An argument from basis.

[Mystic]

Congratulations, you've just completed the circle.

Heh, what I mean is that we humans have knowledge of morality, honour, value, greatness, having objective value. Once we know that proves God or that God exists, you will see that as the link between God and us, and essentially knowledge of his sacred essence to a degree. There is a sacred living commander in the soul/mind, that calls towards a higher ascension and higher honour. Recognizing that commander/messenger/sword of God is recognizing God. Naturally, we are also able to ignore it's call and affirmation of God and morality and honour. We can belittle it's sacred nature, and deny the holy nature of the command of God. That command of God when it comes, is the honour of God that subdues the dark forces within us. I think we have monsters within in our minds, potential ugly personalities that want take part of our personality, and essentially we can destroy them with this living command/commander/messenger/sword of God.

I can see it how it seemed circular.

[Haydn2]

Objective reality is personal to each individual , therfore subjective. One dosn't prove , or disprove theother , this is just nonsese.

[Jackalope]

Congratulations, you've just completed the circle.

Heh, what I mean is that we humans have knowledge of morality, honour, value, greatness, having objective value. Once we know that proves God or that God exists, you will see that as the link between God and us, and essentially knowledge of his sacred essence to a degree.

I can see it how it seemed circular.

I don't agree that it has objective value, unless you can successfully argue that such value exists independent of any person. It appears to me that you've presupposed or intued that is true.

[Mystic]

I don't agree that it has objective value, unless you can successfully argue that such value exists independent of any person. It appears to me that you've presupposed or intued that is true.

Yeah it's true I've presupposed and intuited it to be true and such has been since a child till now. I have not and never will doubt the existence of objective morality, greatness, and honour. It's been a properly basic knowledge since a child till now. It's rooted without explanation and is something I always took for granted.

However, it's only when I grew up, that I began to realize, that there is a link between this knowledge and knowledge of God, and they are essentially connected.

[Annik]

There is subjective honour and there is objective honour. The existence of subjective honour doesn't disprove objective honour.

The is subjective value and there is objective value. Subjective value doesn't disprove objective value.

For subjective value to have any basis and not be to totally empty and a delusion, objective value must exist.

Then what is objectively honorable?

[Mystic]

There is subjective honour and there is objective honour. The existence of subjective honour doesn't disprove objective honour.

The is subjective value and there is objective value. Subjective value doesn't disprove objective value.

For subjective value to have any basis and not be to totally empty and a delusion, objective value must exist.

Then what is objectively honorable?

Do you mean to give an example of anything that is objectively honourable or do you mean to give a whole description of it or do you want me to define it?

[Darkstar]

Yeah it's true I've presupposed and intuited it to be true and such has been since a child till now. I have not and never will doubt the existence of objective morality, greatness, and honour. It's been a properly basic knowledge since a child till now. It's rooted without explanation and is something I always took for granted.

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it still make noise? Yes, sound is a form of energy, it can be measured and determined to exist with certainty. We do not define sound, unless we were all deaf (and even then...) we would have to acknowledge that sound existed outside of our perception. However, honor and morality are different.

First of all, honor can be anything from chivalry to suicide at defeat. Morality would be a better term to use. However, seeing how honor is considerably more subjective than morality, it is very easy to see it as little more than an abstract concept. Morality, on the other hand, is naturally inborn. Even some bacteria have been shown to have certain altruistic behaviors. The formation of society has allowed more advanced morals to arise than what are available to other animals.

On a side note, I hope you aren't referring to god as the ultimate example of honor. The god of the bible is a fiend, and even a generic god is not necessarily moral.

However, it's only when I grew up, that I began to realize, that there is a link between this knowledge and knowledge of God, and they are essentially connected.

This link is imaginary, Morals existed before religion. Why would god give altrusim to bacteria?
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/20...teria.html
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/0...ia-sacrif/

[Annik]

Then what is objectively honorable?

Do you mean to give an example of anything that is objectively honourable or do you mean to give a whole description of it or do you want me to define it?

Yes. At all... If you don't mind anyway. It would help me to understand.

[Jackalope]

Yeah it's true I've presupposed and intuited it to be true and such has been since a child till now. I have not and never will doubt the existence of objective morality, greatness, and honour. It's been a properly basic knowledge since a child till now.

Sure, I get that. The problem is in demonstrating that it's true.

[Mystic]

Do you mean to give an example of anything that is objectively honourable or do you mean to give a whole description of it or do you want me to define it?

Yes. At all... If you don't mind anyway. It would help me to understand.

Well I think it's a bit trickier then a I thought. The reason is because it's good to be honourable, and it's honourable to be good.

Let's see to better define it, it's that honour gives us insight to the exalted side of morality. For example, we talk about (objective) morality, and it's more about what is right or wrong. We talk about what is more honourable, and it's the same thing, except this time we are looking at from perspective of it's exalted aspect and sort of sacred dimension to it. But I would say certain moral acts have more of the "honour" dimension to it. So in this sense it can't be said goodnesss = honor and honour = goodness despite the fact that it's good to be honorable and honorable to be good. Also the more exalted the intention (spirit behind the action), the more honourable the act is.

Yeah it's true I've presupposed and intuited it to be true and such has been since a child till now. I have not and never will doubt the existence of objective morality, greatness, and honour. It's been a properly basic knowledge since a child till now.

Sure, I get that. The problem is in demonstrating that it's true.

Sure it can not be by an argument. But does it have to be? This presupposing that we don't have knowledge of objective morality, honour, and greatness, and that it needs proof. But the nature of these things are that of a properly basic experience of the self. Just because it can't demonstrated it's true by an argument, doesn't mean it can't be known.