(March 12, 2016 at 8:33 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(March 12, 2016 at 8:24 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: I don't think so.  Wouldn't he just disagree?  He dissents from God's opinion/rule/call-it-what-you-will.  Given free will his morality merely does not coincide with God's.  He is only 'wrong' if he was in fact attempting to predict God's rule.  Perhaps he wasn't?

Yes, he would disagree, but he would be incorrect. It's like if I disagreed that 2+2=4. I could disagree all day, but I'd still be wrong. What we believe is that the person who thinks rape is good is wrong because we believe rape is objectively immoral. That's what objectively immoral means.

2 + 2 = 4? Says who or what criteria?

By the way, not being sarcastic here. I'm serious.

(March 12, 2016 at 11:22 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(March 12, 2016 at 10:40 pm)Chas Wrote: It is not based any objective evidence.

Never said it was.

And neither is your alleged objective morality.  Feelings are not evidence.

(March 12, 2016 at 11:22 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(March 12, 2016 at 10:24 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I want to know what you think morality is, and why you think it's objective. We're 100 pages in, and you've not really bothered (so far as I can see) to explain either of those things-- things which I would have expected to be done on the 1st page of any thread, ideally in the OP.

Here, let me give you an example.  I think morality is a communal agreement about which behaviors are or aren't desirable.  They represent a balance between our instincts (for example the instinct to protect loved ones) and the evolution of various cultural ideas (for example, religious ideas about God).  I believe this because some morals (like the protection of children) are consistent across most cultures, while others (like views on homosexuality) are radically different.  I'd argue this is because most people have instincts for/about children, but we do not have instincts about sexual alignment. My evidence for this is that North American culture just a few decades ago was massively against homosexuality, but now is much less so-- in such a short time, the instincts of people could not have changed (that takes thousands or millions of years), so it is only ideas which have changed.

See?  I have ideas, can explain my reasons for holding them, and can even provide some evidence supporting my reasons.  


Okay, now it's your turn. . . *begins holding breath*  

I feel like I have already addressed this though. 

I don't have some sort of alternate definition for the word "Morality". By its dictionary term, it is defined as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." I'm on board with this and wouldn't define it any differently. The objective part is my belief that God has established between what is "right and wrong, and good and bad", and it is a real distinction. Not a matter of opinion.

(Off topic here for a second, I don't like the condescending/rude way you talk to me. I'll probably stop responding because I don't enjoy talking to someone who is consistently rude to me. Sorry, just not in the mood.)

If you feel I'm being rude, please consider this.  We are over 100 pages into this thread made by you about objective morality, and you still haven't explained why you think morality is objective.  I don't think I was rude while you avoided supporting your beliefs with reasons or supporting evidence for like the first 60 pages, but at this point I feel I'm justified in pressing a little.

You say God made objective morals.  Why do you think God is real, and why do you think He has made objective morals?  Do you even HAVE a reason for believing these things? See, my "condescending" post was designed to show how ideas, reasons, and supporting evidence can clarify one's position.

Here's what I think. I think the reason you don't answer my question is that you don't have an answer-- you don't HAVE any logical reason to believe in God, or any evidence that He exists, much less that He has made an objective moral code. I think you are blaming me for condescension because it allows you to dodge the responsibility of the OP of a thread to support his/her ideas, and still come up smelling like roses.

(March 12, 2016 at 8:37 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

(March 12, 2016 at 8:15 am)pocaracas Wrote: Perhaps it would be better to define "morality", so that we can work from there, huh?

To me, morality is just a collection of behaviors that humans have with each other so that the overall society can prosper and minimize suffering - be it physical or psychological. It also includes behaviors which, if undertaken, would lead to the opposite - a society that does not prosper nor minimizes suffering - and as such are to be avoided.

Given such a human-centric nature of morality, I cannot fathom it having any relation to a god.

I've been wanting to reply to this issue in the other thread. Glad you brought it up here again.

I am hoping to get this done today.

(March 12, 2016 at 10:12 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(March 12, 2016 at 10:02 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: That wasn't meant to be proof of God. I've said repeatedly all over this forum that I do not believe there is proof of God that can be demonstrated.

 I have to agree with this. In the sense, every argument, makes use of some premises that can be disputed. And even those premises have arguments, they will have premises that can be disputed.  

The thing is I believe in the Ultimate Value thread, I showed a clear reminder. 

At the end, all we can do is remind of signs of God or his light or our link to him. Arguments all make use of at least something linked to him.

The link can always be denied. People can deny their own selves as well. Their perpetual identity. The link of their actions to who they and their value. 

They can deny so many things at the end of it all. I've even seen some people say yes things can come out of nothing, that is existence can appear out of non-existence. 

We saw LadyCamus deny that in all possible worlds it has to be the case that it's impossible that it can be good for the Creator to torture an innocent being forever for no reason, no crime. We had no Atheist in that thread I discussed with her support this premise.

Since you called me out (which is fine) can you explain this better? I'm not quite what you are saying that I denied. Thanks.

(March 13, 2016 at 11:02 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(March 12, 2016 at 10:12 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:  I have to agree with this. In the sense, every argument, makes use of some premises that can be disputed. And even those premises have arguments, they will have premises that can be disputed.  

The thing is I believe in the Ultimate Value thread, I showed a clear reminder. 

At the end, all we can do is remind of signs of God or his light or our link to him. Arguments all make use of at least something linked to him.

The link can always be denied. People can deny their own selves as well. Their perpetual identity. The link of their actions to who they and their value. 

They can deny so many things at the end of it all. I've even seen some people say yes things can come out of nothing, that is existence can appear out of non-existence. 

We saw LadyCamus deny that in all possible worlds it has to be the case that it's impossible that it can be good for the Creator to torture an innocent being forever for no reason, no crime. We had no Atheist in that thread I discussed with her support this premise.

Since you called me out (which is fine) can you explain this better?  I'm not quite what you are saying that I denied.  Thanks.  

Possible worlds is referred to as what is logically possible. Somethings are impossible in all possible worlds. Somethings are necessarily true in all possible worlds. They are such that no possible world exists but that they would be true.

Do you remember you agreed on the premise:

If a Creator can create goodness without it already existing, it can decide what it is.
If it can decide what it is, it can decide it would be good and right to torture a being forever intensely for no crime on it's own.

You agreed on these two premises.

You disputed at first, the premise "If the creator cannot create goodness without it already existing, then neither can evolution or anything for that matter" but when it was pointed out to you the Creator can create evolution or whatever things evolution creates, you withdrew this.

The premise that you disputed then was "It's necessarily the case in all worlds, it cannot be good torture a being forever and ever for no crime that it has done"

You said this is not true because morality is relative or subjective (can't remember which of these two you said).

But the reason why you denied it, is because the argument then goes on to say:

Therefore morality (as neither evolution or Creator can create it without already existing) is eternal.
Morality requires perception.
Therefore eternal perception of morality always existed.

You knew the conclusion followed. So you had to deny one premise. So you denied the one I just stated.

What it just means it's impossible that it is good to torture a being for no crime on it's own forever and ever.

So this shows it's impossible that a hypothetical creator creates it out of nothing because we agreed that would make it possible for it to be good to torture a being for no crime on it's own forever and ever.

Anyways....no one refuted the argument. It was not only valid, but it's sound. All the premises are true.

(March 13, 2016 at 11:14 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 11:02 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Since you called me out (which is fine) can you explain this better?  I'm not quite what you are saying that I denied.  Thanks.  

Possible worlds is referred to as what is logically possible. Somethings are impossible in all possible worlds. Somethings are necessarily true in all possible worlds. They are such that no possible world exists but that they would be true.

Do you remember you agreed on the premise:

If a Creator can create goodness without it already existing, it can decide what it is.
If it can decide what it is, it can decide it would be good and right to torture a being forever intensely for no crime on it's own.

You agreed on these two premises.

You disputed at first, the premise "If the creator cannot create goodness without it already existing, then neither can evolution or anything for that matter" but when it was pointed out to you the Creator can create evolution or whatever things evolution creates, you withdrew this.

The premise that you disputed then was "It's necessarily the case in all worlds, it cannot be good torture a being forever and ever for no crime that it has done"

You said this is not true because morality is relative or subjective (can't remember which of these two you said).

But the reason why you denied it, is because the argument then goes on to say:

Therefore morality (as neither evolution or Creator can create it without already existing) is eternal.
Morality requires perception.
Therefore eternal perception of morality always existed.

You knew the conclusion followed. So you had to deny one premise. So you denied the one I just stated.

What it just means it's impossible that it is good to torture a being for no crime on it's own forever and ever.

So this shows it's impossible that a hypothetical creator creates it out of nothing because we agreed that would make it possible for it to be good to torture a being for no crime on it's own forever and ever.

Anyways....no one refuted the argument. It was not only valid, but it's sound. All the premises are true.

I kind of regret asking you to clarify...*sigh*. I will look at this in depth later when I have time (I chase a toddler around all day), but I think you should revisit that thread because I'm pretty sure it was someone else who accepted the first premise, and it was only for the sake of the argument. And I'm pretty sure there is at least one non-sequitur in there.

(March 13, 2016 at 11:14 am)MysticKnight Wrote: If the creator cannot create goodness without it already existing, then neither can evolution or anything for that matter.

That is a true statement.  Good is subjective term which means that it requires abstract capabilities to define it, though in reality, it does not exist.

(March 13, 2016 at 11:31 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: (I chase a toddler around all day)

I've heard they can be more elusive even than a used car salesman turned apologist. (I'm looking at you Drich.)

(March 12, 2016 at 11:12 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote:

(March 12, 2016 at 8:33 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Yes, he would disagree, but he would be incorrect. It's like if I disagreed that 2+2=4. I could disagree all day, but I'd still be wrong. What we believe is that the person who thinks rape is good is wrong because we believe rape is objectively immoral. That's what objectively immoral means.

Still that is pretty different isn't it?  You can demonstrate in multiple ways why 2+2=4.  But in the morality example the only thing that makes the human's appraisal of what is moral in correct is that it doesn't agree with God.  Going to your parent/child parallel, what makes an action right isn't the fact that your parent says don't (or do) do it.  What makes it right can only be amplified meaningful by laying out the consequences good and bad of the action.  In other words, what makes the right action right isn't a matter of authority.

You are correct. As the video explains, you can't "demonstrate" morality, just as you can't demonstrate God. They both are in the realm of the supernatural, and there is no proof for either of them. But that is what we believe.