Why does God saying something make it objective?

[Doug Shaver]

Well, it seems pretty relevant to some of the Christian on here, since they think without God it's all subjective or relative or something.

I said it "looks pretty irrelevant to me." That is true no matter what anyone else thinks. I'm just reporting a perception. They are of course welcome to show me, if they can, why my perception is in error.

[Doug Shaver]

God may say something that is true, but it isn't objectively true just because God says it.

I agree that his saying so would not make it so. But if I correctly understand what Christians say about God, he could never say so unless it actually was so. When I say "If God says X, then X is true," I am affirming a logical relationship, not a cause-and-effect relationship.

[Jichard]

There's been some recent comments suggesting that the notion of "subjective" cannot be applied to God's mind. This can often involve limiting the notion of "subjective" to humans. For example:

How in the world are you defining 'subjective'?


I define it as mind-dependent with respect to humans

I want to emphasis that this is incorrect, since "subjective" is not limited to one particular species known as "humans". It instead extends to any mind, regardless of whether that mind is human, alien, reptilian, divine, etc. This is so well-known that it even shows up on Wikipedia, where dependence on God's mind counts as subjective, as discussed in the OP.

But since some people might not trust Wikipedia on this, I thought I might provide some other resources on this, to clear up on any confusion on when "subjective" includes dependency on God's mental states:

it may besomething has surely gone wrong if even facts in Bishop Berkeley's globally idealistic world count as objectiveTo accept the divine-command theory is to accept a kind of grand subjectivism, where the subject creating the values is God [emphasis added]. God may be all knowing and powerful, but if there are no principles to appeal to in justifying his commands, then they are arbitrary and nonbinding (96).

[JimL]

I agree that his saying so would not make it so. But if I correctly understand what Christians say about God, he could never say so unless it actually was so. When I say "If God says X, then X is true," I am affirming a logical relationship, not a cause-and-effect relationship.

Which would mean that what is objectively true, such as the existence of moral truths, is objectively true in itself and not because its truth comes from god. If the only truth about morals is the fact that god chose them, then they are not objectively true. Objective truths can't be subject to anything, else they are not objective. If it is true that murder is morally wrong, then it would need be an objective fact that it is morally wrong whether god exists or not. Christians argue just the opposite, i.e. that without god there is no objective good or evil, as if what is good and what is evil is a choice that god would have to make.

[Teallaura]

My apologies. I promised a response and didn't get around to it. I haven't kept up with the thread so I am just going to apologize and bow out.

[shunyadragon]

Quick point - qualitative difference. I read your responses the first time through - there is no qualitative difference for an omniscient, . . .

[/cite]

This source also describes the possibility that some may propose a 'moral theory attribute to God, but this remains a nebulous concept has weaknesses and inconsistences as to what these morals consist of and how they apply. Other than being from God, these morals have not been consistently defined. Just simply claiming 'objective morality' is from God is not adequate to be to survive scrutiny as what is 'objective.'

God's spiritual Laws in the scripture come closest to what may be called 'objective morality,' but the problem of applicability and the diversity of what different people interpret God's laws and which apply and when they apply.

. . . and according to your own response, God does create objective laws (gravity, et al).

If you believe in God, like I do, God, of course, is the Creator of our physical existence, and the underlying 'Natural Laws' for our physical existence. The Natural Laws of science. like the Law of Gravity, are objective human approximations of actual underlying laws that determine the nature of our existence. The underlying absolute Laws may be attributed to God, but they may also simply be the Natural Laws that govern the nature of our existence if Gods do not exist.

The use of objective and subjective in this context has no constructive meaning in communicating what people believe concerning morals and ethics and the reality of the social and cultural nature of our societies, because they are human constructs.