The Ultimate Value and the signs of it in ourselves.

[Angrboda]

People have various views of right or wrong, but the fact they have views of it, says they all believe there is right or wrong. Now obviously we aren't going about the right way to discover objectively what we ought to praise or condemn, but, for sure, people would not have the view of right or wrong without belief that objective moral facts exist.

And? How do you get from 'a belief' that objective morals exist, to evidence and knowledge that objective moral values exist. You seem entirely too eager to say that it appears that way, therefore it must be so. That doesn't follow.

A hypothetical. Your spouse told you to remind them to pay the phone bill. Your spouse claims that you forgot to remind them. You are certain that you did remind them. Based on belief, which one of you is correct? Or is it inconclusive? You can't claim that you just 'know' -- there are other opinions afoot. So how can you determine objectively what happened when your subjective beliefs differ? How do you get from subjective to objective?

[Mystic]

People have various views of right or wrong, but the fact they have views of it, says they all believe there is right or wrong. Now obviously we aren't going about the right way to discover objectively what we ought to praise or condemn, but, for sure, people would not have the view of right or wrong without belief that objective moral facts exist.

And? How do you get from 'a belief' that objective morals exist, to evidence and knowledge that objective moral values exist.  You seem entirely too eager to say that it appears that way, therefore it must be so.  That doesn't follow.

I already clarified belief in objective value doesn't imply there is any. I think you missed that post. 

Here is post 39:

Our brains assign value to the acts because they believe that state of the person has value objectively. Whether there exists such a thing is different to say that we assign value due to belief in the objective value.

[Mystic]

Let us first realize we would not have subjective views of human value in that we may a praise a value of a person or an act beyond that of only utility for us, were it not for the belief in objective value.

Then with that if we believe we ought to value human beings with acknowledgement outwardly and inwardly they have objective value, then everything insha'allah will fall into place, and we will see the divine in us all with eyes of the heart and then in the horizons insha'allah.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and yet here I am, still existing, still assigning value without any such belief in objective value, and by my very existence completely repudiating your stated belief. Not only are you wrong, you are trivially wrong.

Speaking of things wrong and shown to be so trivially, my heart does not have eyes. If your explanations rely on platitude then they are not explanations at all.

[LadyForCamus]

Let us first realize we would not have subjective views of human value in that we may a praise a value of a person or an act beyond that of only utility for us, were it not for the belief in objective value.

Then with that if we believe we ought to value human beings with acknowledgement outwardly and inwardly they have objective value, then everything insha'allah will fall into place, and we will see the divine in us all with eyes of the heart and then in the horizons insha'allah.

Wow, I'm growing really tired of your nonsensical crapola-based bald assertions...like, REALLY. If you want to preach go somewhere else.

[bennyboy]

Let us first realize we would not have subjective views of human value in that we may a praise a value of a person or an act beyond that of only utility for us, were it not for the belief in objective value.

Then with that if we believe we ought to value human beings with acknowledgement outwardly and inwardly they have objective value, then everything insha'allah will fall into place, and we will see the divine in us all with eyes of the heart and then in the horizons insha'allah.

I don't mind the things you're trying to say.  I mind that you have brought them into the philosophy section.  Back to the religious sections for you!

Philosophy is for those who wish to develop a credible world view through the endeavors of mind, not for those who use the endeavors of mind to try to twist superstition and mythology into an otherwise sensible world view.

[robvalue]

As in the other thread, I noted that you can have objective value after value has been subjectively defined. For example, the "value" of a human being is 1, and the "value" of anything not a human being is 0. There, done. It's now an objective "value". The problem is, that it doesn't mean anything. To just say that because "value" also has another meaning apart from this defined one and to try and slip that one in is an equivocation fallacy. You can't use the same term for two different things at once.

I can equally well say the "value" of a human is whatever I think of that human, ranging from 0 to 1. It's now entirely subjective.

Things like mass have been subjectively defined, and can then be objectively measured. But the results have real, practical applications. Whereas just defining people to have objective "value" is of no use whatsoever to anything.

[LadyForCamus]

As in the other thread, I noted that you can have objective value after value has been subjectively defined. For example, the "value" of a human being is 1, and the "value" of anything not a human being is 0. There, done. It's now an objective "value". The problem is, that it doesn't mean anything. To just say that because "value" also has another meaning apart from this defined one and to try and slip that one in is an equivocation fallacy. You can't use the same term for two different things at once.

I can equally well say the "value" of a human is whatever I think of that human, ranging from 0 to 1. It's now entirely subjective.

Things like mass have been subjectively defined, and can then be objectively measured. But the results have real, practical applications. Whereas just defining people to have objective "value" is of no use whatsoever to anything.

This is a perfect explanation Rob! (As always). The problem is, it's not the answer that Mystic wants, so he will probably ignore it. Since his entire "logical" argument for god's existence rests on the premise that morality is some sort of objective thing that cannot be created by God or humans, he has already decided what he "knows" to be the answer of the question he, himself has asked. He has done nothing but dismiss or ignore alternative answers given to him, which leads me to believe he is not here for a true discussion, but to see if there is anyone out there he can...convert. Dishonest to the bone IMO...

[robvalue]

Thanks very much

Judging whether people are being deliberately dishonest, and to what degree, is the hardest thing of all. I think people can easily get into the mindset that their conclusion is unquestionably correct, and so anything they have to say to support it must be correct by definition. Or else they have put so many chips on the table, the thought of folding and admitting to a mistake is unthinkable.

I don't know, and I'd be interested to find out. I don't know how that could be investigated!

I think most of the regulars here have said they wouldn't join a religion even if it was "true", so why people keep on trying to convert us I don't know.

[LadyForCamus]

Thanks very much

Judging whether people are being deliberately dishonest, and to what degree, is the hardest thing of all. I think people can easily get into the mindset that their conclusion is unquestionably correct, and so anything they have to say to support it must be correct by definition. Or else they have put so many chips on the table, the thought of folding and admitting to a mistake is unthinkable.

I don't know, and I'd be interested to find out. I don't know how that could be investigated!

I think most of the regulars here have said they wouldn't join a religion even if it was "true", so why people keep on trying to convert us I don't know.

Maybe we could investigate with Jimmy Kimmel's apparatus!

http://youtu.be/hMBeQpor0IQ