My views on objective morality

[Mystic]

Well, it is what we believe, but that doesn't mean it can't be objectively true. 

I think I addressed this earlier on in the post  - I also believe my husband loves me. I could be either right or wrong about that.

Of course a subjective claim can be true.  

If it is true, it's both subjective and objective. If it's not, it's only subjective.

Why? 

Because what is true, is true regardless of everyone's opinion.

[Angrboda]

It can be said as a possibility but it's not conceivable to me. I know I don't have the power to be constantly maintaining the existence of myself. 

Of course you have the power. It's why you eat food. To maintain your metabolism via energy.

[Catholic_Lady]

I feel like I have already addressed this though. 

I don't have some sort of alternate definition for the word "Morality". By its dictionary term, it is defined as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." I'm on board with this and wouldn't define it any differently. The objective part is my belief that God has established between what is "right and wrong, and good and bad", and it is a real distinction. Not a matter of opinion.

(Off topic here for a second, I don't like the condescending/rude way you talk to me. I'll probably stop responding because I don't enjoy talking to someone who is consistently rude to me. Sorry, just not in the mood.)

If you feel I'm being rude, please consider this.  We are over 100 pages into this thread made by you about objective morality, and you still haven't explained why you think morality is objective.  I don't think I was rude while you avoided supporting your beliefs with reasons or supporting evidence for like the first 60 pages, but at this point I feel I'm justified in pressing a little.

Yes, I do think the way you said it on the first post was rude and condescending. And I think you know that. This new post of yours on the other hand, is neither of those things. 

Again, I'm not here to support my beliefs with evidence. I have said that multiple times. I have also said I don't have evidence that I can demonstrate to anyone. I can say why objective morality makes sense to me, and the video I posted on the OP explains it pretty well, but I can't give you evidence because I don't have any. 

You say God made objective morals.  Why do you think God is real, and why do you think He has made objective morals?  Do you even HAVE a reason for believing these things?  See, my "condescending" post was designed to show how ideas, reasons, and supporting evidence can clarify one's position.

I feel like I have already addressed these questions. 

1. Why do I think God is real? 

That's a question I've answered multiple times already in this thread. It's a mix of things. There's no way I can sum it all up in an online forum, especially since I'm so bad with words. The video explains part of it. I'd say the biggest part of it is due to a supernatural experience I had. I have explained this in more detail earlier on in the thread. If you care to find it, go for it.   

2. Why do I think He "made" objective morals? 

Perhaps that wasn't the best way to put it. As I said in my last post to you, morals are sets of principles concerning the distinction between good and evil. Everything God created is good. Evil is the absence of good. When we do something good, that's moral. When we do something bad, that's immoral. He didn't "create" morality directly. He created good. Evil is the absence of good. Free will gives us the choice between the 2, and the principles concerning the distinction between them is morality. So while morality is directly tied to Him and dependent on Him in that way, perhaps having said He "created it" wasn't the best choice of words.  

3. Do I have reasons for believing these things?

See answer to question one.   

 Here's what I think.  I think the reason you don't answer my question is that you don't have an answer-- you don't HAVE any logical reason to believe in God, or any evidence that He exists, much less that He has made an objective moral code.  I think you are blaming me for condescension because it allows you to dodge the responsibility of the OP of a thread to support his/her ideas, and still come up smelling like roses.

What question did I not answer? I have answered all your questions. You just don't like my answers, and keep saying I don't have evidence to support them. Yes, that is correct. I don't. I have said as much, repeatedly.  

No, I'm blaming you for being condescending because that's what you've been in many of your posts to me. Not this one though. Except for maybe that last part about smelling like roses, but still a major improvement from your last post before this one.

[Esquilax]

How did you determine that these things require anything to maintain their existence? All you've done thus far is assert that.

In the same way I know they can't come from nothing without cause, that is being non-existence and then existing with no cause, I know they are in need of cause to exist.

So you know your first assertion you haven't bothered to demonstrate is correct, because of a second assertion you've made that you haven't bothered to demonstrate. Okay then.

[Mystic]

In the same way I know they can't come from nothing without cause, that is being non-existence and then existing with no cause, I know they are in need of cause to exist.

So you know your first assertion you haven't bothered to demonstrate is correct, because of a second assertion you've made that you haven't bothered to demonstrate. Okay then.  

I'm saying in the same way  I know non-existence cannot be such that existence appears from it with no cause, the same is true of knowing why things can't constantly exist on their own with no cause. It's one and the same knowledge in fact. It's relying on the principle of causation with respect to existence.

You can say it's not clear that existence can't come from non-existence with no cause. You can deny every little bit of knowledge you been given from God for all I care.

It's evidence. So let's add that to the properly basic things to deny, shall we? Anything to avoid accepting the most high, shall we?

[Esquilax]

Well we believe they come from God. We believe God established what is good and what is evil. To act in a way that is good is moral, to act in a way that is evil is immoral. 

So your objective moral values, which don't depend on anyone's opinion to exist... in the end, depend on god's opinion to exist?

This is the Euthyphro Dilemma, and thus far no satisfactory answer has ever been given, but I can tweak it a little to better fit our discussion: if god decides what is and is not moral then it's just god's opinion, and no more objective than an actually subjective system of morality. If god doesn't decide what's moral, but merely relays to us a standard of morality that is beyond his ability to change, then that moral system has to come from somewhere and would be detectable sans god entirely... and until such time as we can detect it, we cannot rationally call it objective at all.

Either way, without a clear idea of how god derives his stated morality, not just what that morality is, there's no reason to call it objective.

How do I know? Same way I "know" God exists, if you will. It's what I believe and it makes sense to me.

That's just your opinion, though. I mean, that literally is just your opinion, only you've tarted it up- unjustifiably- in stronger language. You can say you "know" it all you like, but knowledge is demonstrated, it's based on repeatable, real world observations, and without any of those you're really doing nothing more than attempting to disguise a subjective moral view as an objective one using borrowed authority from a being we can't even establish to exist.

When I ask you how you know something, telling me that you think you know it doesn't answer the question. It just repeats the thing I needed clarification on in the first place.

[Mystic]

It can be said as a possibility but it's not conceivable to me. I know I don't have the power to be constantly maintaining the existence of myself. 

Of course you have the power.  It's why you eat food.  To maintain your metabolism via energy.

Except that's not the Angle we were discussing it from. I think there is an official fallacy for this. It's when you use misinterpret the sentence in a way you know it's not intended.

[Esquilax]

I'm saying in the same way  I know non-existence cannot be such that existence appears from it with no cause, the same is true of knowing why things can't constantly exist on their own with no cause. It's one and the same knowledge in fact. It's relying on the principle of causation with respect to existence.

Knowledge is demonstrated, not just asserted. All you've done thus far is say "I know it, I know it, I know it," over and over, but you're being asked how you know it, not what it is that you think you know. If you cannot point to anything that actually informs that claim then you don't, in any real sense, know it at all.

You can say it's not clear that existence can't come from non-existence with no cause. You can deny every little bit of knowledge you been given from God for all I care.

So, just to be clear: you're asserting that I secretly know you're right, because god, but I'm denying it? That's where your argument goes, from here? I'm really, genuinely asking here: it'll be very helpful in figuring out whether I need to put in any more time here, or whether you're just arguing in bad faith.

That said, my point is that, at the time that things began to exist, causative language ceases to matter. It's very possible that the universe's existence neither had a cause, nor came from nothing, that there's a third option, which is that at the point of the big bang the very idea that things "come from" anywhere doesn't apply. The big bang was the point at which time began, so there can't be a cause before that point, or even a need for one. There's no "before" the point that time began.

It's evidence. So let's add that to the properly basic things to deny, shall we? Anything to avoid accepting the most high, shall we?

So it really is your position that what you claim is just to be assumed without evidence? Seriously?

And you think it's a good idea to begin from such an insubstantial position and get that haughty, do you?

[Mystic]

Even though there is many good arguments for God, I seek refuge in God from relying on them for my faith. Arguments are a means, not an end. There is a way of knowing. A way of seeing. A way of understanding.

And if people want so much detail of the connection between God and creation, that is how he is linked to and connected to (his name), isn't this another argument for religion, that God would send teachers that teach on his authority the truth of these matters. And that there would scriptures from God that clarify the matter and make people see on insights?

There is many signs and indications of our knowledge of God. But honestly, arguments no matter how strong and sound, are not to be relied upon but rather they may help people connect back and have firmer faith in their connection. God is to be known though the divine connection, seeing him even it it's from a distance.

[Esquilax]

Even though there is many good arguments for God, I seek refuge in God from relying on them for my faith. Arguments are a means, not an end. There is a way of knowing. A way of seeing. A way of understanding.

And if people want so much detail of the connection between God and creation, that is how he is linked to and connected to (his name), isn't this another argument for religion, that God would send teachers that teach on his authority the truth of these matters. And that there would scriptures from God that clarify the matter and make people see on insights?

There is many signs and indications of our knowledge of God. But honestly, arguments no matter how strong and sound, are not to be relied upon but rather they may help people connect back and have firmer faith in their connection. God is to be known though the divine connection, seeing him even it it's from a distance.

I don't have that connection. So I'm afraid you're going to have to rely on arguments here, up to and including evidence that would demonstrate that that connection even exists for you and others. Just telling me that I know you're right isn't helping your case: it just means you've entered into this discussion in profoundly bad faith from the outset.