(November 20, 2013 at 5:40 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: Ka-WHAT? hock:

wallym, if this seems to not make sense to you it is because IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!

Actually, it does make sense - that is, it makes sense that god's existence results in reality being nonsensical. That is precisely the kind of reality described in your Bible - where rules of logic and laws of nature become optional.

(November 20, 2013 at 5:40 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: Morals are objective because of God, not despite Him. If every moral you come to is solely found "within yourself" that would be the definition of subjective - based on personal tastes. Subject to change on a whim.

And if they are based on your god's personal tastes and subject to his whims, they are equally subjective.

(November 20, 2013 at 5:40 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: Saying that morals are subjective because God decided them is dragging the concept of God down to an animal level. God is not a dictator. God is not a human. His decisions do not happen in the same way we make decisions.

Irrelevant. The fact that they are dependent on his decisions is what makes them subjective.

---

(November 20, 2013 at 6:01 am)Lion IRC Wrote: I didn't "conveniently" cut out the bit about introspection and reasoning.
Is someone claiming animals don't have the sentient ability to reason?

Not on the level of abstraction possible for humans - which was, after all, the point of the argument and the point you conveniently cut out.

---

(November 20, 2013 at 6:02 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: Well, I can't speak for the "sheeple" that you mentioned, but I am wondering where objective morals come from without a God?

IF objective morals exist, then they'd come from fundamental facts regarding human psychology.

(November 20, 2013 at 6:02 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: Without a soul, isn't man an animal enslaved by the chemical reactions that cause his instincts?

No. His ability to reason takes him beyond that.

---

(November 20, 2013 at 6:30 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: Well, the objective godless argument sinks before it hits the pond. Everyone figures out their own morals? From deep inside them? Like, "I don't know, its just hard to explain. I know it to be true and so it is for me."

What does that sound like to you? Like someone talking about GOD?

It sounds EXACTLY like that - which is why it is a bullshit argument that only a theist would use.

---

(November 20, 2013 at 12:47 pm)wallym Wrote: Of course, the laws of objectivity would also be subject to God's will, so whatever logic you're trying to apply may or may not count? So maybe it is objective, because God says that's what objectivity is?

In fact, all rational and logical arguments would go out the window, because if there happened to be a God, they may no longer be rational or logical based on various whims?

Precisely.

(November 20, 2013 at 6:30 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: Well, the objective godless argument sinks before it hits the pond. Everyone figures out their own morals? From deep inside them? Like, "I don't know, its just hard to explain. I know it to be true and so it is for me."

What does that sound like to you? Like someone talking about GOD?

Ah, come on, brother: don't oversimplify like that.

We live in a physical universe that has constants, right? I mean, we can know things to be true about how we interact with the world and respond to stimuli; we know that humans don't like pain for a number of (obvious, I should think) reasons, we know humans don't like dying for similar reasons, and on the flipside we value those things that allow us to live stable and comfortable lives. There's your basis right there.

The trick is this: try to develop a moral system for yourself, without knowing the position you'll be in once it's enacted. You've got a natural empathy for your fellow man that has elevated us to dominance on the planet, but if that's not enough of a reason to follow moral precepts, imagine the risk of those bad things you're thinking of doing happening to you in a world where nobody does.

You don't like pain? Nobody does, by definition! Great, now you have an objective moral right there: inflicting pain (we can add some qualifiers for the masochists in the room) is immoral. You don't want to die? Most people don't, so let's go there too!

It's actually quite easy to start small, with those few things we know about humans, their welfare and interactions, and construct a moral system from there that, with adjustments made for context, functions pretty damn well.

(November 21, 2013 at 9:01 am)genkaus Wrote:

(November 20, 2013 at 12:47 pm)wallym Wrote: Of course, the laws of objectivity would also be subject to God's will, so whatever logic you're trying to apply may or may not count? So maybe it is objective, because God says that's what objectivity is?

In fact, all rational and logical arguments would go out the window, because if there happened to be a God, they may no longer be rational or logical based on various whims?

Precisely.

I don't know if you remember this, but way back when, this nonsense all started because you said God's moral laws weren't objective. Now you've said 'precisely' to the idea that God's moral law could be objective.

---

(November 21, 2013 at 9:17 am)Esquilax Wrote: You don't like pain? Nobody does, by definition! Great, now you have an objective moral right there: inflicting pain (we can add some qualifiers for the masochists in the room) is immoral. You don't want to die? Most people don't, so let's go there too!

There is no reason to care what humans as a whole want. If you don't want pain, then the 'objective conclusion' is that YOU should try to avoid YOURSELF having pain. It isn't a moral, it's just a reasonable response to stimuli.

Now, perhaps you are in a situation where a group of people get together and agree not to hurt each other. That's a fine law, and follows the idea of avoiding pain for yourself.

Someone outside your group comes up and starts a fight. You don't want pain, so you try to inflict pain on them fast and hard enough on them so you don't suffer pain. Again, follows the idea of avoiding pain for yourself. Empathy is there. You realize he doesn't want pain, but his not wanting pain and your not wanting pain are not equal to you.

You talk of natural empathy, but where you see it is in well-constructed societies where the individuals of the populace are heavily invested in others not trying to hurt them.

If my family has 2 cars, I don't really need a 3rd. But it'd suck a lot to lose one of the 2 I have. So no car stealing as a law gets my thumbs up. That's society in a nutshell. The personal gains of going outside the system fall far short of the personal gains of the system falling apart.

This is 'our' cushy middle class first world. But that world is hardly representative of humanity. If you look at the very poor, the very wealthy, and the very powerful throughout history you find people who don't have the same investment. And they gain nothing from looking at things as 'we' like you do, and not surprisingly, your notions of treating others feelings as equally valid does not/has not interested them.

(November 21, 2013 at 1:11 pm)wallym Wrote: I don't know if you remember this, but way back when, this nonsense all started because you said God's moral laws weren't objective. Now you've said 'precisely' to the idea that God's moral law could be objective.

Precisely.

This absurdity is the conclusion here.

In a rational and logical universe, when determining the objectivity of moral laws, we ask whether it is subject to conscious entity's will or not. If yes, then they are subjective and if no, then they are objective. This is the simple, logical rule regarding objectivity within a rational worldview. But, as you've correctly concluded, a major implication of god's existence is that that worldview goes right out the window. The criteria for objectivity can be changed on a whim and can no longer be taken for granted. So, while within a sane worldview, the god-given moral laws are not objective, all that needs to be done is to change the rules of objectivity and they can be objective.

Ah, I've seen you mention this elsewhere: Where the definitions of everything becomes God-centric and thus allows for theists to equivocate between the usual usage and their own, usually without specifying.

Purpose? Only legitimate (objective) if it's of God, even though it entails a value judgement. Foundations of morality? Only objective if God exists and thus issues from his will as the Good itself. The laws of logic? They're only explainable if God exists, so if atheists use logic they assume the truth of the Christian worldview!... I shit you not, presuppostionalists say that last one. :o

(November 21, 2013 at 3:38 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: so if atheists use logic they assume the truth of the Christian worldview!

Which makes no sense considering that a belief in god is illogical.

(November 21, 2013 at 3:11 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(November 21, 2013 at 1:11 pm)wallym Wrote: I don't know if you remember this, but way back when, this nonsense all started because you said God's moral laws weren't objective. Now you've said 'precisely' to the idea that God's moral law could be objective.

Precisely.

This absurdity is the conclusion here.

In a rational and logical universe, when determining the objectivity of moral laws, we ask whether it is subject to conscious entity's will or not. If yes, then they are subjective and if no, then they are objective. This is the simple, logical rule regarding objectivity within a rational worldview. But, as you've correctly concluded, a major implication of god's existence is that that worldview goes right out the window. The criteria for objectivity can be changed on a whim and can no longer be taken for granted. So, while within a sane worldview, the god-given moral laws are not objective, all that needs to be done is to change the rules of objectivity and they can be objective.

Which makes sense, that the rules of objectivity could be different for an 'perfect all-powerful being' that created existence. You use the phrase Whim a lot, as though you're human impulse and an allpowerful beings impulses are comparable, and would have the same rules applied to them. And that seems a bit wonky in itself.

But in the end, whether you believe Math or physics or morality in a world with a God is objective or subjective, the end results are the same, in that they define your existence and until a 'whim' manifests itself, the logical thing to do would be to operate under the laws in place.

(November 21, 2013 at 3:50 pm)wallym Wrote: Which makes sense, that the rules of objectivity could be different for an 'perfect all-powerful being' that created existence. You use the phrase Whim a lot, as though you're human impulse and an allpowerful beings impulses are comparable, and would have the same rules applied to them. And that seems a bit wonky in itself.

But in the end, whether you believe Math or physics or morality in a world with a God is objective or subjective, the end results are the same, in that they define your existence and until a 'whim' manifests itself, the logical thing to do would be to operate under the laws in place.

I'm so glad we don't live in such a world.

(November 21, 2013 at 9:17 am)Esquilax Wrote: Ah, come on, brother: don't oversimplify like that.

We live in a physical universe that has constants, right? I mean, we can know things to be true about how we interact with the world and respond to stimuli;

Esquilax,

I think that this is an oversimplification of morality. If you base morals simply on how we respond to certain stimuli you come up with a morality that says "Anything you can get away with is alright."

You use pain as an example, which makes sense for the most part, but once you leave that arena the morality starts to break down.

When you steal from someone - for the most part there is no pain. Now, we might say that we have the social contract that says "I don't steal, you don't steal." But what if I can steal form a rich man knowing that he would never find out about it? Is that still moral? It breaks the contract, but the rich man never knows, so what he don't know wont hurt him. Nothing comes from the stimuli (me stealing) except that I get that new 80 inch television I been dreaming of.

Maybe you bring up integrity, honor, dignity. But these have little value (cause little positive stimuli) if no one knows it. BUT if you are known as an honorable man and no one will ever find out that you are a thief, it doesn't matter. You have no loss and all gain.

In the purely rational and scientific world, self-sacrifice self-restraint fall short. Stepping in front of a bus to save an old woman makes no sense, unless you get a page in the daily news.

(November 21, 2013 at 3:38 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Ah, I've seen you mention this elsewhere: Where the definitions of everything becomes God-centric...Purpose? Only legitimate (objective) if it's of God... Foundations of morality? Only objective if God exists and thus issues from his will as the Good itself. The laws of logic? They're only explainable if God exists,...

I guess I fall into that category, with one exception: the truth of Christianity comes primarily from revelation and not natural observations or logical deductions. One can conceivably learn of a Creator from the last two, but not a historical event like the first advent.

Although lately, I'm coming to question the use of the term objective. It seems to apply only to sensible things, like apples, as opposed to, say, a mathematical proof. My point is that, something need not be objective to be universally valid.