Originally posted by lee_merrill
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)
Collapse
X
-
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
-
Originally posted by seer View PostHow could it be true without any minds to subjectively find value in that statement?
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostIf all the world went mad, would sanity still exist? Yes, it would, as an objective concept, I would say. Lack of recognition on my part, of a truth, or on everyones' part, would not make it untrue.
Blessings,
LeeAtheism 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 PostNo sanity would not still exist Lee, you can not have abstract concepts without minds. Sure, the color blue would still exist even if all creatures were color blind. The color blue would not depend on our knowledge. An abstract concept like love or sanity are different - they are completely dependent on a mind.
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
There is objective good. Objective morality would be contingent on what is objective good.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostBut if everyone was insane, then someone could become sane, and this would not restore the concept of sanity, the concept of sanity would have been there all along. And isn't "1+1=2" an abstract concept?
Blessings,
LeeAtheism 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 37818 View PostThere is objective good.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 PostWhere?. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostReality.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
-
I did not have a stroke, but I tried to give out as many Amens as possible because this thread shows how good TWeb can be.
It seems to me like we have a couple of dueling definitions of various terms. Objective truth generally means that a concept is true regardless of whether or not anyone acknowledges that truth. 2+2 is 4 regardless of whether or not a person acknowledges that--a toddler for example, or a comatose person. I feel like this term objective is important to distinguish from universal. It seems like everyone who has posted is, in some sense, an ethical realist--that is to say we agree that right and wrong are real things.
I think, after reading Seer again, and Starlight, and others (forgive me if I left you out), that without cognition there is no objective morality. That is, it is not universal. I do believe that God (at least for the sake of argument here) is the origin of morality, but not that it emanates from him like a force or substance the way that light shines from a source, but rather, that God is the origin of morality in the sense that he, as creator, founded the relationship between himself and created beings. Thus the relationship is couched in terms according to God's preference. I suppose then, I want to say that a moral action is good because God determines it to be good. This "preference" is not analogous to human "preference." Whereas human opinion is based on nothing more than carnal desire and imperfect understanding, divine "preference" is founded on omniscience--that is, practically, a full understanding of cause and effect, precedent and consequence--not emotion or psychology as we understand it. To say, then, that the good is merely good because God dictates it to be so, is ridiculous understatement. A similar objection would be to say that the plot of a novel is the plot merely because the author wrote it. Thus, as an expression the Divine character, as buttressed by omniscience, "thou shalt not murder" is an expression of a perfect understanding of the universe.
Suppose though, for the sake of argument, that there is no God. I would argue that there is still an objective ethical reality because there are at least two cognitives. Our ethics are founded then in the imperfect understanding of the universe and the ethical reality that describes the relationship between cognitive beings. That doesn't mean that there is no "best" (or at least "better") in imperfect, but nevertheless objective, morality. Just as we grow in scientific knowledge or reason, so likewise our moral knowledge can grow.
Even without God (and I would argue, this probably still holds true with God) we can find a more perfect ethic through reason, even based on the realities of selfish genetics or even human desire. We all desire to be and grow and, in some sense, reproduce. That would seem to be the bed rock of secular morality, and indeed, I agree with St. Paul that God character is revealed to us in this. The first command of Scripture, "Be fruitful and multiply," is no less an expression of the divine character than "Thou shalt not murder," and even casual investigation shows a link between "Be fruitful and multiply," and other, more seemingly obvious moral commandments.
I tend not to believe that any given statement on morality is always universally true, but must, as demonstrated by reason, be necessarily subjectively understood and relative to circumstances. There are larger universal precepts: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as you love yourself," that are always operative, but in general, it is sometimes necessary to "break" a given rule to maintain the universal precepts.
I think this is a mess and some might want to rip it apart. Have at it.
Guac."Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
Hear my cry, hear my shout,
Save me, save me"
Comment
-
Originally posted by guacamole View PostI think, after reading Seer again, and Starlight, and others (forgive me if I left you out), that without cognition there is no objective morality. That is, it is not universal. I do believe that God (at least for the sake of argument here) is the origin of morality, but not that it emanates from him like a force or substance the way that light shines from a source, but rather, that God is the origin of morality in the sense that he, as creator, founded the relationship between himself and created beings. Thus the relationship is couched in terms according to God's preference. I suppose then, I want to say that a moral action is good because God determines it to be good. This "preference" is not analogous to human "preference." Whereas human opinion is based on nothing more than carnal desire and imperfect understanding, divine "preference" is founded on omniscience--that is, practically, a full understanding of cause and effect, precedent and consequence--not emotion or psychology as we understand it. To say, then, that the good is merely good because God dictates it to be so, is ridiculous understatement. A similar objection would be to say that the plot of a novel is the plot merely because the author wrote it. Thus, as an expression the Divine character, as buttressed by omniscience, "thou shalt not murder" is an expression of a perfect understanding of the universe.
Suppose though, for the sake of argument, that there is no God. I would argue that there is still an objective ethical reality because there are at least two cognitives. Our ethics are founded then in the imperfect understanding of the universe and the ethical reality that describes the relationship between cognitive beings. That doesn't mean that there is no "best" (or at least "better") in imperfect, but nevertheless objective, morality. Just as we grow in scientific knowledge or reason, so likewise our moral knowledge can grow.
Even without God (and I would argue, this probably still holds true with God) we can find a more perfect ethic through reason, even based on the realities of selfish genetics or even human desire. We all desire to be and grow and, in some sense, reproduce. That would seem to be the bed rock of secular morality, and indeed, I agree with St. Paul that God character is revealed to us in this. The first command of Scripture, "Be fruitful and multiply," is no less an expression of the divine character than "Thou shalt not murder," and even casual investigation shows a link between "Be fruitful and multiply," and other, more seemingly obvious moral commandments.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 PostI have no idea what that means.
Caused reality God said it was good. In the 6 day creation story of our earth God said this of each day (Genesis 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21 & 31).Last edited by 37818; 09-06-2017, 08:02 AM.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThe only reason why sanity is still there is because there is a rational Creator that is always there.
Blessings,
LeeLast edited by lee_merrill; 09-06-2017, 09:20 PM."What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by guacamole View PostObjective truth generally means that a concept is true regardless of whether or not anyone acknowledges that truth. 2+2 is 4 regardless of whether or not a person acknowledges that--a toddler for example, or a comatose person.
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostThis is the claim, now what evidence do we have for this? Why does knowing a truth bring it into being? And isn't "1+1=2" an abstract concept?
Blessings,
LeeAtheism 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 shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
173 responses
635 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
Yesterday, 07:30 AM
|
Comment