Why does science always upstage God?

[ayost]

We can know whether a thing is objective when it fits the definition of an objective proposition.  

For example, if I say that something about curbstomping a kid makes it wrong - that's an objective claim.  I

Actually that does not fit the definition of an objective claim. In fact, that's the opposite of an objective claim.

I'm pasting from the Google dictionary here but for "objective" I come up with:

1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

or this may fit our context:

2. not dependent on the mind for existence; actual

Either way your statement wasn't objective. It either came from your personal feelings or opinions orrrrrrr it came from your mind.

(You're seeing the dismantling happening. Sometimes it takes multiple sentences, though, so try to keep up.)

[The Grand Nudger]

That's what I just told you...you realize?

Lets say god doesn't like people who pray to other gods. Therefore it's morally wrong to pray to other gods. This is a subjective moral claim - because it's premised on the gods opinions of an act or people who do it. Conversely, we could say that there's nothing wrong with praying to gods because it doesn't hurt anyone. This is an objective claim, because it references what praying to other gods does or doesn't do.

In the first case, if the gods opinion changes, the moral nature of the act changes. In the second, no matter who has what opinion of the act or people who do it it either does or does not hurt people.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

We can know whether a thing is objective when it fits the definition of an objective proposition.  

For example, if I say that something about curbstomping a kid makes it wrong - that's an objective claim.  I

Actually that does not fit the definition of an objective claim. In fact, that's the opposite of an objective claim.

I'm pasting from the Google dictionary here but for "objective" I come up with:

1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

or this may fit our context:

2. not dependent on the mind for existence; actual

Either way your statement wasn't objective. It either came from your personal feelings or opinions orrrrrrr it came from your mind.

(You're seeing the dismantling happening. Sometimes it takes multiple sentences, though, so try to keep up.)

I think what TGN said pretty exactly fits in with your definitions. Why would you say it doesn’t?

Boru

[ayost]

We've got another one that's confused a fairy's subjective whims for an objective system.

Actually if there is a God that is the standard of truth and He gives us His standard for morality and we use that standard for morality and that standard doesn't come from our minds or feelings or opinions then it would be objective.

At least from our point of view as the created beings.

---

Actually that does not fit the definition of an objective claim. In fact, that's the opposite of an objective claim.

I'm pasting from the Google dictionary here but for "objective" I come up with:

1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

or this may fit our context:

2. not dependent on the mind for existence; actual

Either way your statement wasn't objective. It either came from your personal feelings or opinions orrrrrrr it came from your mind.

(You're seeing the dismantling happening. Sometimes it takes multiple sentences, though, so try to keep up.)

I think what TGN said pretty exactly fits in with your definitions. Why would you say it doesn’t?

Boru

No one is talking to you.

[arewethereyet]

We've got another one that's confused a fairy's subjective whims for an objective system.

Actually if there is a God that is the standard of truth and He gives us His standard for morality and we use that standard for morality and that standard doesn't come from our minds or feelings or opinions then it would be objective.

At least from our point of view as the created beings.

---

I think what TGN said pretty exactly fits in with your definitions. Why would you say it doesn’t?

Boru

No one is talking to you.

Moderator Notice
Go read the rules. Attempting to prevent someone from posting is against one of them.

[The Grand Nudger]

We've got another one that's confused a fairy's subjective whims for an objective system.

Actually if there is a God that is the standard of truth and He gives us His standard for morality and we use that standard for morality and that standard doesn't come from our minds or feelings or opinions then it would be objective.

At least from our point of view as the created beings.

Objective moral systems can't be god-mind dependent, either.  Something about an object x must be true or false, not something about a subject y.

There is no "his standard" or "her standard" or "my standard" or "your standard" in moral objectivism. That..is moral subjectivity, by definition.

[ayost]

That's what I just told you...you realize?  

Lets say god doesn't like people who pray to other gods.  Therefore it's morally wrong to pray to other gods.  This is a subjective moral claim - because it's premised on the gods opinions of an act or people who do it.  Conversely, we could say that there's nothing wrong with praying to gods because it doesn't hurt anyone.  This is an objective claim, because it references what praying to other gods does or doesn't do.

In the first case, if the gods opinion changes, the moral nature of the act changes.  In the second, no matter who has what opinion of the act or people who do it it either does or does not hurt people.

Actually that's not the definition of objective facts. That was actually just a really stupid statement.

I expected more, I guess.

---

Actually if there is a God that is the standard of truth and He gives us His standard for morality and we use that standard for morality and that standard doesn't come from our minds or feelings or opinions then it would be objective.

At least from our point of view as the created beings.

Objective moral systems can't be god-mind dependent, either.  Something about an object x must be true or false, not something about a subject y.

There is no "his standard" or "her standard" or "my standard" or "your standard" in moral objectivism.  That..is moral subjectivity, by definition.

Wow, ok, no. An objective fact comes from outside you. It's not dependent on you. It's true no matter what. If it comes from your mind, no matter what it is, it's not objective.

Also, I'm saying that the moral standards from my God never change, so if we are using my God's morality then it would be objective.

---

Actually if there is a God that is the standard of truth and He gives us His standard for morality and we use that standard for morality and that standard doesn't come from our minds or feelings or opinions then it would be objective.

At least from our point of view as the created beings.

---

No one is talking to you.

Moderator Notice
Go read the rules.  Attempting to prevent someone from posting is against one of them.  

I can't prevent someone from posting. I don't have that power. Nor did I tell him to stop posting. I told him he wasn't part of the conversation. I don't care what he posts. I'm not reading them.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, you're certainly free to object. That's kindof the point of objectivity. Of trying to determine whether or not something about an act, rather than someone's opinion, makes a thing right or wrong.

[ayost]

Well, you're certainly free to object.  That's kindof the point of objectivity.  Of trying to determine whether or not something about an act, rather than someone's opinion, makes a thing right or wrong.

I don't think you actually know what moral realists mean when they say objective facts.

[The Grand Nudger]

Does my level of knowledge on the subject of moral realism increase or decrease based on your opinion, or is there a fact of the matter?