God & Objective Morals

[Ryantology]

Evil is a privation of Good, not an actual thing. It is exactly like heat and light.

Exactly like heat and light? Can good be measured objectively? Does there exist a single-axis scale of good vs. evil? Is it impossible for a single action to be both good and evil at once? For your statement to be true, that last one especially must be, because something can't be both light and dark, or hot and cold. A lightbulb, at any given moment, is producing a singular, very precise and entirely unambiguous amount of heat and light.

[Tex]

I don't know if you're trying to get kudos or what, but I'm pretty sure you know what I'm talking about and I'm pretty sure that no one will find that funny. Ok, maybe minimalist, but who counts the guy with the avatar of an Egyptian with a boner?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I said that law - once established - is independent of a person's will or opinion. That is what makes it objective.

If that is true then the commandments in Deuteronomy and Leviticus are, by your definition, objective. In once sense yes, because anyone can read them and know what they are. But not in the sense that is meaningful for determining an objective basis for morality.

Your intelligence represents things way beyond your brain's processing power.

Please elaborate. It sounds like you are suggesting that intelligence requires more than physical properties of the brain.

Like I said, you are wrong and your statement here shows absence on knowledge upon the subject. Check out what a dolorometer does.

Interesting. I took your suggestion since I was not familiar with that particular piece of equipment. It sounds like it still relies on the verbal reports of subjects, which may or may not be representative of the pain sensation itself. What is measures could be a complex mixture involving degrees of sensation, physical receptivity, attention and willpower, depending on the subject. Still you make a good point. It seems reasonable to assume that most humans most likely fall experience within a certain range. Although, how can you objectively know if the dolometer is measuring consistent degrees of actual pain and not various combinations of sensation, sensitivity, willpower, etc.? Or no actual pain at all! Consider this thought problem:

You have before you two black boxes. Each box has a pain scale of 10 lights. Each box also has a dial from 0 to 100 volts. One box is connected to a human being wired to receive electric shocks from the dial. The human subject is instructed to rate the pain using ten switches that match the pain scale lights. The second box is connected to a simple set of electronics that lights up the pain scale proportional to the dial. If you didn’t know which box was which, could you tell the difference between the box that produced actual pain and the one that did not? No. And yet in a sense, every individual is a black box. The inputs and outputs are objective, but what actually goes on inside them could be vastly different. And what you are actually measure could conceivably vary from subject to subject. That is the nature of subjective experience.

---

It just occurred to me that before, in your explanation of how this method would work, you were in fact subjectively coming to conclusions (as is always the case) about what the hypothetical data meant; in this case, choosing utilitarianism as a means of concluding what is 'right' and 'wrong'. So it still wouldn't truly be "objective" in the way that we mean it.

Exactly. Meaning and significance are distinct from physical reality and one cannot be reduced to the other.

Could this perfect moral standard have been any other way, such that burning puppies could have been a possible "good moral" to have?

I choose no. It could not have been otherwise.

If no, then something exterior to God made it necessary for God (the perfect moral standard) to be the way he is, in which case it would be appropriate of me to ask what it was. Take your pick!

There cannot be an exterior to God. As I have stated, everything is within God. So the standard of comparison is the fullness of what is.

[FallentoReason]

Yes.. I agree that a being necessarily has to exist for that being to have any attributes... that's just intuitive. The problem is these attributes it actually holds, why, because I don't see any reason for God being this way instead of another. Could God have been internally infinitely Evil? If no, then what made it *necessary* for him to be infinitely Good?

Ah, now I understand your question. At this point, since I've taken no class nor done heavy individual study on a question this deep, take my words with a grain of salt.

The reason why God, as necessary being, must be both Being itself and Goodness itself is the absolute interlacing of the two: to exist is good.

"To exist is good"..? According to whom? And if I work backwards from this, I could say:

1) To exist is good
2) I exist
C) I am Being itself and Goodness itself a.k.a. God

God, as Being unlimited, would then equally be Goodness unlimited. In so far as you exist, you are good. Even a demon, in so far as he exists, is good.

No, according to your own logic, if we took the definition of a demon and came to a conclusion, we would most likely get "to exist is evil".

"To exist is good" is a meaningless statement, as something necessarily needs to exist to do anything, and I don't see how existence itself is good.

Can Being exist separate from Good? No. If Being were separate from Good, then existence is in itself literally "worth-less". God's own existence, much like a DCT ethics, is now arbitrary, and thus without reason. This begs the question, "Why the system in the first place?".

You still haven't actually answered why God necessarily had to be this way. His mere existence defining him as ultimate "Good" is a non-sequitur, because he necessarily needed to exist to be anything: good, evil, green, unicorn-like. You seem to say existence is sufficient to be good, in which case I argued that, according to you, I am God, as is everyone. If you say "no no, but God is the definition of 'Good'" then we're right back at square one; what made it necessary(?), because existence alone doesn't entail that he necessarily had to be good. Existence is necessary for attributes, but for good..? That begs the question.

---

There cannot be an exterior to God. As I have stated, everything is within God. So the standard of comparison is the fullness of what is.

Sounds like circular reasoning: God's nature necessarily had to reflect the "fullness of what [he is]", which is (presumably) defined by his nature.

If the standard is within the being itself, then its attributes cease to be necessary, since the standard is embedded within itself! Also, circular logic is invalid which can only mean that what you're trying to say(/subconsciously do) is use the definition of the being, which (by definition) seems *intrinsically* arbitrary, and get it out of the "arbitrariness" it finds itself to be in when there's no external condition dictating why his nature has to be the way it is.

[Tex]

"To exist is good"..? According to whom? And if I work backwards from this, I could say:

1) To exist is good
2) I exist
C) I am Being itself and Goodness itself a.k.a. God

I describe existing as "participation in Existence". I am not Existence itself, but the "I" definitely depends upon it at all times.

God, as Being unlimited, would then equally be Goodness unlimited. In so far as you exist, you are good. Even a demon, in so far as he exists, is good.

No, according to your own logic, if we took the definition of a demon and came to a conclusion, we would most likely get "to exist is evil".

"To exist is good" is a meaningless statement, as something necessarily needs to exist to do anything, and I don't see how existence itself is good.

This isn't the proof part, this is the assertion I'm about to try to prove. And, if "to exist is good" is true, the demon, even though the actions are always evil, in so far as "the demon exists", "the demon is good". It is only good in that respect though.

For the record, I am in no way a pantheist. That is not the line of thinking I have.

Can Being exist separate from Good? No. If Being were separate from Good, then existence is in itself literally "worth-less". God's own existence, much like a DCT ethics, is now arbitrary, and thus without reason. This begs the question, "Why the system in the first place?".

You still haven't actually answered why God necessarily had to be this way. His mere existence defining him as ultimate "Good" is a non-sequitur, because he necessarily needed to exist to be anything: good, evil, green, unicorn-like. You seem to say existence is sufficient to be good, in which case I argued that, according to you, I am God, as is everyone. If you say "no no, but God is the definition of 'Good'" then we're right back at square one; what made it necessary(?), because existence alone doesn't entail that he necessarily had to be good. Existence is necessary for attributes, but for good..? That begs the question.

This is where I was worried. I don't know how to answer other than "there is Good, all things are derivative of God, therefore Good is derivative of God". I pondered over "when you exist, you must exist in a certain way (lizard, human, angel, maggot, whatever), and Existence's certain way is Good" and then argue by analogy, but I didn't get far with that either. If there was no universe and I removed even my own existence from the picture, I don't think we could know that there is a God without some sort of signifying evidence.

[FallentoReason]

"To exist is good"..? According to whom? And if I work backwards from this, I could say:

1) To exist is good
2) I exist
C) I am Being itself and Goodness itself a.k.a. God

I describe existing as "participation in Existence". I am not Existence itself, but the "I" definitely depends upon it at all times.

Something can't "participate in existence" if it first didn't exist so that it could participate "in existence". And... "Existence itself"??? All of this is meaningless, as in, I can't make sense of any of it because my understanding of existence is apparently very different to yours:

An object simply exists. It doesn't "participate" in this existence as if it had the choice to *not* participate, because to say a non-existent object "doesn't participate in existence" is already assuming it exists somewhere so that it can have the property of "non-participation in existence".

This isn't the proof part, this is the assertion I'm about to try to prove. And, if "to exist is good" is true, the demon, even though the actions are always evil, in so far as "the demon exists", "the demon is good". It is only good in that respect though.

"To exist is good" is still a meaningless statement to me. It carries as much meaningless as "to exist is funny". What's so intrinsically good about existence?

This is where I was worried. I don't know how to answer other than "there is Good, all things are derivative of God, therefore Good is derivative of God".

Game over. You've conceded that there exists something *exterior* to God: "Good". Except you want to make this exterior thing dependent on God, which now means we can play the game of circular reasoning: God's nature necessarily reflects "Good" which was made from God's nature which necessarily reflects "Good" which was made from God's nature which necessarily reflects "Good" which was made from God's nature... ad infinitum.

I pondered over "when you exist, you must exist in a certain way (lizard, human, angel, maggot, whatever), and Existence's certain way is Good" and then argue by analogy, but I didn't get far with that either. If there was no universe and I removed even my own existence from the picture, I don't think we could know that there is a God without some sort of signifying evidence.

It's as if this entire project is destined for self-refutation, isn't it!

[Neo-Scholastic]

Sounds like circular reasoning: God's nature necessarily had to reflect the "fullness of what [he is]", which is (presumably) defined by his nature.

More like the idea that you can refer to things in multiple ways. I am Chad. I am also a man. Neither of which is external to me. God is Love and also Wisdom.

[FallentoReason]

Sounds like circular reasoning: God's nature necessarily had to reflect the "fullness of what [he is]", which is (presumably) defined by his nature.

More like the idea that you can refer to things in multiple ways. I am Chad. I am also a man. Neither of which is external to me.

And both attributes of which were dependent on external things, much like the statement

God is Love and also Wisdom.

Welcome back to square one

[Ryantology]

I don't know if you're trying to get kudos or what, but I'm pretty sure you know what I'm talking about and I'm pretty sure that no one will find that funny. Ok, maybe minimalist, but who counts the guy with the avatar of an Egyptian with a boner?

I know that you compared good and evil to light and heat, reflecting an understanding which would be the pride of a six year old child well-versed in the moral struggles of characters in a Disney movie.

[Tex]

Something can't "participate in existence" if it first didn't exist so that it could participate "in existence". And... "Existence itself"??? All of this is meaningless, as in, I can't make sense of any of it because my understanding of existence is apparently very different to yours:

An object simply exists. It doesn't "participate" in this existence as if it had the choice to *not* participate, because to say a non-existent object "doesn't participate in existence" is already assuming it exists somewhere so that it can have the property of "non-participation in existence".

If existence itself doesn't exist, there is nothing that exists. I am not existence, therefore existence is exterior to me and is being given to me by existence itself. Whether I want to or not, I participate in existence.

Unicorns do not participate in existence. One eye'd one horn'd flying purple people eaters do not participate in existence. The cat from "Cat in a Hat" does not participate in existence.

"To exist is good" is still a meaningless statement to me. It carries as much meaningless as "to exist is funny". What's so intrinsically good about existence?

"To exist is good" means "there is objective qualitative value in existing".

Game over.

Yes, but not for this reason:

You've conceded that there exists something *exterior* to God: "Good".

God gives what is internal to himself. That is also how I participate in existence; it is giving.

The game is over and I do concede, not because I think I'm wrong, but I honestly have no idea how to prove "God is inherently Good" using the argument by necessary being. If I ever think of something, I'll make a argument in a new thread and we'll go from there.

It's as if this entire project is destined for self-refutation, isn't it!

Perhaps this specific one =)