My views on objective morality

[Mystic]

Yes, I thought when I disbelieved in God, I would be able to believe in objective praise/morality somehow. I couldn't. And I realized I could not truthfully have subjective praise without belief in objective praise. 

I went through a crisis. I didn't want to believe in God simply because I wanted to. I had to know him to be true. The dark night of my soul was distressing.

I don't know about the praise stuff but I don't find I'm incapable of feeling reverence or awe or gratitude or many other things without belief in God.  It isn't all that debilitating really.

What are you appreciating? When a person does a good deed, what do you appreciate? The person and that state he was in right. But then you say his action doesn't even become part of him aside from a memory and forming part of his psychology. So you don't believe it adds value to that person truly and objectively.

Also, why is actually good? If it's just survival chemicals making us feel good....what makes it truly good to do an action or praiseworthy? Do we appreciate and praise simply the act because of it's benefits or is there a substance of praise? An essence of praise and value, we are valuing in that act?

[Whateverist]

What are you appreciating? When a person does a good deed, what do you appreciate? The person and that state he was in right.

I appreciate his/her thoughtfulness. I appreciate that they didn't have to take me into account but did so anyway. They become what I would call a thoughtful person but that is just a turn of phrase. It means exactly what it has always meant.

But then you say his action doesn't even become part of him aside from a memory and forming part of his psychology. So you don't believe it adds value to that person truly and objectively.

Becoming a part of his habits contributes to what we call his character, something relatively stable. More so than a passing mood at least. But "objectively" adds absolutely nothing to the discussion so far as I can tell. Subjective states are subjective by their nature but their existence is an objective fact, just not directly perceivable from the outside. They're private.

Also, why is actually good? If it's just survival chemicals making us feel good....what makes it truly good to do an action or praiseworthy? Do we appreciate and praise simply the act because of it's benefits or is there a substance of praise? An essence of praise and value, we are valuing in that act?

The mechanics of the neural and hormonal level underly and make possible our experience including all the subtle stuff you are getting at. Can't discuss further now. Doing taxes which are subjectively yucky though the consequences of not doing them are objective enough.

[Mystic]

Ok thanks Whateverist.

Just wanted to say, what is the subjective value you value in a person? You value the act, but the person doesn't inherit the act, but it becomes part of his personality as in habits. But it doesn't actually increase his value subjectively to you, because, aside from the improvement in character.

I don't know how justice can apply to anyone doing an evil deed this way. Justice becomes nothing but an illusion, and it's just action to take care of societies social needs or well being.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I don't know about the praise stuff but I don't find I'm incapable of feeling reverence or awe or gratitude or many other things without belief in God.  It isn't all that debilitating really.

What are you appreciating? When a person does a good deed, what do you appreciate? The person and that state he was in right. But then you say his action doesn't even become part of him aside from a memory and forming part of his psychology. So you don't believe it adds value to that person truly and objectively.

Also, why is actually good? If it's just survival chemicals making us feel good....what makes it truly good to do an action or praiseworthy? Do we appreciate and praise simply the act because of it's benefits or is there a substance of praise? An essence of praise and value, we are valuing in that act?

Got any blue cheese dressing to put on your word salad?

I'm not respecting your attempts to move the goalposts here, which are set on that word "objective", and I don't think others should either. We objectively benefit from helping others and knowing we did that, for taking a stand for the truth which sets people free from the lies which are enslaving others, and from receiving the recognition which encourages more such good behavior. Most of us respect mutual consent and do not commit murder, even when we think we could get away with it, because that is the morality of most of us. The machinery behind this is our neurochemistry, and whether or not it works harmoniously for all of us has no bearing on the objective truth. Therefore, there is still no reason for anyone to believe in any objective morality.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Can you surprise your god? 

I cannot surprise Him, since I believe He is outside of time and knows the future. 

Can you change his plans?

His plan is for us to have free will, knowing that in the end, the good that comes from it will far outweigh the bad.

Does he not know what you will choose? Then that means his knowledge is limited. Does he know what you will choose? Then how can you violate his prescience?

That is the contradiction which arises when those beliefs are apposed.

[Mystic]

I cannot surprise Him, since I believe He is outside of time and knows the future. 



His plan is for us to have free will, knowing that in the end, the good that comes from it will far outweigh the bad.

Does he not know what you will choose? Then that means his knowledge is limited. Does he know what you will choose? Then how can you violate his prescience?

That is the contradiction which arises when those beliefs are apposed.

The same is true if the future already exists. If the future already exists, then you cannot avoid that which is already in the future.

Yet I see many Atheists talk about time in the past, present, future all existing at the same time.  As if that would refute the arguments for finite time and beginning of time in which it does not anyways but many say it all the time to obscure the issue.

[Catholic_Lady]

I cannot surprise Him, since I believe He is outside of time and knows the future. 



His plan is for us to have free will, knowing that in the end, the good that comes from it will far outweigh the bad.

Does he not know what you will choose? Then that means his knowledge is limited. Does he know what you will choose? Then how can you violate his prescience?

That is the contradiction which arises when those beliefs are apposed.

Yes, I believe He knows what we will choose. But that doesn't mean He is responsible for us choosing it, or forcing us to choose it. He knows that even though we all make immoral choices at times, in the end, the good of having free will is going to outweigh the bad. That's why He set it up like that.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I am discussing the topic on her terms. It is her conception of god under scrutiny, after all. My conception of her god's sense of time and knowledge are not germane.

[Mystic]

Does he not know what you will choose? Then that means his knowledge is limited. Does he know what you will choose? Then how can you violate his prescience?

That is the contradiction which arises when those beliefs are apposed.

Yes, I believe He knows what we will choose. But that doesn't mean He is responsible for us choosing it, or forcing us to choose it. He knows that even though we all make immoral choices at times, in the end, the good of having free will is going to outweigh the bad. That's His plan.

Peace be upon you

Your argument is just asserting though.

He shows an argument to why we would have no free-will. You have not shown why that argument fails other then asserting the conclusion is wrong. 




Human free-will is only possible if there is more then one possible outcome in will steering.
If God knows the will you will steer before you do it, there is only one possible outcome (the one God knows will happen).
Therefore God knowing all future and human free-will is not possible.

You cannot simply deny the conclusion. You have to address either why 1 is wrong or why 2 is wrong or both. You can't simply deny the conclusion.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Does he not know what you will choose? Then that means his knowledge is limited. Does he know what you will choose? Then how can you violate his prescience?

That is the contradiction which arises when those beliefs are apposed.

Yes, I believe He knows what we will choose. But that doesn't mean He is responsible for us choosing it, or forcing us to choose it. He knows that even though we all make immoral choices at times, in the end, the good of having free will is going to outweigh the bad. That's why He set it up like that.

If I knew my toddler son will choose to wander out onto a freeway, and I did nothing, would i not be complicit in his death?

Are we not toddlers compared to your god and your devil?