Religiosity, Spirituality and the Moral

[Surgenator]

Special case? You're just pleading for an exception without justification. A real law cannot be broken. Only the "laws" that we humans place on ourselves can e.g. traffic laws, state laws, etc... These "laws" are just agreed upon desired behavior to have a functional society. I don't see how moral laws are any different.

Two things: First, We are eternal beings on a course of progression. Before mortality, we had no experience with physical bodies. We are here to learn to control them. God may assign laws (even an incomplete set) to a specific set of conditions such as mortality for the purpose of giving us a chance to learn to control these bodies in accordance with those laws He has given which are expedient for us to have in this condition. I see this as justifiable.

I understand that this sounds justifiable to you. But to me, you only constructed 5 more unjustifiable assertions in an attempt to justify one assertion. You have made the problem worse, not better. A proper justification has to be based off of concepts both parties agree upon. There are plenty of things we do agree: nature exist, humans beings exist, human beings can make laws, humans beings can break or follow our laws, and human beings cannot break nature's laws. The main points we disagree on are: existence of God, we have an immortal spirit, and whether or not humans can come up with an objective rules.

It also seems like you altered your previous stance to the question "would objective moral laws exist if God didn't exist." Before you claimed that objective moral laws would still exist even if God wouldn't. However, your arguments changed when I pointed out the moral laws only exist in minds and the objective ones are not written down anywhere. So if God didn't exist, how can objective moral laws exist?

Now, this exchange has given me a lot to think about. I'm in a bit of a quandary trying to find a way of explaining. I see that I need to try another tack. I believe that God's law is objective and eternal. I also believe that law must exist somewhere in reality and has done so forever without beginning. So, it must be something about the word "objective".

I'm glad that your learning and thinking about something new. I come to this forum because of the different perspectives I get introduced to.

Hmm, maybe you should define what objective means to you. Preferably define it in such a way where God doesn't come into the picture. That way, we can at least have a chance on agreeing on a definition.

Whatever else may be the case, at least here, objectivity means without feeling and with strict adherence to the dictates of the requirements of the law.

O look, you defined it here. I partially agree with this definition of objective. This definition doesn't work well when describing objective laws since a "stick adherence to the dictates [..] of the law" is circular. How about we define objective-moral-law as the application of a rule for a given situation where the situation and punishment do not depend who, where or when the situation partook?

I said the objective law resides in the mind of God, but I have no support for that assertion. I just cannot see where else it would reside. I'm beginning to see objectivity in terms of its administration, which would still tie in to calling all earthly codes of law subjective because they are administered differently around the earth and are not in agreement with God's perfect law which is designed to maximize joy for those who abide it. If one thinks of the objective law in terms of administration, then its being in God's mind is not an issue in terms of subjectivity.

"Objective law in terms of administration" is where we are having the disagreement. I do not see how the source of idea will make the idea always subjective. The source doesn't matter to me at all. All that matters is if it is applied equally and consistently, everywhere and every time.

---

The definition of objective

Definition of absolute.

---

Correction: objective law? Eh...I don't like that phrasing.

---

Objective can have two meanings.

Ontological: What there is to know...

Epistemological: How you know...


You can know something objectively in the epistemological sense, which is to say that the process that guided you to your understanding was free of bias, informed by evidence, and still subject to being proven false.

But that's rarely the way it's used in these conversations.

It took me a while to understand what you were saying. I agree with you about the two uses. I try to have certain terms defined. This often lead to definition battles which are a nuisance. This is also why I often avoid forum discussions that don't provide a working definition like the freewill threads.