The Struggle to do Good

[The Architect Of Fate]

Well, that's fine, but it's no longer possible for him to be ignorant of how moral realism works.  He may continue to disagree with moral realism...but hey, already knew that he'd end up arguing against it, and wouldn't enjoy the convo.

Fair enough 

[brokenreflector]

The notion that morality changes when the subject changes is the definition of moral subjectivism.

You didn't ask me if God changed His mind about His moral values. You asked me if God had different moral values, then would He have different moral values.

That being said, part of the definition of God is necessary existence (cannot fail to exist). This means He exists in all possible worlds, including the actualized world, and that He is intrinsically the same in each one of these worlds.

Then there's nothing bad about murder.  The good or bad making property is whether a subject has told you to do so, or refrain from doing so.  

Wow you're really bad at reasoning.

If objective moral values and duties are indeed ontologically grounded in God, then of course "murder is wrong" would flow from Him through commands and the conscience that He has given us.

Which, again, is not an epistemological framework

You don't know what epistemology is then. Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge. Ontology is the study of the nature of existence. An epistemological framework is way of obtaining knowledge. Moral intuition, or conscience, is how we come to know objective moral values and duties which are ontologically grounded in God's nature.

I want you to take a breath here and consider something.

Honestly, I think I'm done talking to pseudo-intellectuals. I'm going to go watch my stocks.

[The Grand Nudger]

The notion that morality changes when the subject changes is the definition of moral subjectivism.

You didn't ask me if God changed His mind about His moral values. You asked me if God had different moral values, then would He have different moral values.

That being said, part of the definition of God is necessary existence (cannot fail to exist). This means He exists in all possible worlds, including the actualized world, and that He is intrinsically the same in each one of these worlds.

-and if he were different, would morality be different?

Then there's nothing bad about murder.  The good or bad making property is whether a subject has told you to do so, or refrain from doing so.  

Wow you're really bad at reasoning.

If objective moral values and duties are indeed ontologically grounded in God, then of course "murder is wrong" would flow from Him through commands and the conscience that He has given us.

If moral values are objective then they are independent of any subjects peculiarities, including a gods.  If moral values are objective it simply does not matter whether god is, what god does, or what god thinks.  

Which, again, is not an epistemological framework

You don't know what epistemology is then. Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge. Ontology is the study of the nature of existence. An epistemological framework is way of obtaining knowledge. Moral intuition, or conscience, is how we come to know objective moral values and duties which are ontologically grounded in God's nature.

You are asserting that subjectivism is the only way that we come to know objective values.  Do I need to point out the problem with that?

I don't personally have much of an issue with intuitionism in practice, but in order to translate intuition into objectivity, opinions to knowledge...one will need to refer to something exterior to the contents of their own conscience, or the contents of any other subjects attitudes, opinions, and intuitions.  This would include gods.  

Again, that's just what moral objectivism means.  There's no arguing this point.  It's inarguable.  Objective values cannot be grounded in any subjects nature, that would make those values subjective by definition.

I want you to take a breath here and consider something.

Honestly, I think I'm done talking to pseudo-intellectuals. I'm going to go watch my stocks.

Well, good luck with that.  I'll be here if you have any other questions about objective moral values.

[Sal]

Honestly, I think I'm done talking to pseudo-intellectuals. I'm going to go watch my stocks.

[Abaddon_ire]

The notion that morality changes when the subject changes is the definition of moral subjectivism.

You didn't ask me if God changed His mind about His moral values. You asked me if God had different moral values, then would He have different moral values.

Odd thing to say, given that your particular flavour of deity changes morals apparently on a whim.

Can you tell us why it is that if, as you claim, morals are objective, your god keeps changing them. You have yet to present any reasoning at all about that fact.

It is almost as if you had given it no thought at all.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Honestly, I think I'm done talking to pseudo-intellectuals. I'm going to go watch my stocks.

Honestly the ability to regurgitate apologist talking points doesn't make you an intellectual it makes you a parrot or a puppet . And we were dumb with your dumb ass ages ago . It's hilarious he needs to annouce he has stocks as if that's somehow impressive .Anyone can buy stocks lol

---

You didn't ask me if God changed His mind about His moral values. You asked me if God had different moral values, then would He have different moral values.

That being said, part of the definition of God is necessary existence (cannot fail to exist). This means He exists in all possible worlds, including the actualized world, and that He is intrinsically the same in each one of these worlds.

-and if he were different, would morality be different?

Wow you're really bad at reasoning.

If objective moral values and duties are indeed ontologically grounded in God, then of course "murder is wrong" would flow from Him through commands and the conscience that He has given us.

If moral values are objective then they are independent of any subjects peculiarities, including a gods.  If moral values are objective it simply does not matter whether god is, what god does, or what god thinks.  

You don't know what epistemology is then. Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge. Ontology is the study of the nature of existence. An epistemological framework is way of obtaining knowledge. Moral intuition, or conscience, is how we come to know objective moral values and duties which are ontologically grounded in God's nature.

You are asserting that subjectivism is the only way that we come to know objective values.  Do I need to point out the problem with that?

I don't personally have much of an issue with intuitionism in practice, but in order to translate intuition into objectivity, opinions to knowledge...one will need to refer to something exterior to the contents of their own conscience, or the contents of any other subjects attitudes, opinions, and intuitions.  This would include gods.  

Again, that's just what moral objectivism means.  There's no arguing this point.  It's inarguable.  Objective values cannot be grounded in any subjects nature, that would make those values subjective by definition.

Honestly, I think I'm done talking to pseudo-intellectuals. I'm going to go watch my stocks.

Well, good luck with that.  I'll be here if you have any other questions about objective moral values.

Gotta love the whole defining god into existence trope

[Paleophyte]

So getting back on topic.

If a strong urge to not look at porn doesn't come from nature, family, or societal pressures, then where is it coming from?

(1) "I don't know" is a valid and honest answer. It doesn't equate to "God".

(2) How do you know that there weren't mundane external factors? You may not think that there are any but human psychology is hellishly complex. You say that you have always believed in god, and if you knew that certain religions took a dim view of pornography then it's pretty clear that there was a societal pressure. Or are you saying that you didn't know that god watches while you wank and kills a kitten for every stroke?

---

Honestly, I think I'm done talking to pseudo-intellectuals. I'm going to go watch my stocks.

Honestly the ability to regurgitate apologist talking points doesn't make you an intellectual it makes you a parrot or a puppet . And we were dumb with your dumb ass ages ago . It's hilarious he needs to annouce he has stocks as if that's somehow impressive .Anyone can buy stocks lol

I'm pretty sure that "stocks" is code for furry dungeon porn in this case.

[The Architect Of Fate]

So getting back on topic.

If a strong urge to not look at porn doesn't come from nature, family, or societal pressures, then where is it coming from?

(1) "I don't know" is a valid and honest answer. It doesn't equate to "God".

(2) How do you know that there weren't mundane external factors? You may not think that there are any but human psychology is hellishly complex. You say that you have always believed in god, and if you knew that certain religions took a dim view of pornography then it's pretty clear that there was a societal pressure. Or are you saying that you didn't know that god watches while you wank and kills a kitten for every stroke?

---

Honestly the ability to regurgitate apologist talking points doesn't make you an intellectual it makes you a parrot or a puppet . And we were dumb with your dumb ass ages ago . It's hilarious he needs to annouce he has stocks as if that's somehow impressive .Anyone can buy stocks lol

I'm pretty sure that "stocks" is code for furry dungeon porn in this case.

The options he gives are simplistic 

Evolutions would actually be anti porn as porn does not lead to reporduction in fact it would be a distraction from it . Also ignores the fact that sexual restraints is evolutionary as it solves issues of sexual conflict 

If societies only rule was direct approval or direct condemnation then were do people who rebel against there culture come from ?

Family approval or  condemnation  can have opposite effect

[Nay_Sayer]

You guys are so rough with chew toys. Ya made poor reflector run for the hills.

Tsk tsk.

[The Architect Of Fate]

You guys are so rough with chew toys. Ya made poor reflector run for the hills.

Tsk tsk.

Oh well another one will come . Hopefully we get a smarter one