And it's most common among social animals. I don't think that's a coincidence.

(February 21, 2015 at 7:11 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Wait, an objective law has to be universal, independent of time or place. If we only have part of it here, then the moral law is not universal and not objective.

An objective law can't be subjective. A universal law has to be independent of time and place. But there's no reason that an objective law has to be independent of time and place.

Do you know of a reason?

[quote='Surgenator' pid='881460' dateline='1424560278']

[quote] I'm by no means suggesting that rules are exist independent of something. In fact, I would are that you're arguing for such a reality. Your suggesting that objective moral laws exist independently of anyone (otherwise they wouldn't be objective).

How can an a moral law exist on its own? [/quote]

These two questions are related and we keep bumping up against the mystery I referred to earlier. All I can say is this: Both God (as a title and not an individual) and the eternal law have always existed. the law exists in the mind of God (again, as a title and not an individual) and it is this eternal nature that makes it objective.

[quote] Interpretations of a rule are subjective, that doesn't make the rule subjective. If you write down the rule, then it is no longer bound to a mind. Only the interpretations of the written rule are bounded by the mind. [/quote]

I don't think witting it down makes any difference. It is its origin in the mind that matters.

[quote] I do have a hidden agenda for doing so. Which I'll keep hidden for a couple more post. [/quote]

Am I being set up for a gotcha It's ok, I'm learning here too.

[quote] Wait, an objective law has to be universal, independent of time or place. If we only have part of it here, then the moral law is not universal and not objective. [/quote]

Mortality is a special case. It is like a quarantine where sins can be committed without immediate consequences in order to give humanity the opportunity to learn. For example... In the Celestial Kingdom, the rule is the law of consecration. This law has been attempted a couple of times on earth (about three times that I can think of). One time successfully, and the other two not. In its place is the law of tithing. During Mosaic times, it was animal sacrifice as well as offerings. Humanity is not ready for some laws yet. Once a law is given, we are responsible for it. God in His mercy withholds laws during mortality so that we will not be condemned by them. We are here to learn to be obedient, but God is allowing us to learn at our own pace.

[quote] If what you said was actually true, Satan would not exist.
[/quote]

Ouch!... You got me on that one , but it does go to show that outside of mortality, punishment is immediate. I still think however that there will be a difference after mortality. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. This is why "faith", because we don't have all the answers now. If we knew all the answers this life wouldn't be a test.

(February 21, 2015 at 10:28 pm)wiploc Wrote:

(February 21, 2015 at 7:11 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Wait, an objective law has to be universal, independent of time or place. If we only have part of it here, then the moral law is not universal and not objective.

An objective law can't be subjective. A universal law has to be independent of time and place. But there's no reason that an objective law has to be independent of time and place.

Do you know of a reason?

The definition of objective

(February 21, 2015 at 10:56 pm)Surgenator Wrote:

(February 21, 2015 at 10:28 pm)wiploc Wrote: An objective law can't be subjective. A universal law has to be independent of time and place. But there's no reason that an objective law has to be independent of time and place.

Do you know of a reason?

The definition of objective

Definition of absolute.

---

Correction: objective law? Eh...I don't like that phrasing.

---

Objective can have two meanings.

Ontological: What there is to know...

Epistemological: How you know...


You can know something objectively in the epistemological sense, which is to say that the process that guided you to your understanding was free of bias, informed by evidence, and still subject to being proven false.

But that's rarely the way it's used in these conversations.

(February 21, 2015 at 10:43 pm)ether-ore Wrote:

(February 21, 2015 at 7:11 pm)Surgenator Wrote: I'm by no means suggesting that rules are exist independent of something. In fact, I would are that you're arguing for such a reality. Your suggesting that objective moral laws exist independently of anyone (otherwise they wouldn't be objective).

How can an a moral law exist on its own?

These two questions are related and we keep bumping up against the mystery I referred to earlier. All I can say is this: Both God (as a title and not an individual) and the eternal law have always existed. the law exists in the mind of God (again, as a title and not an individual) and it is this eternal nature that makes it objective.

The source of the idea does not determine if a rule is objective. Plus, the "objective moral laws" would become subjective by your own definition because they only exist in minds. Just because God had the idea first and for eternity, doesn't make them objective.

Quote:

Quote: Interpretations of a rule are subjective, that doesn't make the rule subjective. If you write down the rule, then it is no longer bound to a mind. Only the interpretations of the written rule are bounded by the mind.

I don't think witting it down makes any difference. It is its origin in the mind that matters.

Origins don't matter. Do you expect dollars to behave differently than yen or rubles? No because the origin of an idea does not determine the usefulness or truthfulness of the idea.

Quote:

Quote: I do have a hidden agenda for doing so. Which I'll keep hidden for a couple more post.

Am I being set up for a gotcha It's ok, I'm learning here too.

I plead the fifth.

Quote:

Quote: Wait, an objective law has to be universal, independent of time or place. If we only have part of it here, then the moral law is not universal and not objective.

Mortality is a special case. It is like a quarantine where sins can be committed without immediate consequences in order to give humanity the opportunity to learn. For example... In the Celestial Kingdom, the rule is the law of consecration. This law has been attempted a couple of times on earth (about three times that I can think of). One time successfully, and the other two not. In its place is the law of tithing. During Mosaic times, it was animal sacrifice as well as offerings. Humanity is not ready for some laws yet. Once a law is given, we are responsible for it. God in His mercy withholds laws during mortality so that we will not be condemned by them. We are here to learn to be obedient, but God is allowing us to learn at our own pace.

Special case? You're just pleading for an exception without justification. A real law cannot be broken. Only the "laws" that we humans place on ourselves can e.g. traffic laws, state laws, etc... These "laws" are just agreed upon desired behavior to have a functional society. I don't see how moral laws are any different.

(February 21, 2015 at 11:18 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Special case? You're just pleading for an exception without justification. A real law cannot be broken. Only the "laws" that we humans place on ourselves can e.g. traffic laws, state laws, etc... These "laws" are just agreed upon desired behavior to have a functional society. I don't see how moral laws are any different.

Two things: First, We are eternal beings on a course of progression. Before mortality, we had no experience with physical bodies. We are here to learn to control them. God may assign laws (even an incomplete set) to a specific set of conditions such as mortality for the purpose of giving us a chance to learn to control these bodies in accordance with those laws He has given which are expedient for us to have in this condition. I see this as justifiable.

Now, this exchange has given me a lot to think about. I'm in a bit of a quandary trying to find a way of explaining. I see that I need to try another tack. I believe that God's law is objective and eternal. I also believe that law must exist somewhere in reality and has done so forever without beginning. So, it must be something about the word "objective".

God is the administrator of justice with regard to the laws given for our mortal sojourn. We are responsible for our actions relative to those laws which have been given and which apply in mortality. After we have proven how we would respond and act under the conditions here in mortality, come judgment day, God will objectively hand down judgment without regard to His own feelings. If you did this and that, then this or that will be your consequence according to the strict interpretation of the law. Whatever else may be the case, at least here, objectivity means without feeling and with strict adherence to the dictates of the requirements of the law.

I said the objective law resides in the mind of God, but I have no support for that assertion. I just cannot see where else it would reside. I'm beginning to see objectivity in terms of its administration, which would still tie in to calling all earthly codes of law subjective because they are administered differently around the earth and are not in agreement with God's perfect law which is designed to maximize joy for those who abide it. If one thinks of the objective law in terms of administration, then its being in God's mind is not an issue in terms of subjectivity.

We haven't talked about how mercy figures into this, but that is another topic.

(February 22, 2015 at 12:10 am)ether-ore Wrote:

(February 21, 2015 at 11:18 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Special case? You're just pleading for an exception without justification. A real law cannot be broken. Only the "laws" that we humans place on ourselves can e.g. traffic laws, state laws, etc... These "laws" are just agreed upon desired behavior to have a functional society. I don't see how moral laws are any different.

Two things: First, We are eternal beings on a course of progression. Before mortality, we had no experience with physical bodies. We are here to learn to control them. God may assign laws (even an incomplete set) to a specific set of conditions such as mortality for the purpose of giving us a chance to learn to control these bodies in accordance with those laws He has given which are expedient for us to have in this condition. I see this as justifiable.

I understand that this sounds justifiable to you. But to me, you only constructed 5 more unjustifiable assertions in an attempt to justify one assertion. You have made the problem worse, not better. A proper justification has to be based off of concepts both parties agree upon. There are plenty of things we do agree: nature exist, humans beings exist, human beings can make laws, humans beings can break or follow our laws, and human beings cannot break nature's laws. The main points we disagree on are: existence of God, we have an immortal spirit, and whether or not humans can come up with an objective rules.

It also seems like you altered your previous stance to the question "would objective moral laws exist if God didn't exist." Before you claimed that objective moral laws would still exist even if God wouldn't. However, your arguments changed when I pointed out the moral laws only exist in minds and the objective ones are not written down anywhere. So if God didn't exist, how can objective moral laws exist?

Quote:Now, this exchange has given me a lot to think about. I'm in a bit of a quandary trying to find a way of explaining. I see that I need to try another tack. I believe that God's law is objective and eternal. I also believe that law must exist somewhere in reality and has done so forever without beginning. So, it must be something about the word "objective".

I'm glad that your learning and thinking about something new. I come to this forum because of the different perspectives I get introduced to.

Hmm, maybe you should define what objective means to you. Preferably define it in such a way where God doesn't come into the picture. That way, we can at least have a chance on agreeing on a definition.

Quote:Whatever else may be the case, at least here, objectivity means without feeling and with strict adherence to the dictates of the requirements of the law.

O look, you defined it here. I partially agree with this definition of objective. This definition doesn't work well when describing objective laws since a "stick adherence to the dictates [..] of the law" is circular. How about we define objective-moral-law as the application of a rule for a given situation where the situation and punishment do not depend who, where or when the situation partook?

Quote:I said the objective law resides in the mind of God, but I have no support for that assertion. I just cannot see where else it would reside. I'm beginning to see objectivity in terms of its administration, which would still tie in to calling all earthly codes of law subjective because they are administered differently around the earth and are not in agreement with God's perfect law which is designed to maximize joy for those who abide it. If one thinks of the objective law in terms of administration, then its being in God's mind is not an issue in terms of subjectivity.

"Objective law in terms of administration" is where we are having the disagreement. I do not see how the source of idea will make the idea always subjective. The source doesn't matter to me at all. All that matters is if it is applied equally and consistently, everywhere and every time.

---

(February 21, 2015 at 11:05 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote:

(February 21, 2015 at 10:56 pm)Surgenator Wrote: The definition of objective

Definition of absolute.

---

Correction: objective law? Eh...I don't like that phrasing.

---

Objective can have two meanings.

Ontological: What there is to know...

Epistemological: How you know...


You can know something objectively in the epistemological sense, which is to say that the process that guided you to your understanding was free of bias, informed by evidence, and still subject to being proven false.

But that's rarely the way it's used in these conversations.

It took me a while to understand what you were saying. I agree with you about the two uses. I try to have certain terms defined. This often lead to definition battles which are a nuisance. This is also why I often avoid forum discussions that don't provide a working definition like the freewill threads.

It happens all the time. Especially when someone is equivocating the two different uses with the purpose of passing off their argument as a relevant one when...it isn't. Sometimes it happens by mistake, but even the mistake is hard to point out once someone has emotionally attached themself to a fallaciously driven conclusion.

(February 19, 2015 at 5:48 pm)Lek Wrote: I never made any kind of statement saying that God was once evil and then he changed.

Of course not. The old guy is still evil.

And you worship him. You worship an evil god.