Religiosity, Spirituality and the Moral

[Surgenator]

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 "strict 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?

"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.

---

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.

I'm afraid the disagreement will have to stand. I cannot separate God from the eternal objective law. As I said a couple of times now, the relationship is a mystery to me, but I nevertheless believe there is a bond there that cannot be broken. If I appear irrational to you, I'm afraid that cannot be helped. It appears that is the natural occurrence to difference to being a believer as opposed to an atheist.

If God and the rules cannot be separated, you cannot know which came first. Hence, you don't know the moral rules god enforces are actually moral. Faith is your only defense.

You say: "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'm ok with that except that the word "application" implies and applier. To me, in terms of an eternally objective moral law, that means God.

So that is where your stuck. The applier and what the rule states are two different problems. I'm arguing about how the rule can be objective. Your arguing about how the administrator can be objective (maybe). Lets address one problem at a time please.

I find what the other responder said to be very interesting. Ontology is "the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such." (from the dictionary) In this case, the existence of God which I believe in and you do not. There's the rub. We will not be able to come to an agreement because of that fact.

It is not like I cannot be convinced a God exist. I just need evidence, not unsupported stories, to convince me. Are you even open to the idea that your wrong?

From an epistemological perspective, I rely on the coherence theory of knowing as opposed to the foundational theory. I accept the eye witness accounts of God as recorded by prophets in the standard canon of the LDS faith as evidence. It wasn't empirical evidence to me, but it was empirical to the prophets who recorded it. Coherence theory allows a claim as evidence on the grounds, that as the name implies, it is coherent, consistent, cohesive or in other words, the story holds together because its many facets support each other. I see LDS canon as complying with that requirement. Accordingly, I see the evidence for God and an eternally objective moral law to be a conclusion I can draw from that evidence.

Before we get too deep into philosophical distinctions, building upon mutually agreed propositions is valid with both theories of justifications. It is cleared that you want to bypass the justification of your belief in the prophets. However, internal consistency is not enough to justify anything real. If it were, the existence of super heroes are justified because the comic books are internally consistent.

I also know that there are inconsistencies in the Mormonism. I prefer not argue about these but only to point out there consistency is not something mormonism has.