My views on objective morality

[Esquilax]

Point to that which proves this claim then (ie. the claim you just made).

I love when people do this, like they expect me not to be able to do it: science time!

Let's say we have three claims: claims A, B, and C. Claims A and B are true, and claim C is false. However, of claim A and B, only claim A can be demonstrated. Claim B is completely non-demonstrable in any respect.

So, how do we find out which of the claims are true? With claim A, it's easy, since there's demonstrable evidence that it's true, and we can verify that. Claim C is easy too: it's not true, and so we can find no evidence to confirm it, and possibly evidence to contradict it. Either way, claim C cannot be accepted as true. But what about claim B?

Now we have a problem. Since claim B is non-demonstrable, there's no way of confirming whether it's true. In fact, given that there's no evidence to confirm it, it's in exactly the same category as claim C, which is false. There is a difference between the two claims, in that claim B is actually true, but being that it's not demonstrable, how will we ever know? How can we find out the difference between B and C?

The truth is that we can't. Now, along you come, saying that you know claim B is true. Knowledge is commonly defined as justified true belief, but when we ask you how you know that, you can't give us anything. Claim B has no demonstrable observation or experience to back it. Given that we cannot determine that claim B is true, and that's a key component of the definition of knowledge, in what sense can we actually call what you have knowledge?

As an added bonus, along comes someone else, claiming that they know claim C is true. We ask them the same question, and they also can't show us anything, so their "knowledge" of claim C and your "knowledge" of claim B are functionally indistinguishable. So what we have here is one claim that's true and can be demonstrated, a true claim that can't, and a false claim, and the latter two claims look exactly the same to any outside observer. Since we've now demonstrated that non-demonstrable true claims look identical to false claims, we can conclude that anyone claiming knowledge of a non-demonstrable claim is either claiming knowledge of a true thing or a false thing, without any way of determining the difference. We also cannot know something that is not true. Given this, there is no way to establish whether a person truly does know what they're claiming, if that claim is not demonstrable.

Conclusion: true claims of knowledge must be demonstrable to set them apart from claims of knowledge that are false. Claims of knowledge without demonstrability are indistinguishable from untrue claims, and thus cannot reasonably be called knowledge. Done.

That's an assertion, but again, this is not cosmological argument. So everything you said regarding that is irrelevant. I'm talking about the present moment. Infinite past for all I care can be possible.

It's not an assertion, it's a conclusion borne out by the vast majority of physicists and cosmologists. I didn't just pull it from my ass, you know: it's a conclusion present in plenty of peer reviewed papers and theories.

No, the problem is that your claim that things require something else to maintain their existence has not been justified in any way. You're just saying it, over and over, as though that means anything. So, you've made two claims about causation: one is demonstrably false according to modern cosmology, and the other is unjustified. What am I supposed to be refuting, here?

We know these two things I mentioned and cannot know one without the other when reflected about because they rely on the same knowledge and principle, and when formed in an argument, point to a Creator. It's evidence to me.

Do you seriously think that just saying "we know it," counts as a refutation?