My views on objective morality

[bennyboy]

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 chose to post your ideas in a phiosophy forum. This implies that you intend to support them with some actual philosophical points. If you want to make the case that people can learn truths from spiritual experiences, then that's something we can debate, and that should be a different thread. That thread, I can guarantee you, is going to go very much the same as this one. But at least then, we'd all be talking about the same thing.

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.   

When people say there's "too much" so sum up, it usually means it would be like trying to describe what pineapple tastes like-- you know what it tastes like, but you do not know of any words that would fully emobody your experience.

But there's a problem with this way of collecting information-- people with "spiritual" experiences are often convinced of their truth only because of their strength. It's very hard to have what you think is a vision or a revelation, and accept that it could have come just because you ate too many pickles, or because you had a mini-stroke. But to be honest with yourself, you have to separate the idea of your experience from the feeling of it. You have to look around, and see if the world is actually consistent with that idea.

It is not. You can see people all over the place with all different kinds of ideas about morality. You can see Catholics (even "infallible" popes) through history with all different kinds of ideas about morality. In your own church, I can guarantee that people have (at least subtly) different ideas about what is right or wrong.

So while I appreciate the personal sense of value of having deep-feeling experiences, I think you are making a mistake in projecting that experience onto all of reality. People have all KINDS of deep experiences. Some guy might even have a "spiritual" experience which causes him to think rape is okay, after all. Should he just go out into the world and act on that idea as a "fact"? No. We'd hope he'd consider his idea, consult others, and realize-- "Hey, that was quite the experience. But I can't find sufficient evidence to justify calling it 'real' or to act on it."

Please understand this. People have all kinds of "meaningful" experiences, but they do not all point to your idea, and some directly contradict it. I guarantee that very many people in this forum have had very meaningful moments in their lives where they slapped their heads and said, "Holy shit! What have I been worrying about? Clearly, God isn't real, and is a totally incoherent fairy tale! I'm free from the bullshit to live my life." Given the very emotional state they would have to be in to give up their former religious beliefs, would you accept this as sufficient evidence that God, after all, is NOT real?

No, obviously you wouldn't. But I hope you will see why no sensible person will take the strength of your personal experiences as having value to anyone but you in establishing ideas.

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.  

Hang on. God and only God created the Universe, and is all-powerful. The universe should be perfectly and completely suffused with his Goodness. How would it come to pass that parts of it even COULD be absent of His goodness?

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.  

Okay, here's the confusion. It's because you posted a thread about objective morality in the philosophy thread. I assumed that you had more than your feelings to discuss, since ideas based only on feelings are pretty much the opposite of philosophy, and were prepared to make an actual argument in favor of your idea.

So I'm back to my previous position. This thread should be moved to the Religion section, where you can happily talk about your feelings and how they give meaning to your life.