I would replace the word "objective" measurement with "true" measurement of right and wrong, and I would replace "objectively" right with "truly" right.

Now to be truly right, what would it mean?

Let's use different words.

(March 12, 2016 at 12:15 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Am I the only one CL hasn't taken off ignore yet? [emoji53]

No, you're still all on ignore (well, 4 people are I think). But for now, I feel ok clicking on "show post" to address whatever new issues came up.

(March 12, 2016 at 11:46 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(March 12, 2016 at 6:10 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: How do you reconcile free will and omnipotence?  Be specific.

Honestly I don't see what the conflict is in the first place. Can you explain? The way I see it, He had the power to give us free will, and so He chose to do so. How does this contradict his omnipotence? 

(And to clarify, God is omnipotent only as it applies to His nature, which is good)

Can you surprise your god? Can you change his plans?

If "yes", then he is not omniscient, and not omnipotent, assuming his plans comport with the good nature you assert as the basis for his omnipotence.

If "no", then you cannot have free will.

(March 12, 2016 at 3:00 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I would replace the word "objective" measurement with "true" measurement of right and wrong, and I would replace "objectively" right with "truly" right.

Now to be truly right, what would it mean?

Let's use different words.

You can try and play with the words however you want it doesn't change anything, your still are using the subjective concepts. How do you measure right and wrong? Good and Bad?

(March 12, 2016 at 4:01 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(March 12, 2016 at 3:00 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I would replace the word "objective" measurement with "true" measurement of right and wrong, and I would replace "objectively" right with "truly" right.

Now to be truly right, what would it mean?

Let's use different words.

What is "truly right" your still missing the point, I don't care if you use objective, absolute, or truly the issue with is right and wrong, they are subjective.

I don't care if they are subjective as long as they are truly right to do as opposed to there not being an actual right thing to do.

(March 12, 2016 at 3:00 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I would replace the word "objective" measurement with "true" measurement of right and wrong, and I would replace "objectively" right with "truly" right.

Now to be truly right, what would it mean?

Let's use different words.

The only evidence which anyone, regardless of doctrine, dogma, or ideology can review for "true" is the objective evidence.

While I don't agree with CL, I respect her intent with her OP, so why don't we stick to that?

(March 12, 2016 at 3:12 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(March 12, 2016 at 11:46 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Honestly I don't see what the conflict is in the first place. Can you explain? The way I see it, He had the power to give us free will, and so He chose to do so. How does this contradict his omnipotence? 

(And to clarify, God is omnipotent only as it applies to His nature, which is good)

Can you surprise your god? 

I cannot surprise Him, since I believe He is outside of time and knows the future. 

Quote:Can you change his plans?

His plan is for us to have free will, knowing that in the end, the good that comes from it will far outweigh the bad.

(March 12, 2016 at 12:18 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(March 12, 2016 at 11:58 am)Whateverist the White Wrote: Then on this you're one up one me.  I can't see how objective morality can exist at all.  

I want to take a different angle to this all.

I've mentioned this issue before, but, how does a good action get inherited to a person's identity and become part of them? 
 (A) It is just memory and how we psychologically feel about it? (B)Or is part of us in a reality living existing type way?

I think it is memory, feeling, psychological. Goodness isn't a substance and doesn't in any sense adhere to us. You're always only as good as your last deed. Nothing carries over and no one is keeping score IMHO.

(March 12, 2016 at 12:18 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Forget what you know for certain. The fucking dark forces don't stop shouting "how do you know for certain" or if you know at all.

I'm asking you sincerely and you don't even have to reply to me if you don't want to. Which of the two options do you feel is more right?

How do I know anything for sure? Not sure that I do but that doesn't prevent me from acting on what I consider actionable.

(March 12, 2016 at 12:25 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(March 12, 2016 at 12:10 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Very understandable. Since you don't believe in God, objective morality doesn't really make sense.

Yes, I thought when I disbelieved in God, I would be able to believe in objective praise/morality somehow. I couldn't. And I realized I could not truthfully have subjective praise without belief in objective praise. 

I went through a crisis. I didn't want to believe in God simply because I wanted to. I had to know him to be true. The dark night of my soul was distressing.

I don't know about the praise stuff but I don't find I'm incapable of feeling reverence or awe or gratitude or many other things without belief in God.  It isn't all that debilitating really.

It's quite the reverse for me. If I found out this is all just some playbox for a bored deity, that would zap all the wonder out of things. It's the fact that this all happened unguided that is astonishing.