To the OP, this is a version of the Transcendetal Argument for God (TAG). My largest problem with any form of the TAG is that it tries to ascribe the property of objective to things that, to me, are clearly subjective. As Annik has been championing in this thread, there is no objective honor, beauty, morality, etc. because these things require judgement from subjective agents for them to have any meaning. Take this example:
Two rocks are out in woods on a hill and one rolls downhill due to erosion. On it's way down it strikes a flower and severs it at the stem.
Was that a moral occurance?
Without anyone there to see it was there anything beautiful about the occurance?
Was anything honorable in the story?
In my opinion these questions could only have meaning if the actors in the story had motives or were able to judge. As for the beauty question; I could see that occurance being beautiful were I there to observe it, because I like it when nature moves. Someone else might find it quite the opposite because a flower was destroyed.
Two rocks are out in woods on a hill and one rolls downhill due to erosion. On it's way down it strikes a flower and severs it at the stem.
Was that a moral occurance?
Without anyone there to see it was there anything beautiful about the occurance?
Was anything honorable in the story?
In my opinion these questions could only have meaning if the actors in the story had motives or were able to judge. As for the beauty question; I could see that occurance being beautiful were I there to observe it, because I like it when nature moves. Someone else might find it quite the opposite because a flower was destroyed.
