


    Anyone can read your OP and see what those questions are, just like they can read your OP and see that it started off with these false claims:
    So you agree that you did not actually answer the questions, but that you focused on a line that I cared nothing about - that I already said it didn't matter, and it certainly was not at all relevant to my questions.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      Oh goody - so whose subjective view is correct then? But I think I get it - you make up a theory then claim that it answers meta-ethical questions. Yeah, I guess you can do that.
      You didn't answer the question.

      So why do you still not accept that moral realism answers meta-ethical questions?

      I've pointed you to sources on the sorts of meta-ethical questions moral realism answers. For example:
      Originally posted by Jichard View Post
      Start with Wikipedia and proceed from there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

      Or you can read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page on this, or the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy page on this.

      So you agree that you did not actually answer the questions, but that you focused on a line that I cared nothing about - that I already said it didn't matter, and it certainly was not at all relevant to my questions.
      You didn't make a sensible response to what was posted. Feel free to try again.

      Do you retract these false claims? If not, then why not.
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Recently a new member here at TWEB attack biblical ethics as being subjective, subjective to God. Which makes sense, but God's law would still be objective to mankind.
      I've explained why what you said was false wrong. Feel free to address that response. Here it is again:

      It's subjective because God's commands express God's desires.

      On the standard accounts of "subjective" or "objective" used to define "moral subjectivism" and "moral objectivism", it wouldn't make sense to talk about about something being objective from one of view and subjective from another point of view. Instead, they would be objective simpliciter or subjective simpliciter. To put it another way: if it's mind-dependent, then it's mind-dependent from any view-point. For example, the statement "Jichard dislikes cake" would be subjectively true simpliciter, since it's true or false in virtue on my attitude. That would be the case from my perspective, God's perspective, or anyone else's perspective. Similarly, "God commands X" would be subjectively true simpliciter because it's true or false depending in virtue of God's expressed attitude. And that would be the case from my perspective, God's perspective, or anyone else's perspective.

      That's why divine command theory is recognized as a forum of moral subjectivism, no matter how much you pretend otherwise. I've even dumbed this down for you by pointing you to Wikipedia on this.

      "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jichard View Post
        You didn't answer the question.

        So why do you still not accept that moral realism answers meta-ethical questions?
        But I agreed with you - you can invent a moral theory then claim that it answers meta-ethical questions. So we are on the same page.


        I've explained why what you said was false wrong. Feel free to address that response. Here it is again:

        [INDENT]It's subjective because God's commands express God's desires.

        On the standard accounts of "subjective" or "objective" used to define "moral subjectivism" and "moral objectivism", it wouldn't make sense to talk about about something being objective from one of view and subjective from another point of view. Instead, they would be objective simpliciter or subjective simpliciter. To put it another way: if it's mind-dependent, then it's mind-dependent from any view-point. For example, the statement "Jichard dislikes cake" would be subjectively true simpliciter, since it's true or false in virtue on my attitude. That would be the case from my perspective, God's perspective, or anyone else's perspective. Similarly, "God commands X" would be subjectively true simpliciter because it's true or false depending in virtue of God's expressed attitude. And that would be the case from my perspective, God's perspective, or anyone else's perspective.


        This was brought in your new thread. Christians believe that God created the physical universe and it's laws. These things flow from the mind of God as it were. Does that mean that something like gravity is subjective because it was invented in the mind of God? We live in an intelligible universe, because we believe in a rational God, does that mean that the laws of logic are subjective because that is the way God thinks?
        Last edited by seer; 07-17-2015, 07:01 AM.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          But I agreed with you - you can invent a moral theory then claim that it answers meta-ethical questions. So we are on the same page.
          So if you agree that moral realism answers meta-ethical questions, then you can drop your false claims about moral realism being useless. It's useful in the same way many other positions are useful in other topics (such as Cell Theory in biology): it answers questions in that topic.

          This was brought in your new thread. Christians believe that God created the physical universe and it's laws. These things flow from the mind of God as it were. Does that mean that something like gravity is subjective because it was invented in the mind of God?
          No, since physical laws are not true in virtue of God's mind (that is: they don't refer to God's mind), but instead are true in virtue of the natural world and it's features. They can therefore be true even if God does not exist. That's the case regardless of whether God causes the universe's existence or not.

          You seem to think otherwise because you're conflating causation with reference / truth-making. I address this on that thread. To repeat:

          "I'm willing to grant that, in principle, a deity could cause a state of affairs, such that objective scientific laws were true. But that's not the same as objective scientific laws being true in virtue of God, and so it doesn't undermine the OP's. An example might illustrate the point.

          Suppose a bat strikes a ball, causing the ball to move at speed of 50mph. So the statement "the ball is moving at 50mph" is true. But even though the bat caused the ball's movement, and thus helped cause the state of affairs that makes that statement true, the statement is not true in virtue of of the bat. Instead, it's true in virtue of the ball and the ball's properties; in particular: the ball's motion. To see this, note that the statement "the ball is moving at 50mph" could be true even if the ball never existed (for example: if the ball's motion was caused by hand, as opposed to a bat). To put it another way: the ball's properties, not the bat, are what make the statement true and thus serve as the truth-makers for the statement. The state refers to (or is about) the ball and its properties, not the bat.

          Now, you can extend the same point to objective scientific laws and God: even if God caused the natural state of affairs in virtue of which objective scientific laws are true, that would not mean those laws are tue in virtue of God. Instead, they are true in virtue of the natural state of affairs. And to see that, note that the laws would still be true if God never existed, as long as the natural state of affairs were so (unless one is some sort of Berkeleyan idealist, who thinks that natural world is just an aspect of God's mind). The laws refer to (or are about) the natural state of affairs and its properties, not God. The natural world serves as the truth-maker, not God.

          And (this is the point relevant for the OP's discussion of moral subjectivism), the same point can be extended to moral statements, including moral statements in the form of moral laws. To make moral laws about the attitudes God's expresses in commands, is to make that the truth-maker for moral laws and to make moral laws true in virtue of said commands. And that's a form of moral subjectivism as noted in the OP:

          However, given the distinction between in virtue of / about / refers to vs. caused that I mentioned above, one could avoid the above subjectivism by claiming that God causes whatever it is that serves as the truth-maker for moral laws, without those moral laws being true in virtue of God's attitudes, commands, etc. For example: a version of Christian version welfare utilitarianism, where God causes a state of affairs where various factors promote or harm the welfare of sentient life, and these state of affairs serve as the truth-makers for moral laws. Of course, the price one pays for that is (as Christians like Wes Morriston have noted, and, arguably, Richard Swinburne) that moral statements can be or false regardless of whether or not God exists. So God would not be required for moral laws to be true. But that's a small price to pay for a position that actually makes more sense that a Christian version of moral subjectivism."

          We live in an intelligible universe, because we believe in a rational God, does that mean that the laws of logic are subjective because that is the way God thinks?
          No, for much the same reason noted above: logical laws are not true in virtue of God's mind (that is: they don't refer to God's mind), but instead are true in virtue of the natural world (or really: the space of possible worlds; which is to say: under both counter-factual scenarios and the actual world). They can therefore be true even if God does not exist. That's the case regardless of whether God causes the universe's existence or not.

          Though really, much of this depends on what you mean the "the laws of logic".:
          If you mean what people like Matt Slick mean (ex: A = A), then those just state higher-level features/relationship had in common by any particular, group of particulars, etc. So, for instance, they have the feature of being identical to themselves.

          If you instead meant someone like "modus ponens", then those state conceptual truths regarding logic formalisms. For example, it's a conceptual truth that under the semantics used for propositional logic (if I remember correctly, the meaning of the logical operators are stated in truth tables, such that two statements with the same truth table have the same meaning in propositional logic), modus ponens is a valid form of inference.

          In either case, God is not required for laws of logic to hold. In the former case, all that's required is for certain relationships to hold in the actual world and counterfactual scenarios. In the latter case, all one requires is for certain truths to hold for concepts (whether those concepts actually exist, or whether one is talking about their existence in a counterfactual scenario).
          "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jichard View Post
            No, since physical laws are not true in virtue of God's mind (that is: they don't refer to God's mind), but instead are true in virtue of the natural world and it's features. They can therefore be true even if God does not exist. That's the case regardless of whether God causes the universe's existence or not.

            No, for much the same reason noted above: logical laws are not true in virtue of God's mind (that is: they don't refer to God's mind), but instead are true in virtue of the natural world (or really: the space of possible worlds; which is to say: under both counter-factual scenarios and the actual world). They can therefore be true even if God does not exist. That's the case regardless of whether God causes the universe's existence or not.
            But, I don't agree with this at all. Does creation have necessary existence? Does the law of gravity have a necessary existence? No they are completely contingent on God. No God, no creation, no creation no laws of nature. So no, they can not be true whether God causes them or not. So again, would that make them subjective?
            Last edited by seer; 07-17-2015, 05:13 PM.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              But, I don't agree with this at all. Does creation have necessary existence? Does the law of gravity have a necessary existence? No they are completely contingent on God. No God, no creation, no creation no laws of nature.
              You're confusing varieties of necessity here. God's existence is not logically/conceptually necessary for the universe to exist, nor is God's existence metaphysically necessary for the universe to exist.

              It's not conceptually necessary, because the concepts of "universe" and "God" are distinct, such that "the universe exists" does not entail "God exists". This contrast with cases of conceptual entailment, such as "X is bachelor" entailing "X is unmarried". And it's not metaphysically necessary, since God and the universe are distinct, non-identical things, as opposed to one being apart of the other. To say otherwise is to adopt something like Berkeleyan idealism (where the universe is an aspect of God's mind), pantheism (where God is identical to the universe), etc. Presumably, you don't adopt such positions.

              I just discussed logical/conceptual necessity above, yet you seem to be operating from some causal notion of necessity. That causal notion of necessity is irrelevant to my point; instead, metaphysical necessity suffices for my point. To see why, note that if God and the universe are distinct, non-identical things (that is: God's existence is not metaphysically necessary for the universe's existence), then a statement can refer to the universe and the universe's properties/processes/etc., without referring to God or God's properties. So the universe would serve as the truth-maker for the statement, without any recourse to God serving as the truth-maker.

              Your reference to causation was irrelevant, since just because C causes E, that does not mean that statements are E are true in virtue (that is: "refer to") of C. That's what the bat/ball example was meant to illustrate to you: even if the bat causes the ball's motion, statements about the ball are true in virtue of the ball, not the bat, and the bat's existence is not required for statements about the ball to be true. Similarly, even if God causes the universe's existence, statements about the universe are true in virtue of the universe, not God, and the God's existence is not required for statements about the universe to be true.

              So no, they can not be true whether God causes them or not.
              No, they could be true if God does not exist, since they refer to nature and it's features, not God.

              Simple question: does a statement of a natural law (like a gravitational law) refer to some aspect of the universe (ex: regularities in the universe) or does it refer to some aspect of God?

              [Hint: "Objects fall at such-and-such a rate on Earth", does not refer to some aspect of God]

              So again, would that make them subjective?
              Already answered.
              "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                You're confusing varieties of necessity here. God's existence is not logically/conceptually necessary for the universe to exist, nor is God's existence metaphysically necessary for the universe to exist.
                Of course it is, That is the Christian belief. You can't argue against our position by denying our position. You have to take our worldview as it is, or you are not arguing against it.


                No, they could be true if God does not exist, since they refer to nature and it's features, not God.
                No they could not be true. So what if God created moral law as a feature of the universe - would it then be objective?

                Simple question: does a statement of a natural law (like a gravitational law) refer to some aspect of the universe (ex: regularities in the universe) or does it refer to some aspect of God?
                If gravity is God's idea then it does in fact refer to an aspect of God.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Of course it is, That is the Christian belief. You can't argue against our position by denying our position. You have to take our worldview as it is, or you are not arguing against it.
                  No, that is not the standard Christian belief, and I explained why it isn't. You completely ignored that explanation. Here it is again:
                  "You're confusing varieties of necessity here. God's existence is not logically/conceptually necessary for the universe to exist, nor is God's existence metaphysically necessary for the universe to exist.

                  It's not conceptually necessary, because the concepts of "universe" and "God" are distinct, such that "the universe exists" does not entail "God exists". This contrast with cases of conceptual entailment, such as "X is bachelor" entailing "X is unmarried". And it's not metaphysically necessary, since God and the universe are distinct, non-identical things, as opposed to one being apart of the other. To say otherwise is to adopt something like Berkeleyan idealism (where the universe is an aspect of God's mind), pantheism (where God is identical to the universe), etc. Presumably, you don't adopt such positions.
                  "


                  So, seer, you're committed to thinking that God's existence is neither logically/conceptually nor metaphysically necessary for the universe's existence, unless you think God is identical the universe, the universe is apart of God, or God is apart of the universe,

                  No they could not be true.
                  Yes, they could be true for the reasons I explained, and which you did not bother to address.

                  So what if God created moral law as a feature of the universe - would it then be objective?
                  It's not whether the moral law is objective, but instead in virtue of what moral laws (as moral statements) are true or false. If God creates some aspect of the universe in virtue of which moral laws were true or false, then it would be possible for those laws to be objectively true or false, depending on what aspect of the universe it was that was making the moral laws true or false.

                  Of course, going that route would mean forfeiting the claim that God's existence is required for moral laws to be true or false, as I explained:
                  "For example: a version of Christian version welfare utilitarianism, where God causes a state of affairs where various factors promote or harm the welfare of sentient life, and these state of affairs serve as the truth-makers for moral laws. Of course, the price one pays for that is (as Christians like Wes Morriston have noted, and, arguably, Richard Swinburne) that moral statements can be or false regardless of whether or not God exists. So God would not be required for moral laws to be true. But that's a small price to pay for a position that actually makes more sense that a Christian version of moral subjectivism."

                  Originally posted by seer
                  If gravity is God's idea then it does in fact refer to an aspect of God.
                  You didn't answer the question:
                  Does a statement of a natural law (like a gravitational law) refer to some aspect of the universe (ex: regularities in the universe) or does it refer to some aspect of God?


                  And please stop using the phrase "is God's idea" to equivocate. You're not fooling me. You're using that phrase to equivocate between two different meanings:
                  Meaning A: "is God's idea" to mean something like "thought about it and then caused it to exist". In this sense, for example, if a table was my idea, then that means I came up with the notion of making a table and then went about making one.

                  Meaning B: "is God's idea" to mean something like "literally an idea of God; that is: one of God's mental states". In this sense, for example, if a table was my idea, then that table is literally a thought I'm having.

                  To confuse meaning A with meaning B, would be like confusing my idea of a unicorn with an existent unicorn, or confusing my dream of a rose with an existent rose. It'd be ridiculous.

                  Now, take your above statement that:
                  "If gravity is God's idea then it does in fact refer to an aspect of God."
                  Your claim that gravity would "refer to an aspect of God", only makes sense if you think gravity is literally an idea God has. That is: if by "is God's idea" you meant meaning B. But that's not standard Christian theology; that's Berkeleyan idealism. On standard, non-heretical Christian theology, gravity (and other such natural things) are not literally ideas of God. Instead, they are things distinct from God's mind, which God makes. So if you aren't a heretic, seer, then by "is God's idea", you need to have meant meaning A, not meaning B. But if you do that, then your statement that gravity would "refer to an aspect of God" is false. Instead gravity would be an aspect of the universe, not an aspect of God.
                  Last edited by Jichard; 07-17-2015, 07:00 PM.
                  "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                    "If gravity is God's idea then it does in fact refer to an aspect of God."
                    Your claim that gravity would "refer to an aspect of God", only makes sense if you think gravity is literally an idea God has. That is: if by "is God's idea" you meant meaning B. But that's not standard Christian theology; that's Berkeleyan idealism. On standard, non-heretical Christian theology, gravity (and other such natural things) are not literally ideas of God. Instead, they are things distinct from God's mind, which God makes. So if you aren't a heretic, seer, then by "is God's idea", you need to have meant meaning A, not meaning B. But if you do that, then your statement that gravity would "refer to an aspect of God" is false. Instead gravity would be an aspect of the universe, not an aspect of God.
                    You do know that Christians believe that God not only created the universe but that He sustains it by the power of His word. So things like the natural world, or the law of gravity are neither self-creating or self-sustaining. Moment by moment God's thoughts and word are involved and active in creation. Creation is not divorced from His universal presence and power. And you may be right - but who deemed Berkeley's idealism as heresy?

                    Yes, they could be true for the reasons I explained, and which you did not bother to address.
                    This is simple, I don't believe you. I told you what Christians believe, I need not entertain impossibilities.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      You do know that Christians believe that God not only created the universe but that He sustains it by the power of His word. So things like the natural world, or the law of gravity are neither self-creating or self-sustaining. Moment by moment God's thoughts and word are involved and active in creation. Creation is not divorced from His universal presence and power.
                      Which addresses none of what I wrote. Once again:
                      Does a statement of a natural law (like a gravitational law) refer to some aspect of the universe (ex: regularities in the universe) or does it refer to some aspect of God?

                      And you may be right - but who deemed Berkeley's idealism as heresy?
                      It contradicts standard Christian theology. Congratulations on thinking the universe is an aspect of God.

                      This is simple, I don't believe you. I told you what Christians believe, I need not entertain impossibilities.
                      You didn't tell me what Christians believe. Instead, you told me a heresy that you apparently believe.

                      Nor did you show that anything I said was impossible. Instead you just did something you often do: make up absurdities, and then dodge the explanations that reveal the absurdities behind what you say. Sad. This is one reason why rational discourse with you is impossible.
                      "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                        Which addresses none of what I wrote. Once again:
                        Does a statement of a natural law (like a gravitational law) refer to some aspect of the universe (ex: regularities in the universe) or does it refer to some aspect of God?
                        Both in a sense, since the law of gravity is the creation of God and presently dependent on God. His power and word are the very things that holds it all together.


                        It contradicts standard Christian theology. Congratulations on thinking the universe is an aspect of God.
                        I was wondering if his ideas were ever formally considered heresy.

                        You didn't tell me what Christians believe. Instead, you told me a heresy that you apparently believe.

                        Nor did you show that anything I said was impossible. Instead you just did something you often do: make up absurdities, and then dodge the explanations that reveal the absurdities behind what you say. Sad. This is one reason why rational discourse with you is impossible.
                        No I told you what Christians believe - that the universe was created by God and is presently being sustained by God.

                        So when are you going to get around to actually giving direct answers to my opening questions? This has been a long and painful detour...


                        The questions are, where do these moral facts exist? And how are we obligated to them if they do exist?
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Both in a sense, since the law of gravity is the creation of God and presently dependent on God. His power and word are the very things that holds it all together.
                          You're making the same mistake I already addressed: you confusedly think that just because X causes Y, that means statements about Y actually refer to X. So you confusedly think that statement of gravitational law, must refer to the God just because God made the universe. This is ridiculous, as I explained, but which you didn't bother addressing:

                          "I'm willing to grant that, in principle, a deity could cause a state of affairs, such that objective scientific laws were true. But that's not the same as objective scientific laws being true in virtue of God, and so it doesn't undermine the OP's. An example might illustrate the point.

                          Suppose a bat strikes a ball, causing the ball to move at speed of 50mph. So the statement "the ball is moving at 50mph" is true. But even though the bat caused the ball's movement, and thus helped cause the state of affairs that makes that statement true, the statement is not true in virtue of of the bat. Instead, it's true in virtue of the ball and the ball's properties; in particular: the ball's motion. To see this, note that the statement "the ball is moving at 50mph" could be true even if the ball never existed (for example: if the ball's motion was caused by hand, as opposed to a bat). To put it another way: the ball's properties, not the bat, are what make the statement true and thus serve as the truth-makers for the statement. The state refers to (or is about) the ball and its properties, not the bat.

                          Now, you can extend the same point to objective scientific laws and God: even if God caused the natural state of affairs in virtue of which objective scientific laws are true, that would not mean those laws are tue in virtue of God. Instead, they are true in virtue of the natural state of affairs. And to see that, note that the laws would still be true if God never existed, as long as the natural state of affairs were so (unless one is some sort of Berkeleyan idealist, who thinks that natural world is just an aspect of God's mind). The laws refer to (or are about) the natural state of affairs and its properties, not God. The natural world serves as the truth-maker, not God."


                          seer, why do you repeat the same mistakes over and over and... without bothering to address when people point out those mistakes? Is that an honest thing to do?

                          I was wondering if his ideas were ever formally considered heresy.
                          Look it up. You've shown yourself to be rather good at looking up sources, failing to understand them, and then misrepresenting them (especially via quote-mining them).

                          No I told you what Christians believe - that the universe was created by God and is presently being sustained by God.
                          No, you told me your heretical view that statements that refer to the universe's features/processes, refer to God.

                          And I already explained to you why your above point was irrelevant:
                          "You're confusing varieties of necessity here. God's existence is not logically/conceptually necessary for the universe to exist, nor is God's existence metaphysically necessary for the universe to exist.

                          It's not conceptually necessary, because the concepts of "universe" and "God" are distinct, such that "the universe exists" does not entail "God exists". This contrast with cases of conceptual entailment, such as "X is bachelor" entailing "X is unmarried". And it's not metaphysically necessary, since God and the universe are distinct, non-identical things, as opposed to one being apart of the other. To say otherwise is to adopt something like Berkeleyan idealism (where the universe is an aspect of God's mind), pantheism (where God is identical to the universe), etc. Presumably, you don't adopt such positions.

                          I just discussed logical/conceptual necessity above, yet you seem to be operating from some causal notion of necessity. That causal notion of necessity is irrelevant to my point; instead, metaphysical necessity suffices for my point. To see why, note that if God and the universe are distinct, non-identical things (that is: God's existence is not metaphysically necessary for the universe's existence), then a statement can refer to the universe and the universe's properties/processes/etc., without referring to God or God's properties. So the universe would serve as the truth-maker for the statement, without any recourse to God serving as the truth-maker.

                          Your reference to causation was irrelevant, since just because C causes E, that does not mean that statements are E are true in virtue (that is: "refer to") of C. That's what the bat/ball example was meant to illustrate to you: even if the bat causes the ball's motion, statements about the ball are true in virtue of the ball, not the bat, and the bat's existence is not required for statements about the ball to be true. Similarly, even if God causes the universe's existence, statements about the universe are true in virtue of the universe, not God, and the God's existence is not required for statements about the universe to be true."


                          But in your typical fashion, you ignore the explanation and just repeat the same irrelevant claim you made. Is that honest behavior on your part, seer?

                          So when are you going to get around to actually giving direct answers to my opening questions? This has been a long and painful detour...
                          When are you going to retract the false claims you began your OP with?
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Recently a new member here at TWEB attack biblical ethics as being subjective, subjective to God. Which makes sense, but God's law would still be objective to mankind.

                          Originally posted by seer
                          The questions are, where do these moral facts exist? And how are we obligated to them if they do exist?
                          The false claims are:
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Recently a new member here at TWEB attack biblical ethics as being subjective, subjective to God. Which makes sense, but God's law would still be objective to mankind.
                          "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Jichard View Post

                            When are you going to retract the false claims you began your OP with?
                            How many times did I said it doesn't matter? It matters not if God's law is subjective or objective, that was not the main point of my OP. Which you have time and time refused to deal with: The questions are, where do these moral facts exist? And how are we obligated to them if they do exist?
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              How many times did I said it doesn't matter? It matters not if God's law is subjective or objective, that was not the main point of my OP.
                              Sorry, but you odn't get to start off an OP with made-up false claims, and then say it doesn't matter when you've been shown those claims are false. Not my fault you're unable to defend your false claims.

                              So feel free to either defend these false claims, or retract them:

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Which you have time and time refused to deal with: The questions are, where do these moral facts exist? And how are we obligated to them if they do exist?
                              Please don't claim I haven't addressed things I've clearly addressed. That would be lying, and it's getting tiresome.
                              http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...906#post196906
                              "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                              Comment


                              • [QUOTE=Jichard;219825]
                                Please don't claim I haven't addressed things I've clearly addressed. That would be lying, and it's getting tiresome.
                                http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...906#post196906
                                They exist in the natural world, like every other natural thing.

                                We've been over this, seer. Properties are instantiated by particulars. Moral properties are instantiated by things such as actions, persons, and so on.
                                No they are not like any other natural things in the universe. Are the physical?

                                The general analysis: we have moral obligations because there are moral reasons for actions, developing certain character traits, and so on. That's the standard analysis: obligations arise from reasons. And moral reasons are constituted by the properties/features discussed in welfare utilitarianism (ex: effects of well-being) and virtue ethics (ex: character traits like compassion).
                                And like I said, you never connected the two. It does not follow that because we have moral reasons for acting that we therefore have moral obligations. This is not a self-evident truth nor is it more than an assertion.
                                Last edited by seer; 07-19-2015, 05:19 AM.
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                50 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                414 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X