(April 10, 2015 at 2:11 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:(April 10, 2015 at 1:45 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Your argument asserts ideas must exist therefore minds must exist. But the dependence is backwards, ideas cannot exist without minds. So you first have to show a mind that exist eternally before you can assert the idea exist eternally. It's equivalent to arguing the monetary system exist before money existed. You first need to have money exist before you can show the monetary system exist.
The following is a valid argument:
An eternal morality exists.
Morality needs a mind to exist.
Therefore an eternal mind exists.
It's a valid argument. Whether it's sound or not, depends on the first two premises being true.
But if those two premises are true, then the conclusion follows. It's not circular to conclude that an eternal mind exists based on these two premises.
Being objective does NOT make it eternal.
Please tell me which definition of objective? Because I'm using 1b which explicitly states "having reality independent of the mind." And none of these definitions say anything about eternal.
1a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy
1b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
1c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual
1d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena
2 : relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs
3a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
3b : of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum
