(August 6, 2009 at 11:51 am)Jon Paul Wrote: I didn't say it because I "can't think of any other way".And I didn't say you said it either. I said "if". I'm saying that you haven't given evidence that God is necessary for moral objecitivity. You've just explained that if he exists then he could do so (because he's God and he can trascend such minds) you haven't shown that there could be no other way.
Quote: it has not transcended the realm of subjective mind if there is not an objective mind.As far as you can conceive you mean.
Quote:There is evidence/a foundation for monotheism, anyway, but that has nothing to do with this argument.But if there's no evidence for God or objective morality, so there's no objective moral mind that you call God, where's your argument? If you're just saying "There can be no objective morality without God!" So what? Neither exist! Where is this going? If it's an argument it's gratuitious!
Quote:It is subjective so long as there is no objective mind which transcends subjective minds. If there is, it is not.Indeed. And there's no evidence of an 'objective mind' anyway, so who cares?
(August 5, 2009 at 9:35 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: It's just like - You: "Without God there is no objective morality!" Me: "So? Who cares because neither exist!"
Jon Wrote:If that is the case, what are you complaining about?Indeed, what am I complaining about?...
Answer? - nothing!.
Quote:It's not an agnostic matter when you bring it into an argument which is entirely epistemologically analytic and therefore precedes any notion of truth or evidence to analyse the very conceptions of truth and evidence in various epistemic structures.
No because evidence is represented as a strong indication to be true. It's agnostic. It isn't gnostic. That would be absolute proof - that would be gnostic. Evidence is agnostic.
Just as, I don't claim the absolute, I claim things with certainty, but not absolute certainty. And I expect evidence - that doesn't mean I expect absolute proof nor does it mean I'm gnostic. On the contrary. Evidence and agnosticism are both humble. Claiming the absolute and being gnostic isn't.
Quote:I am not defining "subjective" as "meaningless". I am defining it in it's proper sense: pertaining to the (individual) subject. As soon as logical and moral truth becomes subjective (because there is no God - no objective mind), it is therefore no more authoritative than a persons favourite colour. One day 1+1 might equal 2, another day it might equal 5. And one day or age killing babies for fun might be alright; in another age it is not.
That's quite obviously complete utter and total nonsense. Because - you are saying without an objective mind there is no objectivity, and without objectivty 1+1 could=5. That's utterly ridiculous. Whether there's a God in this universe or not 2+2 is still 4! And killing babies is still considered wrong by those who aren't baby killers! Either way!
It's like you think that without an objective mind, absolute objectivity etc, then it's meaningless. If everything is ultimately subjective that does not mean that everything is equal to someone's 'favourite colour' - evidence still exists! Someone's favourite colour is someone's favourite colour. But there are still facts about this world, and still strong evidence for them - even is some totally ignorant people can't see them! Does everyone have to be perfect for truth to exist according to you? What's wrong with subjectivity?
There is a matter of degree you know. With out without a subjective mind there is still evidence. Absolute proof is not needed. Evidence is enough. Nothing wrong with subjectivity - there's no evidence for the objecitity but this world is still comprehendable to some extent to us mere mortals, whether it's some more than others or not - the fact it's subjective doesn't matter.
There. Is. Still - Evidence!
It's not all equal to "favourite colour" - that's like saying 'A totally doolally, deluded, insane, delirious psychofreak's opinion is equal to a top scientist on scientific matters, the fact the scientist is a scientist and is not totally insane, is irrelevant - because it's all subjective you see!' That's just plain ridiculous.
EvF
