My views on objective morality

[Esquilax]

The difference between a human parent running out to grab their toddler son off the street, and God changing things that would naturally happen, is that for God to do it would require divine intervention. And like Tibs said, you start getting into a slippery slope. Why didn't God stop the toddler from getting hit by a car? Why didn't God stop my brother from getting severe food poisoning last week? Why didn't God prevent me from stubbing my toe? If God were to prevent every negative thing that were about to happen, we wouldn't have free will anymore.

I have to ask: what definition of free will are you using? Because surely you understand that having free will doesn't automatically confer the right to be successful in every endeavor you freely choose, right? Like, if I exercise my free will to decide to go to the store and get some eggs, but the store is out of eggs and I'm forced to go home empty handed, you wouldn't say my free will has been violated there, would you?

Because the outcomes of actions are not tied to whether they were freely chosen or not: the car can be prevented from hitting the toddler without interfering in either the toddler's or the driver's free will, since they both chose the situation they're in regardless of how it turns out. Your brother can be prevented from getting food poisoning because having a complete suite of information about his food choices would just cause him to freely choose a better option, as additional information only leads to a more refined exercise of free will, not the lack of it. You can be stopped from stubbing your toe because simply knowing what might happen if you carelessly place your foot into that situation only leads to you better exercising your free will for a more favorable result, it doesn't remove your will entirely.

There are more ways to prevent bad things from happening than outright mind control, you know.

[Mystic]

Well, you're asking a theist that lol. If God didn't exist I don't think anything would exist at all.

There is no evidence that supports that.

It's actually obvious to me in many ways.

I will present one way that I haven't. I know you guys get bored of same arguments so I will present another reflection.

It's obvious I cannot be causing the whole universe to exist. Neither can one atom.

By the same logic, it's obvious to me, an atom cannot be causing itself to exist. Or whatever the smallest unit (quark) or whatever, is not what causes itself to exist, by the same logic that I know it cannot cause the whole universe to exist.

Existence existing is showing and manifesting existence that is caused. What constantly maintains God's existence? Himself. The eternal being that always existed is obvious to me the absolute existence by which all things exist.

What keeps everything from ceasing to exist, what keeps the laws there.

Now you may say things constantly exist by nothing. But surely existence is a phenomenon...the movement of time, the motion, the laws, the existence..all this is displaying something powerful creating it.

It is obvious right now even at this moment, existence is phenomenon that requires something to cause it to constantly exist. Either itself does that or something else. I already showed why I don't believe things constantly maintain their own existence. It's the same reason I would not believe a penny could of create the world and be maintaining right now. It's irrational to believe that. God on the other hand obviously can keep himself existing and keep the world existing.

[bennyboy]

What we believe is that an act can be objectively wrong, in and of itself. Like, killing innocent people for example.

That is still 'subjective' morality.  The example is based on the "innocence" of the victim.  "Innocent" by whose standard?  Subjective.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that Catholic_Lady thinks "objective" means "super duper."  She thinks killing and rape are super duper bad, and therefore objectively evil.

[Catholic_Lady]

Yes, I believe He knows what we will choose. But that doesn't mean He is responsible for us choosing it, or forcing us to choose it. He knows that even though we all make immoral choices at times, in the end, the good of having free will is going to outweigh the bad. That's why He set it up like that.

If we are to have a personal and meaningful relationship with God, then our actions have to be meaningful.  Christians often say things like "When it's your time to go, it's your time to go."  But if God sees all, even through time, then it's also "When it's your time to have a shit, it's your time to have a shit."  Everything is known by God.

Okay, so it's known by God if/when you will pray, if/when sinners will repent, if/when heretics will fall back in line with the Catholic dogma, etc.  It will never, ever turn out other than God already knows it will turn out.

I'm not sure you know what free will means.

I don't see the contradiction. Him knowing what we will choose to do doesn't mean He didn't give us the free will to make that choice.

[IATIA]

IF there is a god that knows all, the problems become abundant.

1) According to theists, god is timeless. That would mean that our birth and our death have already happened in god's world.

2) This means that we are nothing but shadows playing out what has already been. (one of the problems with time travel also)

3) Ergo, there is no free will and any morality is moot.

[Esquilax]

It's actually obvious to me in many ways.

I will present one way that I haven't. I know you guys get bored of same arguments so I will present another reflection.

It's obvious I cannot be causing the whole universe to exist. Neither can one atom.

By the same logic, it's obvious to me, an atom cannot be causing itself to exist. Or whatever the smallest unit (quark) or whatever, is not what causes itself to exist, by the same logic that I know it cannot cause the whole universe to exist.

Existence existing is showing and manifesting existence that is caused. What constantly maintains God's existence? Himself. The eternal being that always existed is obvious to me the absolute existence by which all things exist.

What keeps everything from ceasing to exist, what keeps the laws there.

Now you may say things constantly exist by nothing. But surely existence is a phenomenon...the movement of time, the motion, the laws, the existence..all this is displaying something powerful creating it.

It is obvious right now even at this moment, existence is phenomenon that requires something to cause it to constantly exist. Either itself does that or something else. I already showed why I don't believe things constantly maintain their own existence. It's the same reason I would not believe a penny could of create the world and be maintaining right now. It's irrational to believe that. God on the other hand obviously can keep himself existing and keep the world existing.

Soooo... you are aware that concepts like causation don't apply beyond the big bang, yes? "Everything requires a cause," is not a universally true statement, without even needing to get into the lazy special pleading of requiring a cause for everything, yet putting god in a special category without any justification at all.

You're factually wrong, even ignoring the many cases in which you're logically wrong too.

[Catholic_Lady]

That is still 'subjective' morality.  The example is based on the "innocence" of the victim.  "Innocent" by whose standard?  Subjective.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that Catholic_Lady thinks "objective" means "super duper."  She thinks killing and rape are super duper bad, and therefore objectively evil.

No. It is true that objectively immoral acts are very bad, but what it means specifically is that the act is immoral, period. It is not a matter of opinion. If someone says "oh I think rape is good", that person would be incorrect. It's different from your opinion of what the best tasting food is, for example, where there is no correct or incorrect answer, but is merely just a matter of personal opinion and taste.

[Esquilax]

Yeah, it's pretty clear that Catholic_Lady thinks "objective" means "super duper."  She thinks killing and rape are super duper bad, and therefore objectively evil.

No. It is true that objectively immoral acts are very bad, but what it means specifically is that the act is immoral, period. It is not a matter of opinion. If someone says "oh I think rape is good", that person would be incorrect. It's different from your opinion of what the best tasting food is, for example, where there is no correct or incorrect answer, but is merely just a matter of personal opinion and taste.

How are objective moral values derived, in your view? And how do you know that they are, in fact, objective? What objective observations lead you to that conclusion?

[Mystic]

It's actually obvious to me in many ways.

I will present one way that I haven't. I know you guys get bored of same arguments so I will present another reflection.

It's obvious I cannot be causing the whole universe to exist. Neither can one atom.

By the same logic, it's obvious to me, an atom cannot be causing itself to exist. Or whatever the smallest unit (quark) or whatever, is not what causes itself to exist, by the same logic that I know it cannot cause the whole universe to exist.

Existence existing is showing and manifesting existence that is caused. What constantly maintains God's existence? Himself. The eternal being that always existed is obvious to me the absolute existence by which all things exist.

What keeps everything from ceasing to exist, what keeps the laws there.

Now you may say things constantly exist by nothing. But surely existence is a phenomenon...the movement of time, the motion, the laws, the existence..all this is displaying something powerful creating it.

It is obvious right now even at this moment, existence is phenomenon that requires something to cause it to constantly exist. Either itself does that or something else. I already showed why I don't believe things constantly maintain their own existence. It's the same reason I would not believe a penny could of create the world and be maintaining right now. It's irrational to believe that. God on the other hand obviously can keep himself existing and keep the world existing.

Soooo... you are aware that concepts like causation don't apply beyond the big bang, yes? "Everything requires a cause," is not a universally true statement, without even needing to get into the lazy special pleading of requiring a cause for everything, yet putting god in a special category without any justification at all.

You're factually wrong, even ignoring the many cases in which you're logically wrong too.

Ok big bang happens, no cause. Now what? Everything keeps existing and existing without anything causing and maintaining it's existence? Or do quarks cause and maintain their own existence constantly?

This is not the cosmological argument. It has nothing to do with how things started. I'm not talking beginning, but about constant existence needing constant cause. 

I don't believe quarks cause themselves to exist, rather, I believe it's more rational to believe in supernatural existing being causing them to exist.

[Esquilax]

Ok big bang happens, no cause. Now what? Everything keeps existing and existing without anything causing and maintaining it's existence? Or do quarks cause and maintain their own existence constantly?

This is not the cosmological argument. It has nothing to do with how things started. I'm not talking beginning, but about constant existence needing constant cause. 

I don't believe quarks cause themselves to exist, rather, I believe it's more rational to believe in supernatural existing being causing them to exist.

How did you determine that these things require anything to maintain their existence? All you've done thus far is assert that.