(March 13, 2016 at 3:51 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: If objective morality exists, so then does God exist.

That does not follow. If "objective morality" exists, then by definition god must abide by it which means that god does not have to exist just because "objective morality" exists. If god is the source, then it is still subjective.

In other words mystic - Assuming "it's not the case in any possible world that it is good to torture an innocent being forever" to be true, like Jor said, is begging the question.

(March 13, 2016 at 4:17 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: In other words mystic - Assuming "it's not the case in any possible world that it is good to torture an innocent being forever" to be true, like Jor said, is begging the question.  

It's a premise that is not argued for. I was hoping (at that time, I didn't know you), you were one of those Atheists who believed in objective morality strongly.

I have a question though regarding that. Why all the comments on God allowing rape to happen...if you do not think it has been proven to be impossible that in some possible world it would be morally good to torture an innocent being forever and ever?

I don't understand so perhaps fill me in.

(March 13, 2016 at 4:10 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 3:51 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: If objective morality exists, so then does God exist.

That does not follow.  If "objective morality" exists, then by definition god must abide by it which means that god does not have to exist just because "objective morality" exists.  If god is the source, then it is still subjective.

You guys repeat these things like mantras. And everything I say doesn't seem to click.

(March 13, 2016 at 4:09 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: No this thread was to show objective morality and God go together. That if you accept one, you accept the other. Or at least you should.

How about if you don't accept one, and don't accept the other. Does that work, too?

(March 13, 2016 at 4:24 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 4:09 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: No this thread was to show objective morality and God go together. That if you accept one, you accept the other. Or at least you should.

How about if you don't accept one, and don't accept the other.  Does that work, too?

Work in what sense. That you are being more honest? I don't think so.

(March 13, 2016 at 4:09 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 4:07 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: No...YOU asserted it to make your argument work.  And isn't that what this 100 page thread was created for?  To talk about evidence for objective morality?  I haven't seen any yet so why bother making a new thread for the same crappy arguments?

No this thread was to show objective morality and God go together. That if you accept one, you accept the other. Or at least you should.

From what I've come to learn about the distinction between subjective and objective, there isn't really a clear one. It's just that a truth becomes objective when it fulfills a certain set of criteria established by consensus. But ultimately, most objective truths are at the core subjective.

So objective morality and God going together is not wrong to say but also not necessary. Human consensus is sufficient.

(March 13, 2016 at 4:23 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 4:10 pm)IATIA Wrote: That does not follow.  If "objective morality" exists, then by definition god must abide by it which means that god does not have to exist just because "objective morality" exists.  If god is the source, then it is still subjective.

You guys repeat these things like mantras. And everything I say doesn't seem to click.

Nobody understands you, If you want people to understand what your saying, try making sense.

(March 13, 2016 at 4:30 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 4:09 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: No this thread was to show objective morality and God go together. That if you accept one, you accept the other. Or at least you should.

From what I've come to learn about the distinction between subjective and objective, there isn't really a clear one. It's just that a truth becomes objective when it fulfills a certain set of criteria established by consensus. But ultimately, most objective truths are at the core subjective.

So objective morality and God going together is not wrong to say but also not necessary. Human consensus is sufficient.

It's from what you heard.

Only subjective means that it's more of a taste, like "I think this Music is great" and another person says "I think it sucks". These are just expressing their tastes.

When you say "I believe this is wrong to do"..., it's subjective, but also objective if you are justified in that belief. Do people feel they know anything is 100% wrong for them to do for certain? I think so. 
That means they ought to actually believe in objective morality.

In fact, it's because we do know. And we are guided by a light that binds us all.  Saying that light is just produced by our brains or what not, is all a trial.

At the end of it, it's become manifest that love speaks a hidden language as well as a manifest language. We can speak somethings about it, but some of it is hidden. We all know what it is.

Love is morality. It's what it is. Sometimes it manifest in hate, but it's hate due to love. When ever we praise, appreciate, adore, all this is part of love. 

The thing is I also believe in objective beauty. That is I believe love is objectively beautiful. God is the Loving source of all love, and created the different relationships of love. He is what gives everything it's creation because of he is light of all light.

(March 13, 2016 at 4:39 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 4:30 pm)Irrational Wrote: From what I've come to learn about the distinction between subjective and objective, there isn't really a clear one. It's just that a truth becomes objective when it fulfills a certain set of criteria established by consensus. But ultimately, most objective truths are at the core subjective.

So objective morality and God going together is not wrong to say but also not necessary. Human consensus is sufficient.

It's from what you heard.

Only subjective means that it's more of a taste, like "I think this Music is great" and another person says "I think it sucks". These are just expressing their tastes.

When you say "I believe this is wrong to do"..., it's subjective, but also objective if you are justified in that belief. Do people feel they know anything is 100% wrong for them to do for certain? I think so. 
That means they ought to actually believe in objective morality.

In fact, it's because we do know. And we are guided by a light that binds us all.  Saying that light is just produced by our brains or what not, is all a trial.

At the end of it, it's become manifest that love speaks a hidden language as well as a manifest language. We can speak somethings about it, but some of it is hidden. We all know what it is.

Love is morality. It's what it is. Sometimes it manifest in hate, but it's hate due to love. When ever we praise, appreciate, adore, all this is part of love. 

The thing is I also believe in objective beauty. That is I believe love is objectively beautiful. God is the Loving source of all love, and created the different relationships of love. He is what gives everything it's creation because of he is light of all light.

But none of this establishes a necessary relationship between God and objective morality.